THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING 3 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 


REVIEWS 


The verbatim transcript of the 3rd 


Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 


Reviews held in Cincinnati, Ohio on April 11, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

April 11, 2007 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. LEW WADE, DFO 


MR. MARK GRIFFON, CHAIR 10 


MATRIX 14 

DR INSTRUCTIONS 258 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 295 

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 


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


Professor, Texas A&M University 


College Station, Texas 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


ALLEN, DAVE, NIOSH 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAU 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KEY, JIM, USW 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

6 

APRIL 11, 2007
 

9:30 a.m.


 P R O C E E D I N G S 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS


 DR. WADE: This is the workgroup conference 


room. This is Lew Wade and I, as always, have 


the privilege of serving as the Designated 


Federal Official for the Advisory Board. This 


is a meeting of the subcommittee of the 


Advisory Board, the only subcommittee currently 


of the Advisory Board, and it's the 


subcommittee on dose reconstruction. The 


subcommittee is chaired by Mark Griffon; 


members Mike Gibson, Dr. Poston, Wanda Munn, 


with alternates Clawson and Presley. 


In the room we have Mark, Dr. Poston and Ms. 


Munn. Might I ask other Board members on the 


line to identify themselves? 


 (No responses) 


Do we have any other Board members on the line? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, that's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: They might have assumed we'd be 


late. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, that's fine. But 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 

7 

we have a quorum of the subcommittee. We can ­

- we can do business. What I'd like to do is 


do introductions here around the table, and 


then go out into telephone land and have 


NIOSH/ORAU team members identify themselves, 


SC&A team members identify themselves, other 


feds, workers, worker reps, members of Congress 


or their staff, anyone else who would like to 


identify. Then we'll have my usual lecture on 


phone etiquette -- and we've been very good 


about that recently -- and then we'll start the 


business of the subcommittee. 


Again, this is Lew Wade. I serve the 


subcommittee and work for NIOSH. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, NIOSH. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, technical 


program manager for NIOSH/OCAS. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon with the Advisory 


Board. 


 DR. WADE: Liz Homoki-Titus is not at the table 


at the moment, but will be. We were to 


introduce her. She's assisting in getting the 


paperwork necessary to make this meeting flow 


right in everyone's hands, so thank you to Liz. 


MS. BRACKETT: Liz Brackett, the principal 

1 

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 

internal dosimetrist for the ORAU team. 


 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, dosimetrist for 


the ORAU team. 


MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen with NIOSH. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro with SC&A. 


 DR. POSTON: John Poston with the work-- with 


the subcommittee. 


 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, subcommittee/Board. 


 DR. WADE: Before we go out, I should say Dave 


Allen looks particularly dapper today. We 


should get that on the record. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we should. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you for being here. 


Now might we have other members of the 


NIOSH/ORAU team identify themselves? 


 (No responses) 


Other NIOSH or ORAU folks on the telephone 


line? 


 (No responses) 


We have everyone here. Other members of the 


SC&A team on the telephone line? 


 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling from SC&A. 


 DR. WADE: Good morning, Kathy. 


 MS. BEHLING: Morning. 


 DR. BEHLING: Hans Behling, SC&A. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9

 DR. WADE: Good morning, Hans. 


 DR. BEHLING: Morning. 


 DR. WADE: Other SC&A members? 


 (No responses) 


What about other federal employees here by 


virtue of their federal -- working today? 


 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Emily. Other feds? Don't 


be shy. 


 Workers or worker reps, members of Congress or 


their staff on the line? 


 MR. KEY*: Jim Key, safety and health rep, 


United Steel Workers, Paducah. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. Thank you for joining us. 


Anyone else on the line who wishes to be 


identified? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Again, this is a mem-- this is a meeting 


of the subcommittee on dose reconstruction. 


Might I ask again if there are any Board 


members on the -- on the telephone? 


 (No responses) 


 Board members on the telephone? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Very briefly, I mean think about phone 

1 

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 

etiquette as you do your business, particularly 


on the telephone. Mute the instrument you're 


using when you're not speaking. If you are 


speaking, speak into a handset. Don't use a 


speakerphone. That allows all kinds of 


distractions to enter in. And be mindful of 


background noises in the place where you are 


because while they might be routine to you, we 


hear them and they can be very distracting. 


All right. So again, we appreciate the 


demonstrated etiquette we're going to see 


today. And Mark, it's all yours. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Just to -- we're going to 


do -- and at this type of subcommittee meeting 


usually what we are more successful in doing 


than at the subcommittee meetings at the full 


Board meetings, we -- we get down to some of 


the more detailed work at these meetings 'cause 


it's usually a smaller group. And with that in 


mind, I think -- initially we were going to do 


the fourth set of ca-- some -- some written 


materials that we expected did not come from 


NIOSH and instead of actually going through the 


-- a -- a review of some of these findings 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 

11 

discussions, I think we are going to ask NIOSH 


and -- and the ORAU team to give us an update 


on some of these actions and -- and I guess the 


only sort of discussion of the tes-- technical 


aspects of any of this is going to be focused 


on -- on clarifying the task. So -- so Kathy 


and Hans -- I know I talked to you, Kathy, this 


morning. You know, we won't get into the 


technical discussion 'cause we haven't had the 


materials. You -- you just got my e-mail stuff 


this morning on -- on this listing where -- we 


are going to go through a listing which Liz 


just gave us copies of, which is -- is some of 


the -- for some of the findings in this matrix, 


particularly a few Savannah River cases and one 


Hanford case, NIOSH committed to giving us some 


written backup materials to clarify -- shed 


some light on -- on their response, and we 


haven't got those so we're not going to get 


into the details, but we do want to clarify the 


actions and make sure that, you know, what 


NIOSH is going to deliver is what we're asking 


for. So Kathy and Hans, I hope -- that's the 


spirit of the discussion on those items that I 


want to have this morning. So we're -- we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

going to do that first. 


 And then after that, I'd like to go through the 


fifth set and just do at least our first 


preliminary review of the fifth set. We have ­

- and I think everyone has a copy of the fifth 


set matrix, and in that we have NIOSH's 


response now so we can go through the NIOSH 


response to the finding and at least get a 


preliminary path forward on those. And I think 


a lot of those, in -- in looking at them, my 


sense is that a lot of them are findings we've 


seen before. So although it's 40-some pages -- 


or 39 pages, I think we can probably get 


through a lot of them quickly. Certainly some 


we'll have to -- some will take a little more 


time, but I wanted to -- my hope is to get 


through that in a preliminary fashion today. 


And then lastly is a -- an initial discussion 


on these DR guidelines or DR notes that -- that 


are sort of the -- I guess templates, for lack 


of a better word, for the dose reconstructors 


for certain sites. And at least initially I 


think this is kind of a -- a fact-finding 


discussion. We want to hear from NIOSH, you 


know, how are these used; are they used -- 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 

13 

looks like they're used only for the larger 


sites, but it -- you know, maybe just a 


clarification for the Board on what -- what 


role these things play in the dose 


reconstruction process, and then some 


discussion around that. But that -- that's 


last on our agenda. 


We are hoping probably to get out around 2:00 


p.m. today if people want to think about their 


schedule, and I think we can get all this in by 


2:00 p.m. 


So with that in mind, any questions on the 


agenda? Did -- there is one other thing that I 


think that we mentioned at the Advisory Board 


last time that I wanted to discuss further, but 


I'm not prepared really to discuss it today, 


and that's the -- sort of the -- the update on 


our protocols for the reviews, including blind 


reviews. And I think we wanted to come back to 


the full Board with a better sense of how we're 


going to conduct blind reviews. And we even 


talked about maybe selecting a few of those for 


the eighth set. And -- and also the -- what I 


called the advanced reviews in the initial 


protocol, and I asked everyone to go back 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 

14 

look at our original protocol and maybe come 


prepared for some discussion and I -- I 


neglected to do that, so I would propose to put 


that on the agenda for the May 2nd -- is it May 


2nd? -- May 2nd subcommittee meeting, if we 


could. 


 DR. WADE: And just for clar-- to clarify, I 


recently tried to put out an agenda for the 


Board meeting on May 2nd that would start in 


the morning. That's not going to succeed, so 


the Board meeting will start at 12:30, so the 


morning of the 2nd is available for 


subcommittee if you would like, for your 


planning purposes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and I think we would like 


at least a couple of hours, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


MATRIX


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So this -- this listing I 


got from Stu, I think last Friday, I'm -- along 


with an updated matrix for the fourth set. And 


-- and the matrix is not really modified that 


significantly, from what I can see, but I did ­

- I didn't send it out to everyone yet. 
I 


asked SC&A, and they just got it this 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 

15 

if they could review it and make sure they 


agree with the resolution, and then I'll 


circulate it to everyone, but -- so we're not 


going to go through the full matrix, but -- but 


out of the full matrix, Stu lifted these -- 


this listing, which is I think the major items 


where we were asking -- the work-- or the 


subcommittee and SC&A was asking for sort of 


written backup materials to support their -- 


their response, or to clarify their responses. 


And I think what I'd like to do right now is 


kind of go through and let -- let NIOSH take 


the lead and go through these and -- and get 


some understanding of what they perceive the 


action to be, and make sure SC&A is in 


agreement with that action -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Mark, can I interrupt for a 

second --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, sure, Hans --

 DR. BEHLING: -- before we do that? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 

 DR. BEHLING: I think it's important to make a 

comment here. That is, it was only really the 

beginning at -- with the fourth set that we 


encountered for the first time dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

reconstructions that were bona fide best 


estimate dose reconstructions. And -- and one 


of the things that we observed in the fourth 


set was several dose reconstructions where the 


best estimate ended up with a POC that came 


very close to the pivotal point of 50 percent 


POC. And in a couple of instances, I believe 


those cases were 67, I believe, and 68, or 


whichever ones, we came extremely close to the 


point where we looked at certain deficiencies 


that might make enough of a difference where 


the revised dose estimates, if these errors or 


deficiencies area corrected, might just bring 


the person over the 50 percent value. And --


and what we had hoped to do was to have NIOSH 


address these deficiencies or -- or findings, 


I'm not going to say deficiencies -- findings 


that we identified, and then provide us with a 


full explanation that includes a dose 


reconstruction that says we have at this point 


addressed your -- your findings and -- and we 


have rerun the entire dose reconstruction in -- 


in -- in terms of accommodating those findings 


and determined whether or not the new POC does 


in fact bring you over the 50 percent value, 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 

17 

that what we were hoping to do is not necessary 


(sic) address each of the findings in -- in 


isolation, but in context with the entire dose 


reconstruction, because in the end there's no 


point in addressing a finding without 


determining how that finding affects the POC 


and the compensability of that claim. And so 


what it is that we're asking here is to resolve 


the findings, rerun the entire dose calculation 


and determine whether or not this new POC is 


going to end up over the 50 percent value and ­

- and convert a non-compensable case to a 


compensable case. 


 DR. WADE: I think we have to talk about this, 


clearly. Liz to start and also -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, you're getting a little 


ahead of me, Hans, but I was going to ask -- 


'cause initially one of our -- one of the 


resolution columns said "rework entire case" -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I was going to ask NIOSH 


that -- it -- it seems like they're -- they're 


slightly modifying that action and I wanted to 


understand what -- you know, the nature of that 


action. Maybe Liz can... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, I just need --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- to remind the Board that 


you are not an appeals board -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- and it is not SC&A's job 


to bring cases forward individually for rework. 


That would be up to NIOSH if they want to 


rework the case based on information that you 


bring, but the Board is supposed to be bringing 


forward summarized responses, not individual 


case responses. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I thought there might have 


been some heartburn with that -- with that -- 


that term, rework, has -- has different 


meanings, depending on who's using it. So I 


think --


 DR. WADE: It's very important that roles are 


understood in terms of SC&A's role, what it is 


and what it is not. I mean SC&A is not in a 


position to ask NIOSH to redo dose 


reconstructions, and we have to be very careful 


about how we move down this path. And the 


subcommittee needs to decide what it wants, and 


the subcommittee needs to be careful as well 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

about its role, given the Board's charter. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, 'cause the Department 


of Labor has already adjudicated these cases, 


and we would have to get them involved if the 


Board, for some reason, is recommending that 


cases need to be redone because the outcome is 


going to change. That was never the charge of 


the Board, and I believe if you look back at 


the transcripts, the Board agreed that they 


would not be bringing forward -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- comments to -- on 


individual dose reconstructions. They would be 


bringing forward summaries. So I'm very 


concerned about this path forward that SC&A is 


asking for. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Now remember, that doesn't 


mean that there's not opportunity to see the 


right things done right. I mean if, in the 


course of the Board's scientific review, issues 


are to be raised, and then NIOSH agrees that 


indeed there could be a change in their 


scientific methodology, then NIOSH would take 


the action of reworking those cases and issuing 


a -- and I always get the letters wrong, 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 

20

 MR. HINNEFELD: PER, Program Evaluation Review. 


 DR. WADE: -- PE-- so there is a path forward, 


but we have to be very careful about who's 


taking what action. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And we have done that. We have 


heard and seen, from the reviews, issues that 


we have addressed that way. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the -- just so we're -- 


we're clear --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think part of the confusion was 


the initial responses that we had in the -- in 


our resolution was to rework the cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And -- and -- and we have to on 


some of these cases, the reason being that -- 


first the -- at least the Savannah River cases, 


they were worked originally with a 


calculational tool that used the entire range 


of triangular DCFs rather than the AP range of 


DCFs, and so that is one of our existing PERs 


that we know we have to do, and so this case 


will be reworked. 


 In the meantime, though, there are a number of 


findings that we have not really resolved or 


come to closure on, on 67, 68 and 69, many 


having to do with the internal dosimetry 

1 

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 

calculation, that if we were to -- you know, 


when we rework these cases for PER, we make all 


corrections and all changes that have made 


since that time. We just don't correct one 


thing, if there are other changes been made in 


the meantime. I know that in one of these 


cases there was at least some work in a 


glovebox for one of these employees, and so 


there will be a glovebox adjustment added to 


the rework during that -- during that time. 


And if I'm not mistaken, there might be a 


construction worker in this crowd, and so there 


would be the construction worker dose 


reconstruction approach would be -- would be 


included in the PE-- when we redo this as a 


PER, so we address more than one PER when we do 


these -- you know, when we do a case. We just 


rework it once with all the open PERs, you 


know, incorporated into it. 


So rather than -- I don't think it's timely to 


deliver the reworked case, though, until we 


have some agreement that -- of the resolution 


of the findings. Because if we rework the case 


at this point and have not resolved the 


internal dose -- I'll call them the internal 

1 

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 

dose findings; there may be some other findings 


-- then -- and the resolution later on causes 


an additional change in the internal dosimetry 


approach, then we're facing redoing the case 


yet again. So I believe it'll be timely to 


rework it when we have a resolution on -- on 


the issues on these cases and provide it at 


that time. That's when I think it would be the 


timely ti-- and it's part of the PER process, 


Liz. It's not -- we're not doing this because 


the Board has asked us to rework these cases. 


It's because there have been technical 


approaches identified that we would -- as a 


normal practice when there's a change in a 


technical approach, we go back and evaluate 


cases that might change because of that change 


(unintelligible) --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay, I'm just concerned 


because what I heard from SC&A was that they 


wanted to see the cases back here to the Board 


and that kind of stuff, and that's not -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- the Board's role and 


that's not SC&A's role. 


 DR. WADE: And I heard the same thing. 

1 

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

 MR. ELLIOTT: If the Board is interested in 


looking at claims that have been evaluated 


under Program Evaluation Review, you could get 


at that by -- one of two ways, perhaps. You 


can do that through the -- a review of the 


Program Evaluation Reports that have been 


completed, and you're going to see a sampling ­

- a subset, if you will -- of change. Or you 


could ask for us to present to you a number of 


claims once they have been -- gone through the 


PER process and, you know, we could put a 


number of claims on the table that you could 


pick up and -- and look up that way. But that 


would have to mean they would be already 


through the -- you know, the adjudication -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that may be --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- process again. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That may be a wa-- I mean that's 

-- that's not really necessarily relevant to 


our fourth set here, but it may be another 


thing when we -- we talk about tracking some of 


our findings and sometimes, like the AP 


geometry comes up a lot and it is a PER. If 


it's tagged to a PER, maybe then when -- when 


they're complete we can review that report 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 

24 

that -- that closes it out (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: There are two things the Board has 


been discussing that relates directly to this. 


One is tracking findings through to closure, 


and you just described that perfectly. And the 


other is looking at all the work products, PER 


being one of those work products. So I do 


think it's important that the Board has its 


mind around the review function to closure -- 


to ground, so to speak. But again, we have to 


watch how it comes about and where the driving 


force is for that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: My comments are not to persuade 


the Board one way or the other, but I would 


suggest to you if you look hard at looking at 


this through an evaluation of the PERs, and 


Dave Allen is cringing when I say this 'cause 


he's the principal party leading that effort 


right now and we have a lot of these. But what 


is valuable to understand out of a Program 


Evaluation Report is which way the claims swung 


after the change was made, which way did the PC 


go, and some of these drive it both ways. So 


that I think gives you a basis of -- of context 


to start looking at -- at what's happened 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 

25 

so -- in other words, it's already -- a 


screening effort's been done and you're seeing 


the product of that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda's dying to say something. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I'm -- I'm really concerned 


about -- about this whole direction. I think 


the Board made it eminently clear, time and 


time again, that we would not assume any 


function that was -- could be conceived as 


being an appeals function. And even though the 


cases we're looking at here were chosen 


randomized, if this -- if the actions that we 


take can be perceived by anyone as the back 


door to redoing some cases for any reason, then 


I think we're on a dangerous precipice. I 


would not want that to happen. It's not our 


function. We need to be very careful that, in 


trying to assure ourselves that the best 


science is being used, we're not getting into 


the level of detail that is inappropriate for 


the Board. We just --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, but -- yeah --


 MS. MUNN: -- have to watch that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- two things I think. 


One is I think we should probably pursue 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 

26 

Larry's talking about, but I think it's maybe a 


separate task, different than what -- what -- 


than this fourth set questions here. And I 


certainly agree we're not -- that we're not 


into this appeals business. For sure, we don't 


want to lead anybody to believe that at all. 


On the other -- but -- but the one thing I 


think we want to -- or SC&A wants to be in a 


position to do is say, you know, would these 


findings -- 'cause these cases, as Hans 


described, were these borderline cases, and I 


think all of us at the Board want to know, you 


know, would -- would these findings together, 


'cause you have maybe several PERs in one case 


and maybe some issues different than -- than -- 


than have been assessed in PERs previously, 


would these findings together likely trip the 


case -- you know, could it likely affect the 


outcome of the case, 'cause we -- 


 DR. WADE: I think that's something the board 


needs to discuss. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause we've constantly had 


fin-- you know, findings that, you know, that ­

- the finding unlikely to affect the outcome of 


the -- the POC. And I think here we're in 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 

27 

situation where SC&A is saying you know what, 


so far we see that -- that it may affect, you 


know -- and I think they're trying to -- to 


find out, one way or the other, so they can 


make either a stronger finding in that regard 


or -- or say, you know, no, we're convinced 


it's not going to --


 DR. WADE: I think this is something the Board 


needs to discuss. I think the Board was fairly 


clear when it set up its review function for 


DRs that it didn't want to go to the issue of 


compensability. I mean it really wants to 


conduct a scientific review of the product -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 DR. WADE: -- and I think that's what really 


needs to be focused on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: I think it perfectly reasonable, 


when that review is complete, if the chair of 


the subcommittee or the chair of the Board 


wants to say to NIOSH what did you do with this 


result -- there's a result here that in our 


mind raises a question as to whether or not 


there needs to be a rework of this case, what 


have you done; tell us about that. I think 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

that's quite reasonable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we were care-- I -- I 


think we -- we should re-examine the -- the way 


we phrase it 'cause I think we were careful 


this -- to talk -- we didn't want to talk about 


POCs necessarily, but you know, I -- I also 


remember very vividly many comments on the 


Board after the first several sets were done 


that, bottom line, you know, none of these 


cases would have been changed as far as the 


decision (unintelligible), you know, so -- so ­

-


 DR. WADE: And if it happened --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, and -- and here 


we're in possibly a different scenario. I'm 


not saying, you know, that -- that we are, you 


know, but, you know, these are ones that may be 


affected so I think we need to at least explore 


the science enough to know -- 


 DR. WADE: All right, but I don't think it's 


SC&A's role to offer an opinion on that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark, this is Kathy 


Behling. I'm sorry if I'm interrupting. I --


I do have to add a little bit here because at 


the end of all three of my presentations 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 

29 

Board on I guess maybe the first three sets, 


the final question was as Mark is indicating, 


so have any of the findings had enough of an 


impact to overturn any cases. So I guess that 


always was something that was asked of me at 


the end of the presentations. 


 DR. WADE: Wait for it to be asked -- wait for 


it to be asked of you again and answer it when 


it's asked. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And that's a generalized 


question. That's not a discussion on specific 


cases, which is what's being proposed here and 


which is what I'm concerned about. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Could you pass 


(unintelligible)? 


 MS. MUNN: Of course --


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but these -- these were -- 


yeah, yeah, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: I mean the questions really are the 


general questions with respect to is this -- is 


the science that's being applied to these 


cases, as shown by the ones that we have 


reviewed, adequate science. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: That's all the Board is tasked to do 


is review the quality of the science, and 


that's really what you need to do. Once that's 


done, I think it's quite reasonable for the 


Board as a whole, or the subcommittee, to say 


what are the impacts then of this; we'd like 


NIOSH to speak to that. And that would be 


fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think it's more than the 


ade-- adequacy of the science. I think it's 


did they get it right, you know, and that 


doesn't necessarily mean the POC. Did they do 


the dose reconstruction correctly. I mean with 


the best estimate, I think that's -- 


 DR. WADE: We'd have to go -- I don't have the 


charter in front of me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Does anyone have the Board charter 


with them? We just need to look at the charter 


of the Board and what the Board is tasked to 


do. I don't think it precludes your wanting to 


do anything you want to do, but I think it's 


very --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right, and as far 


as identifying individual cases, I 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 

31 

why we don't have case numbers on these. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, but if we go to 


litigation --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean we're not talk-- 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- and this is pulled up --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- in discovery --


 MR. GRIFFON: I understand. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- that's individual cases 


that you all have basically taken as an appeal. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And that's my concern and I 


can assure you that's going to be the 


Department of Labor's concern if you get into 


this. 


 DR. WADE: I think it's important the Board 


read its charter, I think it's important SC&A 


read its contract, and that everyone behaves 


consistent with that. 


DR. MAURO: It's important -- we haven't had 


this conversation before. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: This is an important conversation. 


One of the things that we do in every one of 


our reports is we have this checklist. 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 

32 

checklist we try to give a level of importance. 


Ultimately that level of importance goes toward 


two issues, I believe, and Kathy certainly 


could help me with this, is -- one is, you 


know, is this of such -- of a scientific nature 


that is -- that has -- is important that may 


have cross-cutting effects relative to many, 


many cases and therefore it's important. It 


may not necessarily be important in this 


particular case --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: -- but we think it's important. 


But second, I also believe that when we give it 


a high importance it's because we're concerned 


that we're starting to knock on the door and 


because we're starting off with a POC of some 


high number 'cause we always report the POC in 


the checklist and we are -- we identified what 


we perceive to be a finding that might be 


important here because we're knocking on the 


door of the -- the POC. Now, if that -- in 


light of this conversation, it sounds like 


that's something we should not be doing. I'm 


starting to think that our -- we -- we are just 


one element that's making certain observations 

1 

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 

regarding dose reconstructions, which is 


feeding into a system where you folks have your 


own internal process that feeds in. So in 


other words, there's a process where there's 


multiple for-- quality assurance checks going 


on all the time, feeding into a machinery that 


-- that -- that -- that kicks you into a PER or 


not, the material we provide in our checklist 


is just one of those, so that's -- so perhaps ­

- well, I guess I'll put this on the table for 


the Board to consider. Perhaps the checklist, 


in terms of trying to give level of importance 


for particular findings for a particular case 


may start to move in on this area of 


adjudicatory issues that maybe should not be 


here. I -- I guess I'm going to put that on 


the table. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we -- and -- and we did 


clarify -- I'm just pulling up the matrix 


'cause we -- I think initially -- and we have 


these two differing columns that we've reported 


on. We have case impact and program impact -- 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and oftentimes we as the 


workgroup or subcommittee have tried to weigh 

1 

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 

in on that program impact column and -- and 


SC&A's focused on the case-specific impact. 


And in the -- in that -- when you have low, 


medium and high --


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the rankings, if I remember 


correctly -- Kathy, correct me if I'm wrong, 


but I think initially we had some language 


related to the POC in there and we modified 


that to say that it -- a low means that the 


deficiency has only a marginal impact on dose, 


so --


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we're looking at dose 


reconstruction. We're not looking at -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay, that's --


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so that -- that's okay. 


think where we're going to have to stop is -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- is that the finding -- you 


know, if it's a high finding, then -- now -- 


now I guess we can't stop that questioning of 


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 

35 

Kathy after the --


 MR. ELLIOTT: But that -- that questioning 


should come to NIOSH. The questioning about 


has the audit findings impacted the program in 


a way that -- that dose reconstructions changed 


to the point they become compensable, was -- 


was there a shift in -- in the outcome, that 


should come to us. We should be able to -- to 


respond --


 DR. WADE: I think this is all clear and I 


think it's important that we reflect on what's 


been done. I'm well aware of your two columns, 


John, and I find both columns appropriate. One 


column was "was there a broad impact" and the 


other "was there a likely impact upon dose in 


this case". You say high, medium, whatever and 


you move on. But now to say SC&A thinks that 


this case would go to compensable, that's a 


whole different place now. 


DR. MAURO: That's good. No, then we're okay. 


I just want to make sure. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And I -- I'm concerned with 


the second. I'm okay with your 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Okay, everything we've done to 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 

36 

point has been fine. That's why I've been 


stressing on the last calls to the Board that 


the Board needs to have mechanisms in place to 


track these things through to -- to final 


impact, which might be the PER, but you've got 


to watch how it's done. I mean we're not 


trying to avoid that final test, it just has to 


be done very carefully because now we're into 


legal grounds, and also the rights of -- of 


claimants. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Well, Kathy and Hans, what 


I -- what I propose is we just -- we -- we go 


through this action list, we see where -- you 


know, and -- and we'll just see what the -- 


NIOSH is proposing to give us in writing and 


we'll move these cases as -- as far as we can. 


 DR. BEHLING: Mark, let me just make a final 


comment here. I -- first, I do withdraw my 


comments made earlier. I stand corrected in -- 


in -- in being told that we cannot ask for a 


rework, and I will, however, say that my 


comments earlier were prompted by the most 


recent Board conference meeting that we had a 


couple weeks ago where -- where we were 


basically trying to understand how to somehow 

1 

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 

or other track certain things that -- that have 


a history of -- of not being resolved and -- 


and so I -- I just want to justify my comments. 


On the other hand, I withdraw my comments that 


I made earlier. I -- I realize now, in -- in ­

- in comments made by the legal people, that -- 


that I should not have said those things. 


 DR. WADE: Well, Hans, we applaud your desire 


to help the process through to completion. We 


applaud that, we welcome it. It's just 


important that we do it just right and -- 


 DR. BEHLING: I understand. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, then I -- I -- then let's 


let NIOSH start with this listing and then 


we'll go from there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. This is Stu Hinnefeld, 


for those of you on the phone. The -- the 


table that I distributed to Mark late last 


week, and I believe he then sent to the 


subcommittee members that no one has really had 


time to look at, I compiled from reviewing the 


findings matrix for the fourth set and 


identifying findings where I felt it would be 


helpful to deliver written material for 


consideration in advance of a technical 

1 

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 

discussion, and hadn't done this earlier 


because it -- it hasn-- you know, candidly, it 


hasn't been the practice of the subcommittee on 


dose reconstructions to exchange that, while it 


has been on the site profile reviews and other 


various workgroups. So to my detriment, I 


didn't realize it would be a good idea to 


exchange this ahead of time. So -- but I -- 


once Mark and I talked about or exchanged e-


mails about the issue then -- or about the 


exchange of information, I began to look -- 


well, there are certain items that lend 


themselves -- certain findings lend themselves 


to that and -- and certain findings that either 


-- that -- that I think essentially have been 


dispositional. You know, that's kind of how I 


selected these cases. 


And so I can start down the list that's been 


distributed to the people here in the room of 


what I called additional analysis for fourth 


set of DRs, the first item being from case 


number 65, finding number four, which comments 


on the ingestion intake used in that claim not 


-- maybe not being claimant favorable. This is 


-- case number 65 was a Chapman Valve case, 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 

39 

in reality -- I mean there is -- that is an 


outstanding, you know, overarching technical 


issue that's on the table already is ingestion 


approach, and that description is being 


prepared outside this subcommittee. So I mean 


there is going to be a generic ingestion 


approach presented as part of the overarching 


issues resolution. So I think it's probably -- 


you know, I wasn't going out on a limb by 


offering to submit written information for 


that. The rest of them maybe I -- I did a 


little bit. 


Moving on to the second -- actually the next 


three items relate to case number 67, which is 


a Savannah River case. And -- and these relate 


to how internal doses of various natures were 


incorporated in the dose reconstruction, and -- 


and they followed, essentially, the technical 


approach that NIOSH has adopted for the 


Savannah River internal dosimetry, you know, 


dose reconstructions. So these do in fact -- 


you know, they would relate to very many 


claims, you know, these issues and the 


resolution of these issues. So I -- I've 


brought in the internal dosimetry folk-- 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 

40 

thought -- you know, I thought originally we'd 


be discussing, but I don't think it would -- I 


guess we won't go into a significant technical 


discussion about that, but if we have a brief 


discussion or somebody give us a -- you know, 


Dave or somebody give us a brief description of 


what -- what the basis is for each of these 


approaches, then that might be able to shape 


what product we would want to bring when we 


bring the written material. 


 DR. WADE: Good. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So Dave, the first one is about 


failure to account for all internal doses from 


fission products. And if you give me a second, 


I can actually read -- you know, the finding 


won't say much more than that, but there'll be 


a description in here that says more. It says 


for missed fission product internal doses, 


NIOSH's doses, which were limited to barium-140 


and lanthanum-140, are incomplete. On the 


basis of MDA values, NIOSH needs to determine 


the internal doses in behalf of all other 


fission products and activation products that 


showed net positive counts, as well as 


strontium and yttrium-90, and perhaps others 

1 

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 

that (unintelligible) reasonably be assumed 


have been internalized. So that's the basis of 


the finding is that a single nuclide was 


selected for the dose calculation when there 


were -- clearly you don't get one fission 


product if you get a fission product, so -- 


Dave, did you want to -- can you talk about 


that a little bit or --


MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I think there's actually 


several issues and that's one reason we didn't 


want to try to guess and supply some sort of 


information. We needed to have a conversation 


with -- Hans I guess is probably the commenter 


here. 


 The first issue is that when you have fission 


products you don't have simply one. You're 


going to have a whole mixture of fission 


products, and that is a struggle as to what 


group of fission products do you account for 


and how do you account for them. The whole 


body counter tends to grab or detect gamma 


emitters and at various MDAs depending on the 


yield, the energy, et cetera. And you can --


for example, cesium is fairly easily detected 


and you can pretty much count on cesium -- 

1 

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 

cesium-137 always being there, so the technical 


approach would -- the best technical approach 


would be to determine how much cesium you have 


and the ratio all the other possible fission 


products off of that, which gets to be an 


overwhelming problem very quickly with all the 


potential fission products. 


What we did early on and in these cases was to 


use a chooser program to where we took the 


worst fission product we can come up with as 


far as detectability -- and by worst I mean 


based on the MDA and the dose consequences of 


that isotope -- and we assumed all the fission 


products would come from that worst one and 


that -- emphasis on that one, didn't -- not 


accounting for all the other potential fission 


products there. Based on some preliminary 


calculations, we were thinking this was an -- a 


favorable approach and the best one we had at 


the time. 


Currently we're working on more detailed 


analysis for that and getting it into an OTIB 


where we're assessing various reactor burn-up 


rates and decay times since the reactor fuels 


come out for reactor operators or 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 

43 

working around a reactor, as well as the 


canyons or dissolving fuel later, you know, 


depending on how much time since the fuels come 


out of the reactor, the ratios will change, you 


know, based on all those situations. And we've 


got it narrowed down to a handful of categories 


that would seem -- that we believe are 


bounding, what the ratios of those are, and 


that will allow us to more accurately determine 


a dose reconstruction from fission products for 


the various sites, the various exposure 


scenarios. 


That's not quite complete yet. It's a very -- 


as you can imagine, it's a very complicated 


situation. It has been discussed, I believe in 


Hanford TBD or SEC, one or the other -- it's an 


overarching issue. It's not going to just 


affect Savannah River. It's not going to just 


affect this case. And personally, I'm thinking 


we're better off saying this is an overarching 


issue. It's already being discussed in another 


working group and -- and let it all be a -- 


very consistent across the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which --


MR. ALLEN: -- complex. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Is it in the Hanford working 


group being discussed, or where is it -- 


MR. ALLEN: One of the Hanford working groups, 


I'm not sure which one. There's a TBD and an 


SEC we're --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, but isn't it the same 


working group on both? 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the same working group on 


-- for both. 


MR. ALLEN: It's definitely being discussed 


there and I don't know if it's being discussed 


in the -- is there a Savannah River working 


group now? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a Savannah River 


working group --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think they --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but I don't think it's on 


the -- on their --


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we got it on there 


yet. 


MR. ALLEN: But it's clearly a complex-wide 


type of issue that -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Is this on Jim's list of 


overarching issues, though? 

1 

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 

MR. ALLEN: I don't believe it is, but I -- I'm 


kind of proposing here we take it out of, you 


know, individual dose reconstruction and put it 


on that -- that realm so it's consistent, 


rather than trying to deal with this case-bycase type of thing. 


 DR. BEHLING: Dave, this is Hans. I just want 


to make a comment, and I -- let me just preface 


the thing that is most important by saying that 


we fully understand that fission products and ­

- and so when we talk about -- I'm very 


familiar with whole body counting, their -- 


their level of sensitivity for gamma emitters, 


and -- and we also recognize that the likely 


contribution of doses from fission products 


that are at the MDA level, or even modestly 


above, are not really significant. I -- I 


think the only reason I really mentioned it 


because of -- I -- in recognizing the 


triviality of doses was that it's technically 


incorrect because the way it's always stated is 


that we have basically taken cerium-144 as the 


limiting radionuclide and -- and used that as 


an assessment and that's claimant favorable. 


The truth is while you've taken cerium-144 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 

46 

-- and ignored the other fission products that 


can be measured and some which can't be 


measured, and the assumption's always been that 


this is like taking a bioassay data where you 


have gross alpha or gross beta and assuming 


that 100 percent of the beta is -- is 


contributed by the limiting radioisotope. 


That's not the equivalent here. You know, when 


you, for instance, say we have a urine sample 


that has been analyzed and we did a gross beta 


and we realized that for this particular cancer 


the limiting radionuclide that could have 


contributed to the gross beta count was suchand-such -- let's say it's iodine and the 


cancer's thyroid -- I buy into that. That's 


clearly claimant favorable when you don't have 


a definitive understanding of the radioisotopic 


mix in a gross beta count or gross alpha count 


in a urine sample. But it is not something 


that you can apply that -- that -- that logic 


to a whole body count where you can clearly 


identify five, six different fission products 


and then select cerium saying that is the 


limiting radionuclide. Of course it's the 


limiting radionuclide, but you're still 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

ignoring the others. And it's strictly a 


technical issue and I want to emphasize that 


I'm not concerned about doses. I realize that 


even at MDA levels for cesium and iodine and 


others that the doses are relatively modest and 


-- and almost inconsequential and was more or 


less a technical issue and that's the only 


reason I brought it up. 


MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I -- I realize what you're 


saying, Hans, and I didn't try to -- I don't 


know if I said it or I certainly didn't try to 


imply that this was something like a gross beta 


or gross gamma. All I was saying was this was 


the approach we came up with to -- to account 


for all these. 


 DR. BEHLING: And -- and -- and I'm not even 


sure it's worth having these major committee 


studies on a conference (unintelligible) 


because I'm not sure it's -- it's really worth 


the -- the investment in human time and effort 


to do something that is -- that is going to 


obviously consume a lot of work hours on the 


part of a lot of people because at -- at MDA 


levels, these -- these internal emitters are 


probably not going to contribute significantly. 

1 

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 

MR. ALLEN: Don't say that too loud. I got two 


people at the table that put a lot of time into 


this already. 


 DR. BEHLING: I'm sorry to put you through it, 


David. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll -- it'll have -- it'll 


have to be resolved in the -- in the Hanford 


workgroup anyway. I mean the -- the issue of ­

- of -- well, it has to be addressed in some 


form, so you know, once -- once the resolution 


is out there, you know, it'll be available to 


this -- this subcommittee (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Can I interject one -- one thing 


here? This is Kathy. I -- I think that 


everything that you described, David, it sounds 


like an appropriate approach to -- in fact, it 


may be going overboard on -- although I won't 


necessarily say that because you're certainly 


going at this particular problem the correct 


way and I think we agree with the fact that you 


are -- you are looking at this and you're going 


to consider all of the fission products. 


And this is a little bit contrary to what Hans 


just said. Now let me ask if I understand this 


correctly. I assume that since this will 

1 

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 

become a complex-wide issue, this will be 


something that ultimately would possibly have a 


PER associated with it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Depending upon the outcome of 


the new approach, it may or may not. If -- if 


-- if, based on the work that's going on now, 


we determine that the technique used previously 


resulted in lower doses than the new technique, 


then it would give rise to a PER. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Okay, very good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So the -- the follow-up is in the 


Hanford workgroup, I guess, or -- or complex-


wide? You know, it's a complex-wide issue. 


MR. ALLEN: That's my suggestion, however you 


guys want to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: The written material will 


certainly start with the TIB that Dave 


described. That'll --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- be the starting of it -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then -- you know, 


whether or not additional explanation needs to 


go with it to indicate why, you know, this 


approach either was okay or was not, that there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

may be some additional explanation because the 


TIB is -- is doing it for a particular purpose 


and the resolution of this finding may require 


a little more explanation included with -- 


along with the TIB. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Other -- this goes toward then one 


of the items that we would call putting in the 


parking lot. Remember, one of the things we 


said, we were going to create a separate matrix 


that keeps track of everything we decided to 


put on -- on ice, and this is one of them. 


 MS. MUNN: That's great. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We have a big parking lot here. 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


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


MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean that was just my 


suggestion. The Board figures out whatever 


they want to do, but I mean knowing it's being 


addressed in another -- at least one other 


working group, if not others, it just seems 


like it's one issue that -- you know, we should 


either point to that working group or pull 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 

51 

out of both and put it in an overarching or 


whatever the Board wants to do, I just would 


like to keep it all consistent across the 


complex. 


 MS. MUNN: It certainly would ultimately I 


think save everybody a great deal of time if we 


agreed exactly where these kinds of things -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Are we --


 MS. MUNN: -- were going to go and how they 


were going to be dealt with. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Are we going to have enough to 


make a judgment on how the -- how it might 


affect the dose in this case, the dose -- I'm 


say-- you know. 


MR. ALLEN: This particular --


 MR. GRIFFON: And I --


MR. ALLEN: Well, I think this particular case 


is already in the -- I think Stu mentioned it's 


in the PER process for I think -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Other things --


MR. ALLEN: -- at least two different issues, 


honestly. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


MR. ALLEN: And -- I mean if it were to -- 


(unintelligible) is going to kill me here -- 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 

52 

mean if -- if that PER process determines that 


this case is -- should be reworked, you know, 


we ask DOL for a rework and we think it's 


changed in compensability based on these other 


issues, it -- this particular issue kind of 


becomes a moot point at that -- at that point. 


I'm not sure what else to -- I'm not sure -- 


sure what you're asking on that, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I'm trying to -- to walk 


that line, but I --


MR. ALLEN: And like Stu said, if it turns out 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess the -- I -- I -- I 


understand we're talking about small doses, but 


I also -- I don't have the numbers in front of 


me, but I remember this being one of the close 


cases, so you know, even the small changes 


could -- could affect, you know. 


MR. ALLEN: Well, like Stu said, our standard 


appro-- we -- for the PER process we have to 


make the change first -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


MR. ALLEN: -- to know how we're going to deal 


with it, and then we evaluate what that had on 


previously completed cases, 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 

53

 MR. GRIFFON: We'll go forward this way, we'll 


MR. ALLEN: -- the first step is to solve the 


issues --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we get your written 


analysis and understand that this is one of 


those global things that's going to be followed 


up in the TIB and the Hanford workgroup. 


That's the notes I have. Okay. 


All right. Next one, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay --


 MR. GRIFFON: Moving right along. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 67 --


 MR. GRIFFON: We always start slow in this 


workgroup (sic) and then speed up toward the 


end -- when we look at our flight arrangements. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: After we get tired and -- yeah, 


67 -- 67.9 is the next finding that I think 


written material -- and this is fairly 


straightforward. The comment was that type M 


was not necessarily claimant favorable, that 


type S would be more claimant favorable. 
I 


think our initial response was well, type M fit 


the bioassay data and while I think maybe the 


dose reconstruction said claimant favorable 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 

54 

chose the claimant favorable dose 


reconstruction, I don't think -- I don't 


remember if it said that or not. The fact of 


the matter was that the selection of the 


solubility type was based on the bioassay data 


available, and the note I made was that we 


would develop, you know, the IMBA analysis that 


would demonstrate type M fits the data versus 


how type S would not. So that's -- that's the 


response on that case. That's fairly 


straightforward. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's good. And again, we don't 


need to discuss these. We're getting -- the 


action's correct, that's all we want to do 


here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 67.11 addresses the uranium -- 


addresses the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, I'm sorry, before you move 


on to that one, you did send a zip file with 


some IMBA analysis in it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was a different finding. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Does it include that one? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It was a different finding. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was -- that was a 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 

55 

finding that occurs later on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 67.11 has to do with the 


selection of the acute intake uranium date. 


And again, we can put together an IMBA analysis 


to demonstrate that the -- that the intake date 


that were reflected are consistent with the 


bioassay data. And the default date, which is 


like mid-point between sampling periods, 


doesn't fit as well as the date selected. So 


you know, that kind of analysis would 


illustrate -- because the procedure -- you 


know, the procedure says that the default 


intake date is midway between sampling points, 


but it also -- there's wording in the procedure 


that allows bioassay data to be used to differ 


from the defaults, whether it be in solubility, 


intake date or whatever. So based -- you know, 


so we felt like we complied with that wording 


in the procedure by choosing an intake that fit 


the -- that fit the bioassay -- or intake dates 


that fit the bioassay for the case. 


DR. MAURO: So you're saying that in this case 


you actually have multiple bioassays that you 


would fit the data 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 

56

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: -- and you could back-calculate 


(unintelligible) three points typically is 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: It would be -- this -- this 


demonstrates my point from my last agenda item 


'cause -- 'cause, you know, looking at these in 


retrospect after seeing some of these DR 


guidelines, and this is where it would have 


been -- and I think it still would be very 


beneficial for the workgroup (sic) and SC&A to 


have the DR guide that the dose reconstructor 


used at the time they were doing the case 


included in the case file 'cause then -- you 


know, a lot of this decision tree logic is in 


there, that they -- you know, if you have this 


type of case, you -- you know, I mean instead 


of after the fact kind of guessing what the 


dose reconstructor did, we'd have more of a 


black line, like this is what they were 


supposed to do, you know, did they comply with 


it, did they not. So there's that quality 


control review aspect that we would get that 


way and I think we're -- we're kind of missing 


that, but we'll take up those DR guides 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 

57 

but I just wanted to -- this -- this sort of 


raises that question because you're saying that 


the dose reconstructor had the latitude not to 


use that -- that mid-point, you know, if they 


had data to fit. And I think that -- that -- 


in the guides, it probably showed that, that -- 


you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the procedure -- internal 


dosimetry procedure says that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Says that, too? Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: Stu, can I make a comment here? 


I think you're -- this is one of the more 


critical elements for our concerns here for 


case 67, and that was the -- the selection of 


exposure dates or intake dates relative to the 


bioassay. And I looked at those data very, 


very carefully and they were consistently 


assigning an intake date that was one or two 


days prior to the bioassay when in fact I 


looked at the original records and they were 


all routine. I will accept the -- the 


assumption that the intake may have preceded 


the bioassay date by 24 hours, 48 hours, if I 


were to see something such as this was a 


special bioassay that was prompted by an event 

1 

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 

that was clearly the signal that says this is 


more than likely a -- a urine excretion value 


that reflects the recent intake. But those are 


not the cases here and -- and there was no -- 


no justification for always using a very short 


time interval between intake and the excretion 


values found in the bioassay. And I have to 


say, it concerned me that we were not being 


fair here and following basic procedures that 


says in the absence of -- of -- of compelling 


information to state otherwise, the mid-point 


between the most recent bioassay and the date 


of that bioassay should be the date of intake 


if you're going to assume it was a -- an acute 


intake. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess we would -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think Liz wants to say 


something, but keep in mind, we -- we said we 


weren't going to have the technical 


discussions. They are going to provide the 


IMBA analysis to back up their position that 


this fits the data -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, and I -- I agree, Mark. 


think maybe this goes beyond and it's going to 


short-change our time -- 


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 

59

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- for the fifth set, so maybe we 


should just try to minimize the discussion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Did you -- I know Liz -- maybe 


Liz has one comment --


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


MS. BRACKETT: I have -- I have two comments. 


First --


 MR. GRIFFON: She's come all the way from 


Connecticut, we've got to get her on the 


record. 


MS. BRACKETT: First, I -- I -- first, I do 


agree with you. I constantly lecture people 


and I think I was ranting to Dave about this 


yesterday, that I -- I try to make the dose 


reconstructors understand that it's not 


appropriate to assign every intake the day 


before a -- a positive result. 


On the other hand, there -- it's not 


necessarily -- well, compelling evidence can 


also be looking at the other bioassay results. 


It sometimes simply is -- it's just very 


difficult to fit the results. If you used 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 

60 

mid-point, you may fit that one following 


result, but then you're going to over-predict 


the later result, so you -- you have to -- you 


have to balance it somehow. And -- and like I 


said, while I agree that it's -- it's extremely 


unlikely that a person -- that they happen to 


sample a person routinely every -- every time 


they just happen to have an intake. That's 


very unlikely. But it -- there's still -- some 


alternative method of fitting needs to be done 


in order to make sure that you're in agreement 


with all of the data. 


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


get the file so we can examine it further when 


we get it. 

 MS. BEHLING: Mark, can I just inter--

 MR. GRIFFON: Go ahead, Kathy. 

 MS. BEHLING: Just quickly, I'm sorry to 

prolong this but as well -- it's on my mind. 


Is there a protocol or something in writing, 


some procedure or guidelines for the dose 


reconstructor with regard to this fitting 


procedure that you use for the internal, 


because you're absolutely right, it is -- it is 


very difficult, and I play with IMBA, too, 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 

61 

-- and make adjustments. But do you have 


guidance that we could look at that gives some 


instructions to the dose reconstructor, 


realizing that there's going to be a -- many 


different -- they're going to see a lot of 


different bioassays and a lot of different 


scenarios, but is there any guidance out there, 


written guidance? 


MS. BRACKETT: The internal dosimetry 


procedure, which is Procedure 60, touches on it 


briefly. It's not detailed. It gives some 


guidelines on things to try, but for the most 


part -- you know, I --


 MR. GRIFFON: But there is an SRS-specific 


guidance document, I think, for internal dose. 


MS. BRACKETT: That's -- that's true, and I 


don't know --


 MR. GRIFFON: Guidance, I guess -- yeah. 


MS. BRACKETT: -- if that actually -- I don't 


know if that discusses fitting the data -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure. 


MS. BRACKETT: -- in detail. 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- I could not find anything 


that gives any definitive guidelines for 


fitting that 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 

62 

MS. BRACKETT: But that -- that's because it's 


difficult to give definitive guidelines on -- 


I've --


 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it's very difficult 


(unintelligible). 


MS. BRACKETT: -- it's -- I've --


 MS. BEHLING: I understand. 


MS. BRACKETT: I've tried -- I've given 


training to some -- to the dose reconstructors. 


I go and, you know, try to give them examples 


and say, you know, well, you need to try this 


and you need to try that. But really it's --


if -- when you have positive results, it's 


really -- you just kind of have to play with 


the data until you get something that makes 


sense. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And if I can just add one 


more thing, to go back to Mark's comment about 


the DR notes, I believe in fact in future cases 


where we're seeing more of the best estimates 


and we're seeing very complex facilities like 


Rocky Flats and Y-12 where we keep introducing 


more and more OTIBs in order to -- for the dose 


reconstructors to complete these dose 


reconstructions, I think it is going to be even 

1 

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 

more important that we see these notes or these 


guidance -- the guidance that the dose 


reconstructors are using, along with the cases. 


And I believe it would resolve a lot of 


questions that we have as we're auditing. This 


is -- in fact, one of our first concerns is the 


dose reconstruction report sometimes doesn't 


give us enough detail, doesn't always reference 


everything that was used, and we struggle 


auditing. So having those DR notes included in 


the case files I think would be very helpful 


and it would -- and especially for future cases 


that are getting more complex. That's it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll move on to the next one. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) we'll move on 


to case number 68, which is also Savannah 


River; 68.2 talked about angular dependence of 


the dosimeter and really it goes -- I think it 


goes beyond angular dependence into the various 


uncertain factors at the -- considered on the 


dosimeter reading. It goes beyond the 


laboratory uncertainty of actually reading the 


dosimeter. And if I'm not mistaken, this is on 


the overarching technical issues, as well. 
I 


mean if we -- we've dealt with it at a couple 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

of individual sites with geometric adjustments. 


I know Mallinckrodt (unintelligible) this done. 


But I think Jim told me that this is sort of an 


overarching issue of dealing with that, that 


particular issue. I think one thing to keep in 


mind when we talk about -- about dosimeter 


uncertainty and -- and how it's accounted for 


is that the uncertainty becomes a factor in our 


program at the annual level, because you have a 


line on the IREP input sheet which is annual 


dose of a particular time and -- and 


uncertainty associated with that, in -- in many 


cases. And so that's where it becomes 


important. And so the important thing to 


under-- you know, to get right is have we 


bracketed or correctly specified the 


uncertainty in the annual dose measurement 


rather than any specific dosimeter reading 


measurement, because the uncertainty -- or the 


relative uncertainty will converge as you 


combine say 12 -- 12 (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: But not if you're systematically 


using a generic approach which is -- for 


example, assumes direct as opposed to angular 


exposure. In other words, imbedded 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 

65 

process is the assumption that the exposures 


that the person's experiencing is always 


perpendicular to where the badge is facing. 


That is sort of a consistent way in which you 


interpret the rad or the Roentgen exposure on 


your film badge or -- or TLD. Then there's -- 


there's a systematic bias that will 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Rather -- rather than 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible) so -- so the 


uncertain distribution in that respect will -- 


won't properly capture that (unintelligible) 


one side. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But like I said, if we just 


need -- and I think it's on the overarching 


issues list, you know, the approach or -- 


DR. MAURO: Right, I got it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whatever the basis is for 


that -- for uncertainty approaches as 


(unintelligible). 


Okay, 68.3 speaks to the use of -- the finding 


was that isotropic geometry was used in -- for 


ambient exposures as opposed to the AP geometry 


DCFs. And our understanding of the issue 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 

66 

you know, using AP was that it relates to a 


measured -- essentially a dosimeter measured 


dose. That's what the AP -- that's what 


(unintelligible) when you say AP. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: When an ambient dose is -- is 


generated, either by instrument reading or by a 


dosimeter hung on a post and it is exposed, 


it's actually exposed in an isotropic geometry 


DR. MAURO: That's correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that the isotro-- isotropic 


DCF would be appropriate in that circumstance, 


so that's essentially -- I mean we can lay out 


more -- you know, more in writing on that, but 


that's kind of where we're coming from on that. 


And we feel like isotropic is probably 


appropriate for an ambient dose. 


DR. MAURO: I'm going to agree with that. I 


know, Hans, that this is some of your -- but I 


think --


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, let -- let me comment. 


Isotropic geometry is -- is clearly the 


appropriate choice. However, the DCF is -- may 


still be wrong and -- and again, I want 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 

67 

preface everything by saying that we're talking 


trivial doses when we talk about on-site 


ambient. On the other hand, the TLD that is 


hung on a telephone post is basically 


equivalent of a human body and -- and I 


remember my days in the utilities where we 


would always identify locations. We would hang 


it on the side of a building, so again, the 


exposure is not necessary (sic) isotropic when 


you hang it on the face of a brick building or 


a thick telephone pole that approximates a 


human body. But again, this is relatively 


trivial. It was brought up as a technical 


issue as opposed to one that would have a 


significant impact on -- on -- on individual 


dose reconstruction. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess my experience with 


environmental dosimeters is they were hung on a 


-- they were -- they were stuck on a post, but 


there was a steel post that held a housing, 


essentially an air equivalent housing that -- 


that the TLD was in, so that -- that, in my -- 


so it was essentially an isotropic exposure. 


DR. MAURO: Well, I -- that's the point. 
I 


mean in -- in essence, if that's the case, then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

the problem's solved, but if (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. POSTON: I'm trying to stay away from a 


technical discussion here, Hans, but I didn't 


understand what you said. You said that you 


accepted the isotropic assumption, but the DCF 


was wrong. How do you -- how can you make that 

statement? What's your basis for such a 

comment? 

 DR. BEHLING: Well, as -- as we said, the -- 


the whole DCF development was based on, as a 


starting point, as a dosimeter that is reading 


an air dose in -- in -- in free space, and -- 


and that's really not the case when -- when you 


have a person wearing a dosimeter, and that was 


the whole issue that led us to conclude that 


the AP geometry DCFs were the only ones that 


were correct. 


Now I will go back and say that when we talk 


about a -- an on-site ambient dose that is 


driven by contamination on the ground, that the 


isotropic geometry is the correct geometry. 


The question is, is the DCF correct, and -- and 


as I said, this is so trivial so as not to 


warrant really any extensive discussion 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 

69 

it's not going to amount to anything but it's 


strictly a technical issue, in my mind. 


 DR. POSTON: Okay, well, that is 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. BEHLING: And -- and when you have a -- an 


environmental TLD, and -- and I recall from my 


-- my days being in that environment, we would 


frequently hang it on -- on the side of a 


building or a telephone post or a tank or 


someplace out in the environment, on-site, off-


site, and -- and that's how we would measure 


potential off-site releases and their -- their 


dose rates. So technically speaking, I -- I'd 


say the issue is -- is one that -- that's -- is 


incorrect, but it's so trivial as to really 


require no -- no adjustment. 


 DR. POSTON: Well, that leads -- I'm sorry to 


argue -- be argumentative, but that leads me to 


two conclusions. One is, we're talking about 


Savannah River; we're not talking about your 


experience. So what's the -- have you looked 


to see what the situation was at Savannah 


River? And two, if it's so trivial, why even 


raise the point? I don't understand. I don't 


consider it a -- a huge technical problem. 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 

70 

know that -- how to interpret the dosimeter 


badges that people wear. We've been doing this 


for 50 years, and so I -- I don't understand 


what's going on here. 


 DR. BEHLING: I -- I -- again, we weren't 


looking to belabor this issue at this point in 


time and --


 DR. POSTON: (Unintelligible) I won't belabor 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. BEHLING: -- and I'm willing to sort of say 


just scratch it off and -- and not -- not glom 


on it any further. 


 DR. POSTON: That works for me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's been brought up before many 


times, yes, and --


 MS. MUNN: Accepted, okay. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, the next -- now I have 


down here that we're going to provide something 


in writing about (unintelligible). Do you want 


us to go ahead and do that, Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think so, but it's ­

- it's -- basically, that's it and I think -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think they're accepting it 


or -- I -- I think we said we wouldn't -- 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 

71 

wouldn't come to final closure on these today ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 'cause they just got -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- they just received them, but ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, then we'll it -- we'll 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it sounds like we're satisfied 


with this and -- but I think close it out with 


something in writing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 68.4 is -- has to do with 


the plutonium internal dose calculations being 


excessively -- excessively complex and then, 


without scientific basis, potentially not 


claimant favorable. I think we agreed that 


they were excessively complex, but -- let me 


see if I can get to another finding here. In 


this case they reviewed the -- SC&A reviewed 


the applicability of the records for chest 


counts and urinalyses. All 17 chest counts 


were identified as routine and which limits the 


credibility in modeling the four chest counts 


greater than MDA as acute exposure 

1 

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 

(unintelligible) and on the reasonable 


assumption that urinalysis for plutonium and 


chest counts were administered for the common 


objective of assessing lung burden and body 


burden for plutonium seems unreasonable and 


without basis for NIOSH to conclude that 


monitoring for plutonium was discontinuous 


based on urine data above. By focusing 


exclusively on urine data, NIOSH eliminated 


several years of potential intakes and modeled 


intakes as three discrete chronic intake 


regimes. 


I don't know if you guys are set to comment on 


that or not. I -- and I -- I guess I'm not -- 


don't have that one ready at hand in my mind. 


MR. ALLEN: Well, the finding here -- the 


additional analysis says we'll supply some -- 


if I'm on the right line here -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: 68.4, right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


MR. ALLEN: Yeah, this -- this one I think we 


can give some IMBA analysis and a little short 


write-up, you know, just like the other ones. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


MR. ALLEN: We could -- that's not a problem, 

1 

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 

owing something on that, I believe. Right? 


 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, we're working on that. 


But it -- the other thing is the original 


assessment did not take into account in-growth 


for the americium-241 from plutonium-241. I 


know we're not getting technical here, but it 


is very claimant-favorable that way. Once you 


take that into account, you start over-


predicting the chest counts when you go from 


urine, and we're -- we'll -- we'll show that in 


our -- our response. 


MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I think most of these IMBA 


runs in general that we talk about today 


basically just show that if you just looked at 


one bioassay, similar to the comment in here, 


you find out that you're inconsistent with the 


remaining data, and we strove all along to be 


consistent with all the data that we have for 


the individual. Once you do that, I think you 


come back to where we started, so we'll -- 


we'll produce some IMBA analysis -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not --


MR. ALLEN: -- to -- to show that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. The only confusion I have 


with -- with your statement is that if -- if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

74 

this was a best estimate case -- are there like 


degrees of best? Is it -- was it better and 


then now you can fine-tune it a little further? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


shows up in --


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


the --


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


Yeah, the --


I mean --


-- the term "best estimate" 


Yeah. 


-- dose reconstructions where 


Right. 


-- Monte Carlo tool is used. 


Okay, so any time --


That's what --


-- a Monte Carlo tool is used. 


-- that kind of --


All right. 


-- recently recognized on my 


part, but that language shows up in the dose 


reconstruction when the Monte Carlo tool is 


used, and --


 MR. GRIFFON: 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 


 MR. GRIFFON: 


So there may still --


-- the fact --


-- be out there (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 

75

 MR. HINNEFELD: There may be overestimates. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- overestimating, okay -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be an overestimate to 


the internal fit --


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But you can -- you can show that 


in the write-up in the IMBA, and that's fine. 


Good. All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 68.5 is -- again, is -- 


we believe an IMBA analysis showing the -- the 


uranium intakes and how they would fit the 


bioassay data best would be the best way to 


explain the selection of intake dates, so the 


IMBA analysis is another -- I mean I think we 


should provide that there. 


And 68.7 I believe is the same as 67.8. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I believe 68 -- case 68 


(unintelligible). Case 69 is -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is still Savannah River. 


Right? 69 on (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Still Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Finding 69 dash 2 -- I think I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

recognize it from the summary but let me make 


sure (unintelligible). 


(Pause) 


I believe this is a case where the external 


dosimetry was entered as the constant measured 


value as opposed to a normally distributed 


value, and it was combined with a DCF of one, 


which is higher than the entire triangular 


distribution of the DCF for the 


(unintelligible). That was entered as an 


expected -- modest overestimate, not a -- not a 


hugely overestimated but is somewhat a modest 


overestimate of the outcome. And what we're 


doing, and this is sort of a tedious process, 


is to develop -- you know, demonstrate the -- 


you know, what would -- what's the difference 


between using the measured and a normal 


distribution (unintelligible) triangular, 


versus the measured as a constant times one. 


That's a fairly tedious thing to do 'cause you 


have to do it for different risk models for -- 


so we're kind of choosing some sample risk 


models and show -- and at what point does the 


annual uncertainty then maybe make it a factor. 


If you have a big enough uncertainty on 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 

77 

normal distribution, it could be that the 


normal distribution times the true triangular 


DCF may in fact provide -- be more favorable to 


the claimant than what intuitively seems like 


it would be an overestimate, which is measured 


times one, because of the uncertainty it brings 


into the POC calculation. So that's underway, 


and like I said, it's tedious and it hasn't 


been, frankly, on the front burner. Those are 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. BEHLING: Stu, can I just make a comment? 


I -- I fully accept your -- your explanation, 


and I think the only thing that I would say 


here is that perhaps one of the TIBs or -- or 


guidance documents should be modified so as to 


say that when we use a default DCF of one, we ­

- we consider that claimant favorable enough to 


-- to -- to ignore the issue of uncertainty, 


just so that it's in the procedure and explains 


why that was done. I think that's -- I -- I 


fully agree that for certain types of photon 


energies and -- and organ doses, a -- a default 


DCF of one is clearly claimant favorable and is 


likely to offset any uncertainty and -- and all 


that needs to be stated in some procedure 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 

78 

that's the case and that's what's being done 


and -- and simply provide some documentation to 


that effect, that's all. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- but I thought, Stu, you 


said that it may not be intuitively obvious and 


that (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- examining this because the 


uncertainty affects your IREP (unintelligible) 


-- you know, your IREP or (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We're -- yeah, we're examining 


-- now once we arrive at that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, then maybe you can -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) would make 


some sense and under what circumstances does 


this make sense and it is a favorable -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- overestimate. And it may be 


that it is always -- you know, that -- if your 


intuition is correct and it is always -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- favorable, it may be that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: If you find that out, then you 


can --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Once you start worrying -- once 

1 

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 

you start worrying about, you know, putting a 


constant value into IREP versus an uncertain 


value into IREP, especially when you're using 


the 95th percentile of the outcome -- or 99th 


percentile of the outcome -- that you say well, 


gee, we'd better check this -- essentially what 


we're doing. 


MR. ALLEN: It's intuitively obvious in most 


situations with a handful that really need to 


analyze some numbers to show that it is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, yeah. Okay, let's see, 


that was 69.2, 69.3, which we believe is the 


same as 69.2 only this time it's expressed for 


neutrons as opposed to photons; 69.4 is -- has 


to do with selection of the solubility class 


not being claimant favorable. Again, we 


believe it's -- we chose that class because it 


fits bioassay data. We'll provide an IMBA 


analysis to demonstrate that. 


69.5 talks about the use of a triangular 


distribution that goes to zero, I think is the 


key element. Let me -- because 69.5 I believe 


is couched in terms that the in vivo counts for 


-- the in vivo counts for this person has net 


positive counts below the MDA. And so, given 

1 

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 

that situation, is it appropriate to have your 


missed dose (unintelligible) by a triangular 


distribution that goes all the way to zero. Is 


there really a potential that it goes to zero. 


I believe I'm paraphrasing the finding correct. 


So in that circumstance, we -- I think we can 


provide something in writing rather than get 


into the discussion here. Recall, though, that 


the top end of that triangular distribution 


relies on that MDA or that limited detection. 


I mean that's how you arrive at that top end 


because it's based on that LOD. So if the LOD 


then becomes meaningless in terms of detection 


and then you start worrying -- then you would 


have to consider well, what -- is it really 


meaningful for the top end. And if -- and in 


addition, there are -- you know, it's not like 


there's one detection or one bioassay that just 


was missed. There could be a collection of 


bioassay and so it becomes very favorable to 


start considering the -- even with a collection 


of bioassay, you were always -- you always just 


missed it. You know, every case was right 


below detection --


DR. MAURO: 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 

81

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that that becomes -- becomes 


-- which is sort of the assumption that's made, 


and that's going to be quite favorable in -- on 


-- you know, in (unintelligible) -- fact quite 


improbable because (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) totally improbable. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So there is some other stuff 


going into this. We think we can put together 


a -- you know, a written explanation 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, Stu, and -- and I guess I ­

- I think you probably stated things that I was 


going to say, too, here. And that is, when I 


look at a collection of datapoints where -- 


let's assume we're talking about urine data 


analysis for tritium or something, and 60 


percent are clearly above MDA, measurable -- 


the things, then I would clearly want to say 


perhaps the zero value as the triangular 


distribution for those that are below MDA is 


maybe not necessary (sic) claimant favorable. 


On the other hand, if I saw 50 bioassays for 


tritium and not one was measurable, then I 


would say it's clearly appropriate to use the ­

- the -- the triangular distribution that has, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

at the low end, zero because it's -- 


statistically speaking, you would -- you would 


be amiss not to assume that. 


MR. ALLEN: Yeah, Hans, this is Dave. I think 


there might be one more issue with this 


particular one, and that is -- based on the 


Savannah River in vivo results -- that the 


column that says "net counts" is not directly 


related to the isotopic concentration in the 


body. That's actually the counts -- the gross 


counts in a region of the spectrum minus the 


empty chamber background is that net counts -- 


 DR. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


MR. ALLEN: -- and then the -- the count column 


shows how that is mirrored when you actually 


have a person in there with the potassium being 


smeared into the cesium region, et cetera. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


MR. ALLEN: So the -- the one column that is 


used for calculating isotopic concentration is 


the column that says "dif", which I guess is 


"difference", you know, and it's not 


consistently positive or negative for the 


individual here. They're -- it bounces back 


and forth between positive num-- positive 

1 

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 

counts and negative counts, which pretty much 


demonstrates that it should be zero on the low 


end. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Uh-huh. 


MR. ALLEN: I just -- I just recently -- I 


think last night -- came to the realization 


that I think we were talking about the net 


column when we should be looking at the dif 


column in this one. 


 DR. BEHLING: I agree, I agree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, let's see, I believe 


we're ready for 69.7, which I (unintelligible) 


again, the internal dose from fission products, 


which I believe is the same or -- or certainly 


similar to 67.8. We'll read -- make sure we 


read the entirety of the findings and if 


there's any different nuances -- we want to 


make sure we --


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- address any other nuances in 


the various findings. And 69.8, I believe it's 


similar to the earlier one. 


DR. MAURO: Correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a different 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 -- 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

radionuclide, I believe, or a different 


bioassay scheme. 


70.2 is the next thing that we can provide -- 


or 70.2 was a Hanford case. This finding was 


that the external dose didn't include 


uncertainty, and I think in this case it was 


not a case of using a one as a DCF as an 


overestimate, because the triangular 


distribution goes above one. I believe they 


just didn't include the uncertainty in the 


measured dose and applied the -- the 


appropriate DCF, but with -- they didn't 


account for the uncertainty in the measured 


dose, so I believe this actually was an 


oversight and the uncertainty should be in here 


and that -- that's a relatively straightforward 


DR. MAURO: You're talking 70.2? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 70.2. 


DR. MAURO: I guess I -- my understanding was 


there was actually some photon dose that was 


not accounted for. There was some -- in other 


words, there were some zeroes where -- and 


please clarify -- help me out with this, but I 


thought that -- now I remember talking about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

this when it was being done, that in going back 


to the records there were some zeroes that were 


treated as if they were zero. In other words, 


as opposed to assigning the MDA over two. I'm 


-- I'm not sure, but I just -- I want to make 


sure we didn't miss that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's a --


DR. MAURO: As opposed to an uncertainty issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There were some -- there were 


some cases where there were some questions 


about the count of the number zeroes used in 


the (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: That may be what I'm thinking 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There -- there were some issues 


about that, and I've -- we've provided some 


explanation in our responses in various places 


where -- why we interpreted -- you know, 


certain -- certain -- certain sites, if you've 


got a blank that means there was no badge, 


because they reported zero if they had a badge, 


they wrote zero. So I think that explains some 


of it. I believe this one -- if I'm -- I'm 


clear on (unintelligible) the case was of why 


they used the -- the true DCF, even though the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

-- the dose reconstruction inappropriately, you 


know, said -- said they used one, they didn't; 


they used -- actually used the DC-- the 


triangular DCF distribution, more the top end 


of the DCF distribution. They did not include 


the uncertainty of the measured dose, so that 


is a different issue than taking a constant 


times one when the entire triangular DCF is 


less than one, so that's a different issue. 


And -- and this is -- I mean that's a fairly 


straightforward thing to -- to rework and 


refigure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And when you -- I -- I just want 


to clarify your action here. It says 


recalculate POC. I don't think we've -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, we'll recalculate 


the dose. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Re-- recalculate dose. Right? 


Okay. Recalculate -- you know, I'm not sure 


how to phrase that, but I don't think you want 


to say recalculate POC. What do you want to 


say? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Why don't we just say dose, and 


then or say (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Incorporating appropriate 

1 

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 

uncertainty in recorded dose, recalculating 


dose? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We could --


 MR. GRIFFON: Incorporating uncertainty in 


dose? I'm not sure that makes sense. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) incorporating 


-- evaluate -- or we could just evaluate the 


impact. 


(Whereupon, Mr. Griffon, Mr. Hinnefeld and 


other participants spoke simultaneously, 


rendering transcription of individual comments 


impossible.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Impact, yeah. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 71.2 is, again, the failure to 


account for recorded photon dose uncertainty, 


and I believe that's the same as 69.2 -- in 


this case it was using one as -- as DCF as a 


constant (unintelligible) the triangular. 


And 76.2 is failure to assign unmonitored 


neutron dose, and again, we will evaluate the 


impact of including the unmonitored neutron 


dose. 


 Let's see, case number 71 was also a Hanford 


case. Case number 76 is a Fernald case. And 


our Technical Basis Document calls 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 

88 

neutron component to be added based on the 


photon measurement because of the potential for 


(unintelligible) end reactions on the 


(unintelligible), especially fluorides, so 


there is a -- a judgment was made in this case 


that this person wasn't around the fluoride 


storage (unintelligible) judgment, you know, 


based on the record that was given in his 


bioassay, his location when he gave a bioassay 


sample, there should have been more cases. The 


assumption should have been made -- or maybe 


throughout should have been made if he should 


have received that neutron component. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's the end of my 


list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing I would say at 


this point is if there's other -- and Kathy and 


Hans, you -- you just received this material, 


so I would say maybe look through the revised 


matrix, compare it to this action list, and if 


there's anything that -- that you were 


expecting as far as a written response, maybe 


we can have you work with Stu by e-mail or -- 


or phone, and if there's a corrected list 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 

89 

any way, you can -- you can circulate -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if you just let me know ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 'cause I think they haven't 


had time --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'm sure they haven't. 


I'm sure they haven't. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If you'd just let me know of 


other things you feel like where written 


material would be appropriate where I thought 


the resolution was okay and you thought no, we 


need -- really need more on this, you let me 


know and I'll modify this list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Seems like this was most of them, 


but (unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- opportunity to run through 


them (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll admit, this is my -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- this is my judgment. You 


know, I looked down the list and this is what I 


judged it to be and I'm not the final judgment. 


 MS. BEHLING: I did keep -- I did go back when 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

we were initially going to have the discussion 


on the fourth set and make a listing of the 


findings I thought we were supposed to reevaluate. And I have to admit, I do have a few 


more on my list than I see on this list, so you 


and I can discuss that, Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it'd be easier for you 


and I to talk about that. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, good. Would it be okay for 


like a ten-minute -- at five after 11:00 let's 


call -- call it back in session? 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. We're going to take a 


ten-minute break, so we're going to mute until 


ten minutes. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:55 a.m. 


to 11:15 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: We're back on line. Any Board 


members --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) anyone on the 


line -- anyone -- any Advisory Board member on 


the line? 


 (No responses) 


No. 


 DR. WADE: 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 

91

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we're -- we're ready to 


reconvene, for those on the telephone. Hans 


and Kathy, I assume you're there? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm here. Hans is going to -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: We're walking on -- working on 

something else right now, so I'll be on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we're -- we're going to 


start the fifth set, so I think this is kind of 


our preliminary run-through, and I think that 


we have a lot of issues that we've seen before, 


so we might be able to -- to go through some of 


these fairly quickly, but other ones I'm sure 


will take a little time. So -- and -- and I 


don't know -- well, we'll -- we'll do our 


normal thing here. We'll let SC&A and NIOSH go 


back and forth, I guess, on -- on -- we'll go 


through the findings one by one. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Mark, can I just -- I'm 


going to start off by saying in this fifth set 


we had -- I believe there were about ten AWE 


cases, and I put all of these AWEs up front in 


our report, and then I do all the DOEs 


thereafter, so -- John did the AWEs so 


initially I was going to suggest that 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 

92 

we'd do an AWE and then a DOE, but I -- I won't 


add that level of confusion, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I think we'll just run 


through them in order and John's here to take 


the lead on the AWEs. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Right, and I'm just going to make 


a suggestion here, and I -- and this is 


obviously your call. One of the things, to -- 


to just remind everyone, when we do look at 


these AWEs is we approach them a little bit 


different than we do with the DOE facilities. 


And with the AWEs, when we see an exposure 


matrix that has been used, we also not only 


evaluate the case, but we try to evaluate that 


exposure matrix and -- and look at, again, 


maybe some global type issues that don't always 


apply to -- specifically to this particular 


case. And as we've been talking all along 


about tracking these items, I believe with -- 


when we come across these particular cases 


where we do have an exposure matrix issue, 


often we will push things off into a site 


profile when we have these issues come up with 


the DOE facilities, but might I suggest that we 


may want to consider making sure that 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 

93 

don't get -- fall through the cracks and that 


they are followed through maybe on this Task IV 


matrix and that we do follow through with any 


exposure matrix issue within Task IV. It's 


just a suggestion. It's something we'll have 


to think about as we go through these AWEs. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) and -- and I had 


the same no-- and I think it -- if -- if folks 


remember, I think part of our selection process 


sometimes -- one of our criteria was that, you 


know, well, we -- we've -- haven't done any on 


this small little AWE site and probably likely 


only do one case from that site, so in effect 


it's sort of the site profile review, in a 


nutshell, is the way we were kind of looking at 


it, so I agree, Kathy. And with that, we'll 


let -- either one, I don't care what order we 


go in. If NIOSH wants to describe their 


response or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That will work for me, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Well, I would like a 30-second 


sound bite on each one because I know that 


these AWEs are special because each one has 


their own -- in essence, in a 30-second sound 


bite -- a story to be told. And I think within 

1 

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 

that story and understanding of the context 


within which we're working, then -- I think 


then the -- the NIOSH responses come to life. 


I think by just looking at the comment and the 


response --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- it's -- it's very -- doesn't 


really give the richness of -- of -- the 


importance and its relevance. So -- so on each 


one, maybe if I can just give a 30-second piece 


and then I -- then I can turn it over so I can 


sort of set the stage as I -- I see it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let me -- let me understand. 


You're going to do a 30-second -- 


DR. MAURO: A 30-second sound bite -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- of what I think the essence of 


the problem is, because these are -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was laughing at the 30-second 


aspect of that. If you can do it in 30 


seconds, I'll be very happy to give you that, 


John. 


 DR. POSTON: He's Italian. 


DR. MAURO: I'm Italian. It's impossible. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know. We 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 

95 

(unintelligible) going. 


 DR. WADE: (Unintelligible) won't be able to 


talk at all. 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, but if you can keep it 


succinct, all teasing aside -- all right. 


DR. MAURO: Bridgeport -- Bridgeport Brass, 


first one, what we have is uranium handling and 


extrusion facility. Okay? The approach taken 


in reconstructing the doses here was using 


OTIB-4. And one of the important issues that 


arose, and we've talked about this before, is 


that it was -- it was used and it was used to 


compensate. Okay? It was our understanding 


early on, and it may have changed, that the use 


of OTIB-4 as a generic procedure that applies 


to all AWE sites across the board. When you 


don't have site-specific information, you go to 


OTIB-4, which is sort of like the universal 


fix, and it -- and by the way, in our opinion, 


OTIB-4 is a very good universal fix for AWE 


facilities in terms of placing an upper bound 


on what the exposures might have been, so 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 

96 

mean -- so we're okay -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: For uranium facilities. 


DR. MAURO: For uranium facilities, for uranium 


facilities, that's what it's for. And -- but 


we -- our big concern with that, we -- it was 


our understanding that because it was sort of a 


very -- a pretty bounding approach, that -- and 


-- and given the introductory words that go 


along (unintelligible), we interpret it as 


being something that was used for -- for -- 


only for denial, but (unintelligible) ran 


across a case that was compensated. 


In addition, we ran across -- we found out that 


subsequent to this dose reconstruction there 


actually was an exposure matrix -- a site 


profile -- issued for this site, Bridgeport 


Brass. So we find ourselves in an interesting 


situation. We have a person who has been 


reconstructed, granted, but then along comes a 


site profile and then -- and we had the benefit 


of that, of course. By the time we received 


the audit review, that site profile was out. 


So what we did is we reviewed the case using 


the site profile for Bri-- and we come in with 


substantially lower doses. 

1 

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 

So in essence -- 30 seconds, not bad -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not bad. 


DR. MAURO: -- we -- our problem is, what do 


you do when you have this situation? And --


and with that, I guess we could -- I could turn 


it over to you folks. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in response to that 


question, what we do is nothing unless DOL asks 


us to. DOL is aware of these cases. I mean we 


-- we discussed these. These are -- some of 


these were on the fourth set and we talked 


about it. (Unintelligible) some of them down 


here was October or something, we talked about 


these at some length is that, you know, this -- 


this approach was used for a short period of 


time, I think 2005, at the urging of -- push to 


get cases done. It was applied more broadly 


than it should have been applied and DOL is 


aware of the cases that were done in this 


fashion. If they want us to do something about 


it, they'll reopen the case and send it back. 


And if they don't reopen it and send it back, 


then we won't do anything about it. 


DR. MAURO: For the benefit of the Board, the 


difference in the doses are extremely large -- 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- a 30-fold difference in the 


internal dose, and I don't -- and I'm not quite 


-- I'm quite sure what the external dose 


differences are, but they're -- it's not that 


they're small differences -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- between the realistic and the 


OTIB-4. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, let's go into the 


findings on (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: All right, we'll go on to the 


findings, sure. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Number one is exactly that, is 


-- you know, use of OTIB-4 is inappropriate for 


compensable claims and that's true, it was used 


more broadly (unintelligible) was modified even 


to say this approach is also acceptable if you 


can't do any better, we can do the bounding 


dose. It wasn't modified to say that and it 


also was applied more broadly than it should 


have been (unintelligible) claimant 


(unintelligible). You know, I kind of -- kind 

1 

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 

of (unintelligible) mea culpa on this 


(unintelligible) and -- and covered it and 


repeated essentially what we've talked about 


these cases before in that response, the NIOSH 


response to number one. 


Finding number two has to do with the -- not 


being able to reproduce the external -- the 


model external photon doses that were in the 


version -- Rev. 2 of OTIB-4. We couldn't, 


either. So -- but Revision 3 has been issued 


in the interim. Revision 3 no longer includes 


that same table. It includes a different 


calculation technique. We've also described in 


here the description that Revision 3, since it 


uses the correct (unintelligible) and uses some 


different -- actually it uses like 


(unintelligible) and 30 to 250 and things like 


that, the total change from going from Rev. 2 


to Rev. 3 was a change downward somewhat and so 


there was no need to go back and rework or 


reconsider cases that were done with Rev. 2. 


DR. MAURO: We -- by the way, we have also 


independently calculated the extent of doses 


using MCMP and agree with you; that is, the 


doses go 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 

100

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can we -- can we go back to 81.1 


just for a second? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: In the middle of your response it 


says the bounding estimates would become the 


best estimate. At -- at what point do you -- I 


mean do -- do you at any point have to evaluate 


whether there's sufficient data to do 


individual dose reconstructions for that site? 


Does it become sort of a question of, you know, 


self-identifying SEC situation if you evaluate 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, yeah. I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, you can establish plausible 


upper bounds for all workers? I mean it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- does it get into that realm 


or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- our going in -- I guess our 


position is that TIB-4 is broadly applicable as 


a bounding dose for uranium operations. And if 


a site falls into that category, the uranium 


operation fits within the scope of OTIB-4, that 


OTIB-4 provides a bounding estimate. So 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 

101 

guess there could be some situations where we 


would not have sufficient data to say we can't 


say with confidence that this site fits within 


the scope of OTIB-4, in which case we would 


have to reach that conclusion, that since we 


can't necessarily say it fits within OTIB-4, 


that we don't have enough information to be -- 


to -- to do dose reconstructions. But we can 


satisfy ourselves that it fits within the scope 


of OTIB-4, then we would believe that we can at 


least do a bounding dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I just wanted a 


clarification on that. And then with 81.2, 


just so -- this is a question in terms of 


follow-up -- there -- there is a PER associated 


with this AP review -- right? -- at the bottom? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well -- 81.3? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- is it 81.3? 81 -- I --


81 2 touches on it, but 81 3 -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 81.2 -- 81.2's response 


describes how the photon dose -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we couldn't reproduce 


in -- in Revision 2 was apportioned between 


different geometries and different -- different 

1 -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- energy bands. And -- and in 


fact, when you compare Rev. 3 with the correct 


dose number, 100 percent AP with 100 percent 30 


to 250, you still -- it's still -- the outcome 


in terms of POC goes down slightly so we don't 


have to go back. And a TIB-4 reconsideration 


is kind of an odd one because it's clearly an 


overestimate anyway, so it's not like you've 


done a best estimate, now you've changed the 


technique and you have to back and say, you 


know, what's the effect of the technique on 


this best estimate when you have a fairly 


health overestimate to start with. Even if 


there had been some change upward, you think 


well, they were overestimated anyway, in all 


likelihood. 


DR. MAURO: Well, for the benefit of the Board 


-- I mean, OTIB-4 is very simple. It's saying 


that you've got a person standing one foot away 


from an ingot 20 -- 2,000 hours per year 


getting 2 MR per hour, which is the max dose 


you can get. You can't get worse than that. 


And in terms of inhalation goes, they assume 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 

103 

person's continually exposed to 100 MAC. This 


is -- from looking at the literature, this is 


up at 90 -- 95th percentile of all the data. 


So in other words, yeah -- the only place there 


might be an exception, you've run across 


Harshaw, it's a pretty nasty place, but -- but 


in terms of in general, 100 MAC -- continuous 


exposure, 100 MAC is way up there. So that's 


why we feel that OTIB-4 is -- is a good 


bounding estimate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, Harshaw was nasty enough 


-- or at least early on -- that we said if we 


added (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) try again 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right, right. So 


we -- the only real -- I mean the real thing to 


examine here is whether the facilities meet 


TIB-4 requirements. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, whether they belong in 


this group. 


DR. MAURO: Whether they belong --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Well, no, now 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 

104

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's the 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) not sure. Now 


that you have a site profile for Bridgeport 


Brass, I guess -- is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we would use that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right, right. Now 81.2, 


the fol-- just -- I'm trying to capture the 


actions so I'm going back to these -- that -- 


that OTIB-4, the revision, is in the procedures 


review, I think, or has been done already, I'm 


not sure. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, OTIB-4 has been done. I 


don't know if this latest version has been done 


or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I'm --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't remember. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm putting procedure review for 


now. 


DR. MAURO: Is this --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll check these things. 


DR. MAURO: Is this the third? 'Cause we 


reviewed two versions. Is this a third 


version? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Rev. 3 is the currently 

1 

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 

out one, but --


DR. MAURO: Okay, we --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't know if you -- you 


may have not reviewed every one. 


DR. MAURO: No, no, I may --


 MR. HINNEFELD: And in fact, if it's Rev. 3, 


it's actually the fourth version -- 


DR. MAURO: It's the fourth --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 'cause there's a Rev. 0. 


DR. MAURO: 'Cause there's a PC-1 and there was 


a P--


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm not talking about 


PCs. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a Rev. 0 --


DR. MAURO: I don't know. 


MS. BRACKETT: It is in revision now, too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, good. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's in revision. Okay. Okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Always. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Always. Constantly. 


DR. MAURO: Well, as of the last review, we 


still had a problem with the external dose 


model. That is, when we ran MCMP* and compared 


it to your numbers, we were coming up 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 

106 

numbers a little bit lower than was in the -- 


the version of OTIB-4 that we looked at. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Now you're saying that your -- your 


numbers have come down, I -- and it was -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, not -- no, the -- well, 


yeah -- I mean but you guys pointed out that 


the table numbers were too high. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was your finding. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We said, you know, you're 


right; we can't reproduce them, either. But we 


looked at Rev. 3 and we said well, Rev. 3 


doesn't duplicate that error. It's taken out 


and it's already been revised. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So --


 MR. GRIFFON: But this -- this is in the proc. 


review, I hope --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's in that -- it's in that 


cycle. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It is in -- it's on the list, 


and I don't know where it is, whether it's 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 

107 

reviewed -- whether -- whether this version's 


been reviewed or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll def-- we can double-check 


this. I can talk to Wanda and we'll check this 


off-line. 


 MS. MUNN: My memory (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then the only -- okay, then ­

- then really -- the one I was talking about, 


the PER really is associated with 81.3 more -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- than 81.2. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But other than that, for this 


individual finding -- just to go back one more 


time -- the procedures review of TIB-4, 


revision whatever, is going to be in procedures 


review. And then -- but otherwise, this 


finding would not likely affect -- there's no 


further action. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We don't think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: John? 


DR. MAURO: I'm sorry? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No further action on this finding 


other than procedures review of TIB-4, Rev. 


whatever? 

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, if that's -- that's what you 


would like to do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, for 81 2 I'm asking if you 


agree with NIOSH's response. 


 MS. BEHLING: We agree. 


DR. MAURO: Thank you, Kathy. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Thanks, Kathy. 


DR. MAURO: Thank you, Kathy. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Then 81.3, I was asking if 


there's like a PER number -- you say there's -- 


there's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean there is an AP 


geometry PER --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that -- and I don't have the 


number handy, but it's -- again, this was -- 


you know, this is a TIB-4 case and it's already 


a significant overestimate the way it's done -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so it's not clear whether 


this change is going to be significant enough 


to warrant. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And it was compensated, as well. 


Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this case would 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 

109 

considered (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think -- I think no further 


action on this case, but -- but the PER -- the 


PER -- as far as tracking this through to 


ground, as we discussed earlier, I think we 


probably want to note that a PER was done on 


this whole AP thing, and instead of continuing 


to, you know, hash these around in this -- in 


this setting, we can take up that AP geometry 


PER (unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in one swath, maybe, and maybe 


not in the subcommittee but for the full Board. 


Larry, does that make sense to you? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, but I don't think the AP 


ge-- PER is even -- it's not been completed 


yet, has it, Dave? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean when it's -- when it's 


comple-- when it's available, I guess, yeah, 


yeah. Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I just didn't want us to be 


talking like it was already done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. But no further action for 


this case is what I'm saying. 


 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 

110

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 81.4 and 81.5 in the findings 


were about the use of OTIB-4 for this case, and 


we agree; 81.1 is essentially our -- our 


response to that -- that use. So that 


completes case number 81. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I want to make sure about 81 5. 


I just wasn't clear if they were asking about 


the data used for reconstruction -- 


reconstructing dose is adequate for -- again, 


for determining POC. But I mean it -- it -- 


why -- I don't understa-- can you -- 


DR. MAURO: It's the same thing. It's the sa--


it's -- it's the same issue there, is can you 


use OTIB-4 for compensation -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, for comp-- for a 


compensable case --


DR. MAURO: For a compensable case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- not for -- I thought you were 


talking about --


DR. MAURO: No, not --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for that site, was it 


appropriate for Bridgeport. 


DR. MAURO: No, no, no, just in general across 


the board. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: For compensable cla-- okay, okay. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So it is the same as 81.1. 


DR. MAURO: It's the same exactly as -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Gotcha, so no further action. 


Okay, 82 --


 MR. HINNEFELD: John, you want to do your 30 


seconds? 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 30 seconds. 


DR. MAURO: Harshaw Chemical, we have -- again 


it's case, compensated. And in this they also 


used OTIB-4 with (unintelligible) assumptions 


we described and the person was compensated. 


There is no site profile, as I understand it, 


for Harshaw -- at least the last time we 


checked. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not yet. 


DR. MAURO: At least not yet. So it's not like 


the previous one where you do have a site 


profile. I mean it's sort of (unintelligible) 


dilemma. In this case we have a -- a -- what I 


would argue -- now the only question I have 


regarding application of OTIB-4 to a Harshaw 


case is keep in mind that the -- OTIB-4 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 

112 

really exposure to an ingot -- you know, just 


pure uranium, a solid, pure uranium. Harshaw ­

- Harshaw of course was a much more complex 


site where the exposures were to various forms 


of uranium. There was all sort-- the whole 


chemistry. Now whether or not one would 


consider that -- it's still uranium, there's no 


doubt that Harshaw was uranium, but it 


certainly wasn't the uranium as it has been -- 


as is described in OTIB-4. OTIB-4 is really, 


you know, a solid slab. And -- nevertheless --


nevertheless, I would go on to say that still 


you -- you -- you assign an external dose to a 


person as if he's standing next to a slab 1,000 


-- 2,000 hours per year, I don't care what type 


of uranium you're dealing with, that's pretty 


conservative for external. And internal, using 


100 MAC all the time, well, here we're talking 


Harshaw, I think this -- this particular case 


might have been during the -- the period where 


there is an SEC. And if so, it's almost a non-


issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Is that right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And in fact, I think TIB-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 

113

 MR. ELLIOTT: (Unintelligible) cancer is 


esophageal. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And -- and it -- and it's 


presumptive, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB -- TIB-4 I don't believe 


limits itself to uranium metal handling. Isn't 


that true? 


MR. ALLEN: It used to be --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It used to be uranium metal. 


MR. ALLEN: No --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, now it -- it's changed back 


to uranium metal, so for a time, I believe 


probably at the time this was done, it allowed 


-- TIB-4 was allowed for not just metal 


handling but also for uranium compound work. 


(Unintelligible) because the basis of the air 


sampling that's used was air data collected at 


what they called -- what, the dirty seven or 


something, the -- the earliest sites that the 


AEC started paying attention to about 1948. So 


that would -- that -- since those weren't 


strictly metal-forming sites -- 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it was not strictly applied 

1 

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 

to metal forming at the time, and so I think 


that's probably the case when this was done. 


But you're right, this -- this is a presumptive 


cancer in the SEC class -- in the SEC period. 


So had it not been compensated in this way, it 


would have been compensated in the SEC. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, but if it does raise a 


scientific issue, SEC issue aside, it should be 


fixed. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Tracked and fixed. 


DR. MAURO: I -- I would say that -- 'cause I ­

- I'm -- because I've been doing all these AWEs 


and becoming very, very familiar with all of 


the sites, all of the assumptions, and except 


for Harshaw, you know, I -- the 100 MAC, and 


that was -- from an external point of view, you 


-- you know, as long as you don't have any ore, 


you know, any thorium or radium there -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and this is the only uranium, 


and it's not recycled uranium and it -- you 


know, it's not enriched -- you know, you're 


dealing with pure uranium, the OTIB seems -- 


OTIB-4 seems to work -- in terms of external 

1 

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 

exposure, work very well. 


 The inhalation part, 100 MAC, when I look at 


all the dat-- the records, even -- even for 


sites that handled -- you know, was processing 


uranium, not just grinding it -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- 100 MAC is up there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: It ain't bad. So -- but 


nevertheless, there are cir-- some 


circumstances where you do go above 100 MAC, so 


it sounds like your latest version is going to 


limit it -- I guess, am I correct, to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: To metal handling. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I've lost track. 


MR. ALLEN: That is where it's at right now. 


DR. MAURO: Only metal. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now what -- 82 was which site 


again? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Harshaw. 


DR. MAURO: 82 was -- the one we just did was 


Harshaw. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It is Harshaw. So the question I 


had was -- you said it was -- was it only 

1 

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 

uranium, or was it --


DR. MAURO: No -- yeah, the Harshaw site is 


only uranium, but in all different forms. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All different forms, right. 


DR. MAURO: Every form you can think of -- 


brown, yellow --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, everything's there. 


MR. ALLEN: And I believe OTIB-4 covered that 


at that time, and it's been pared back to 


metal. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


MR. ALLEN: It kind of goes along with what you 


mentioned earlier, at what point is the 


bounding estimate you're not that sure of. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


MR. ALLEN: Harshaw ended up being a self-


identified SEC --


 MR. GRIFFON: SEC, right. 


MR. ALLEN: -- (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 83.14. 


DR. MAURO: Now -- now there are a couple of 


points --


 MR. GRIFFON: So that's the real bottom line, 


is even though we might question 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 

117 

applicability to this site, it doesn't matter. 


It fell into this self-identified SEC anyway. 


Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And bear in mind that this is 


one of the population of those cases that were 


done with OTIB-4 and compensable with OTIB-4 


when we've said that it was applied more 


broadly than it should have been -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Right, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so it's (unintelligible) 


that, as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Doing this case today, we would 


not have used this technique. 


DR. MAURO: During the course of the discussion 


you had mentioned OTIB-4 and you re-- you 


revisited the external dose model now in -- in 


terms of re-evaluating it. I did have a 


problem -- doesn't apply to this case, but 


while we're talking about it, one last thing 


that would put OTIB-4 to bed is the ingestion 


and resuspension/inhalation model. I think the 


problem has been solved 'cause I read Bethlehem 


Steel recently, the latest version, and Jim 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 

118 

come up with his new method that he described 


earlier and now I've had a chance to read it 


and I think that this whole issue that I keep 


harping on regarding that there -- relat-- you 


know, how do you do con-- surface contamination 


and inadvertent ingestion -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- and -- and inhalation. The new 


method -- it looks good. I mean I -- you know, 


I -- I read it because we had a meeting and I 


wanted to be prepared, but it's still here in 


OTIB-4. So when I -- so when you're re-looking 


at OTIB-4 from an external point of view, you 


may want to take a look at the resuspension 


model that's imbedded in OTIB-4 and -- and see 


-- and bring it up to date with the methodology 


that's being used, for example, at Bethlehem 


Steel. The -- the -- the problem -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So is this an overarching issue ­

-


DR. MAURO: This is --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that Jim volunteered -- 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: So that covers 82.5. Right? 


That's the one you're (unintelligible)? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, yes, I... 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're -- we're tracking that with 


that global --


DR. MAURO: Global. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- pol-- now that's not been 


issued yet, has it, or -- you said you'd read 


something and you're happy with it, I didn't 


understand --


DR. MAURO: Well, no, yeah, I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: You've seen it in the Bethlehem 


Steel revised Technical Basis Document, and Jim 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That might be Bethlehem Steel-


specific. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It is Bethlehem Steel-specific, 


but the concept I think is what Jim's going to 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- develop, and -- and you will 


hear this -- I believe it's on his science 


agenda items for the May meeting. He's 


prepared to present the white paper on this to 


you and -- so if we can get that -- get your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

thoughts on that and we can implement this 


thing, we would pick up the TIB-4 and any other 


of the Technical Basis Documents that call for 


ingestion/resuspension modeling and make sure 


that, you know, we're -- we're applying this 


applicably and implementing after it's -- did I 


say that right, applying this applicably? 


Applying this appropriately -- appropriately. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I like that, applicably. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, so -- so there's --


there's no case-specific follow-up on any of 


these, 82 1 through 5, I don't think. Or -- I 


haven't looked at 6 yet, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 82.6 is -- there is some 


discussion in here that's somewhat supportive 


of the ingestion that was used, but in reality 


this is a generic issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It would be on the generic 


issue list. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in fact I did want to talk a 


little bit about -- this is a -- I guess a 


concern I have. I think that the write-up you 


have here in terms of your response explains 


that well, the way we did the ingestion pathway 

1 

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 

-- we understand your concerns. Okay? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: But you know what? In the end, you 


come out with some number, here's the number. 


Then -- then in the answer said well, you know, 


let's take a look how bad that number really 


is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And you go to some other sources of 


information and says hey, you know, that 


number's not that bad when you look at these 


other source of information -- and I agree with 


that. I mean that's fine. But I -- but I 


don't -- I think that side-steps the issue -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- if you see what I'm saying. I 


think you still have to deal with the fact that 


OTIB-4 says this and -- and so thi-- to me, 


that wa-- in my mind, that though you may have 


been able to find a way to ra-- justify why the 


final number that you use might have been okay 


after all --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- that -- that still doesn't mean 


the OTIB-4 method should stand as-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 

122

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and -- and we don't say ­

- we don't claim it will, because -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: What I've heard is that we'll 


look at this generic paper Jim will present and 


if -- you know, if it's accepted -- or, you 


know, after review, I guess NIOSH would say 


okay, let's reflect on that and does it affect 


any of our TIBs and we'll make the changes if 


we need to. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I think that's the way we 


state it here. I don't think there's any case-


specific action --


 MS. MUNN: No, I don't. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- on that. 


 MS. MUNN: All the issues that have been raised 


are being covered elsewhere. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: That's the reason why I -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is 82 6 --


DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible) 30-second so 


you could get the picture. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 82.7 is, again, the use of TIB4. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what that is. 


 MS. MUNN: It still (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was just stopping at 82.6. Is 


there --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the only action would 


be that it's the generic ingestion issue. 


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


got it. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That takes us to 83, 83 is 


Herring Hall. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Herring Hall? 


DR. MAURO: Herring Hall, early years, machined 


uranium, used OTIB-4 and the person was 


compensated. And as I see it, it's the same 


old story, you know, OTIB-4 was used. I don't 


-- now I don't believe there is a -- there 


might be -- site profile for Herring Hall? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not yet. 


DR. MAURO: Not yet? Now when -- when -- when 


and if that does come out, we're going to have 


a very similar situation as we did for 


Bridgeport Brass. That is, you have a more 


realistic treatment. 


 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 

124

 MR. GRIFFON: I think we're okay through 83 -- 


I mean I'm looking at them. They're the same 


findings, basically --


DR. MAURO: It's the same thing. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So on to 84. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: See, we always gain steam in 


these meetings. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 84 is Huntington Pilot Plant. 


DR. MAURO: Hunt-- okay, yeah. Okay, Hunting--


Huntington Pilot Plant -- or let me just go to 


84 and get myself fresh on this, what they did 


there. 


(Pause) 


Oh, this was the nickel facility, okay, got it. 


Yeah, this did not use OTIB-4. Okay? They 


actually have a -- an exposure matrix. Now 


here's a case where I think that you may have 


commented there well, this is a site profile 


issue and it would be -- and as a result, we 


will review it at that time. Quite frankly, as 


we had mentioned earlier, I think it's -- I 


think -- ought to review it here. 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 

125 

it's --


 MR. GRIFFON: What site is this again? 
I 


missed --


DR. MAURO: Huntington --


 MR. GRIFFON: Huntington (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: -- Pilot Plant. Now they did use ­

- and I reviewed the site profile. This 


brought up -- by the way, I won't mention the 


person's cancer, but it was denied. The -- I 


have certain comments here, criticisms 


regarding how the -- the doses were -- I'll -- 


I'll get -- I'll just paint the picture. 


In this facility the person that was working 


there was externally exposed because there was 


airborne and deposited radioactivities of ur-- 


uranium on the ground. There were these things 


called birdcages, which were these little -- 


these places where they stored the uranium -- 


uranium. They took -- they took these -- I 


think this is the place where they took the 


nickel -- the fusion barrier from gaseous 


diffusion plants and they -- it was -- it was 


contaminated with ur-- with uranium, enriched 


uranium, recycled uranium, so we have a site 


here now where the nature of the operation 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 

126 

Oak Ridge would ship these nickel barriers to 


this facility to pro-- separate out the -- the 


uranium from the nickel -- the fusion barrier 


and have -- and now we have the nickel, which 


can be recycled and used to make more fusion 


barriers, and the uranium, which -- which is a 


valuable commodity, which was enriched in some 


cases -- of course it was enriched 'cause it 


was (unintelligible) of the fusion, some of it 


was recycled so it had all the, you know, trace 


levels of activation products. And so -- now ­

- so now you have a guy that was working there 


and -- and what's his exposure? He's exposed 


to any airborne radioactivity, any deposit -- 


uranium that's deposited, and he's also exposed 


because he's standing next to these birdcages 


where, once you've separated the uranium out, 


you put it in these little containers and these 


birdcages were set up so that there wouldn't be 


a criticality. You're probably familiar with 


that. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Now --


 DR. POSTON: The birdcages are large. 


DR. MAURO: They're -- yeah, they had 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 

127 

of them, they're large. They're about five by 


five -- I think it was five by five -- and 


raised. And they're -- and now -- so that -- 


that's your setting. Okay? 


Now we -- we -- I looked at that and said okay, 


the -- I had a number of concerns regarding the 


methods that were used to -- to reconstruct the 


external exposure from the material that was on 


the ground, the material that was airborne. We 


could not match very well your birdcage 


external exposure scenario, so we -- we had a ­

- we had a -- we checked all these numbers. We 


noticed that when you -- here -- so -- so from 


a big picture, we had a little trouble matching 


your numbers. We didn't get your same numbers 


externally. 


Internal, we had no serious problems. The way 


we saw it was the -- this person's working the 


early years and he's inhaling this material. 


Now think of it like this. Is this -- they 


have data where they measured the activity, 


airborne radioactivity, and they have the data 


for different time periods and different work 


activities. Okay? So in other words, we have 


a lot of data, so have lots of good 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 

128 

Problem is, I believe you folks used the full 


distribution or the median for all this data. 


But we have information from reading the CATI 


that this guy had a job that placed him at -- 


in the refining section, I think it was called, 


where he probably was at a location where he 


wasn't an average kind of guy. He might have 


been located someplace where he probably got 


closer to the higher levels because of his job 


description. In addition, the data that you 


folks used was based on all the data that was 


gathered over a number of years, the air 


sampling data, when in fact this guy worked 


very early on. 


So what we did is we took all the data and said 


well, listen, let's get rid of all the recent 


data because that doesn't really apply to this 


guy. Let's just look at the early data. And 


the early data is a lot higher, so we -- we 


came across pretty ser-- we -- we felt that 


this was a -- some serious issues here in terms 


of how this was done. And the main reason is, 


we think that this guy's job was such that he 


probably was more at the high end of the dust 


loadings as opposed to the average. 

1 

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 

And two, because of his job description -- and 


-- and also we felt that the -- a lot of the 


data was -- you used all the data as opposed to 


making a segregation by time period. And if 


you do segregate by time period, you can get 


fairly higher exposures if you just use the 


earlier time period. 


And we had a third problem, you used the data 


collectively and didn't make a distinction 


between breathing zone versus general air and 


you -- you know, from previous experience, if 


you look at the breathing zone data, then 


generally you get a little higher exposure. 


So in the end, we think that -- that you 


probably could have been a little bit more 


claimant favorable, and that's my -- so now 


I'll try to paint the picture. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Wait a minute. Claimant 


favorable or more technically accurate? 


DR. MAURO: I think, given the uncertainties, I 


would say claimant favorable as opposed to 


techni-- in other words, I think that, given 


the assumptions that were selected -- in other 


words, using the full distribution of all the 


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 

130

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- that -- that would have been -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. That helps me to 


understand --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- where you're coming from. 


DR. MAURO: -- yeah, the -- I think that in -- 


for this particular worker, given when he 


worked and his job description, it seemed to us 


that he may not have been like the average. He 


may have been really a person that may have 


been off to the higher range. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Understood. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) What process 


was used to take the uranium (unintelligible)? 


DR. MAURO: Well, they had their carbon 


(unintelligible) process, they called it, or 


carbon --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Carbon (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: -- carbon -- I believe the word was 


carbon (unintelligible), and it was a special 


chemical process that separated the uranium 


from the --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) So it was a 


liquid? 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was a gas. 


DR. MAURO: I don't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was a gas, yeah. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) That's why I'm 


asking. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) If it was 


liquid, (unintelligible). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It didn't destroy the barrier, it 


just pulled the stuff out of the barrier. 


Right? That's my understanding. And then they 


reused the bar-- they retooled the barrier and 


reused it. 


DR. MAURO: They had --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we -- this gets into a site 


profile question while you're looking 


(unintelligible) there, but has a site profile 


been issued on this yet or is it -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) there was -- 


there's been a site profile (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: This is -- yeah, this is --


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription 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 

132 

individual comments impossible.) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's in revision. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, revision. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if you recall, there has 


been another Huntington case reviewed early on 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and some of the similar 


findings were raised there, maybe some 


different ones to here, and so the revision now 


I'll have to go incorporate -- you know, I'll 


have to evaluate the findings from both the 


reviews that have been done, so it -- it's -- 


the revision is not done to that site profile 


but it is -- it's on our to-do list and it is 


in revision. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right, all right. 


 DR. POSTON: But you're -- you think it's a 


gas? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm -- it's been a long time 


since I've looked at that. My understanding 


was that it was the gas, that -- and I don't 


even remember which way it worked. I think it 


essentially reacted with the nickel, and so the 


nickel went one way and anything that wasn'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 

133 

nickel --


 MR. GRIFFON: You would have had a nickel 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- was left behind. I believe 


that's -- I believe that's what it is, but it's 


been a long time since I looked at the site 


profile so I don't remember for sure. And then 


the residue, which would have contained uranium 


in some concentration, along with anything else 


that wasn't nickel, that was stuck there with 


the starting material, would be considerably 


more concentrated than of course, you know, the 


barrier was in terms of uranium per gram. So ­

- and if I'm not mistaken, that was -- at least 


at some point it was solid in something like a 


powder or a granular material. That's --


that's what I've got in my brain, but like I 


said, it's been a long time since I've looked 


at this. 


DR. MAURO: In fact, how it was done -- they 


actually had measured the airborne nickel -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, they measured airborne 


nickel. 


DR. MAURO: The nickel, and now on that basis 


associated it with -- with uranium 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 

134 

'cause they knew the specific activity, how 


much --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- how many -- how many grams of 


uranium per gram of nickel -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and there was a distribution, so 


there wa--


 MR. GRIFFON: Surrogate, maybe. 


DR. MAURO: -- so there was airborne dust-


loading of nickel, so they measured air, so it 


wasn't -- so -- yeah. 


One last point --


MR. ALLEN: I think we used an upper end on 


that uranium concentration, or enrichment, one 


or the other. 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, you used 39 percent, which is 


very conservative and -- and my outcome on this 


was well, you didn't take into consideration -- 


I believe there was rec-- the recycled, but 


that's okay, because you -- if you were to 


throw in the recycled components, it would 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 

135 

added a little bit. But by using 39 percent 


enrichment across the board, that more than 


compensated for the fact that you may not have 


used -- explicitly addressed the recycled, so 


that's okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Doesn't that depend on the level 


of the recycled isotope? I mean --


DR. MAURO: But the real re-- the real recycled 


number, the average number, was much less than 


39 percent, but they used 39 percent 'cause 


that was for the upper end, I think, of the -- 


of the distribution of the amount of 


enrichment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I'm talking about the 


neptunium/plutonium issues -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, right --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Their contribution would be 


less --


DR. MAURO: Less than --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- if you --


 MR. GRIFFON: But you examined that, though? 


haven't looked at this profile at all -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If you -- if you used a more 


realistic (unintelligible) enrichment of 


uranium, including (unintelligible) the 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

transuranics, which are (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: I -- I -- I mean we're coming -- 


we're walking away with this thinking the 


internal dose may have been underestimated by 


more than a hundred-fold -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Internal or external? 


DR. MAURO: -- so we're not talk-- the 


internal, for the reasons I've -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, based on the air sampling, 


not the --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: For the reasons I've -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Not on this issue that we're just 


talking about. 


DR. MAURO: No, no, no, I'm sorry, no. But I 


mean -- I'm just trying to say that this is not 


a small thing. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: We're not talking 20, 30 percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, now that we have sort of a 


big picture, why don't we go through -- you 


want to go through one by one or -- 


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: A lot of it -- a lot of it 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 

137 

going to turn back to this -- now we have a 


site profile and there's being a revised site 


profile. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, site profile is being 


revised. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Because I see several of your 


responses say, you know, if our revision -- 


pending our revision, we would correct this -- 


this case or -- or adjust this case. 


MR. ALLEN: I think that's going to end up 


being the answer on all of those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only -- the only dilemma we 


have, of course, is that we're not necessarily 


reviewing the Huntington Pilot Plant site 


profile, other than in this context. So I 


think it comes back to this -- this 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think in terms of 


(unintelligible) resolving these comments -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that would be a key element 


-- you know, 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 

138

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we're looking at -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the revised profile would be 


a key element to this -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) comment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: So it is a parking lot issue? That 


is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: No -- no, we'll -- we'll -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's in this parking lot, though. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we'll -- we owe a revised -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And either incorporation 


comments or, you know, a resolution attempt at 


the comments -- at each of the comments. Now 


there are at least two Huntington Pilot Plant 


cases that have been reviewed, so a resolution 


of all the comments from both those reviews has 


to accompany that -- you know, has to be part 


of the revised (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: NIOSH will provide the revised site 


profile. The subcommittee can decide if 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 

139 

wants SC&A to review the revised site profile 


relative to these comments, but this is the 


matrix that will carry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now so -- so having said that, 


I'm not sure we have to go through one by one, 


unless you want to go through these one by one. 


DR. MAURO: That's why I like --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: I think -- see what just happened? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, your 30-second -- I know, 


(unintelligible). 


UNIDENTIFIED: A little more than 30 seconds. 


DR. MAURO: 30 seconds, we've got -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: You've got to work on that 30 


seconds. No, no, that was good. That was 


good. I'm just -- yeah. 


DR. MAURO: You know -- yeah, yeah, it's almost 


like a picture in front of you, you can see 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: It works well for the -- 


especially for the AWEs (unintelligible) -- 


DR. MAURO: The AWEs -- it works for the AWEs. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I'm going to say that -- 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 

140 

NIOSH is in the process of revising the site 


profile -- everybody's getting ready for lunch, 


I think -- revising a site profile and they'll 


-- they'll come back with their revision to 


this subcommittee and to this process, because 


we don't -- it -- it's not a site profile in 


the way we think of a site profile review, it's 


in this -- it's in this group. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and there are not a 


zillion claims from this site, so it would be ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- probably fairly low on -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- site profile review priority 


 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- task. 


 MS. MUNN: And ultimately, following that site 


profile and the findings on it, it's going to 


end up reported out in a PER anyway. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah, to the extent the 


profile changes and -- and different approaches 


are taken and the doses do in fact go up 


because of the new approaches, then in fact 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

there would be a PER in the cases that were 


done. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I guess -- you -- you use -- 


I'd have to read through again, but I thought 


you said pending that revision of the site 


profile, it may go to a PER. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: If changes are made. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we have to look at that 


profile first in here and then it may go to a 


PER, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: One other thing on this and then 


we'll -- I think it's -- it would be a good 


time to break for lunch, actually. The 


question that John pointed out, and I'm not 


sure where it occurs in the findings, but the ­

- this question of general area air sampling 


versus BZAs, I think that was one of our 


overarching things, as well, wasn't it? Or was 


it not? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The use or treatment of those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

samples? No? Maybe I'm wrong. 


DR. MAURO: We do have precedent -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I know we've discussed it before 


many times. 


DR. MAURO: We have, on a particular case -- 


not case, but there was a particular site 


profile on -- where it was agreed that yeah, 


we've got to make adjustments. I think it 


actually came out of Bethlehem Steel. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I thought we had it at Bethlehem, 


yeah. I thought --


DR. MAURO: In other words, when you have -- 


when you have breathing zone and you -- well, 


you have general air samples, there is a 


limitation there --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- and -- and in the case of 


Bethlehem Steel, they actually had data from 


Simonds Saw where they had both breathing zone 


and general --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and they saw there was about an 


eight-fold difference. So we say okay -- and ­

- and it turns out at Bethlehem Steel it was 


predominantly --

1 

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. GRIFFON: General. 


DR. MAURO: -- general, so -- and --


 MR. GRIFFON: So they added a factor, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- so they added a factor in there 


and that --


 MR. GRIFFON: But then I thought Jim off-- 


offered that they might look at this as a 


generic issue --


DR. MAURO: Maybe a generic --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but maybe I'm wrong, I -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, I don't think it's on the 


list. I'm not saying it shouldn't be or not 


saying it shouldn't be looked at, I just don't 


think it's on the list that he's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we -- we can always -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- reporting --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- bring that up in the 

discussion with Jim at the next meeting. 


 DR. WADE: When Jim presents in May, you can 


raise this issue. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Good enough for now. 


Okay then, I think -- let's -- if everybody is 


set, pencil it off at 85 and we'll pick it up 


after lunch. 


 DR. WADE: Just a little bit of housekeeping. 

1 

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 

So you're going to break for lunch now, back at 


1:00 o'clock, is that the plan? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Now I know that there's one 


subcommittee member who will leave this 


afternoon. I assume that, Mark, you will be 


here; Wanda, you'll be here; Mike, you'll be 


here this afternoon? So there will be a quorum 


of the subcommittee for you to work. Liz, 


either you or some representative needs to be 


here on the phone. And either Larry and I -- 


or I will be here as DFO. 


So we're going to break now till 1:00 and we'll 


be back. We'll break the line now for those 


people on the line, and we'll reestablish the 


call at 1:00. Thank you. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:00 p.m. 


to 1:00 p.m.) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we're back in session. Let me 


ask if there are any Board members on the call. 


 (No responses) 


Okay, let's begin. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I -- we're back on the 


fifth set of cases, starting with 80 -- case 


number 85 is where we left off. 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 

145 

continue there. John, 30-second synopsis? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, 30 second -- Superior Steel, 


rolling mill operation, uranium. The person 


was denied. Okay? His cancer was denied. We 


-- they -- they do have a, you know, site 


profile, exposure matrix, that we reviewed 


carefully and they basically visualized that 


the person's again exposed to activity deposit 


on surfaces, dust that deposited, and the way 


they -- the approach they used for estimating 


that exposure from activity that was sort of on 


surfaces we concur completely with because it 


was based on air survey data collected at 


Simonds Saw where the dust loading on surfaces 


was much worse, and so they -- the folks 


decided well, let's just use the Simonds Saw 


external dosimetry, film badge data, to 


characterize that exposure pathway and apply it 


here. That -- you know, that certainly is 


claimant favorable. 


We -- the other exposure this person's 


experienced was that -- they produced these 


slabs and plates of uranium they rolled, and 


the person spent time next to it. We went 


ahead and reviewed the model. We have two 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

findings that were regarding how you folks came 


at the problem. One is our calculations come 


in at a lower dose, so we think you folks may 


have overestimated the -- the exposures and we 


don't know why. We looked at the X-ray 


exposure; everything was fine there. We looked 


at the internal exposure that was assumed. 


Lots of data, looked at all these data from the 


-- during operations dust is being generated. 


You have lots of data. Looked at it. You 


picked an upper 95th percentile during the 


rolling operation as being the dust that this 


person was exposed to, right on the button, no 


problem whatsoever with that. The other place 


we looked at, though, was how you modeled the 


res-- internal exposure from resuspension, and 


you used ten to the minus six resuspension 


factor. I guess we were a little bit concerned 


that that strategy -- that ten to the minus six 


might be -- given the nature of the working 


operation, may not be as claimant favorable as 


it could be. Finally, the ingestion pathway is 


the same old same old, you know, that recurring 


story about how to do the -- you know, the 


ingestion modeling. And I think that's my 30­
1 

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 

second sound bite. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I guess -- now you 


say for finding 85.1 your finding is you felt 


like our doses were higher than yours? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in other words, we -- we came 


up with -- our model gave 50 percent lower 


doses for the small -- oh, for the small plate, 


and we came in higher for the large plate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: In other words, we didn't match 


your numbers and one -- for the -- there was a 


large plate and a small plate. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: One we got higher results, and we ­

- we (unintelligible) do it differently than 


you. We --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- run (unintelligible) and you 


folks run Attila, I believe, or -- I'm not sure 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure which one we did 


on this. We do have Attila, but I'm not sure 


which we used on this. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, well, I mean we run it and we 


-- we -- we're close. I mean within a factor 

1 

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 

of two. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, as I -- as I recall, we 


used existing runs that had been done on a 


somewhat different geometry, and you modeled 


the geometries as they were at the site. 


DR. MAURO: As best we can tell from the 


information in the report. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And we put in -- you know, in 


our initial response -- some supporting 


information about the magnitude of the doses. 


I mean these were pretty high external doses 


that were being assigned for a uranium handling 


plant, you know, comparing to some other types. 


In fact, I even put in Fernald just because I'm 


familiar with, you know, a site that handled a 


lot of uranium, people were working close by to 


-- to a lot of uranium and throughout the 1980s 


when there was the production buildup, I don't 


think there was ever a reported dose -- 


certainly it didn't come close to two rem a 


year, more -- more on the order of one rem sort 


of being the upper bound of what anybody was 


exposed to from penetrating radiation in a 


year, and this distribution allows -- in the 


95th percentile goes up to like four -- four 

1 

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 

rem a year. So we felt like it was 


sufficiently high, you know, despite some 


perhaps differences in the model, you know, and 


source term starting point. 


DR. MAURO: Well, we just took your -- we just 


took your -- what was in your report. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: This is what you did, and we said 


okay, let's see if we can match your numbers. 


We didn't look -- in other words, what I'm 


hearing is that -- that you have other sources 


of information regarding what the external 


radiation should be --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- and it is compatible with what 


you found. All we did was take your list of 


assumptions regarding -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- time of exposure, proximity, 


dimensions --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- run MCNP, see if we can match 


your numbers and we didn't quite get your 


numbers. 


 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 

150 

DR. MAURO: As simple as that. If there are 


other reasons --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- why you believe the numbers you 


used, from other experience, that you feel 


justifies using the numbers you used, that -- 


that's fine. That would --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- might be the answer. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, we could probably 


put something together more than what we have 


here in terms of whether -- you know, either in 


support -- you know, additional information in 


support or an alternative look at this. Okay? 


This could be something we could owe a written 


product on then. 


 MR. GRIFFON: A written product? Is there any 


-- for Superior Steel, is there any site 


profile or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: There is a site profile? 


DR. MAURO: That's (unintelligible) we worked 


(unintelligible) site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then this description 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 

151 

-- how this photon dose with the mean of .4 to 


a 95th at four rem, that's described in the 


site profile? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah. That's where I 


got it from. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, I guess -- we didn't come -- 


it might be correct, but my recollection was 


that we were based on -- not on empirical data. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it wasn't measured -- it's 


not based on empirical measured data. It's 


based on, as you said --


DR. MAURO: A model. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of source term dose rate -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and some presumptions about 


amount of time. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, a certain -- certain 


amount of time was chosen, I think to model the 


median, and a different amount of time was 


chosen to model the 95th percentile. And based 


on that, these were essentially the parameters 


of the -- of the distribution of the dose 


assigned, and we believe we can come up 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 

152 

supporting information that illustrates, for 


uranium handling plants -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- these are pretty 


conservative estimates of external dose. 


 MS. MUNN: So doesn't that essentially mean 


your response to items one, two and three are 


reasonable and acceptable? Or does that not 


mean so? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- well, I don't -- I -- I'm 


just asking where this came -- you know, he -- 


I think you're saying it's consistent with 


other plants, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I mean I don't -- that's not 


in the site profile or not? I think we --


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


it would be a straightforward matter for us, I 


think, to compile other information that would 


support -- or at least support the indication 


that these -- this dose rate distribution is -- 


is probably favorable to the people who worked 


at that site. I think we can do that. And the 


-- or -- or we could do -- I mean we can do 


other things, as well. We'll just have to see 

1 

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 

what comes out of the (unintelligible) 


evaluation of what we provide, but I -- I would 


think that we can come up with additional 


evidence because when you -- when you model a 


source term, you know, we put a source term 


dose rate -- you know, MCMP* or, you know, 


correct geometry or incorrect geometry, the -- 


the real key element of what dose you assign is 


what are your presumptions about proximity to 


that source. And so we think there's 


supporting information from similar type of 


facilities, or at least facilities that handled 


similar material, uranium metal, that would 


support a -- a dose right -- you know, a dose 


in the neighborhood of what we 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: There's no doubt, because as I 


said, we came in within -- within a factor of 


two of your plate and -- and the slab, using 


what we understood was your model. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Now as far as I'm concerned, that's 


one way to come at it. But if you also have 


data from -- where other -- out of the sites 


where they measured the radiation fields 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 

154 

- that -- say -- was -- you know, I could 


certainly -- the uncertainty in these kinds of 


calculations would be met, you know, within a 


factor of two. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it might be useful for 


several other sites, too, you have -- to have 


that piece available, sort of like we had for 


Chapman Valve where all -- all the other 


machining references that we had to show that, 


you know, these numbers that we calculated for 


Chapman Valve intakes were consistent with 


other types of uranium machining operations, 


yeah, so it's -- it's -- yeah. So you'll give 


us a written --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we'll have a written 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- written response. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 85.2 is a dose due to 


resuspension. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Isn't resuspension one of the 


overarching issues, along with ingestion, or is 


it just ingestion? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it's -- I think it's 


both, but I could be wrong. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 -- 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

DR. MAURO: No, in this case -- no, in this 


case it was something a little different. You 


had two alternative strategies for dealing with 


resuspension. One is you had some wipe 


samples. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Okay? You have data. And also you 


had information on the radiation 


(unintelligible) MR per hour, if you get -- it 


was actually the radiation reading. What -- as 


I understand it is for the purpose of doing the 


external exposure from the positive activity, 


you worked with this survey reader reading -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Dose rate (unintelligible), 


okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- which if you went with -- didn't 


use that, but went with the swipe sample and 


then back-calculated over -- given that 


activity on the surface, what would -- there -- 


you know, Federal Guidelines Report No. 12 say 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


DR. MAURO: -- is the airborne dose, you would 


have come up with a much lower dose. 


 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 

156 

DR. MAURO: So for the purpose of external 


exposure, you went with the survey reading -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- and we're fine with that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: But then when it came to doing the 


resuspension/inhalation exposure, you didn't 


use the survey -- see, in theory, you could 


have used the survey (unintelligible) then, the 


reading, back-calculated what that might mean 


in terms of surface contamination -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and then do a resuspension 


model. You didn't do that, and when it came to 


the resuspension, you used the wipe sample. So 


it's almost like you used two different 


strategies and I -- I guess -- and the latter, 


based on the wipe sample, does -- would -- does 


come up with a substantially lower inhalation 


exposure than if you went the other route. I 


don't know if you're following all that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and -- and -- but in 


fact, I mean wouldn't resuspension be more 


dependent on a removable --


DR. MAURO: 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 

157

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that -- what you'd measure 


on a smear than it would with a surveying 


(unintelligible)? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, from -- just on the 


face of it from that standpoint, I would think 


the removable contamination -- 


DR. MAURO: Would be a better --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- would be more contributive ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Seems more appropriate, yeah, 


yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I can't argue with that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, then --


 MR. HINNEFELD: So did you want anything 


additional here, or --


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing I want -- I just 


want clarification on -- when you say relying 


on survey meters, I'm not -- I didn't review 


this case, but relying on a survey meter -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it was there. Right? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, was that -- that's -- 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: So you have site data? Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, that was what -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, this is one of the AWEs 


where there is pretty health site data. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah, absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you don't have film badge 


data, but you have some -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess not. I don't -- you 


know, there's not --


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) survey meter. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) dose rate 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm assuming from 85 1 that you 


don't have any --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds like we don't have -- 


don't have film badge records like we have -- 


like at Chapman Valve. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But you have a lot of maybe 


survey data or something like that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I'm not very familiar 


with --


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, there's (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: It sounds like we're okay. I 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 

159 

just curious from the -- if it was site-


specific --


DR. MAURO: I only brought it up in terms of -- 


well, you're right, if -- if you're going to do 


resuspension and you're trying to say okay, 


let's forget what might have been resuspended, 


if you -- swipe data is probably your 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And then 85.3 is post-


operation inhalation exposure to suspended dust 


may have been underestimated. And I guess I'm 


at a little disadvantage here 'cause I'm not 


completely conversant on this -- on this case 


or on Superior Steel. 


DR. MAURO: The only point we're making, again, 


is -- okay, let's -- let's say we're starting 


with -- there was a two-pronged concern. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: One is you based on a swipe, and 


I'm -- I'm okay with that. But then you 


applied a ten to the minus six resuspension 


factor --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, the ten to the minus six. 


DR. MAURO: Right, and -- and I -- we had an 


attachment in the back -- the ten to the minus 

1 

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 

six, and this is really a judgment call, 


probably is -- is not unrealistic, but there's 


certain laws of evidence -- you know, if you're 


walking around the site and you're -- there's 


physical -- people are walking around, keeping 


things up, you can easily (unintelligible) ten 


to the minus four. Ten to the minus six is 


probably toward the low end, and that was the 


point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I mean --


 MR. GRIFFON: It may be a generic resuspension 


question, too. I think we've had -- 


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in our generic discussions -- 


DR. MAURO: -- DTRA -- DTRA --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- this come up before. 


DR. MAURO: -- just for your information, DTRA 


had researched this for their purposes -- you 


know, for their veterans, and they settled in 


on ten to the minus five. That's outdoors. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Outdoors. 


DR. MAURO: Here -- here I would say -- you 


know, if you do a deposited uranium dust on the 


surfaces and people are walking around and, you 


know -- and there's a potential to have 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 

161 

little bit more resuspension -- lots and lots 


of literature on resuspension factors. You may 


want to take a look --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- at that ten to the minus six and 


see if you're comfortable with 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then --


DR. MAURO: I felt that --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I would propose --


DR. MAURO: -- you were too low. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that that be done in that 


generic --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, that would be the place to do 


it --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the overarching -- I believe 


we did ask for a response overarching. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: My recollection is that 


resuspension is one of the overarching -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- issues and --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm pretty sure --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so is --


 MS. MUNN: Yes, it is, in fact. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162

 MR. HINNEFELD: So we can --


 MR. GRIFFON: Handle that that way. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- handle that there, probably. 


Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now as far -- and John, you're 


comfortable with the -- the use of the site 


data, though? Seems like they're using -- it's 


not really a median, but with a high GSD, you 


know. 


DR. MAURO: From the swipes --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- what the -- I thought you took 


the high end. I -- I'm not sure. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall, sitting here. 


I -- I'm just not familiar with Superior Steel. 


DR. MAURO: My recollection is you picked a 


high value for the swipe data, not the -- let ­

- let -- maybe (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you guys know? 


 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's correct, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: You did use the high value. Right? 


Or did you use the median? 


 MR. SIEBERT: It was -- no, I believe we used 


the max removable contamination. 


DR. MAURO: That's what I remember, too, 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 

163 

Okay. It's -- it's written up in here and 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it says -- it says using 


the max removable --


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- contamination level reported 


during the available operation surveys, not the 


median. 


DR. MAURO: Right, good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And a high GSD. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I just was -- so you're 


comfortable with that? I mean I don't know how 


much data they had there, if it's five swipes 


or if it's -- you know, thousands or -- 


DR. MAURO: Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether 


this is an important contributor to the dose, 


either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, it may not be. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, I'd be (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: In fact, we could tell, according 


to this record -- hold on (unintelligible) 


tables summarizing... 


(Pause) 


That's -- no, we're talking about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

(unintelligible) -- see if the resuspension 


model is (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Probably not much. 


DR. MAURO: Zero. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Zero, there you go. 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) off to zero. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we're not going to worry about 


that. 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. But we still have 


that generic question of the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's still the generic issue 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- one (sic) to the minus six, 


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 85 -- 85.4 questions the method 


for internal doses associated with inadvertent 


ingestion. Okay, this would be ingestion 


generic issues. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And 85.5 is -- questions 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 

165 

basis for the plutonium-239 and 237 activity 


fractions, and I didn't put an initial response 


in here, I think in large part because it's 


hard for me to believe that they have 


(unintelligible). We don't have evidence that 


there was recycled uranium sent to this place. 


The reason it's included in the site profile is 


that the Department of Energy didn't really 


track in particular their uranium as recycled 


or not recycled, so when they would have a 


contractor provide uranium to an AWE, it's a -- 


DR. MAURO: Well, I think you did include -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We included some. 


DR. MAURO: -- included it, and without any 


reference to why the particular -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Those values were chosen? 


DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, where'd you --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I can -- I suppose I could find 


those -- those references, and I -- I ga-- I 


think I ran out of time is why I -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- didn't actually get in-- 


DR. MAURO: We -- we -- we -- I didn't tur-- we 


-- in theory, I could have asked some of -- 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 

166 

know, we did look at recycled uranium for Y-12. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


DR. MAURO: In theory I could have turned some 


folks on to take a look, are these good 


numbers. I didn't do that. I just simply 


said, you know, you gave the percentages or -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- parts per million you used -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Where did these come from, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- with-- without giving a 


reference. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's all we -- that's all we 


need. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we should be able to 


provide the source information. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, then -- that's it for 85 


-- 86 is a Linde Ceramics case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: John, you're on. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Ah, this was an interesting 


one, and I think that this is a -- what we have 


here is a worker that worked at Linde -- 


there's an exposure matrix for Linde so 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 

167 

not OTIB-04. Now the work -- now during -- at 


Linde you can think in terms of there were the 


-- an operation period where there was lots of 


stuff going on. You know, they were -- all 


sorts of uranium chemistry. But then there was 


a cleanup period and then there was a post-


cleanup period. This particular worker was 


there during the cleanup period. Okay? And 


during that time, he was involved -- and I 


don't know if I could speak to this -- he was a 


welder, and in effect what happened here is you 


had lots of data regarding external exposures. 


There was -- there was lots of data. Matter of 


fact, there was tables upon tables of data. 


And you went ahead and picked some value. But 


from reading his CATI -- we're talking external 


exposure now -- from reading his CATI, it 


appears that he was working very closely with 


non-destructive testing people who were 


involved in X-rays. You know, this was -- he 


was a welder and -- and -- and there -- and so 


his job, the way I sort of visualize it, here's 


a guy who was up close and personal to the 


pipes where he was doing welding operation. 


And after the welding operation 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 

168 

there's non-destructive testing, sort of like 


went hand in hand. And so he may have gotten 


exposures which were a lot different than let's 


say your typical worker in the plant involved 


in cle-- involved in the cleanup operation, I'm 


not sure. So my question is, with regard to 


the external exposure, using the median value 


of the distributions would certainly be 


reasonable for a worker that worked on cleanup 


and worked throughout the facility and got a 


little bit -- some places were high, some 


places were low. In this case it looks like we 


have a worker, though, his nature of his job 


was a welder where he's up close and personal 


to the piping doing his job, and I assume -- 


and I might have assumed incorrectly -- that 


hand in hand of goes with welding is nondestructive X-ray test-- testing, they're going 


together. And he may have gotten -- may have 


been involved in that part of -- also. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I --


 DR. POSTON: I would assume --


DR. MAURO: I don't know. 


 DR. POSTON: I would assume there was a 


qualified radiographer there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 -- 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169

 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 DR. POSTON: Welders don't do radiography. 


DR. MAURO: And the wel-- and the welder would 


have been -- yeah. But there was something in 


the CATI to that effect -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


DR. MAURO: -- and that's why we brought it up. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I took a -- I took brief 


read of the CATI and I guess I could have 


missed something. I didn't see anything that 


would indicate to me that he was routinely 


engaged in radiographic examination of welds. 


I know a lot of welds are done without 


radiographic examination. 


In addition to -- the point that -- since he 


was hired in during the cleanup period, when 


they were cleaning up the uranium work, a 


welding activity in a cleanup -- in my 


experience, a welding activity in a cleanup 


experience is to cut the metal (unintelligible) 


DR. MAURO: Cut the metal and you don't -- and 


you're not putting it back together. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and you're not putting it 


back together and you're not worried 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 

170 

quality of the weld 'cause you're essentially 


cutting the metal so you can throw it away. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: He did say in his CATI -- or 


his CATI, I don't know if it was his or a 


survivor CATI, but the CATI did talk about his 


work on gas storage cylinders, which is apart 


from the Linde radiological work. So quite 


likely as -- during the cleanup period, or 


after -- 'cause he worked well after that, too, 


at Linde -- he was involved in the installation 


of gas storage cylinders for remaining Linde 


tasks, because I believe it actually turned 


into a -- an industrial gas supplier. That was 


either part of that -- their business or that 


was their later business. Isn't that true? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) year. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But it was -- so it was indus-- 


industrial gas supplier? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so in all likelihood, if 


there were welding that he did that ultimately 


was examined and tested -- 


DR. MAURO: It wasn't on this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it would have been the 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 

171 

part --


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the exposure when they -- 


when they were preparing for that kind of work. 


So that was my judgment when I read -- when I 


read the case and I read the finding, I said I 


just don't see that -- the connection here on 


why we should take this person to be exposed to 


radiographic examination of welds. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Aren't -- aren't there two 


Lindes? There -- there -- (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is -- yeah, there are two 


Linde locations. One's in Buffalo and ones in 


-- Tonawanda? 


MS. BRACKETT: Tonawanda. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Tonawanda. This is -- Linde 


Ceramic is the Tonawanda site. It was the site 


that did in fact do --


 MR. GRIFFON: And I thought the other one was 


the one that went to gas as -- I -- I may be 


wrong (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I thought -- I thought both 


did. Am I wrong on that? 


MS. BRACKETT: I'm not certain. I think it's a 


very large company, so I don't 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 

172

 MR. HINNEFELD: It was a division of Union 


Carbide at that time. 


DR. MAURO: It was -- yeah, the ceramics, and 


Ton-- Tonawanda was more the research arm, I 


think, and Linde was the production arm. Now 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there was -- there was a 


-- at Tonawanda there was a sort of a pilot 


plant --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, (unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then there was a 


ceramics plant and -- that -- and they were 


already -- Linde was already working with 


uranium as coating -- colors -- you know, 


colors and glazes --


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- during World War II. And so 


very early on the government relied on Linde as 


a uranium product-- producer for Manhattan 


Project. So very early on it was -- it got 


very quickly involved in the Manhattan Project 


uranium work. And then -- but that work kind 


of ended. I think they were done with their 


uranium work for the government by say about 


'52 or something, and this person hired 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 

173 

during the cleanup. There was a -- like a two 


or three-year cleanup -- 


DR. MAURO: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then -- and then the 


site was turned over -- from a government site, 


it was turned over to Linde for ownership at 


that point. So this person hired in during the 


cleanup period and -- and just based on the -- 


you know, when he was hired, the nature of his 


-- and -- and the -- what kind of operations 


would have been going on in the radiological 


area at that time, they were cleaning it up, we 


just didn't see that there's, you know, much of 


an evidence for the --


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- non-destructive testing. 


DR. MAURO: The -- the post-- he was there for 


post-cleanup operations, and there's -- now 


there's no doubt that the exposures from the 


post-- after the cleanup are just negligible. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: I mean we may have had some 


comments here on the methods used. For 


example, when -- when you folks modeled the 


post-cleanup portion -- let me see, I -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

don't believe you included some of the progeny 


-- you know, the -- see, at Linde, unlike a lot 


of other sites, you've got the whole litany of 


radionuclides. You know, you've got the 


raffinates --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes, early on. 


DR. MAURO: -- you've got -- you've got to have 


-- you know, it's not just uranium. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: And -- okay. All right, let -- let 


me go -- give -- give me a second here. 


(Pause) 


We just left the external. Sounds like 


external -- position being well, listen, he may 


have done some cutting as a welder, but perhaps 


they -- he was not involved with any nondestructive testing. That was our only 


concern. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: And if that's the case, that's the 


case and that's the end of that problem. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: With regard to internal, what was 


done was you assumed this person was exposed 


chronically to 33 MAC -- 33 MAC is the highest 

1 

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 

daily weighted average dust loading observed at 


Linde amongst a bunch -- a lot of measurements 


made, absolutely good number. And it also is 


considered to be representative of the 


breathing zone, and it also included progeny. 


So -- let me see, so 33 MAC, that's -- that's a 


good number. We have -- we're fully supportive 


of using 33 MAC as your default value for 


(unintelligible) as a -- as a plausible 


(unintelligible). And including the progeny. 


No -- the only thing -- I guess the only 


criticism we had regarding the -- that portion 


-- that is, during the cleanup and the 33 MAC ­

- I think you were silent regarding raffinates 


and any exposures he may have experienced from 


raffinates. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: So it may be worth exploring that 


but (unintelligible) that could have 


contributed -- 'cause this person was denied, 


and our experience from other sites is that 


sites like this where there are -- there's a 


lot of processing going on, there are 


raffinates, and very often the thorium and the 


radium are separated, concentrated, and 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 

176 

be an important contributor to exp-- intake. 


So there's no doubt that the 33 MAC was up 


there for uranium, but I think that may be -- I 


believe you're silent in this one on -- 


regarding raffinates. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is this the Linde that's 


currently in site profile review, or is it the 


other Linde? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is the one site profile 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: This is -- yeah, this is... 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause I'm wondering if that 


could be taken --


DR. MAURO: Oh, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- up there or --


DR. MAURO: Yeah -- yeah -- yeah, that -- that 


was one of our findings in the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Would be appropriate. Right? 


DR. MAURO: That's -- that's an issue, yes. 


You could -- this could -- this issue -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's a wor-- there's a 


workgroup established on Linde -- right? -- and 


there's a -- is there actually -- is there an 


SEC? 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: There is an SEC for early years 


at Linde. 


DR. MAURO: Early years. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, for early years. 


DR. MAURO: And I believe that there -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Internal monitoring at Linde 


started about '47 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or '48, so up until then, 


the earlier work is (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, this case --


 MR. GRIFFON: The workgroup's covering the site 


profile and the SEC period, I think. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I haven't been to the -- I 


haven't -- I think so. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's a site profile at this 


point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Site profile at this point, okay. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, this employee worked at Linde 


from -- oh, early years, starting in '52 -- I 


won't give all the dates -- starting in '52. 


The -- the SEC that's -- that was gr-- there 


was an SEC granted on Linde. 


 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 

178 

DR. MAURO: That was -- it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It only goes up through about 


'47 or '48. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, so -- so -- okay, if he's in a 


time period where he's not covered by the SEC ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- I guess that's important, too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But there is a workgroup 


reviewing the site profile -- 


DR. MAURO: The site profile. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so -- so we could probably -- 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- incorporate that in that 


review? Does that make sense? 


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


that would make sense. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I hate to put it in other parking 


lots, but I think it -- it's -- 


DR. MAURO: Well, it makes sense because in a 


sense --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it's a question of whether 


there's other -- other nuclides of interest -- 


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that, you know, 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 

179 

contribute poten-- you know, significantly to 


their exposures. That's... 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, in effect, what we have here 


is -- this is a good example. This is one of 


the places where an exposure matrix was used 


for an AWE facility. But as it turns out, this 


particular exposure matrix is on the table for 


review --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- by SC&A and is being reviewed, 


unlike a lot of the others, like Huntington and 


-- where -- where it really would be 


inappropriate to take -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: This one we can defer. Right? 


DR. MAURO: We can defer this (unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


DR. MAURO: We can (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: And 86.3 says this question -- 


NIOSH's response says this question is under 


review, so I think the site profile review 


makes sense to --


DR. MAURO: Good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to close that out in that 


process. Right, 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 

180

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I -- I think probably so. But 


I guess there's some question in my mind 


whether the raffinate issue would be one that 


would be really applicable to a welder -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: A welder, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- in this --


 MR. GRIFFON: I had that same -- yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: You know, why would -- I can 


understand in other parts of the plant -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Like a chemical operator or 


something. 


 MS. MUNN: -- where you might -- yeah, you 


might be concerned about that, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well --


 MS. MUNN: -- it seems to me (unintelligible) ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess theoretically, to the 


extent that a welder may in fact have been 


involved in the cleanup where they would be 


likely burning and, you know, cutting metal 


pieces to remove, and if they were cutting 


piping and so on that carried the material -- 


sitting here now, it would be hard for me to 


say that there's no way that that welder could 


have been exposed to contamination due 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 

181 

raffinate or, you know, product or intervening 


products, whatever might have been held up in 


the pipes during the work, so it's a little 


hard to say that (unintelligible) definitely 


that they wouldn't have been as a welder. Now 


if they were welding new stock, then they 


wouldn't have been. But welders are -- are 


sometimes used to take things apart in 


demolition. 


 MS. MUNN: And cut, too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, which goes to this first 


issue. That is if, as a welder, and he was 


cutting up part of -- dismantlement of -- of a 


component of this -- piping systems that were 


-- had some residual contamination, I guess the 


-- begs the question, is he in a situation 


where -- and -- and he -- the per-- the type of 


cancer -- I don't know if I should mention the 


cancer --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Huh-uh. 


DR. MAURO: No -- were such that being up close 


and personal is -- if -- and -- if he was up 


close and personal to the sources of external 

1 

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 

exposure, that means the average external 


exposures may not apply to him. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: And that was my first finding. 


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


well, the second issue, about the -- the 


treatment of raffinate or non-uranium progeny, 


are -- I believe is on the Linde site profile. 


DR. MAURO: It is on, absolutely, that's 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The second question of what 


types -- is it appropriate to assign median 


level doses and --


DR. MAURO: That's -- that's legit for here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That -- that one -- okay. So 


then we would need some sort of -- something in 


writing about --


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that on 86.2 or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- whether we believe -- that 


would be 86 -- that's 86.1, I believe -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or is it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Wait a minute. 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 

1 

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: No, 86 --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, they're -- the difference 


between 1 and 2, I think in 1 we're talking 


about whether he might have got -- been exposed 


to radiographic examinations -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- and the argument -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And 2 is process --


DR. MAURO: And 2 is being up close and 


personal to the pipe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: And first -- number one seems 


unlikely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think number one we disposed 


of. Right? You -- you would agree with 


NIOSH's --


DR. MAURO: I'm -- I mean I'm not -- yeah. I 


don't -- I don't -- (unintelligible), yeah. So 


the --


 MR. GRIFFON: So two you're saying you want 


some more --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can provide a written 


product on number two. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Written product, okay. Written 


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 

184

 MR. ELLIOTT: While there's a lull, I'd just 


like to caution all of us to make sure that 


when we're talking about these cases we don't 


go too far into too much detail, maybe use a -- 


apply a rule of three. If you give three 


particular characteristics about the claim -- 


for these AWE sites in particular where we only 


have a small number of claims -- you tend to 


narrow it down, and we want to be careful that 


we don't have too much redacted out of your 


transcript here today. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) caution, yeah. 


Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 86.4 I believe related, again, 


to the welding question, if I'm not mistaken. 


Is that right, welding and potential 


(unintelligible)? 


DR. MAURO: Right, that was the CATI question, 


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, potential for nondestructive examination, X-ray examination on 


that, so I believe that fits with number one. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I had a second sort of 


little comment here on 86 4. This goes back 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 

185 

one of our old findings, not only whether -- 


and I didn't know exactly what was said in the 


CATI, but we've always had this question of was 


it -- was it addressed in the DR report. 


DR. MAURO: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, even if -- even if 


there wasn't additional exposures, we like to ­

- you know, we've -- and you've agreed to this, 


Stu, that the DR report should at least say -- 


at least acknowledge the comments made by the ­

- by the individual interviewed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- we do try to say -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: And (unintelligible) say that our 


technique addresses it or whatever, so I didn't 


know if this finding was related to the DR 


report --


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- or the actual numb-- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's -- it's related to 


the -- the fact that the CATI talked about him 


being a welder --


DR. MAURO: Welder, exactly. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and working on that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, so just welding in general, 


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 

186

 MR. HINNEFELD: And so it -- it --


DR. MAURO: That's all. Yeah, you're right, 


we've -- very --


 MR. GRIFFON: It wasn't about his speci-- you 


know, that he specifically said he was exposed 


to these --


DR. MAURO: X-ray. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- X-rays during --


DR. MAURO: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- the welding. 


DR. MAURO: No, no, no, it was my --


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, that's fine. 


DR. MAURO: -- leaping to -- when I heard 


welder --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- I think non-destructive testing. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So no further action on that one. 


Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, claim number 87 is from 


MIT. 


DR. MAURO: MIT, let me just get to that. 


Okay, this was an OTIB-4, no -- no site 


profile. Whether one's in the making or not, I 


don't know. This particular -- this is one 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 

187 

the cases where someone was granted. He was --


the cancer was granted, so it is again that 


issue of using OTIB-4 for granting. And I 


don't think there's anything else that I'm 


looking at here that is -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Anything new. Right? 


DR. MAURO: -- anything new. It's just --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- everything else about this is 


really -- the thing -- this is almost a classic 


example. You used OTIB-4 to grant it, and -- 


and all of the commentaries we have regarding 


OTIB-4 apply here also. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: No need to go into 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we need to go into 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: Exactly. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Except one question on that. Is 


-- is OTIB-4 -- or can you explain to me why 


OTIB-4 would be applicable to MIT? I don't 


know that much about what -- what they did 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 

188 

MIT. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, chances are -- chances 


are it wouldn't be. It was part of that group 


or the application of TIB-4 was broader than -- 


than it should have been. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Broader, not only in -- in the 


fact that it was a compensable claim, but also 


broader in that the facility -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The facility was --


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was going to say -- okay, 88. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 88 is -- NUMEC? Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: 88? Yeah, NUMEC. Let's see what 


we've got here. I believe that -- I think -- I 


-- did NUMEC use --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This case used OTIB-4, again, 


it was one of the inappropriately utilized -- 


utilization for --


DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm looking at the wrong page ­

- 88, got it. 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 

189

 MR. HINNEFELD: So some of the findings relate 


to those --


DR. MAURO: -- OTIB-4, granted, 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- some of the same -- some of 


the same findings, but there are some 


additional things, too. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. This is a little -- yeah, 


this is a case where OTIB-4 was used to grant 


and there's another dimension to it. Perhaps ­

- and unlike some of the other OTIB 


applications where it was uranium, maybe 


uranium and, you know, the various forms of 


uranium, also --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- not only metal. NUMEC was 


interesting because they did a lot more than 


handle uranium, so it's possible whether -- 


that you would want to use OTIB-4 for this 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It wouldn't -- OTIB-4 really 


doesn't fit NUMEC, that's true. That's one of 


those --


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- inappropriately broad 

1 

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 

applications. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, okay. And here's -- and one 


last point on this one that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it was compensated. Right? 


DR. MAURO: I don't -- and this one was 


compensated. There was some bioassay data 


available. I'm not quite sure how you deal 


with this, but in this particular case the 


records indicated that he had some bioassay 


data but you elected not to use it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually we didn't have it when 


the dose reconstruction was done. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You received after 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We received it -- we received 


it after the dose reconstruction 


(unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it -- we didn't -- we 


weren't really expecting to receive any 'cause, 


you know, DOE doesn't provide us information 


for -- for NUMEC. We don't have -- we didn't 


really have a point of contact. We didn't 


expect to ever get any data, and then we did 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 

191 

fact find companies that had operated NUMEC 


before -- you know, and clo-- but something 


comes and (unintelligible) company that 


operated beforehand and sold it to the company 


that closed it, and this data actually came 


from that company, not the one the closed it 


but the one that operated it before. They were 


very forthcoming and (unintelligible) through 


their records and providing what they could. 


This happened to be contained in medical 


records, which they did have some medical 


record information. They didn't have the 


exposure records but this was in the medical 


record. 


MS. BRACKETT: We actually have a lot of 


bioassay data for NUMEC now, there's some mas-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now we do, because the -- the 


company --


MS. BRACKETT: -- massive data entry 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the company that closed it, 


we finally got them to provide the information 


on the claimants. They did have quite a lot of 


bioassay information. 


 MS. MUNN: So this is another one of those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

where there's no action unless -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Unless DOL --


 MS. MUNN: -- unless DOL --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- asks us to do something. 


 MS. MUNN: -- asks you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yep. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I think we're okay to go 


to 89. 


DR. MAURO: That's it for the AWEs, I believe, 


and so we're going to pass the baton over to 


you and Kathy. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Wake up, Kathy. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 89 is a Savannah River 


case. Do you want to do a 30-second rundown, 


Kathy, like John does, or you want to -- 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I'll skip that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: We've discussed a lot of these -- 


as Mark has indicated, we've discussed a lot of 


these findings before, so let's just dive right 


in. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 89.1 is the -- the fact 


that the Savannah River -- Savannah River case 


used the tool for a while utilized the entire 

1 

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 

range of all geometries in the DCF as opposed 


to just the AP. And as we've stated before, 


any case that was done like that will be 


subject to the Program Evaluation Report. And 


I believe 89.2 is the same, because the missed 


dose also I believe utilized that broad range ­

- well, this actually -- with Monte Carlo 


together, I think you got one number each year 


that was a combination of the missed and the 


measured, but it either can-- but it used that 


full range triangular so it would be part of 


what's reworked. 


 MS. BEHLING: Stu, can I ask a question on 


89.1, in your response you indicate that the 


DCFs or distribution parameters complied with 


the guidance of the time, and I was just 


curious what guidance that was. Because I 


guess even when I go back to the implementation 


guide, I don't ever see where it indicates that 


you should use a min and a max for the -- for 


all exposure geometries. I -- even though 


there's an example in the implementation guide 


that talks about if you have AP geometry you 


only use your min and your max for that AP 


geometry, as opposed to looking at the entire 

1 

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 

row and -- and looking at all geometries. So I 


was just curious as to what guidance they were 


following back at that time. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the implementation guide 


-- you know, that is one example it gives, but 


it also describes that -- situations where you 


may combine geometries, and in which case you 


would do a particular combination of one plus ­

- of two geometries or maybe more. And in this 


case there was -- I don't think there was any 


particular guidance that specifically directed 


people to, in certain situations, use a 


combination of all geometries, min and max of 


all the geometries. But it was essentially a 


judgment with -- that was made in the 


construction of the tool, the SRS tool at the 


time, that people, you know, could be exposed 


partly AP, partly rotational, partly isotropic, 


however. They'd be -- you know, working in the 


plant, there'd be a variety of geometries. Why 


not just apply the full range of DCF into the 


tool and --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and essentially the -- the 


finding and the resolution of the finding 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 

195 

based on how some of the DCFs were generated, 


we really only have confidence in AP or we want 


to use AP for doses that were measured by a 


worn dosimeter -- dosimeter worn by a person, 


based -- you know, that finding and resolution 


came after this -- the building of that 


original Savannah River Site tool -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so that's what's meant by 


that. 


 MS. BEHLING: And I -- I did recognize that -- 


yeah, O-- OTIB-12 does correct this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And then 89.2 is the same issue 


as applied to missed. 


Okay, 89.3 has a couple of components. One is 


that doses less than LOD over two were not 


counted as -- in the missed dose component but 


rather were counted just as the measured value. 


That direction, again, has occurred later -- 


you know, that resolution and that question 


occurred after this (unintelligible) was done. 


And the other had to do with what value to use 


for -- what was the LOD at Savannah River 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 

196 

various years. And so we have identified a 


document here that identifies what -- you know, 


our -- why we concluded the LOD was a 


particular thing. It's not -- you know, a 


particular value. It's not clear to me that 


the site profile has actually been revised to 


reflect that. So I'm trying to establish with 


ORAU if -- if in fact we have values for -- 


that we have confidence in that are different 


from the site profile values for LOD, why 


aren't we revi-- you know, why haven't we 


revised the LOD or should we get a revision 


that would be -- to incorporate those values 


into the site profile, rather than just rely on 


some other document and you still have the site 


profile with different values than the ones we 


intend to use. So -- I mean in terms of 


product, I guess we could provide a more clear 


delineation of why our LOD values were 


different from what SC&A expected to be used, 


and we could also provide status of a revision 


to the site profile that incorporates why -- 


you know, what we believe to be the better 


value. 


 MS. BEHLING: I think that would 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 

197 

appropriate, because I guess the other thing 


that I read into your response is it looks as 


if you were indicating that Proc. 6 was used 


for -- unless I'm misunderstanding this -- for 


the missed dose. And here again, I guess when 


I look at these various documents, I sort of 


assign a hierarchy of documents also and assume 


that the site profile, when it is available, 


should be used. And in this particular case, 


the site profile was available, and I also have 


a note here that I wasn't sure why the site 


profile wasn't changed if there was some other 


document, as you just mentioned, that -- that 


disputes the -- the LOD values that are 


identified in the site profile. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. It may not hurt for us 


to describe, just so it's clear to everyone, if 


there is in fact a hierarchy in relationships 


like that. That may be helpful for all of us, 


I think --


 MS. BEHLING: And I believe --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible) that as 


part -- did you hear me? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I did. Just excuse me for 


one second. I believe also, when I went into 

1 

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 

the workbook on this particular case, it does 


identified, under each of the annual tabs, what 


the LOD value is that's supposed to be used. 


And I believe I was -- that's where I looked to 


see if they used -- if they counted missed dose 


as LOD -- values -- the recorded values of less 


than LOD over two. So it's also in -- in the 


workbooks, so any changes would obviously have 


to be incorporated into the workbooks. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: To go back to your hierarchy of 


guidance (unintelligible), is that something 


that's sometimes in these -- these DR 


guidelines or DR notes? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think rather than speak 


to that myself, I think we should -- I should 


go -- make it a part of the written -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- product and -- and sort of 


describe the -- the var-- you know, what -- the 


authority levels of the various instruction 


things that are provided, rather than say 


something here that may turn out to be false. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 89.4 -- 89.4 is 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 

199 

neutrons, the -- the AP geometry finding. Is 


that correct, Kathy? 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, it's the same as 


I guess 89.1. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: DCFs. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 89.5 -- well, I probably 


ought to look at the finding. I'm trying to 


deduce them from the summary here. 


(Unintelligible) harder than others. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and I looked at this 


response, also, and I wrote a note to myself 


that I'm going to have to go back and reassess 


since I didn't have the time to go into this 


level of detail. But again here I take notice 


that you've employed -- and I believe it's 


actually OCAS-TIB-7 -- I believe that first 


paragraph should say seven as opposed to six -- 


and site-specific guidance for the Savannah 


River site. I didn't -- I -- I did look at 


that today and I do have to -- to re-evaluate 


this because we were -- we were asking was -- 


did the -- should they have assigned more 


missed dose than was assigned. And I guess, 


again -- not to -- to go back to this, but 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 

200 

dose reconstruction report did not reference 


this OTIB-7 -- or this TIB-7, and it's not 


always one that I quickly go back to. I again 


use the site profile. But we were questioning 


a couple of things here. Also the fact that I 


guess the 200F area was used for -- for various 


time periods and, based on the records, it 


didn't really look like he was at that 200F 


area, and so had he been there, I -- I'm not 


sure I would have indicated that that neutron 


was a possibility, but I think the records 


indicated something different, so I'm going to 


have to look at this one a little bit closer, 


also. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 89.6 is inappropriate 


organ dose uncertainty assigned for onsite 


ambient dose based on procedural guidance. 


Well, my reading -- let's see, this is -- has 


to do with the instructions in the site profile 


that lognormal distribution should be applied 


to the values -- the particular set of values, 


table of values, with a GSD of 1.3. And the 


dose in the dose reconstruction for ambient was 


not I believe lognormally distri-- distributed, 


or at least wasn't lognormally distributed 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 

201 

a GSD of 1.3. When we -- you know, my reading 


of the procedure of the -- of the site profile 


is that lognormally distribution is applied 


with a GSD of 1.3, the relevant organ dose 


conversion factor is applied on an isotropic -- 


isotropic exposure geometry and a photon energy 


of 30 to 250. So you start with a radiation 


value that is lognormally distributed, and then 


you apply the triangular DCF value to that 


lognormally distributed radiation value, and so 


the outcome is what the outcome is. There --


you Monte Carlo that, and then the resulting 


distribution is fit and you choose the best fit 


of the available distributions for that. So in 


-- in my reading of the -- of the site profile 


-- and at least Scott's nodding at me -- it 


would seem that the -- the dose reconstruction 


was done in accordance with the directions. 


It's that the lognormal distribution is -- is ­

- is to be applied to radiation measurement, 


but to get to the dose value you still have to 


apply the DCF as a triangular distribution. 


 MS. BEHLING: I agree. When -- when you 


pointed this out and I read through it, I 


expected to see in the IREP input sheet 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 

values lognormally distributed. I didn't 


realize that they were running a Monte Carlo on 


the DCFs in this particular case. I think this 


is one of the first cases that I'd seen this. 


Typically they will just take the value out of 


the table that exists in the Savannah River 


site profile and apply the -- use that value, 


applying the 1.3, along with the DC-- with the 


central DCF value as opposed to running the 


Monte Carlo. And I believe now even the 


workbooks have -- have the Monte Carlo runs 


incorporated into them. And as you indicated, 


once they apply that Monte Carlo, it often 


results in a normal distribution and -- and so 


I agree and I understand now. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: So SC&A accepts NIOSH response. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 89.7 is about the use of the 


isotropic exposure geometry, and we talked 


about that earlier on, about ambient doses and 


the use of isotropic, and we believe that 


isotropic is the appropriate geometry for an 


ambient dose that is not measured with a badge 


on a person's body but it's measured in a free­
1 

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 

hanging badge or maybe (unintelligible), so 


we've talked about that already. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and I believe that we -- we 


do concede that issue, yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 89.7 that was? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was 89.7. 89.8 is --


addresses -- let's see, failed to properly 


account for all internal dose from fission 


products, which is on our additional products 


list from the fourth round. So our response 


there should also address the issue associated 


with this finding. Okay? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, case number 90 is also a 


Savannah River case. 


 MS. MUNN: So we're okay on -- on .8 as well? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, on -- on .8 --


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause you (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we know -- we know what 


product on fission product in terms of 


dosimetry, and so it will be addressed by that 


product that we've already promised as part of 


-- of group four, or the fourth set. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 90.1 is, again, 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 

204 

Savannah River case. I believe it has the same 


-- the same findings that 89 had, as long as we 


didn't over look something. 


 MS. BEHLING: No, it does. Those are a repeat 


of the 89 findings. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, to the extent that we 


owe something, we owe it here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Or it will address this, as 


well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And the other ones are closed 


out. Right? Right. Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 91 is a Savannah River case. 


Okay --


 MR. GRIFFON: 91's also Savannah River? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: It is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it is. 91, from our 


reading, findings one through four are similar 


to case 89 findings, and then as we get to 


finding five... Finding 91.5 questions whether 


we should have considered assigning missed 


neutron dose on this claim. And again I'm 


having trouble reconstructing the findings by 


reading the summary. When you read enough 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 

205 

them, it gets a little (unintelligible). 


 MS. BEHLING: I think this is similar to the 


previous one, also. And again, here you're 


referencing this TIB-7 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the one you said you 


wanted to take additional (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and I don't mind -- maybe I 


can look at this one, also. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: So let me understand that TIB-7 


addresses issues related to work location and 


where neutron may be an issue and where it may 


not be an issue? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: More so occupation than work 


location. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And that's specific to Savannah 


River? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MS. BEHLING: It's specific to Savannah River, 


and it also gives some, I think, interpretation 


of the records, how you're supposed to 


interpret the records for various years. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 91.6 has to do with not 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 

206 

able to reproduce the ambient -- on-site 


ambient dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's the one that we agree with 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- like I said, I didn't realize 


that you were actually using a Monte Carlo -- I 


-- it looked that that's what you were doing, 


but I -- I wanted some confirmation on that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 91.7 is, again, the use of the 


isotropic exposure geometry for ambient. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Same as 89. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Same as earlier. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 91.8 is failed to 


properly missed tritium dose based on cite-- 


cited guidance. And cited guidance, section 


4.5.4 of the SRS site profile, isn't there 


anymore. Apparently this was a version that 


went back quite a ways having included that 


section. The site profile -- that section in 


the site profile now essentially ends 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 

207 

overestimating approach. You know, it's 4.5.2 


or something like that. 


 MS. BEHLING: I guess, however, for this 


particular case -- this case was worked under 


the Rev. 1 of the Savannah River site profile, 


which was in place back in '03 -- 2003 -- and 


that section did exist and that's where I was 


confused. And I'm -- I'm not even necessarily 


challenging the dose. I was -- I believe what 


I was con-- there were two guide-- two -- two 


separate guidance documents and the -- the -- 


like I say, the Savannah River site profile is 


the one I thought should be used. And if you 


use that, I believe that should have been 


entered as like a triangular distribution and 


it was entered as a lognormal distribution, and 


so then I thought well, maybe they used 


different guidance. So I went to a different 


guidance document where it did specify to use a 


lognormal distribution, and if I would have 


followed that guidance I would not have come up 


with the 71 millirem. And so it was just some 


confusion there as to which guidance applied. 


But in -- in reality, this section 4.5.4 was in 


place at the time this dose reconstruction 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 

208 

done under the Savannah River site Rev. 1. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So... 


 MS. BEHLING: So I believe -- like I said, I'm 


not necessarily challenging this dose. I was 


just I guess challenging how it was entered 


into IREP as what distribution it should be 


entered as. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It -- it might be that the 


product we've talked about earlier about 


hierarchy or potential hierarchy of the various 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- documents might be helpful 


and maybe taking another look at what -- what 


did we follow when we did this kind of approach 


and it would be a part of that, that discussion 


of hierarchy of different types of documents. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay, 92 -- oh, I've 


finished 91. I just want to catch my breath 


when I finish one, you know? 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. BEHLING: 92 is also Savannah River Site. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Okay, 91 -- 92.1 I 


believe is a finding we talked about earlier, 

1 

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 

has to do with the treatment of LO-- recorded 


values less than LOD over two, isn't it? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so we will take a look at 


the impact of you treating those LOD over two 


cases as part of the missed dose as opposed to 


part of the recorded dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, something --


 MS. BEHLING: And there again, you do cite that 


that PROC-6 was used here and I'm not sure why 


PROC-6 would take precedent over the Savannah 


River site profile. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So at the end of your response on 


92 1, that last paragraph, Stu... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this change is relatively 


small. I mean you -- what you're going to do 


is you're going to take -- for a certain number 


of badge readings you're going to take a very 


small measured dose and take that to zero, and 


then you're going to throw in a missed dose 


that is a lognormal distribution for the mean, 


slightly higher than what you just took out and 


it -- you know, a 90-- a 95th percentile 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 

210 

twice that. So it's a -- it's a fairly modest 


-- first of all, the dose number itself will be 


fairly modest because, you know, the LODs are 


pretty small. And the change is -- is even -- 


you know, may -- is quite modest, as well. But 


then you do have the additional -- the 


uncertainty aspect thrown into it, and I think 


I wrote that because the POC on this case was 


relatively close to 50 percent, so rather than 


just say -- if it weren't particularly close 


you might say this change will be very small 


and so we won't bother about it; we just know 


from now on we -- we do it correctly and we'd 


count those cases, those LOD over twos, in the 


missed dose column -- or less than LOD over two 


as a missed dose. But in this case, because 


the POC is close to 50 percent, we don't want 


to just say well, the effect will be small and 


we're not going to worry about it, so we will ­

- we will reconsider. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to suggest maybe 


to rewor-- we -- we can say OCAS will -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We ought to (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- instead of re-evaluate this 


case, I'd say -- I'd say OCAS will re-evaluate 

1 

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 

the impact of this finding -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- on the case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just so we're not --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can just take out -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're not suggesting that you're 


re-evaluating the entire case. We're saying 


you're re-evaluating the impact of this finding 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The impact of this finding. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- on the case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just so we don't 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I presume that implies you want a 


report. You want to hear back whether there 


was... 


 MS. BEHLING: I would assume so, just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean this is Stu's 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's part of the 


resolution (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- response, so yeah. 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 

212

 MS. BEHLING: And there are several other 


possibly or potentially sig-- significant 


findings in this case. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 92.2, reviewer questions 


whether DR properly accounted for all missed 


neutron doses. Again, we've -- this I think 


may follow that OTIB-7 look that you wanted to 


take, Kathy, because it was selection -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and I guess the other 


question I have on this particular case -- and 


maybe you can clarify something here for me. 


When I look at the bioassay records on this 


case, I see under location that the individual 


worked, the reason that he provided the 


bioassay was because of location KPC, and when 


I read that I say -- I assume that those are 


reactors. And so that's also why I stated that 


it seemed like there might be some additional 


missed dose here for certain years where there 


were bioassays where the location was K, P and 


C. Am I misinterpreting that location? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, K and P are reactors. 


don't recall right off-hand with C, but I'm 


pretty confident that K and P location on a 


Savannah River card would indicate those -- 


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 

213 

those -- the K reactor or the P reactor. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So that -- that's correct. 
I 


think OTIB-7 may describe a little bit about 


even at the reactor facilities, based upon the 


-- the -- the way the reactors were constructed 


and operated. There are just certain types of 


job titles, even at the reactor facilities, 


where neutron exposure was particularly likely. 


Not everybody who was assigned to the -- was 


that 100? Was that where the reactors were? 


Not everybody assigned to the reactors at 


Savannah River necessarily had a potential -- 


much potential for neutron exposure. And so I 


think OTIB-7 gets into that, as well. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not OTIB-7 -- TIB-7. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, and I will look at that. 


But like I said, and particularly the bioassay 


records did indicate the reactors and so -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I guess, again, when we 


come back to cases of unknowns, we should give 


the benefit of the doubt to the claimant, as we 


all 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 

214

 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- okay, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: So what's the -- go ahead. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: What's the action on this? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the action -- the first 


action on this is -- you know, Kathy has said 


she wants to go back and look at TIB-7 and -- 


in terms of -- and what it says about who is 


potentially neutron-exposed and in what 


situations to see if that lends sup-- you know, 


lends support to our discussion or if it raises 


a different question. I think that was the 


first action. Isn't that right, Kathy? 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: I'd like to add, though, in terms 


of parsing job responsibilities, I -- one of 


the recurring themes when we meet with site 


experts is that it's one thing that a person 


has a job title and another thing exactly what 


they ended up really doing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: So just -- you know, it's not 


something -- you know, we're going to be 


cautious in (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 

215

 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be a broad issue for 


discussion. I mean in terms of, you know, what 


-- what does TIB-7 -- does it -- you know, I'm 


not going to speak like I know exactly whether 


-- but it -- it sounds like it may be subject 


to --


DR. MAURO: That's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- discussion. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, we hear that a lot -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- you know, from the -- the 


workers. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, we hear it at virtually every 


Board discussion, too. (Unintelligible) we've 


heard it about 44 times. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 92.3 is the -- I believe 


that's the finding we talked about earlier? 


 MS. BEHLING: It is. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And 92.4 is also a 


finding we talked about earlier. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right, and we concede both those 


two issues. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 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 

216

 MS. BEHLING: And again then, 92.5 is the 


fission product issue that you're going to 


provide --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, there's already a -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) A path forward? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


(Pause) 


93, we're already to case number 93. 


 MR. GRIFFON: See how quickly (unintelligible), 


we're running through these. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah, well --


 MS. BEHLING: 'Cause there's a lot of repeats. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There's a lot of reasons for 


that, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) option. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 93 is an FMPC, or Fernald, 


case. 


 MS. BEHLING: And again, I think this first 


issue has to do with the missed dose and your 


counting recorded dose for less than LOD 


values, same -- same thing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay -- now, yeah, the same 


thing. Now my difference here, though, was 


that this was an overestimating case. There 


are a lot of other -- the other dose components 

1 

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 

were overestimated, so I'm proposing that we 


don't really need to go back and reconsider the 


impact of this small change. Because if in 


fact it were to move the dose up to 50 percent 


or thereabouts, we would have -- we would look 


at the other overestimating approaches and say 


well, we just can't overestimate to that effect 


and we'll -- we'll -- it'll be coming out -- 


and there essentially doesn't seem to be any 


chance for this finding to affect the outcome 


of this (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you don't dispute the point, 


you're just --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Don't dispute the --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) affect the 


outcome. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That it's not going to -- it's 


not going to have an effect. We don't dispute 


the point. We're doing -- you know, now we are 


doing dose reconstructions where the LOD over 


two -- less than LOD over two doses would be 


included in the missed dose, not in the 


measured doses, so we just don't see the value 


of going back and reconsidering this 'cause 


this won't -- this won't change 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 

218 

DR. MAURO: Is that type of clos-- is that 


closure and that's something that would be 


written up as sort of a final matrix? How do 


we -- in other words, in effect -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- this -- in the final matrix? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I would -- I would -- I would 


think that maybe --


 MR. GRIFFON: It's closure to me. 


DR. MAURO: That's what that would be, yeah. 


Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Small effect --


 MR. GRIFFON: NIOSH -- NIOSH agrees; however, 


it would not impact the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, we've -- in fact, we've 


used that (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've used that language 


(unintelligible). 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, yeah, this is 


overestimating, but the POC was over 47 percent 


here. How overestimating was this? Because I 


do see some cases that are marked as 


overestimating. However when I delve into them 


a little further, they're not -- they're not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

quite as overestimating as we saw in the first 


three sets. And -- and maybe you're correct 


here. I'm just curious 'cause now when I look 


at this and I see we're looking at 47 percent 


POC, and there are other findings here -- maybe 


you're correct. I -- I shouldn't -- just 


something that caught my eye. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean if you want, I can 


summarize the various overestimating points. 


-- I -- I can't do it right now, but we could 


do that. 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I don't think we need to do 


that. That's okay, I just -- just when I saw 


47 percent, it just -- and I don't see that it 


was a hypothetical internal that as used. They 


used --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what I looked at first 


and it doesn't seem to have been. 


 MS. BEHLING: It was -- it was a hypothetical? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it does not seem --


 MS. BEHLING: It was not, no. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- based on -- I don't have the 


reconstruction in front of me, but just based 


on your review of it, it doesn't seem that it 


was. 


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 -- 

220

 MS. BEHLING: No, and again -- now here your 


on-site ambient was very high -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) Make sure it was 


an overestimat-- sorry, Kathy, go ahead. 


 MS. BEHLING: Oh, that's okay. Yeah, it is -- 


NIOSH did mark this as a maximizing case, but 


what I'm saying is as I'm looking down my Table 


1 in our audit, the only thing that stands out 


at me, as I said, is the internal dose was not 


a hypothetical internal. It looks like they 


did maybe either use OTIB-18 or they used IMBA, 


I'd have to look at that. And I know that 


Fernald does have high ambient because the 


highest dose in here is the ambient of 21 rem. 


But I just don't know if I'm too quick to say 


that if we had some significant findings, we 


wouldn't want to look at this a little closer. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean the -- the 


statement was made that we're not going to look 


at it further was bas-- related to the missed 


dose, LOD over two not being included in missed 


dose --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which we believe is a small 

1 

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

 MS. BEHLING: That is small. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- small adjustment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. All right, never mind. 


DR. MAURO: Kathy, I have a question. When 


these are reviewed and you find that OTIB-18 -- 


the OTIB-18/33 was used, is that brought out, 


because I know that is one of the concerns that 


-- from a -- I guess in the sixth set was 


something very important that's going to be 


aired when we get to the procedure reviews. So 


I guess we're not -- all I'm saying here is 


that in any one of the cases that we're looking 


at, if -- if that case did rely on OTIB-18/33, 


I think that's an important thing to make note 


of because that's going to be something that's 


going to be revisited during the procedure 


review. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and I did mark that on the 


sixth set, but I did not do that 'cause we're 


just really starting to see the use of OTIB-18 


-- we're seeing that much more. And now -- in 


fact, as I'm going through this particular 


case, it looks like they did run IMBA here, so 


OTIB-18 was not used, but I did not make 

1 

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 

mention of that in any of the fifth set. That 


was sort of one of those issues that we 


identified during the sixth set. But I did go 


through all of the sixth set and make mention 


that we did take issue with this OTIB-18. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yeah, here's -- here's 


the -- Kathy, I'm afraid you won't have the 


benefit of this 'cause Scott just pulled it up 


on his laptop computer, but -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- he ha-- we have, and this 


will be part of what we provide. This is the ­

- we have the IMBA fit that was utilized to 


generate the input for this dose 


reconstruction, and --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so it shows -- yeah -- 


 MS. BEHLING: I remember --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you don't have this -- 


 MS. BEHLING: I remember, I remember now. 


You're right. You're right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It has an excretion pattern 


that --


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- lies above -- looks 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 

223 

every bioassay pattern. 


 MS. BEHLING: I remember that. Now I clearly 


remember, yes, bec-- because I ran IMBA and I 


couldn't understand how -- how you got these 


values. All right. Okay, never mind. Yes, I 


agree with that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: I guess on -- if we can move on 


to this second finding, this had to do with the 


occupational medical dose, and I have a 


question here. I guess your response to this 


was that there were a lot of -- there were a 


lot of X-rays in this man's file that were 


marked as DISP, not routine. Number one, what 


is -- what is DISP? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Probably means dispensary, 


probably stands for dispensary. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, dispensary, that's what I 


thought. And I -- I guess -- and there were 


also five lumbar spine radiographs, and I've 


got to go back and look to see if they were 


marked as routine or how they were marked. If 


an individual is injured at his job and he is 


told you cannot come back to work until we -- 


we're sure that you -- that -- that this 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 

224 

healed or that -- that you're okay, and he 


needs to have let's say a lumbar spine 


radiograph because of that, that does not get 


included in the dose reconstruction. Is that 


correct or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That -- that --


 MS. BEHLING: -- how does that work? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct. The thought 


process behind the medical exposures that are 


included are that these were exposures or X-


rays where there was no medical indication for 


the X-ray but they were part of a routine 


screening program that very frequently the DOE 


sites would require of their workers. And 


since it was required of the worker without 


medical indication to -- to do that, it was 


essentially considered a condition of 


employment. Someone who's injured on the job, 


whether they be at a DOE site or any site, is 


subject to those kinds of medically-indicated 


X-rays. And so based on that, that was -- 


that's how we've selected those screening -- 


routine screening X-rays as being in, but 


medically-indicated X-rays as not being in. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Hans just picked up. 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 

225 

you want to say something? Because he -- he 


did this case. See what happens when I turn 


anything over to him? No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Meetings get longer. 


 DR. BEHLING: Stu, I guess it's been a long 


time since I looked at it. Are those lumbar 


spine associated with an injury that he 


sustained during his working days or was this 


part of an employment requirement as are the PR 


-- PA chest X-rays? I guess I'm -- I don't 


recall. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: My -- my understanding is these 


were medically indicated, that these were 


probably as a result of a -- of an injury of 


some sort or -- or back or something like that, 


so --


 DR. BEHLING: Can that be -- can that be 


interpreted from the -- the documentation or is 


this a -- is this a subjective interpretation 


on -- on anyone's part? I don't have the 


records in front of me to -- to -- to -- to 


indicate one way or the other so I'm basically 


asking. But if I recall, looking at it, it was 


not clear as to whether the lumbar spine 


radiographs were the result of -- of an injury 

1 

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 

sustained during his working there or whether 


or not those were part of the conventional 


requirements for people who are engaged in 


heavy lifting. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- I'd have to go look. 


I mean I can't speak knowledgeably about it. 


believe they were -- there was an indication on 


those records of those X-rays that these were 


in fact medically-indicated X-rays. So I --


but I'd have to go back and look 'cause I don't 


-- I can't say with -- you know, for sure. The 


-- I think that Fernald was not one of the 


sites that did lumbar spine as a screening for 


employment. There were some sites that did, 


but I don't believe Fernald was one of those. 


 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I -- I do recall that the 


-- the doses that would have been assigned, had 


they been part of a re-- employment 


requirement, would have been very substantial, 


several rem. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: Although I guess the remain-- the 


remainder of your response here indicates that 


in calculating that dose we did use OTIB-6, and 


actually we should have used the FMPC site 


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 

227 

profile, which -- based on the FMPC site 


profile -- the val-- the doses would have been 


quite a bit less than what is specified in the 


OTIB-6. 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, you're just mentioning 


something, Kathy, that suggests that they were 


then used as an occupational screening 


requirement if the -- the site profile for FMPC 


identifies this as one of the medical -- 


medical exposures. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Our -- our response says that 


the Procedure 61 would specify -- it specifies 


medical exposures and what it says -- let's see 


 MS. BEHLING: That's right, they're saying if ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it says that the -- the RFP 


-- the Rocky Flats TBD would be where you could 


see -- where you can find lumbar spine AP and 


lateral doses. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. We -- we -- we put an 


example in our audit, and they were just 


commenting that, based on that example, we used 


an incorrect --


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, 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 

228

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. See what happens if I 


don't watch over him all the time? 


 DR. BEHLING: I'm being judged unfairly here. 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. Okay, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: Separate rooms now. 


 DR. BEHLING: You don't know what's going on 


here behind the scenes. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're going to have to cut off 


the line soon. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, on --


 MR. GRIFFON: Hey, one question on this, 


without saying the job title, do we have any 


indication that this person might have been 


engaged in a job requiring heavy lifting -- 


don't -- I don't want to hear the job title 


'cause I think we said -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm not sure, can -- can 


we look at this finding again? Can I reassess 


this again? 


 MR. SIEBERT: Just to let you know, I just 


looked it up real quick and at least some of 


the lumbar spines are marked as DISP, as well 


as the chest, so the con-- the consistent 


thought process would -- would be there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And then I guess quite 

hon--

 MR. ELLIOTT: That they were job-required? 

 MR. SIEBERT: That they were not. 

 MS. BEHLING: That they were not. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 

 MR. SIEBERT: It was not (unintelligible) -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: But as far as the job title, do 

you have --

 MR. HINNEFELD: Job title would lead me to 


believe that he would have been involved in -- 


in heavy labor. It -- it's -- without getting 


too far into it, it's maintenance/craft, so 


chances are he was involved in some -- at least 


occasionally on relatively heavy labor. 


 Okay -- 


 MS. MUNN: So the action then is? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we need to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I'm -- we're going to go 


back and look at -- at the dis-- at the records 


of the X-rays and see if we are -- have really 


confidence in -- and maybe put together any 


other indication why we feel confident that the 


lumbar spines were not routine screening -- 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I agree --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- with your rationale as long as 


they -- they didn't do a screening program at 


Fernald. If there was a screening, I -- you 


know, (unintelligible) concerns, but otherwise 


I think it's appropriate what you did. I think 


we need to determine that, though. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Okay, that finishes 93, 


too, or -- yeah, 93. 


Okay, 94 is also a Fernald case. 94.1 


questions whether -- complete monitoring 


records from the -- from the '50s. Person 


started working at the site before their 


external dosimetry record starts, and so the -- 


the issue or the finding was are we sure that 


the person didn't in fact have some exposure 


prior to the -- the badging started. Speaking 


from what we've seen in the records from this 


site, it seems like we -- we have pretty 


complete records of -- of the badge reads. We 


have many people who were monitored regularly, 


even weekly in the -- in the early years at 


this site, and so if -- since this person 


doesn't have that record, it's likely that 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 

231 

were not in fact badged until their monitoring 


record starts, and therefore would have -- and 


had little potential for exposure. Again --


 MS. BEHLING: I guess it --


 MR. GRIFFON: Go ahead, Kathy. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I guess in this particular 


case, however, there was -- there was 


urinalysis records back from -- in '55, 57, 58, 


also some chest X-rays back then. I guess 


that's what made us wonder why he didn't have 


external monitoring records for back in the 


'50s. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the -- the bioassay 


records were like terminations, and by and 


large they were annuals, which occurred at the 


annual physical. And I believe everybody got 


annual physicals at that time, which -- you 


know, at that time would have included the X-


rays. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The code on the bioassay record 


tells what kind of bioassay it is. Now these 


particular -- you know, some of the earliest 


bioassay records in this case, as I recall, 


were in the medical record, on a medical record 

1 

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 

card, so they don't necessarily carry that code 


that later bioassay records carried, but they 


looked like -- there was a short period of 


employment. There was like a hire and a 


termination bioassay sample there, and in 


general -- I think a couple of them were marked 


A, there was an A, which I think might mean 


annual, meaning it was an annual sample. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And in fact I'm looking 


back at our checklist and this case was 


compensated, so it's -- it's a -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: We can move on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just one -- one -- one 


other thing on that, and that -- the fact that 


it's compensated may make this less of a 


concern, but the -- the question of did -- is 


this consistent with -- this is more of a site 


profile question actually and that it's 


compensated makes this probably irrelevant, but 


you -- you make this conclusion about, you 


know, that they didn't have data. Is that 


consistent with the monitoring policies before 


'60? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 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 

233

 MR. GRIFFON: In other words, was it --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Because --


 MR. GRIFFON: It does say the job title 


suggests that -- that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Because of --


 MR. GRIFFON: It makes sense, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Because of my conflict at this 


site --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- information I know because 


of conflict at that site, I know that early on 


at that site there was a policy that women -- 


this is a woman -- women were not allowed to go 


in the production area and therefore were not 


badged. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 94 -- yeah, this is a 


compensable case. 94.2 is a finding about not 


being able to reproduce the on-site ambient 


dose, and in fact --


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask -- just -- is there any 


action on that one? I just wanted --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, on 94.1? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, was there any follow-up 


action needed 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 

234

 MS. BEHLING: No, not --

 MR. GRIFFON: On 94.1? 

 MS. BEHLING: -- for this particular case. 

However, you did bring up an issue that it is ­

- this is something that should be looked at in 


the site profile, and maybe there should be 


some follow-up, I'm not sure. Did I not 


understand your response -- Stu's response? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we do have a site profile 


review underway. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, there is one underway, 


and I believe -- what I tried -- I tried to 


give a reason for why this person did not have 


a monitoring record at the beginning of her 


employment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. So -- okay, so it's not 


necessarily a site profile issue. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe so, and -- and 


again, because of my conflict -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and the knowledge of what's 


done when we get a record from Fernald -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, this --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I'm pretty confident 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 

235 

we get each badge reading that was done there. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay then, Mark, I would say no 


further action on that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Each -- each badge reading on 


an employee that was done there. No con-- if 


you have a contractor that worked at Fernald, I 


won't guarantee that what we get from Fernald 


is every badge worn by that contract-- by that 


subcontractor, construction subcontractor. 


Again, information from my conflict. 


94.2 questions the ambient dose that we 


assigned to this case, saying that it might be 


too high based on this person's work location. 


And we felt -- we used the site average, and 


there's some areas where -- that are lower than 


the average. Our view is this site was 


relatively small. Other than not being able to 


go into the production area at certain times, 


people would generally move about the other 


areas of this site and that we didn't feel that 


-- we didn't feel comfortable saying a person 


could have only been exposed to the ambient in 


this one area when in fact we believe that a 


site-wide average is a better approximation of 


what they may have been exposed to during their 

1 

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 

work (unintelligible). 


DR. MAURO: And this is Fernald? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Fernald. 


DR. MAURO: To the extent that it's any value, 


I know that the -- one of the issues on the 


Fernald site profile review is the methodology 


used to reconst-- to represent outdoor 


exposures to, for example, emissions from the 


silos. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: We -- we do -- I know we do have a 


-- several issues on the table that's 


undergoing review. Now if -- I don't know 


whether this plays into that or not. Looks 


like -- other words, some question came up of 


how the ambient dose was calculated. Answer is 


well, we think it's okay. However, right now 


there is an issue being aired on Fernald. I'm 


not quite sure how best to deal with that in 


this context. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this case was a 


compensable case --


DR. MAURO: Okay, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so if something changes, we 


wouldn't try to go back and get this 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 

237 

DR. MAURO: Sure, gotcha, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I don't think this 


necessarily refers to that same issue. It's on 


-- it's on the matrix -- 


DR. MAURO: It's on the matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- for Fernald anyway. Right? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, it is, absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I don't think thi-- this is 


really questioning -- given that this person 


was in one location, maybe they shouldn't have 


-- apply at all. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe we shouldn't have used 


the site average --


 MR. GRIFFON: You were more conservative than 


they -- that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, maybe shouldn't have used 


the site average, maybe should have used what 


was published for the ambient for that 


location. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I don't think it's a follow-up 


site profile. I think it's a no -- no action. 


 MS. BEHLING: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let's close out as many as we 


can. 


 MS. MUNN: Let's do, please. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that takes us to number 


95, which is a Hanford case. 95.1 questions 


whether we accounted for all the missed neutron 


dose. Our response here -- our initial 


response kind of speaks to site practices and 


identification of, at least in some places, of 


a work location associated with this person 


that would indicate it was not a neutron 


exposure area. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) unlikely. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's a fairly -- I mean this 


-- this response was just provided, and I don't 


know, Kathy, did you want time to -- to look at 


this or --


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I have not digested this 


one yet because we had a number of -- we had 


four or so reasons that we thought this 


individual may have been exposed to neutrons -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: -- and I haven't had a chance to 


look at -- to assess all of your responses. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the response tries to 


speak to those four. 


 MS. BEHLING: To each four, okay -- to each of 


the four. All right, if I could look at 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 

239 

and get back to you. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 95.2 (unintelligible) response 


(unintelligible) ambient. Is that right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this is the same issue with 


the Monte Carlo -- applying the Monte Carlo to 


the onsite ambient. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so it's okay then? 


 MS. BEHLING: It's okay, yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can we -- I'm just -- 95.2 is 

okay. 

 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Can we -- Ray's requested a -- 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- break here at this point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- man, I could use one myself. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We're going to take a -- oh, go 


ahead, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're just going to mute you and 


we'll be back in ten minutes. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:28 p.m. 


to 2:40 p.m.) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Where are -- we're losing 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 

240 

but that's all right. Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We're still with a quorum. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. Kathy and Hans? 


You're probably the only two with us, but are 


you back on? Kathy or Hans? 


 MS. MUNN: Anybody? 


 MS. BEHLING: I'm here. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're ready to reconvene here. 


We're almost through the matrix, though. 


That's good. 

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Now can I start out with a 

comment? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 

 MS. BEHLING: I have to clear Hans's name. 

During your break --


 MR. ELLIOTT: You had a sidebar during the 


break. 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. If we go back to finding 


93.2 that we were discussing these lumbar spine 


radiographs at Fernald, we did go back and 


Hans's comment -- I -- I -- that he made and I 


misunderstood it, he indicated the fact that if 


the site profile actually has values for a 


lumbar spine, then it would indicate that they 


have a lumbar -- that they have a program 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 

241 

screening. And we looked at the site profile 


and there is a statement in here that states 


that it was also noted in reviewing claimant 


files that lumbar spine X-rays were taken 


primarily for construction workers and 


laborers. So it -- it -- so we're going to 


have to reassess these lumbar spine cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we -- I think we took an 


action to make sure that we were confident in 


our determinations. So we will provide -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that is -- that is an action? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay. But I -- I wrongly accused 


him so I apologize. 


 MS. MUNN: So both NIOSH and SC&A are going 


to... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- certainly we will. 


We'll go back and assess our (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- working for. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so now we're back up to 


96.1. Right? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 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 

242

 MS. BEHLING: And John, I -- is John still 


there? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, I am. 


 MS. BEHLING: John Mauro? Okay. John, you can 


maybe help me out on this one a little bit. 


looked closely -- I believe that you -- you 


worked on this case. 


DR. MAURO: Which -- which -- which site is 


this? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Portsmouth. 


 MS. BEHLING: Portsmouth. 


DR. MAURO: Portsmouth? 


 MS. BEHLING: Portsmouth. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MS. BEHLING: So you can look through this. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 9--


 MS. BEHLING: Go ahead. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You want me to start again? 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, please do. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 96.1 is failure to properly 


convert recorded photon dose to organ dose. 


Let me make sure I read the finding here. 


Okay, the finding questions the use of the -- 


the photon -- or the exposure to organ dose, 


DCF value, as I read this. That the DCF that 


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 

243 

was used is the one that related to AP 30 to 


250 keV photons and that the -- and the DCF 


that's cited is the one that converts exposure 


to organ dose, when in fact the site's 


dosimetry records reports the dose in rem or 


dose -- well, implying that you could not -- if 


that were the measured value, then it would be 


a different DCF. It would be the dose 


equivalent or --


DR. MAURO: HP-10. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- HP-10 to organ dose DCF. 


DR. MAURO: That was the concern. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess our view was, even 


though it's convention for a number of sites to 


report those doses in rem, if it was measured 


with a film badge -- based on the use of the 


film badge and likely calibration operations at 


that time -- you should use the Roentgen or 


exposure to organ dose conversion, despite the 


fact that they would say in their records it 


was a rem because people -- people expect -- 


DR. MAURO: It was really a Roentgen. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it was really a Roentgen as 


measured, and they called it a rem 'cause it 


was a convention -- a rem's a Roentgen when 

1 

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 

you're working at the site -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so people expected their 


doses to be in rem, and so that's why it's 


reported that way. That's why it's reported 


that way, but we believe -- see, being that it 


was measured with film, Roentgen is the 


appropriate DCF to use -- and it is higher. 


The Roentgen DCF is higher than the rem. 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. BEHLING: And I do agree with that. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: With NIOSH's response. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, 96.2 as to do with 


inappropriate methods used for derived recorded 


skin dose. 


 MS. BEHLING: I guess in this particular case, 


if I can interject here, what we felt would be 


the correct method -- method for calculating 


the skin dose, at least based on the external 


implementation guide, is since the shallow dose 


in this case was reported, that you just take 


the shallow dose and that becomes your skin 

1 

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 

dose and you do a DCF of one -- and that is in 


Appendix B of the implementation guide. The 


only thing that I see that -- now that I 


reassess this case, I believe we were incorrect 


in assuming that there should have been a 


calibration adjustment factor of 1.165 added to 


this. If you go into the site profile, which I 


did in preparation for this, it indicates that 


that 1.165 calibration factor should be -- 


adjustment factor should be applied to deep 


dose and not the shallow dose. So we were 


incorrect in assuming that the calibration 


adjustment factor should have been applied. 


However, we did question the method that was 


used for calculated skin dose. Ultimately 


NIOSH did arrive at a higher dose than we would 


have. We were just questioning their methods. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I know you've just seen 


our response, but in -- in -- with relation to 


our response and what we've described here in 


response, does that answer the question or is 


there more information to be generated, or do 


you want to -- need time to look -- evaluate 


the response in terms of the finding or -- 


where are we at 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 

246

 MS. BEHLING: Maybe I'll just look at this 


response again, because I'm just questioning is 


the -- is -- is this an approach that is 


typically used by NIOSH, which we do often see. 


And like I said, it is inappropriate based on 


the implementation guide and the fact that once 


you do have shallow dose reported, just use 


that dose rather than applying correc-- DCF 


values to the -- to the -- to the deep dose. 


 Now Hans wants to pick up here because he feels 


strongly about this issue, too. It's just the 


method used for calculating your skin dose. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yeah, I -- I always, and I think 


we've repeatedly encountered this. I think in 


the implementation guide in Appendix B under 


the skin, there's usually -- there's a footnote 


there that says if you have a shallow dose, a 


seven milligram per centimeter square dose, use 


that and there's no need there for to convert 


an HP-10 dose into -- by means of a DCF into a 


skin dose. And -- and I think we've gone 


through that discussion any number of times. 


It's probably an insignificant difference, but 


it's just a protocol that I can't justify in 


doing, especially when we're talking about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

efficiency measures, that would then force you 


to do all kinds of calculations when in fact 


all one has to do is look at the 7 milligram 


dose or shallow dose and say that's the skin 


dose. And -- and I don't recall exactly -- 


maybe Stu can enlighten me and -- and refresh 


my memory as to why one would not use that 


approach. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't remember if it's 


applicable to this case in general or not, but 


as -- as a general rule, for a -- for a skin 


dose, you would -- the reason that you would 


divide it into its beta and photon components, 


particularly if you're using a 30 to 250 keV 


photon, if that's the energy of the photon, is 


that the radiation effectiveness factor for 


that range of photons is higher than the 


radiation effectiveness factor for -- for beta 


particles. So that even though you have a 


shallow dose that's say 480-some millirem, 


that's 430 millirem comes from the deep or the 


photon dose and 60 millirem comes from a non-


penetrating or beta dose, that if you just used 


that 490 and applied it as a beta dose, for 


instance, and the photon exposure was in the 30 

1 

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 

to 250 range, the REF for your dose will be 


lower than it would be if you applied the -- if 


-- if you broke it into the various components. 


Conversely, if you used the shallow dose and 


applied -- called it 30 to 250 keV photons, you 


would use the higher REF for the whole portion 


as opposed to just using a higher REF for the 


photon portion and using the lower REF for the 


beta component. So there is -- there's a -- 


reasons why that shallow dose is -- is broken 


into the component doses -- I'm looking at 


Scott and he's not giving me too dirty of a 


look -- and that's why. I mean despite the 


fact that yeah, shallow dose is shallow dose, 


and I guess if you were -- if the -- if the 


photon dose were from photons greater than 250 


keV, that -- that REF is in fact equivalent to 


the beta REF. So in that case it would in fact 


be -- as -- a meaningless exercise to divide it 


into those component doses and then put an R-- 


'cause you could just put it in as one or the 


other and get the same outcome. So that's --


that's the reason why frequently a skin dose is 


broken into a shallow -- or a beta component 


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 

249

 DR. BEHLING: Well, I -- I understand and -- 


and I guess if -- if that's the case, then 


maybe that footnote should be stricken in the 


implementation guide that suggests that if 


there is an available recorded shallow dose, a 


skin dose, for -- for the person to use that 


because it does become a conflict where you 


have to understand that there are now multiple 


options in which this skin dose can be 


calculated, break them apart or just simply 


using the shallow dose as it stands. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: So there we need to change the 


footnote in the implementation guide. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Is that what I'm hearing? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what I hear. 


 MS. BEHLING: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, did you still want time to 


review that or -- or --


 MS. BEHLING: No. No, that -- that resolves 

it. 

 MR. GRIFFON: It's just -- okay, that'll 

resolve it. Good. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that finishes 96. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Can I ask one question? At the 


bottom of 96 there's a mention of neutrons. 


What's that all about? Since doses from 


neutrons... 


 MS. BEHLING: I don't know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what that -- I 


don't know what I was thinking. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I just didn't understand 


that at all. Did that get cut and pasted some­

- inadvertently or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, I think I know what it is, 


is -- is 96 a greater than -- greater than 50 


percenter? 


DR. MAURO: Oh, you didn't bother 


(unintelligible). 


 MS. BEHLING: It is greater than 50 percent. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So if there is in fact a 


mistake here and our dose was higher than what 


it should have been, there's a component of the 


dose that was not included, so that since it 


was an underestimate we don't feel like it 


would be necessary (unintelligible) to go back 


and (unintelligible) compensated, we 


(unintelligible) go look at it anyway, we 


wouldn't necessarily pull it back. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's -- that's why I put that 


in there. 


97 and 98 are my favorite numbers in this -- in 


the set because there are no findings. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you do those quickly? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 97, in case anybody's 


interested, was Lawrence Livermore and 98 was 


the Elk River Reactor Site. 


99 is Pantex. Okay, 99.1 is our favorite OTIB8 finding. Correct? 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We've addressed that 

several times. OTIB-8 has in fact been revised 

--

 MR. GRIFFON: Could -- is that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- since that time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, OTIB-8's been revised. Did 


that result in any PER or -- or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, because this was a -- 


this was a clarity issue and it was 


consistently -- the -- it was consistently used 


higher, the dose was consistently higher -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- than the -- what I believe 

1 

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 

the correct reading of it should have been. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. 

 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) a refresher on 

that. Okay. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: And 99.2 is that same category. 


 MS. BEHLING: That's right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So no -- no further action on 


these? 


 MS. BEHLING: No. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. BEHLING: In fact what I've been doing on 


our dose reconstruction reports is putting an 


asterisk in and identifying the fact that this 


is an issue that's being -- these are issues 


that have been resolved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Resolved, right. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 99.3 is improper organ dose 


selected for estimating occupational medical 


dose. Yes, that's true. The dose 


reconstruction notes that it was an intentional 


overestimate. And granted, it's hard to say 


that it's more efficient to choose one rather 


than another. We have since instructed our 


contractor and adopted the approach that 


overestimates are -- should be used only when 

1 

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 

it provides clear efficiency, not just because 


you can. (Unintelligible) the findings we've 


been through as well. 


99.4 is the use of improper hypothetical intake 


model. Again, I believe this is -- yeah, goes 


to the colon was used rather than the actual 


target organ. That -- that's the same -- we've 


addressed that a number of times. That 


finishes 99. 


100 is from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 


Number -- findings number one and .2 are the 


OTIB-8 findings again, same -- like 99.1. 


Finding 100.3 is the same improper selection of 


organ dose for occupational medical, the same 


issue that was raised in 99.3. 


 100.4, reviewer questions whether NIOSH 


properly addressed CATI-identified dose limit 


issue. And here we have a bit of an involved 


response. It has to do with the investigation 


-- site investigations that were done. And I 


guess I'm a little bit at a loss here on the 


specifics of this case, so I'm a little bit at 


a loss as to what exactly the CATI said and -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and I didn't get a chance 


to go back to the CATI report on this 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 

254 

either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) pocket 


dosimeters or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, NIOSH -- did NIOSH 


properly handle the issue related to 


potentially reaching a dose limit as described 


below. There are numerous dosimetry records 


that lack dates and dose results. Due to this 


lack of information on the data provided, SC&A 


also questions whether DOE has provided all the 


available dose data. In addition, there are 


records in the file indicating that meters were 


lost or not turned in. The doses -- meters in 


question mark or in paren-- quotations. The 


doses associated with these events were 


assessed as zero. However, no explanation for 


this assessment is included. Based on these 


questionable dosimetry records and 


identification of missing dosimeters, SC&A is 


recommending that NIOSH attempt to collect 


additional dosimetry data that may help to 


clarify the state-- claimant's statement. 


 MR. GRIFFON: There wa-- di... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean is this an early time 

1 

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 

frame for this employee? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think this is a pretty early 


one. Let's see --


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause I know -- I know for sure 


in the early years there were a lot of 


questions about pocket dosimetry and the 


results at X-10 in the locked -- they were -- 


at least from interviews I did down there, 


there was a lot of accounts of wearing pocket 


dosimeters but not having a -- a badge on at 


the time and the pocket dosimetries were logged 


but they never became part of their permanent 


record (unintelligible) -- I know that 


allegation's been out there and this might be 


related. 


 MR. SHARFI: This person -- this person -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) coworker issue 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know. It says meters, 


though. I don't know what meters means. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) too, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This person didn't start till 


1975. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, '75, no, that's -- 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 

256 

after that --


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think meter -- meter, to me ­

- I think at Oak Ridge, meter was a 


colloquialism for the badge, for film badge or 


whatever badge you were wearing. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) '70s? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, good ol' boys down there. 


They -- as I understand it, the -- the 


instances of the -- the badge not returned or 


meter not returned or meter loss were instances 


that were investigated. As I understand the 


situation, there were investigation reports in 


the -- in the file from ORNL about how they 


arrived at suggested dose. And if in fact they 


-- they recommended a zero be put in places, it 


was probably due to whatever they considered in 


their investigation, which may have been 


previous and post months exposures or previous 


months' exposures and similar work -- you know, 


however people do dosimetry investigation. So 


I believe, though, that the missing or not 


returned issues were investigated. At the Oak 


Ridge sites as a general rule, if we have -- if 


we've sent them the right Social Security 


number, we generally get what they had. 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 

257 

additional requests later on, especially if we 


get anything, we generally get a complete 


response. That's kind of -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- been our experience at -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Kathy, it sounds like you may 


have to look at this a little closer and see if 


there's -- come -- maybe come back with 


specifics if --


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I can do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- if there is -- if there's 


times when they had these quote, unquote, lost 


meters and you can't -- can or cannot identify 


investigation reports in the -- in the file, 


maybe can -- you can come back with specifics 


on that. 


 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I'll do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Otherwise, it sounds like a 


reasonable response, but we should -- 


 MS. BEHLING: I -- I think so, too. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- take it -- take it to ground, 

yeah. 

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: No, I agree with that. And 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 

258 

Stu indicated, the individual did work -- start 


working in the '70s and so -- but I -- but I'll 


look at this a little bit closer. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that's the end of the matrix. 


DR INSTRUCTIONS
 

We have one -- one more agenda item. 


-- I don't think it'll be a -- I really just 


wanted to get a preliminary discussion on this 


and I don't know if, Mike or Wanda, if you have 


these things with you, but Stu did mail out 


some -- some examples of these -- I don't think 


-- calling them everything, dose -- dose -- DR 


instructions, DR guides. I think they -- they 


have various notes, depending on the site -- or 


various titles, depending on the site. So the 


-- I guess the -- the reason I -- I raise this 


as an issue for the subcommittee and for the 


Board is that I -- I found some of these on the 


O drive and -- when we were looking at Rocky 


Flats, actually, it really came to my attention 


that they were very instructive on -- on -- 


instead of trying to -- to guess what the dose 


reconstructioner (sic) thought process was, you 


actually sort of have this template there. 


It's not -- it's not completely prescriptive -- 


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 

259 

correct me if I'm wrong. It's not completely 


prescriptive, but it does give you a sense of 


if you have this, then you have these options; 


if you have this, then you have these options. 


And it -- in some cases it steps you through 


what TIBs or what -- and -- and it might even 


give sort of a sense of the hierarchy to -- to 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, to be honest, I am not 


very familiar with them at all. Maybe --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Scott might have some 


familiarity with them. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, when did you send those out? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, so I -- I just 


wondered if -- if these were used as part of 


the dose reconstruction, my sense would be that 


-- that -- and what -- from what I heard from 


Mutty Shafi (sic) at the Rocky meeting, and he 


was saying -- and I think Jim's saying, also, 


that these aren't procedures necessarily. 


These are -- these are updated on conference 


calls sometimes with the dose reconstructors 


and you might have several versions of them in 


-- you know, real-time corrections to 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 

260 

things, and they're really used in-house. The 


on-- and I wouldn't suggest that we need to 


review them as procedures by the Advisory 


Board. But what I was thinking is -- is why -- 


why aren't they part -- it would be nice if 


they were part of the claimant file. 


DR. MAURO: Absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That way there's none of this -- 


'cause sometimes I think we run into these 


cases where we have sort of a gray line. I 


mean I even -- and this is nothing against any 


of the work we're doing here, but you know, 


sometimes we're -- we're looking at these and 


we're saying well, we think the dose 


reconstructioner (sic) might have been doing 


this or might -- you know, and -- and it seems 


consistent with the earlier protocols. Well, 


if we had this in there, I think we -- it might 


still not be a black and white -- it might not 


be a sharp line, but it's a sharper line, I 


think, to --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sort of evaluate the -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It gives you a better 


understanding --

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: -- the cases. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- of the thought --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- process that the reconstructor 


used, but I've --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- already cautioned you that 


these came about in the -- that evolution and 


development relatively recently. The first and 


second set of claims that you guys reviewed 


probably didn't have any of those -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's fine. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- kind of guidelines or 


instructions. They probably dealt with the 


site profiles, Technical Basis Documents and 


whatever training occurred -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to implement the use of those. 


So just keep those in mind that if you pick 


from the pool of claims -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- randomly, you may find some 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I gue-- I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: But you're point's well taken. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Maybe we should put that into the 

--

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to the -- to the file that you 

folks --

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- are reviewing and see how it 

goes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess there were two questions 

I had, and one was -- one thing I think is a 


lot easier for us to offer as a recommendation 


for the -- for the full Board to -- to give to 


NIOSH, which would be to recommend that -- that 


for all cases going forward, that these things 


be added to the -- to the claim file. 


The second one's a little more -- a little more 


labor, and may not be doable, and that would be 


to do it retro-- retroactively. And that would 


be probably complicated. I'm not sure -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I would be a little reluctant to 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure if you can do it, 


right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- agree to take that 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 

263

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Well, this goes back to a while 


ago, one of the points we made was the road map 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- whereby one of the first 


challenges we encountered was my god, we can't 


figure out -- and it was taking us a lot of 


time --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- to figure it out. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, and -- and to the extent to 


which your folks now -- of course the ones 


they're doing right now could get -- insert 


that road map, but --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: -- with an eye toward oh, there's 


going to be people looking at this, who are 


going to try to reproduce the numbers. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Also the extent to which the cases 


are being assembled at this time, the next set 


of 32, for example, which will be coming down 


the pipeline. I don't know how difficult 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 

264 

would be for someone to say okay, did we really 


tell the story or did we leave a lot to the 


imagination. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: I know that -- I know that our 


folks -- I work with them all the time. 


Someone's saying my god, I've been working on 


this thing for three days, I can't figure out 


what they did. And -- and in fact, I could -- 


I posed this question to the Board, is there 


any problem with our people calling up your 


dose reconstructors and say listen, what did 


you do here? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You need to go through us to do 


that. 


DR. MAURO: Need to go through -- but I think 


that would -- that might be a fix. That might 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we should look at this 


and get back to you on --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, I'm not --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- what -- what it's going to 

take --

 MR. GRIFFON: -- asking for an answer today, 

but --
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- what it's going to take for us 


to make sure that, as we go forward in the 


review of dose reconstructions that have been 


completed, we add that thing to it. Whether or 


not we need to -- we should look at also 


whether we -- it would make sense to -- any 


claim that gets completed from this point on, 


we should --

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- include that in there, the -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that recommendation -- 

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- the analysis record. I don't 

know. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- seems a lot easier, obviously, 

in the -- yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Let us look at that and we'll get 


back to you. 


DR. MAURO: Early on --


 MR. GRIFFON: Wanda, and then --


DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: I just -- just wanted to make sure 


that I'm looking at the same thing I think 


you're talking about. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: March 15 --

1 

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. GRIFFON: A zip file. 


 MS. MUNN: -- a zip drive -- a zip file. It 


started off with dose reconstruction notes 


(unintelligible) Mound and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: -- then basic guidelines, Amchitka 


guidelines, FMPC dose reconstruction notes -- 


that's it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That sounds like the one, yeah. 


Yeah, sorry. 


 MS. MUNN: That's all right, I just wanted to 


make sure I had that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Those are examples. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Examples, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They're not to be considered -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Exhaustive. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- all-inclusive or exhaustive 


type of guidance or --


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


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, they're not exhaustive. 


Okay? I didn't expect it to be. I wanted to 


examine it just to (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: They're relevant to those -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- case situations. 


 MS. MUNN: Those specific cases, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: That's what I had interpreted at the 


time I read them, that they were 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so I think if -- if -- I --


I don't think we need to take the discussion 


much fur-- I just wanted people to understand 


what these things were, have a couple of 


examples to kind of look at and say oh, yeah, I 


see what -- you know, I see what these -- how 


these could help in the audit process. I mean 


I think it -- I think it would actually 


expedite some of our -- you know, our review 


process. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it would minimize 


confusion. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, exactly. Exactly. So I'm 


not... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, how about --


 MR. GRIFFON: But to do it retroactively, I 


think, Larry, you're right. You need to 


examine that 'cause I -- I'm sure it would be 


difficult. I'm not even sure it's achievable. 

1 

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 

You know, I -- I know Mutty said that they 


don't -- they don't, as a course of practice, 


keep revisions of these things. They just 


update them. So it might be really hard to 


figure out, for different time frames, which 


ones were used, you know. And I don't know 


that we need to go there, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Seems unlikely that we could do 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But going forward, I think it 


would be nice to have them added, so -- so 


we'll hold off and maybe hear -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So we're talking about going -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you give us somewhat of a 


report at the morning meeting in May -- May -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think we can do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- at the subcommittee in May -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: In terms of the do-ability of 


this or in terms of cases -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Going forward. Not looking back, 


but going forward. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not even back to the seventh 


set, but the last set -- 


DR. MAURO: Just going -- just move forward. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Just go with the eighth. 

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Yeah, we're already 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. ELLIOTT: On the eighth set --


DR. MAURO: Although we're --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that we deliver and any 


completed dose reconstructions -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- from this point on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


DR. MAURO: Or I would point --


 MR. ELLIOTT: What would it take to put -- put 


this into the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Into the AR, the analysis 


record? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, the AR, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I'll have to get back 


with you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So for all cases going forward -- 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Unintelligible) the actual 


dose --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but just for the selected 


cases --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- record, I'm a little 


concerned about --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Not in the dose report. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: But in the --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: But don't you send the dose 


record overall to DOL as well? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I want to talk about that 


'cause I'm concerned about internal documents 


that don't normally be made public all of a 


sudden becoming... 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I --


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: -- I haven't absorbed all the stuff 


that's in here. I just glanced at them when 


they came in and -- and I have some concern as 


to how you would do that in a way that would be 


helpful to anyone other than probably -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Our people. 


 MS. MUNN: -- your people, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: The reality is --


 MS. MUNN: As long as you had access to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But we don't, that's the point --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, yeah --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so, you know, yeah, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- but if you had access to 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 

271 

information --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so how do we keep -- I 


didn't think about (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, maybe we don't do it for 


the analysis record but we do it for what gets 


rolled up for your review. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Whatever gets put on the CDs for 


your review, let's -- that's where 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I didn't think about this ­

- this factor of -- of being in the public 


realm, but yeah, you're right, Liz, so... 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, internally and in terms of -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I don't think anyone 


outside the process --


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) review -- 


DR. MAURO: I mean in a way right now we have a 


process whereby, for example, site profile 


reviews, we do have steps in the process where 


after our folks read the site profile we 


collect some questions, we inter-- interact 


with you folks, clear up a lot of things, makes 


life real simple and we zero in on the places 


where -- to me it's -- on a mini-scale, 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 

272 

we should be doing a little bit -- I mean maybe 


the easiest way is just sort -- allow for this 


kind of interaction. I know our dose 


reconstructors (unintelligible) especially some 


of the newer folks, the ones that haven't 


benefited from three years of experience, you 


know, they're -- we're coming up to speed, but 


the extent to which -- if they could pick up 


the phone, say I don't understand, for example, 


you know, why you did this here but you didn't 


do this here -- I don't know if that's -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, you can bring that to us. 


DR. MAURO: We'll bring that to you. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: These are our dose 


reconstructions. I mean I don't want to slight 


Scott --


DR. MAURO: No -- no, I understand. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and the ORAU team, but you 


know, OCAS and --


DR. MAURO: Sure. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- NIOSH folks sign off on these. 


We should be able to answer your questions. If 


not, we should be able to turn to our 


contractor and get a -- get informed response 


to answer --

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: I also think there's a benefit to 


staying a step away, you know, 'cause if you 


start --


DR. MAURO: Getting too close. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- having those discussions -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. Yeah, that's true. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, and you're -- you 


can start to not think outside the box and not 


ask questions that you -- you know, so I -- but 


at least to know -- I think this is kind of the 


template that -- that would help us to be able 


to audit the case better. And I agree, it's 


not much -- not much benefit to other people. 


But for the internal people reviewing the cases 


 MS. MUNN: Well, and being able to reduce the 


number of items that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- actually appear on the matrix is 


beneficial to all of us. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. 


DR. MAURO: Could I make a suggestion? We're 


in the process of doing the -- the seventh set 


-- okay? We're going to be done -- we're going 


to get to the point where we have our draft 

1 

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 

material assembled, then we're going to go on 


to the one-on-one discussions we have with each 


of the two-group -- at that point we have sort 


of come to where we are on it and have gotten 


some feedback from you folks. If at that point 


collectively we say, you know, there are still 


like several items related to this case or that 


case that we're really not quite sure and 


almost -- so it's almost a collective thing. 


Perhaps we could just simply feed back to you, 


say listen, we're at this point in the process, 


we notice that we have about four or five 


questions on this collection that maybe we 


could move them out easy, and maybe at that -- 


then you could make a judgment at that time, 


yeah, perhaps setting up a quick conference 


call with the right people and we could clean 


up those (unintelligible). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's okay with us if it's okay 


with the working group. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, as long as you -- you know, 


we have to be -- I mean I think -- I don't want 


to speak for the whole Board, either. I mean 


there's a reason that we have these on the 


record --

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- in the public forum, so --


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think we -- we've certainly 


-- I think we all certainly understand the need 


to -- to sort of expedite some technical 


issues, but we don't -- you know, we don't want 


to -- you know, we have to -- to keep the 


discussions in the public, as well, yeah, yeah, 


so --


 MS. MUNN: That's certainly understandable, 


what you're saying. But by the same token, 


it's very clear from this seat that the 


technical issues often could be resolved very 


easily by one or two phone calls by -- 


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


 MS. MUNN: -- the people who are looking 


specifically at the technical issues. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think a way to alleviate 


it, and we've done this in some of the site 


profile reviews -- I mean we're -- we're doing 


this with Rocky on an ongoing basis. If we 


have a technical phone call, we -- we just ask 


that the parties keep min-- and John, you've 


been good at this, that you -- you say I -- I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

talked with -- or our people talked with their 


people and here's what we discussed and here's 


what we came out with, and you put that on -- 


you bring that back to the subcommittee and 


that's fine, so --


 MS. MUNN: A brief memo, the working group has 


it, it's on the record, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we could do this 


and I think --


DR. MAURO: It could even be -- it could even 


be -- 'cause my guess is that by the end of 


that process it may be just a limited number of 


things that we could probably clean up pretty 


easily --


 MR. GRIFFON: But I think --


DR. MAURO: -- we could actually send it to 


you. We say listen, here's some questions that 


we -- that we think if we can get some quick 


answers to, it would help us resolve -- and not 


only -- you know, 'cause they're -- you notice 


they repeat. You know, we have this initiative 


(unintelligible) --


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 


simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Might use it to sweep those away. 


Perhaps a memo -- I mean it'll all be on the 


record, say here's some issues that we're 


concerned with, we put them out to the working 


group and it may be beneficial to air these out 


and it'll all be in the sunshine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And I -- and I think -- 


yeah, I think -- I think we should encourage 


that. I think also use your judgment on -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- when you think well, wait a 


second, this is -- this is a little bigger and 


I think we need to bring it to the full 


subcommittee or Board, whatever, you know -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so -- but I think we need to 


encourage that -- a dialogue, you know. 


 MS. BEHLING: Mark, at this point in time I 


wouldn't anticipate that we would need to have 


too many discussions with the dose 


reconstructors, and I know when we started this 


process we had asked that question and we were 


discouraged from doing that. And quite 


honestly, I think that it has helped us in our 


auditing process because we also, by not 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 

278 

able to just run to the dose reconstructor or 


run to somebody to get answers, it also has 


brought to our attention that maybe there's 


some deficiencies in some of the procedures or 


maybe things are not clearly spelled out in the 


dose reconstruction report. So I think there's 


been some benefit from having to work through 


some of these issues on our own. And so at 


this stage in the game, I personally do not 


feel I would need to -- hopefully would not 


want to discuss details -- possibly some 


technical issues, but I -- I wouldn't -- I 


wouldn't make a point of calling them on a 


routine basis, I can assure you of that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's sort of my point I made a 


few minutes ago is that -- 


 MS. BEHLING: But -- but what I --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- keeping -- keeping a little 


independence and separation there I think is 


useful because it makes you -- it makes SC&A 


maybe -- maybe you're coming at an issue from a 


little different perspective and if -- if 


somebody steps you right through you say oh, 


yeah, that makes sense, you know. But if you 


come at -- you might see something different 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279 

(unintelligible) --


 MS. BEHLING: Absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, I think that's useful 


for the (unintelligible). 


 MS. BEHLING: I agree, but what I do feel would 


be very beneficial is these notes that walk you 


through the -- as you said, if you don't have 


this information or if you do have this, follow 


this TIB or follow that TIB. That I think 


would be very useful for us. 


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


 MR. ELLIOTT: So if I can -- can I sum this up 


so we can make sure we're all -- with the same 


understanding. 


We would be receptive to technical discussions, 


if you come up with an issue or so that seems 


to be thematic or that maybe is not thematic 


but you just don't have a clear understanding 


of what we did, how we did it, what we meant or 


whatever, and you think that maybe you -- just 


hearing from us will -- will elucidate that and 


clarify it, we're welcome -- we're receptive to 


that. We'll accommodate that. However you 


want to work that out, that's fine. 


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

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280 

we should work that out in a way that -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: But the intent here is to make 


sure that we keep as much of this in the 


public's view as possible -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just keep a record -- if you have 


that kind of discussion, just give us a record 


of it and bring it back to (unintelligible) 


that, you know, we -- in between meetings we 


had this dialogue with the -- you know. I 


think that's fine. Wanda, do you... 


 MS. MUNN: I think that'll probably do it. I 


just -- you know, looking through these 


documents again, I can see how it would have 


illuminated SC&A's process enormously to have 


had access to this information and -- but I 


also agree that Larry's absolutely correct in 


his position that the request needs to come 


through NIOSH. It's a NIOSH decision. I think 


your statement about keeping arm's length 


between the parties is quite reasonable. You 


know, I think you've got it, Larry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And then as far as -- 


as a report back for the -- I keep saying May 


4th, is it May 2nd or -- 


 (Whereupon, multiple participants spoke 

1 

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 

simultaneously, rendering transcription of 


individual comments impossible.) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The next meeting of the 


subcommittee, Lew wanted to make sure I did 


this little dance for him, is scheduled for May 


2nd --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- 2007 in Denver from 9:00 a.m. 


to 11:30 a.m. --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- before the real -- full Board 


meeting starts. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So maybe a -- at that -- Stu, if 


possible -- at least give us an update, even if 


it's not a complete evaluation, but you know, 


just of the feasibility of providing these for 


the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Eighth set. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- eighth set of cases, you know, 


can you -- can you include it and incorporate 


these DR guides if -- if they're available. 


They may not be for some cases. And then the 


feasibility of -- of including them -- well, I 


guess -- I guess --


 MR. ELLIOTT: That answers 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 

282

 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that's it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: If we can do it for the eighth, 


we can do it for the 10th -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- or the ninth. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- just saying including them on 

all cases, but that gets into Liz's issue, so I 


guess -- I guess we're just saying for all 


reviewed cases. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think that's where we ended up 


a minute ago. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Speculating here --


 MR. GRIFFON: So just the feasibility of that, 


yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- it will probably be -- can 


we do it will probably be case-specific, that 


when a case is selected for review, at that 


point we will know if we have, you know, a -- 


an instruction or a guide that was utilized in 


the development of that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: For that time frame. 


 MR. GRIFFON: For that time frame. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the hard part. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, for -- for that -- what 


was utilized for that case, will we have it, I 


don't think we'll know until the case is 


selected from this point forward, you know. 


DR. MAURO: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it'll be case-specific, but 


I will -- I think that, but as -- that's 


largely speculation, so let me speak to the 


ORAU team in the meantime and make sure that -- 


that, you know, there is nothing that I don't 


foresee -- you know, anything that I don't see 


here that would interfere with the ability to 


do that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So we'll just get an 


update on it when you check with ORAU to make 


sure -- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And it may -- it's probably going 


to be case-specific, but -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, the indication seems 


to be that you -- you can do that, it's just 


the -- that some cases may not be able to find 


either one for that case because there was -- 


there weren't any, or -- or you can't nar-- 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 

284 

can't find one for that time frame. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: For that time frame. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 

 MR. SIEBERT: That's the biggest issue. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that -- I think that's the 

biggest issue. Right. Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- I don't know if you want 


to get into this, Mark, of -- there was 


discussion about the selection of the eighth 


case -- the eighth set of DRs. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we just -- we 


talked before, I think we're -- Stu and I 


talked about the selection of the eighth case 


and what we were -- what I was proposing is use 


the same criteria as we did for the seventh 


set, which is that Stu is going to generate a 


list of the best-estimate cases, bring them 


back to us for the May meeting, and then we can 


do a preliminary selection and then he's going 


to go find that refined criteria and come back 


with a -- for those selected cases, you're 


going to come back with that more detailed 


information --


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that we had asked about. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

285 

Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So do that same two-step process, 


and I think that's okay. Right? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And the number being 40 or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 38. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- 38? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 38. 


DR. MAURO: That's what I was going to say -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Or 32. 


DR. MAURO: -- 38 -- 30-- I'm sorry, 32, 'cause 


28 was the last batch -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 28 were selected for the 


seventh. 


DR. MAURO: -- and -- and then -- right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So 32 cases for the eighth set -- 


DR. MAURO: So 32 will do it, and that will 


close out our fiscal year 2007 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: -- obligations. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: So from 32 you're going to 


select... 


DR. MAURO: Well, from -- from the batch -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: From -- from some 400 or 500 


best estimates --

1 

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 

DR. MAURO: Picked in --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- they will select -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And these are all best estimates. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- somewhat more than 32 -- 


DR. MAURO: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in order to get -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Down to --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- more detailed information on 


that subset of -- and then from that subset, 32 


will be selected. 


DR. MAURO: And delivered to us, that's -- 


we're looking to get -- receive CDs with 32 on 


them. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: All best estimates. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, my proposal was to start 


by running all of the best est-- full internal 


and external and -- and come up with that 


population 'cause I suspect it may be -- come 


up with 400 or 500 by now. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And from that, my thought was 


we should --


 MR. ELLIOTT: (Unintelligible) be 1,000. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- be able to find a subset of 


-- we should be able to find a subset that 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 

287 

robust enough and big enough to get the 


additional information that we can select 32. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you think you're up to 400 or 


500 (unintelligible)? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm thinking we must be. I 


think it was over -- it was over 200 last time 


we ran it, and --


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing i--


 MR. ELLIOTT: And we're talking adjudicated 


cases, too, so you've got to -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's right, we're 


talking adjudicated cases. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- screen that down a little 


further. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And at the last Board meeting, I 


-- I'm trying to recall the slide I presented 


on the different approaches to dose 


reconstruction and what the percentages was on 


the best estimates internal/external. I -- I 


don't know that I -- well, I don't -- I don't 


want to say. 


UNIDENTIFIED: We may not be at 400. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: What -- what I will do -- 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 

288 

I can do --


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's definitely not going to be 


(unintelligible) analysis -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing I was going to say 

is --

 MR. ELLIOTT: -- (unintelligible) 400 or -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: What I was going to say is --

 MR. HINNEFELD: What I can do is --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sort randomly, too. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: All those lists -- all that 


list and provide that list to the -- to the 


subcommittee members ahead of time, and -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think that's a good idea. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and then you guys can 


converse however you want and decide -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause my -- one --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- do we think we have enough 


here or do we want to get some randomly-


selected cases as well. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause one concern we might have, 


even if you have a lot of cases, if they're all 


from Savannah River and Hanford, you know, we ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we might have to say no --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289

 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we can't do these -- more of 


these, you know, or whatever. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think --


 MR. GRIFFON: So we might -- if we -- if you 


get these out to us early enough, we can maybe 


-- via e-mail, let you know and come to the 


Board meeting with a selection of random, too ­

-


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, and however many -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to see --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- however many randomly-


selected you want. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I think we can do that by e-


mail --


 MS. MUNN: I think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- with the four subcommittee 


members, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. You up for that, Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: Uh-huh, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: For -- for planning purposes and 


-- and speaking of timing, your ninth -- ninth 


round, tenth round selections -- you might want 


to consider different kinds or different types 


of -- of reconstructed cases. We'll have 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 

290 

partials, as far as classes added and non-


presumptive cases being done with a partial. 


You're going to -- you're going to have -- at 


some point in time I think you're going to see 


more AWEs treated like the set of Battelle 


cases where we've asked for a Technical Basis 


Document to be developed with an appendix 


specific to a type of process. Those are --


they're starting to come through now, so these 


are just some of the other things I -- I would 


alert you to that you might want to think 


through about, you know, your case selection 


strategy. 


I don't know, is there other categories like 


that, Stu, than those two? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do you -- can you tell us -- not 


right now, but provide us that list of AWEs 


that would have that appendix -- process-


specific appendix? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: There were originally about 1,400 


claims that we carved off, representing a 


number of sites. And I don't know -- you know, 


they're just now starting to come through, so 


they may be not the tenth round or eleventh 


round, but it might be the 12th round you 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 

291 

want to think... 


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


the number of either of those categories. 
I 


can't think of any others that would be 


noteworthy, but you're right, those are two 


categories that --


 MR. GRIFFON: But maybe --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- just thinking out loud, the 


full internal and external will not capture 


partial dose reconstructions from people who 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in the SEC class, I don't 


believe. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So -- I mean we could query 


that population specifically. We could do 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think let's stick with best 


estimate for now. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Stick with what we're doing for 


now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But -- yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, 'cause you're 


(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 

292

 MR. ELLIOTT: That -- that one staged up sooner 


-- that -- that you were just talking about, 


that staged up sooner -- if we look at 


Mallinckrodt, Iowa and the early year classes 


that have been added, you know, we started 


doing some of those non-presumptive partial 


dose reconstructions. But -- and this other 


category that I'm talking about about the -- 


the lot of AWE claims -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- that's -- that's a little 


further down the --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- down the (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, all I was saying is that 


these -- might be bet-- second population 


sounds interesting, can -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, 'cause it's done under a 


whole different --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- somewhat different, I'm 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: In the future can you give us a 


listing of those sites that would be covered by 


the (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 

293

 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, we can give you that. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: You're going to see some of those 

sites come out of 83.14s, so you won't have to 


re--


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- (unintelligible) in DR, but -- 


but the ones that don't make 83.14s, they're 


certainly fair game as this new category, I 


think. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. All right, anything else 


for the record? 


 MS. MUNN: I don't believe so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Ray, anything? Anymore Smarties? 


Okay, I think we're ready to -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Kathy or Hans, did you have 


anything --


 MS. BEHLING: No, I have nothing else. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Do we have anybody else on the 


phone that had something to say? 


 (No responses) 


 MR. GRIFFON: If not, I think we'll adjourn. 


Meeting adjourned. 

294

 (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 3:28 


p.m.) 


1 

2 

3 

4 
______________________________ 

295 

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 April 11, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


16th day of August, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102 


2 

3