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 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


PROCEDURES
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Marriott Airport, 


Hebron, Kentucky, on July 27, 2006. 

 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

July 27, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


SUMMARY OF TASK III PROCEDURES, FINDINGS MATRIX 9
 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MATRIX CASES 21 THROUGH 38 168 


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MATRIX: CASES 39 THROUGH 60 240 


FOURTH SET MATRIX 285 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 312 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

 

4

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAUT 


BUCHANAN, RON, SC&A 


GARRISON, DEB 


GERLACH, CYNTHIA 


GERLACH, FRANK 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MAHER, ED, ORAU 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCFEE, MATT, ORAUT 


SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(8:35 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO
 

DR. WADE: Good morning, this is Lew Wade and I'm the 


Designated Federal Official for the Advisory 


Board. And this is a meeting of a working 


group of the Advisory Board. It's a working 


group chaired by Mark Griffon and has on it 


Robert Presley, Mike Gibson and Wanda Munn. 


This working group has looked at a variety of 


issues. Today it's meeting to look at the 


issues related to the review of NIOSH 


procedures. This also tracks to Task III under 


the SC&A contract of procedures review. 


It is important that we establish that we do 


not have a quorum of the Board present, so I 


would ask if there are any Board members who 


are joining us by telephone, please identify 


yourself. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, Lew, Mike's here. 


 DR. WADE: Mike, welcome, as always. Anyone 


else? 

1 

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

 (No responses) 


Okay. Well, we do not have a quorum of the 


Board and therefore we can continue. I really 


have no conflict of interest announcements to 


make. This is sort of a generic task that -- 


that we work on, so maybe we can ago around the 


table here and identify who is here, and then 


we can hear who's joining us by telephone. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, Board member. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, member of the 

Board. 

 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A. 

 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH. 


 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU team. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A. 


MR. MCFEE: Matt McFee with the ORAU team. 


MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett with ORAU team. 


MR. BUCHANAN: Ron Buchanan, SC&A. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: And this is Lew Wade with NIOSH, and 


I work for the Board. 


Could I have any federal employees here in an 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

official capacity that are on the telephone 


line identify themselves? 


 (No responses) 


 Any contractors to NIOSH? 


 (No responses) 


 Any SC&A representatives? 


 (No responses) 


Anyone who wishes to identify themself? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. We are ready to begin. Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was just saying before we 


started that a few nights ago -- I guess it was 


Sunday evening late -- I sent out revised 


matrices for the procedures review, the second 


set of cases and the third set of cases. And I 


hope everyone got those, either directly or 


indirectly. I sent them out to the principals, 


I think. I assumed they would be distributed. 


The procedures -- all -- all three of these 


actually were -- were an attempt, and I'll 


emphasize attempt so Stu, you may have some -- 


some feedback as we go through, but I attempted 


to merge Stu's matrices that he presented at 


the last Advisory Board meeting where he 


included a NIOSH action with my matrix that had 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

a Board action in there, and I attempted to 


merge those two. And this should be a -- knock 


on wood, our final matrix for these three 


items. We really hope to close this out by the 


August 8th phone call or Board meeting. 


I wanted to start today -- 'cau-- 'cause of 


some travel schedules, I think we'll start -- 


it -- it doesn't really matter, but I think 


we'll start with the procedures review, if 


that's okay with everyone, and work through the 


second and third set that way. So -- hold on 


one second. 


(Pause) 


 Sorry, just sharing documents here. 


(Pause) 


 MR. PRESLEY: Sorry about that. 


(Pause) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just one second, I'm just pulling 


my -- my new version up on my computer now. 


Hopefully be able to edit real time here. 


(Pause) 


SUMMARY OF TASK III PROCEDURES, FINDINGS MATRIX
 

Yeah, so everybody has this. It's labeled 


"Summary of Task III Procedures, Findings 


Matrix," and I guess we can just go down 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 

10 

list. 


First findings are on the IG, Implementation 


Guide, 1 -- you want to review the Board 


actions and the NIOSH actions? Now I guess a 


general comment of what -- of mine that I had 


when I was looking through these NIOSH actions 


was just a con-- a little bit of a concern that 


as we track these actions forward it's easy to 


say a trackable action is revise OCAS-IG-1. 


But it's a little harder to say well, what were 


the original problems that we were hoping to 


have resolved in that rewrite of IG-1. So I 


hope -- I guess we won't lose that. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: By having it on the matrix, I 


guess that's the point, we wouldn't lose it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, my -- my -- my point of 


putting it here was that if we say we've 


revised IG-1 and we've fixed all these things, 


for instance, we should be able to point out in 


IG-1 what passages were changed for each of the 


findings. So that's why we want -- I wanted to 


put them on the matrix then so we could track 


back to the findings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I like your idea 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 

11 

simplified listing so that we can -- you know, 


that way, but we can't lose sight of why it was 


originally a concern or whatever. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Having said that, I think we can 


go -- and just stop me when people have things 


they want to discuss, but really the first 


several -- several just involve review -- or 


revise OCAS-IG-1. And if -- if there's any 


that you disagree with -- there's a few in 


there in this IG-1 section that say "no action 


necessary," so if there's any concern on those, 


stop me. But I'm down to OCAS-IG-1 IG -- 


finding number IG-1-07. 


I guess the only reason I highlighted this on 


my matrix -- I'm trying to remember -- was the 


distinction between a low and medium priority, 


and I think Stu's sense is that you're going to 


revise the whole procedure all at once, so 


you're not going to go through and revise the 


medium priority ones early and then address the 


other findings later. Right? It doesn't make 


sense. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe our revision, which 


is either pretty far along and may already 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 

12 

issued --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- captured the items in here 


we said we were going to include. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's the case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this low and medium priority 


may kind of be irrelevant at this point but it 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I mean it -- just as a 


mechanical issue as we were making revisions it 


was just easier to do them all as opposed to 


(unintelligible) because the low -- low -- some 


of the low priorities didn't -- it's not like 


they required more research so they could be 


done at the same time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I assumed, so I'll 


just unhighlight that medium priority one. 


 DR. BEHLING: Can I just make comment? With 


respect to item seven, I think it was brought 


out for the simple reason that the values 


identified in TBDs for the threshold varied 


depending on which TBD you read. They go from 


as low as 500 keV to up to 1,000 keV, and I 


think it would just be nice to either delete 

1 

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 

that as an issue or come to some consensus as 


to which one, across the board, would be 


applicable. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the -- the situation can 


be addressed, you know, uniformly because above 


1 they're pretty much energy-dependent. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: From 500 to 1 --


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they're energy-dependent, so 


it's a -- it's a known technical issue. It can 


be written the same way, so I don't -- I don't 


see any particular problem with dealing with 


it. I think we all understand that -- how to 


deal with it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, moving on -- again, 


I'm going all the way to the end of IG-1, 


unless there's any issues. I'm down to IG-1­

10, and the only rea-- some of the reasons I 


highlight these things are -- are when I read 


through -- when I re-read these things, some of 


them seemed to maybe -- possibly inconsistent 


and I wanted to just touch on those and see if 


they are inconsistent. But it says recommend 


NIOSH research further and modify as needed. 

1 

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 

This seemed different than the other low or 


medium priority ones and I just wondered if in 


fa-- what the status is on this item or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have a particular 


update to give in terms of the update of the 


research. There's a couple of specific organs 


that were (unintelligible) out and so I don't ­

- I don't have a particular update on it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- so is this going to 


hold up the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This won't delay any 


modifications. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- delay of IG-1? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no, no. I mean if we're 


not ready to make this modification, we'd issue 


the other modifications first, complete this 


research and then (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think part of the argument here 


was that this was more of an important one. 


Isn't that --


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and in fact, it goes beyond 


the issue of -- of individual organs. I -- I 


think we've discussed it at length in previous 


meetings. I believe the whole concept of DCFs, 

1 

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 

other than for AP geometry, are potentially 


subject to -- to reinvestigation, in a sense, 


because of the issues that we discussed. We 


won't go into it, but I think it goes beyond 


organ dose DCFs. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Okay, it's 


(unintelligible) geometry -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- kind of -- I always thought 


of that as sort of the second issue we know -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes, yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're in complete agreement 


that that needed to be changed. We wanted to 


research these two specific organs based on the 


nature of the finding to see if we felt, yeah, 


that those are right -- you know, 'cause we 


picked ICRP numbers. You know, that's -- the 


numbers we used were published by ICRP. Now 


there are -- is newer ICRP work that may be 


relevant to those, so that's the issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the other DCF issue is 


captured elsewhere in our -- in the procedures 


or in case reviews? I know it's come up -- 


yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: I'm not sure, I think it was more 

1 

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 

or less addressed in subsequent meetings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's definitely an action, isn't 


it, somewhere -- yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, that's in procedures. 


 DR. BEHLING: If I can just summarize it, it's 


-- due to the fact that we don't really have an 


air dose to start out with. In other words, 


this -- these measurements, empirical 


measurements start out with a TLD or film badge 


that's being worn, and therefore we do not have 


an -- free air (unintelligible) dose, an R as a 


starting point, which is really what the DCFs 


are based on. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it's captured in findings 


IG-1-12 and IG --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'm getting down to -- 


exactly -- so we just discussed those. And I 


highlighted those again because they are higher 


priority and I just wondered and -- they seemed 


to potentially impact more cases, too. But I 


think at this point it's sort of an interim 


policy that you're suggesting the most 


claimant-favorable, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we're just using AP -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- all across the board, 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 

17

 MR. HINNEFELD: Which is pretty much 


universally most favorable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. Okay, so again, 


those high priorities -- the only reason they 


were highlighted was I --- just the 


inconsistency. I think it's going to be all 


modified at one time, really. Okay. Anything 


else on IG-1? We're down to 15, 16, 17. 


That's it for me. Nothing on IG-1? 


All right, I'm down at the bottom of -- I think 


it's page six on the electronic version, ORAU 


Proc 6. The only reason I highlighted this 


whole thing -- and I had trouble adding it in 


that I couldn't find the matrix cell there -- 


but the -- I just wanted to make sure this got 


captured on the action item list. It seems 


like you're going to modify this consistent 


with IG-1. Is that true, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and it's actually -- 


Procedure 6 has been modified and it's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- considerably different. 
I 


mean it was originally written -- it kind of 


mirrored IG-1. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18

 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's considerably different 


now. And so, it had been rewritten and 


modified. And I believe none of the findings 


from IG-1 that would have been relevant to the 


original Proc 6 I don't believe would be out 


there in this new version now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you -- but you'll cross-check 


that or whatever. Right? Or you have already? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah -- well, I can. I can, or 


-- I mean I don't know if you guys are going to 


take another shot at the new Proc 6 in one of 


your procedure reviews or not. 


 DR. BEHLING: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if it's on the 


list or not. 


 DR. BEHLING: I think in terms of technical 


things there are probably parallel changes, 


except with the first finding that says 


structurally the IG could -- could stand 


improvement, which in fact are part of Proc 6, 


because the structural format is exactly what I 


would hope the Implementation Guide would 


adopt. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So you'll check at least 


for the technical changes, that they're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

consistent -- I mean I'm sure that seems 


obvious, but -- don't want to lose that item. 


Okay. 


(Pause) 


 MS. BEHLING: So Mark, let me just be sure that 


I understand. So Stu's going to go through and 


check the technical issues on this. This is 


not an action item for SC&A. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not an action item for SC&A, no. 


No, I don't think so. No. 


 MS. BEHLING: Because this is not a procedure 


that we have been asked to look at -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- since it's been revised. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. And the other -- 

as Kathy's saying this -- the other thing I 


should mention on the matrices -- the one sort 


of modification I made from the -- the version 


you sent out was I added and made the last 


column "program" actions rather than just 


"NIOSH" actions. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I still think it's sort of 


your -- we're going to ask NIOSH to report back 


to us the status on those actions, but some 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 

20 

those are SC&A actions -- you know what I mean? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I think --


 MR. GRIFFON: So if we decided you're going to 


rewrite and SC&A will review the rewritten ver­

- just want to make sure that's, you know, 


captured in there as well. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Because I -- I think -- because 


usually the Board recommendation -- the reason 


I did that was the Board recommendation often 


said SC&A will review Proc 90 and 92, and then 


I looked in the action and it said "no action." 


And I was like -- well -- it looked inconsis-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't have any action. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, it looked inconsistent, so I 


add -- you know, I just made -- yeah. Okay. 


All right. OCAS-PR-3 I'm up to. And this --


the only question I had here -- this is being 


canceled, basically, and the question was -- in 


the recommendation it says identify where 


guidance is now. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it'd be -- probably 


Procedure 6. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: In Proc 6? Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: It was the forerunner of Proc 6. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Proc 3 was kind of giving a 


general description of how dose reconstruction 


was done, but it was really short on specific 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm going to mod--


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- instruction. Proc 6 had a 


lot more specifics. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm going to modify, because 


that's a discussion that I had with SC&A. They 


basically said that. I'm going to modify the 


Board recommendation to say "subsequently 


covered in Proc 6" or whatever -- so it's not 


-- it's a closed issue, basically. 


This is a real working meeting. I don't want 


to have homework this time. I always have 


homework. So I'm trying to update it now. 


All right. So we're past OCAS-PR-3, which is 


several findings. But it's been canceled. 


We're zooming right along. We're onto -- I'm 


onto page ten, ORAU-OTIB-10. And this one 


should be fairly straightforward, too, 'cause 


you're modifying TIB-10. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. That's actually 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 

22 

done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And it's been done. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I'll give you the status 


separately. Let's don't worry about the status 


to that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Has that been published yet? 


Because I didn't see -- I saw TIB-8 was 


revised. But I did not see TIB-10 out there, 


although --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's updated. I'm pretty sure 


it is. I don't know where it would be. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, make sure you speak up 

enough to --

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm not sure they hear you on 

the phone. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Is it -- June 5th effective 


date. Mutty pulled it up here. 


 MS. BEHLING: June 5th? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: June 5th effective date. 


 MS. BEHLING: Well, with me having trouble 


getting access to some of these records... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yeah, I don't -- yeah, 


you're right, it may be a -- one of -- part 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 

23 

that access issue, but I know I've seen it. 
I 

pulled it up where I can look and see it, so... 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I look somewhere else than 


you look, so... 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know there's an action for SC&A 


to review TIB-8 and TIB-10, but I think that 


came up in the case reviews. I don't know if ­

- some of -- there's some cross-over here 


between -- but I know there's an action. 


Right? You're going to review TIB-8 and TIB10, the revised versions -- no? 


 MS. BEHLING: Not that I'm aware of -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, all right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- I don't believe that they are 


on our revised procedures list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I stand corrected. 


 MS. BEHLING: In fact -- because I've been 


watching for the TIB-8 and 10. And like I 


said, I did print out TIB-8 -- but at least on 


the O drive where I can access the controlled 


documents, the TIB-10 has not been revised 


there. I'm quite sure of that because I 


checked just before we left. And here --


well... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So TIB-10 -- going down, 


there's a number that say revise/clarify method 


for dose reconstruction. I don't -- I think 


basically Stu says that's completed so we 


should be able to go through those fairly 


quickly. Again, stop me if you find any 


questions, inconsistencies, other thoughts. 


I'm down to -- oh, I was down -- I just went 


back up -- down to OTIB-8, if I can find it 


again. OTIB-8 -- it's on page 12 -- 12 on the 


electronic version. This is basically modified 


TIB-8 again. Right, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And there's several, 


including structural improvements, but also -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Clarity. It's pretty 


ambiguous, the way it was originally. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And further down are -- 


yeah. Yeah, I think we're down to OTIB-7, if 


there's no questions there -- page 14? Cancel 


OTIB-7 or revise to address specific comments 


from the procedures review. So what is the 


status? Are you canceling it or revising it? 


Do you know, or are you still -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Seven got canceled. 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 

25

 MR. MAHER: It's being canceled and 


incorporated in 60. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: Proc 60. 


UNIDENTIFIED: ORAU Procedure 60. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was Ed Maher. 


 MR. MAHER: Right, sorry. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: M-A-H-E-R. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So let me capture this. It's 


cancel OTIB-7 -- and ORAU -- ORAU Proc 60 has 


been revised to incorporate -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think it's actually a 


new -- it's a new one --


 MS. BEHLING: It is new. 


 MR. MAHER: It's new. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that addresses this issue. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Stu, is he with ORAU? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: He is with ORAU team. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Has SC&A been tasked to review 


that one? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: We've looked at 60. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. And I'm going to 


put on there SC&A will review. 


 MS. BEHLING: Fact, it was part 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 

26 

supplemental procedures, and we're looking at 


the workbook also. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So I'll put that as the 


action is -- now reads -- "cancel OTIB-7 and 


replace with ORAU Proc 60" and then SC&A will 


review Proc 60. All right. 


 DR. MAURO: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Just by way of 


protocol, when we are in the closeout process, 


for example, whether it's -- let's say we're 


talking site profiles, I mean we had -- we've 


discussed this before -- in the case of site 


profiles, I think we have a unique circumstance 


when we comment on a site profile and then a 


brand new site profile is issued, which is 


basically a re-write -- as in the case of 


Savannah River. That is what I call out of 


scope, unless we're authorized to proceed with 


that review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: However, when it comes to procedure 


reviews where let's say a procedure is revised 


or re-issued or in some way -- I see that as 


part of it -- and then we go back and look 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 

27 

it after it's done -- I see that as within. It 


could -- because it's sort of like, not that 


big of an increment. It's a manageable 


situation. That is, here we have an old 


procedure -- it's being revised to accommodate 


certain comments. So if the Board -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: To the extent that we're 


following up on a finding, I agree -- yes -- 


 DR. MAURO: Exactly, exactly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yes -- we want to track that 


finding to close. So I think that would be 


part of your intent --


 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Right. That's why I said -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-8 and TIB-10 are -- are 


points of that, I think, that -- 


 DR. MAURO: We're okay with that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: That's business as usual. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I believe so -- is that --


speaking out of turn? I think that's -- I 


mean we've got to track the finding to close, 


basically. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't know. You -- you 


guys --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, if you -- 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 

28

 MR. HINNEFELD: That's sort of a Board -- 


that's sort of a Board decision. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well -- I'm 


also asking Wanda and Bob and Mike -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: And contractually that's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It doesn't mean a complete re-


review hopefully. But sometime -- I mean 


obviously you're going to have to read through 


the procedure -- so yeah. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: An acceptance re -- more than actual 


review. Agreement. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm going down to ORAU -- OTIBs006, page 15. Revise TIB 6 to improve document 


structure. So is this one being revised as 


well? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't know the status on 


this right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Anyone on the phone know the 


status on TIB 6? 


 MR. SHARFI: Procedure 61? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, 61's (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: OTIB-6, no? 


 MR. SHARFI: 6 is the X-ray -- the X-ray TIB. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

And then there's Procedure 61. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, you're right. There is a 


Proc 61 that may actually supersede this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- are you sure or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know for sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You'll check on that. 


 MR. SHARFI: Procedure 61's the X-ray procedure 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But there is a Proc 61 which is 


X-ray procedure. 


 MR. SHARFI: I thought (unintelligible) same 


thing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, TIB-6 was X-rays. Proc 


61 is X-ray procedure. And that is -- that has 


been issued. I don't know if this is 


superseded or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so still the action stands. 


Maybe, Stu, if it's going to be replaced by 61, 


can you e-mail me and let me know and I'll -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- clarify the action or add that 


to the action? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I can. I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess the action stands. It 


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 

30

 MR. SHARFI: It does supersede it. It's in the 


procedure. (Unintelligible) supersedes Proc -- 


Proc 6. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it may -- it may or may ­

- no -- no -- no it doesn't. No, it doesn't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we're -- I mean I'm okay. 


At some point we'd like to know where it -- 


where it goes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We don't necessarily need it in 


the matrix. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah -- I was hopeful that we 


wouldn't have to get today's status on all 


these action items 'cause I'm not really up to 


date on where the status is on all these action 


items. But we will -- we will report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Going forward -- going forward 


you'll --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we will report on status 


and completion of these. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You'll track them and tell us 


where they went. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So, but it is -- it is -- 


well, it does say "revise or cancel," so 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 

31 

sounds like it's possibly been canceled, but 


the -- the -- doesn't affect the wording in 


your action. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, doesn't affect 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we'll stay with that wording. 


OCAS-TIB-7 at the bottom of 16. And it says 


"revise or cancel". Again, I guess that's 


pretty straightforward. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. That's a --


 MR. GRIFFON: My fear in all of this is that we 


don't lose sense of the original substance of 


the findings, you know --


 MR. MAHER: Proc 61 is out. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, okay, Ed. You're --


you're one behind, Ed. 


 MR. MAHER: Okay, sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're looking at TIB-7 now -– 


OCAS-TIB-7. 


 MS. MUNN: But we did agree that Proc 61 


covered it. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: No. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're not sure yet. 


 MR. SHARFI: What did we say about TIB-7? 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-7 is --


 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-7's revise or cancel. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was an OCAS-TIB that gave 


instructions on neutron exposed people -- when 


do you have to worry about neutron exposures at 


Savannah River site. So our proposed action 


here is that -- look, we either need to clean 


this up and make it, you know, com-- so that it 


addresses the findings that are com-- made 


here, or we need to cancel this and include 


that guidance somewhere else like the Savannah 


River site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Like the TBD. Right, right, 


right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's -- that's our course 


of --


 MR. GRIFFON: And that comes up again in some 


other ones, too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's another one I think 


that fits in that category. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So revise or cancel. And it 


might be canceled and in the TBD, is the -- 


possibly. 


All right I'm down to OCAS-IG-2. And this is, 


I think, very much like IG-1 -- in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

comments, anyway. The only thing I had 


highlighted here was OCAS-IG-- finding number 


six, I guess. I'm not sure why it's IG-001-06. 


Shouldn't it be 002? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That -- that typo's been in 


there for a long time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think we've 


just noticed it. 


 MS. MUNN: Should be two. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I didn't say it was yours. 


Could have been mine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll change that. That's Kathy 


Behling. Let's get that on the record. No. 


All right. So finding 6 -- my question was on 


the NIOSH response column. I wasn't sure I 


understood that. See response to TIB-8-01. 


TIB-8 is -- refresh my memory -- it's a general 


internal dose reconstruction document? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Internal dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that it -- oh, okay -- so the 


-- so that makes sense. Okay. They overlap 


that way. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I apologize for writing 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: And evaluate that model. 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 

34

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the same issue that comes 


up in that -- in that document, and I 


apologize. I wrote my -- the response in the 


second place it appeared rather than the first, 


so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it seemed like a back-


reference -- but anyway, it doesn't matter. We 


can cut and paste or we can leave it that way. 


I think we'll leave it that way. Anything else 


on TIB-- or IG-2 while I change these ones to 


twos? 


Okay? Down to -- I'm down to page 21, Proc 3 ­

- ORAU Proc 3. And this is just a revision, 


Stu, or -- or -- it doesn't say "revise or 


cancel" this time. This is a revision --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I assume. Anybody -- I'm not 


putting you on the spot, but do you know the 


status on this one? It is a revision? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The intent is to do the 


revision. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BRACKETT: That's the internal dose 


reconstruction one? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

35

 MS. BRACKETT: That's -- actually that's what 


I'm working on right now. It's completely 


right. It's going to become a TIB, actually. 


So it's being completed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- do we have a number 


yet or are you not ready? 


 MS. BRACKETT: It's OTIB-60. 


 MR. GRIFFON: TIB-60? 


 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That should be OTIB-60. 


 MS. BRACKETT: OTIB. Sorry, OTIB-60. 


 MR. GRIFFON: OTIB-60. Yeah. Okay. 


 MS. BRACKETT: I wasn't sure if you were using 


that distinction. Sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: OTIB-60 -- 0060 -- okay. And Liz 


will have a draft by the end of the meeting for 


us. 


 MS. BRACKETT: I've got all the internal 


comments and I'm working on them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Where are we at here? So 


that was Proc 3. Right? ORAU Proc 3 is being 


replaced by OTIB-60. Getting confused with 


that. 


All right, OCAS-TIB-8. Okay, and this is the 


one that we cross-referenced before -- 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 

36 

- from above? This is internal 


(unintelligible)... 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This says, you know, revise for 


clarity and it has a few technical things that 


you're going to evaluate. Right? The ICRP GI 


model, et cetera? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any comments, Proc 2? We're down 


to Page 25. No actions. You'll like these. 


Look at this. No actions on Proc 2 at all. Is 


that agreeable -- SC&A? NIOSH? All right? 


Down to TIB --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- TIB -- TIB 2 –- OCAS-TIB-2. 


Now again, the -- revise -- "revise and clarify 


language," revise -- this is a revision, not a 


replacement. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's our intent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: ORAU-OTIB-2 at the bottom of the 


page 26 -– ORAU-OTIB-2. Now this first -- this 


first finding is more of a technical -- you 


know, a technical -- rather than just revise 

1 

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 

and clarify, this is a -- one specific 


technical issue that we -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. The same issue that we had 


with two other objectives. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so this is also a revision, 


not a replacement. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Moving on down, this is several 


pages here. I have in finding OTIB-2-11 -- 


finding number -- it's on page 30 in the 


electronic. The Board action, I have something 


here highlighted that maybe I just didn't 


understand and that's why I highlighted it. In 


the current version of OTIB-2, this sentence 


correctly refers to table 3.1.1-2; no change 


necessary. Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the finding was 


essentially an editorial finding that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this sentence refers to 


table 3.1-1 when it should be 3.1-2. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and there's been a page 

1 

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 

change apparently in the meantime, because if 


you pick it up today it refers -- that 


paragraph refers to what it says it should. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to understand what 


I was writing. Okay. So we'll leave that in 


there and there's no action on that one. 


Next item in the matrix, ORAU OTIB-5. Here's 


the ICRP GI model again. Then the bottom of 


page OTIB-1 – ORAU-OTIB-1 -- this is revise, 


not replace -- is that the intent -- or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The intent was revise. This is 


the Savannah River high five. So I mean 


there's discussion going on that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the Savannah River site 


profile --


 MR. GRIFFON: Of putting it in the TBD, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as well, but we intend, you 


know, to -- depending on -- you know, we don't 


really know how that conversation will go -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so that could change these 


plans, but our expectation is that we'll be 


able to revise OTIB-1 to be able to better 


explain the basis for it and continue to use 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 

39 

largely as it is. Right? 


 MS. BRACKETT: Well, actually we've done a data 


capture and we've gotten the bioassay results 


on -- because originally we only had the 


intakes that had been calculated by Savannah 


River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BRACKETT: We now have bioassay results. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BRACKETT: And that data has been entered 


into spreadsheets, and I've got somebody 


working on recalculating those intakes right 


now. We just started last week on those, so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that may not --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- change the status of this 


item, though. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it may -- it may not change 


this --


 MR. GRIFFON: You still may -- you still may 


revise OTIB--


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that conversation and 


that action kind of came out of the Savannah 


River site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The site profile discussion. 

1 

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 

Right, right. 


 MS. BRACKETT: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So we'll leave it like 


this and if -- when we track the action 


forward, if it changes that, you put it in the 


TBD, then we'll just track that change. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Nothing affecting my matrix yet. 


Now OTIB-001 -- 01 goes on for a ways here, 


down to page 34, I think -- OTIB -- lost my 


place again – OTIB-3 – ORAU-OTIB-3 -- and the 


only --


 MR. MAHER: Could -- could I ask that the 


reference number be ref-- be mentioned? Are 


you working from the matrix? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Is that Mr. Maher? 


 MR. GRIFFON: The reference number? 


 MR. MAHER: Yeah. Could you make -- it's much 


easier to follow. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Rather than the procedure number? 


I don't know what the reference number is. 


 MR. MAHER: The finding number on the matrix. 


 MS. MUNN: Finding number. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, finding number, okay. All 

1 

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 

right. The finding number -- I'm on page 35, 


but the finding number is OTIB-0003-01, and the 


only difference on this is the NIOSH action. 


And it shouldn't -- I should've changed the 


header on that page, too -- I guess it didn't 


carry through, but I'm making these program 


actions now and so that SC&A -- the action for 


SC&A will carry through there. 


 MS. MUNN: Now -- whoa. Now you have me 


confused. OTIB-3-01. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: And my page is 33. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was going to say. 


I can't see (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, there was -- there was -- 


it's a program action, SC&A is going to review 


-- there's no NIOSH action. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But there's a program action. 


 MS. MUNN: We're reviewing 11. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yep. So SC&A's going 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 

42 

review TIB-11. 


 DR. MAURO: I think it's been reviewed. 


 MS. BEHLING: It has been. 


 DR. MAURO: And we find it --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. MAURO: -- acceptable. So I mean I think 


we're -- we'll get that into the matrix, but 


it's -- I think we're done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you -- you haven't 


presented us with a review yet, though. Right? 


Or... 


 DR. MAURO: Oh, it -- it's in there -- the 


supplement -- the supplement that came out, I 


believe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I mean we haven't -- we 


haven't even looked at it. I think we'll leave 


it this way for now. Yeah. Yeah. We'll get 


it later. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yeah -- oh, 


no -- yeah -- yeah. Just to let you know, 


we'll get there. Yeah, it's -- it's... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 


 MS. BEHLING: John, the other thing way may 


want to do on some of these such as TIB-11 and 


whatev-- is just to go back and verify 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 

43 

items that we had initially identified, because 


 DR. MAURO: The issues. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- yeah, these issues, and just 


verify them against --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- our revision -- our review, I 


mean, of TIB-11, because in some cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- I'm not sure that the -- the 


original review of TIB-11 was done 


independently and did not consider all of these 


issues. We have to go back and do that. 


 DR. MAURO: Absolutely right. When we reviewed 


-- I was part of that review, and you're right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. MAURO: I did not go back to the original 


commentary. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: We just reviewed it from first 


principles on its own merit. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: I believe there's also a workbook 

with this that I'm --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44

 DR. MAURO: We're going to review the workbook. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I'm -- I'm in the process 


of reviewing it also. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm down to finding number 


OTIB 0004-01. It's the same thing as above 


here. I just added a program action in the 


final column, that SC&A will review OTIB-4. 


But wasn't this OTIB-4? Why is SC&A... 


 MS. BEHLING: It's a revision to OTIB-4. 


 MR. GRIFFON: A revision. I should say a 


revised -- revised -- SC&A will review the 


revised OTIB-4. Okay. It's bad when your own 


sentences don't make sense. 


Okay. On down to finding -- oops -- going a 


little further -- the finding number I'm 


looking at now, Proc 004-01 -- 0004, I guess it 


should be -- dash zero one. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. These are the interviews. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: Interview procedures. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Now I think on this first one we 

had agreed, at least in principle, that we -- 


the workgroup or SC&A or a combination thereof 


-- would review the acknowledgment package. 

1 

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 

It's not a -- a specific procedure is it? It's 


a --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a -- yeah, what -- the 


nature of the finding was how much information 


does -- is brought to the claimant and -- at 


interview time. And we said well, we felt like 


some of that -- some of the information is 


appropriately brought at the packet -- you 


know, what we call the acknowledgment packet. 


It's what we send the claimant when we get the 


case referred to us from the Department of 


Labor. We've sent, up -- up until maybe even 


still now, we're sending an acknowledgment 


letter, but we're developing this 


acknowledgment packet, which is not a -- we've 


not approved the -- the product yet, so we 


won't necessarily provide it for review until 


we like it, or at least it's pretty -- pretty 


close to liking it. Not that we can't ever 


change it. But then this packet, then, 


provides some pieces of those information that 


we felt this finding pointed out should be 


brought to the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- brought to the claimant. 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 

46 

we think that packet addresses the nature of 


the finding. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so that's the -- the part 


that we -- that's why we believe that's -- part 


should be reviewed, to see if this meets it. 


Like I said, we want to have a product that 


we've -- not necessarily a final product that 


can't be changed -- but one that we feel pretty 


happy with, before we'd have it reviewed by -- 


by the Board and SC&A. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay. And so that's the 


main piece that responds to the finding, in 


essence, is what you're saying. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Any comments? SC&A, any 


comments on this part? 


 MS. BEHLING: Arjun, are you okay with that? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. BEHLING: I knew it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I thought you were still on -- 


you know, your dose reconstructions. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Double billing. 


 MS. BEHLING: I was just going to go tap him on 


the shoulder. I knew he was gone. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Hello? Hello? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: What page are we on? 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're up to --

 DR. BEHLING: We're on page 39. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- pa-- yeah, depending on hard 

copy or electronic. Yeah, it's the first of 


the CAT -- CATI procedures. Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Proc 4? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Proc 4, right. 


 MS. BEHLING: And they're going to --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Yeah, that's --


 MR. GRIFFON: "Revise the acknowledgment 


package," yeah. I mean, you're going to -- 


SC&A's going to --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Would you send me -- that's 


been revised. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not a product -- no. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not yet, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not a product that we're 


happy with yet. When we have a product that we 


feel -- that is a good product -- not 


necessarily a final version, though, that can't 


be changed, but it's a product we're happy 


with, then we'll share it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Now, I have a process question 

1 

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 

on that because we are -- we are reviewing the 


-- 90 and 92, and then some pieces are still 


coming, so I -- I'd just like some guidance on 


-- you want us to complete a review of those 


pieces that NIOSH has signed off on, and then 


wait and do the other pieces later? Or do you 


want us to do the whole package on the 


interviews once NIOSH has completed them? 


 MR. GRIFFON: How are those -- how are those 


two linked? I -- I have to understand that 


better, I guess. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the procedures -- I think 


maybe when he says -- procedures 90 and 92 are 


out there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They're issued and they're 


available for review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This acknowledgment packet, 


which is one of the things that we think is a 


response to this first round of findings -- 


first round of procedure review findings -- is 


not yet available for review. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I believe that might be what 

1 

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 

he's asking, do you want to wait and get the 


entirety together. 


 MR. GRIFFON: My sense is I wouldn't hold up 


the review on 90 and 92 waiting for another 


package -- you know. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm down to finding number 


Proc 0004-02. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Mark, I think you may 


have cut and pasted the wrong SC&A action 


there. It says, "SC&A review OTIB-4." 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I did. 


I did. I got a little paste-happy there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's actually they're 


going to --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the wrong --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- review that acknowledgment 


packet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thank -- thank you. Yeah. 


That's what happens when you edit at 1:00 in 


the morning. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. Should've been in bed at 


eleven. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know. Okay. That's the same 


action. Again, it's the acknowledgment package 


that's going to be reviewed, Not TIB-4. 


All right. Now we're down to finding number 


Proc 0005-01. And this is the -- now -- now 


this is ongoing. Right? "SC&A will review 


Proc 90 and 92." This is what we just 


discussed. Arjun, you said you started this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. We've begun reviewing 


this. You know, I -- I've done a preliminary 


read-through of this and begun drafting our 


comments, and basically I didn't -- I didn't 


find a great change between the prior 


procedures and these two. I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- it didn't seem there was a 


big material response in terms of the main 


finding of our prior review. Am I right about 


that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You're right. The 90 --


the 90, 92 revision was sort of underway before 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Happened before --

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they kind of passed in the 


night and so -- I don't think -- and I think I 


may have commented -- I intended to say this in 


an earlier work group meeting, I may not have ­

- that those were not written with these 


findings in front of us, and so it's not -- you 


know, it's not likely that the findings from 


the (unintelligible) review would be 


incorporated. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have to have a NIOSH action 


here that Proc 90/92 needs to be revised -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then reviewed by -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be -- well, I -- it 


would be helpful, I guess, or maybe not, but 


maybe easier if -- if the findings were just 


repeated. I mean you have -- you're reviewing 


90/92. The findings could be repeated in the 


review -- in the report of review of 90/92 and 


-- and addressed in that fashion. I mean I 


don't know how else to address it right now in 


this. I know there are some things we're doing 


to assist in this review -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: My concern is this pushing the 


ball down the road. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52

 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I understand. But I don't 


know how to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Seems like that would add another 


three months, the way that we work. You know, 


it's got to come back to another matrix. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly it's our intent 


to evaluate the findings and determine what we 


can incorporate. Some of these findings that 


are made on the interview and all these -- I 


just -- some of them, candidly, I don't think 


we can realistically incorporate. Now some of 


them we can. And to be honest, I don't know 


that we've really sorted out what specific 


actions we feel like yeah, we can take these, 


we can address these, and which ones we think 


that we don't really have a kind of a way to 


implement. And so, that's -- you know, that's 


-- we're a little farther away I think -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from understanding how we're 


going to end up on these than we are on al-- 


anything else we're going to talk about today. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. That's -- that was my 


sense when we read through this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, procedurally, if I might 

1 

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 

suggest -- instead of -- I actually -- not 


hearing it that explicitly, I didn't know that 


we kind of crossed in the night that way. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I didn't realize it either. 


Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I think it would be more 


expedient and certainly save resources in terms 


of the time and priorities if we just addressed 


the findings of the review -- the major ones, 


and --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and discuss today what NIOSH 


can incorporate, what it cannot incorporate, 


and develop action items on the basis of that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's a --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: If there's anything for us to 


do, we'd be happy to do it, but I -- I -- I'm 


actually reluctant to kind of cop-- copy a 


whole review --


 MR. GRIFFON: Copy and paste findings for a new 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and issue a new report. 
I 


don't know... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: I guess my react-- listening 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 

54 

this, if it turns out this level of effort to 


push out 90 and 92 review is really not going 


to advance the process very much, let's stop 


it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. And I haven't invested a 


whole lot of effort. I read through them. I 


kind of thought, you know, I'm going to be -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It didn't -- it didn't address 


the concerns here, so let's go back and try to 


address these concerns if these are the ones. 


Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That would be -- that would be 


my suggestion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't know that Stu is 


prepared today to say which ones can or can't ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: I could -- I could speak 


philosophically about ones that I think -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- now, I'm a little bit of a ­

- at a disadvantage because I didn't happen to 


bring the actual procedures report with me. 


I've got all the dose reconstruction. So we 


may -- may want to talk about it from the 


actual report rather than the matrix, 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 

55 

you get the full sense of the finding when you 


have the full report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I can -- I can certainly 


talk about the things that I think that -- 


certainly, if they look like they're 


implementable in some fashion and others that 


may be somewhat -- somewhat of a burden or 


undue burden for the payoff. I don't mind 


doing something hard, but if I do something 


hard, I want it to be worth something. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you want to do that now or do 


you want to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can do it however you want. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you want to take ten minutes 


and get an electronic version of the full 


report so you have it right in front of you? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I can -- I can give you -- I 


have -- I have the report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Why don't we take a --


 DR. WADE: Before we start, we do have -- have 


some members of the public who might want to 


introduce themselves. 


 MR. GERLACH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My 

1 

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 

name's Frank Gerlach. I'm an attorney. I --


Portsmouth, Ohio -- used to be city manager for 


our town. Was also elected mayor of our town. 


So I've been a city manager and a mayor. 


And just recently I had a relative to get 


involved in -- in radiation case, and some 


others. So now I'm trying to get up to speed 


as to what this is all about -- how you best 


serve the -- the worker who -- who has a 


radiation claim. I noticed that you were 


having a hearing here in Cincinnati and it's 


close to us and even though you 


(unintelligible) around the country so I 


thought I would use this opportunity to come 


see who the experts are and perhaps be able to 


learn something from -- from your meetings or 


talking to you and such. So we appreciate the 


hospitality which you've shown to us. Wanda 


got us a chair to sit down and so we -- we 


appreciate that. 


This is my wife Cynthia. She is a nurse and an 


attorney and we work together on -- on this 


situation --


 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) this is Mike -- 


 MR. GERLACH: -- and if you ever want to look 

1 

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 

us up --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Could the gentleman please 


identify himself again? 


 MR. GERLACH: Sure. 

 MR. GRIFFON: He couldn't hear you. 

 MR. GERLACH: Hi. It's Franklin T. Gerlach, Ge-r-l-a-c-h, an attorney from Portsmouth, Ohio, 


and Cynthia, C-y-n-t-h-i-a, Gerlach, who is a 


nurse and an attorney -- and we're handling 


some radiation cases. I have a web site now. 


It's called atomic lawyer dot com. So if you 


miss us, then I give you that. 


And I have one question. I always like to take 


pictures. Is it permissible sometime to take 


pictures of your event? I don't want to 


interfere with what you're doing. I don't do 


it for any sinister reason. 


 DR. WADE: It is certainly -- it's certainly 


acceptable to me unless someone around the 


table would offer an objection. 


 MS. MUNN: Only if we all get copies. 


 MR. GERLACH: I -- I could do that. Sure. 


 DR. WADE: Is everybody okay with that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Lew -- Lew's okay with a picture 

1 

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 

of him. 


 MR. GERLACH: Well, anyway we appreciate it. 


We had a little hard time finding out what 


you're actually doing, but I think as we go 


along a little longer --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. We're -- we're down in the 


weeds today in today's meeting but we -- 


 MS. MUNN: We really are down in the weeds. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we appreciate you being here. 

 MR. GERLACH: But anyway, thank you for your 

hospitality. It's a beautiful place here to 

meet and we're glad to represent the public. 


 DR. WADE: Let me tell you very briefly what we 


are doing here. 


 MR. GERLACH: All right. 


 DR. WADE: There is a program, the EEOICPA 


Program -- you're familiar with it. There are 


various players in it. The program's 


administered by the Department of Labor. The 


Department of Health and Human Services -- a 


particular agency, NIOSH -- has the 


responsibility of doing dose reconstructions 


for workers who file claims under that program. 


That's an agency, NIOSH, that I work for. 


The President of the United States 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 

59 

appointed an Advisory Board to oversee the 


scientific quality of the work that NIOSH does 


in these dose reconstructions. That 


Presidential Advisory Board has various working 


groups that look at aspects of NIOSH's work. 


This is a working group that's right now 


looking at the procedures that NIOSH uses to do 


its dose reconstructions. It'll also later 


today look at -- this group looks at a random 


sample of dose reconstructions to see if the 


scientific quality of that effort is up to 


snuff. So you're -- you're looking at a 


working group that's -- that's into the detail 


of reviewing the procedures NIOSH uses, and 


then a working group. 


The Board is supported by a contractor, Sanford 


Cohen and Associates, and there are members of 


that corporation here and they serve to support 


the Board in its work to review the scientific 


quality of HHS/NIOSH's activity. So this will 


be a very detailed discussion you'll witness, 


but -- and if you have any burning questions at 


any point and you feel it can't wait, shout 


them out. Otherwise take us aside and we'll 


try and answer your questions. 

1 

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

 MR. GERLACH: Thank you very much. I 


appreciate that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Everybody can take five. We're 


doing -- we're in the process of a document 


transfer and we'll come back in ten minutes to 


get (unintelligible). 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:35 a.m. 


to 9:50 a.m.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: You have that document now? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I've got it. I'm just 


firing up. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we're looking at ORAU or -- or 


finding number Proc 0005-01, and this starts a 


series of the findings related to the 


interview, the questionnaire and those things. 


And so, Stu, I'll turn it over to you. How do 


you want to go forward with discussing it? You 


want to discuss each finding and -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Let me get -- I've got 


to catch my place here in a couple of places. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Should we go to the findings in 


the report itself, the way you suggested 


before? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I would like to probably do 


that unless some -- unless they're apparent 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 

61 

me in looking. My computer has a start-up 


routine that must solve a few differential 


equations on the way or something like that. 


It takes forever to come on. We made it to 


Proc 5. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. I'm on page 41. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, the finding numbers in your 


report are the same as the ones listed in the 


matrix. So Proc 5-01. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. The 04 is simply pending 


the new packet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Acknowledgment package. Right, 


right. So we'll start with Proc 5, I think, if 


that's okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So all -- all of these things 


that say SC&A will review Proc 90 and 92 will 


be modified? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we need to modify those, 


yeah. And I think the Board -- the Board 


action column and the program action column 


need to be modified based on our discussion 


here. Right? At least that's what we're going 


to try to do. Yeah. Yeah, both the Board 


action and the column right now that's showing 

1 

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 

NIOSH action are going to be revised, pending 


our discussion here. I didn't realize that, 


either, when I wrote this action. I thought 


that 90 and 92 had been revised to incorporate 


comments on these findings. So I think we -- 


we had a little -- I didn't understand that 


there was a cross-over there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm having technical 


issues with my computer not letting me 


(unintelligible) to log on. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Unintelligible) it will open 

the --

 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't even open anything. I 

have to log on with my password and it says the 


domain is not available. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you -- can you -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll just look --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Do you want to share -- you 


want to share? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, let's just look. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: You want to change chairs, then 


we can just share my computer? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 


 MS. MUNN: I can provide an engineering course. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

63

 MR. GRIFFON: Is there an engineer in the 


house? 

 DR. WADE: Hit it with something. 

 MS. MUNN: That's my prescribed engineering 

fix. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Is there a carpenter in the 


house? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Smack it. We're getting there. 


We're -- now we're sharing computers here. For 


those on the phone, we're sharing a computer to 


look at this document. We've only got about 


ten laptops around the table. Only one has the 


document on it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I can e-mail it to everybody. 


 DR. WADE: You want to do... 


 MR. PRESLEY: You got 55? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We actually are at Proc 4-4. 


Is that right? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I think we're at 


(unintelligible) -- Proc 4 relates to these 


acknowledgement forms and the letter -- 


 (Whereupon, several participants spoke 


simultaneously.) 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Is there an access code for 


(unintelligible)? You don't know the code to 


tie into the internet? 


 (Whereupon, several participants spoke 


simultaneously.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: At any rate, that's -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's gone. It's sent to you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I don't want to hold 


things up so Stu -- whenever Stu's ready, you ­

- we can start discussing. I'll try to get it 


while you're talking through this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: These -- these findings 


actually don't correspond to the findings in 


the report. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: On the table? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: The findings in the matrix 


aren't -- because the findings on the matrix 


aren't according -- sorted according to the 


procedures. They were all the procedures 


together. Or maybe they're from the tables. 


Well, let me go back and see. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This was our first one, so we 


might not have done our best job of cross-


walking everything. Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Can we -- should we 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 

65 

according to the findings in the report? If 


you want the full findings -- or we could -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. If we --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- go according to the findings 


in the matrix, whatever you prefer. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well we co-- I'd rather go 


according to the matrix, because most of us 


have the matrix and you're the only ones that 


have the report, so... 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: All right. All right. Okay. 

Fine. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay now, Procedure 5 -- was 

Procedure 4 scheduling the CATI and Procedure 5 


conducting the CATI? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And 17 was review and revision 


and --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Finalization. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Make sure --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and updat-- updating -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- make sure you're talking loud 


enough for the folks on the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

66

 DR. MAKHIJANI: The -- the 17 was the review 


updating incorporation in the database -- all 


of that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So finding one on 


Procedure 5 is that "the procedure provides no 


reference to site profile or closing interview" 


and -- so I'm trying to think where we are. So 


this is the procedure for performing the CATI. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I guess I'm -- I'm 


struggling with -- what would we tell a 


claimant at that point when we're -- this is 


essentially -- other than introductory letters 


and scheduling the CATI, what do we tell them, 


or what is the recommendation of what's 


meaningful to tell them at that time about the 


site profile? 


And recall that a CATI interview is scripted. 


There's an OMB-approved script for a CATI 


interview. And so, if you -- there's no 


particular opportunity to make it site-specific 


in that -- in that fashion, at least the script 


cannot be, and -- and the close-- and as to not 


mentioning the closeout interview, the closeout 


interview will occur far later. 

1 

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 

And there's other introductory information 


about the closeout interview. For instance, 


when the draft dose reconstruction is sent to 


the claimant, the letter explains to them that 


we'll be calling you and talking to you about 


what this means. And so we feel -- you know, 


so that's when they're introduced to the 


closeout interview and the idea that they will 


be able to talk again when the dose 


reconstruction is complete. 


This is a little -- you know, the time 


differential between the CATI and the closeout 


interview is a little less -- in some -- in 


many cases it's a little less extreme now than 


it was, but early on when these were being 


used, the CATI was done probably years before 


the closeout interview. So -- I mean whatever 


you would tell them at that time was going to 


have limited usefulness when you finally got 


around to closeout interview time. So I guess 


I'm struggling a little bit with how it's 


phrased here in the -- in the matrix about how 


we change the procedure for conducting a CATI 


to deal with these issues that don't seem to be 


tractable, given the constraints we're under 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 

68 

those other aspects of the -- the program. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, actually --


 MR. GIBSON: Stu, this is Mike. Can I jump in 


for -- for a minute? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: From what I've heard from some of 


the claimants -- from Mound, at least -- in the 


CATI closeout interview you ask for more 


information if they have any. And there 


sometimes is a loss of what to do at that 


point. And then -- I guess I'm jumping ahead 


here a little bit, but at some point, when they 


get their OCAS form -- I forget what it -- what 


the number is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: OCAS-1. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah -- to sign to say that, you 


know, the dose reconstruction is completed, and 


if -- if it shows the probability of causation 


less than 50 percent, they think if they sign 


that, that they are acknowledging that they are 


denied and not necessarily knowing that they 


have a right to appeal. They think, you know, 


by signing this, I give up my rights is -- is 


the -- the inference I get from people I've 


talked 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 

69

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I appreciate that, 


and that sounds like something that we might be 


able to deal with in the wording of the OCAS-1, 


for instance. Because in point of fact, unless 


-- you know, they -- they must sign the OCAS-1 


in order to have an appeal opportunity because 


 MR. GIBSON: I under-- I underst--


 MR. HINNEFELD: You understand that, but it's 


not coming across, you're saying. 


 MR. GIBSON: And that's -- and you know, I know 


their case will be put in limbo and status quo 


or whatever, but they are under the indication, 


it seems to me, that they're giving up their 


rights. They don't realize they have a right 


to appeal. They're just acknowledging that 


you've finished your job. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the intent -- and -- and 


we can look at the -- we can look on working on 


OCAS-1, which I am not intimately familiar 


with, but the intent of the OCAS-1 is to have 


the claimant agree that they have no additional 


information to provide. That's the intent. 


And before they sign that, we want to have the 


closeout interview to address questions 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 

70 

they might have and try to help them understand 


what the dose reconstruction entails. So, with 


respect to that -- but with respect to that 


specific issue, there are certainly many 


opportunities for misunderstanding and poor 


communication on our part in this program, and 


so we'll go take a look and -- and see if we 


can't clarify -- or I will -- I will see. I 


won't commit to changing the OCAS-1 form 


because I didn't write it and I don't really 


control it. But I think it's certainly worth 


our while to take this comment as -- as input 


on that. Because these forms, while they are 


forms and they're fixed forms and they're 


scripted forms, they can be changed. I mean, 


the OMB -- the CATI form can be changed. It 


has to be changed -- and we have to go to OMB, 


and it'll take a while, but we can change it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah. Well, I-- I'm not trying to 


criticize you. I'm just trying to give you 

information --

 MR. HINNEFELD: I appreciate it. 

 MR. GIBSON: -- on what I've heard. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I appreciate 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 

71 

that's -- that's, I think, maybe worth acting 


on. 


 MS. MUNN: Stu, is the closeout interview that 


precedes the OCAS-1 scripted as well? Or is 


that a little more --


UNIDENTIFIED: It's free-form. 


 MS. MUNN: -- flexible? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's more free-form. 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps that's the spot where -- 


rather than being concerned with the form 


itself, perhaps -- if you have the flexibility 


in the closeout telephone interview, perhaps 


that's the appropriate place to strengthen the 


understanding of the claimant as to what OCAS-1 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. MCFEE: This is Matt McFee. I was formerly 


Task IV manager, which is Claim and 


Communications currently in BSCC. I can tell 


you that it certainly is the intention of 


communication with the claimant during the 


closeout to answer all their questions and to 


let them know that despite -- if, for instance, 


the POC is less than 50 percent -- that this is 


not the final step; that the OCAS-1 -- signing 


the OCAS-1 is not the end of the process 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 

72 

them. And we could get any type of -- the Task 


IV manager, for instance, or any of the folks 


involved in that process to give as much 


information as you need on that. 


 MR. GIBSON: That's my (unintelligible) and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Go ahead, Mike. 


 MR. GIBSON: Who was -- who was just talking? 


 MR. MCFEE: That -- Matt McFee. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. Now I'm not meaning to be 


argumentative. I'm just saying from listening 


to some of the claimants -- I mean, and as a 


layman, they're just overwhelmed with the 


closeout interview and everything else. And if 


that is included in the closeout interview, 


that they'll be getting the OCAS-1 form, you 


know, maybe that sometimes just goes over their 


head. 


 MR. MCFEE: It could well as -- if -- if you've 


looked at any of the dose reconstructions, it's 


very, very daunting for -- for a lay person to 


 MR. GIBSON: Absolutely. 


 MR. MCFEE: -- to get that. I -- I totally 


agree with you. I don't know the -- the extent 


of the -- of the reports that you've gotten -- 

1 

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 

whether it's one out of 100 or 50 out of 100 or 


-- and how long ago these were done. I mean a 


number of parameters impact the way that we'll 


deal with that. But certainly we want to make 


this process as -- as good as we can for the 


claimants. 


 MR. GIBSON: Again, I'm not criticizing. I'm 


just trying to give you some -- some field 


knowledge that, you know, I -- I've received 


from former -- I used to be union president and 


just from some phone calls I've had. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we've also heard that on the 


Board. I mean, we've -- we've heard that 


people are reluctant to -- and I think it's 


that when you're signing a document, you know, 


you might have forgot what they told you in the 


closeout interview, but -- you know, I'm not 


signing anything. I don't agree with it, you 


know. But wait a second, the point is, you 


know, they don't get that next step. So it 


might be worth at least looking at, Stu, like 


you said. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and it could be worth -- 


you know, I don't know, we may be able to come 


to some sort of resolution today on that 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 

You know, we want to kind of reach a resolution 


as much as we can today, but if the work group 


is uncomfortable with this -- I mean there are 


people who can speak really knowledgeably about 


the kinds of communications -- you know, 


iterative communications -- I mean you don't -- 


you know, closeout interview doesn't have to 


occur at one time. You know, it can be -- it 


can occur over several conversations. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, there's -- there's a -- 


we try to make an attempt to let the claimant 


know what -- what's been hit. And we 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. BEHLING: Has there been an attempt to 


include a certified health physicist as part of 


the closeout interview? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: At times that will happen. At 


times that happens. It depends upon the nature 


of the -- the claimant's questions. If the 


questions get to -- you know, are -- are pretty 


technical in nature, then yes, we get a health 


physicist. I won't vouch for necessarily 


certified in every case, but we will have a 


health physicist speak to the claimant in order 

1 

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 

to explain the questi-- you know, the answer. 


 DR. BEHLING: Is -- is a health physicist 


available to the CATI people -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- while they are there so that ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- so that if there's a request 


to have a specific question that has been 


raised that he can answer for a person? 


 MR. MCFEE: Yes -- again -- Matt McFee again. 


Yes, the health physics staff, including the 


dose reconstructor, are available to the CATI 


staff to answer any questions the claimant has. 


 MR. MAHER: There's at least two health 


physicists in Task IV. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But not at the time of the 


closeout interview. 


 MR. MCFEE: Generally --

 MR. MAHER: Could be. They could be. 

 MR. MCFEE: They might be. They may not be. 

We -- we try to do it as timely as we can. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and that would be in a 


situation where the closeout interview may 


occur over several installments. 

1 

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

 UNIDENTIFIED: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If the person has a question 


that's required for -- that a health -- really 


needs a health physicist to answer the question 


and there's not one available, or the dose 


reconstructor isn't available and he's the one 


that has to answer the question, then it would 


be continued and it would occur -- it would 


occur in more than one installment. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This -- this particular matrix 


item comes from page 196, item number 1.3 in 


that form, evaluation of Procedure 5. And --


and the rationale for that, page 196 of the 


Task III report, that PDF file that I gave you 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I'm looking at it. Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: It's item 1.3 in that table. 


The -- the point of putting that in there is 


not to make the site profile part of the 


generic CATI form. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is -- this is obviously 


very cryptic, in the sense that this kind of 


table has to be cryptic, but it's linked to the 


recommendation that the interviewer should 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 

77 

some knowledge of -- of -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- of the site. And I think in 


principle, especially for sites where there are 


a lot of claims, this seems possible. Now, I 


agree that for sites where there are one or two 


claims, you can't do that. But for a Savannah 


River Site or a Bethlehem Steel or Hanford or 


Nevada, you -- you can -- you can have 


interviewers who are reasonably -- without -- 


without being a health physicist, who can be 


knowledgeable about the site so that they have 


some -- some way -- there are some open-ended 


pieces of the interview where you're asking 


open-ended questions and you want to help the 


interviewer provide that information, and 


especially for survivor claimants it seems to 


be important. The piece about the clo-- of 


course I'm aware that the closeout interview is 


-- is done much later, after you've completed 


your draft. But I think the claimant should 


have some idea of -- that there is another 


piece coming down the line, that they will, 


even at the end of the draft reconstruction, 


have an -- if they've gathered information 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 

78 

the interim -- you know, they don't hear from 


you for a year and a half -- that -- that -- 


that they can -- so they should get -- the 


first time you contact them they should get an 


idea of what all is going to be involved and 


that there will be another opportunity at the 


end to provide more information. And -- and 


just to kind of get to the part about the 


health physicist, our recommendation had been 


that the health physicist should be available ­

- not necessarily on-line during the whole 


closeout interview -- but should be available 


during the closeout interview so it's not 


dragged out in -- so the person has forgotten 


what they said. They may no longer remember 


what's in the draft dose reconstruction, which 


is complicated enough as it is. So if they 


have questions, it would be helpful if they're 


available the first time, although they may not 


be needed. So they don't have to be on-line, 


but if there's a question -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you shouldn't have to 


reschedule another telephone call in order to 


answer -- answer a question. 

1 

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

 DR. BEHLING: Fact-- is there a roving health 


physicist at the facility where the CATI -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, they said there's two in 


Task IV -- so, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, there are two. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Task IV has its own facility. 


That's the interview facility. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Let me ask 


a question. Are those two physicists -- do 


they have a conflict of interest anywhere or 


are they clean for all the sites? See, that 


could be a problem right there. If somebody is 


at a site and asks a question where one of them 


has a conflict of interest, then -- then the 


physicist would have to back off and they would 


be left --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- to find another physicist. 


 MS. MUNN: Which is another catch-22. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's right. Another catch-22. 


 MS. MUNN: The person you want there is 


actually the person who's most familiar with 


the site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Qualified with the areas, exactly 


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 

80

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it's not exa-- 


 MR. GIBSON: This is Mike again. And that --


and that's exactly what I brought up at the 


last meeting. I mean site exper-- or people 


who worked at sites do these closeout 


interviews -- you know, that's where I think it 


would be beneficial to Larry and his staff and 


an opportunity to give these people a -- an 


education of -- of all the sites so that, you 


know, if there's someone who tries to answer 


the questions in a closeout interview and they 


have experience at the site, they may use their 


own knowledge and not necessarily refer back to 


the site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The -- yeah -- I guess, you know, 


part of -- part of where this came from -- I 


mean I can remember wh-- some early advisory 


Board meetings where we heard that people got 


their copy of their interview to review after 


an interview was done, and some of the things 


that were captured in it mentioned some 


processes that they had talked about -- 


incidents or something related to certain 


processes -- and, you know, the person reviewed 


it and -- and said it on the record to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 -- 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

Board that, you know, they -- they had a 


process name that wa-- and a building name that 


was just totally wrong, you know. And they 


said clearly this person didn't know 


Portsmouth, you know, because if they did they 


would have known that terminology, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the term was cold trap 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, cold trap was the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it came out as cold 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't -- yeah. You remember 


that specific example. Yeah. Yeah, I didn't ­

- but we've heard that a few times that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, and there is. We 


all know that at a lot of the sites there's 


shorthand, there's, you know, different code 


language. And if you're not aware of that when 


you're talking to someone, you might just -- 


something might go right over your head that's 


fairly important inf-- you know, information. 


So that was -- that was how it came up, and I 


know that the interview is scripted, but I 


think there is an opportunity for 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 

82 

interviewer to do follow-up, isn't there, on -- 


on questions? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. You can -- yes. Yes, 


you can expound on -- on questions. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that -- that was the intent. 


If you had at least -- and I don't think we 


were necessarily proposing any method, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Let -- I think this is -- we're 


tying into knowledge -- knowledge of the 


interviewer, which other things in here I think 


relate to as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. There's other items. I'm 


a little confused on how these findings match, 


too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So when we tie -- yeah -- when 


we tie in there, I believe that was one of the 


areas where we thought -- well, we certainly 


should be able to evaluate that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I personally can't 


speak very knowledgeably about it today, but 


with the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Are we having the same 


interviewers do --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with the Task IV people, 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 

83 

know, what is the current status? Do we have 


people who strive to interview the Savannah 


River cases, for instance. Do we do some 


things like that. What kind of training do we 


provide to the interviewers and -- in terms of 


to impart some sort of site knowledge and 


terminology knowledge and things like that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess what I was talking 


about --


 MR. HINNEFELD: So there are other items on 


here that I think certainly would warrant 


investigation, so if -- to the extent that this 


finding falls into that, I -- I guess that I 


believe that we -- I don't have a resolution 


today, but certainly we intend to consid-- or 


evaluate -- I think that's even here, "evaluate 


current state of training, or interviewing," 


and see if we can't --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, it is there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it is. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: It is in there, page 47. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But what does -- what does this 


mean then, under finding one here? It says, 


"procedure provides no reference to the site 


profile." That's sort of where I was going off 

1 

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 

on that direction. I agree with you, Stu, 


there's other items, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I think that's what 


Arjun was commenting with us about, that the 


know-- the interviewers' knowledge of the site 


profile. Is that what you were talking about? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, yeah. I think that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's an interviewer 


knowledge sort of issue. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: There -- there's two -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Unfortunately there -- there 

are two different pieces to this. Is one --


one is that the interviewee, the claimant, 


should have some idea of the context of what's 


coming, that the person that's interviewing 


them is aware, you know, where the claim is 


coming from, whether there's a site profile 


document or not, and be able to communicate 


that as some kind of -- you know, that there's 


going to be a closeout interview, that there's 


kind of a process. 


 And the second piece of that involves the -- 


the second piece of that involves the actual 


knowledge of the -- of the person interviewing. 

1 

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 

And there is that item on page 47 where it says 


NIOSH will consider assigning interviewers to 


claims from specific sites providing site-


specific -- and providing site-specific 


training to interviewers. And that was one of 


the recommendations, at least for the sites 


where there are a lot of claims, that without 


being a health physicist, the interviewer 


should have some site knowledge or some 


significant site knowledge. And so those, if ­

- if the acknowledgment package that you are 


developing could have some reference that 


there's a closeout interview at the end of the 


process, that -- there is already references I 


remember that the claimant can provide 


information while the dose reconstruction is 


going on --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- if I'm remembering correctly 

now. 

 MS. MUNN: But are we -- are we getting -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Arjun, or -- this is Mike again. 


The only rea - the only thing I was trying to 


state is that I think, in my opinion -- this is 


my personal opinion, it's not the opinion 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 

86 

the Board or the working group or anyone else 


-- that I think NIOSH should expand its -- its 


knowledge base of its staff to where a person 


can go back and look at the site profile. And 


that -- that should have, you know, the 


knowledge and the information from the site 


rather than, you know, say a person from Mound 


or whatever. If they personally call a person 


from Mound, they may use their own personal 


judgment rather than the information that's 


provided in the site profile. That's where I 


just get a little iffy about, you know -- you 


know, would they do that, or would they have 


knowledge of the site document rather than use 


their own knowledge? 


 MS. MUNN: Well -- we -- now you've all 


confused me. We started out talking about the 


closeout interview. And all of a sudden we're 


talking about the initial CATI and who knows 


what in the -- in the actual interim process. 


And I'm concerned about what this specific 


matrix item is asking us. Have we misworded 


this matrix item? 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is the -- my problem -- my 


problem is cross-walking this matrix 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 

87 

report right now. And I think one thing I'm 


going to ask SC&A to do is to -- to -- in this 


matrix, maybe parenthetically under the finding 


number, if you can parenthetically add where it 


-- how it cross-walks with the other document. 


Because I think this was one of our first 


efforts, and I think the matrix came after they 


issued their report. So we weren't -- you 


know, I don't think it -- it doesn't cross-walk 


easily for me. I'm having a hard time right 


now --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I think it does with the 


table but not with the findings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- understanding where we are, 


but --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think it cross-walks with the 


table but not with the findings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And -- and the problem is that 


this table is such a summary table that it -- 


it -- you need -- you need the expanded text in 


order to -- and because these forms were set up 


to review specific procedures, and the thing 


was split up into three pieces, and I wrote the 


findings as explanations of the form -- it'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 

88 

kind of gotten a little bit confused, even from 


our own --


 MR. GRIFFON: Tell us again. Proc -- Proc 5 


does what, overall? Proc. 5 is --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That is the process of the 


interview. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the process of the CATI. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: CATI interview. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So Proc 5, finding one. But then 


when you reference the closeout interview, 


Wanda's right. In this -- in this finding we 


say procedure provides no reference to site 


profile or closing interview. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: The recommendation -- that -- 


that item is actually a small item in -- as to 


what the interviewer should do initially. And 


the initial approach to the claimant should 


give them an overview --


 MR. GRIFFON: A context of where --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- a context of what's 


happening. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this -- you --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And they have no clue that 


there's a --


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

89

 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that there's an end -- what 


happens at the end of the process. There is a 


-- there is some information of what happens 


during dose reconstruction in terms of the 


interaction with the claimant, but there is no 


reference that at the end of the process you 


can --


 MR. GRIFFON: So an overall we -- we've done a 


site profile on this site or we haven't, maybe 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we have this information. You 


know, right now we're going to do an interview 


with you regarding your job history, work 


history at the site. After we finish this we 


will, you know, do your dose reconstruction and 


then we'll have a closeout -- you know, 


something like that? Is that what you're 


saying? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and you may have -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Process. Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and sometimes NIOSH has told 


us that interviewers will provide information 


that can -- interviewees will want information 


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 

90

 MR. GRIFFON: Wan-- Wanda? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that will change a site 


profile. And so that -- the context of -- of 


how the interview fits into NIOSH's dose 


reconstruction process -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- both for the site profile 


and for the claimant at the end, that they can 


still provide information after the dose 


reconstruction is complete. So this item is 


relatively simple, I think. 


 MS. MUNN: But it appears --


 MR. GIBSON: Wanda, this is Mike. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, go ahead. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: You know, I'm sorry and I said I 


may have been jumping ahead -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. We're all kind of jumping 


all over. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- but it just -- it kind of tied 


into this specific thing and I just -- I guess 


I had expounded on it a little too much -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay, Mike. We're all 


kind of jumping around. We're trying to figure 


this out. But Wanda --

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. And my concern is I think 


that I hear Arjun talking about what additional 


things need to be done initially. And -- and 


what I have heard -- what we have heard many 


times is we can't -- we can't mess around, 


really and truly, with that initial CATI 


interview. Perhaps the second -- the second 


telephone conversation or perhaps the packet 


that we're talking about -- many of those 


things may be able to meet Mike's concerns and 


the concerns that have been expressed by -- by 


claimants previously. But personally, I -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we have been told -- we 


have been told it would take an act of God to 


switch the questionnaire. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's not quite that far, I don't 


think, but the --


 MS. MUNN: Well, no, but then we all know if we 


go to OMB and say would you please -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- give us a new -- consider this 


new form --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that we'd just set the program 

1 

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 

back a year. We don't want that to happen. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I don't think that changes -- 


I think they can still up front set a context. 


That's what Arjun's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: OMB approves the information we 


ask the claimant. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the script. If we have 


 MR. GRIFFON: Provided --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- introductory information, we 


can add that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can add that. Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can add intro-- introductory 


-- if we're not asking the claimant for 


anything. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you may say that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The OMB approval is because we 


are asking more than nine citizens to provide 


us with information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And your response may be that you 


-- you do this already. I don't -- we -- I 


don't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it could very well be. 
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 

93 

mean there are -- like I said, we need to 


develop more fully -- I need to develop more 


fully with ORAU what is the current state of 


affairs with respect to these. I've shared 


these findings and to be completely honest, 


because of other priorities and, you know, the 


fact that we only have -- you know, given the 


current inventory -- probably less than a 


thousand interviews to do -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well then, we can't unring the bell 


on the interviews that have already been done ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Now --


 MS. MUNN: -- and cases that have already been 


closed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with -- with them. Yeah, 


you're right. Now that doesn't mean we 


shouldn't fix this, because there is no -- 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- there's no sunset date on 


this law right now. As far as we know it's 


going to continue for -- for a while. And so 


that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it, but it ­

- it kind of explains maybe the priority that's 


been given in light of other things we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

trying to accomplish is why we haven't got 


sufficient closure, you know, with ORAU in 


terms of a serious look at the recommendations, 


and are these implementable, and in what 


fashion are they implementable, and what 


actions would have to be done to do that. So 


we're just not very far down that path on these 


last three procedure reviews. 


 MR. GIBSON: Sorry --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But that -- that -- that 


expla-- Arjun's explanation to me was better. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- sorry to have delayed you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- it -- this is the up-


front information to put the overall process in 


context. I was under-- not understanding the 


finding either, so it's better clarification. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Now, sort of as a general point -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- not to suggest anything, but if 


the working group feels that this -- this 


overall topic is important enough, we could 


have ORAU people, NIOSH people come to the 


working group meeting and -- and explain the 


process. We could do that at a Board meeting. 

1 

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 

It really depends upon your pleasure. If you 


want to continue down this path that's fine; if 


it raises an importance to an issue that's -- 


that you really want to focus on, then we can 


get the experts with you to, in an interactive 


way, answer your questions and take your 


guidance. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I think we -- we've 


initiated some of that process. Right? I mean 


we're --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think that's been done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Really and truly, it -- but the -- 


the issue now is has the iterative process been 


carried into the rea-- the real world so that 


the issues that we're concerned with are 


starting to be incorporated into how we do 


business. I think that's the real issue. Is 


it not? 


UNIDENTIFIED: That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I -- I don't -- yeah. I'm 


not sure there's been any iter-- iteration yet, 


but we're starting to iterate. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, a -- a proposed course 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 

96 

action, if I may take the liberty, would be to 


develop with ORAU from our standpoint -- taking 


the findings and developing what is 


implementable here and in what fashion can we 


implement it. And we feel like this does not 


represent, you know, an undue burden for no 


particular benefit, but as things -- things 


that are -- we feel can be done and -- and are 


worthwhile to do and -- and propo-- and 


essentially come up with that, which is what 


we've done, by and large, with the other 


findings from dose reconstructions and 


procedures. We just haven't gotten to that 


same step on these last three procedures. So 


provide a -- a more detailed description of -- 


of kind of a reso-- you know, a comment or sort 


of response, a resolution comment sort of 


thing. And that point, once we have that 


written down and a -- and a proposed path, then 


I think a conversation with the -- in front of 


the working group or the Board with the people 


most responsible for doing this work and who 


are most knowledgeable about it, that may be 


the time to have that conversation. But -- or 


-- or we can start with that. I mean, 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 

97 

there's no reason for us to have to prepare a ­

- a written document if we want to go into a 


discussion with it. But it would -- we would 


want to schedule specifically for that, I 


think, in -- in the bulk of the day to do that. 


 MS. MUNN: Next working group meeting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I'll tell you, I -- I was 


 MR. GIBSON: (Unintelligible) seven. This is 


Mike again. I can just tell you that I know of 


-- and I know there's, you know, not that many 


cases from Mound, but I know of three specific 


cases of people who've contacted me that have 


just given up on the process and said I -- you 


know, I'm just going to let it go. This is --


this -- this whole process is a joke, this 


whole law's a joke. You know, and I've -- I've 


tried to encourage them not to do that and to 


keep contacting the -- the resource centers and 


everything else. But at least three cases that 


people have just flat given up because they 


don't understand what -- you know, the closeout 


interview and the CATI forms. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I'll tell you my -- I mean 


my heartburn with this is that, you know, 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 

98 

is not a new issue. I mean, this was a -- you 


know, Larry and I had a few back and forths on 


this one. Larry was the Federal Official on 


the Board. And -- and it's gone nowhere and 


like Wanda said, at this point we can't unring 


the bell. So all these interviews have gone 


out and, you know, it -- I don't know that -- 


you know, now -- and -- and as I looked at 


this matrix, when I saw your -- your actions, I 


was already concerned coming into this meeting 


that a lot of things were clarified – eval-- or 


-- or not clarified, evaluated -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Evaluate and consider. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Evaluate and consider, yeah. And 


I highlighted those. I guess you saw that. 


But evaluate and consider. And I'm thinking, 


you know, not only have we been discussing this 


for years, but this matrix has been out for a 


year probably. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: And I'm thinking where are we 


along the way of evaluating and considering. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't want everybody to get 


the opinion the situation has been static for 


three years in terms of how -- how interviews 

1 

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 

are -- are conducted and the attentiveness to 


claimants and -- and the emphasis on -- that 


ORAU has continually emphasized in terms of 


making sure that we're serving the claimants' 


interests by this process. This process was 


put in to -- to serve the claimants' interests, 


and we have to emphasize that. And a series of 


managers, you know -- two project managers and 


two different Task IV managers -- have 


emphasized the need to the Task IV staff to do 


this. And the Task IV staff has undoubtedly 


become more knowledgeable as time has gone on 


about the various sites and things, just from 


working in the program. So it's -- it's -- I 


don't want to leave the characterization here 


that this is -- this issue's been on the table 


since the working group meetings three years 


ago -- or the Board meetings three years ago -- 


and the matrix has been out there for a long 


time and nothing has changed. It certainly 


focuses on the need -- as with all these 


inputs, whether it's from working group or from 


these comments -- have -- have provided 


feedback to us -- continuing feedback about the 


emphasis -- the need to emphasize serving 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 

100 

claimant in this process. So while it's -- I ­

- I do regret that the resolution of the words 


on the page isn't farther along, I don't want 


to leave the impression that really nothing has 


changed or nothing has been done or that the 


message has just been, you know -- has been 


laid there and unheeded for all this time. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: What -- Mark --


 MR. GIBSON: This is Mike again. Again, I'm 


not -- I'm not saying that NIOSH is not trying 


and, you know, I know you -- you know, we've 


all been working and we've all been trying to 


make things better. I -- I'm just trying to 


relay from -- from experience I've had from lay 


people that they just don't understand this 


process. They think it's another -- you know, 


and I don't think we are; I think we're trying 


to do a good job. I think the Board is, I 


think NIOSH is and everyone else. But -- but 


they just think it's another government 


bureaucracy and they just give up. They don't 


understand the terms -- the -- maybe the sites, 


the buildings, whatever -- but they just give 


up. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess I'll -- I'll go 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 

little further then, with the fear of putting 


my foot in it, but I mean -- I -- personally, 


myself, I've had concerns -- ongoing concerns 


that the interviews -- not only the -- not only 


is the -- the questionnaire problematic up 


front, but the interviews have -- have not been 


considered a very important part of the overall 


DR process and -- and are not really used. And 


they fall on deaf ears. And there's evidence 


of this. And -- and I know we've -- and I -- I 


do see that you're making progress on this, 


like the DR -- some of our findings relate to 


the DR report and how you're correcting that to 


address the fact that, you know, if someone 


raised incidents, it didn't fa-- fall on deaf 


ears. Actually, you know, the internal dose 


assigned did actually bound, you know, these 


incidents that -- but when you sta-- you know, 


I think that just -- you know, just the fact 


that, you know, many people go through the 


trouble in their -- in these interview 


processes of identifying coworkers, identifying 


all these incidents and then they get their DR 


report and nothing's mentioned of any of this. 


And the procedure -- I don't -- and this 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 

102 

guess is still being considered, this idea of a 


trigger -- when -- when would you call a 


coworker or contact a coworker or pull coworker 


records to cross-walk a case. You know, four 


or five years into this, I'm not sure there's a 


clear process for that still. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I mean I -- I guess I'll go a 


little further than Mike's -- I -- I believe 


progress has been made but I -- I'm not sure 


that more value couldn't -- couldn't have come 


out of this process. And -- and then the other 


-- I mean -- first of all, I think there -- 


there could be some technical value to it. But 


then the second part is it -- it's critical, in 


terms of communicating with the claimant, that 


you're doing everything that you can to address 


their specific concerns about their exposure. 


It's an individual dose reconstruction, it's 


not a -- you know, when you start getting 


boilerplate responses, people say they didn't 


consider the details I ga-- you know, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I guess I'll get off my -- 


that spot for a 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 

103

 MS. MUNN: But conversely, as true as that is, 


it is also true that, human nature being what 


it is, it's highly unlikely that an individual 


with a probability of causation of 35 would 


ever likely understand fully what that means, 


nor would -- you -- you've all heard me harp on 


this before, that we mislead the public by 


leading them to believe that there is an 


enormous amount of precision, and perhaps they 


have not had all of their information 


incorporated, when the truth of the matter is 


they have been given every conceivable 


additional added dose that anyone could 


possibly dream of in order to give them the 


benefit of every single doubt that's arisen in 


the calculation. And it's -- it's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, at least for the maximizing 


ones, anyway. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, not only just the maximizing 


ones, you know, we --


 MR. GIBSON: Mark, this is Mike. Could I 


respond? With all due respect, Wanda, as I 


stated yesterday -- we may have a different 


audience here today -- but, you know, all I 


heard yesterday was when a worker says 

1 

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 

something it's -- I think Brant used the word 


"alleged". But then when I heard the words 


from these people that worked at Rocky Flats in 


the radiological protection program in various 


capacities and managing -- management 


capacities, you know, that made up basically 


the site profile and everything else. But 


whenever a worker or a claimant says something, 


it's "alleged." And again, you know, and I 


bes-- I stated this yesterday and I'll state it 


again, I've asked how many workers, whether 


they're hourly or salary, not in a management 


capacity, have been used to develop site 


profiles? So, you know, yes, granted, there 


are some cases they -- NIOSH puts an upper 


bound on limits, but in some cases how much are 


these people listened to? And as Mark said, 


how much is their information looked into? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I mean -- I guess my fee-- 


and I don't -- I don't -- you know, the 


efficiency process has its place in this 


program and -- and there is this communication 


problem, certainly. I don't disagree with 


that. But I also think there's probably a 


tendency to screen by cancer -- I -- I mean I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

not sure exactly the efficiency mode but, you 


know, there's obviously a -- probably a 


tendency to screen by cancer type. And if 


someone has a prostate cancer, automatically 


you -- you probably don't even spend much time 


with the incidents and at least it deserves to 


be addressed and say, okay, you know, 


everything here, even if -- even if they're all 


-- let's assume they're all true, we're still 


very bounding in our dose. And -- and then 


that communicated to the -- and we've talked 


about that one. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it's those types of things 


that I think and -- and some, I guess -- at -- 


at least the perception and I -- and I -- you 


know, I don't know that we've seen a lot of 


cases where it looks as though specific things 


have been looked into. So we -- we're still --


although we've been doing most overestimates -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- there have been a 


number of cases that have done that, but of 


course with a hundred or so samples you 


wouldn't necessarily have seen them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. And we're looking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

-- so far we've looked mainly at the 


overestimating and the underestimating, which 


wouldn't necessarily get into that coworker 


interview as a follow-up on incidents or 


anything like that. But I guess, you know, 


some of the responses that we've heard from the 


field from claimants is that they don't feel 


that's being addressed. And you know, it may 


not in every -- in all cases just be a matter 


of adding in some boilerplate language that 


says your incidents are covered by our 12­

nuclide model, you know. Sometimes, like Mike 


said, you know, there is some there there and 


you might look at those incidents and not 


initially believe them, but see -- check into 


it and say, wow, you know, we didn't realize 


that happened at that site, you know, so -- but 


anyway --


 MS. MUNN: Or in cases where the individual 


provides specific information about their job ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- category, perhaps that can be 


highlighted so that the closeout interviewer 


refers to that and the -- the -- claimant does 

1 

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 

not have the sense that they have been ignored 


simply because it was not referred to. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I think there was -- 


this might be a broader problem for the full 


Board but I mean the whole worker outreach 


program, the -- the same question -- all the 


questions that are raised in these worker 


outreach program -- you know, I'm -- I'm 


hearing from people in the field that they're 


saying well, we went through this whole 


process, we went through this whole meeting, we 


raised a lot of questions and it's been 12 


months and the site profile version's the same, 


so we assume nothing's happening with it, you 


know. That's -- that's the question, you know, 


are these things flagged like, you know, if 


they find something specific in these meetings 


or in the individual interviews, flagged and do 


they make a difference in the path forward with 


the DR. And you know, at least a lot of 


people's perception now is that, you know, that 


it -- that's it's not, so... 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, it may be -- you know, 


this -- this -- I think the initial packet and 


what NIOSH promises in that packet in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

context of the CATI -- very important, you 


know. I guess most the interviews are done, 


but whatever remains in that, I think -- I 


think there should be some commitment to 


explain how the dose reconstruction is related 


or not related to the radiological-related 


items in the interview. So -- so that when 


that there is a dose reconstruction report, it 


isn't silent on -- on these items. Just what 


you were saying, that there -- there is a 


bulleted list, you said -- and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And I think -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we didn't do this incident 


because --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- this came up in our cases. 

Right? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And Stu, I believe you made a -- 

a preliminary commitment to modify DR language, 


I think was one of the actions. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I've got a draft on my 


desk. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. So you have 


-- you are considering that, I think. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But I -- but I think 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 

109 

be --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that could be part of this. 


What -- what the claimant knows initially about 


the process is very important because -- I've 


found the same thing, I mean, and it's 


documented in our report that claimants are 


confused about what this means and -- and at 


the end of it, remain confused and then they 


get -- then they get angry because -- and find 


it, you know, the interview process and the 


whole process, meaningless. I think, you know, 


we have -- I certainly have found the same 


kinds of thing that Mike has found at Mound 


echoed in other places as we've interviewed 


people; that -- that this is -- and I think 


NIOSH knows this, that this is a problem. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, certainly it's -- it's 


not new information. I mean we're not hearing 


it here for the first time. And I think that 


we certainly welcome suggestions to improve it. 


I mean, we have a difficult communication path 


-- you know, task. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think everybody will agree 

1 

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 

with that. We're trying to explain a program 


that's not very easily explained to the layman. 


And so certainly I think in the sense that 


these findings and the comments we hear and 


Mike's comments and -- you know, that he 


relates from others -- these are all important 


information to us as we carry out our task in 


terms of how we, you know, emphasize, you know, 


serving the -- serving the claimant in this 


process. The -- an added advantage of written 


re-- findings, specifically on particular parts 


of the procedure, is that that allows us to 


systematically incorporate in our instructions 


-- instructions to our staff, that these are 


the things that need to be considered as you 


deal with this, and these are things that we 


want the claimant -- try to, you know -- 


attempt to -- you know, try and make the 


claimant to understand at various places and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That'll lose you a championship. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll make my comment about that 


later, off the record. But --


 MR. GRIFFON: Please, on the record. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I put the court reporter to 


sleep. 

1 

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 

The -- so I -- I certainly am not trying to say 


that these are not -- it's not worthwhile if 


we've not done it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Quite frankly, you know, my -- 


my statement about prioritization is that 


there's a lot of big chunks of work in front of 


us, and this contract only has about another 


year before their contract's over, and we have 


a lot of big chunks of work to wrap up. And so 


sometimes things that have a, you know -- you 


know, actually relatively small payoff or -- 


the ORAU contract -- if they're only going to 


interview for another year, and that's an if -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but the current contract 


ends in September of next year, and they have 


all these other chunks of -- and -- and there's 


not a big interview load in front of them, and 


there's all these other chunks of work which 


they have to get done in that year, this -- 


these activities, these fixes, in terms of 


formalizing the instruction -- you know, we 


always en-- we always verbally enforce it -- 


and -- and reinforce to our staff that you have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

to, you know, make sure you're serving the 


claimant in these interviews. But in terms of 


the effort needed to formalize these 


instructions, I've got to say, you know, 


probably will -- has not been prioritized as 


highly as some other items. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Now the Board -- the working group 


or --


 MR. GIBSON: Stu, if --


 DR. WADE: -- the Board can speak to that. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- I could just say this. Being 


an ex-union president, I would just say that 


hearing from these people about how they're 


confused about the program, I seriously 


considered resigning from the Board and going 


to help these claimants. I mean, that's -- 


that's how serious this matter is. I -- you 


know, if ORAU spent -- received from the 


government I don't how many hundred thousands 


of dollars, and people don't realize how 


serious this is, you know -- again, I don't 


want to see people that don't -- that didn't 


receive exposures that caused their illness, I 


don't want to see them receive compensation. 

1 

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 

But those that did, I certainly do. And I mean 


it's that serious to me. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's a good point. 


That's a good point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: As we think through this I -- I 


mean there might be some things in here, Stu, 


that -- that, as Mike's suggesting, are -- are 


pretty serious priorities and maybe some that 


are lesser, you know, because so many in-- 


interviews have been done already, maybe 


certain procedural, you -- you know, changes 


might not be as important, but the DR language 


and -- and maybe OCAS form one, you know, 


that's -- that's your interface with the public 


and that might be more -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- a higher priority. So you 


know, I understand what you're saying, you 


know. You got a lot of -- a load of work 


ahead and have to consider this in the overall 


priorities, but --


 DR. WADE: But -- but you know, the -- the 


working group can speak to NIOSH -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- about its priorities. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: And you know -- and -- and I'm sure 


NIOSH will heed the working group's guidance. 


So if, as you -- as you complete this, you 


would like to give NIOSH some guidance on the 


relative priority of this to other things, then 


please do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that's what -- we even tried 


with OCAS-IG-1 -- we tried to -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sort of do that with, you 


know, this is a low priority -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- format and stuff like that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- is obviously low priority, so 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so we could certainly attempt 


that going forward. I -- to get back to the 


matrix, I was wondering -- you know, I think 


maybe if we can get back to a path forward on 


this. Do we need to -- to put a -- an action 


in here that NIOSH is going to revise as 


necessary? Maybe we -- we qualify it slightly, 

1 

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 

but I -- I don't know that we -- we can answer 


all these questions today, is my point. But I 


think I want to have an action in there that -- 


that holds it so that we move it forward and -- 


and we don't -- we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and then maybe the next 


workgroup session we can all consider which 


ones are high or medium or low priority amongst 


these actions and have a more -- more -- 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps it's reasonable to move this 


one up as much as the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: As much as I hate to move -- 


 DR. WADE: Right, I wouldn't -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: As much as I hate to push it 


along again, I -- I don't think we're going to 


resolve all these --


 DR. WADE: But -- but you could take a general 


sense -- and again, I don't want to put words 


in your mouth, but I'm hearing a sense of the 


working group that in all matters that -- that 


deal with NIOSH's interaction with the claimant 


or petitioner population, this working group 


wants NIOSH to focus it -- focus its attention 


in terms of the procedures comments on -- 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 

116 

those issues, and I would think that at the 


next meeting NIOSH can demonstrate that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Again, you have to talk about that, 


but I certainly get that sense from Mike's 


comments. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we've -- we've 


talked about it, you know, and -- 


 MS. MUNN: I think that's reasonable. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Anything that -- the 


interface with the claimants or the public is 


certainly higher priority. 


 MS. MUNN: Need to move up. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Mark, I --


 MR. PRESLEY: Excuse me. This is Bob Presley. 


It's not -- not just NIOSH, too. I think the 


Department of Labor -- we've got the same 


problem with their -- their reports. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: In fact, I think that we've got 


more of a problem with the Dep -- with the 


stuff coming from the Department of Labor than 


we do with NIOSH. I'm getting a whole lot more 

1 

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 

complaints about -- about Labor than I am 


anything about NIOSH. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that's come to the Board's 


attention, too, and actually Mike's raised a 


few good points on that -- brought in sample 


letters of that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But what -- that's not really our 


purview, but you know, yeah. 


We -- can I ask -- I think you had a comment? 


 MR. GERLACH: Yeah. Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Hold on, Mike, one second. We 


got a comment from --


 MR. GERLACH: Frank Gerlach. One of the things 


I think you -- you need to do where you -- you 


know that 60-day letter, or 60 days they have 


to do something -- I believe they have the 


opportunity to ask to be put on hold, and 


they're not notified of that. I think the 


regulations provide it, if they're actively 


seeking some additional information that would 


affect the -- the dose. And if you could work 


that language into there, I think the due 


process would be greatly helped. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank 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 

118

 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you for the comment, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a helpful comment. Thank 


you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- very much. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark? Maybe -- it -- it might 


be helpful if I -- there are a few items that I 


think, within the limitations of what Stu has 


talked about, at least for the short term, that 


possibly could be changed that could be of 


great importance. At least, you know, from 


having done -- done the review of the 


procedures I can -- and talked to Hans and 


Kathy who've done all these audits and looked 


over some of their stuff -- perhaps give you a 


little bit of a sense of the few items that I 


think are -- are important that -- that could 


make a material difference in terms of the 


actual substance and -- and the public 


confidence in this thing. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And -- and I think this 


introductory package is really important. 
I 


don't think it will take a significant change, 


but I think what is in there and what 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 

119 

claimant knows in the beginning before the 


interview, what they're told -- and for the big 


sites, to really assign the interviewers with 


some -- with some care about what they know 


about the site and the site profile, as -- as 


Mike was saying -- this -- this, I think -- 


this -- this could -- maybe not a lot -- I 


don't know how much work it takes inside ORAU, 


but from -- from the implementability point of 


view, that might not take very long. 


The second item is --


 DR. WADE: Just to stop you for a minute. Is ­

- are your comments captured in the 


acknowledgments packet? Is that what we're 


talking about? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, this first --


 DR. WADE: The acknowledgment packet. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: The first comment in this 


acknowledgment package that -- and the in-- 


introductory letter and what happens in the 


beginning of the interview -- so -- 04 and the 


beginning of the interview process -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Not -- not the questions that ­

- that the public answers. 

1 

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 

The second piece is the trigger for coworker 


interviews. I think that can be -- I've 


thought about this a lot, and I think that that 


can be, at least as a minimal trigger, greatly 


simplified in that for survivor claimants, or 


for claimants who cannot answer questions 


themselves because they are -- employee 


claimants because they are too sick and somebo­

- a survivor or relative is answering for them, 


if a claimant -- a survivor claimant is going 


to be denied, and they have gone through the 


trouble of naming coworkers, I think a coworker 


interview should be mandatory and it should be 


documented. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Oh, bless you. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And it should be provided -- it 


should be provided to the claimant, because I 


think NIOSH has acknowledged that there is an 


inequity -- it's manifest. You can't -- you 


can't bring the employee back from the grave. 


It is -- it's -- it's not an equal playing 


field. But this one thing can be done to make 


it less unequal and -- and I think -- and I 


think it should -- it should be done. I don't 


think it needs a change in the interview 

1 

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 

procedure; it needs a change in the DR form, 


that you name co -- these coworkers -- this is 


why we didn't interview them in your case and 


this is why -- at the time we did this review I 


think only maybe ten or a dozen coworker 


interviews had ever been done until Jan-- until 


January, 2005. And -- and so the DR report 


would need to be changed. 


And the last big item is I do think the 


coworker interview needs to be -- the closeout 


interview needs to be carefully documented and 


any information provided in the closeout 


interview should be cross-walked with the CATI. 


Because when -- when the -- when the person is 


providing the inter-- interview -- in the 


closeout interview new information about -- 


that may affect dose reconstruction, or it may 


already have been there in the CATI and hasn't 


been used, it's really important for the dose 


reconstructor and for NIOSH to know that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Isn't the closeout interview 


documented already? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- it's -- might 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 

122 

related to the phone log, but I mean it would 


need -- it may need some specific assistance in 


the, you know, the categories of things you 


think should be documented there. Th-- they 


are documented in the phone log. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Documented that you -- that you 


had one or --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think they're documented in 


the sense that it happened. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, just that it happened, or -- 


no? Notes from the call, yeah. 


 MR. MCFEE: No, there is extensive, extensive 


notes from the call, generally cut and pasted 


from Word into the phone log. We can get you 


copies of th--


 DR. WADE: Right, but Arjun's point is that it 


needs to be scripted in a way that the -- the 


right interactions are made -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- and presented to the claimants. 


So we -- we understand. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And just in case anybody's 


interested, if there's information presented in 


the closeout that is different than the 


assumptions during the dose reconstruction, 

1 

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 

then the dose reconstruction is redone. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We have a whole loop for that. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Have you reviewed the -- the 


close-- SC&A, have you guys reviewed closeout 


interview logs? 


UNIDENTIFIED: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I assume in some of the cases 


we've looked at those -- no? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Because they're -- they're on the 


-- they're on the case --


 MR. HINNEFELD: They're on the phone log part. 


They're in the AR -- in the AR for the case -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and in the phone log part. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I have a 


question. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think that might be 


worthwhile looking at prior to our next 


interaction on this issue. Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Don't you all have a process 


where somebody identifies a coworker, that 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 

124 

all already go and check and see if we have 


anything on that coworker, interviews or -- or 


anybody that's on that coworker list has had a 


dose review or anything like that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Doesn't necessarily happen. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's not necessarily a 


routine thing. 


 MS. MUNN: There wouldn't be a reason to do 


that if you have information on the worker. If 


you have the worker's record, then there's no 


reason why you would. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, but I mean there was -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that --


 MR. PRESLEY: If they -- if they list 


coworkers, though --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- right up front. 


 MS. MUNN: So you wouldn't need that if you had 


the worker's record. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Calli-- calling a cowork -- if 


we -- you know, the -- the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that -- that's why we -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- just speaking 


hypothetically, just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's why we talked about 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 

125 

triggers. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Just --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean you may not need it, but 


what triggers it? What should trigger it, you 


know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- just talking. I'm not 


making decisions --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or advocating a position 


here, but a co-- if we're going to have a 


coworker interview, it should be for a purpose, 


you know. We shouldn't just call them and ask 


them the entire CATI about Joe Smith who says 


he was your coworker. We -- we -- you know, 


and so you -- if you're going to make that -- 


these triggers then almost have to be in what 


circumstances will it be helpful? Now 


certainly a survivor -- a survivor claimant is 


at a disadvantage in term-- in terms of telling 


what happened at the site and knowledge of the 


site and knowledge of things exposed -- it may 


be that, you know, we know the radionuclides 


that were present at the site. We've 


interviewed 500 other people, 500 energy 


employee claimants from that site, and 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 

126 

information and we've captured that information 


or through our research and it's in the site 


profile so we know what -- what they were 


exposed to. We may know about the site 


practices. We may know that it was accepted 


practice to take your badge off and -- and 


shield it so that you didn't get timed out. 


You know, there may be some things like that. 


So when -- so when you start -- I'm -- I'm 


really struggling with -- with the concept of a 


trigger for a survival -- for a survivor 


interview when in fact the survivor interview 


is -- you know, it's really for a specific 


purpose, you know. I was involved in this 


event and so was Joe Smith and I don't think 


it's in my record, and sure enough it's not in 


his record, and you call Joe Smith and he says, 


yeah, we did that and whatever ever reason they 


don't show up on our film badge -- I mean, 


that's -- that's a pretty extreme example, but 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you -- you almost have to 


call him for a purpose --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Oh, I agree. I agree. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: So when we say coworker 


interviews should be done, it's not quite as 


simple as saying you can have cer-- you can 


have a threshold for a coworker interview. You 


know, it's a little more complicated than just 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think the trigger -- I -- I 


didn't suggest that this trigger proc-- process 


would be like one -- one trigger. I think 


there's a -- you know, sort of a -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sort of a ser-- a logic 


pathway. 


 MR. GRIFFON: If this -- if this/then this -- 


yeah, a logic --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sort of a logic pathway. I 


see. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: And there's two parts -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's kind of what I was 


envisioning anyway. 


 DR. WADE: There's a logic pathway. But then 


Arjun is saying, if the logic pathway takes you 


not to conduct a coworker interview, then you 


should present the logic for that to the 


individual who gave you the 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 

128

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. That would be the dose 


reconstructor. 


 DR. WADE: -- since we didn't do that 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that would be in the DR 


report, yeah. Yeah, we -- we -- you know, you 


did identify individuals; however, we didn't 


need to contact them, because -- 


 DR. MAURO: The difficulty with -- and -- and 


certainly that makes sense, but I think that 


the last time we discussed this, the reason the 


coworker interviews were not as prevalent as 


your -- it was because you didn't -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Maximizing. 


 DR. MAURO: -- the maximizing approach, and I ­

- and I have to say, it's going to be one 


difficult time to try to explain -- in other 


words, as though -- as you had just mentioned ­

- well, the reason we didn't follow up on your 


recommended coworkers is because we used this 


maximizing approach which uses these 12 


radionucli-- you know, and -- and then you're 


down into this position where you -- where it's 


going to get worse. It's not going to get 


better. So it's almost as if we've got 

1 

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 

ourselves --


 MR. GRIFFON: I hate to give up before we try. 


 DR. MAURO: -- an un-- un-- yeah. Yeah. 


Right. Now -- but then -- then there's, so -- 


from the point of view of the -- there's the 


other side of the questions. Do you perform a 


coworker interview? Do you open up a dialogue 


because you're more concerned with a bedside 


manner issue; that is, you're trying to create 


peace of mind. What I'm hearing is really that 


your -- your objective is to get factual 


information that's going to allow you to do the 


best job you possibly can do in your dose 


reconstruction --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the way we've behaved 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. MAURO: -- and that's the way it's been 


designed, and I can understand that. But what 


I'm hearing at the same time is that one of the 


unanticipated consequences of going down that 


path is the cre-- is the creation of some 


degree of alienation, because that process does 


not always lend itself to developing confidence 


and a -- and a sense, you know, that yes, I am 


being treated as a human being, I -- 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 

130 

someone out there who cares about it. So I 


think that we have thi-- a situation that is -- 


perhaps we -- we could strike a balance 


someplace where we optimize, but I do think we 


have conflicting objectives that are not easily 


resolved entirely. Certainly we have to get 


the information we need to do the dose 


reconstruction, but unfortunately, I think, to 


date, in so doing I think it's possible that 


the bedside manner side of the equation -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I --


 DR. MAURO: -- has been -- has not been tended 


to. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think they're 


incongruous, if that's the right word. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- I think that -- you 


know, from the claimant's standpoint, they want 


to know that you've considered their specific 


information. But if you didn't -- if you had 


no reason, I think they wou-- and -- but it's 


not in the report right now, or -- or it wasn't 


in the older reports -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- an explanation that, 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 

131 

you provided all these specifics, but here's 


why we didn't need to go down that path with 


your particular case. We had your specific 


dosimetry; we had -- you know --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. We -- we don't -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- comment on coworker. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- with thi-- this maximizing 


issue it does get -- it can get complicated -- 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I think it can be done and 


I don't think that they would -- you know, I 


don't think that we should -- I -- I -- at 


least personally, I don't feel that we should 


ask the program to interview coworkers just for 


the sake of being able to say to the claimant 


that yeah, we checked with these coworkers and 


we verified that you worked at K-25, you know? 


It had nothing to do with your dose 


reconstruction report, but there you go. 


DR. MAURO: We did it any-- we did it anyway. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, isn't that good bedside 


manner. I mean that's -- 


 DR. MAURO: I -- I understand, yeah. 


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

132 

useful at all. 


 MS. MUNN: No, and as a matter of fact, there 


are even privacy issues that are involved 


there, that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- you don't want to get into that 


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


think that --


 MS. MUNN: -- unless you have to. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think Stu's stated policy is 


good, that -- that you do it when you need to 


do it for the purposes of the individual dose 


reconstruction. Now the -- the question is, 


with survivors, I think you -- you get into the 


question of do you know enough about that 


person's job history, because you're not -- 


Arjun's point is that when you're interviewing 


the survivor they're likely not to know much 


about that person's job history. And then, 


you know, is there a different trigger on those 


survivor claims that says, you know, geez, we 


have sketch-- real sketchy dosimetry 


information on this person -- 


 MR. GIBSON: This -- this is Mike -- 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: -- all we know about them is that 


they worked at that plant. Maybe we need to 


interview a coworker and find out more about 


what -- what this individual did, you know? Go 


ahead, Mike. 


 MR. GIBSON: I just want to make sure that 


we're not getting confused here and -- and, you 


know,-- I know I've got us off subject, but I 


originally started talking about living 


claimants that have a potential case that don't 


understand the process, not necessarily the 


coworkers or their survivors -- which are 


important, but I'm -- I was just talking about 


claimants themselves that don't understand this 


process. 


And secondly, I just -- you know, I want to 


agree with Mr. Presley that, you know, I'm not 


criticizing NIOSH. It's DOL, it's the whole 


structure of the process that has had -- that 


has claimants confused and giving up when, you 


know, they may or may not have a legitimate 


case to file. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, we -- we got that point, 


Mike. I guess we were going down that path 


because Arjun was going down some specific 

1 

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 

recommendations on ways to modify some of these 


procedures. And that's why we got into the 


coworker question. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, some -- some -- sorry, 


Mike. Go ahe--


 MR. GIBSON: No. No, I'm done. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: In regard to -- in regard to 


the specific case of survivor claimants who are 


going to be denied, let me just kind of -- 


because I have thought about this a lot. The 


-- they cannot talk about incidents. Generally 


they don't know about radionuclides. Very 


often they don't know about processes. So you 


-- you read the interview forms and most of it 


is "don't know," even though the interview form 


is minimal compared to the employee interview 


form. I think in that -- unless you have an 


extraordinarily complete record for this record 


for this worker, you don't know that they 


haven't been involved in spills, 'specially 


when you've got workers from the 40's, 50's and 


60's, when the documentation on-site is -- we 


know is more sparse than in later times. 

1 

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 

You've -- you've got a situation where I feel 


you cannot be confident, as a dose 


reconstructor, that when you apply the 12 or 


the high five, that you're actually doing a 


good dose reconstruction. You don't know that. 


We -- we --


UNIDENTIFIED: Question. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- we saw that at Mallinckrodt, 


that I -- I personally have looked at cases 


where the 12 from Hanford were applied to 


Mallinckrodt cases, and when we actually got 


into the details of the actiniums and the 


protactiniums, I felt -- and we did write in 


the report -- that if you go back and redo 


those things, you may actually find a higher 


dose than what NIOSH was confident could not be 


exceeded under a maximum dose reconstruction. 


And I think if there is not -- if there's not 


some kind of -- when the -- when the survivor 


has gone through the trouble of finding a 


coworker, if there's not an interview process 


that -- that -- by which NIOSH can be sure that 


-- that they haven't -- otherwise, NIOSH has to 


certify that this is a complete dose 


reconstruction file and we have not -- we don'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 

136 

see the need for a coworker interview because 


we've got every film badge record and we know 


that there were no incidents in which this 


worker was involved -- which are not documented 


-- I think that is a very, very high bar from 


whatever I know about the program. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I still think this falls 


into that whole logic tree of triggers that I 


was, you know, sort of -- from an action 


standpoint, I think it's -- it kind of falls 


under that category. But I -- I mean to -- to 


be -- I -- I hear your point, Arjun, but I'm 


wondering if -- trying to think of some of the 


AWE site where you would say that for all 


workers we're applying this model and -- I 


think this is a big and -- but it's -- and they 


-- they -- on-line training? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yep. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and there's -- in the -- 


in your process of doing the Bethlehem Steel 


you've interviewed 20 or so workers at the site 


and therefore, you know -- so in that case do 


you still think each survivor should have a 


coworker interview done if they've identified a 


coworker? I'm just -- just probing you 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 

137 

point a little bit, I guess. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. I -- I'm not sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean Bethlehem Steel is a 


kind of very stripped down case where there's ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: But there's a lot of those AWEs 


that fall into that category, that's why I ask. 


Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Yeah. Yes, that's true. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So maybe not for every co-- you 


know. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. Let --


 MR. GRIFFON: So let's ask for some kind of 


logic to that trigger, I think, is what we're ­

-


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- let me just say that if -- 


at the -- at the end of the day, there is a 


subst-- it's not a bedside manner question, in 


my mind. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: There's a substance issue 


involved. And before you get to get to the 


convincing the survivor, I think the substance 


issue's got to be settled. At 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 -- 

138 

day, is NIOSH sure that it has sufficient 


information that the number that it has -- 


either on a best case or a maximum case -- is 


truly what has been promised in the regulation 


and the law. And I'm not confident that 


currently that -- that is always the case, and 


I've given you a specific example of that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Right. Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: The -- even in the maximum 


case. Once that is done, then you can 


represent that. So this -- this coworker 


interview process has to be -- so, okay, you've 


interviewed 20 workers and you've got the 


rolling part of it, and you've got the cooling 


bed part of it, and the shearing part of it, 


and you've got the cobbling part of it; okay. 


So you -- you've -- we've done that actually 


for Bethlehem Steel. We've got all of these 


interviews and I think that that can be 


explained, that your husband or your father 


worked at the rollers, and we have that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we've interviewed some people 


that -- yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and we have these interviews 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Interviewed coworkers. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that fulfill the same 


function --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- as the person whose name you 


gave us. And I don't think -- I don't think a 


person at the other end would take it amiss 


that that -- you know, Joe Smith wasn't called, 


but --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the only reason I pointed 


that out --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, no, I think that's right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- because it could be -- yeah. 


Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: But some-- someth--


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think still the action is 


probably that this coworker trigger question 


that you might consider -- and it's clearly a 


sort of logic tree approach, I guess. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I -- I can just -- it 


just seems problematic to me, but I mean I'm 


not saying it can't be done. But I'm saying it 


will be difficult to come up with a logic path 


that -- in -- in a lot of cases. But maybe 


not. Maybe -- maybe I'm just being 

1 

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 

pessimistic. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean you -- you have any 


problems right now that you want to identify or 


you want to just think on it and report back? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's -- it's more of -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- more of a gut feeling. I'm 


try-- well, if we're going to ask -- you know, 


I -- I would guess since we will have a 


particular set of things to ask a coworker, 


because you really -- I mean, you'd call for a 


reason, you're essentially then customizing 


each one, you know -- or maybe not. May-- if 


you have -- if it's not a custom interv-- if it 


is -- if it's not a custom interview, if it's a 


standard interview, then -- and we ask more 


than nine, then we have to have an OMB approval 


on a coworker interfor-- interview form. If, 


you know, there are --


 MR. GRIFFON: You've got coworker interviews 


now, to date, haven't you? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, but you know, they were 


in a sense a -- custom coworker interviews, you 


know, for a particular issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. But how would that 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 

141 

I don't think we're asking for a different -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So you're asking -- but these 


are custom, and you're asking for a custom 


interview --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- on every survivor claim, 


which is half the claims. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And they only -- and -- and they 


only would be done for the purposes of 


answering a question, as -- as you -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I don't think it's different 


than your stated policy. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just -- I'm just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm struggling with it, will we 


find all the triggers. You know, will we -- 


will have a --


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- coherent --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'm just thinking -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- ahead of time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Will we be able to foresee the 


-- the things that are going to say well, 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 

142 

this sh--


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- should be done in this case. 


And then -- and again, there -- and, as you've 


alluded to, there are a lot of cases that, on 


the face of them, are not going to be 


successful and we just aren't going to be able 


to make them successful. People who have short 


employment periods, short or a non-ex-- or 


almost non-existent latency periods, and cer -- 


and a -- and a radiation-resistant cancer, you 


can't find out enough stuff to make that case 


compensable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so there are certain cases 


where it kind of drops off. I -- I'm sorry, it 


just does. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I -- I think that that -- 


you know, this information is held in a kind of 


a closed way by the cognoscenti of the program. 


All of us who do numbers and sit in meetings 


know that prostate cancers almost never get 


compensated. And you know, I've broached this 


subject in -- in private with -- with some of 


the people --

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- that I think that the public 


ought to know that, that prostate cancers, from 


the way the law is written, and -- and Dr. Wade 


testified to this -- to this effect -- that, 


you know, many people get denied, not -- not 


because NIOSH is-- isn't good -- doing a good 


job, it's from the way the law is written; that 


if you have to have a 50 percent or more PC and 


given the nature of the best we know about 


radiation, prostate cancers are almost never 


going to be compensated. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And I think this is a simple 


truth that the public does not know. And --


 MS. MUNN: But if you're going to give that 


truth, then you need to also give the truth of 


what the actual epidemiological evidence is. 


And I know everybody fights that. No, no, this 


is not an epidemiological study. I know it's 


not a study, but the truth is, if -- and I'm 


unsure of what the exact percentage is, but my 


memory is that it's well over 60 percent of all 


males over the age of 60 have some form of 


prostate cancer. 

1 

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

 MR. SHARFI: Proportional to your age. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. And -- and if that's the 


case, then if we're going to on the one hand 


say we can't provide you compensation for this 


because the law says this, then we must also on 


the other hand, to be fair, say however, in 


point of fact, the reality is, you probably -- 


given the statistical realities that exist in 


the world today, you can't -- there's no way 


that one can say your employment had anything 


to do with this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess you read further in 


tha-- into that than I did, but I -- I mean -- 


just to say we can't because of the law, I -- I 


guess I see your point. I mean --


 MS. MUNN: That's not what I --


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think the law -- I don't 


think the law's wrong in that, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: No, but -- but --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean prostate cancers probably 


should not be 'cause they're less radio-


sensitive. At least the evidence is -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to date, says that, 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 

145

 DR. MAKHIJANI: If there's a probability of 


causation test --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and this is -- so this is 


sort of outside of our purview -- so long as 


that test is there, then it is from the -- it 


is from the general occurrence of prostate 


cancer that that probability of cancer is so 


difficult --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- to exceed 50 percent. So 


actually, what you're saying complements -- is 


-- it isn't opposed --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- to what I was saying or 


what's in the law. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I agree with Stu. I 


think you need -- I mean, I think we need to 


consider this moving forward, if -- if a 


trigger can work, or what -- what type of logic 


can be consi--


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we can certainly take 


a look at it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- because I can see some 


pitfalls 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 

146

 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, I'm not saying we're 


not going to do it -- I'm just, I'm -- maybe 


I'm just a pessimist --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'm not sure how -- how 


exactly the program uses POC triggers, either, 


'cause I think that's a dicey little area -- 


because NIOSH is not in the business of 


estimating P-- or calculating POCs. Right? 


That's DOL. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: DOL makes the determination of 


POC but we certainly --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. So how you screen on POC, 


and --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we--


 MR. GRIFFON: -- how you write that up in your 


procedure, I think --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- if -- if you include that -- 


go ahead. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in -- it's in, kind of, 


Procedure 6 and --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it is. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a categorization -- 


yeah, we do it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

147

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know -- and do it from 


accumulated knowledge of whether a case is -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this looks like this is 


almost surely a pay-- I mean there's plenty of 


case -- long -- long exposure to actinides in a 


lung cancer --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, that's -- that's 


going to be easy; short -- short exposure and 


-- or -- short --


 MR. GRIFFON: So, I agree, I mean -- I agree 


with --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- short latency period and 


most solid tumors, that's -- or -- you know, or 


not -- not metabolic type of tumors are not 


going to be, you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: My sense -- my sense is that in 


writing a logic pattern for the triggers, I 


think you're right -- we're not going to -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we're going to 


foresee everything. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Up front -- up front you're 


probably not going to foresee everything, 


right. I mean you're not going to get all 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 

148 

what-ifs. I mean, the AWE one that I just 


brought up, I think there's good rationale for 


-- for probably not interviewing all coworkers 


from survivors because you've already 


interviewed a bunch for Bethlehem, you know. 


That's one example. And then -- but you're not 


going to foresee all the -- you know, but -- 


 DR. WADE: But the fact that you're not going 


to foresee them all is -- is not a reason to 


not strive. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Doesn't mean you can't -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to not try. Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. Exactly. That's my 


point. 


 DR. WADE: The instruction is clear that the 


working group would like to see NIOSH explore 


this issue of triggers that would require that 


we follow up on coworker interviews. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: And in the case of survivors, we 


expect that to be much more of a hair trigger. 


We expect that -- the test to be -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Easier on a survivor claimant. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 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 

149

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And that's what -- and NIOSH 


needs to come back to the working group and say 


here is our thought on this, and then the 


working group can --


 MR. GRIFFON: Now -- now, generally -- again, I 


don't want to cut Arjun off, but generally what 


I've done with the action here is to say that 


in most of these -- and I'll re-send my matrix 


one more time on this -- but most of them are 


now going to say NIOSH will modify procedures 


and policies as appropriate. SC&A will review. 


The trigger one I'm going to -- some of the 


specific ones we had in there, I'll leave those 


as -- as written before. But some of the ones 


that before just said, for instance, for SC&A 


to review Proc 90 and 92, I think we've 


realized that -- that wasn't really 


appropriate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm -- I'm replacing it with 


just kind of a "NIOSH will modify procedures 


and policies as appropriate" -- that qualifies 


it big time --


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

150

 MR. GRIFFON: -- "and SC&A will review" -- and 


we'll move this forward, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause my intent is to close 


this --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- procedures review out. I mean 


we really need to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This would be -- right -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to move on to the procedures 


that are being used in the program. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This would be a step after -- 


after CATI. You were saying -- I like what you 


said, "modify procedures and -- and policies" 


because -- we don't want to specify which one 


because it may be something we write -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that occurs after the CATI 


step. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, realistically, that's 


where it would occur --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- is after the CATI step where 


you'd run through these triggers-- 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: So --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to determine whether to do a 


coworker interview. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay? And then -- go 


ahead. 


 MS. MUNN: We have to be realistic. You know, 


as much as we would like to mechanize 


everything that we do and say here's the jump-


off point, here's where you do this, here's 


where you don't do this, this alone tells us 


how impossible that is. We -- you know -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah. And the other -- the 


 MS. MUNN: -- we're making -- we're doing our 


best to try to do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. I agree. 


 MS. MUNN: But in point of fact, what it 


comes down to is everyone involved in this 


process at some juncture has to use their best 


technical judgment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, and there's -- there's ways 


to -- I just -- I'm glad you brought up that 


point, 'cause there's way -- in those triggers, 


I think there's ways procedurally -- and you 


guys do this for a living more than I do, 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 

152 

mean the -- the -- or the DR or -- can be 


shall, should, and may, you know? I mean you 


can have different levels of -- so it's -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's a little fuzzier. I mean 


I, you know -- we don't -- we -- you know, 


'cause -- 'cause of just the situations that 


Stu is describing, I think we're not going to 


foresee everything so we may have to, you know, 


certainly consider some softer language in 


those triggers that, you know -- but you know, 


I think we need to at least attempt that and 


move forward with that. And as -- as Lew said, 


probably a -- more of a hair trigger with the 


survivors. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: More of a hair trigger. Arjun, 


did you have other sp-- specifics that we -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, I think --


 MR. GRIFFON: Because I think we're almost -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I think I've mentioned 


the most important things -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- from -- from the review. 


The -- the four things. And I think the rest 

1 

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 

is detail -- either detail or would require 


modification of the CATI form, which -- I don't 


know how you want to proceed with that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we still have the -- we 


still have that in there as a recommendation -- 


"NIOSH to consider the -- the modification of 


the for--," the CATI questionnaire itself. 


Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It -- it's in there, and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it's something that we 


might -- you know, we can do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can carry tha-- as much as I 


didn't like the fuzzy language, I think we can 


carry that forward to consider. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I wouldn't -- I would like 


perhaps a little instruction. I don't know if 


we can get this today, but maybe from the 


workgroup or SC&A, we were given an example of 


a preferable interview that was the Y-12 


berylliosis or beryllium interview. And -- and 


I'm puzzled by the -- the more desirable 


features. You know, why -- what about that 


form -- I -- I've read -- I've read the 


questionnaire. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: What about that questionnaire 


is better than the CATI questionnaire? You 


know, what is it that -- and I'm just not a -- 


maybe I'm just not an interview person, but I ­

- I read it, and it looked a lot like the CATI 


interview to me, except of course it was 


specific to Y-12. And it could be a lot -- you 


know, it could have details about what 


buildings you were in and stuff -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause it was specific to Y12. But I -- I didn't -- other than that, I 


didn't see the advantage. And I got -- I 


brought some examples, if anybody wants to take 


it with them and let me know what the ad-- 


advantage of that interview is over a CATI. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, maybe if you have the 


examples, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And in fact, the dose 


reconstruction -- our –- our-- 


 MR. GRIFFON: You can share those with us and 


we can consider it at the next meeting, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- our Task IV and our do-- you 


know, work with the communicators, 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 

155 

now I'm losing everything -- 


 MS. MUNN: I didn't take it, I swear. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the communicators and the 


dose reconstructors probably have some ideas 


about things that might be worthwhile to ask in 


a CAT-- or maybe there are some things in the 


CATI now that really don't ever yield any 


benefit. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So maybe we can -- we'll carry 


that action -- we'll carry that action forward, 


and when we have it on the next time we'll get 


some of the people that are doing it in the 


room with us and we can discuss that 


specifically. Right? Arjun? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: In regard to the -- in regard 


to the Y-12 beryllium interview, this is 


something that I'd like Kathy DeMers to address 


because she had a lot of experience with that 


and we -- as you know, we did this -- this 


piece of the Task II report together, and I 


think one of the things, for example, was she 


was saying, you know, when you interview 


somebody in person it makes a lot of 


difference. And we realize it was a telephone 


interview --

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- and I think they did in-


person interviews and they had a little bit 


more free form. Fro-- from the -- from my own 


review of the CATI, which -- which was in a -- 


in a different realm rather than the process, 


it -- it related to the substance of things 


that are not in there, which are on page 205 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- of our Task III report. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and I believe what we 


said in our response was sounds like there's 


some pretty good suggestions here; we ought to 


take this back and evaluate, you know, if we 


want to do this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So -- so those -- I would 


suggest sort of a two-track resolution of that, 


whether the -- about what to do with the CATI 


form. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: One is let me consult with -- 


with Kath-- Kathy and have either her or me get 


back to you about this particular form and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, just --


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- so she can explain to 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 

157 

her view of this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, what's the aspect of this 


that's better than the CATI interview -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause I'm -- maybe I'm just 


not a very good interviewer -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I -- I don't recall -- I don't 


recall our discussion from about two years ago 


about -- about this thing so I want -- so I 


want her to tell you, but there is this sort of 


very specific item, no question about food, no 


question about overtime. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I mean if these could be 


thought about --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- in terms of expanding the 


CATI form -- modifying it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And there are -- it's quite a bit 


of experience from the medical surveillance 


programs, too, and every program has their 


different questionnaires. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, some are probably 


consistent with what you have; some might 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 

158 

different. But I mean -- you know, my 


experience in that program is that I get more 


valuable information with regard to work 


practices and/or buildings and operations and 


processes than radionuclide or chemical 


checklists, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's difficult--


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but anyway, the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we can continue on that path 


and SC&A will share their information with you 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and go forward. 


 DR. WADE: The only procedural thing is we need 


to break for lunch by 12:30. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was going to say 12:30. 


I think we need to take five in a few minutes. 


 DR. WADE: Right. They're going to shift -- 


they're going to shift rooms when we break. 


There's been a confusion in terms of the rooms, 


but we just move down two doors. But if we do 


that by 12:30, we're fine. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Are we -- did we 


cover everything in these -- so -- so I'll -- 


I'll send the new matrix, but a lot of these 


items now are going to have that -- that NIOSH 


will recons-- or will consider the policy and 


procedures and SC&A will review them, so we're 


going to sort of carry this task -- or this 


review forward and not jump off into 90 and 92. 


It doesn't make sense. 


 DR. MAURO: No. We'll -- we'll pull the plug 


on that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll stick with these specific 


issues, yeah. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: We're pulling the plug on 90 and 92 


for the time being. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right? 


 DR. WADE: Just for my general information, 


this acknowledgment pack and a revised 


attachment to CATI letter, has that -- are we 


in the process of reviewing what NIOSH has 


prepared? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're -- we're --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160

 DR. WADE: Or is it not prepared? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not prepared. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. It's not final. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a product that's not -- 


not -- we're not ready to share it with the 


Board. I mean -- it -- we'll share it with the 


Board --


 MR. GRIFFON: But when it is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- when it's absolutely final, 


but we want to have a product we're happy with. 


 DR. WADE: When it is, you'll share it with 


SC&A so that's--


 MR. HINNEFELD: And if the -- see, that was the 


acknowledgment packet -- and the attachment to 


the CATI letter is -- has been done. That was 


-- that issue had to do with -- there was sort 


of some coercive language on -- this was the 


CATI introduction letter. You know, we -- 


we're going to interview you, and there was an 


attachment on there that kind of said that 


you'd better interview, you know, it's really 


important, et cetera, et cetera -- and so it 


kind of set in mind -- and this was part of the 


findings in the bulk of the report -- you won't 


find it on the matrix, but in the bulk 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 

161 

report, was this is kind of a scary -- you 


know, you really are -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- setting these people up and 


putting them in a bad situation. Now that 


attachment has been changed. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And I prob-- I believe I 


provided copies of the -- the new and the old, 


but I can. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know if I've captured 


that on the matrix, but we should probably add 


that on, that the attachment gets -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I think it is in the matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- gets reviewed again. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: It is in the matrix that it has 


been changed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it has -- we have changed 


it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but not that SC&A is 


reviewing it. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. We have -- I have not seen 


it. Maybe I lost it in the whole report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll -- I'll carry it through, 


but that will be an SC&A action. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'll e-mail you a copy of 

both. 

 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay, great. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I think if we can take five, I 


think some people might have to check out of 


the hotel. Let's take a short break and then 


we'll still plan on breaking for lunch at 


12:30, but we'll start the second set of cases 


when we get back. 


 MS. MUNN: Did I hear Lew say we had to move 


rooms? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, after the lunch break. 


 MR. GRIFFON: After the lunch break at 12:30 


we'll have to move rooms. 


 MS. MUNN: Well... 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 11:25 a.m. 


to 11:40 a.m.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Everyone on the line, we're ready 


start here. I think we have just -- just a 


second here to close out on the procedures 


review section. Stu, you had a comment. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I had -- I had one comment to 


make. One of the -- one of the proposed 


actions on the matrix from earlier was to -- 


for SC&A to sit in on closeout interview -- 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 

163 

closeout -- or closeout interviews, and we're 


proceeding to -- down that pathway. I just 


wanted to make one comment about the proposed 


course of action, which was they would listen 


in, write the report and then share it with the 


claimant. I want to make sure OGC weighs in on 


that because having the claimant review -- this 


is an active claim. Now this is not a claim 


that's closed. And so presenting this product 


to an active claimant departs pretty far from 


what we've ever done. And so I -- I want to --


I just want to put in there, I'm not so sure 


that we want -- that we'll be able to 


accommodate providing the product to the 


claimant to review. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the claimant's 


participation -- I mean, this -- this audit 


process is sup-- not supposed to perturb -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the claimant's par-- 


participation at all, because this is still an 


active claim. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That might be a problem. I mean 


that's inconsistent with what we've done before 

1 -- 

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 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- with other case reviews, so I 


don't --


 MR. HINNEFELD: So we'll set up the process, 


and in fact it may already be, as I told Kate 


yesterday -- yes, for sure, you know, ORAU will 


initiate the contact and we'll re-- and we'll 


initiate the scheduling. We think we have a -- 


a method that will work. But I'm -- I'm 


concerned about having -- you know, introducing 


a perturbation in the claimant's process. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: I have a question about that. 


Our -- you know, I think Stu sent us a set of 


terms where SC&A would essentially be strictly 


an observer and say nothing. And I think --


and I think that's ent-- entirely right and we 


should say nothing. We -- we will, for our own 


review process, have to document our 


observations because you can't rely on memory. 


I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: And so we're going to be making 


some notes during this process. And the idea 


of sending the notes both to the interviewer 

1 

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 

and the interviewee for a fact-- was for a 


factual check. Now if that's going to perturb 


the -- as to -- as to whether the notes were 


accurate or not -- and now if that's going to 


perturb the process, then I -- I just have a 


question about how is the documentation of the 


interview to -- observation process to be 


presented to the Board? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I think -- I think you 


might consid-- I mean I think where you may end 


up is having -- sharing that -- your notes with 


the interviewer for the factual check and 


coming to agreement between the interviewer and 


-- and the observer --


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's -- there's no 


particular problem --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with noting and making notes 


and --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- preparing your product. But 


what I think the concern -- the effect of the 


concern is perturbing the process -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for an active 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 

166

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we can go there. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. And we don't want to do 


that, obviously. There's -- there's no point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- but I think that the rest 


of the process is fine. Right, Stu? The rest 


 MR. HINNEFELD: As far as I know the rest is 


fine. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And -- and then it could be 


redacted when it comes back to the Board. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Present it to the Board ­

-

 MR. PRESLEY: There's no problem there. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah -- the Board is 


entitled to see unredacted information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can see the Privacy Act -- 


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If we're going to make it 


public -- if we want to make it public we would 


have to redact it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And it's not clear to me that the 


-- I mean, a redacted version in this -- in 


this instance is probably adequate. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. I think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're not looking for who, we're 


looking for -- you know -- 


 MS. MUNN: No. We're not looking for who, 


we're not looking for buildings -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we're not even looking for site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But anyway -- yeah, yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, no. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: It was -- it was just so we're 


not relying on our memory of a complex process 


in order to doc-- you know, in order to arrive 


at conclusions from --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there's no problem with 


preparing a -- a report or a product -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from listening in. I think 


it's the perturbation -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think sharing it with the -- 


sharing with the claimant is not going to 


happen then. Right? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's probably where 


we would 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 

168

 MR. GRIFFON: I'm asking SC&A if you're -- if 


you're agreeing with it right now. You don't 


have to get a read from your legal. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, if there's any -- if it's 


questionable in any way from the point of view 


of perturbing the process, I'd -- I'd 


personally actually rather not-- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- go there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it's -- strike that, we won't 


ask for that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Anything else on 


procedures review? I think we're ready to go 


into the second set of cases, at least start it 


before lunch, and maybe -- you know, I -- I 


think we'll go through most of these fairly 


quickly. We've been doing this for a while. 


These cases date back a ways. So, okay --


everyone have that matrix in front of them? 


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MATRIX CASES 21 THROUGH 38
 

It's "Summary of Findings Matrix Cases 21 


through 38, prepared by the work group July 

1 

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 

23rd through 2006." Lew, I don't know if we 


have -- can we make copies available? 


 DR. WADE: We can. I can have copies made, if 


you would like. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean, I'm thinking for people 


watching in here. 


 DR. WADE: Well, maybe I can give them my copy 


and I can look over someone's shoulder. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'll go by the finding number. 


Just for those on the phone, I'll read the -- 


go down the finding numbers. And I'm really 


just going to go where -- where I have 


something highlighted unless other people raise 


other questions. So the first one -- sometimes 


they're hard to read 'cause the finding and 


response overlap into two pages but, you know, 


we did the best we can to limit the pages on 


this, but it's down to 60, I think -- 57. 


 MS. MUNN: Down to 60. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Mark? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: I realize on the very first 

finding, 21.1 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170

 MS. BEHLING: -- and we talked about this and I 


gave you wrong information for the NIOSH action 


under this first finding. This -- actually 


this case is a Rocky Flats case and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- it doesn't have to do with a 


Hanford issue, although this Hanford issue 


about the skin dose will come up later. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: So I'm afraid we're going to have 

to change --

 MR. GRIFFON: So this wasn't a Rocky. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- this NIOSH action. This is a 

Rocky issue. And --


 MR. GRIFFON: What was the NIOSH action prior 


to this? There was no action, was there? Or 


was --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we were going to talk 


about this --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because there's a 


discrepancy in the -- in the dose record I 


think we can talk about today. It's really 


minor. 


 MS. BEHLING: It -- it is minor. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: If we just talk about it a 


little bit I think we can just say okay, good 


enough. I have copies of some things if -- I 


have -- I have made eight copies. I want to 


make sure Hans and Kathy have one and I want to 


make sure the Board members have one. I 


suppose Ray should have one. Maybe everybody 


else can share -- because it explains the 


record and why this calculation error -- or 


apparent calculation error appears in the dose 


reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now what I just handed 


out -- the packet I just handed out has 


essentially a two-page excerpt from the dose 


reconstruction review -- I'm sorry, a three-


page excerpt. The top three pages are from the 


dose reconstruction review. And then I've 


attached to that an additional -- oh, about 


five or six pages which are additional 


renditions of the occupational dose record for 


this energy employee that line up with the -- 


the one sheet that's attached. You know, there 


-- the -- Rocky Flats provides -- I'll call 


them three different renditions 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 

172 

occupational exposure record with their -- with 


the file. And so the -- the basis for the 


arithmetic error is that shallow -- the -- the 


shallow dose calculation is supposed to start 


from the difference between shallow and deep 


photon. Okay? And you take that difference 


and that starts the calculation for -- for the 


shallow dose. And in the page that's attached 


to the finding -- in other words the third page 


of the package I just handed out, and in the 


rendition immediately behind that which is two 


more pages, for the various years that are 


highlighted -- well, it's exposure -- entry 


lines 18, 19 -- or eight, nine, ten -- and they 


are marked by little arrows on page two. For 


those lines and those years there's a 


discrepancy. If you use this exposure record 


there really is no difference between shallow 


and deep dose and so there shouldn't be a 


shallow dose calculation, but on the dose 


reconstruction report there is one. 


Now, if you look at the final rendition of the 


exposure history, this one -- this is the final 


rendition of the exposure history for those 


years -- and a good example is 19-- well, 1997 

1 

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 

is a good example. It's on the first page of 


the -- this record -- '77 -- 1977, I'm sorry, 


1977. This -- this rendition provides what 


appears to be components from various -- or, 


yeah, doses from various dosimeter components 


because you have a DDE or deep dose equivalent 


-- which could be deep dose equivalent photon 


dose -- you have SDE-SK, shallow dose 


equivalent or skin dose photon, and then to the 


right you have a column that says neutron. 


And there's a number in that neutron for one of 


the badges in 1977 and it's three, maybe we -- 


that just starts a whole 'nother debate and 


subject to another finding. But on this sheet 


there is a difference between the shallow and 


the deep photon dose. So if you add up all the 


nu-- all the 1977 -- there's more than one 1977 


badge -- so if you add up all the 1977 badges 


you have a difference between shallow and deep. 


And so this -- this rendition of the dose 


record which -- which appears to present the 


photon shallow and the photon deep, and that 


difference then is the starting point for the 


dose calculations. That's why the dose 


reconstruction was done. The numbers are 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 

174 

small that it really doesn't matter. So we can 


just, you know, go beyond that. But I did want 


to explain that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so there's no action on 


this then. 


 MS. BEHLING: No action. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We thought it was a Han-- I 


thought it was Hanford, okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I misguided you there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's okay. It's those dogs 


getting in our way. 


All right, I'm on 21.2 -- 21.2. I didn't 


highlight this and I'm wondering why. But in 


-- in the NIOSH action column there's this 


excerpt from a memo apparently, and I don't 


know that we've seen the memo or anybody -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's an e-mail. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's an e-mail? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it's just e-mail. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can forward it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think so. It --


(Pause) 

1 

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 

Yeah, I guess we just wanted to see -- so it's 


not a -- it's not a -- nothing more than a e-


mail. It's not a procedure or policy -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I give -- I give ORAU tons of 


instructions in e-mails. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Thi-- this has not been 


incorporated, say, into the revision to Proc 6 


or anything -- this change in -- I'm going to 


call it a change in -- in the NIOSH philosophy. 


This, you know --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if you'll find it 


in Proc 6 or not, but -- I mean Proc 6 talks 


about ORAU's thinking, gets kind of a -- but -- 


and some of them are maybe unnecessarily 


generous -- but at least there is -- you know, 


there is a prescribed -- there is a scri-- 


prescribed pathway, you know, for these things. 


This instruction was -- rather than see dose 


reconstructions with, you know, unnecessarily 


high estimates -- just, you know, throw in some 


doses just because you can 'cause nothing's 


going to change -- we said you shouldn't do 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now there may be things that 


are efficient that, on the face of it if you 


look at it, don't seem efficient but really 


are, based on the dose reconstruction tools. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And you're going to commit to 


tools. 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

 MS. BEHLING: And we -- we understand that. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: And -- we certainly agree with 


any efficiency process, but when -- as we've 


said before -- you can go to a table or you can 


look at things very easily and calculate the 


correct information or the correct -- pick the 


correct organ of interest, then we should do 


that, and I just didn't know if that was going 


to be reflected in -- in changes to Proc 6 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll --


 MS. BEHLING: -- which is where I think it 


should be. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Again, there are -- there's 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 

177 

tool that provides -- you know, there may be a 


table where you can look up the true value, and 


the tool may not have that built in. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And the -- and the tool allows 


you to do the overestimating technique that -- 


like I said, it doesn't necessarily look like 


an efficiency, but it is -- 


 MS. BEHLING: It is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as the dose reconstructor 


and (unintelligible). 


 DR. BEHLING: I think what sometimes is 


confusing is when you don't identify the 


reference. Obviously, if you use the TBD which 


is site-specific -- and they give you LOD 


values and they differ from the generic TIB-8 


or 10 --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- I would say either one is 


fine. If you're going to overestimate, use the 


complex-wide generic procedure such as 8 or 10, 


realizing that those numbers may not 


necessarily agree with the TBD for a specific 


time frame. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

178

 DR. BEHLING: But if someone says a reference 


then we sort of say, okay, that's what they 


used and this is how they document the ultimate 


value that's entered into the IREP input. And 


-- and sometimes that's not necessarily clear, 


so you don't know which document they use, 


realizing that there's some disagreement when 


you deal with the complex-wide versus site-


specific documents. 


 MS. BEHLING: And I think we're -- we're 


jumping ahead here a little bit with this 


issue. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I was just -- I'm thinking the 

same thing. Go ahead, yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Since -- since Hans mentioned it, 

though --

 MR. GRIFFON: The workbook. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- the workbook issue is in 

referencing the workbooks, that’s typically not 


done in dose reconstruction reports. So if it 


was referenced there, then I think that would 


also help us to not identify something like 


this as a finding. But that’s going to come up 


again --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179

 MS. BEHLING: -- later. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That'll come up later, but we've 


got it now. Okay, I -- so I -- the same thing 


is on 21.3. I'm not going to go through that. 


I -- Stu, just if you can provide that e-mail 


to us --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. I -- I'm confident I can 


find it --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I don't think there's any 


question -- I think we all are in agreement 


that that's the appropriate policy. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm going to scan down. I'm 


looking through case 21. And if anybody has 


anything, certainly step in, but I'm down to 


case 22 now. Case 22 finding 22.7-B.3, to be 


specific. Well, this sort of -- we discussed 


in the --


 MS. BEHLING: In the procedures. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in our procedures review, 


yeah. So I think the CATI question is -- is 


going to be covered in there so I'm willing to 


sort of defer that to that section, if you guys 


are okay with that. 


 MS. BEHLING: 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 

180

 MR. GRIFFON: So I'll take that out. In that 


first paragraph, "NIOSH has modified DR report 


language, SC&A will review report language" -- 


that was what was in there initially. Is that 


-- is that agreeable? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We are modifying. 


 MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It has not been completed yet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- is modi-- I'm sorry. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH is modifying. I always 


count on Paul to check my grammatical stuff -- 


no. Okay, so "is modifying." Yeah, now 22.8 


is the same -- same change. Sorry, I'm just -- 


if I don't capture these edits now, it's a lot 


more work later. 


(Pause) 


All right. I'm on case 23 -- 23.2. Since Proc 


6 was mentioned in the NIOSH response, I added 


it in an action. It -- it -- I think it's also 


co-- sort of covered in our procedures review 


that you said you would look at that and 


consider differences from IG -- or maybe not, I 


don't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 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 

181

 MR. GRIFFON: From IG-1. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a kind of recurring 


theme that measured dose isn't always captured 


in the normal distribution and in ca-- in this 


particular case, probably should have been a 


normal distribution. So we're thinking about 


how we get that instruction out there. 


Procedure 6 seems to be the li-- logical place 


for it to be. If we deviate from that and 


decide it should be somewhere else, we'll let 


you know -- but I think Procedure 6 is the 


place for that guidance to be. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So is that -- I'll keep that in 


the action now and if you deviate from that 


you'll --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you'll explain why. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. All right. 


 MS. BEHLING: What's the comment -- excuse me, 


but -- "re-evaluate case 23 in light of 


comments provided" -- what -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there -- there were 


enough -- there were enough items on here 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 

182 

I thought should be reworked that we just 


wanted to rework those, you know -- the case. 


You know, take into account all of the findings 


here, rework the case with these findings. 


 MS. BEHLING: And -- and that's being done? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: Let me ask a couple of things, 


because it's been brought up on previous 


dialogue that we've had with you and Jim Neton 


on the issue of uncertainty which frequently 


was not used, but I think in this -- with the 


addition of workbooks which do the calculations 


for you, I think that problem is by and large 


resolved. But early on, it was discussed that 


the issue of -- of uncertainty, when it's not 


necessarily identified, is compensated by 


claimant-favorable selection of DCFs that would 


potentially compensate for the absence of an 


uncertainty. Is that still a policy to -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They're -- we're eval-- there's 


-- one of our actions on here is to evaluate -- 


to show whether that's an -- under what 


conditions is that --


 DR. BEHLING: 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 

183

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- use of a DCF of one -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes, a DCF of one --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in place of a triangular DCF 


that's below one, times the normal distribution 


and is that sufficiently favorable -- that 


evaluation's pretty far along. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That is action. That is an 


action on here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We've got to run it model by 


model so it's a lot of calculation to do, but 


it's -- or organ by organ, because of 


combinations and (unintelligible) and risk 


code, so -- IREP models, so -- but yeah, we're 


pretty far along in that effort to illustrate ­

- so I have calculations to illustrate that 


that decision goes down the normal distribution 


times the triangular DCF. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Hans? You okay? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah -- it would be 


helpful, however, in doing the audit, in -- in 


perhaps making a note of that so that we don't 


end up citing it as an issue -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- when in fact that becomes a 


no-issue. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Well if -- if workbooks are 


referenced, that's the other action -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- then you would know. Right? 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That --

 DR. BEHLING: Well, when a claimant-favorable 

DCF is used, then perhaps the tedious task of 


doing an uncertainty analysis is not necessary. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. We're -- you okay 


over there, Ray? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. I just realized he 


moved again. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They don't want to make it easy 


for you, Ray. You're the world champ, come on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Down to case 24. We should 


clarify the record, I don't think he is world 


champ. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, he is. 


 MR. PRESLEY: In our book he is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Silver medalist, but he's our 


world champion. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: He's the world champ. 


 MS. MUNN: Nobody does it better. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, no, Wanda's breaking into 


song. I knew it would come to this. 


 MS. MUNN: We've gone too long. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Case 24 we're on, and I think I 


-- I didn't change anything in the action 


column. I believe I tried to highlight -- 


 MS. BEHLING: And we talked about this earlier 


and TIB-8 and 10 have been revised. And we did 


look -- and I'll correct the record -- we did 


look out on the O drive and both of those 


procedures are there now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Are there, yeah, so we're -- and 


-- and as John said, as a course of action to 


carry through these, I -- I think we -- we have 


SC&A -- it's "SC&A will review these," at least 


with respect to the findings here. 


 DR. MAURO: I guess -- does (unintelligible) 


need another column on this thing eventually 


saying, you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we're going to have a list 


of actions out of this -- from this -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe we could track that on 


the action item 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 

186

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as opposed to this matrix? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. Yeah, I think we -- we'll 


try to close this matrix --


DR. MAURO: Okay, move the ma-- yeah, we talked 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Close the matrix and have a 


listing of ac-- ongoing actions. 


 MR. BUCHANAN: You say that the new version of 


8 and 10 are on the O drive now? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, they are, yeah. We'll find 

--

 MS. BEHLING: Let me just ask a question. 

John, are we going to review the entire 8 -- on 


8 and 10, or are we only looking specifically 


at these issues? Because 8 and 10 has not been 


-- is not part of our supplemental procedures. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I -- I guess my reaction is 


we're only going to review it with respect to 


this issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but the issue was that 


they were ambiguous, so I think you're going to 


end up --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187

 DR. MAURO: Well, then we're forced to. You 


know what I'm saying -- I'd like, as a matter 


of policy, keep it cl-- you know, to be 


responsive to this particular issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: To the finding, right. 


 DR. MAURO: Now if the issue is -- is of a 


general nature where we have to review the 


whole thing, that's what we'll do. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Because that's what -- we 


will have to do it on this case. 


 DR. BEHLING: And it -- and it may come up in 


the -- the litmus test of having resolved the 


ambiguity of the procedure will be tested when 


we look at future audits where that particular 


TIB will be used. And -- and at this point, we 


can only make a very subjective evaluation 


regarding the clarity of the procedure. 


 MS. BEHLING: However those TIBs were just 


issued, and it's not likely we're going to see 


those cases for quite some time. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not for a while. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Any cases that would use tho-- 


the revised TIB, we just -- you just don't get 


-- it doesn't get through the process quick 

1 

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 

enough for us to see them. It will probably be 


a year --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're at least months away-- at 


le-- way-- at least months -- could be a year. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and I'll let -- I mean I 


think John may want to discuss with Lew, you 


know, any kind of -- as we -- as you look at 


the scope of what's generated out of this, the 


-- any contracting concerns. Because it -- it 


-- I mean, I'm thinking if -- if an action is 


always -- I mean we have several actions that 


were to, you know, defer to a new procedure or 


defer to this or -- or clarify it in this, and 


it seems like that may be sort of a change 


order -- but, you know --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. WADE: We have a lot of flexibility under 


Task III so I think we can accommodate it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay. It's beyond my 


scope. 


 DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) Task III because 


it -- they're smaller chunks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: And there's a lot of them that 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 

189 

scheduled new for a year, so we should be able 


to accommodate them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I just didn't to put you 


in a bind that way. 


Okay. Down to case 25, I think. No? 


 DR. BEHLING: No, can I just make a comment, 


because it's appropriate at this point to 


perhaps state something. TIB-8 and 10 have 


been notorious sources of findings in the past, 


including through the fourth set. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: I think starting in the future -- 


and we will, probably for the next conceivable 


time frame, look at similar problems that 


involve TIB-8 and 10, because as -- as we just 


finished mentioning, chances are we won't see 


the benefit of the revisions to those TIBs for 


a long time. We're not going to cite them 


again as a finding. We will possibly make an 


observation without having to go through the 


matrix, because at this point we have resolved 


the issue. And so hopefully -- 


 DR. MAURO: No. I -- I'm sorry. This goes 


toward -- and a funny -- in a way the Task IV 


proposal -- that is, what we're getting at 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 

190 

is that right now, to -- to repeat a finding 


again and again and again in each one of our 


audit reports line item and an IREP-- 


 MR. MAHER: The -- the speaker needs to get 


closer to the mike. 


 DR. MAURO: I guess this -- this might be a 


good example of something that we're going to 


be discussing either at the next full Board 


meeting on the conference call or in September, 


and this is a good preview for it. There are 


certain efficiencies SC&A could incorporate 


into our audits of cases which would allow us 


to -- to more quickly process the audit, and 


this would be an example. That is, if there -- 


if as you're going through it, if there's a 


TIB-8, 10 issue that is self-evident, rather 


than spending time working it up, working it 


into the report, we can just move on to -- to 


new issues and not just rehash old issues. And 


this is a judgment call that right now in our 


proposal that all of the Board members has 


before them now, we actually pr-- provide an 


option. One of the options is -- we probably 


can -- for the same price, we can probably do a 


lot more cases if we are given a certain amount 

1 

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 

of leeway of not having to, you know, delve 


into some of the issues. And this is a tough 


call, whether -- you know, it means that we 


would have -- rather than being as strict in 


terms of our audits as we were in the past 


where we went over every line and checked every 


number, now there would be a certain degree of 


discretion. I think that's the word we 


actually used in our proposal, leaving Hans and 


Kathy and the rest of the team with a certain 


amount of discretion on which particular issues 


we will pursue and which ones really represent 


things that we've already talked about and 


really don't require us to spend very much time 


on. So this is -- I -- all I'm saying is, this 


is a topic we will probably just have to 


discuss before the full Board, but it's a good 


opportunity now at least to introduce it to the 


working group and the Board members here, that 


we will be engaging this. I see an efficiency 


on our end now, coming in, if we can do this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we have to carefully 


consider it. I mean I'll --


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- wait for your proposal, 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 

192 

 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, the downside of it 


is, you have to remember that we're doing a 


percentage of cases -- I mean that the goal of 


the overall audit -- and if you start to not 


look at some of these -- you know, it may be 


old news, but we're only doing -- you know, in 


the overall picture it should still be listed 


as a finding and just -- we would just 


streamline the resolution process. In other 


words, we know what you -- what you've done, so 


we don't need to, you know -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Mark, excuse me just one second, 


because I've given that some thought also and I 


-- what I was going to consi-- going to 


recommend doing for the fifth and sixth sets is 


a situation like this where we know a revision 


has ma-- been made to 8 and 10 but we're still 


looking at older dose reconstructions -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- rather than making it a 


finding in the write-up, we make it an 


observation, and possibly even capture it by 


making a change to our checklist, where 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 

193 

still state no. But rather than high, medium, 


and low under the significance, we could make 


it an observation indicating -- or some 


indication that this is an issue that's already 


been resolved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But what's the benefit of 


downgrading it to an observation? 


 DR. BEHLING: The fact that it doesn't end up 


in a matrix and go through -- 


 MS. BEHLING: So it doesn't get -- get into a 


matrix process. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- this whole issue of 


resolution. I mean, the purpose of a matrix is 


to find resolution to existing problem. We 


have solved the problem with the revision of 


TIB-8 and 10. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but you've solved the --


but you're not getting my point. My point is 


that you -- if you're looking at an overall 


program review, you -- you solved the problem, 


but it still existed in these other cases -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that you've come across. So 


now you're saying, well, it's old news so we're 


-- sort of downgrading it to an observation. 

1 

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 

You know, I know there's no more resolution to 


be done, but I hate to --


 DR. BEHLING: How about a finding with an 


asterisk, that says --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah. Something like that. 


I think we can get there. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- it's been resolved. It 


doesn't have to be entered into a matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm saying streamline the work 


but maybe don't -- don't disregard it as a 


finding, 'cause --


 MS. BEHLING: It would certainly become a 


finding if it --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- you know, significantly 


impacted the case in any way on that individual 


case. 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, those are -- it wouldn't. 


They're -- and they're -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah --


 DR. BEHLING: -- basically, these two TIBs used 


to estimate maximized doses and the likelihood 


that it would ever impact a claim that goes 


from non-compensable to compensable is 


virtually nil. And so it's -- it has limited 

1 

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 

value --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- in that regard. 

 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It may be that they were sort -- 

yeah -- probably in the observation category 


all along, you know. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, it's -- it's a finding that 


has a low impact --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- as we always acknowledge. 


 MR. GRIFFON: As we -- as we acknowledge, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Maybe we can keep it a finding 


with an asterisk just to alert everyone that 


this is something that's already been resolved. 


 DR. BEHLING: And really should not be -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or we'll de-- we just know in the 


path forward there's no resolution process, 


yeah, we don't fret. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, it should not be part of 


the next matrix. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, and it stops right there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We don't -- we don't bog it down 

1 

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 

in the matrix process. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. That's what I want to 


avoid, the issue of having a 30, 40-page matrix 


where you said -- when in fact the issue has 


been resolved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. I get -- I -- okay. 


All right. 


So back to -- I'm up to case 25. Only stopping 


if I hear something. Case 26 -- 26.1 I have 


something. Always-- and I think this is okay, 


I just added this but -- Stu, this was not from 


you. I added it as a NIOSH response. Don't 


want to put words in your mouth, but I think 


it's -- it was at the bottom of -- of the 


finding, really, or the -- it was at the bottom 


of the third column in the matrix there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That a class has been added for 


Iowa, so --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- okay. And there's no action 

on these. 

 MS. MUNN: That's 26. Right? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, 26. And it goes on for 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 

197 

next couple --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- same thing. Okay --


 MS. MUNN: Number 27? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 27.1 --


 MS. BEHLING: This is what we talked about 


earlier. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: And this is -- that it would be 


helpful for us when a workbook is used, that it 


actually be referenced -- and possibly even the 


version of that workbook be referenced -- in 


the dose reconstruction report. That would 


certainly be helpful me. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be easy to do in the 


revised DR format that we're looking at -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the health physicist 


portion of that DR. That would be easy to put 


in there. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. That would be nice. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it -- the reference would be 


in the DR. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

198

 MR. GRIFFON: Not in the procedures. I think I 


misstated that. 


 MS. BEHLING: In the DR. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: DR. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Because a lot of the proce-- a 


lot of the tools are related -- not all the 


tools are related to procedures. 


 MS. BEHLING: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Ah, procedures, TIBs, you know 


-- other -- they -- they should all draw their 


information from a published technical 


document. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But now which one you're -- I ­

- I see your point -- where you draw from, 


where's it drawn from. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that -- our -- our 


envisioned rewrite of the dose reconstruction 


format where we're going to have a section for 


the health physicist would allow us to -- I 


think -- list pretty clearly what tool is used. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That'd be con-- very 


helpful. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now I didn't number this, but 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 

-- would this be a NIOSH action? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't have your numbering 


system -- we can -- we can get that later. 
I 


can. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can -- I can in-- I can tell 


you if I can just -- if I can remember it real 


quick. DR -- this would be DR 27.1. 


 MR. GRIFFON: DR 27.1. And it -- it should 


read --


 MR. HINNEFELD: And this is the only place it 


appears. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It should read --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- "NIOSH will reformat DR report 


language to --" 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: " -- include..." 


 MS. MUNN: Reference workbooks, uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's just say -- yeah -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, "Procedures will be revised 


to reference workbooks in the DRs". 


 MS. BEHLING: DRs. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it's the DR. Refor-- the 


reformatted DR will reference the workbook. 

1 

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

 MS. BEHLING: Great. But not the procedure. 

(Pause) 

 MR. GRIFFON: Reference Excel tools. Should I 

leave "as appropriate" in there? Just some 


qualifying language. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: It's going to -- just -- it's going 


to reference the DR, isn't it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. No, the DRs will 


reference the tools. 


 MR. GRIFFON: DR will reference the tool. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's -- if none were used, 


then it won't reference them. I don't think 


you really have to (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Okay, got it. On to --


where -- where'd my matrix go? 


 MS. BEHLING: It's 27 -- this is the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-seven point five -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Again, this is issue of recorded 


dose uncertainty and -- that we discussed 


earlier. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- I just added -- that came 


out of the NIOSH response column and I -- as a 


way to track this -- this is an SC&A action, 


not a -- not a NIOSH action. Correct? 


 MS. BEHLING: Well, earlier I think we 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 

201 

said that NIOSH is looking into this issue. 


When workbooks are used, yes, SC&A is reviewing 


that issue among -- within Task III and the 


workbook evaluations. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But is there a NIOSH action on 


this you're saying, too? 


 DR. MAURO: There -- there's this last sentence 


here about -- however, I -- we're looking at 


27.5 right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uncer-- uncertainty, yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, there's just something here 


about uncertainty -- additional uncertainty, 


which goes over and above, I guess, just making 


reference to the workbook and whether or not 


there's an action here dealing with additional 


uncertainty that might be -- need to be 


incorporated. 


 DR. BEHLING: That was basically part of the 


implementation guide because it's really the 


implementation guide that identifies the three 


 DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- components of uncertainty. 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- and -- and so if -- if 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 

202 

revised implementation guide 01 addresses that, 


then it satisfies this as an issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that's where we describe 


uncertainty approaches. And the id-- and so 


while these -- what they describe there are 


laboratory uncertainties on individual badge 


reading, you know, in application the 


uncertainty's applied to an annual total which 


may be 12 badge readings. And so the 


uncertainty sort of converges as you combine 


multiple badge totals. So I think we have in 


our revision IG-1 -- I think we have a 


description of the basis for uncertainty. 


That's what we're supposed to have, the basis 


for the uncertainty we're using. 


 DR. BEHLING: And -- and the workbooks usually 


reflected that methodology. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that -- that action stands as 


an SC&A action? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay, Stu, that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That's been captured in "Revise IG1". 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 

203

 MR. GRIFFON: What's that, Wanda? Should I add 


some --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That -- that -- she was making 


a --


 MS. MUNN: That I was say-- I was just saying 


-- which has been captured in the revised IG001. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Right -- I'm down to 28.1, 


finding 28.1-C.1-1. Oh, this is the same 


thing. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Can we go back --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, Mark. Can we go back 


to 27.9? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-seven point nine. Okay. 


Oh, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is an action regarding the 


-- (unintelligible). Okay, maybe this is -- is 


this covered by the new Proc 60? Am I in the 


wrong --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, this has -- this has to 


do with that there were several -- the SRS site 


profile gives all these -- a variety of options 


for doing ambient depths. That's the nut of 


this one. 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 

204

 MS. BEHLING: Oh, yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess my preference would be 


we move that into Savannah River site profile 


since it's the site profile where the stuff's 


written. And Proc 60 is the new -- either 60 


or 61, I can't keep them straight -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sixty. 


 MS. BEHLING: Sixty. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sixty. Proc 60's a new ambient 


dose one, so I don't -- I don't really know if 


it specifically says about, you know -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what to do about Savannah 


River or not. 


 MS. BEHLING: Is Savannah River's specific data 


incorporated into 60? I know there's a few --


 DR. MAURO: The table there (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GIBSON: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MR. GIBSON: I'm having a hard time hearing the 


lady that's speaking. 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy, I'm sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, Kathy, yeah -- we'll -- 


we'll get her to speak up. Sorry, Mike. 

1 

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

 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, Mike. It's Kathy 


Behling. 


 MR. GIBSON: Okay. Thanks, Kathy. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I was just questioning 


from back on 27.9 -- finding 27.9. We 


indicated that they were going to reconsider 


two KBS 00 -- yeah 003, which is the Savannah 


River site technical basis document -- and I 


wasn't sure if the new procedure, Proc 60, may 


already incorporate Savannah River Site's 


specific data. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not in the data table. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a -- there's a note to 


the data table that refers to a specific table 


in the site profile -- in the Savannah River 


site profile. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, because I thought -- I 


thought possibly this would be resolved through 


60, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not resolved through 60. 


 MS. BEHLING: It's -- no, it's not. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it should be moved to ­

- it's a site profile issue, though, and should 


be taken care of there, which is under -- 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 

206 

-- that discussion's ongoing, too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So this -- this item being 


tracked is where we'll get there. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I'm trying -- making a 


mental note to myself how I'm going to do that, 


but yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right, 28.1? This is 


the same tool question being referenced, I 


think. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's all we need in there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And if I have the same thing -- 


and that's still going to be -- Stu, to stay 


with your numbering system, that'll still be 


27.1. Right? DR (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yeah. Once it's -- the 


first time it appears. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Once it's the -- right. That's 


what I thought. So I'll carry that through for 


the next several here. The next four have 


that. If you feel it's inappropriate, let me 


know. Then I'm down to case 28.13 actually, 


"SC&A will review under Task III work." 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 

207 

that -- this is a DCF question, I think. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry again, Mark. Can we go 


back to 28.7? I -- I know you don't have this 


highlighted, but I --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: I think this is -- we're 


questioning here --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- did -- did NIOSH -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- change its mind about -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you. 

 MS. BEHLING: -- agreeing with us. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. This is your "upon 

further reflection" is kind of the opening 


NIOSH action, and it seems like the previous 


column, "NIOSH agrees," might not be 


appropriate anymore. 


(Pause) 


We might -- you want time over lunch to look at 


that one, Stu, and come back? We can proceed 


down, or -- it's up to you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- the issue had to do -- I 


mean I don't think it needs to be -- I wouldn't 


really carry it any farther. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The issue is this, that the 


comment was made. There's no need to -- if 


you've got a shallow dose there's no need to 


apportion it among, you know, what's photon, 


what's do-- what's beta, because it -- it's the 


shallow dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: When in fact the range 


effectiveness factor for beta particle's 


different from a 30 to 250 KB photon. So if 


you -- you know, in this case it's an 


overestimate; it's just a bigger overestimate. 


It doesn't matter. I mean they essentially 


double-added it here. I mean so it was an 


overestimate, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: It is --


 DR. BEHLING: But -- but let me -- let me just 


interject something. If you look at Appendix B 


of Implementation Guide 1, and you look under 


skin dose, there's a footnote up in the header 


that says disregard all these things if you 


have a seven milligram skin dose, which serves 


as the way of assessing --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209

 MR. HINNEFELD: Organ -- organ dose correction 


factors. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: DCF. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, for organ dose 


correction factors. 


 MS. BEHLING: Two different issues. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The difference is, in IREP a 


thirt-- a two hun -- a 30 to 250 keV photon has 


a higher radiological effectiveness factor than 


the -- than a beta particle, which -- the beta 


particle is the same as a high-energy photon. 


So if you -- you can apportion out the skin 


dose that comes from those photons, you know, 


you actually have a higher risk. And so that's 


why we apportioned it. Now in this case it was 


done doubly. I think it was kind of thrown 


into both beta and photon. 


 MS. BEHLING: It was. It was. And this has 


been an oversight. And I did go back to the 


TBD and the TBD does specify to do it this way. 


It just seemed strange. And the -- these are 


really two different issues --


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

210

 MS. BEHLING: -- the photon component and then 


the issue of the skin. And once you have the 


seven -- seven milligram dose you don't have to 


apply a DCF. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Gotcha. Gotcha. 


 MS. BEHLING: I think they're okay here. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think they're okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

 DR. BEHLING: Was this a best estimate? 

 MS. BEHLING: No. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No -- what -- was it? 


 MS. BEHLING: Or was this --


 DR. BEHLING: I mean it seems like an awful lot 


of investment in time to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it was a workbook. It was 


a workbook. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this is a best estimate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This was workbook case. Right? 


Wasn't 28 a workbook case? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: It was a best estimate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211

 MS. BEHLING: But that was a conservative 


assumption. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-eight point thirteen. Is 


that okay, that action, SC&A will rev-- 


 MS. MUNN: Missed photon dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, one second. 


 MS. MUNN: And organ dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is Savannah River. 


(Pause) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So the -- is this the total 


range? DCF -- the total range of the DCF using 


-- being used in the workbook rather than the 


AP range? Is that what this one is? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm trying to get re-oriented. 


don't know, just a minute. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, this will be covered under 


the workbooks under Task III and it does have 


to do with the range --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and DCFs --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and using -- they use the 


min/max as opposed to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: The total min/max as opposed to 


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 

212 

the AP min/max. 


 MS. BEHLING: Exactly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Gotcha. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. In fact, you'll see that 


in the fourth set, too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: The workbook just defaults to the 


lowest among the -- all four geometries. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: And we've kind of agreed that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: AP should be used. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- the AP geometry is the driver 


at the moment. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Looking ahead, we're 


almost at lunchtime and I'm looking at the 


clock. But I'm on to case 30, 30.1. 


 MS. BEHLING: Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: You want to go back again? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. Just to capture 


everything --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- 28.19 --


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

213

 MS. BEHLING: -- here again, I just want to be 


sure that that does get captured then in the 


site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. And I think -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Is that going to take -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: TK-- TKBS. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So that, by definition, is 


caught in the site profile. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I --


 MR. GRIFFON: Understand that Stu's got to make 


sure we're tracking --


 MR. HINNEFELD: What -- which number are we 


talking about? 


 MS. BEHLING: All right, 28.19 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-eight point nineteen. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and 28.20. 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's a action --


 MS. BEHLING: I just don't want to lose those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. No, I agree. It's the 


same thing as before. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Photon and electron. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it's ambient photon at 


Savannah River, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Got to make sure you -- might 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 

214 

in the site profile. Got them there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then we're on to 30, if -- I'll 


pause while you look through 29. 


 DR. BEHLING: There's nothing in 29. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty is what -- a case from 


what site? It's from Hanford. Hanford. 


Right? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hanford site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I -- this is a workbook issue 


and a site profile I guess, really. So there's 


kind of -- this -- this issue's been deferred 


to the --

 MS. BEHLING: To the Task III workbook review. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or the site profile review. 

Right? 

 MS. BEHLING: Both. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. And the same on the next, 

30.2. And we're down to 30.4, you have a DR 


general one. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That goes all back -- all 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 

215 

way back to the first matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The first 20 matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. This -- and this involves 


rever-- revising the DR report format. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So there's a couple of those. 


Several with no actions -- 30.9 I just edited 


your response there in yellow. I think you 


meant to put LOD over two. It's another --


it's in the other matrices that way, before it 


had said LOD. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Okay. Should be LOD 


over two. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Which number? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty point nine -- finding 


30.9. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I did bring this e-mail where I 


-- (unintelligible) attach to change 


management, if you're interested. 


 MS. MUNN: LOD over two? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean I guess we should 


have that. Yeah, that would be good. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216

 MS. MUNN: LOD over two? 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, you brought a hard copy of 


that one. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


(Pause) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Ray, here's another one. Send 


that on around. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is this the same thing or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Says finding -- finding 30.9, 


the copy was just -- we inadvertently kept two 


over here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So help us out here, Stu -- what 


-- what are we looking at? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This -- the front is the 


e-mail string that documents the timing of the 


conversation. The back form is an ORAU change 


management form, which -- when we tell them you 


can do something one way, we want you to do it 


a different way -- as a general rule, they put 


it -- they document that direction to them in 


this fashion. They prepared this form, and so 


this is the one we conveyed over -- I hope 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 

217 

got the right one, yeah, LOD over 2 -- and said 


yes, in fact we want you to behave that way. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. MAHER: And that's scheduled for 


implementation the first of September. 


 MS. MUNN: Who said that? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was Ed Maher. 


 MR. MAHER: That's because it requires a tools 


change. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Thank you. All right, 


we're up to 30 -- the end of case 30. Look 


through all those -- everybody set with those 


'cause I think we're -- we're ready to break 


for lunch. And as Lew said, we have to switch 


rooms so I think we should sti-- stick to our 


12:30 lunch break here. 


 DR. WADE: As I mentioned, there's someone 


outside the door. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Does anybody have anything else 


on 30? Otherwise, we're ready to close for 

lunch. 

 (No responses) 

Okay, I think we'll --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218

 DR. WADE: What time back? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we'll come back at 1:30, 


resume the meeting at 1:30. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, 1:30. Dial back in. We'll be 


back. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:30 p.m. 


to 1:35 p.m.) 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) with ORAU is 


here. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


MS. GARRISON: This is Deb Garrison. This is ­

- this is the party. 


 DR. WADE: Well, thank you for joining us. 


Anyone else? 


 MR. MAHER: Ed Maher. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. Anyone else? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, thank you. We'll begin in a moment. 


 MS. MUNN: No Mike yet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, everyone on the phone, 


we're starting off back on the second set of 


case matrix. And we're on case number 31, I 


believe. And the first thing I have is -- 


well, let's look at 31.1, actually. This is 


the DCF equal to one issue -- right, Kathy? -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

that you were discussing earlier? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Yes, we discussed 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: So just to point that out, that's 


-- that's going to be carried through. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And is that in response to 


modifying a particular procedure, or is this -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Well --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a -- it's a recurring 


comment --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- from dose reconstruction 


reviews, and apparently number six, initially. 


 MS. BEHLING: This actually tied back, I 


thought, to the Implementation Guide -- the 


external Implementation Guide for counting for 


photon doses (unintelligible) critical 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there -- there's – IG-1 


is where we describe how to do it. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So if we think that fits, we'll 


-- we'll take care of it. Uncertainty -- but 


this is a kind of subset of that question 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 

220 

uncertainty. 


 MS. BEHLING: It is. Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So we -- this is a specific 


analysis which we're almost done with. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I thought, okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Going on to 31 -- or 


32, actually -- 32.1 --


 MS. BEHLING: Can --


 MR. GRIFFON: Or the general one you want to 


look at? Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Got to go already. But -- can I 


just go back to 31.2? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 MS. BEHLING: I know this, again, has to do 


with revising the dose reconstruction wording. 


Oh, I guess I'm cur-- did you say you have a 


draft in mind for that dose reconstruction 


wording? Because --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a draft on my desk. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, 'cause in this particular 


case we're referring specifically to the fact 


that -- I guess -- we misinterpreted how many 


missed photon doses were actually calculated 


here, and so they said that they were going 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 

221 

try to make the dose reconstruction report -- 


am I interpreting this correctly? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The way the response is written 


-- what I think what the finding said was the 


DR says the maximum dose missed is such and 


such, but the numbers didn't work out, you 


know. And the -- and it was -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to me it was the structure 


-- it was the language that was chosen in the 


dose reconstruction report to describe -- 


 MS. BEHLING: That's it. Yes. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so -- and that's why we 


think we can clarify it with a language change. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That's right. That's --


now I know the issue. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: But that is being taken care of 


in the re-write or the -- whatever changes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we think -- we think 


we're saying it better now -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- than we were when this dose 


reconstruction was written -- 


 MS. BEHLING: 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 

222

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but we are still going to 


take care of it in that new format. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-two point one. 


 MS. MUNN: OTIB-10 has been (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Has been revised. 


 MS. MUNN: Has been revised. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not exactly sure why I 


highlighted this one in this case, but -- is 


there a particular reason I highlighted that 


one, Kathy? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm not sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Help me out. 


 MS. BEHLING: I know, I'm looking at it, too. 


I -- I'm not sure, 32.1. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was it a question of --


 MS. BEHLING: It's the same -- it's the same 


issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's a TIB-10 issue though. 


Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It wasn't a question there -- 


okay. I think it's -- I think we're okay with 


that. 


 MS. BEHLING: We're okay. 


 MS. MUNN: It's done 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 

223

 MS. BEHLING: It's done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Never mind about the 


highlighting there. Now I'm going on down, I'm 


down to 34.1 unless there's other ones that you 


see. 


 MS. MUNN: Someone needs to mute their phone. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Whoa. Gets right to the 


point. 


 MS. MUNN: Someone still needs to mute their 


phone. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Would you give her chocolate? 


She needs chocolate after lunch. 


 MS. MUNN: Someone still needs to mute their 


phone. 


(Pause) 


 Thank you. Well, it's ugly. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll take -- we'll take a 


chocolate break, don't worry. All right, 34.1 


-- Kathy, are we there? I just wanted to wait 


for you for a second. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, it's an --


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- oh, I know what I did 


here, Stu, I modified the NIOSH response. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Because it -- before, it had said 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

that -- it was worded differently. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I like this wording, 


actually. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, ba-- thank you. Basically 


in your -- in your action you said that in this 


case the efficiency approach was justified -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but the prior response didn't 


say that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I said we-- we've got to be 


consistent. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It was just a consistency thing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Thanks. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So is that okay? Are we up to 


that point, too, Kathy? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm freezing. All right. 


Chocolate has been delivered to Wanda, and 


we're all set --


 MS. MUNN: Calm will now prevail. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-four point four, Proc -- I 


-- I added an action that SC&A will review Proc 


60 --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in this action column. Not a 


NIOSH action, but -- okay. Same thing for the 


next one. 


 MS. MUNN: Where did you add that? 


 MR. GRIFFON: In the final column. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Thirty-four dot -- 34.4. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry -- 34.4 and 5, 


actually. 


 MS. MUNN: So you -- so it now reads -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: SC&A will review Proc 60. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's all. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's --


 MR. GRIFFON: It was already in there. 


 MS. MUNN: -- what it says, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Any questions on 34.6, Kathy, or 


these -- these specific NIOSH findings -- or 


actions, I mean? 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, you know, this is fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: These are fine. Right? Yeah --


I just wanted to pause. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. That's appropriate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm panning down to 36.1. 


I gue-- I'll wait to make 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 

226

 MS. BEHLING: Just one second. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, yes. 


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


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So 36.1 --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, let me be sure. This is 


the issue where this document right here that's 


attached to a lot of the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is this the Hanford? Yeah, yeah 


 MS. BEHLING: -- Hanford cases --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- this is the Hanford. Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) hard copy DOE 


records. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. And --


 DR. BEHLING: And the binder with a -- an 


explanation. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. They provide an 


explanation of how they deal with various doses 


for various years -- for assigning various 


doses and -- and shallow dose specifically. 


And they have two tables and these -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is in every case file for 


Hanford, basically. Yeah, 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 

227

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: And so this becomes an issue that 


we'll have to deal with, I think -- that we 


have to talk to the Hanford DOE about because 


the two tables have conflicting data -- 


conflicting information on them as to how to 


treat shallow dose. At least based on how we 


read it. I think table one and table two -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I didn't attach table 


one, I only attached -- oh wait, there they 


are. There it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Table one and two at the back of 


Stu's handout. 


 MS. BEHLING: And --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Are those the table one and two 


we're talking about? Or have I mixed and 


matched table one and two -- did not -- didn't 


include all of table one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't know if they're the 


same. 


 MS. BEHLING: This is -- oh, you have -- you 


have something for this. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it is. It the same. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

228

 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that is what I handed 


out, right. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay, it is. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So we want to -- basically as an 

action, we thought --


 MR. HINNEFELD: What -- what I want to do is 


talk about --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, you can --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what my understanding -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of this dosimetry record 


that we have and the two -- there is, let's see 


-- there are, again, two renditions of the 


exposure record there in my package, the -- 


what I handed out. The third and fourth page 


are two separate renditions of the exposure 


record. The -- in the table, the era we're 


talking is 1980 and 1981. That's when the 


doses were recorded for this person. And so on 


table two, you look and see this -- this two-


sided table appears that -- is saying that. 


But on the left-hand column it gives the 


dosimeter components of the dosimeter badge. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229 

In other words, they had a component that read 


non-penetrating photons, penetrating photons, 


slow neutron and fast neutron, so those were 


the neutron components. 


Now on the right-hand column it describes how 


are those components used to develop the skin 


and the -- and the whole body doses. So the 


whole body dose is comp-- is the components -- 


you know, the combination of the penetrating 


photon, slow neutron and fast neutron 


component. And the skin dose is the whole body 


component -- in other words, all that stuff you 


just added -- plus the shallow photon 


component. Non-penetrating. Plus the non-


penetrating component. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay? So -- all right, I'm 


reading from -- I'm reading from '72 because I 


believe these dates are the date of change. So 


the '72 rules would last up through '80 and 


'81, all the way to '87. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay? All right. Now on the 


renditions of the exposure report, which appear 


to be the same, the values that are reported 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 

230 

-- on one are whole body and skin -- external 


whole body and skin -- and that seems to match 


with what they've reported in table two, or in 


the se-- right-hand column of table two they 


report whole body and skin. So if you look at 


the values for whole body and skin -- this 


would be on the first rendition of the 


attachment -- the difference between the 40 and 


the ten is the non-penetrating component of the 


dosimeter badge, the non-penetrating 


components' contribution -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- based on -- on this table. 


And so that's the difference then between a 


non-penetrating exposure to the badge and the 


penetrating photon exposure. And so that's the 


difference that's the starting point of the 


shallow dose calculation. And I believe the DR 


was done in that fashion. 


 MR. PRESLEY: In other words, you're -- you're 


saying that there was a calculation made to -- 


to bring that level up for skin that would 


allow for some type of a -- of a-- some piece 


of --


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

231

 MR. PRESLEY: -- right -- plastic or something? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: What I'm saying -- yeah, the 


skin dose -- what's reported as the skin dose 


already includes the penetrating dose, and then 


the skin is additional to that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's not -- so you wouldn't 


-- in developing the skin dose you wouldn't 


take the non-penetrating -- or you wouldn't 


take the skin and whole body totals and add 


them together from the back. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But it would be -- but the non-


penetrating dose, or the skin dose, would be 


the difference between what's reported as whole 


body and what's reported as skin. 


 MR. MAHER: This is the clerk of the Hanford 


records. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was Ed Maher again. Yes. 


It's not -- and we did agree with the comment, 


and one part of the comment was the Hanford 


records were confusing, and we certainly did 


agree with that part of the comment. 


 MS. MUNN: But they're consistent records. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

232

 MS. MUNN: Once you know what to do, I mean. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, then -- back to your 


original, Kathy, on these tables being 


inconsistent. 


 MS. BEHLING: Well, yeah, that's what I thought 


we had looked here. But I -- I have to -- I 


have to go back and think about this one. 


Because I think it had something to do with -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Where does table three come from? 

 MS. BEHLING: This is our table. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And table -- Stu, in your 

handout table three is the same as the other 


table two? 


 MS. BEHLING: Table three is --


 MR. GRIFFON: There's like something in there 


called table three. 


 DR. BEHLING: And I think this comes from the 


TBD. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then it's a different version 


of table two, isn't it? 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and I think this is where 


the problem came in. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so it's inconsistent 


between table two and three, then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe, I don't know. 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 

233 

that's -- I'm not sure. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Table three comes from the TBD? 


 DR. BEHLING: And your second page is -- is a 


table three, and I think that comes out of -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: From the TBD? 

 DR. BEHLING: -- from the TBD. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And the other one's in the 

DR file. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: And you're saying they might be 

incon-- I think we might need time. And I 


don't know if we can do this real time, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, from '72 to '94 period it 


looks to be the same. Right? That table just 


summarizes --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, it does. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's -- it's a different 


date grouping. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a different date grouping 


than table two, but it seems to say the same 


things that I just said about that period. And 


we didn't check -- I haven't checked all 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 

234 

other date periods in that because I'm -- maybe 


I misunderstood the nature of the comment. 


 MS. BEHLING: (Unintelligible) because here, in 


this table, shallow (unintelligible) -- the 


records -- I don't know. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Here -- here's what I propose is 


we leave that initial finding 3-- or action 


36.1. Stu, you -- you've given us a respon-- 


you know, a response toward that end, I think. 


Your DR 36.1 --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and let's delete the 


highlighted yellow section at this point. And 


after further review, if -- if Hans and Kathy 


feel like there is an inconsistency, then we'll 


add that on in our -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. I'll -- I'll let you know 


about that. For some reason I thought there 


was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but the path forward will -- 


will hinge on your first action. Okay, Stu? 


Is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm deleting that bottom 


section of the action. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I -- I think the issue 


really comes into play when you look at the 


actual records themselves, which are defined in 


-- in -- different terms, where you really are 


given a shallow dose, a deep dose, a neutron, 


(unintelligible), et cetera. And then when you 


just kind of go through the identification of 


those values and -- without necessarily going 


through the exercise -- you would tend to come 


with some -- up with some questionable 


conclusions out of -- by the table methods in 


table two or table three. It's just somewhat 


confusing. I think in the end you may be 


right. As -- if you go through the full 


exercise and going over and identifying each of 


the components that are defined as shallow or 


deep, you will probably end up with the right 


number. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let's -- let's just leave it 


there and you --


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it'll give you time to -- to 


look at those again. It's -- you know. 


Thirty-six point two has this -- I highlighted 


the DCF-1 issue. Prior to this we had had 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 

236 

as an action, I think. Right? So I did-- 


didn't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- it was a comment I 


threw in --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- because it -- you know, one 


of -- part of the comment was if it's skin dose 


you shouldn't use the DCF but use a DCF of one. 


And using DCF of one is the same 


(unintelligible) as DCF. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I just threw that comment 


in. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It can be taken out. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. No, I mean I'll -- I'll 


just un-highlight it. It's fine. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, Hans, are we moving forwa­

- are you? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Look at that later. I -- I think 


we'll look -- yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's a continued action. I don'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 

237 

want to lose the other -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm on 36.7. I don't have 


anything highlighted here but I just wanted to 


make sure that Kathy and Hans didn't have 


anything. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Thirty-six seven, eight and 


nine kind of go together. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Is this the case where the 


individual worked at Y-12 and K-25? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, this one is the guy who 


scratched his face and... 


 MS. BEHLING: Oh, okay. Yeah. You resolved 


that. I think you resolved that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. We -- I've got copies of 


our additional request and our responses -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if anybody wants them. 


 MS. BEHLING: I think that's resolved based on 


those records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, "there's no further action" 


is what's on there right now. Right? 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 

238 

36.7, yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: What I'm saying is that we've 


done what we -- you know, at the last -- at the 


last meeting, said this is a fairly recent, you 


know, there -- there might be first aid 


records, and the --


 MS. BEHLING: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the response form, the 


original response from Hanford didn't have 


anything checked when he got the incident. It 


didn't say present, didn't say non-valid -- 


didn't say anything --


 MS. BEHLING: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- nothing was checked. So we 


went back and asked. We asked again, hey, 


specifically for this -- this particular case, 


do you have any acci-- any incident or first 


aid information? And they looked for more than 


just the year we specified. They looked for 


several years and in two different record 


cabinets. And they didn't find anything. And 


this time they did -- when they responded -- 


they did check either "not available or does 


not exist" to provide -- but they did make the 


check on their most recent response. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I've included both their 


original cover sheet and their second cover 


sheet. 


 DR. BEHLING: And that was really all our 


recommendation was, just to verify that there 


was -- there were no records that suggest that 


there -- such an injury ever took place. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. And so we did pursue 


that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The next two, 36.8 and 9, I'm 


going to delete that second part because we've 


discussed it in the procedures review. Right? 


That's what I said earlier, it's the CATI 


question. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh, this is --


 MR. GRIFFON: Thirty-six point eight and 36.9. 


 MS. MUNN: Eight and nine. The highlighted 


stuff comes out. Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's in the procedures review, 


correct. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And that concludes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

the second matrix, I think. Everybody 


satisfied with that? 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wow, are we good. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) none, none, none 


and none. Oh, I like those nones. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Nein. Not none. All right. 


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS MATRIX: CASES 39 THROUGH 60


 Opening up the third set matrix now. Third set 


of cases titled "Summary of Findings Matrix: 


Cases 39 through 60." Everybody got that 


prepared? "July 23rd" it should say on the top 


-- it's the version. 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, 40.1. Is there -- so 


this is a -- an evaluation, Stu, that's ongoing 


on 40.1? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's one of our actions, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay. I didn't know if 


you had a related handout. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No. That's (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 41.1. This is the CATI 


question again, so I think it's going away; 


42.2 has that action on the "evaluate whether 


the constant value is bounding," that's 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 

241 

DCF-1 issue? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. Forty-two point four -- 


yeah, this -- this question was -- "discuss in 


the site profile review" was in the NIOSH 


resolution column. And then "none at this 


time" was the -- so I -- I thought that was 


inconsistent there. Is the action to discuss 


this in the NIOSH site profile review? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This -- well, it could be drawn 


into the earlier discussion we had where we 


talked about the OCAS-TIB that talked about 


assigning neutron doses at Savannah River, 


'cause that's the question here. This was a 


Savannah River worker. And the question was 


raised -- maybe this guy should be assigned 


neutrons, having worked there -- because he 


worked for -- the entirety was before 1971 when 


TLD badging got -- when they started using TLDs 


and neutron monitoring kind of got a little 


more reliable at Savannah River. And so, what 


about this guy who's an iron worker? And this 


particular employee has an extensive bioassay 


record. And the advantage of the bioassay 


record in this case is it has a work location 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

on it. The majority of this person's bioassays 


were collected under the abbreviation CS, which 


is central shops, in the 700 area -- which -- 


where you would not expect to have a neutron 


exposure to an iron worker. He was in the 


reactor area, and some of his bioassay was in 


the -- it would say C or K or P and so he'd be 


in the reactor area for some of it. And so the 


is-- the question -- and I -- the way we get 


into the site profile or into the OCAS-TIB 


about neutron exposures is is the guidance 


sufficient -- is it sufficient so that it was 


applied correctly and is being applied 


correctly to people like this. My own reading, 


which is not necessarily the expert reading 


because I -- I was doing it to prepare for 


this, it's not exactly like I know this exactly 


off the top of my head, is this -- this seems 


to be like an okay selection. You know, the 


selection that this guy -- if he was ex-- 


exposed to neutrons, it would have been sort of 


incidental and not -- not really much to it -- 


came from the fact that he generally seemed to 


work out of central shops. So he would have 


been in a number of places rather than in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

reactor building. In the reactor -- in the 


reactor facilities there are some jobs where we 


do want to include neutron exposure if they 


worked in a crane bay -- the maintenance in the 


crane bay, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Now I don't -- I don't know 


enough about Savannah River and how they 


outsourced maintenance people, but I know some 


facilities certainly you would have been out of 


the central shops but you would have done a lot 


of work --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, he certainly would have 


worked all over the plant. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's for sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but not in the reactor 


buildings? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: He was assigned. He worked in 


the reactors. But in the reactors, the neutron 


-- the people who were neutron-exposed, 


according to our OTIB -- or R-TIB, not an OTIB; 


not an OCAS-TIB -- according to that it's -- 


it's not everybody in the reactor areas. 


There's, you know, people working maintenance 


in the crane bays and there's a certain number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

of construction-type job titles -- or 


maintenance-type job titles listed there. Iron 


worker was not one of them. But maybe iron 


worker should be. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And then perhaps operators and 


(unintelligible) control technicians. Those 


are the people who were likely in the crane bay 


while the reactors were running. Most other 


people in the reactors don't really -- didn't 


really have a lot of potential for neutron 


exposure, according to our TIB. So the 


question, I think, about whether this case was 


done correctly relates to is the guidance for 


selecting the people who are potentially 


neutron-exposed -- is that good enough? Is 


that good guidance? And which wraps up into 


Savannah River and TIB combination questions. 


So that's why I thought it would be best 


disposed of in the Savannah River site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, I'm in agreement 


with that. I just noticed that there was no 


action in your action column. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I was tired that day. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So I -- the -- the next 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

two I would propose just moving over my 


resolution into the action also, "discuss in 


the site profile review." 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you want me to number these 


as 42.4 -- DR 42.4? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. Now 43.1 is a different 


case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay -- yeah, you're right. 


But it was -- that's right. I thought that was 


the same case. I'm sorry. Well, this one is 


4-- DR -- it'd be DR --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This would be DR 42.4. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 42.4 as an action. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And it's just to "discuss further 


in the site profile review." 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the next one is -- Stu is 


correct, it's 43.1, a different case. So is 


this --


 MS. BEHLING: This is -- excuse me, Mark, I'm 


sorry. This was a finding that we just added ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: That's 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 

246

 MS. BEHLING: -- based on our discussions -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: This is the K—K-25 one? Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: No. 

 MR. GRIFFON: No? 

 MS. BEHLING: This is still not K-25. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: This is Y-12. But we just --

 DR. MAURO: A coworker. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this was another coworker 


issue, and we just added this based on our last 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- working group meeting. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Is this the Y-12 -- 


 DR. MAURO: The pre-'61 coworker problem. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we didn't use that for 


this 'cause they had exposure records pre-'61. 


Here, I got -- I've got them -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, this matrix -- you were 


working off --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was working off the previous 


matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I did look at yours. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this was -- it was sort of 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 

247 

that matrix, Stu. It was in -- part of the 


resolution column it said "add finding 43.1" or 


something like that. So this is more or less ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: This case --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- more or less new, I think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this case didn't use the 


pre-'61 photon coworker model. We used a pers­

- this individual's exposure records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This -- this is this claimant's 


exposure records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now clearly the pre-'61 photon, 


you know, coworker issue is on the table in Y12. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Why do we -- yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: But didn't go to that year. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But this -- well, this -- this 


guy was ba-- badged. He was badged in '54 when 


he started working. 


 DR. MAURO: So he's one of those few percent -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: One of those few percent that 


were badged. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) and this is him 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. Yeah, I had to take 


off the -- the identifier, but if you look up ­

- you have access to the record -- you know, 


you look up this guy, this is in his DOL 


response -- DOE response. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So a coworker model was not -- 


applied here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: A coworker model was not used 


for this case. 


 DR. MAURO: I seem to forget now, but for pre­

'61 when you do have data for those two percent 


to 20 percent over that time period where you 


have data -- external data -- I guess I wasn't 


quite sure whether you always went to the 


coworker model or you actually used that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's a good point. If 


-- if his exposure record would penalize him 


compared to the coworker model, we would use 


the coworker model. 


 DR. MAURO: Ah, I gotcha. 


 DR. BEHLING: And only if you were dealing with 


a maximized dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: I would assume that if you 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 

249 

doing a best estimate you would use the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's been so long I couldn't 


tell you. I don't really know. 


 MR. SHARFI: But you know --


 MR. GRIFFON: I would assume that would be the 


case. 


 MR. SHARFI: I would think we'd be always -- 


we'd default to their -- they have exposure 


records -- that we'd -- that for best estimate 


we'd have to use their exposure records. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I mean --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. And that seems to 

make sense. 

 DR. BEHLING: -- regulatory commitments bind 


you to that. Records always prevail over 


anything else. 


 MR. MAHER: That's right, the hierological 


(sic) data usage, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So what -- I'm trying to 


figure out 43.1 again. And it was for photon 


doses so --


 MS. BEHLING: Well, I believe that we were 


questioning also -- this particular person was 


a machinist and I think the reason we put 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 

250 

into the site profile review issue is because 


we were questioning whether -- and -- and I 


have to say I'm not -- I didn't go back to 


these records to realize that this person 


actually had records -- his own records as 


opposed to coworker data, but I think we were 


questioning whether coworker data is 


appropriate for all of the job -- job titles. 


But he actually may have gone beyond -- based 


on the work locations, he actually may have 


gone beyond being a machinist. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But he -- it looks like in this 


case he has dosimetry for all the peri-- all 


the covered periods. Is that what you're --


 MR. HINNEFELD: He -- yeah, he was one of the 


few guys. I believe he started working in '54 


and that's when his exposure record starts, I 


believe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's another --


 MR. GRIFFON: He didn't work pre-'54, we're 


pretty sure -- you're sure of that. 


 MS. BEHLING: '56 and '57 I believe. And I 


think what we wrote in here is that we were 


questioning if the use of the coworker model, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

which combines dose for all monitored worker -- 


workers, is appropriate for specific groups of 


workers such as -- you know, in this particular 


case, I guess this individual -- as we said 


earlier, they did not use a coworker model, but 


we're -- we were questioning, I think, if it's 


appropriate for all specific types of workers ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we'll --


 MS. BEHLING: -- and that's why it got referred 


to the site profile. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's clearly a Y-- yeah, 


that's a Y-- that's a site profile 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: That is a site profile issue -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I think there's no action 


here for this. 


 MS. BEHLING: Not for this case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Doesn't look like it. Right? 


Okay. I'm just going to complete the matrix 


putting no action on that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And also in the resolution 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 

252 

think I'm going to add that for this individual 


there were -- he had individual dosimetry 


records. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this individual may 


have worked in one of the buildings where 


thorium was used at Y-12 as well. So it may --


the whole case may become -- this pretty good 


case may become moot. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's it. That's it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what we -- that's what we 


were discussing. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I knew there was a reason this 

was in here. Yes, that's what we were 

discussing. 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. That's it. I couldn't --

that's it. Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was why the site profile 


thing came up. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. PRESLEY: He worked in (unintelligible)? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Ninety-two twelve one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it's not -- this says 


assigning photon doses but -- 


 MS. BEHLING: 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 

253

 MR. PRESLEY: 9201-1? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't recall. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's the general machine shop. 


Most of your thorium work was done in five. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Five? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 9201-(unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: He has like four or five -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: You've got to look at a list of 


buildings, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- he has -- he listed about 


four or five buildings where he worked and I 


asked Bomber, I said any of these buildings on 


the list for thorium, and he -- Bomber was 


pretty sure that they were. 


 MS. BRACKETT: He's got chest counts for 


thorium. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: He does have chest counts that 


include thor-- well --


 MR. GRIFFON: But that was later. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- chest count's a 


(unintelligible) amount, though. Right? Or do 


they only -- do they only record thorium if 


there's a potential for thorium or did chest 


counter just spit out that thorium number? 


 MS. BRACKETT: No, I believe it was just 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 

254 

people who had the potential, because we've got 


a coworker study based on those results. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: See there, he does have chest 


counts for thorium. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That would have been post –- 


post-'57. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BRACKETT: Right, it's later on, so... 


 MR. GRIFFON: So did he work there earlier is 


the question, yeah. But -- that really is a 


separate, though, site profile issue. But that 


was part of the discussion I think. Yeah. But 


for photon doses, the -- I'm putting the 


resolution that he does have individual 


dosimetry records, and there's no action for 


this specific case. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay? All right, 43.3, 


I'll take out that (unintelligible) finding 


43.1. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now this -- here's the internal 


part. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this is the -- I think this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

would involve further discussion in the site 


profile review. I'm sure it's going to be 


caught there anyway, but -- right, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah. There's another 


aspect of this is this person has a pretty 


complete bioassay record so why did we use TIB2. You know, that's one aspect of the finding 


and it probably shouldn't have used -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was before --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- probably should not have 


used TIB-2. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that was before the thorium 


question came up with the -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So in this particular case, 


chances are that the DR should have been done 


with an internal dose reconstruction using the 


bioassay record as opposed to using TIB-2. But 


the -- but -- the whole -- like I said, the 


whole case I believe is going to be moot 'cause 


I did check this guy's diagnosis and I believe 


that's a specified dose -- pretty sure he has a 


specified cancer. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I'm going to put DR 43.3, 


though -- follow up on site profile review? Or 


does that -- might not make sense? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think-- well, it can. 


I mean the internal question is -- is certainly 


open in -- in site profile and if you want us 


to try to take a look at a -- you know, we 


could -- I would prefer not to go do an 


internal dose assessment using bioassay record 


on this case --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if it's -- if it's not going 


to -- when it's not ever going to go anywhere, 


because -- you know, so... 


 MS. BEHLING: Of course. 


 DR. MAURO: The only question is what cancer 


did he have, if it's covered by the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can -- I can confirm that and 


let you know. I -- I-- in fact, if you've got 


the DR report it'll say it in the DR review. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You're saying the other part -- 


you're -- the other part we're capturing anyway 


in the SEC follow up. Right? So we don't need 


an action on this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's listed. Right? Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So then -- then 


there's no action. Right? For this specific 

1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

case. Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: We can take the site profile review 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- on the --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm deleting that, yeah. Forty--


44.1 I'm down to. 


 MS. BEHLING: This was the individual that 


worked at Y-12 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and K-25. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So re-evaluating this case, Stu, 


is what you're talking about. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- is there any other 


comments on that? 


 MS. BEHLING: You haven't done any of that reevaluation? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We have not done it, no. I 


will -- I will tell you that -- this one, I do 


remember a little bit and it has to do -- the 


guy worked in both Y-12 and K-25 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct? He was a machinist? 


 DR. BEHLING: No -- no records for him in K-25. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258

 MR. HINNEFELD: And no records in K-25. He 


worked -- the building identified, 1401 at K25, is the maintenance building. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So he could very well have 


machined --


 MR. GRIFFON: Anything. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- contaminated equipment. 


But he wouldn't have been a uranium machinist, 


which he appeared to be at Y-12. And so the 


exposure -- chances are there was no -- maybe 


there was no monitoring required -- I don't 


know if anybody can help me out -- at, you 


know, K-25 in the -- in the machining building 


or the maintenance building, which would not be 


one of the production buildings. 


 MR. GRIFFON:

monitoring. 

 MR. PRESLEY:

 No, there was -- there was 

 Yeah, and they were all monitored 

--

 MR. GRIFFON: 

 MR. PRESLEY: 

They were all monitored. 

-- 'cause that's -- you know, 

that -- that building's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: They had every -- yeah -- they 


were monitored in 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 

259

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay -- in 1305? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: And this was -- this was back in 


the '60s and early '70s, '65 through '71. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I checked that time period and 


the -- and where he was there should have been 


monitoring. Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it's worth following up that 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We may --


 MR. MAHER: Should be something there, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Something (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Forty-six point one -- finding 


46.1 -- the only question I really had here, 


Stu, was DR 6.4 -- oh, it -- so it came from 


the first case matrix. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it says revise IG-1 or other 


document. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was writing my note. Which 


number are we on? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, 46.1, I'm sorry -- 46.1, 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 

260 

it's DR 6.4, which would refer back to the 


first set of twenty cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it -- revise IG-1 or other 


document. I didn't know what that meant. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I didn't want to restrict 


myself to IG-1. I think IG-1 will probably be 


where it ends up, but there might be something 


else where we'd want to put it in. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: And this is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: For example, this is about the 


LOD over two issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: You got the memo? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. We sent the -- we sent 


the change management over, said hey, we want 


you to do it this way. I mean, it involved 


changes to a whole bunch of tools. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But you're going to incorporate 


it in a procedure, but you're not sure, it 


might be in others? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure of the best place 


to put it. I think IG-1 is a good place to put 


it, but there might be other places to put 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 

261 

that would be better -- that would make more 


sense. And so that's why I put that in there. 


Might be Proc 6, might be somewhere else, you 


know. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And as we follow it, we'll know. 


Right? So --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Forty -- the same thing on 


the next two, yeah, so I'll just delete the 


highlighting. 


 MS. MUNN: More of the same. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sorry to be picky. I was just 


looking for consistency. Forty-eight point 


one's the same, question of the DCF-1, whether 


it's bounding. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm down to 49.2. I guess I -- I 


was just getting -- looking for clarification 


on what the program evaluation report is. 


 MS. BEHLING: Mark? I'm sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, go ahead. Back? 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- I'm back. I'm back still 


reading something. I'm way back on 47.1. And 


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

262

 MS. BEHLING: I -- I assume that you thought 


that this was the issue that we're still going 


to discuss on the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- the Hanford records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it's different? 


 MS. BEHLING: But I believe in this case, if I 


recall, this -- we only received lifetime -- a 


summary lifetime report and an annual exposure 


records. We didn't have monthly or quarterly 


records to verify. And I believe there was a 


difference between those two -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- which we see, you know, 


occasionally. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I did -- I did characterize 


that as a data collection -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- error. But you're right. The 


action doesn't really reflect that, does it? 


 MS. BEHLING: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- well, they -- you're 


right. 


 MS. BEHLING: And I believe what you typically 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

do is you look at the two and you select the 


highest, and -- that's what I've seen, anyway, 


in the past. I didn't know if there was any 


other follow-up or if you try to get any of the 


more detailed records. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We did not follow up in this 


case because the case could be completed. 


Actually, it was a compensable case -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- using the lower numbers on 


the reported exposure and not worrying about 


missed and things like that. So we could -- 


 MR. MAHER: Right. It was an underestimate and 


it went comp right away. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So since it was a compensable 


case, we didn't really want to delay the 


process by going back and asking for a record. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. But in -- in cases where 


it's not a compensable case, 'cause I do see 


this occasionally, do you just automatically 


assume the highest? Do you try to go back and 


get more detailed records? 


 MR. MAHER: We try to get the -- the -- the 


regular monitoring data rather than the summary 


data. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. MAHER: In fact we're doing that right now 


with the bioassay at a number of the national 


laboratories. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think I'm going to change 


the resolution, too. I mean I think the 


resolution in this case was there was no nee-- 


you know, NIOSH felt there wasn't a need to -- 


 MR. MAHER: On this case only. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On this case only, right. Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. This sets a case-


specific decision on this case, we felt there 


wasn't a need to. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay -- that -- that I agree 


with. 


 MS. MUNN: So, for the entire case we're doing 


this? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's only one item. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's only one finding -- 47.1 


is the only finding. 


 MS. MUNN: So it is -- since I was back on 46. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Sorry, I'm just taking 


notes here. And I'm going to -- there's no 


action on this one, is there? I think 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 

265 

action for 36 stands alone, doesn't it? We 


don't need to say for case 36 and 47. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. The one for case 36 


stands by itself. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so no action on this. All 


right. Are we back down to where I was there, 


Kathy? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I'm sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. That's all right, I'm glad 


you caught it. So I was up to 49.2. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This que-- I think I know what 


you mean here, Stu, but I just wanted to 


clarify what the program evaluation report was. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a non-Hodgkins 


lymphoma. We've not that long ago changed the 


target organ for that particular diagnosis to a 


different target organ, so this case has to be 


re—re-done anyway as part of that process to 


determine whether the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then re-evaluated based on 


the findings of the program evaluation report? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean, not really via the 


program --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266

 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we call --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: A program evaluation report is 


sort of the vehicle we use to evaluate 


completed cases and the impac-- the impact on a 


completed case when we make a change in 


methodology --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- like this. So that's the 


vehicle we use to evaluate that impact. And 


it's --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this is hundreds, I know, of 


cases that are being re-evaluated. We're in 


the middle of it. 


 MS. BEHLING: I was looking for an OCAS-PER. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: PER number? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't know the PER num-- 


well, the actual PER is probably going to be 


wrapped up when we've decided which ones to get 


back from Labor and rework and things like 


that, so --


 MS. BEHLING: That explains that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think we're okay on 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 

267 

It was just a matter of a clarification of what 


that document was. Fifty point three? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah. This is a -- has to 


do with how -- which DCF was applied to the 


ambient dose in -- at Fernald. 


 MS. BEHLING: Oh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we'd like -- if we're 


going to address this, let's roll it into the 


Fernald TBD question because it has several 


years worth of data where it's -- the data's 


reported in a particular table as mrem per 


hour, and did they really adjust? Because the 


early environmental measurements were made with 


film, which probably wouldn't be an mrem, it 


would be an mR measurement, which would require 


a different DCF and at some point 


(unintelligible) change -- and we're talking 


about a couple of hundred millirem a year in 


most cases. In some cases it'd be higher than 


that. If -- I mean, if we want to pursue a 


resolution here, I think we should just kind of 


-- the Fernald site profile's being reviewed 


and we can try to just make sure it's clear 


that that site profile clearly specifies what 


to do with these numbers, whether it's mrem or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

mR. 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe I recall that this was 


just an issue of consistency we made and I 


noticed --


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I mean if you go back -- if 


you back to the original report, I -- I 


highlighted -- I said, for mere consistency -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) you have to 


(unintelligible) recorded missed dose. Where 


they used the DCF of 1.244 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- they should have applied that 


same --


 MS. BEHLING: Applied it also. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- elevated -- we know it's a 


generous --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- gift to -- to be given that 


value, but it was strictly one of consistency. 


If you're going to apply it there, why wouldn't 


you apply it for ambient dose. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right. Well th-- and 


again, if the ambient dose -- it was 


undoubtedly early on measurable film if they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

were measuring it, so it should have been done 


at that point, and I think '85 was the year 


they changed. 


 DR. BEHLING: It's strictly cosmetic. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So is the action that we'll 


discuss further in the site profile? Doesn't 


seem like you need much discussion. I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I wouldn't think it would 


require much. I mean --


 DR. BEHLING: No, it -- this is up to the 


discretion of the dose reconstructor. 


 MS. BEHLING: The dose reconstructor. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: I mean, he didn't have to do it 


in any of the cases. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We are rolling, unless Kathy 


stops me. 


 I'm pausing 'cause there's a few new findings 


in here I -- people should look through. Not 


findings, actions. People should check these 


on me because I did edit these late at night. 


(Pause) 


 MS. BEHLING: This I think is an issue that 


needs to 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 

270

 MR. GRIFFON: Which one are you at, Kathy? 

 MS. BEHLING: Oh, I'm sorry, 51.1. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Are you -- is Ray okay? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, he's fine. 

THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: He's not dozing off again. 


 MS. BEHLING: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was only this morning. 


 MS. BEHLING: I believe this is the situation 


where the Fernald -- the occupational medical 


dose that was identified in the TBD is 


inconsistent with -- was it with another TBD or 


was it with OTIB-6? 


 DR. BEHLING: I think they just broke rank with 


the rest of the DOE complex values. 


 MR. MAHER: No, there is a -- there is a 


difference in the dose here between those 


documents she referenced, and we have since 


verified that as being fixed. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. MAHER: In -- in this case it's a .3 rem 


difference so the -- would not affect the 


compensability outcome. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

271

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Just so that this is 


followed through and -- and (unintelligible). 


 MR. MAHER: But the X-rays cited Fernald at the 


table there. Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Does the -- does the action 


stand? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the action we're in the 


middle of. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. You're in the middle of 


it. 


 MR. MAHER: That's right, we're right in the 


middle of that right now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Kathy, I'm waiting for 


you. I'm down at 54. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I -- I'm moving, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Hurry up, hurry up -- no. 


 MS. BEHLING: These are all TIB-10s again. I'm 


down to 55 -- (unintelligible) 55. Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. A lot of TIB-10s, TIB-8s, 


yep. 


 MS. BEHLING: TIB-8s and 10s, okay. Now we're 


down to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Fifty-six point four? 


 MS. BEHLING: -- 56.4. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272

 MR. GRIFFON: 56.4, everyone. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, the wording in this section 


of the NIOSH resolution is not really great 


wording, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. Well, I might have 


written that, too. That might explain it. It 


was actually not when I was sleepy. But I 


looked back -- I looked back at it and 


highlighted it and said what did I write? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think I've ever 


presumed to write not -- "SC&A agrees". I 


don't believe I've ever written that. 


 MS. MUNN: It's -- it's too presumptuous. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I did go back and look at 


this case and I -- this was an issue where the 


worker was a steam plant operator and did work 


in areas where there were potentially neutron 


exposures, and the records -- I guess I'm going 


to go back to rehash this, but the records did 


show zero under neutron as if she was 


monitored, and it was zero, and I just thought 


in that case --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- there was -- they could 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 

273 

assigned missed neutron dose. And I guess you 


felt that, based on -- on the job title and the 


work locations, she would not have been 


necessarily exp--


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah the -- the approach that's 


taken -- certain -- certain sites hang -- when 


they hang a dosimeter, there's a neutron 


component. And so there's always a neutron 


component in the -- in the badge, regardless of 


whether a person has potential for exposure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was the explanation. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so the record will show 


that zero in the neutron column, and so for 


those sites, we try to judge -- by job title 


and assignment -- whether there's potential for 


neutron exposure or not. I'm not intimately 


familiar with this case, so I don't -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: My recollection was at last 


meeting you had kind of accepted this 


explanation, yeah -- yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- yeah, I -- and we -- I did 


go back and I -- I calculated what that neutron 


dose would have been and if it would have 


impacted this case, and it would not 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 

274

 MR. GRIFFON: It would not have anyway, right, 

so, yeah. 

 DR. BEHLING: Yeah -- 720 milligrams -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: I still thought that initially I 

was legi--

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- it was a legitimate issue, 


that neutron dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I've slightly reworded that 


resolution. SC&A agrees based on job title 


information --


 MR. MAHER: Well -- a lot of this is the 


professional judgment of the DR after reading, 


you know, the information about the EE and the 


CATIs and all that and, you know, there are 


differences of opinions among people whether 


they should be or not. 


 MS. BEHLING: Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. MAHER: But there are consistent, you know, 


pretty constant problems throughout this 


project, yeah. Not a problem, but a difference 


of opinion. 


 MS. BEHLING: 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 

275

 MR. GRIFFON: That's why it was raised --

 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I think we reflected on 

it --

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- and we're -- we're in 

agreement. 

 MR. MAHER: Also, there was an absence of 


shallow or deep dose -- photon dose -- on this 


person, which would further collaborate they 


weren't exposed. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Is that true? 


(Pause) 


That's true. I guess it was mostly missed dose 


that was calculated. Okay. 


 MR. MAHER: That's part of the thinking for the 


DR is there -- you know, is there photon dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I agree. I agree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. So I'm on to 57.4, if 


you're ready. 


 MS. BEHLING: Which -- which one are you on, 


Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Fifty-seven point four, 57.4. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

The only --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- thing I wanted to approve -- 


go ahead, if we need to go back? 


 DR. BEHLING: Fifty-six point five -- is that 


one still under re-- under review? We'll be 


able to determine --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we're going to try to -- 


we'll make another attempt and see if we can 


find bias in that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then we got the TIB-10s. 


 MS. BEHLING: TIB-10s, okay, I'm good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then we're up to 57.4 is -- the 


only question I had was the note that, Stu, you 


had added this, I think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the finding was that -- 


should you -- I think the finding was that -- 


should -- shouldn't have used the 12 -- should 


have used the 12 radionuclide -- 


 MS. BEHLING: You're right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- intake. And we felt like 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

277 

well, there was places -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where fission products are a 


problem, so we felt like using the 28 nuclide 


was appropriate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I just threw it in -- 


 MS. BEHLING: That is. That's appropriate. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- so we accept that? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Un-highlight it. 

 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Hey, fission products are 


fission products. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I know. I know, I know. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just to stay on that one 


for a second, is this -- SC&A agrees with this 


then, so -- and -- and... 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, wait a second, there -- are 


this -- this is two parts again. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's two parts. One is the 


selection of the organ --


 MR. GRIFFON: It's the organ and the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it was --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

278

 MR. GRIFFON: -- 28 radi-- yeah, so there's -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it was an early model that 


only allowed use of the --


 MR. GRIFFON: So -- okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the colon, and now -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's two parts. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the model allows a broader 


selection. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you agree with the one part 


but the other point is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


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


right. Fifty-eight point three. This is gone, 


this highlighted section -- again, the CATI. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we eliminate that whole 


(unintelligible). Right? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And I'm down to 60. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, 59 is being re-evaluated. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Case 59. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And actually so is 60, 

apparently. 

 MS. BEHLING: Same with 60. 

 MR. GRIFFON: On 68.2, Stu, the thing I had 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279 

here was 60.1 and 60.3 said "attempt to resolve 


differences and re-evaluate the" -- it seemed 


like -- and then -- it seemed like the whole 


case was being re-evaluated and you had 


something different for 60.2, I forget what you 


had. I should have saved changes. Or -- or --


tracked changes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember 60 right off 


hand. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Shoot, I don't know if I have -- 


I do, hold on one second. I've got the old 


hard copy. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I remember now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You got it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This person worked at Pantex 


for two years and was -- I believe this is one 


who was a patrol officer -- so we felt like if 


-- if this is -- you know, if 60.2 is 


correctly, you know, summarized there, we feel 


like the hypothetical intake -- you know, a 


TIB-2 intake -- was certainly being 


conservative for -- for that person in a two-


year work history. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess what I was questioning is 


in the resolution column we had "NIOSH will re­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280 

do case" for all three of those, and then I saw 


no action for 60.2. It looked a little 


strange, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the re-working of the 


case -- or the -- actually what we said we'd do 


is we would try -- there's a difference between 


the exposure record we got and the guy's 


employ-- verified employment records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you don't have to re--


 MR. HINNEFELD: He has verified employment for 


two years in the '80's. There's like one -- I 


think there's a triti-- one tritium bioassay 


sample from the '90's. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So then we need to-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and that's the extent of his 


monitoring records. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We need to change the resolution 


column, not the action column. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe the action column 


speaks to what we intended to do. We're going 


to try to see if we can't resolve why does the 


guy have verified two years of employment -- 


verified employment in the '80s and one tritium 


sample in the '90's. 


 MS. BEHLING: 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 

281

 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, why did that happen? 


And -- and then -- but as far as the TIB-2 


intake, it's hard to imagine that a patrol 


officer in two years at Pantex would have more 


than a TIB-2 intake, because -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Agreed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a TIB-2 intake is like 110 


DAC years of intake. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So SC&A agrees -- the resolution 


is SC&A agrees with this -- NIOSH's response on 


the 28 radionuclide question. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: But -- but you still are going to 


go back and see if you -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to try to resolve 


that difference --


 MS. BEHLING: -- to resolve that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the records, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to try to do that. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- just because those records 


were very strange --


 MR. GRIFFON: But that's for 60.1 and 3. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

282

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. So you don't really have 


to do anything with the 28 ra-- that part of 


it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm going to change 60.2 -- 


the resolution to read "SC&A agrees with NIOSH 


response" and then no action. That's for 60.2. 


 MR. MAHER: This where -- the case the claimant 


claims to have had something in 1990? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we've got -- it's on his 


exposure record, Ed. He's got like one tritium 


bioassay sample from '92 or '94 or something 


like that, and his verified employment is two 


years in the '80's. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: And it may be a clerical error. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Cler-- yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So he may have gone back as a 


-- on a tour. 


 MS. MUNN: Could have been that. 


MR. MAHER: That's right. 


 MS. MUNN: Or it could be a clerical error. 


 MS. BEHLING: But the other thing that was 


strange is the only records I -- as I recall, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

283 

were summary records, and those summary records 


were dated like 1992. And it was so much 


discrepancy between the dates on these various 


records, and there wasn't -- there was no 


detailed records. It was always summary or 


annual records. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I was thinking we just had one. 


I -- I thought we only had one record. It was 


like --


MR. MAHER: Right, just one record. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- one -- one indication, or 


maybe it was one year's -- maybe it was annual 


tritium dose of zero or something in '92 or 


something like that. But I was thinking it was 


really (unintelligible). 


 DR. BEHLING: There may also have been a 


discrepancy between issues of statements made 


in the CATI report regarding -- 


MR. MAHER: That's what I think it was is -- 


 DR. BEHLING: -- monitoring. 


 MR. MAHER: -- CATI --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we'll --


 MR. MAHER: -- where he had (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you're going to check those 


either 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 

284

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: But you're going to check into 


it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to chase it down. 


 MS. BEHLING: Plus the work history, it was a 


combination. 


 MR. MAHER: Yeah and -- and where we often see 


the claimants confused security badges with 


dosimeter badges. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and just people 


oftentimes in a CATI say that they have -- were 


breath -- had breath monitoring. Breath 


monitoring as bioassay was really only done for 


radium. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and -- they -


 MR. MAHER: He was given 22 rem -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. MAHER: -- and with POC of 18 percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll take another look. We'll 


try to resolve the record for the 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just those discrepancies, 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 

285

 MR. HINNEFELD: But I don't think the case is 


going to change. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But the -- the middle -- the 60.2 


remains. No action on 60.2. 


 MS. MUNN: Doesn't make any sense, 22 rem 


(unintelligible) – 


FOURTH SET MATRIX


 MR. GRIFFON: And then we're -- we're up to the 


fourth matrix. Only an introduction. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not ready to talk about it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know, I know. I did want to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Except in general terms. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we're done with the third 


-- are we done with the third set? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only way I -- the only thing 


I did want to do is just maybe get a path 


forward on the fourth set. Kathy and Hans, can 


I ask -- I have a version here -- I think in 


the title here it -- it doesn't have a date on 


the matrix. 


 MS. BEHLING: That was probably the initial 


matrix that I generated, that I sent in. Is 


there a date in the bottom? 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's no date. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

286

 MS. BEHLING: No date? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No dates at all. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe you can e-- e-mail -- have 


you done any -- not -- any --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I've not added any responses. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- responses? No NIOSH responses 


at this point. 


 MS. BEHLING: But you have my matrix. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: He has my matrix. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have the matrix. I've not 


put anything in the matrix and so I've not made 


any modifications to it. We have done some 


work on the cases and so we have some 


information we could put in there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But I have not gone to the step 


of getting it in there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is the fourth set. I don't 


know --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Fourth set. 


 MS. BEHLING: Fourth set. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

287

 MR. GRIFFON: -- if you have it. We might --


if you could, maybe e-mail it again, just to 


the work group? 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think you should e-mail it 


to John Poston, too, because I think when we 


pick this up again we'll be in our subcommittee 


-- right, Lew? Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Is there any general comments 


that you want to make about the fourth set of 


cases? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll say this. There --


there are a number of -- there are a few cases 


-- I think there are three cases in there where 


it was identified that overestimating 


approaches were used on a compensable claim. 


 DR. MAURO: OTIB-4. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so -- yeah, TIB-4, a TIB-4 


approach. And so I can say a little bit about 


how that came to pass. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, bec--


 MR. HINNEFELD: This was a -- an effort on our 


part to identify cases where we may not ever do 


any better than a general approach. And we 


have a generous approach and I thought it 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 

288 

be to our benefit in order to -- well, not 


necessarily I -- we thought it would be in our 


benefit, if we are in a situation where we have 


some sites where we may never ever do any 


better than this --


 MS. BEHLING: So you don't --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we may not refine it any 


better. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This might be the best we can 


do. Now, in doing that, in our haste to get 


these cases out, we neglected some things. For 


instance, we didn't modify TIB-4 to say things 


like this is an overestimating case or can be 


used in cases where the -- the exposures cannot 


be refined any further. And so TIB-4 really 


precludes its use in a compensable case and so 


that was our bad. But we did it with the best 


of intentions. We did it with the best of 


intentions in order to make progress on cases 


where we didn't foresee making any better 


estimate, any more refined estimate, and doing 


an estimate in those cases. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And wh-- where are these. 
I 


think we can say without identifiers where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289 

these cases were from. Do you recall? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If I recall -- and whether they 


were --


 MR. GRIFFON: Were they all AW-- small AWE 


sites? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They gen-- they tended to be 


AWEs but they weren't, and so there's another 


question of did we -- did we apply our approach 


appropriately or did we make mistakes in the 


application, and that's probably on the 


(unintelligible). 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously.) 


 DR. BEHLING: AWE facilities where we 


questioned not just the -- the use of it for 


compensation, but the fact that they may not be 


appropriate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So the application of what we 


were attempting to do we didn't pull off very 


well. 


 DR. MAURO: There were two problems that I 


thought of as part of this process. One had to 


do with -- in fact one was Bridgeport Brass 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

290 

where you used OTIB-4 as a -- where a -- I 


think there -- and Hans and Kathy, please help 


me out. When I -- when I reviewed the 


Bridgeport Brass, this first one, where you 


used OTIB-4 and you compensated. Now there is 


a Bridgeport Brass site profile. Now my 


concern goes toward okay, now that the site 


profile is out, and a dose reconstructor has 


access to that, and then let's say deny using 


the site profile, you're -- you're in a 


difficult situation, and you underst-- so -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, sure. 


DR. MAURO: -- and we're -- we're about to do 


that again 'cause I think I -- we have some new 


cases now --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I believe there are 


probably five. 


 DR. MAURO: -- where we -- and I'm not quite 


sure what would happen there, whether he's a 


compensating or not, but you could see -- I 


could see the problem coming up -- oh, we used 


the site profile and denied on a -- on one 


case, but in another case, you used TIB-4 and 


granted. So I -- that -- that was one dilemma. 


And of course the other was using TIB-4 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 

291 

site that was not an AWE, such as West Valley. 


 DR. BEHLING: No, it's an AWE but not -- 


 DR. MAURO: West Valley was AWE? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not -- it's not a uranium 


handling --


 DR. MAURO: Not a uranium handling. Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: Because it's not a uranium 


facility, so... 


 DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: And --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- go ahead. 


 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, 'cause -- and then 


there's a third issue as to whether we should 


assume now that TIB-4 can be used to compensate 


cases for AWEs where you do not intend to 


develop a site profile. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, not in its present form. 


Not as -- not in the words on the page today. 


There would have to be changes to the words on 


the page on TIB-4 to allow that use. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This entire population of 


claims came -- was done in a short period of 


time in 2005 that -- we know the entire 


population of claims. We're in discussion 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 

292 

DOL about what will happen with these claims, 


so it's -- it's an issue that clearly is on the 


table that we're having -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean Stu, is this -- I'm trying 


to understand -- was this kind of an ad hoc 


policy in -- in application of TIB-4 or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I guess you would call it 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: How did you decide what 


facilities -- it was kind of within your -- 


within your DR group? Or how -- I don't 


understand the sort of process on how this was 


-- determinations were made. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there's intent and then 


there's execution and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- communication failures and 


communication breakdowns. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I'm not trying to point at 


-- I'm just trying to understand -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The intent was that there is 


this population of claims that OTIB-4 -- there 


were the uranium sites that TIB-4 correctly 


applies to. Chances are we will not be able in 


any kind of timely fashion to do any better 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

293 

than this, so we -- we should use this as -- we 


can't refine the estimate any more than this. 


It -- that was the intent. That was the 


thought process. 


 DR. WADE: And the -- the policy level was made 


at the Director of NIOSH's level. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The execution and 


communication of that, among our own staff and 


to our contractor -- there were some 


communication failures in terms of how the 


implementation of that should go. And so, 


based on that, some things -- some -- it was 


applied more broadly than chances are it would 


have been applied. This was an attempt to move 


cases. You know, this was May of 2005. There 


was a lot of pressure to move cases. We were 


doing it for the best of purpo-- best of 


reasons --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- to try to get answers to 


people, and -- and in looking for broader 


application, we just pushed the boundaries of 


applicability beyond the point it should have 


been. 


 DR. BEHLING: Has -- has TIB-4 been revised 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

294 

currently to the point where it can be used for 


compensating claims and -- and -- in a sense -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think he said no. 


 MS. BEHLING: He said no. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- that it defines bounding 


values -- it has not? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No, it has not. And it's 


not being used in that -- has not been used in 


that sense for probably over a year. 


 DR. BEHLING: But we will tell you that -- 


 MS. BEHLING: This set. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- in the sixth set has a number 


of --


 MR. HINNEFELD: They were all done in that same 


period. 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: They were all done in the same 


time frame, yeah. 


 DR. BEHLING: So in all likelihood we will then 


be forced to just bring that up as an issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You'll have -- it'll be the 


same issue. It'll be just like -- it'll be 


TIB-- TIB-8 and TIB-10 revisited. It'll be --


 MR. MAHER: For -- for more than a year now our 


direction is not to use overestimates on co-- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 -- 

25 

295 

compensable cases. 


 DR. BEHLING: I was under the impression that 


perhaps there had been some revisions where you 


would say TIB-4 provides bounding estimates, 


and since we're not going to use -- develop 


TBDs, then it can be used to reach a -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We may in fact get there. We 


may do that. 


 DR. WADE: It's a reasonable approach. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It is a reasonable approach to 


do. 


 DR. BEHLING: If that's a statement in the TIB, 


then that's fine. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Exactly. 


 DR. WADE: But as Stu said, it hasn't been 


modified. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it has not been modified 


to that effect yet. 


 MR. GRIFFON: At this -- at this point, Stu, 


you have -- is there one of these -- I forget 


what they're called, directives or whatever, 


that you -- things like you said were -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I could probably come up with a 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in touch with that e-mail 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 -- 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

296 

stream --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can probably come up with a 


trail. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that show that a year ago you 


-- you --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I told them to do this and then 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- later on told them to stop? 


I think I probably can. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean as we go down the matrix, 


I think that might be useful, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I probably can. 


 DR. MAURO: What might help the process also is 


we just completed a review of Rev 3 of TIB-4, 


the latest version of TIB-4. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. MAURO: And -- and by and large, the most 


important aspect of it has to do with adopting 


the 100 MAC as the default upper bound value 


and we -- we come away with saying that that is 


a reasonable, plausible upper bound. That is, 


when you look at the distribution of the data 


upon which that 100 MAC was selected, it falls 


in at about the upper 95th percentile 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 

297 

distribution measurements that were made for 


those seven facilities that were used -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: -- as the basis for it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 DR. MAURO: So what I'm getting at is I could 


see TIB-4 being a very functional upper -- 


plausible upper bound for AWE -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Appropriate AWEs --


 DR. MAURO: Appropriate, yeah. It's 


appropriate and not some -- some gross 


unrealistic, unreal overestimate or whatever. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And we -- we may do that. 


 MS. BEHLING: But you're not there yet. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But we are not doing it today. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That helps us with moving 


on. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BRACKETT: And isn't Battelle doing the 


AWEs now anyway? Would they be using 


(unintelligible)? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I'm not really up to date 


on what they're doing. But Battelle -- many 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 

298 

these sites are now the responsibility for 


Battelle to do the dose reconstructions and so 


 DR. WADE: It's a policy decision. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But a policy decision's a 


policy decision. 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay. That answers a lot of 


critical questions for the next set. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think that's -- I mean I don't 


know that we can go much further with this 


fourth set. Really I -- I, you know, it -- I 


think at the next Board meeting we should be in 


a position where we're going to set up our 


subcommittee. Right? And we'll carry this 


work over into the subcommittee, I assume. 


 DR. WADE: We were going to try to charter it 


on a call --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- and have it ready to go in 


September. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay. So if -- if -- 


maybe by the September meeting, Stu, do you 


think it's realistic that you might have 


responses at least for part of this matrix? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

299

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: By the September Board meeting, 


we said the 19th of September? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can cer-- I mean, we have 


some pieces and parts -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I just haven't put it on the 


matrix yet, and so we do have some -- I can 


have some (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean if -- if -- even if it's 


still, you know, under -- under further review 


or whatever, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but if you can get a lot -- if 


you can get most of them and there's a few 


outstanding --


 MR. MAHER: Stu, we -- we have completed our 


responses to that fourth set. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So they're --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Just about ready. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we -- we'll pick that up in 


September and carry it into the subcommittee, 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 

300 

think. 


 DR. WADE: And now you do have the fifth and 


sixth sets. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Fifth and sixth set? Yeah, and 


on those I think I had asked SC&A to look at 


that listing and look at the cases and see if 


the cases lined up with the definition of best 


estimate or maximum-minimum case. And Kath--


Kathy e-mailed a response and I don't know that 


I'm -- I haven't cross-walked -- the one 


question I had was there was a -- I haven't 


cross-walked it with what we thought the fir-- 


when we had the selection matrices we had a 


final column. And Stu you said that, you know, 


this was a judgment so it might -- there might 


be some areas or some, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I haven't cross-walked -- 


have you cross-walked that, Kathy, or -- 


 MS. BEHLING: No --

 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 

 MS. BEHLING: No, I haven't I --

 MR. GRIFFON: What I wanted to look at was did 

the selections match up with the reality on 


those cases. In other words, if we thought 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 

301 

had ten best estimates and ten -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- max, did we get ten, then ten? 

And --

 MS. BEHLING: In the fifth set -- especially 

the fifth set -- I do not believe that you did 


because we also went into the fifth set -- you 


all went into the fifth set in selecting cases 


of AWEs that we haven't reviewed yet. Some of 


those -- most of those AWEs were on that list 


of full external/full internal. But I think, 


as you would define a best estimate, they -- in 


my mind -- would not be considered a best 


estimate. However, they were on that list of 


full internal/full external. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: An AWE that was done in 


accordance with a one-size-fits-all TIB -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- would be -- we would click 


as best estimate. 


 DR. MAURO: We would click it as best estimate. 


 MS. BEHLING: Exactly. 


 DR. MAURO: At the Linde site, that was a best 


estimate. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

302

 MR. GRIFFON: And I think I'll -- I'll try to 


present something at that on the August 8th 


phone call and -- and -- because the -- it 


still may be important, especially for those 


AWEs that don't have TIBs. Even though it's a 


one-size-fits-all, this may be our shot at 


reviewing that site, more or less, you know. 


So it may still be that the Board wants to do 


that, you know. And I think it will be. 


 MS. BEHLING: And it's --


 MS. MUNN: It might not be a bad idea. 


 MS. BEHLING: It was difficult --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right. 

 MS. BEHLING: It was difficult for me to 

classify those, and so I tried to put a little 


bit of a different explanation. Rather than 


putting min/max or best estimate, I said 


compensated using TIB-4 or some -- something 


along those lines. But I know what your idea 


of a best estimate is --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and I wouldn't think that 


those fall into that category. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There aren't -- there won't be 


too many AWEs that really get a full-blown what 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

303 

we think of as a best estimate from Savannah 


River. 


 DR. WADE: Mark -- excuse me -- do you want us 


to have any information on the call that could 


allow for the replacement of cases? Or would 


you --


 MR. GRIFFON: Let me first -- let me first -- 


I'll -- let me do the cross-walk and talk with 


Kathy if I have any questions on that. 


 DR. WADE: Then let us know so we --


 MR. GRIFFON: And then if there -- yeah, and 


then -- then I'll let you know if -- if we need 


to maybe pull -- have some cases available. 


But it may be -- it may be that it's close 


enough that we don't -- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: But especially if all of -- If 


literally all of the cases that were on the 


original list we had to choose from -- if too 


many of them fall into the category that don't 


fit our -- our need, then -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We may have to --


 MS. MUNN: -- (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 

304

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we don't want to waste our 


time. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. That was the whole 


point of doing that, we don't want to waste our 


time with --


 DR. MAURO: We began work on the fifth set, I 


mean, they're just -- they're moving forward. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 DR. MAURO: Should we -- should we reign that 


in? 


 MS. MUNN: That's fine. 


 MS. BEHLING: Oh. 


 DR. WADE: I would say no. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I would say -- I would say 


no. But -- let me -- I-- I'll look quickly at 


this. 


 DR. WADE: Certainly look at the sixth one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You haven't started on the sixth? 


 MS. BEHLING: The sixth -- I've done that also 


but I haven't cross-walked that. 


 DR. WADE: But you haven't started working -- 


DR. MAURO: It's not actually doing work. We 


haven't --


 MS. BEHLING: But there's -- but there, I do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

305 

believe you've captured quite a few -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think -- I think the 


sixth we were safer 'cause we were picking 


mostly from best estimate cases. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Like DOE sites. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. MAURO: The -- I think there may -- perhaps 


this designation of best estimate, 'cause I was 


surprised to see that, for example, we -- we 


have a -- a Linde site was one of the -- in the 


fifth set that I just finished, and I noticed 


that the -- the whole dose is based on an 


exposure matrix for Linde. One size fits all. 


And I guess I was having a little -- and I see 


that in the write-up you represent the matrix 


as a best estimate. And there's something 


about calling a one-size-fits-all a best 


estimate that would apply to everyone that 


worked at Linde just -- I don't know, there's 


something about that I'm having a little 


trouble getting my brain around. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, let me just explain the 


thought process and the choices you have as a 


dose reconstructor, or as a reviewer, when you 


approve a dose reconstruction. The choices 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 

306 

can pick are full internal and external, which 


is what we call best estimate; underestimate, 


primarily internal; underestimate, primarily 


external; underestimate, internal and external; 


and then overestimate for those three 


categories. And those are your choices. So 


when you have a one-size-fits-all, you haven't 


made any maximizing assumptions, you haven't 


thrown in any extra -- you know, extra zeroes 


in the missed dose, you haven't jacked up the 


DCFs. 


 DR. MAURO: And so in that respect -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let me understand. 


DR. MAURO: -- you didn't do any of that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I haven't done a TIB-2 


overestimating intake -- 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, you didn't do any of that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it's all --


DR. MAURO: It's all there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- one-size-fits-all. 


DR. MAURO: It's all there. 


 MS. MUNN: It's the best you can do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, I under-- I understand your 

--

 DR. BEHLING: But you know, in a loose sense 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 

307 

the word, it does comply with the descriptions 


 MR. GRIFFON: John, was your -- was your point 


that in the DR report that it was -- 


 DR. MAURO: Yeah, the do-- the dose -- the 


actual --


 DR. BEHLING: -- (unintelligible) best estimate 


you can get. 


 MS. MUNN: Best you can get. 


 DR. BEHLING: So, in a loose way, it does 


satisfy the definition. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. That, of course, is not what 


we're meaning in later cases when we have the 


option. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's my -- I guess that 


might be different in the DR report, if it's 


characterized as a best estimate and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yep. 


 DR. MAURO: It -- it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And if you --


 MS. MUNN: It's the best you can do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean that -- that may be 


something that you want to bring forward as a 


finding -- I don't know, you know -- depending 


on what you think of -- you know, whether 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 

308 

think that mischaracterizes -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in a DR report we'll say 


a case is an overestimate to indicate -- we've 


done an efficiency method, an overestimate. 


And we'll put in there words like "if the facts 


of the case change we have to rework it" -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- "but dose may actually go 


down because of the overestimating efficiency 


techniques we used in this overestimating 


approach." 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And in an underestimate -- 


we'll call an underestimate in dose 


reconstruction an underestimate because we 


don't use all the components of the dose and so 


it won't look like others. But if we have a 


one-size-fits-all exposure matrix -- 


 DR. MAURO: You use it all. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they're all going to do 


that. You know, they're all going to come out 


there and that's as fine as we've -- best we 


can do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the best you can do, so it 


is a best estimate in a sense. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

309

 MR. HINNEFELD: It's just not a -- not a 


complicated -- it's a really simple dose 


reconstruction. It's not a complicated one 


like a -- a best estimate at Hanford. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that's part of why we want to 


go down this path, is when we were looking for 


best estimates we were looking for the more 


complicated, you know -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We could bring -- I mean, for 


selection purposes, we could bring additional 


information. If we have AWEs that are called 


best estimates, we can come to the table saying 


whether that AWE best estimate really was 


relying on individual data, because we do have 


some individual data from A-- some AWEs and we 


could theoretically do some -- 


 DR. MAURO: Not in this case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- individual cases. 


DR. MAURO: The one I'm looking at -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No. No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think in the last round of 


selection, you know -- I -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Meaning the last time -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we kind of called on you 


because I was, you know, saying -- when we 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 

310 

picking uranium facilities I was saying isn't 


this another one-size-fits-all? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: A lot of those uranium AWEs 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: You were confirming that it was 


-- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- were non-compensable you can 


almost count on being TIB-4. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But there were some on there 


that surprised me. There were some AWEs that I 


thought would be a cookie cutter that we 


actually had the exposure record on, and it was 


generated off the exposure record. So in 


selec-- I remember one in particular in the 


sixth selection. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So let's -- let's -- I'll give an 


update on five and six at the August 8th, but 


don't hold up work, I agree. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We -- we wouldn't hold up work. 


 DR. BEHLING: We're well into doing the audits. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. And I think 


we're done. Is that a wrap? 


 DR. WADE: It's a wrap. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

311

 MR. HINNEFELD: Good by me. 


 DR. WADE: Well done. Thank you all. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Meeting adjourned at this time. 


 DR. WADE: We'll see you next in -- on the 


phone call on August 8th, although there is a 


working group meeting next Monday, Dr. Melius's 


working group dealing with conflict of 


interest. And maybe we'll see some of you 


there -- or hear some of you there. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 3:00 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

312 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of July 27, 


2006; 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 


9th day of September, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102