NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

JULY 23, 2010

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Frankfurt Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 8:30 a.m., Mark Griffon, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

JENNY LIN, HHS, Acting Designated Federal 

Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

STUART HINNEFELD, DCAS

EMILY HOWELL, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

BRANT ULSH, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Page

Report from NIOSH on the Matrix's Seventh Set

9

Report from NIOSH on the Matrix's Eighth Set48

Selection for dose reconstruction 13th Set 185

SC&A's review of eighth set 243

Adjournment 365
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(8:38 a.m.)

MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

in the room and on the line. This is Ted 

Katz. I'm the Designated Federal Official for 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, and we're getting started. This is 

the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee, and we 

will begin with roll call with Board members 

in the room, beginning with the Chair.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

the Chair of the Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction. 

MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, member 

of the Board and member of this Subcommittee.

MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

member of the Subcommittee.

MEMBER PRESLEY: Robert Presley, 

member of the Subcommittee.

MEMBER POSTON: John Poston, 

member of the Subcommittee.

MR. KATZ: And do we have any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

Board members on the line? Okay, and then 

NIOSH, ORAU Team in the room? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

Interim Director of DCAS.

DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh, DCAS.

MR. KATZ: And on the line?

MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the 

ORAU Team.

MR. KATZ: Thank you, Scott. SC&A 

in the room?

MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A.

MR. KATZ: And on the line SC&A? 

Are you expecting John? 

MR. FARVER: John, Kathy --

MR. KATZ: John, Kathy, do they 

know it's 8:30 instead of -- you may want to 

pop them an email. Okay, then let's go to HHS 

and other government officials or contractors 

to the government in the room.

MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS

MR. KATZ: And on the line.

MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

MR. KATZ: Hi, Emily.

MS. HOWELL: Hi.

MR. KATZ: And do we have any 

members of the public on the line who would 

like to be identified? Okay, done with roll 

call; it's your agenda, Mark. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

well, I think a lot of this depends on -- I'm 

not sure -- since I didn't have my government 

laptop operational the last couple days, I'm 

not sure if we -- the status on responses to 

the matrices, but just as an update, I think 

we completed the sixth set -- Doug, you 

reminded me that we did find -- there was one 

outstanding finding, but we closed it last 

meeting, I believe.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I believe 

that's true. I think Scott Siebert did it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Anyway, 

the seventh set, though, I believe has like 

one or two remaining, as I'm pulling that up 

now. And then the eighth set, at the last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

meeting we mainly worked on the -- what we're 

calling appendices. They're back to the last 

findings, which are -- also, we call them mini 

Site Profiles.

So I think that those are -- those 

are three items on the agenda. And then also 

I wanted to get at least an update on where 

things stand as far as the follow up on the 

first 100 cases.

We had asked for this review of 

the quality assurance-related findings, and 

the dig into some of those cases related to 

those findings. And then I guess Ted's right, 

I guess we should pick up the 13th set, and 

maybe have a look at that ourselves, and then 

we can be better prepared to describe it to 

the full Board meeting in Idaho. 

So I guess I'll leave it -- the 

seventh set I guess I would turn to NIOSH and 

ask as far as actions what is --

DR. ULSH: We sent out a couple of 

responses on Monday. I don't know if you got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

that, Mark.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I didn't. 

But that doesn't -- you know. Just go ahead.

DR. ULSH: Yes, I sent out an 

email on Monday, July 19th. It kind of gives 

a mini update of what we have done. So I 

don't know if you'd want to walk through the 

matrix?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'll pull 

up the matrix while you -- I mean do you have 

them --

MEMBER MUNN: Is this the seventh 

one?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The seventh 

set, yes. Give us a second to open up our 

files and matrices here. Oh, did you put your 

responses in the matrix?

DR. ULSH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, you did? 

Okay.

DR. ULSH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then I'll have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

that. I'll look at Wanda's version. 

MR. KATZ: Someone could email 

them to you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Can you 

email them to the GriffonM@Comcast? 

MEMBER GIBSON: And to the 

MikeHGibson@gmail?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's take a 

minute and do that.

DR. ULSH: Okay. 

MR. KATZ: We're off the record.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 8:44 a.m. and 

resumed at 8:50 a.m.)

MR. KATZ: Okay, so we're back on 

the record.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Back on the 

record. Sorry. 

MR. KATZ: Thank you for bearing 

with us, everyone on the line. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so we're 

back. We're starting on the seventh set, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

NIOSH had emailed some responses in a modified 

matrix, and now we all have it, I believe. So 

I'll turn it over to Brant to step us through 

which responses are in there.

DR. ULSH: All right, it might be 

easier for you all, who I just sent the 

message to, if you refer to the table that was 

in the email. I can kind of give you an 

overall quick status, and then we can drill 

down into the ones that we've actually 

provided substantive responses for. 

We've got Scott Siebert on the 

line, too, who can respond to the detail kind 

of questions. 

So the first item that we have on 

the table there on the matrix is finding 

number 125.9. That is an outstanding item 

that we have not yet responded to. So I don't 

know if you want to just -- we can go past 

that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. ULSH: All right, the first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

one that we have provided a response to is the 

next one, and that's 127.11. The issue here, 

just summarized here on the matrix, is that 

the finding that SC&A provided was that NIOSH 

failed to address the breath sample monitoring 

reporting in the CATI. 

I believe this is a Hanford claim, 

and we have provided a response here, and 

basically we have determined that there was no 

breath monitoring program in place at Hanford 

during the time frame that this dose 

reconstruction was provided.

We provided an email discussion 

that supported that. So I don't know. Do you 

want to --

MR. HINNEFELD: This was a CATI 

comment. It was a CATI comment that the 

claimant had checked under biological 

monitoring of urine, fecal, breath. And now 

we don't ever ask follow ups about when they 

check those things. I mean if they say yes, 

it's yes. So we don't know if the person is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

maybe thinking of air monitoring, if air 

monitoring is done in the area where I was, or 

if they were maybe thinking of the spirometry 

test that you take when you get fit for a 

respirator, it looks like you're giving a 

breath sample. 

So we don't know what the person 

was thinking when they checked that. Breath 

sampling, from a radiological standpoint, is 

really -- as far as I know is only done for 

radium.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so it's for 

radium body burden. And so at Hanford -- that 

seems -- why we didn't monitor for radium at 

Hanford.

MR. FARVER: And I think that was 

what the question in the discussion led up to. 

That's why it's coming back and saying, well, 

we looked into it, and they didn't do breath 

monitoring for this one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and SC&A 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

doesn't have any information that they -- to 

the contrary. I mean you didn't find 

anything?

MR. FARVER: No, no. During the 

discussion it all came up to, well, could they 

have radium there, did they do breath 

monitoring.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only thing 

I would, I think, possibly correct for this 

matrix is for your green highlighted response, 

NIOSH's response says, finally, radon exposure 

would not contribute -- or would contribute 

almost no dose to the breast. 

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That has no 

relevance here because it's radium here, 

right? So I think you should delete that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or I'll delete 

it when I -- when I -- these are just your 

excerpted answers so I'll -- when I add it to 

the full matrix, I'll delete that part. All 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

right, so that's okay. 

DR. ULSH: All right, so the 

status on 127.11 is closed?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Closed.

DR. ULSH: Making progress 

already.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. Look 

at that. Off and running. 

MEMBER POSTON: Time for a break?

DR. ULSH: Next item is 131.4, and 

the finding was an improper method was used to 

calculate electron doses. We provided an 

initial response back in May of 2008. There 

are a number of -- well, we also provided an 

updated response here, and I'm going to rely 

on Scott to maybe walk you through that if you 

wanted. 

But you can see our response there 

in the matrix, and that is that it's important 

enough that the results in the DR report are 

the result of Monte Carlo calculation process. 

There was a particular question about a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

particular line, and we -- we provided an 

Excel file to give some more information on 

why we did what we did.

The open window and shallow 

quantities are both normal distributions, and 

the open window parameters for mean and 

standard deviation. We give the values there, 

80 millirem, 38 and change millirem. So, 

basically, this response is here. We provided 

the back up information. I don't know if you 

guys want to spend some time with that or if 

you want to talk about that now.

MR. FARVER: I reviewed it, and a 

big question was we just couldn't determine 

how the doses were calculated. Because I 

believe at that time OTIB-17 was not in place, 

and best we could tell, you didn't follow 

OTIB-17, the method of use. And based on the 

spreadsheet, you said, no, it doesn't. It's a 

different type of calculation, which I've seen 

that type spreadsheet before in files.

So, no, that was fine. We just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

wanted to see how you did that, and provided 

the calculations.

DR. ULSH: All right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so you 

were okay with -- you -- you reviewed the 

calculations?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, anybody 

else on the Subcommittee have any questions on 

that?

MEMBER MUNN: No. Sounds 

reasonable to me.

DR. ULSH: So we'll call it 

closed?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

we're closed on that. I mean some of these 

we've been discussing for what, two years? 

It's been a while.

MEMBER MUNN: It's often just a 

question of checking on a --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

MR. HINNEFELD: They should've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

been assigned to Brant this long ago. He's 

far more effective than I am. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that a 

motion?

MR. HINNEFELD: It's done.

DR. ULSH: All right, the next 

item on the matrix, just for completeness 

sake, is 135.1, and on that one, that's an 

outstanding item. We don't have any new 

action to report on that. So we'll just go 

past unless you want to talk about it, Mark.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No.

DR. ULSH: All right. The next 

item is 135.4, and we did provide a response 

on this one. Just to refresh your memory, 

this one dealt with tritium exposure reported 

by the claimant in the CATI and not considered 

in the DR. 

So we provided a response in May 

of 2008. We have an additional response here. 

To summarize, basically there was a major 

tritium project that was supposed to happen in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

the early `70s at Y-12, but it actually did 

not ever happen. 

Tritium has always been at Y-12 

since at least from 1957. This related to 

weapons. Therefore, if there is tritium 

bioassay, we can calculate an exposure based 

on the internal TBD. If there is not a 

tritium bioassay, then we have to assume that 

the employee did not work in proximity of 

tritium based on the monitoring period and 

based on the policies in place at the time.

So that was our response. I don't 

know, Doug. Maybe you had time to --

MR. FARVER: Yes. The only 

question I had was were there any tritium 

bioassays at Y-12?

MEMBER PRESLEY: Probably not 

because they didn't do any. They put a 

facility in and never opened it up. It's 

still sitting right there.

MR. FARVER: For the amounts that 

were there, because it says there's still some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

tritium onsite, do you know of any tritium 

bioassay that was done?

MEMBER PRESLEY: We can call 

medical and see, but I don't -- I don't ever 

remember seeing any in any of the records that 

I've gone through.

MR. FARVER: Since it's 

classified, would you even see them?

MEMBER PRESLEY: I would, yes.

DR. ULSH: I don't think the 

bioassay results themselves would be 

classified.

MR. HINNEFELD: No, no. We have 

never run into -- at least so far, we've never 

run into classified bioassays. Was it -- now, 

was it classified information that tritium was 

at Y-12, I guess would be the pertinent 

question.

MEMBER PRESLEY: Now that was one 

of the --

MR. HINNEFELD: If it was 

classified information that there was tritium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

at Y-12, then you could envision a way in 

which -- as those tritium samples were 

collected, they were not stored with a 

person's regular exposure records. I mean you 

can envision that. I don't know that that 

would happen.

MEMBER PRESLEY: I know.

MR. HINNEFELD: And we can't have 

much of a conversation and I have not heard 

any briefing on this that could have some 

special precaution for Brant and I to learn 

very much about this. So I don't know if you 

want to leave this on here and have us test 

that. See, the question is there was tritium 

there. Just because there was tritium on the 

site, was there exposure potential? It would 

depend upon how it was stored and what was 

done with it essentially. And so we don't 

know if there's an exposure potential. If 

there was an exposure potential, how did they 

monitor and control the exposure potential? 

And so if they in fact had tritium at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

site, and there was an exposure potential, and 

there's tritium monitoring done, you have to 

wonder about, it says an unmonitored exposure 

then we don't have anything to worry about.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: So I think the 

question is, as much as I would like it to go 

away, I don't think in good conscience we 

should send it away just yet.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

think -- I mean the middle part of the 

response concerns me because -- just because 

you don't have a bioassay doesn't necessarily 

mean that --

MR. HINNEFELD: As a general rule, 

we do not -- we do not decide finally that the 

lack of monitoring data equals the lack of 

exposure. That's as a general rule. We 

usually have to have some other information 

about monitoring programs that allows us to 

conclude that.

And so sitting here today, I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

know that we have -- I don't know if Scott has 

anything that would provide it that he can 

talk about. So I'm sure if Scott knows about 

it, he can talk about it. Scott, you don't 

have a clearance do you?

MR. SIEBERT: No, and Y-12 isn't 

really my site. So I can't really speak to 

that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So I think 

we may have to go chase that down and provide 

a better explanation to the Subcommittee if we 

can, or have -- or to selected members of the 

Subcommittee with clearances if we need to do 

that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I agree.

MEMBER PRESLEY: That should be 

pretty easy to do.

DR. ULSH: All right. That's 

135.4. I don't know if anybody else --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 135.4?

DR. ULSH: Does anyone else have 

anything to add, or move on?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just 

updating the resolution column. 

DR. ULSH: The next item on the 

matrix is 137.6. The finding was reviewer 

questions appropriateness of solubility 

assumption. We've provided a couple of 

previous responses, the first on May 30th, 

2008, and the second one on April 15th of 

2009. 

We have provided an additional 

response here for this file -- or for this 

finding, rather. We sent out the IMBA file, 

demonstrating the comparisons that have been 

added to the claimant's file, and we talked a 

lot about, in our response here, OTIB-60 and 

the different solubility types. I don't know 

if you wanted to walk through that. Doug, do 

you?

MR. FARVER: No. I believe what 

it came down we didn't question the 

determination to solubility class. It was --

it wasn't contained in the files.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

DR. ULSH: Right.

MR. FARVER: And I believe your 

last statement, NIOSH will consider adding 

text to the section stating runs will be 

added, will be kept in the file. That was the 

big thing. It seems that these things are in 

the claimant's file.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: That is a new word 

to me.

DR. ULSH: What's that?

MEMBER MUNN: Solubilization.

MR. HINNEFELD: Are you 

repudiating our terminology? 

MEMBER MUNN: No, I am not. I'm 

simply saying that's a new word in my 

vocabulary. I'm not at all sure it would be 

added to my vocabulary.

DR. ULSH: So, anyway, the bottom 

line is we provided the IMBA files to -- to 

back up the -- we looked at the other 

solubility classes and demonstrate that. So I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

don't know what status you want on it.

MR. FARVER: Other than you 

consider adding text, I guess it's in an OTIB 

somewhere. OTIB-60.

DR. ULSH: Scott, that last 

paragraph there, NIOSH will consider adding 

text to this section, does that refer to this 

particular dose reconstruction? Does that 

refer to OTIB-60?

MR. SIEBERT: That refers to OTIB60. The two things we had outstanding were 

putting the actual file into the ER files, 

which was done.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is more of 

a policy discussion. Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes. And then 

considering where to actually document that we 

should be keeping those runs because we all 

know it, but I don't believe it's documented 

specifically. We said 60 is probably the best 

place to put that.

DR. ULSH: So, do you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

leave this open pending revision of OTIB-60, 

or do you want to close it? What do you want 

to do about it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think I'm 

okay with closing it. The question I would 

have is more on the policy side, which is that 

Stu -- I mean I think we've -- you know, from 

a certain point going forward, NIOSH was sort 

of -- we had this discussion of keep all work 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: That direction 

went out, didn't it?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I would 

hope that the -- these are older cases.

MR. SIEBERT: As I was saying, we 

do this, just documenting that we do it 

somewhere that seems like the best place to 

put it. We've been kind of waiting to update 

60, and we're working on it.

MR. HINNEFELD: The next update it 

will be then.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

kind of -- because I'd like to document this 

in the matrix. Do you have any kind of date 

when that directive went out to save all work? 

Because I think that'd be important going 

forward, and as we review other cases.

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe I can 

reproduce it, but not in a short period of 

time.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, if you 

can give me that to include in the matrix? 

But I think it's closed. I just want to make 

sure we make a note in the matrix. Just 

because I know in the future, when we're 

looking at all the cases, should this have 

included all the data or shouldn't it have? 

So, unless Doug has anything else?

MR. FARVER: No. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I think 

I'm comfortable with closing the item. 

MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest that 

if we're going to leave that wording of the 

last paragraph in there, that we say that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

indicate we're talking about OTIB-60. Will 

consider adding text to OTIB-60 section, 

stating -- that sounds like there's no reason 

why we couldn't recommend for NIOSH to do 

that, correct?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: So they're going to 

get you the date for your record when the work 

order went out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or the record 

keeping is going to change, yes, yes.

MEMBER MUNN: Revise that wording 

here so that it says, the section of OTIB-60.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. This does 

say NIOSH will consider adding text to this 

section. I think --

MR. HINNEFELD: Why don't we just 

say we will.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: NIOSH -- yes, 

will.

MR. HINNEFELD: You got that, 

Brant? You got it?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

DR. ULSH: Yes. I've got -- I've 

got that we're going to go ahead and close it, 

but there's two follow up items. You're going 

to send out the directive thing.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. ULSH: And we will revise 

OTIB-60. All right, the next item on the 

matrix is 137.7. We provided a response to 

this one. Oh, by the way, the original 

finding was that NIOSH failed to calculate 

internal doses from fission products. 

Our initial response was May 30th

of 2008. We provided an additional response 

in April of 2009, and then we have our latest 

response here.

Basically this dealt with a 

fission product bioassay. In our response, it 

says that, periodic urinalysis results greater 

than the MDA are fission products limited to 

those for tech-99, and are generally close to 

the MDA. And we do agree that these should be 

evaluated, included for dose reconstruction.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

Tech-99 was originally included 

using a ratio to uranium based on recycled 

uranium mixture, but this doesn't eliminate 

the need to evaluate positive bioassay results 

for tech-99.

The last point that we would make 

is the reference that describes cesium-137 

background effects for detecting uranium in 

the lung is reference ID 690 in vivo gamma 

counting as a measurement of uranium in human 

lung. And the description of the Y-12 mobile 

counter, we give a reference for that, and the 

design and development of mobile in vivo 

radiation monitoring laboratories.

Scott, do you want to provide some 

more follow up on that?

MR. SIEBERT: No.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

MR. SIEBERT: I mean I got that 

information. Once again, this isn't my site. 

It's a Y-12 mobile set up. So I'm not really 

conversant in the actual reference.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

DR. ULSH: Okay, so we provided 

some references here. I don't know if --

Doug?

MR. FARVER: No. The question is 

how do I get those references?

MR. SIEBERT: That's in the SRDB.

DR. ULSH: Yes, we provided the 

reference ID right here.

MR. FARVER: What's the SRDB?

MR. KATZ: Site Research Database.

MR. FARVER: How do I get access 

to that?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have access 

to that.

MR. HINNEFELD: You come into our 

system, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We can show 

you. I can show you.

MR. FARVER: I'm not sure the dose 

reconstructors know about that -- or not the 

dose reconstructors, the reviewers.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

MR. HINNEFELD: The reviewers 

might know. Some do. 

MR. FARVER: Ron does, Ron 

Buchanan, I am sure.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know who 

does and who doesn't.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think 

definitely the --

MR. HINNEFELD: Site Profile 

reviewers.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Site 

Profile reviewers would definitely know about 

it. So this is in SC&A's. I still want you 

to have an opportunity to look at those 

documents.

MR. FARVER: Oh, I just want to be 

aware of what they look like.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: That was one of our 

concerns back there is it referenced it, but 

we -- we didn't -- weren't able to look at it 

or didn't know that I could look at it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this --

this response says that these results should 

be evaluated and included in the dose 

reconstruction. Were they not included? Is 

that the issue? I'm trying to remember back 

to the original finding here.

DR. ULSH: Let's see.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And if so, the 

question is -- I imagine it would be a small 

dose contributor, or -- you know, I don't 

think we need to -- I think we need to at 

least have that analysis on record that it 

should've been included, you know, given the 

potential for dose, it would likely not change 

the -- you know what I mean? Standard 

language in that; at least that you've 

assessed it and determined that it wouldn't 

have -- because I don't know if this is like a 

49.99 case or something. You know, you've 

looked at that, and you might have the 

potential to add a little dose, but not 

significantly, and not certainly to overturn 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

the decision.

I think we need that on the 

record, anyway.

MEMBER MUNN: It kind of says 

other radionuclides are listed, but internal 

dose significance is considered 

inconsequential.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the deal --

is this the one where the in vivo report shows 

cesium on one of the items?

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'm sure the 

reference is described, but the mobile counter 

printed out several regions of interest, and 

some of those regions of interest, such as the 

cesium region of interest were used to 

calculate the expected value in the uranium 

region of interest, which is lower. It would 

back-scatter down. The cesium would, the 

potassium would. They would scatter down into 

the uranium region of interest.

And so the number of counts up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

there in the higher energy regions influenced 

to the level of background counts you would 

see in the uranium reading. And so it was 

used to calculate the expected background. 

Those values are used in something called a 

prediction equation to calculate the expected 

values in the uranium region of interest. And 

so that's why those numbers were recorded 

essentially is because they were part of that 

background calculation. 

MR. FARVER: Which I believe is 

why we wanted to look at the references.

MR. HINNEFELD: And the references 

-- the references should explain that. 

MR. FARVER: Original findings.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm old enough 

that I have experience. I didn't actually run 

the counter, but I saw the outputs of the 

actual in vivo counter when they in vivoed 

people at Fernald, this mobile counter, the Y12 mobile counter, and that's how --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

different to me than saying these results 

should be evaluated and included in the dose 

reconstruction. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's for 

the technetium. There's technetium bioassays.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

All right, so then the main impression would 

be for the technetium.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's the 

part where we need to make sure the dose isn't 

--

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

right.

MR. HINNEFELD: That's the part we 

should look at.

DR. ULSH: So it -- just to 

summarize, it sounds like there's a couple of 

action items. One is for SC&A to examine the 

references that we provided, and two is for us 

to provide an analysis of the technetium-99 

issue.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the dose and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

the --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right, 

right.

DR. ULSH: Anything else on that 

one, or do you want to move on?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Move on.

DR. ULSH: The next item, the last 

item that we have here, is 137.8. The finding 

was that NIOSH failed to properly address 

potential radiological incidents. 

Now we've not provided a new 

response to this. Our initial response was in 

May of 2008. We provided a rather lengthy 

response that I won't bother to read through, 

on April 15th, 2009. 

It wasn't clear to us from the 

last meeting where we are on this particular 

finding, whether the April 15th response is 

satisfactory, or whether there's something 

else additional that you want.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 137.8?

DR. ULSH: 137.8, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

MR. SIEBERT: This is tech-99 skin 

dose stuff.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes. I 

think we were kind of throwing up our hands as 

to how to proceed on this. Right, Stu? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because it's a 

-- I mean there's a note here that this may be 

considered as an overarching issue.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it's 

where it belongs. Because it'll happen a 

number of places. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

This issue of skin contamination by the 

positive activity and using VARSKIN, that sort 

of thing.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes?

DR. MAURO: I think that's an 

overarching issue that applies across the 

board, and it -- I know that Jim is aware of 

our concerns on this, and we talked about it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

on a number of other venues. So I think this 

crosses into a broader category.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just want to 

make sure we have the right category to give 

it to. I mean do we say it's a Jim Neton 

White Paper issue?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's an 

overarching issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: And most of those 

are in our court until -- until we provide 

something that says we're in the position that 

we can provide a viable position for -- for 

this issue. And then -- so this would be in 

our court. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

DR. ULSH: So what status do you 

want to accord to this finding?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it's 

transferred to overarching issues essentially.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: In this case the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

employee looks like he did roofing. He went 

down the roof of the building and ground them 

up, putting roofing on buildings. When he did 

this, his face and arms got burned because 

dust got into the pores of his skin. He 

reported releases when he was cutting out the 

welding in the transitions.

So there was some potential for 

this case that the -- the thing is how do you 

deal with wording like that?

MR. HINNEFELD: And how do you 

deal with the general issue of unidentified 

skin contamination?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. It 

could've been radioactive material, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: It could've been 

an irritant from the -- roofing material.

MEMBER MUNN: More likely asbestos 

or things of that sort.

MR. HINNEFELD: But contamination 

on the roofs is not unheard of. 

MR. KATZ: Does the DR 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

Subcommittee manage this as an overarching 

issue, or does it go to a procedure?

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that it 

goes to -- I think there almost needs to be 

some way to deal with it procedurally -- it 

could go to Procedures because it affects the 

procedures for how we're going to deal with 

dose reconstruction.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: You could go 

there. You could form a Work Group for 

dealing with overarching --

DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

the procedure for non-penetrating radiation in 

OTIB-17 -- I think that might be it -- is 

silent regarding this issue. And that was one 

of our comments on that procedure. And so I 

think it might've --

MR. HINNEFELD: It's already there 

then?

DR. MAURO: Do I have the right 

number?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that's the 

number. But you said if you wrote that 

finding on the procedure, then the issue is 

already there.

DR. MAURO: Well, it might be. I 

think it was -- I think it was raised in a 

number of venues. It may have first been 

raised when we were reviewing perhaps the Site 

Profile. I know on a number of occasions I 

raised that question. Wherever it first came 

up, I really don't know. Where it's best 

resolved is really a judgment whether it 

should be something best resolved as part of 

our issues of resolution on -- on OTIB-17 

where it came up with a given Site Profile.

I know it was an issue. I think 

it first came up on -- I think it was like 

Paducah.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

where this DR is from. This is a Paducah 

case, yes.

DR. MAURO: Yes, that might be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

first time it came up. One of -- one of the 

enrichment facilities where the potential for 

airborne particles was prevalent, and the idea 

being when you have a circumstance where 

there's real potential for face, hands, skin 

becoming directly contaminated with 

particulates, that's the issue. 

So, yes, this is really a call 

that you folks need to make on where should it 

be transferred to?

MR. KATZ: Wanda, does OTIB-17 

still have open issues?

MEMBER MUNN: I was just going to 

try to --

MR. KATZ: If it does, then it 

makes sense to just make it clear that this is 

something that will get addressed as a 

finding.

MEMBER MUNN: We're not carrying 

it in our current open issues agenda list. 

But that doesn't mean it's not on the -- our 

database. And I'm just trying to get to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

database right now to --

MR. KATZ: Well, we don't -- I 

mean right now, we can just commit to putting 

this as a finding to be addressed under OTIB17. Right?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: It actually might be 

one of those overarching scientific issues 

that even transcend OTIB-17 like a number of 

other matters that we have brought up that go 

into that box where you have a special 

investigation on a scientific issue.

MEMBER MUNN: It would seem to be 

so to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 

point Stu is making is that no -- none of us 

are really -- I mean we're sending them there, 

but nobody on the Board is really dealing with 

those.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. KATZ: If OTIB-17 is the 

procedure that would address this, then it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

seems to make sense to put it on the 

Procedures Subcommittee, and --

MR. HINNEFELD: This one does. 

MR. KATZ: Then have it under 

OTIB-17.

MR. HINNEFELD: It does seem to be 

the logical home.

MR. KATZ: Right. And then when 

Procedures gets to it, it will -- we'll know 

it gets addressed if we leave it in this other 

netherworld -- otherwise you have no way to 

really track this.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think this 

makes sense.

MEMBER MUNN: This is true. And 

we're just about to the point where we want to 

make a commitment about tracking overarching 

issues, which we have not done to this point. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean it could be 

its own database.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it could be a 

specific database for overarching, which is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

what I personally -- talking about overarching 

issues.

MR. KATZ: I would actually think 

all overarching issues would wind up with 

Procedures.

MR. HINNEFELD: They are almost all 

Procedures.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean if it's a 

procedure question or a policy question you're 

going to translate into a procedural 

implementation.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Since Wanda is 

lobbying so heavily for her Committee.

MEMBER MUNN: No, I really had --

we originally were working under the concept 

of Jim pulling all these together and having a 

discrete list of what constituted overarching 

issues. And until that occurs, there really 

isn't something I think we can do. But 

logically in this case, tracking OTIB-17 is 

not a big deal. We can certainly do that and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

see if this is still in our database. I 

believe that it is, and it's in abeyance, 

frankly.

MR. KATZ: John?

DR. MAURO: Yes?

MR. KATZ: If we can just follow 

up with Steve Marschke, since he sort of --

rides herd over Procedures.

DR. MAURO: Yes. We will be 

meeting on Monday.

MR. KATZ: Yes, Monday. Just to 

make sure if this is not clearly reflected 

under OTIB-17 that it be added there.

DR. MAURO: We will load it up, 

okay.

MEMBER MUNN: I will include this 

on my addition to our agenda.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so that's 

transferred to Procedures, OTIB-17.

DR. ULSH: And that is the last 

item on the seventh set.

MR. SIEBERT: Does that close down 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

this list then?

DR. ULSH: Transferred.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

Okay, we can move on to the eighth set.

DR. ULSH: The eighth set is going 

to go much faster because we haven't -- we 

haven't worked on these as much as the seventh 

set. There's only a couple of items that we 

can report progress on. The first finding 

that falls into that category is finding 

number 152.1.

That finding, the original 

finding, was that the DR Report does not 

properly account for all photon doses. You 

see our updated response here, and basically 

it says, the normal method for small 

discrepancies is use the higher of the two 

values. The two values being the cycle data 

versus HPAREH, unless it appears that the 

additional dose may be attributed to tritium, 

which was rolled into external dose at -- I 

believe this is Savannah River.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

So in this case, the EE, the 

Energy employee, did not have tritium sampling 

in `55 or `56, and dose reconstruction 

should've used the larger of the two values to 

be claimant favorable, but it doesn't appear 

that they did.

So that response to the resolution 

in the matrix here that says, NIOSH will 

follow up on this case to determine if dose 

reconstruction used the greater values, and it 

appears that in this case we did not.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and then 

always the ultimate question we ask is in this 

particular case, what was the PoC, and how --

you know.

DR. ULSH: I don't -- Scott, do 

you know the answer to that question?

MR. SIEBERT: The original PoC was 

about 45 percent, but we're talking for each 

of those years about I believe 65 millirem and 

10 millirem. So it's not going to have an 

effect.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So then 

I think we're --

MR. FARVER: The big thing would 

be how do you correct it and keep it from 

happening again?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. FARVER: I believe it says the 

normal method to do this is documented 

somewhere, saying, you will do this, or, you 

will go there and choose the higher value. We 

just don't want it to happen again.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

DR. ULSH: Scott, do you have an 

answer for that?

MR. SIEBERT: I do not.

DR. ULSH: Okay, well, then our 

response is like Doug just said. This is our 

normal practice, but we need to have that 

documented somewhere. Now it appears to me 

that this is a Savannah River-specific issue 

in this case in cycle versus HPAREH. 

MR. FARVER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

DR. ULSH: So the appropriate 

place for that to be documented, it would seem 

to me, would be maybe in the Savannah River 

TBD? Scott, do you agree?

MR. SIEBERT: I would agree.

MR. FARVER: You could do that in 

OTIB, but I think it'd be easier to put it in 

TBD.

DR. ULSH: Okay, Wanda?

MEMBER MUNN: Isn't it routine for 

the larger to have been used, but in -- in 

this case it didn't do so. Then since it's 

routine for it to happen, and this is an 

anomaly, we -- we don't need to reinforce the 

routine, do we? It's already established 

practice now.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where is it 

documented, I guess, is the question, right?

DR. ULSH: Right. It could just 

be that this is a -- something that everybody 

does, but it's not written. We don't know 

that. We haven't checked.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This goes back 

to those DR guides.

DR. ULSH: But at least the 

Savannah River TBD and any associated TIBs 

that deal with external doses never -- just to 

make sure that this is explicitly stated in 

those documents.

MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, because 

these are really older cases. These ones that 

were done much earlier.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm not 

sure exactly how old these cases are now. 

MR. FARVER: When you start 

looking at the DOE files for Savannah River, 

you'll see several documents that look very 

similar. They listed those TLD results and 

tritium results, and so forth. And it's a 

matter of which value you pick and use. And 

if you're going to say, well, look at them all 

and choose the highest, that's fine. But I'd 

like to have them documented somewhere so 

everyone is doing the same thing.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

DR. MAURO: Doug, this is John. 

What -- if it's not in the Site Profile or 

regs for Savannah River, what is the document 

that triggered the comment in the first place?

DR. ULSH: This dose 

reconstruction.

MR. FARVER: This dose 

reconstruction.

DR. MAURO: Yes. When we were --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Reviewing the 

hard copy records versus the TIBs, right?

MR. FARVER: TIBs.

MR. SIEBERT: What happened in the 

background of this case is when information 

was added on the cards and then put into 

HPAREH, a mistake was made. So the HPAREH was 

incorrect and was not as high as the actual 

dosage for those two years that you find on 

the written card.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

MR. SIEBERT: So the issue became 

-- and it's something that if you drill down 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

into it, the larger of the two doesn't 

necessarily match to this claim because you 

could figure out which is correct if you 

figure out that they made a mistake putting it 

into HPAREH.

DR. MAURO: So that would not be a 

problem necessarily unless you just want to 

alert the dose reconstructor in the Site 

Profile to watch out for that. I guess I'm 

not quite sure if there is a fix here that's 

needed with regard to the Site Profile, or 

just that we just had a breakdown in QA when 

the HPAREH was developed.

MEMBER MUNN: That was the point I 

was trying to make, John.

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: It is not, I think, 

beneficial for us to go overboard in 

attempting to clarify what's technically 

correct to do, if that's already in place.

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: But simply if we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

dealing with a clerical error or a 

transposition glitch here then that's just 

what it is.

DR. MAURO: And that being --

Wanda, that being the case, procedurally, now 

to -- it's my understanding -- let's say this 

turned out to be somewhat of a deficiency in 

the Site Profile that needs to be fixed. Of 

course, we all know that eventually you 

collect all of these kinds of things and 

revise your Site Profile, which may trigger a 

PER, which eventually will allow you to 

revisit this particular person's dose 

reconstruction.

I know just by eyeballing it, 

folks can probably pretty quickly judge 

whether it's a problem or not. Now when we 

have a circumstance like this where it may 

turn out that no, we're not going to revise 

the Site Profile, but there is -- there was an 

error made in -- in some regard that does have 

an effect on this particular -- so this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

unique to this case.

What's done to revisit the case if 

it's not going to be a PER?

DR. ULSH: Well, I think what 

would normally be done, John, is we would do 

some kind of evaluation to make sure that this 

wouldn't affect the PoC, as is the case here. 

And if not, then we won't reopen the case. 

But if the case is reopened for other reasons, 

then that would be corrected at that time.

DR. MAURO: Is there any way when 

these type of -- see, right now, all we have 

is -- on the record, we have identified a 

place where a person's dose reconstruction 

appears to have been -- have some error in it 

where it might go up a little bit, but is that 

all captured, in other words -- it's certainly 

captured on the record here. Now the next 

step in the process where you evaluate and 

determine, okay, if we fix this, the DR 

doesn't really go up very much -- I mean the 

PoC doesn't go up very much. Is that captured 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

anywhere in the records?

DR. ULSH: Scott, do you have a --

MR. SIEBERT: This is something we 

had discussed I know before -- having some 

kind of tracking method for ensuring that 

these are tracked and that we can -- the dose 

reconstructors can find out there's things 

like this. I don't believe anything specific 

has gone into place. 

I mean I've sent out information 

to dose reconstructors with lists of claims 

where we have -- you know, which claims have 

been reviewed by the Subcommittee and if you 

have any questions, you know, contact me to 

see if there's any outstanding issues. But I 

don't believe we have a tracking mechanism in 

place. 

I know we were talking to Stu 

about that a while ago, and I don't know if it 

ever got bumped. As far as I know, we haven't 

gotten anything specific in place.

DR. MAURO: What I find to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

important is when we have our dose -- I'm 

sorry, our procedure reviews, and when we have 

our Site Profile reviews, there is a vehicle 

clearly in place for capturing the agreements 

on what might need to be revised, and that of 

course eventually triggers a possible PER.

Here's a circumstance where there 

really isn't a formal process to capture 

unique problems to one particular case and 

whereby that's tracked. You know, I just want 

to -- and it sounds like right now it's pretty 

informal.

MEMBER MUNN: The simple direct 

approach to this would be for the instruction 

to NIOSH to be to check this -- this 

particular case, run the dose reconstruction 

with the appropriate larger of the two values, 

and report back that there is no -- that it 

does not change the final outcome and decision 

on the case. Why can't we track it here? Why 

isn't that --

DR. MAURO: That sounds great.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what 

we've always done. I don't understand. We've 

always done that.

MR. KATZ: I think -- I mean I 

think they already -- Scott already reported, 

just eyeballing it, that it's clear it can't 

have an impact. But I thought the concern was 

just making a notation in the case file so 

that that if the dose reconstruction ever 

needs to be redone; that the fix is put -- is 

added to that dose reconstruction.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a 

different question.

MR. KATZ: And that's just a -- put 

a notation in the case file. That's simple. 

It doesn't require any tracking, just add it

there where the dose reconstructor would find 

it when they pick up that dose reconstruction 

again.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean the 

other side of it we have been trying. That's 

why I asked on that last -- the other case in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

the seventh set. We've always closed them out 

that way by saying, an error was made, but it 

was likely a small dose, and NIOSH assessed 

this, and it wouldn't have changed the outcome 

of the PoC. You know, the outcome of the 

case. 

So we've always done that. That's 

kind of --

DR. MAURO: So this record that we 

are establishing now is in fact the record 

that does that. And, okay, I --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: -- guess I thought 

it was -- there was a little bit more. You 

have to go back and redo the run. What I 

heard is just eyeballing it, and Scott points 

out it's deficient.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm not 

saying necessarily -- I'm saying in the past, 

John, that we've always asked NIOSH to 

recalculate. Now this eyeballing, whether we 

accept this or not now, that's a different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

issue. But we've always asked at least to do 

an assessment, and that's our notation in the 

resolution column is that NIOSH recalculated 

the dose, and then SC&A would have to agree 

with that. We all have to agree with that, 

and then we close it that way.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

mean if we all agree with the eyeball 

assessment here, then we move on. But if we 

want NIOSH to actually run the numbers, then 

that's fine as well.

MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark. 

This is Kathy Behling. I apologize for 

calling in late here. But I do have to agree 

with Ted's comment. Let's assume that this 

case was opened later for some other PER 

issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MS. BEHLING: Would this 

particular finding be part of that 

individual's record so that they would -- this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

would be something that the dose reconstructor 

would look at? Because I think there should 

be -- there should be simply a one-page note 

or something in the case file.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I agree. 

And I think Scott's saying that he does relay 

this information back to the dose 

reconstructors. I think that takes place. I 

don't know, is that correct, Scott?

MS. BEHLING: I think so.

MR. SIEBERT: But to really -- we 

probably need some sort of more specific 

information. Like in this case right here, if 

it was redone any time between the original 

assessment and now, we have never landed on a 

resolution on this specific finding. 

So the dose reconstructor, if we 

haven't decided what's correct and what's not 

correct as of yet, anything to be done since 

that time would not -- you know, the dose 

reconstructor would not have an outcome for 

this resolution. So they would not have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

direction on this specific issue. Do you see 

what I'm saying?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But if 

we agreed today that -- that you should have –

should have done the higher values, then in 

the future, there should be a notation. 

That's what we're saying.

MR. SIEBERT: I agree, and I think 

we need to -- we've been talking about finding 

a way to do that, and I just don't believe 

it's been implemented yet.

DR. ULSH: All right, let me 

perhaps get myself in trouble and take more 

authority than I have and commit to NIOSH, in 

situations like this, we will put a note in 

the case file so that if the case is reopened, 

this issue is taken care of.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seems like a 

simple enough thing.

DR. ULSH: With the caveat that I 

have to run it past Stu because he's the boss. 

So as soon as that's the case, unless I get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

back to you and say no, I shouldn't have done 

it. Is that --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

That's fine.

MEMBER MUNN: Let's keep it as 

simple and straightforward as we can.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And let's -- I 

mean because we're not going to close the 

eighth set anyway. I would just say let's 

have NIOSH run the numbers just so we have a 

record to show that you did the actual 

calculation on this case.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we have a 

record of that. I'm pretty sure Scott's 

assessment is right, but --

MR. SIEBERT: We had actually 

reassessed this claim in 2009, and I'm 

presently looking at the -- it was still noncomp. I'm presently looking at the tool that 

was used, and for 1955, 95 millirem was used, 

which is the cycle data, not the HPAREH. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

So that one was correct, and it 

looks like the same thing for 1956. So when 

the reassessment was done, it was done 

correctly as far as cycle versus HPAREH.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well that's 

good to know. And it didn't affect the 

outcome?

MR. SIEBERT: Right. Still noncomp.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so I 

think you've done it. I think it's 

satisfactory to me.

DR. ULSH: So then one follow --

well, the one action item that NIOSH has is to 

commit to putting a note in the case file in 

situations like this. Now I don't know if 

that would be the basis for keeping this open, 

or if you want to call it resolved or what.

MEMBER MUNN: And report it to the

DR Subcommittee.

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: Once that -- once 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

that's done -- you've already done it. So, 

really, the only outstanding issue is to 

report that it's been done in writing so that 

it goes on the -- the --

DR. ULSH: So what status do you 

want to accord to this particular finding?

MR. KATZ: It's closed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I would 

think it'd be closed. Yes, all right. 

DR. ULSH: All right, the rest of 

this is going to go pretty quick. For the 

other numbered action -- or numbered findings 

in the eighth set, that would be 153.1 and .2, 

157.1 and .2, we have not yet taken action on 

those findings.

The only remaining two that we do 

have something to report are the observations, 

157 observations. And basically, these 

involved documenting that Super S was used in 

the rework. And in both of those cases, we 

did in fact assess Super S plutonium. 

MEMBER POSTON: So was that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

originally or --

MR. SIEBERT: No, the question was 

in the recent version because we went back to 

the fact that these had been reworked since 

the time of the assessment. The question was 

in the rework, were -- was Super S considered 

in both of these cases? And I've gone back in 

the rework, and yes, it was considered in both 

of these cases.

MEMBER MUNN: So they're closed?

MR. SIEBERT: I would tend to 

think so.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And in both 

those cases, the rework is in the case file, 

obviously, right?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct. Yes, they 

were full-blown reworks. Actually, it was a 

Super S PER that made them -- did the rework. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: So pretty easy to 

determine that we did use Super S.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

only question I have is, did SC&A get a chance 

to look at those reworks.

MS. BEHLING: No.

MR. FARVER: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would think 

maybe that's still in SC&A's court, then.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, wait a second. 

 The observation was these should have been 

reevaluated using Super S and -- which it was. 

I mean I --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know 

what you're saying. I know what you're saying 

there.

MR. SIEBERT: -- have to verify 

that it's been done, that's okay.

MS. BEHLING: Mark, perhaps these 

are the types of cases that we -- that could 

be looked at under the PER review. In other 

words, we're going to be selecting I believe 

some -- you're going to be selecting some 

cases when we --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

MS. BEHLING: -- PER review. This 

type of case might be one that we would want 

to consider.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I forget 

the selection process we set up for that.

MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm not sure 

that we've -- any protocol for that yet, but -

-

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MS. BEHLING: -- it might be 

something we would want to consider for the 

PER review of the --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and 

strictly speaking, Scott is correct. This is 

-- these are observations, really, that 

should've been included, and the fact that 

they included it answers the observation, I 

guess. So we can close them for this case, I 

believe. Everyone agree with that?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: Along those lines, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

Mark and Kathy, I was thinking about this 

business of selecting cases for these PER 

reviews, such as PER trials at 9 dealing with 

high fired and thoracic lymphoma. I know that 

when we were reviewing a number of cases under 

the 12th set, 11th set, that we very often come 

across cases where you have redone the case.

For example, I know we've done a 

number of reviews, and Kathy, you can confirm 

this, already related to PER 12 and the high 

fired plutonium. Would the very fact that we 

reviewed those and we -- let's say we found 

that yes, they, in fact, did implement the 

revised -- I guess it's OTIB-49, correctly. 

Because right now, where we are on our review, 

this sort of crosses Procedures and DRs. 

We've reviewed PER 12. We found that it needs 

-- it does everything it's supposed to do, but 

the only thing that's left to do is case 

selection to confirm that in fact the cases 

were in fact implemented in accordance with 

the new protocol.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

If we've already reviewed a number 

of cases as part of the DR process, perhaps 

that will satisfy the -- that last step in the 

PER process, and sort of save everybody a 

little bit of money, a little bit of time.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

see why, at least in part, you couldn't rely 

on cases that are already done.

DR. MAURO: Yes. And we could 

provide -- like right now, Kathy, my guess is 

you're probably in a position to list those --

those DRs that were reviewed where the new --

when the DR was done, using OTIB-49, and of 

course in accordance with the PER.

And if we could show that in three 

or four or five cases or whatever, that might 

be very helpful. I don't know if we've done 

very many with regard to the PER or not, 

thoracic lymphoma, but we may have.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

But certainly the Super S we've done quite a 

few.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

DR. MAURO: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. KATZ: John, that seems like a 

good starting point for the DR Subcommittee 

when it selects cases for the PER reviews, in 

every one of those PER reviews. 

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Start with that, and 

then move forward -- other cases that need to 

be looked at, too.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That seems to 

make sense. Yes, I don't have a problem with 

that. I'm not sure exactly where -- I mean 

I'm not sure I'm ready to discuss the protocol 

for selecting cases for the PER review. Where 

do we stand on that?

MR. KATZ: It's in your court, 

really. It's really in SC&A's court --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- to select 

the cases for which PERs?

MR. KATZ: -- for -- well, John --

I mean John could --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

DR. MAURO: We can give you --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

DR. MAURO: Kathy, you may know 

them off the top of your head: which PERs are 

completed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MS. BEHLING: PER 9, which is the 

lymphoma, and PER 12 which is the Super S 

issue, and also PER 20 is Blockson. 

MEMBER MUNN: We have 9 and 12 on 

the agenda for Procedures -- we don't have 20.

DR. MAURO: I can tell you now, by 

the way, we will discuss the issues. But I 

think we are at a point on both of those where 

we understand the issues. I think you will 

see when we get there that there really isn't 

very much to do by way of action items. 

We may actually close it, but this 

is a judgment, of course, that the Work Group 

will make, and the only thing that really 

needs to be done is the cases. And I think 

it's this Work Group -- I'm sorry, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

Subcommittee, where those cases are done. Is 

that really the purview of this Subcommittee, 

or is this something special --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I believe 

that's the way they set it up. I believe 

you're right.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's the way 

we set it up.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, and 

if we've -- I'm trying to remember the 

protocol for how many cases and that sort of 

thing. Did we decide on numbers of cases, 

John?

DR. MAURO: When we originally 

costed out the work, we were assuming three. 

However, there are some special circumstances, 

such as PER 9, where I believe Hans, if he's 

on the line, suggested something like nine or 

more so that we capture the full matrix of 

issues associated with that particular PER.

So it's really a case-by-case 

basis how many are needed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

MEMBER MUNN: We have a little 

project creep going on right now.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

Yes, yes. Because what I was going to say is, 

if SC&A has looked at these, and I guess I 

would ask SC&A to come back to the 

Subcommittee with a preliminary listing of 

potential cases for review under each one of 

these PERs, and then the Subcommittee can 

select, right?

So if you can start off with a 

little -- go through and select a larger 

number of cases than you intend to review, and 

then we'll narrow it down on the Subcommittee.

DR. MAURO: And if it turns out we 

can save, and this one was already reviewed 4, 

5, 6 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. MAURO: -- cases related to 

PER 12, we'll recommend that no further work 

is needed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

ask that you include that in your listing, 

John, that you say, you know, for PER 12, 

we're proposing to review eight cases. We've 

got four that we've already reviewed in the DR 

Subcommittee, and then we're going to select 

these other four out of a broad set of cases.

DR. MAURO: Got you.

MR. KATZ: Just to clarify, you 

mean case types, right, because they all --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case types. 

Case types, right.

MR. KATZ: So parameters for 

cases?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then NIOSH 

will have to find cases that --

DR. MAURO: Okay, so we don't 

actually identify particular cases. I see 

what you're saying.

MR. KATZ: Except for the ones 

you've done, right? Case types --

DR. MAURO: You know, the reality 

is I think our reports already do that. For 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

example, I know our PER 9 report identifies 

different categories of cases that we believe 

are needed, and we identify -- I believe it 

was nine. So I think you already have that, 

unless you'd like us to identify the cases of 

thoracic lymphoma that fall within those 

categories that we've already done.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

what I'm asking. Then NIOSH will have to, 

yes.

DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. But I don't 

think we can go beyond that, unless you'd like 

us to pick cases.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All I would say 

is that I don't think this review should rely 

100 percent on cases that we've already done. 

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You can use it 

to supplement, but I think we should look at 

some other cases in addition to the ones we've 

already -- you know, so if it's -- if we're 

done for Super S, if you want to select eight 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

cases, maybe four or five of them can be ones 

that we've done already, and then get three 

more cases and have NIOSH select the 

particular -- you know, those particular 

cases. Does that make sense, John?

DR. MAURO: Yes. I just wanted to 

make sure we're clear. So we would recommend 

additional cases, but we wouldn't actually 

collect some candidate cases. That would be 

in the hands of NIOSH.

MS. BEHLING: John, I understand 

what Mark is saying here and I fully agree. I 

think there should be -- what he's asking for 

is for us to tell him how many different types 

of cases we should be looking at perhaps, and 

also to identify to him which cases we might 

want to select that we have already reviewed 

where this -- this was part of that issue with 

the lymphoma or the Super S. And then on top 

of that, saying we need additional cases that 

we haven't already looked at, and then we're 

going to have to ask NIOSH for their help to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

select those cases for us.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because they'll 

have the case details.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I figured 

we'd be playing here somehow. I'm just trying 

to make sure I understand what's going to 

happen. Now let me see. Anybody correct me 

at any time if I'm wrong. What I believe I 

heard John say was that each PER review that 

they did identifies categories of claims that 

they think warrant -- we should be reviewing 

claims in these categories to make sure this 

thing was done correctly.

DR. MAURO: That's certainly true 

for PER 9. Not sure if it's true for PER 12, 

whether or not -- for example, whether we say, 

well, we want to look at some bone, some lung 

and that sort of thing.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so you've 

done that for PER 9. Okay, so then the next 

step then is for -- let's just talk about PER 

9 then. Next step then is for SC&A to say, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

okay, of these categories, and the DR reviews 

we've done, we have already looked at this 

category or these two categories.

So they're going to take care of 

that. And then they're going to tell us, we 

have not yet looked at anything in these other 

categories. Can you, NIOSH, find claims in 

those categories?

MR. KATZ: Exactly right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, and you paid 

attention there, Brant, because you're going 

to be doing this. All right, now that I know 

what's going on, sure.

And then for the other PER, PER 

12, the first thing SC&A is going to find out 

that they in fact identified categories, and 

if they didn't, then they're going to the 

identify categories and do their part. Okay, 

all right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway, this 

might be a good time for -- are we done with 

the eighth set? We've gone over everything 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

NIOSH has for the eighth set. Does SC&A have 

any updates for any --

MR. FARVER: Yes, eighth set.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For eighth set 

of seventh set?

MR. FARVER: Eighth. We didn't 

have any actions in the seventh set.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seventh set, 

okay. Why don't we just take a quick tenminute break because we lost power on our end 

of the table, and come back in ten minutes and 

we'll pick up on SC&A's follow-up on the 

eighth set.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 9:53 a.m. and 

resumed at 10:06 a.m.)

MR. KATZ: Okay, so, we're 

restarting after a short break. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we're 

back, going back to the eighth set of cases. 

And I think where we're going to pick up is 

Doug has some responses from SC&A, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

additionally, he has just reminded me that we 

left off on the matrix for the first time 

going through the matrix at item 160; right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: That's where we 

finished.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, he's got 

some responses from previous actions. Plus 

we're going to pick up from 160 on through 

178, and overall -- just the first cut 

through, kind of. So, everyone should've had 

a -- Doug sent out that section of the matrix 

this morning, as well. He's included your 

responses, as well.

MEMBER POSTON: So, this is the 

eighth set?

MR. FARVER: Eighth.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: And Doug sent it?

MR. FARVER: Yes. It starts with 

finding 153.6, and it has to do with not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

accounting for all the recorded or model 

neutron doses. In our view, we believe the 

employee meets the criteria from TIB-7, and 

the criteria basically is you should look at 

the work location, the job description and 

positive photon exposure.

And we believe that the employee 

meets all this criteria, and should be 

evaluated for neutron doses for each year from 

1978 through 1982, instead of just in 1978 and 

1981. He was just evaluated for two years, 

instead of the four-five years that should've 

been. That's in our opinion. Then we state 

the basis for that.

And then 153.7 is the same, deals 

with the same issue.

MR. KATZ: Did you say 78 through 

92?

MR. FARVER: Eighty-two.

MR. KATZ: Eighty-two.

DR. MAURO: Doug, this is John. 

I'm looking at the matrix and I see that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

have the issue. Then we have a December 8, 

2008 response by NIOSH, and then we have a 

SC&A response. Did they issue that response 

today? In other words, is this the new 

material that you are providing now to the 

Subcommittee in response to NIOSH's response?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the way 

I'm taking it.

DR. MAURO: Is it a good idea to 

put the date on?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

put the date on there when I move it to the 

full matrix.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Right. I just wanted 

to have something so Mark could just paste it 

into the new matrix.

DR. MAURO: Okay, okay. And I 

would also suggest now, from what I read in 

the response, my understanding is that we --

we still feel that this is an open item, and 

that needs -- neutron doses should be -- and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

when you read it, if that's not the end, then 

we believe it's still an open item that needs 

to be dealt with.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Now, 

some of these responses I don't think SC&A --

I mean I don't think NIOSH has had a lot of 

time to look at.

MR. FARVER: No, we haven't.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You just got it 

this morning. So, even if you start --

MR. FARVER: No, no, no.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Unless there's 

clarification, if Scott is on the phone or 

others here need clarification on SC&A's 

response, I think this is a good time to 

discuss that. But otherwise, I think you're 

going to take the action after they're done.

MR. FARVER: Right.

MEMBER POSTON: I'm trying to 

understand the SC&A -- wait. No, no. I'm 

trying to understand. There's just a 

presumption that this person was exposed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

neutrons other years. Is there evidence to 

back that up or what?

MR. FARVER: It's based on the 

work location, and there's just certain 

criteria in TIB-7 for non-routine workers, and 

it's based on where they worked, what their 

job description was and if they had any 

positive photon exposure.

MEMBER POSTON: This person was a 

laborer, right?

MR. FARVER: Right. And I'll give 

you some more background on that.

MEMBER POSTON: Those folks 

usually aren't --

MR. FARVER: Primarily 200F.

MEMBER POSTON: -- assigned to the 

FB line.

MR. FARVER: 200F and 221FB line.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay, but that's 

just a work location, right? That's not 

really his job.

MR. FARVER: Well, that's his work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

location and he's a laborer.

MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: He did have --

MEMBER POSTON: Laborers do a lot 

of stuff and they usually are off and outside 

of the building. They could be janitors. 

They could be a little bit of everything, as 

opposed to working on the line.

MR. FARVER: I understand that. 

And all I was going by was what the guidance 

was in TIB-7.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay. So, the --

the comment is based on TIB-7?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: And not on any 

evidence that he was exposed?

MR. FARVER: Correct, other than 

the work location, the job description. He 

does have some -- I believe he has a neutron 

exposure for two years.

DR. ULSH: Seventy-eight and 81.

MR. FARVER: For two years. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

he did have a potential at least for two 

years.

MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: So, we're saying that 

they should've accounted for a -- I guess it's 

called unmonitored or missed dose, missed 

neutron dose. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And he had the 

same job title for those other two years when 

he had the --

MR. FARVER: As far as we can 

tell.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I think 

it's a NIOSH follow-up. I understand John's 

point, but I think, especially since you have 

recorded dose on there under that same job 

before, it's at least worth looking into.

MR. FARVER: Yes. I guess our 

point is --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's monitoring 

for a good reason.

MR. FARVER: Since we feel he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

meets the criteria in TIB-7, then he should be 

evaluated.

DR. ULSH: So, our response will 

be either, yes, okay, we agree with you or we 

continue to disagree and here's why, with some 

more information.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. MAURO: Let me ask a question. 

This goes to the heart of the discussion. 

This is John. If basically OTIB-7 gives you a 

path that needs to be followed, and we follow 

that path, there's one of two things here. 

Either you feel that OTIB-7 does not say you 

should do the doses and which -- which means 

that we just have the different interpretation 

of the guidance in OTIB-7. That's important.

If there is, or if you say, no. 

Well, there's really more to the story. That 

means that there -- maybe there's more 

guidance that's needed. In other words, all 

I'm saying is that we're marching through the 

steps that are given to us. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: And we walk away 

saying, I think you should've added some 

neutron doses here. And you feel that, based 

on other information, perhaps outside of the 

purview of OTIB-7 that says you are deviating 

from OTIB-7 because of certain reasons. So, 

that's why, too -- that's what needs to be 

disclosed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. So, 

yes, I understand what you're saying, John. 

And then it may be a Procedures issue where 

you say that the procedure --

DR. MAURO: Exactly. We can do a 

procedure issue. Exactly.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. MAURO: Exactly.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: What's the title 

on the TIB we're talking about?

MR. SIEBERT: From a procedure 

point of view, just to point out, OCAS TIB-7 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

was not in existence until October of 2007. 

His claim was done in 2004. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so that 

guidance wasn't available to the dose 

reconstructor.

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

MR. HINNEFELD: So -- but the 

question remains is, is it the correct 

guidance, whether the guidance had been 

written in 2004. It speaks to the issue of 

compliance, procedural compliance, and not to 

the --

DR. MAURO: In a way, one could 

argue that the issue that you just described 

is really not a QA issue, because you did not 

have this procedure in front of you, and 

there's not a breakdown in QA, you know, if 

you didn't do the doses when you should have. 

Then it becomes a matter of, when you did do 

it, you made certain judgments that were made, 

and maybe found judgments not to assign the 

neutron doses for those years. And -- and if
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

that judgment was made and is justified, we're 

fine.

So, it speaks to the point to make 

sure we're not talking about a QA issue, where 

if OTIB-10 wasn't in place, we would be 

arguing that you didn't follow your 

procedures.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And let 

me -- let me just clarify one thing, too. 

Scott, I don't dispute what you said, but a --

if that's true, then you have to look at your 

response, NIOSH's response, on December 8th, 

2008. It says, using the guidance of OCAS 

TIB-7, and then it goes on to say the history 

was evaluated. So maybe you shouldn't include 

-- you should at least clarify that even 

though this was prior to --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it wasn't --

yes, well, we couldn't say, even though OTIB10 wasn't done, we went back and looked at the 

guidance now. That's all that it's saying.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

guess that's what threw me a little. When I 

saw that, I assumed that TIB-7 was in place.

MR. HINNEFELD: That's one of our 

TIBs, and it's not --

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

MR. HINNEFELD: This is a Savannah 

River case, and it's that TIB that we wrote on 

Savannah River neutron dose.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it is.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's Taulbee's 

fault.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

MR. FARVER: Are we ready?

MR. HINNEFELD: We'll just have to 

familiarize ourselves.

DR. ULSH: Okay. We've got the 

same initial response and same SC&A response 

to 153.6 and 153.7. It's the difference 

between --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, one is 

missed and one is recorded.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

They're basically the same follow-up. All 

right.

MR. FARVER: 156.1 is another --

looks like another neutron question. NIOSH 

failed to properly address all work locations 

documented in the DOE records. And you go 

through the NIOSH response. Then the one 

thing that popped out of the NIOSH response is 

-- well, this is going to go with 156.5, the 

next finding, which talks about neutron doses.

It comes down to, they didn't 

assess the neutron doses, and NIOSH contends 

that there were -- it was all in one 

dosimeter. What we contend is that there's 

two -- there's two separate dosimeters listed 

in the dosimetry records. 

So, according to Table 5.3.2-1, 

there were separate TLDs for your beta-gamma, 

and separate neutron dosimeters during that 

time period, which is consistent to what we 

see in the employee's records, which means the 

employee was monitored for neutrons, and we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

contend that they need to be assessed for 

missed neutron dose.

MEMBER POSTON: I am trying to 

understand the succinctness of the responses. 

When you say, used a neutron facility, what 

are -- does that mean you're using surrogate 

data?

MR. FARVER: No. It has --

MEMBER POSTON: If you've got the 

data -- if you got the data listed in his 

record, why in the heck do you need a neutron 

facility?

MR. FARVER: I think at two 

facilities were -- well, actually several 

facilities: 773A, 200F, and then 221FB line, 

and probably other facilities beyond that. He 

was a laborer. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, the point 

--

MEMBER POSTON: In the response it 

says, and I don't know who -- this is SC&A. 

Separate neutron dosimeter numbers are listed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

in the DOE record. So, I'm trying to 

understand why you don't use those instead of 

picking a neutron facility to use in the 

model. I don't understand what's going on 

here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or is it we're 

missing periods? I'm not following it either.

MR. FARVER: Well, you look through the 

NIOSH response, and they -- they say that he 

was in 735 during 1998. So, that's the same 

time period that he had a neutron dosimeter 

listed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And let's see. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, John 

is saying, I think, if he was monitored, why 

do we need to know location. I mean why is 

location -- if you've got neutron dosimeter 

data, why are you focusing in on --

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm trying to find 

the real finding. The only thing that strikes 

my mind is that the energy distribution -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

energy distribution is quite often facilitydependent.

MEMBER POSTON: Oh, sure. No 

question about it.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so, the 

translation of the neutron badge into the 

energy ranges that IMBA accommodates -- now, 

I'm talking about energy ranges. IMBA puts 

neutrons into the whole string of energy bins, 

and in order to take the neutron dose that's 

measured on the badge and distribute it among 

the various energies of the neutrons. That is 

dependent upon what facility they were exposed 

in. That's the only thing I can think of. Is 

that not it?

MR. FARVER: It's even simpler 

than that.

MEMBER POSTON: That is not the 

way the dosimeters work.

MR. FARVER: The employee was 

monitored for two exchange periods in 1998, 

and six exchange periods in 1999. All the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

results were zero. NIOSH failed to calculate 

missed neutron doses for these two years of 

employment. So, they didn't calculate missed 

dose. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, it's 

missed dose.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it's missed. 

Okay, all right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a 

separate issue.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, then the 

question is the potential for neutron 

exposure.

MR. FARVER: No, that's --

MR. HINNEFELD: The argument from 

our side is --

MR. FARVER: There was no 

potential.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- there was no 

potential. That would be the argument from 

our side.

MR. FARVER: Even though there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

were dosimeter results that were zeros, you 

didn't assess the missed dose because you 

assumed there was no potential.

MR. HINNEFELD: That is our 

position.

DR. ULSH: Because what it says in 

our response, I believe, is that the TLD 

dosimeters that were used for those years 

automatically contained neutron --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And they would 

only read them for potentially exposed 

workers. Yes, that's what you're saying.

MR. FARVER: I believe that's 

what your response says. But then that's not 

consistent with the page 92 table, where they 

were also neutron dosimeters.

DR. MAURO: Separate.

MR. FARVER: Separate.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay.

MR. FARVER: And if it's a 

separate neutron dosimeter, then there should 

be a missed dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was a little 

fuzzy. I'll clarify it a little more. I was 

just reading through the matrix here to 

understand that.

DR. ULSH: I understand your 

response. I can't comment on it now.

MR. HINNEFELD: We understand 

where we're at.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least we 

know where -- okay, so, NIOSH has to follow up 

on this.

MR. FARVER: By looking at the 

records, there are separate dosimeter numbers 

for neutron, and separate dosimeter numbers 

for your beta-gamma dosimeters.

MEMBER POSTON: Well, then to me, 

I guess where I'm confused, starting where I'm 

confused, is that the finding failed to 

address properly -- properly address all work 

locations. I mean that's not --

MR. FARVER: Let me go back to 

that one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

MEMBER POSTON: I mean we're 

talking about neutron dose.

DR. ULSH: This column that you 

just read from is a summary of the finding. 

And perhaps the summary didn't capture --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's not a 

great summary.

MR. FARVER: It's tough unless you 

go back to the original finding sometimes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is 

probably an oversight with these matrices.

MR. FARVER: Okay. Apparently, 

the reason that NIOSH did not assess neutron 

doses was that for years 1998 and 99, they 

placed him in the 200F facility. Therefore, 

there would not be a neutron dose, and that's 

where that, failed to properly address all 

work locations, comes in.

We believe that for those two 

years, he was -- he should've been considered 

in FB line and had a neutron dose.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

right.

MR. FARVER: But that's really 

probably the reason you didn't consider a 

neutron dose is because you considered it a 

200F facility.

DR. ULSH: And we also apparently 

considered the fact that he had a neutron 

dosimeter wasn't indicative in and of itself 

of neutron exposure. But I understand you're 

saying they were separate, so it would --

MR. FARVER: If they're separate, 

then we believe they should be assessed a 

missed dose.

DR. ULSH: I understand.

MR. FARVER: And I don't know how 

you tell the difference.

DR. ULSH: We'll try.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So, 

at least you've got clarity on the issue now. 

That was --

MR. FARVER: A lot of times it's 

difficult unless you go back to the original 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

report.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I 

agree. All right, I think that covers 156.5, 

too, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can we move 

ahead to 161?

MR. FARVER: Then we are back to 

where we left off in March. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, these are 

all new ones now that we haven't discussed 

before?

MR. FARVER: All right. So, I 

don't know how you want to do this. If you 

just want to start off and --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, just start 

off. If you can, describe the finding, I 

think it's important.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Especially 

since -- you know, it's been a long time since 

we looked at these.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead and 

start reading the 161.

MR. FARVER: 161.1.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was there a 

160, or we did that already?

MR. FARVER: Well, I believe 

that's -- we ended up finishing with 160.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so 161.1.

MR. FARVER: The DR report did not 

properly account for all missed neutron doses.

NIOSH agrees that there is no 

missed dose assigned, but this would not 

affect compensability decision. And then the 

remark there just as a QA concern because it 

should've been done, but it wasn't done. We 

believe it should've been caught somewhere 

along the lines, and it should've been done.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, okay, is a 

QA --

MR. FARVER: In other words, we 

accept their response, but it's something that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

we don't think should have got by.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to --

you know.

MR. FARVER: Yes, you'll have to 

look at these.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I don't 

know. Is there anything to look at? I mean -

-

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, only our 

comment that the information regarding the PFP 

was not available at dose reconstruction, 

initial dose reconstruction.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking at that, 

and I don't necessarily agree with that 

response. I believe that information was 

there, and I agree with them that we missed 

it. And it has been reassessed since, and PFP 

was used for 2000. So, we have rectified the 

situation.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the comment 

stands that it didn't affect compensability 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

decision, right?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's --

that's -- all right. So, I think we're okay. 

I think we can close it. SC&A agrees, and 

there's no affect on compensability.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. We know that 

there was an error. It was recalculated and 

nothing happened.

MR. FARVER: I just wanted to mark 

that with the QA issue so that two years from

now when you ask me to compile all the 

findings --

DR. ULSH: And it sounds like if 

Scott does not agree with our response as it 

is currently recorded in the matrix, we should 

fix that.

MR. SIEBERT: I agree that we 

should probably get rid of that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, you 

want me to -- which -- which --

DR. ULSH: The last sentence in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

our response.

MR. HINNEFELD: The part that 

says, the information regarding PFP was not 

available.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

I'll just delete that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Delete it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MEMBER POSTON: Is this a QA 

concern? And if so, don't we have 

responsibility to ensure that it doesn't 

happen again?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's a 

--

MEMBER POSTON: There's another 

one directly above it. I mean, when you spend 

so much time in the NRC world, you not only 

have to identify it, you have to make sure 

that you put mechanisms in place to avoid --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'll be 

talking briefly about that here in a couple 

minutes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the 

thing we have for the first 100 cases, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. The 

general summary of QA issues and the ten-year 

review. I've known for a while -- I might as 

well give this report now. 

We've known for a while that the 

ten-year program review was going to take up 

that same topic in quality of dose 

reconstruction reviews. So, we haven't really 

acted on the Board's recommendation until we 

saw what else was going to come in your 

program review. We have that now.

So, we're going to be working on 

our plan, how to respond to that, and put 

something in place. Kind of the things you 

expect QA issues and QA programs to deal with 

these things. We'll be starting to work on 

that.

MEMBER POSTON: Is this something 

that you share with the Board, or you share 

with --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes.

MEMBER POSTON: -- the Director or 

whatever?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, both. I 

mean everything. Yes, both. We would be 

providing essentially back to this Committee -

- you know, the finding from the Committee 

came from this Committee. And in truth, the 

ten-year program review relied on the work of 

this Subcommittee.

And so, I guess we could -- we 

didn't really need to wait, but we did. So, 

it relies on the work of the Subcommittee. 

And so, the response is, should the response 

be the same to both the Subcommittee and to 

the Director. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

DR. ULSH: I'm seeing a drop off 

of that last sentence in the response, and 

then this is closed?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

right, so 161.2?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

MR. FARVER: 161.2. Reviewer 

questions the use of OTIB-2 for deriving 

internal dose. It talks about it being a 

maximizing assumption. I'm trying to find the 

original finding because that'll explain it. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: OTIB-2?

MR. SIEBERT: The original finding 

is it's stating that it's a best estimate 

case, and why was OTIB-2 used as an 

overestimation in the best estimate case? 

MR. FARVER: Okay, thank you. 

DR. MAURO: And this was denied. 

In other words, you used OTIB-2, which is of 

course a maximizing. Was this particular one 

corrected or denied?

MR. SIEBERT: It's non-comp.

DR. MAURO: Okay, a non-comp. 

That's what I mean by that. Okay, good, 

because when you run into OTIB-2, you usually 

assume it's non-comp. Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: Our basic response 

was it's not a full best estimate. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

external side was done with best estimate. 

Internal was overestimated using OTIB-2, and 

mixing the two, as long as we don't have to 

truly do a best estimate, there's nothing 

inappropriate with that.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've actually 

seen a lot of that, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, sure.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 

bigger question for me is SC&A's response that 

-- it's hard to believe that 200 millirems --

MR. HINNEFELD: What was the 

target organ? What was the cancer?

MR. SIEBERT: Thyroid.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are those 

calculations in the case file? I mean --

MR. SIEBERT: We don't have to do 

a demonstration that OTIB-2 was an 

overestimate.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes, yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, you don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

have to demonstrate that. It's our 

presumption when preparing OTIB-2. What was 

the site, Scott?

MR. SIEBERT: Hanford.

MR. HINNEFELD: All right, and the 

years?

DR. ULSH: SC&A response lists --

MR. HINNEFELD: Employment, I 

mean. What were the years of employment?

MR. FARVER: Eighty-three to 

present.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that sounds 

right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: And you got 202 

millirem using the maximizing approach over a 

22-year period? That does sound kind of hard 

to believe.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what's 

questioned here.

MR. FARVER: Yes, that's -- yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

needs to follow up on that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll check 

on it.

DR. ULSH: Well, I mean the way 

that you're going to get an internal dose from 

-- to the thyroid would be if there was iodine 

involved. But if there's not iodine involved, 

202 wouldn't surprise me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In that time 

period.

MEMBER MUNN: Highly unlikely.

MR. SIEBERT: That doesn't seem 

out of line to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MS. BEHLING: Actually, I believe 

when we did this review, we were able to 

reproduce the dose. The one thing that we 

used for these is the OTIB-2; they assumed a 

non-uranium site and a reactor site. So --

but -- but we were actually able to reproduce 

that using those assumptions in that 

parameter.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

DR. MAURO: Kathy, this is John. 

So, we -- using OTIB-2, which I believe has a 

mix of certain radionuclides that are -- I 

don't remember the details on it. And it was 

such a nature that obviously there wasn't very 

much iodine in the mix when they -- when you 

use OTIB-2. Is that why the doses are coming 

in so low?

MS. BEHLING: I assume so, yes. 

The initial -- indicated on our initial 

findings was really questioning. This was up 

front identified as a best estimate case, and 

we obviously know that if OTIB-2 was used and 

he was compensated using OTIB-2, that would

not be appropriate. That's not typically what 

is done.

So, I have to assume that if this 

case would've been compensable with OTIB-2, 

they would've gone back and reassessed it 

using some other methodology for the internal. 

Is that correct?

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: We can -- we can 

go check. If you want us to check the 

millirem, we can check the validity of OTIB-2. 

The kind of circumstance --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I guess 

that would be my question.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think that 

making it a uranium fission reactor facility 

is going to change your thyroid dose.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The question 

is, is this maximum for Hanford for that time 

period for iodine? 

MR. HINNEFELD: It also might be 

period-specific.

MEMBER MUNN: Nothing was 

operating --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was 83 or 

whatever. Well, prior to when the person 

filed the claim.

DR. ULSH: So, is there an action 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

item that NIOSH will check the applicability 

of OTIB-2 during this time frame when Hanford 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For -- for the 

nuclide of interest. Okay. 

MR. FARVER: Next?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: 161.3. NIOSH failed 

to properly evaluate all information submitted 

in the CATI. Basically, there were three 

incidents that the employee mentioned in the 

CATI report, and the DR report states that no 

radiological incidents that may have impacted 

this dose reconstruction were reported, either 

by the DOE who mentioned in the computer 

assisted telephone interview.

MR. HINNEFELD: When was the --

anybody got the date on the dose 

reconstruction? When was the dose 

reconstruction done?

MR. FARVER: I'm sure it's an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

early one.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, remember 

that our direction to ORAU to always address 

the findings in a CATI came from our response 

to findings in this Committee.

MR. SIEBERT: Early 2007.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so, it's quite 

possible that this dose reconstruction was --

this finding actually addresses something that 

has subsequently been fixed.

MR. FARVER: I agree.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so, I suppose 

if we're going to keep these on the QA list, 

then we will have a certain category of things 

in the QA list that have been fixed, but we're 

not going to worry about anymore.

MR. FARVER: Well, what one should 

look at is when this would come up again, 

you'd say, it's already been fixed.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Now, I just marked it 

that way because as we did with the first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

eight sets, we had to come up -- I had to come 

up with a list of items I thought were related 

to quality.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And so I figure if I 

just start marking them now, it's a little 

easier to --

MR. HINNEFELD: Easier to find 

them later. You bet. I understand that.

DR. ULSH: This is 161.3, okay. 

So, it looks like our response, though, is 

that these two incidents were not explicitly -

- they were mentioned in the CATI, but they 

were not explicitly discussed in the draft, 

but our response says that the dosimetry 

records would've covered any dose --

MR. FARVER: That's not the issue.

MR. HINNEFELD: The finding is 

that these people owe a response to the 

incidents that they identified.

MR. FARVER: So, when the employee 

--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

MR. HINNEFELD: That is the 

finding.

MR. FARVER: When the claimant 

gets the report, they see information in there 

that they mentioned, and it's not saying that 

nothing was mentioned in the CATI interview.

DR. ULSH: Okay, so the 

information that's here we should've said in 

the DR, we considered your incidents and they 

don't have an affect, or whatever. Okay, I 

understand.

DR. MAURO: Now, let me 

understand. That protocol to do -- you know, 

mention the CATI in the DR, that didn't come 

into play though until after this DR was done?

MR. HINNEFELD: I am hoping that 

to be true, John. I'd have to -- again, 

you're talking about reconstructing an 

instruction I sent to ORAU. So, it's going to 

take me a while to figure that date out if you 

want me to do that. It's my belief that it 

predates that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we 

should. I mean we --

DR. MAURO: That's important 

because then it's not a QA problem. If the 

dose reconstruction is not correct, and at the 

time it was done there really was no provision 

to explicitly require DR to mention in the DR, 

the dose reconstruction, the integration of 

the CATI, I would say it's not necessarily a 

QA problem.

MR. FARVER: Well, no, I differ on 

that because --

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. FARVER: -- the DR report

specifically states, no radiological incidents 

that may have impacted this dose 

reconstruction were reported by either the 

DOE, or mentioned in the CATI.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Now, let's think 

about this, if we really want to talk about 

this, what the sentence is that there were no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

incidents that affected the dose 

reconstruction report. That is what the 

statement says. And so, if -- so the person 

writing that statement said, I have all the 

information elsewhere. I'm using this. What 

he told me does not affect what I did in the 

dose reconstruction in terms of the 

calculation of it.

Now, a claimant reading that will 

say, it's an insensitivity issue. It's not a 

QA issue; it's an insensitivity issue. 

MR. FARVER: Well, if the 

statement would've been that incidents that 

were affirmed or considered within the 

dosimetry data or that usual statement that's 

been used in that, that's different because 

that would've been a true statement.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, what is 

there is a true statement to the -- to the 

person who wrote it. It's probably not a true 

statement to the person who is reading it.

MR. FARVER: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

MR. HINNEFELD: The claimant says, 

I gave -- I told them that, and they say there 

weren't any. It's a matter of sensitivity. 

It's not QA. I don't want to get excited 

about this. I don't think it deserves the 

time because on the QA list, we're just going 

to say, we fixed this already.

MR. FARVER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It's not a big 

deal, and we shouldn't spend any more time on 

it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just trying to 

defend this guy. I don't think he 

intentionally lied to the claimant.

MR. FARVER: No, no. This was one 

of our ongoing issues that we've had before, 

and probably -- I think has been corrected.

DR. ULSH: But are we going to 

classify it as a QA concern?

MR. HINNEFELD: That doesn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

matter. If it's on the list --

MR. FARVER: It's going to go 

away.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. It's 

all the same for us. It doesn't matter.

DR. ULSH: So, is there -- is this 

closed then, or is it follow-up action, or 

what?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only 

problem I have is that is -- if Stu, you can 

find that date --

MR. HINNEFELD: You guys are 

putting a lot of faith -- or one of us is 

putting a lot of faith in my email filing, let 

me tell you.

MR. FARVER: All right, 162.1. 

This is where we were unable to reproduce the 

NIOSH-assigned photon doses. And the NIOSH 

response goes through and explains about the 

DCF. It was done with a Crystal Ball 

calculation, Monte Carlo calculation. 

The only question we have that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

comes out is there's a discrepancy in the 

dose, whether you do a Monte Carlo calculation 

or you just do a straightforward manual 

calculation, we'll call it, of seven rem to 

10.5 rem. Is that an acceptable difference? 

It's only -- and at what level is it 

unacceptable, I guess, is the question.

This is going to come up in 

another finding, where it's only about 32 

percent of the manual calculated value. By 

manual, I mean where you use the -- the DCF 

value out of -- is it IG-01?

MS. BEHLING: Does it mean DCF 

value out of IG-01? Yes.

MR. FARVER: Yes. 

MS. BEHLING: Deterministic.

MR. FARVER: Instead of using the 

Monte Carlo calculation, is there a level 

that's too far off, or not? It's more of an 

observation than it is a rebuttal or anything.

DR. ULSH: It doesn't -- not 

knowing the specifics of all of this, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

doesn't seem to me that you want to set up a 

condition that this percentage is acceptable 

and this percentage is not. What you're 

really concerned about is, does this have an 

affect on the PoC that could affect 

compensability. That would be the real 

question, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't 

know. You're saying that -- you're saying 

that the differences between using the most 

likely value for DCF and IG-01, versus the 

range of values of DCF. Is that what we're 

talking about?

MR. FARVER: Yes. The -- it's 

where your Crystal Ball uses the range of DCF 

in a triangular -- is that what it is, 

triangular distribution? 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, to my way of 

thinking, the distribution of -- if you have a 

distribution of values, and you're going to 

hang your hat on this as your distribution of 

values, then using the distribution of Monte 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

Carlo is always preferable to whatever you 

would select from that distribution, unless 

you're intentionally trying to overestimate or 

underestimate. Is that not right?

DR. ULSH: I mean, when you do the 

distribution, usually you're trying to be more 

accurate than overestimate yourself. 

MR. HINNEFELD: And you throw in -

- you know, it includes and drags along the 

uncertainty of the distribution into the 

uncertainty of the dose result, which IREP 

then accommodates uncertainties in the dose 

calculations. So, I -- to me, it would always 

be more appropriate --

MR. FARVER: It would always be 

more appropriate to use --

MR. HINNEFELD: It's always more 

appropriate to use the distribution than some 

selected value, whether it be the maximum 

likelihood value of the distribution, or some 

other value of distribution.

DR. MAURO: So, what's interesting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

is, usually when you use the full distribution 

as opposed to the median, you end up coming up 

with a higher dose, I believe. However, I 

guess when you have this triangular 

distribution where the mode is in the triangle 

could very much have an effect on where it 

would come out. And in this case, by using 

the mode, you actually come up with a dose 

that sounds like a little bit higher as 

opposed to the deterministic approach. 

That would be like one quick 

response to this. The other one is that I do 

notice that in some cases, you used up 

distribution. In other cases, you use just 

mode from Appendix B here for the dose 

conversion factor. It's a consistency issue, 

especially if it turns out some cases using 

the full distribution you come up with a lower 

dose. 

MR. HINNEFELD: You actually use 

the mode of a distribution rather than, say, 

the max?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

DR. MAURO: You always use the --

no. You always use the mode. I have seen the 

max, too. In other words, I've seen -- I've 

seen them all in cases that I've reviewed.

MR. HINNEFELD: You've seen the 

mode?

DR. MAURO: I've seen you use the 

mode to the point of the triangle, the full 

distribution, and I've also seen using the 

max, but that's rare, though.

MS. BEHLING: Generally, when 

you're doing a best estimate case, they do use 

the -- run the Monte Carlo.

DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So, this 

might simply be one was a best estimate; one 

was a maximum -- well, if it was maximized, I 

would've assumed they would've used the max. 

But I have to say I've seen the mode most of 

the time. I know, Kathy, you've seen the same 

thing.

MS. BEHLING: Well, again, it 

depends on the cases -- the workbook didn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

have the Monte Carlo techniques put into that 

workbook for the dose reconstruction on it. 

They also have the OTIB-12 that they can rely 

on. So, most of the cases that we're seeing 

now, they do run the Monte Carlo.

DR. MAURO: Okay. In my 

experience of primarily reviewing the course 

of the AWEs, and maybe that's why it's a 

little bit different world.

DR. ULSH: Should we just take 

this back and respond to it? 

MR. FARVER: Well, no. I mean 

it's -- it's -- if your belief isn't it's 

always better to use Crystal Ball or the Monte 

Carlo.

DR. ULSH: It's not necessarily 

always better. It's more accurate.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

DR. ULSH: I mean if it's an 

overestimated case, then using a max value or 

whatever is --

MR. FARVER: The reason I raise 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

this question is if you go down to 162.8, when 

we're looking at the neutron doses, the value 

of the Monte Carlo is only 32 percent of the 

deterministic value.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Which is quite a 

difference.

MS. BEHLING: I guess the only 

other thing that we need to look into -- I 

mean I would think that you need to look into 

for -- this is a Rocky Flats case. And I know 

under the Savannah River earlier workbook that 

was for Savannah River, the range of the DCF 

values, they used a range of all of the 

exposure geometry rather than just the AP 

geometry in the workbook.

Now, that might have a tendency 

for certainly -- to maybe have a lower dose 

than using the mean value. So, I think one of 

the things we should look at is that I know 

that has been changed in Savannah River 

workbooks, and now looking at the range only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

for the AP geometry, I'm not sure if that 

might've impacted this particular case or not, 

because I'm not familiar with the Rocky Flats.

MR. FARVER: Well, I bring this up 

because when we do these reviews, one of the 

things we do is we try to reproduce the doses 

in using deterministic methods, not Monte 

Carlo calculations. So, when we do our 

calculations, and they don't match the Monte 

Carlo, or aren't even close, we tend to 

question them more.

DR. ULSH: The ones that you 

calculate are higher than what we calculated 

with?

MR. FARVER: In some cases.

DR. ULSH: If the deterministic 

value is a maximizing assumption, I wouldn't 

be surprised by that.

MR. FARVER: In some cases --

MR. HINNEFELD: If you're even 

trying to -- if you use the mode as a 

deterministic value in trying to distribution 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

weight -- the way those triangular 

distributions are shaped, the mode -- the mode 

as a deterministic is going to have a higher 

result than the probabilistic. That's almost 

a given just because of the shape of those 

triangular --

MR. FARVER: And usually if it's a 

difference of 10, 20 percent, we just -- we 

just do the Monte Carlo calculation.

MR. HINNEFELD: If you used a 

deterministic calculation, what kind of 

distribution -- what kind of uncertainty would 

you have on your dose result? You say, if you 

-- you did your dose reconstruction, and you 

did it deterministically?

MR. FARVER: Basically, it would 

be the TLD result times your organ dose 

conversion factor.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, then you used 

--

MR. FARVER: Plus if there's any 

kind of --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

MR. HINNEFELD: Then it'd be a 

normal distribution from the TLD reading?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, you would then 

have a normal distribution on your result --

normal kind of constant -- 

MR. FARVER: Yes, plus any 

uncertainty in the dosimetry results from the 

TBD.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so you'd 

have some sort of uncertainty from your TLD 

reading, then? 

I mean really the relevant 

question is actually more complicated than 

this, since the -- since the dose -- since the 

compensation decision is made in the 99th 

percentile of the resulting final IREP 

uncertainty, what's -- what's -- what has more 

relevance here to the -- to the outcome of the 

case is that the value in Column 1 of IREP, or 

is it the -- some measure of the distribution 

of the tail of that value?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

And to be honest with you, it's 

hard to say because IREP is actually -- the 

result from IREP is actually the combination 

of uncertainties from each freaking year and -

- plus uncertainties in cancer models. So, 

it's almost too complicated to even discern 

which would be --

DR. MAURO: And what we'd do with 

that is we come up with a higher dose. You 

actually come up with a higher PoC when using 

the full distribution.

MR. HINNEFELD: I figure the only 

way to know is to run it both ways all the way 

through IREP.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. FARVER: I'm just wondering 

what to do when this happens the next time, 

where we come up with this big difference 

between what we calculate and what the Monte 

Carlo dose is. Do we write it up as a 

finding? Should we question it? Should we 

let it go? And then I don't know how to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

handle that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, to me, like 

I said, I don't know of a reason why any 

particular value off of the distribution --

unless you want to take issue with the 

distribution.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Distribution 

itself, yes. Right, right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Unless you want to 

take issue with the distributions themselves, 

I don't understand any particular situation 

where picking a point from the distribution 

and using it deterministically is preferable 

to using the probabilistic full distribution.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know if 

distributions are defined in --

MR. HINNEFELD: IG-01. And in 

fact, IG-01 may have a finding about these 

distributions. I'm not sure it doesn't.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure that 

that's been resolved yet.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

DR. MAURO: I don't think we have 

any -- I have to say it to Kathy. I know Hans 

did the review of OCAS IG-01. I know we had 

some problems with the other -- not the AP, 

but the others. I don't know if we ever 

looked at the actual distribution that were 

used and the basis for them.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think Bob 

Anigstein, at some point in this process, did 

come up with some issue about that.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think there's 

one there. So, I'd say if it comes up again, 

just be quiet about it, and just figure it's 

going to get taken care of. I mean, if we can 

verify that; if we can verify that on the IG01 there is this finding about distributions 

Bob Anigstein has either identified during the 

ongoing process and has contributed to, and --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda is going 

to look that up.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- it should go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

there. I really think that -- I think there's 

something there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I 

remember a discussion about it. I'm not sure 

where it was left.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know where 

it is now.

MR. FARVER: I mean, I understand 

why it's different because one is a Monte 

Carlo calculation. The other one is --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

it's a case finding, unless it's more of a --

if we have issue with the general use of the -

-

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- probabilistic 

using full determination. Probabilistic using 

a full distribution would seem to me to be the 

preferred way to do it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. MAURO: For a realistic case.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, other 

than maximizing.

MR. HINNEFELD: It is the 

preferred and anything other than that is some 

sort of shortcut. Sometimes a shortcut is --

is better because it gets the case out 

quicker.

MR. KATZ: I'm just finding this 

confusing. So, why would SC&A be running it 

deterministically instead of using the Monte 

Carlo like you do?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think when 

they -- probably when they reviewed this the 

first time, they may not have had --

MR. KATZ: Well, it's just use of 

the data of the case.

MR. HINNEFELD: I would guess. 

MR. KATZ: So, then it shouldn't 

arise --

MR. FARVER: I'm not sure we do 

indicate to use a Monte Carlo.

MR. HINNEFELD: Really? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, you 

don't have Crystal Ball? I don't think you 

use --

MR. HINNEFELD: I think there was 

a computer security issue. If it's the ball 

we're using --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, which 

threw me off because I have Crystal Ball.

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. We 

don't have Crystal Ball. The only way we 

would run it is through the workbooks that are 

provided.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

MR. FARVER: But if they're old 

workbooks, they may not work.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Well, if it was 

used in this case, and the workbook was with 

this case, it should work. Right?

MR. FARVER: Well, all you see is 

what was run.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

MR. FARVER: I'm not sure if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

could run it again.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just to verify?

MR. FARVER: Right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see what 

you're saying. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess we 

should be able to provide the workbooks for 

the reviewers.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: I mean, I agree. I 

accept their response. That's fine. I'm just 

kind of wondering how we're going to handle 

this in the future with large differences. We 

may have to bring it up again. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I would 

think the way to handle it is for us to 

provide the workbook, or the capability to run 

probabilistic conversion to the reviewer. I 

think that'd be the way to handle it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Now, if you say, 

hey, I can't run --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

MR. FARVER: Now, sometimes you 

can take the values out of OTIB-12.

MR. HINNEFELD: Which one is that?

MR. FARVER: That's the Monte 

Carlo -- it gives you values in there that 

approximate a Monte Carlo calculation.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Now, sometimes you 

can do that. I don't believe it covers all 

the neutron energy ranges for -- something is 

missing out of it. Or maybe it is flow energy 

protons.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think the way to 

handle it in the future is that the reviewer 

runs into a case where they can't reproduce --

it was done probabilistically, and they can't 

reproduce, to let us know, and we'll -- we 

should be able to provide the capability --

MR. FARVER: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- to run it 

probabilistically. That'd be the way to solve 

it in the future.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean you guys 

are in our system.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

yes.

MR. FARVER: And if it's 10 or 20 

percent difference, we probably aren't going 

to think anything of it. It's when we get 

things that are much more different.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, where do we 

stand on this one?

MR. FARVER: You can close, I 

guess, 162.1 and 162.8.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Eight, all 

right. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 162.2: this is 

recorded doses. Less than LOD were used to 

assign photon doses. This was an old issue. 

It's been corrected in the -- gosh, I believe 

it's been corrected in the workbook. Yes. 

So, it's an okay response.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 162.2. 

SC&A is in agreement?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. ULSH: So, can we close it?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If everyone is 

in agreement.

MS. BEHLING: Can I assume that 

this type of error is -- again, I'll go back 

to the Savannah River workbook. Is an error 

along with the range of the DCF values. They 

were corrected in the workbook. Is there any 

reason for us to go back and look at cases 

that were done prior to the correction of that 

workbook? 

I'm just wondering in some cases, 

maybe not this particular issue. The LOD over 

two issue, or less than LOD over two? But I'm 

wondering with regards to DCF ranges when they 

use the min and the max that incorporated PA 

geometry and all of the different geometries, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

I'm just thinking that there could be certain 

types of instances where you might want to 

revisit those, and I wasn't sure if NIOSH had 

any intention of looking at that, or in the 

PER associated with that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's the 

question: is it a PER issue?

MR. SIEBERT: Actually, I believe 

it was run in the PER. I'm looking through 

the PER to see which one it is.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MS. BEHLING: I didn't see it 

among the PERs that were currently issued.

MR. SIEBERT: I know we've done 

that review at work. I just don't know as an 

actual PER or not. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I was thinking we 

didn't do a PER on this. I mean you're 

talking about the external ranges on DCF 

values. And to me, this is not a -- you can 

have a fairly minor adjustment, I think.

MS. BEHLING: I think so too, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

generally on this less than LOD over two. 

It's just that sometimes when people worked in 

the early years, and they exchanged badges on 

a weekly basis, maybe they didn't have --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, I know 

a huge number of the Savannah River cases, not 

almost every one, but most of them were 

relooked at as the -- with the Super S 

plutonium. And so, the new workbook worksheet 

would've been done when they were working on 

that for Super S. Certainly, a huge number of 

Savannah Rivers were redone.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On the Super S. 

So, they would've been caught for these new 

procedures anyway. Yes, yes. All right, good 

point. I'm not sure where we can go from 

there.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't -- I don't 

know how to go about that. We could do some 

preliminary checking about the population of 

Savannah River claims that were --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Rerun for Super 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

S.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- rerun for Super 

S. How many were, and how many were not.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

were not.

MR. HINNEFELD: Get that number.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And was the 

percentage near 50?

MR. HINNEFELD: And what are the 

distribution of PoCs? Because they'd have to 

be pretty close to 50 for that to happen.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly, yes. 

That may make the issue go away if we can do 

that.

MS. BEHLING: All the various 

different types of cancer.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MS. BEHLING: Make sure we look at 

all the varieties of cancer, breast cancer, 

that type of thing. That's what's going to be 

the most impacted.

MR. HINNEFELD: Is that right? Is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

breast the one that has the biggest impact?

MS. BEHLING: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thank 

you, Kathy. Good point. So, Brant is 

capturing that action, right?

DR. ULSH: Trying to. Check the 

SRS claims that were not rerun for Super S, 

and of that group, ones that were close to 50 

percent.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, why don't 

you hang on and put them into some sort of 

histogram or something by -- by probably 

foundation value and then another histogram by 

cancer type, cancer model.

DR. ULSH: But we're still 

interested in focusing on the ones that were 

not rerun for Super S?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, only those. 

Because the ones that were re-run for Super S 

were done with the new worksheet, the new 

workbook.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the ones 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

that pre-date the new workbooks, right? 

That's the ones you're interested in.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, maybe that 

would be done before the new workbook.

MR. SIEBERT: Just to let you know 

on our side, I'm checking with Keith McCartney 

on when we did the update to the ECDW tool, 

and I swear we did a review on this and I just 

can't track it in the PER. So, I'll let you 

know what I find.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, if you 

have documentation on that, that will --

MR. HINNEFELD: So, Brant give it

to Scott before you do anything on it.

DR. ULSH: All right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, Doug, go 

ahead on then.

MR. FARVER: 162.3. Failure to 

account for gaps in recorded photon dose. 

Reviewing the dosimeter history found 78 -- we 

found 78 times during the period of 77 to 94 

when there were breaks in the badging cycle. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

And the Technical Basis Document says that 

when there are gaps in the employees records, 

the claimant-favorable assumption is that the 

dosimeter was lost and dose should be assigned 

for that period using dosimetry data preceding 

and following that period, and that was not 

done.

So, that's the basis for the 

finding. Basically, NIOSH agrees that that was 

not done. It wasn't done, so --

DR. ULSH: And it has been 

reevaluated and corrected.

MR. FARVER: Reevaluated and 

corrected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, that was 

162.3, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, that closes 

that out, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes, unless you want 

to talk about, is there anything that you can 

do to prevent it from happening again.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if you want 

to capture it as QA or not.

MR. FARVER: I chose not to put 

that there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And 162.4. Incorrect 

value used for missed photon dose, and this 

goes back to 162.1. It was done with a Monte 

Carlo calculation. So, it was the same 

issues. So, I would just close this one also, 

162.4. 

And 162.5 has to do with missing 

entries in workbook for doses. Apparently, 

there were two years that were missing, or two 

lines for 1970. So, this is just another 

concern that, how could you have missing years 

or missing entries that did not get caught.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH 

agrees with this, but it's not going to affect 

the overall decision. That's the kind of 

conclusion, right? And you agree with that?

MR. FARVER: I agree it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

going to -- it's not going to change.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it is a QA 

thing, but it's not -- right, okay. So, we 

captured it as a QA.

DR. ULSH: So, it's closed?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And then 162.6 is the 

less than LOD over 2 concern that we talked 

about previously. We can close that issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And 162.7 talks about 

the gaps in the record for the photon doses. 

It is concerning neutron dose. So, we can 

close this issue.

And 162.8, this is what we talked 

about earlier: the difference between a 

deterministic and Monte Carlo calculation.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've got this 

one.

MR. FARVER: This is for missed

neutron dose. So, this can be closed. And 

162.9, SC&A could not duplicate NIOSH's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

americium-241 dose entries. Really, I believe 

this is a case where the DR file did not 

contain an IMBA run for Type F americium 

fitted dose.

It contained an IMBA run for Type 

F americium missed dose, I believe. And it --

MR. SIEBERT: I'm thrown off 

because we never used Type F americium, 

period.

MR. FARVER: I --

MEMBER MUNN: That would make a 

difference.

MR. FARVER: I believe, in this 

case, you used Type F americium for the fitted 

dose. If you go back and check the -- there's 

an Excel file that talks about the internal 

dose, and they calculated the missed dose with 

M. They calculated the fitted dose with F, 

and they chose the highest dose of the year 

and used that value.

MR. SIEBERT: If you're relying on 

Excel, it may be just a misprint in the Excel 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

because, I mean, I'll have to look at the 

actual case, but I have a hard time believing 

we would ever use Type F for americium for 

anything.

MR. FARVER: I believe the values 

that were used for the fitted dose were Type 

F.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so we 

need to follow up on that.

MR. HINNEFELD: We'll check that 

out. We need to follow up on that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We're not 

going to solve it here. So, yes.

MR. FARVER: I'm not even saying 

it was appropriate or not appropriate. I'm 

saying that's what was used.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

We've had an observation on 162 --

MR. FARVER: That was the Super S. 

Should be evaluated for Super S.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there's no 

-- I mean --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

MEMBER MUNN: It was a 

reevaluation.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it was?

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was a 

reevaluation. So, it's closed. I mean it's 

an observation. Yes, it's closed. Okay, I 

think we can get through one more, and then --

MR. SIEBERT: Can I go back on 

that for a second? Doug, can you give me the 

actual file name where you see that so I can 

track that down a little easier, please? Or, 

if you could, just email it to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you send 

him the email?

MR. FARVER: I will do that.

MR. SIEBERT: Huge help.

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 163.1.

MR. FARVER: Inappropriate 

procedure slash method used for assigning 

recorded dose. The dose listed for 1980 for 

the kidney cancer is wrong. There were no 

changes in the PoCs expected.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm assuming 

SC&A agrees with the no change in the PoCs?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this is no 

further action, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same on the 

next one?

MR. FARVER: Same on the next one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 163.3?

MR. FARVER: 163.3. Reviewer 

concludes that you should have been assigned 

missed neutron dose. Okay, looks like this is 

-- this is Y-12. This is where we contend 

that you should've had a neutron dose assigned 

at least for 54 through 74, and we're basing 

that on -- it looks like a statement in the 

CATI report, where the individual worked in 

different areas, who was a machinist involving 

parts and weapons production, weapons 

instructor. 

MS. BEHLING: I also believe that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

the dosimetry records actually show zero under 

the neutron dose column between 1954 and 1974. 

And then, starting with the records in 1975, 

there's a blank there. So, it's -- there's a 

difference between the zero --

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MS. BEHLING: -- and the blank.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And my understanding 

is when NIOSH is relying on -- wasn't there a 

report written that says basically if there 

wasn't any dose preferred certain date -- oh, 

it's the one neutron report paper.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we wrote the 

neutron report. I don't know when --

MR. FARVER: There's a statement 

in there that says if there's no doses by a 

certain date, then there's -- there should be 

no more low doses. You know, I think this is 

one of these cases where it comes down to a 

judgment call. The employee does have neutron 

information in the history reported as zeros.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

DR. ULSH: But we provided an 

explanation. I don't know whether you accept 

the explanation. That's another thing.

MR. FARVER: Yes. And I'm not 

sure you can -- you can say there's no 

potential, because based on what he said he 

did, and at least some of the places he worked 

there's a potential, and there are zeros.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think a 

machinist would have the source -- the source 

for the neutrons is uranium fluoride. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I thought 

he worked in -- in -- I thought he worked in 

other areas.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, his title is 

machinist.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: He worked in many 

areas. His job title -- at least at one 

point, the job title -- you don't know if 

that's his job title throughout his career. 

But as a machinist, I don't believe that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

there's neutron potential because a machinist 

would not be necessarily -- there's no reason 

for a machinist to be around uranium fluoride. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean here 

I see this weapons inspector. Oh, at the end 

of his career.

MR. HINNEFELD: For me, it's a 

matter of, do you believe the fact -- do you 

believe our comment that the practice was to 

write down those years even though they didn't 

read the TLD badge because there was no need 

to read the TLD badge because he wasn't 

exposed? Well, I'm sorry, not TLD, the 

neutron badge.

Our explanation is they wrote down 

the zero even though they didn't read the 

badge, and they didn't need to read the badge 

because there was no reason for him to be 

exposed. That's our -- that's our argument. 

Nothing here really changes that 

argument, but -- but while, yes, there were 

neutrons in some places, this guy worked in a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

lot of places. The fact is that the site paid 

attention to where people went, and if they 

had a potential for neutron exposure, they 

wore a badge. That's -- that's our point, and 

that's the argument we made. And I guess 

you're right. It's a judgment call.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, in this 

one-time dose, the 58 criticality, this person 

was in proximity to --

MR. HINNEFELD: I'd have to go 

check. I'm not sure what the actual outcome 

was on what we did on neutrons from that. I 

know there was -- I know some of what we did, 

but I don't know what we did for everybody. 

I'm not real sure what you get neutron-wise, 

if you get very far.

MR. FARVER: Here's the document I 

was talking about. Historical evaluation of 

film badge dosimetry program at the Y-12 

facility, part 2: neutron radiation.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

MR. FARVER: And this is where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

there's a statement in there to the effect 

that no positive -- because workers that had 

no positive neutron doses prior to 62 were 

unlikely to have received any neutron 

exposures. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: That's why -- that 

was the basis.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Read that 

again, please.

MR. FARVER: Workers that had no 

positive neutron doses prior to 62 were 

unlikely to have received any neutron 

exposures. So, unless you had a neutron 

exposure before 1962, they were not going to 

assign you a neutron dose.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, they 

certainly had this 1958 incident, I guess. 

It's a unique circumstance.

MR. HINNEFELD: That might be it; 

a unique circumstance. I don't think that 

necessarily means --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

MR. FARVER: I know that is one of 

the statements that is relied upon that, if 

you didn't have an exposure before 1962, they 

typically are not going to assign you a 

neutron dose. Banking on that statement and 

that document -- John, do you have any concern 

with that document?

DR. MAURO: No. I can't speak to 

it.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It just makes 

me wonder about this guys work experience, if 

he was in the proximity of this 58 

criticality.

MR. FARVER: Well, I thought we 

had some issues with that document.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Another run-ofthe-mill machinist.

MEMBER POSTON: These could be 

chemical operators.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it is.

MEMBER POSTON: And criticality at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

Y-12 was a liquid --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, what 

was he doing in the area?

MR. HINNEFELD: He was in the 

building. I mean they were -- they did 

machining --

MEMBER PRESLEY: Well, they did 

the machining, but we also had machinists back 

there that cut up the pieces that went into 

the casting furnaces and stuff like that. 

There were a lot of jobs at one time right 

there at the -- on the other side of the room. 

We had machines where the machinist actually 

worked in the same room with the casting 

furnaces and the cut up area, everything.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there were 

a lot of people in that proximity that 

could've received that kind of dose.

MEMBER PRESLEY: No, no, no, no, 

not that criticality.

MEMBER POSTON: That criticality 

was well documented.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

MEMBER POSTON: There was only 

about four people in that room.

MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes, four or 

five. That was it.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and in fact 

their report -- you can read the report. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know. 

I've seen the report. 

MR. HINNEFELD: John, you may be 

able to help out. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This guy was 

assigned 20 rem from this event, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: What?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what it 

says.

MR. HINNEFELD: No, that was in 

the first DR that we ran. We did a miss --

with all those misses the first time. Even 

going in it, a 20 rem missed dose to the 

kidney wasn't --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I'm sorry. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

All right, all right.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's one of those 

deals with cancers you don't want to 

overestimate that far.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what 

threw me off. I thought I saw the criticality 

incident --

DR. ULSH: I was wondering where 

you're going.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

was off-base. Sorry.

MR. HINNEFELD: The people who 

were close to the criticality event that had 

their dose reconstructed at the time are -- we 

know by name. We have the report. We know 

them by name.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: There were other 

people in Y-12 at the time who evacuated, 

right, John?

MEMBER POSTON: That's correct.

MR. HINNEFELD: Now, the neutron 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

dose, once you get very far, I think John we 

had an opinion on this. I suspect even by 

inverse square, once you get very far, this is 

going to be disappearingly small. So, to me, 

there may be something. You may be dealing 

with something other than fear, but --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, it's the 

last thing that I read, and I -- I was 

skimming this and thought that 20 rem was 

associated with the -- but the last line says, 

SC&A believes that NIOSH should've, in 

addition to the one-time neutron doses 

assigned for the 58 criticality incident. 

That to me said that they assigned something 

for the criticality incident. I thought it 

was the 20 rem. I misread that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

DR. ULSH: So, where are we?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But what was 

assigned for the criticality accident in this 

case?

MR. FARVER: I don't think they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

were assigned anything.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Weren't 

assigned anything, okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, where are 

we on this one?

MEMBER MUNN: He wasn't there. If 

he wasn't listed on the incident report, then 

he wasn't there.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, see, I don't 

know what we did about other people in the 

building. I don't know what we did. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know I saw 

criticality assignment numbers somewhere in 

this thing.

MEMBER MUNN: They would've been 

listed on the incident report.

MR. HINNEFELD: No. I don't know. 

I don't think the incident report has 

everybody who was like at 9212. I don't think 

so. 

MEMBER POSTON: It's not a small 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

building.

MR. HINNEFELD: No.

MEMBER POSTON: It's the largest 

building at Y-12. A typical criticality 

accident is about ten to the 17th fissions. 

You can figure it out. You can r-square it. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, you can do 

the r-squared.

MR. SIEBERT: Looking at the 

original assessment under the radiological 

section, it is discussed that we assigned 

criticality, 1958 criticality. Assigned 1.135 

and 1.36.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, you assigned 

them about a rem for the criticality.

MEMBER MUNN: If he's not one of 

the people who is listed, that seems very --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

MEMBER POSTON: That's a huge 

estimate because --

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: -- it takes -- to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

get a rem you need ten to the ninth neutrons. 

And if you only had ten to the 17th, that 

means you had to be pretty close.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's --

MEMBER POSTON: That's very 

conservative.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess you 

could turn it around, and say, does NIOSH know 

something that I don't know. Is it closer to 

this? You know.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

Sitting here today, I can't --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

it was part of just a conservative estimate. 

Where do we go from here with this one? 

That's the question.

MR. FARVER: Well, I believe they 

assigned a -- you assigned a photon dose for 

the criticality?

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know.

MR. FARVER: And not a neutron 

dose. Is that the -- that might be the basis 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

for that statement: that you applied one but 

not the other, and I don't -- I don't know 

offhand. I know the concern over the other 

neutron doses, really, has to go back to that 

-- that program document, ORAU TR Report 0033, 

where the statement is in there that unless 

you have neutron doses prior to 62, it's 

unlikely you ever received any neutron 

exposure. Therefore, even though you got 

zeros in your dosimetry record, we're not 

going to assess any kind of missed dose.

MR. SIEBERT: Photons and neutrons 

were assigned to the criticality.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

MR. SIEBERT: Looking at the IREP 

sheet, yes.

MR. FARVER: They do assign a onetime neutron dose. Then it just goes back to 

should the zeros be assessed or not?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then that goes 

back to, do you believe that that was the 

practice or not. What does that verify?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

DR. ULSH: So, it looks like the 

DR was done in accordance with that report 

that you're citing.

MR. FARVER: It was done in 

accordance with that report. It's --

DR. ULSH: The question is do you 

believe the report?

MR. FARVER: I know some of our 

folks have some concerns about the -- that 

report.

DR. ULSH: Should it not be a 

Procedures issue?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or Site 

Profile.

MR. FARVER: I don't know if that 

report has been reviewed by SC&A.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

MR. FARVER: Officially.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think this 

came up in Site Profile review for Y-12.

MR. FARVER: Probably.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

dropped it once the SEC issue was --

MR. HINNEFELD: It's still on our 

to-do list.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is, yes.

MR. FARVER: Okay. If that's the 

basis for it, then --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It might be --

it might make sense to send it to the Y-12 --

I mean so we don't go through this same 

process again with this Committee, it might 

make sense to go to the Y-12 Site Profile 

Review Committee. It seems like they followed 

the procedure. The question is, do you 

believe the Technical Basis for it, and that 

goes back to the Site Profile.

DR. ULSH: Does that transfer to 

Y-12?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

would say if people agree with that. The 

question is reinstituting that Work Group, 

too. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We'll need to move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

pretty quickly. We want to make sure we're on 

the same page in terms of the remaining lines 

and minuses you find.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it's 

going to be closed for this case, but 

transferred to the Site Profile Group, which 

doesn't exist.

MR. KATZ: Are there other reasons 

to reconstitute that Work Group?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There are 

remaining -- yes. There were remaining ones.

MR. HINNEFELD: There were 

remaining non-SEC findings that --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Non-SEC 

findings that we just never got back to.

MR. KATZ: Are those pressing that 

that's a Work Group that we need to 

reconstitute in the near future, or --

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean it 

should be reconstituted. It's set in 

priorities in terms of what the Board wants to 

accomplish. I mean, these issues now that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

we're dealing with that are -- you know, we're 

not stopping dose reconstructions.

MR. KATZ: I know.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, we don't have 

really a horse in the race in terms of how 

these various open issues are resolved. And 

we want to work in a fashion that best suits 

the Board's purposes.

MR. FARVER: 163.4 concerns the 

medical dose, X-ray dose conversion to organ 

dose. And as you see in our response, we 

still believe that the dose reconstruction did 

use the male lung. 

I mean I understand what you're 

saying about the -- you talk about the female 

lung, but that's not what the concern is. 

Should've used the liver instead of the male 

lung, which would've resulted in a slightly 

larger dose.

We don't have any difference of 

147 millirem, but it's just a matter that it 

was not the correct organ that was chosen.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

DR. ULSH: Our response, at least, 

says that the organ dose listed for the male 

lung from ICRP would also apply to the liver. 

And then what you're saying is we should've 

used the liver instead of the male lung. So, 

I see a disconnect somewhere here.

MR. FARVER: Yes. I think it all 

hinges on -- oh, and I didn't quote the table 

in there. But if you go to that table in the 

technical -- in the Site Profile about the Xrays, the medical, the -- there is one value 

that is slightly larger than the other, and --

DR. ULSH: And that's not the 

female. It's the male.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: Has any revision 

been made --

MR. FARVER: I'll have to look it 

up real quick.

MEMBER MUNN: Has any revision 

been made to the medical TBD?

MR. HINNEFELD: Was it the -- was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

this the -- I don't know.

DR. ULSH: Our response says -- I 

don't know.

MR. FARVER: I'll get you the 

table number real quick.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: When you say 

the medical TBD, what's -- what's --

MR. HINNEFELD: The medical dose 

chapter. Site Profiles have six chapters in 

health TBDs.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, the section 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: But this is a Site 

Profile.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It would be a 

section of the Site Profile.

MR. HINNEFELD: Section of the 

Site Profile.

MR. FARVER: I think this is a Y12 case. 

MS. BEHLING: Yes, Y-12.

MR. FARVER: Okay. So, if you go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

to tables at the back, table for -- let's see 

which year. 1994. So, they're looking for 

Table A5. 

DR. ULSH: A5, okay.

MR. FARVER: The male lung value 

is slightly smaller than the female lung 

value, which the female lung value is also the 

one that's used for the liver and bone surface 

and remainder: things like that.

So, the female lung value is 

larger than the male.

DR. ULSH: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And the male value is 

the one that was used.

DR. ULSH: Well, I'm going to ask 

an obvious question. Was this a male or 

female?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's not 

the issue.

MR. FARVER: That's not it. The 

issue is it should've been the liver they 

used.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

MR. FARVER: The liver has the 

same value as the female lung.

DR. ULSH: Oh, I got it.

MR. FARVER: But they used the 

male one. They picked the wrong value out of 

the table.

DR. ULSH: I think we're going to 

have to check that one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It seems 

unlikely -- it's a small dose. It seems 

unlikely it would've reflected this case, but 

you should check it.

MR. FARVER: Because the way that 

table is written now, it's the female lung 

that also applies to the liver, stomach, 

esophagus.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: I believe Elyse 

picked that due to the fact that using a 

surrogate has a little bit of uncertainty, and 

she just picked the larger of the male and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

female lung values when we used it as a 

surrogate. Elyse isn't on the call to defend 

herself, but I'm believing that's the case.

MR. FARVER: Our only point was 

the lower value was the one that was selected 

and used instead of the -- actually the one 

for liver right from the table should've been 

used.

DR. ULSH: We'll check.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we've got 

one more. While I try to close this out, we 

have --

MR. FARVER: Okay.

MR. SIEBERT: Can I ask what the 

action item is on that one?

DR. ULSH: For us to go into 

review SC&A's response, and provide our own 

response for that.

MR. SIEBERT: Okay, that's easy. 

Thanks, Brant.

MR. FARVER: 163.5, incorrect 

intake rates used to assign dose for 1975 to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1979. Co-worker doses.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you have 

agreement here, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: No further action. 

Should be closed, right?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: I don't know. We 

could go through and then say that that 

should've been caught, but --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you -- did 

you look to determine if -- I mean it didn't 

make a difference to the claimant. Did you 

check that?

MR. FARVER: It does not make a 

difference to the claim.

MR. HINNEFELD: If you wanted to 

tag that as a QA issue, I wouldn't argue.

MR. FARVER: That's the only 

thing. It probably is just because it's a 

wrong value chosen.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

DR. ULSH: So, close?

MR. KATZ: Closed to QA.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is an 

observation?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Question. How 

was it reached?

MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like a 

logical answer to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: So, the question is 

asked and answered?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I mean 

what -- radiation therapy on the second 

cancer.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there are a 

couple ways to make the argument. One is I 

got my first cancer because I worked there. 

Because I got my first cancer, I had radiation 

therapy.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. But as a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

--

MR. HINNEFELD: Therefore, it's a 

result of my working there. It's predicated 

on the argument that the first cancer was due 

to working there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Which usually is 

not established, or you wouldn't -- if it were 

a compensable claim for the first cancer --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It wouldn't be 

an issue.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- it wouldn't be 

an issue. So, essentially the determination 

would've been for it to be an issue, the 

determination would've had to have been made 

that it wasn't Probability of Causation for 

the first one. Therefore, you can't 

necessarily tie the therapy to that, to the --

to the work.

MR. FARVER: I just wrote it up as 

an observation because we didn't know the 

answer.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

And that's a policy answer. That's --

MR. HINNEFELD: That's a policy, 

yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I guess 

it's a good time for a lunch break. We'll 

pick it up at 164. We've got 164 through 178.

MR. HINNEFELD: We can go through 

the selection first. We can do the selection 

on 13. Everybody should have that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right after 

lunch, you mean?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Because if 

you want to get through that, that's something 

you want to get through. This --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, this can 

go on. It's going to go on anyway. So, why 

don't we do that, the selected cases, right 

after lunch?

MR. HINNEFELD: Everybody 

should've got my email.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I would say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

-- I mean everybody's got to use their own 

judgment, but if you have a possibility of 

getting an earlier flight, look into it now.

MEMBER PRESLEY: I have a 1:30. I 

got to get out of here at 1:30. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 1:30? I mean 

you might miss a few cases, but a lot of it is 

-- you know, you're not going to miss -- we'll 

go over these again.

MEMBER PRESLEY: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: I'm not going to 

miss a chance with --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no.

MEMBER MUNN: That saves you all 

kinds of grief.

MR. KATZ: What time are we going 

to reconvene?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 12:30. Is that 

all right?

MR. KATZ: Okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: What do you say, 

12:40?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 12:35.

MR. HINNEFELD: Thirty-five?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, an hour.

MR. KATZ: Okay, folks on the 

phone, 12:35 or so, we're starting back up. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 11:37 a.m. and 

resumed at 12:41 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

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

(12:41 p.m.)

MR. KATZ: So, this is the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee Advisory Board on 

Radiation Worker Health. We're reconvening 

after a lunch break, and we're beginning to 

deal with the 13th set dose reconstruction 

selection.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good afternoon, 

everyone. I'm not sure how many everyones are 

on the line but, Kathy Behling, are you out 

there?

MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

because I have a few things that may 

potentially involve you. Okay so, going 

through the 13th matrix, the selection, I 

guess we can just -- there's roughly 48 or 49 

in the list. And -- and really, the Board is 

going to make the final call on these because 

the full Board hasn't deferred that 

responsibility to us, but we can do the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

initial sort of triage work for them.

So, we can go through this fairly 

quickly, I think. But I guess just going down 

the list from the top makes the most sense in 

this case. And for the first one, I'll just 

refer to the last three numbers in case we'd 

only get into identifier situations, or 

anything like that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the selection 

might be the last three digits of the 

selection ID.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes. 

So, 680 on the selection, I think we should 

include that one.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Here's my first 

question for the next two, 438 and 541. We 

have an SEC class. It was just established. 

I think we talked a little about this on the 

phone call when I was trying to dial into the 

Board phone meeting.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we did.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now, where -- I 

mean I guess I could see the value of doing 

one of these or the other. Are these -- these 

are not all listed cancers, are they? I mean 

do these fall into a list of SEC cancers?

MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking 

about 438 and 541?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It's 

accounted -- DOL interprets that as rectum, 

and colon is on the list.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: But as I recall the 

discussion that we had before, our discussion 

was what's the purpose of this review that 

we're doing now, if the purpose is to 

determine whether or not those individuals 

should have been compensated and were not. 

Then there's no point in doing it because they 

obviously now would be compensated. But if 

our -- if our purpose was to identify whether 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

these were correctly done, as far as internal 

and external, then they still have value.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm just 

afraid that we'd get it -- I think Stu made 

the comment on the Board call that we as a 

Board have determined that you can't 

reconstruct dose. And how are we going to do 

a review here to say whether it's a 

scientifically value dose reconstruction?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I mean, if 

you want to make it -- you can check did we 

follow the guidelines.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Follow the 

protocol.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. You can do 

that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Dose 

reconstruction is typically more than that. 

Not only did you do what you said you were 

going to do, but did what you say you were 

going to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean whatever 

you guys want to do.

MR. KATZ: The point I made during 

that Board teleconference was that it depends 

on why the class was added, too. Because you 

may have a dose reconstruction for which the 

procedures weren't called into question for 

the reason that the class was added.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And in fact, 

that -- that is a pretty good point.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: The closure that 

added the class would really almost be 

irrelevant to these cancers.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean then the --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would -- I 

would rather do a case with a non-listed 

cancer if we find one. If we find one that 

is, let's say, not listed, then I think it 

would just be cleaner, and we can still -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

would opt to drop these for now.

MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't matter 

to me. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But not to 

exclude that set forever. I think we should 

do non-listed ones.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll pass them 

for now anyway. If we absolutely need some --

MEMBER MUNN: There are no others 

on this list.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, not on 

this list. But they might come up, and I'm 

sure they will come up in the future. We'll 

pass them for now. If we end up very low, 

which I can't imagine we're going to end up 

very low on numbers, we can go back.

All right, the next one is 742. I 

voted to include this just for the sheer 

reason that the Production Pilot Plant, we 

haven't looked at before. There is a later 

case at the same site.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

MEMBER MUNN: 742?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 742.

MEMBER MUNN: That's not the next 

one on my list. I must be looking at the 

wrong list, because the next one on my list is 

--

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I have a hard 

copy coming out.

MEMBER POSTON: Mine says 742.

MEMBER MUNN: Then I am clearly --

no. Okay, okay. I was on 541. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's okay. 

So, I would vote for that one, but later on, 

three pages later, we have another one from 

that same facility. I don't think we need to 

do two from the same site. So, if people feel 

stronger about the other case, you know, I 

think we pick one or the other. So, check 

that one for now if people agree with me.

It's a little over 50 percent. 

For me, that's sort of irrelevant. It's the 

new site that's the most important thing.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

MR. HINNEFELD: You know, that is 

Huntington. Production Pilot Plant is 

Huntington. It's part of Huntington. We had 

done some dose reconstructions.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've done 

Huntington? Is it a model? Is this a 

separate part of Huntington?

MR. HINNEFELD: No. The plant at 

Huntington that was covered was the production 

pilot. It's one place, the Huntington Pilot 

Plant. I don't know, I guess --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I've never seen 

it called that before.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure. I 

guess, maybe -- did we change what we call 

this plant or something?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, that is 

different. So, we reviewed Huntington.

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe this is 

Huntington Pilot Plant.

DR. ULSH: Yes, I think it is.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, or in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

internal dose method. It's the Huntington 

Pilot Plant.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

the later pages. I'm sorry.

DR. ULSH: So, are we keeping that 

one or not?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I would 

say if it's Huntington, it's one model, right? 

One model fits all.

MR. HINNEFELD: There were never 

findings on the model, and we revised that. 

So, I mean, I believe -- well, it depends on 

when this was done. I don't know when this 

was done. It should be on here. Date 

approved. Yes, see, it was done back in 2006. 

I thought it was done unrevised --

DR. ULSH: So, keep it then?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would say 

skip it. Thanks for the clarification. The 

printout version I have extends onto later 

pages.

MEMBER MUNN: I got the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

thing.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I'm going 

to skip that one then. Thank you for that 

clarification. So, then the next one, 117, I 

have already voted yes mainly for how close it 

was to 50th percentile. We've done some other 

lung cases for this site, but this is a -- I 

think this is using personal data. It's not a 

model.

MR. HINNEFELD: With those dates 

and that control issue, that's --

DR. ULSH: It does say, full 

internal, right?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, that 

gives -- that's two on that first page. 

Anyway, moving on to 711. We've done one on 

this site. This is where I was asking for 

Kathy's and others' input. That site for 711 

--

MEMBER MUNN: I don't think I've 

ever seen that site before.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think this might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

be a TIB-2 case -- it would be a TIB-4 case.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: TIB-4? That's 

not a best estimate?

MR. HINNEFELD: TIB-4 is the 

overestimate AWE uranium.

MS. BEHLING: Mark, excuse me. 

Can someone email me the list that you're 

working from?

MR. HINNEFELD: Sorry, Kathy. I 

should've done that.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. That's all 

right. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's on its 

way. Well, I say that, but it might take a 

long route through the CDC.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's got to go to 

Atlanta first.

MR. KATZ: Kathy, this is the same 

list though that was distributed --

MR. HINNEFELD: It was in advance 

of the tele-Board conference. I don't know if 

I sent it to her then.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

MR. FARVER: We didn't get it 

either.

MR. KATZ: Well, it went to SC&A. 

I don't know whether it went to you 

specifically.

DR. ULSH: So, what's the decision 

on 711?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Pass.

DR. ULSH: Pass.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, it's in the 

ether somewhere.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 138. I thought 

to accept this one. 

MEMBER MUNN: Are we still 

questioning 711?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I said no on 

711 because it was not a real best estimate. 

It was an overestimate.

MR. HINNEFELD: And it's not sitespecific. I mean it's not specific. It's 

TIB-2 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this is a
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

best estimate. At least part of it is best 

estimate for LANL, for the next one, 138. So, 

I vote yes on that one. Anybody objects, just 

let us know.

MEMBER MUNN: No, I thought these 

were all good when you picked them last time.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I did too. 

That's why I say we should still have plenty 

of cases. 525, again, it looks like at least 

part of this is a best estimate case. 

Mallinckrodt, but it's not only Mallinckrodt, 

it's all three facilities. Right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Mallinckrodt 

is one facility -- this looks like it could be 

Weldon Spring.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and Weldon 

Spring. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Because the class 

at Mallinckrodt went all the way to the end.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, they must have 

less than a year at Mallinckrodt unless we got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

this for medical benefits. If they had been 

paid through the SEC and the dose 

reconstruction -- that's not possible because 

the bladder is the --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I still 

think I vote for that one.

MEMBER POSTON: That's 525?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 657.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, best estimate?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I agree with 

that. Yes. 137, very close to 50 percent.

MEMBER MUNN: Best estimate?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On both sites.

MEMBER MUNN: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Rare, yes?

DR. ULSH: That's a keeper.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 137?

DR. ULSH: You want to do that 

one?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 753 I also 

thought seemed good to do. Refresh my memory 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

on TIB-12. It keeps showing up here, TIB-12. 

What is TIB-12?

MR. HINNEFELD: John, are you on 

the phone?

DR. MAURO: What's that?

MR. HINNEFELD: What is TIB-12?

MS. BEHLING: Monte Carlo.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, it's Monte 

Carlo technique?

MS. BEHLING: Yes, so that's best 

estimate.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

DR. MAURO: Yes. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Thanks, John.

DR. MAURO: No problem.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was just a 

stall so I could grab a bite of food. All 

right, so, I vote for 753.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anybody 

disagree? All right. Next one is 620. I 

didn't know if Bridgeport Brass Adrian 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

facility -- I always get confused which one we 

did and did not look at. There's two 

Bridgeport Brass facilities, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: This one is the 

one in Michigan. That one is the Haven plant.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy, do you 

know if --

MS. BEHLING: Yes, we do. We 

looked at both, but we only looked at one at 

the Adrian plant. In fact, that one was full 

internal and external but it was compensated. 

And we looked at four --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it was a 

model, right? A one-size fits all model?

MS. BEHLING: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I mean it 

doesn't really matter if it's compensated or 

not.

MS. BEHLING: That's true. And in

fact, we've reviewed the Bridgeport Brass 

matrix as part of the eighth set also.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

and it was Bridgeport Brass Adrian that you 

reviewed in the matrix?

MS. BEHLING: That's a good 

question. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean that's 

my question. There's two.

MS. BEHLING: Okay, let me look.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MS. BEHLING: I'll get back to 

you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll come back 

to that one. We'll put that one on hold for 

now.

DR. ULSH: This one also has RMI. 

I don't know if that's different.

MR. HINNEFELD: Extrusion plant. 

It's two. It's the plant, and then the 

extrusion plant online, which is in Ashtabula.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That might make 

a difference because I don't think we've done 

that one. I don't recall.

MR. HINNEFELD: We wouldn't have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

done anything online.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

let's check it given that, and then we'll 

still wait for Kathy's response. 

MS. BEHLING: Mark, we looked at 

those, the Adrian and the Havens Plant. It 

was for Bridgeport Brass. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, but we 

haven't looked at RMI, have we? Or Reactive 

Metals Incorporated? I don't think we --

MS. BEHLING: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No? Okay. So, 

this one has that part of it in too. So, it 

says, Exposure matrix for Bridgeport Brass 

Havens Lab and Adrian Plant, summary of 

extrusion plant site information dose 

reconstruction. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't say --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

exactly.

MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't say, 

Haven Online.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it doesn't 

exactly say. But I'd think we can explore 

that anyway. So, I vote for that one. Others 

agree?

MEMBER MUNN: Sure.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Next one is 

564. This will be useful for the upcoming 

Idaho meeting, Kathy. So, I'm going to ask 

you now. You know how we've done a summary of 

the cases up to date by our parameters? 

Because I would be curious how many Savannah 

River cases we've projected to review versus 

how many we've reviewed at this point. 

MS. BEHLING: I can put that 

together.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, for that 

meeting. I don't expect you to have it off 

the top of your head now, but it might be 

helpful. This is another Savannah River case. 

It looks interesting. It looks like a best 

estimate. However, I want to make sure 

because in the overall scheme of things, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

sort of projected more the kind of percentage 

we want to look at by site, by the different 

categories.

MS. BEHLING: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I offered 

to do a review of the selection criteria at 

the next meeting. Good way to kind of 

summarize it, and look at other criteria and 

see if we're meeting what we intended. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Do you want to 

have an expectation number for each site as 

well?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think so,

yes. And it should be based on the number of 

cases we have now as opposed to the original. 

I think we were --

MR. HINNEFELD: We were going to 

do the expectation at 2.5 percent.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, it would be 

easier for us to run that than for SC&A.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

MR. HINNEFELD: It'd probably be 

easy for SC&A to run the ones actually gone. 

I would like them to do that. But we can run 

the 2.5 percent.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

MR. HINNEFELD: We won't carry 

that for all 300 sites, but we'll do the major 

DOE sites, and a couple of --

MS. BEHLING: Great. And if you 

can forward that to me, too, I can incorporate 

that into the --

DR. ULSH: And Brant can probably 

forward it to you.

MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, because 

we're interested in those two. So, I would 

vote for that case right now. So, 564, going 

back to that: I think we should keep that in 

the back of our mind. We can address that at 

the full Board meeting. If we have a lot of 

cases for Savannah River, as a full Board, we 

may decide to drop a few of these out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

MEMBER MUNN: I don't think we 

have any more proportionately than other 

sites.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, yes.

MEMBER MUNN: We'll find out when 

we crank the numbers.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 587 

is the NUMEC Parks Township. Now, I know 

we've done NUMEC. I'm pretty sure we've done 

NUMEC, but have we done Parks Township?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Those are 

the two -- I don't recall.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is an 

overestimate, but Site Profile says measured 

americium, plutonium, uranium. So, it's kind 

of a -- when it says, measured, I'm assuming 

that's a best estimate, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you can --

you can do some overestimating when you have 

measurements. Going back to NIOSH exchanges 

and things like that, you can --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it was, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

like, based on personal data, is what I'm 

saying, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: It looks like we 

have some personal data. Generally, we can 

get personal data from the site. I don't know 

about everybody, but we can get it from the 

site.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

one is --

MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like we have 

measured americium and plutonium. I mean it 

looks like we got a bioassay record on them.

MEMBER MUNN: Let's do it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I would 

include that.

MS. BEHLING: The previous NUMECs 

that we did were done under OTIB-4.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so this 

is another reason to do it. All right, 572, 

again Savannah River. Two cancers, 40 

percent. It's another lung case using a best 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

estimate. I mean that's --

MR. HINNEFELD: It doesn't really 

say for sure. I bet it's not far off. You 

got measured for this thing. Usually there's 

a record for the finding.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, there's 

usually a record. Okay, American Bearing 

Corp. I think the reason we picked this one 

was we hadn't done any from this site.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is this like a 

TBD-6000, or what is it?

MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like a TIB-4 

to me --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, TIB-4?

MR. HINNEFELD: -- from reading 

the internal and external, it's TIB-4.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maximum --

well, okay, it wasn't really best estimate. 

MR. HINNEFELD: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's not a 

Site Profile kind of thing. So, I think we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

can probably skip it -- I'll pass on it, yes. 

And the next one is Huntington. I know that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Rocky Flats, 

this falls outside the SEC.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't 

have the years of employment on here because 

we restrict the information on here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it says 

1950.

MR. HINNEFELD: It started in the 

fourth decade.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, I don't 

know. 

MEMBER MUNN: Is it best estimate?

DR. ULSH: The area would be in 

the SEC. The work area, I mean.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. ULSH: But I don't know.

MR. HINNEFELD: We may have gotten 

it from -- no, we wouldn't have get it from --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, if it's 

an SEC cancer, you can find that out before 

the next meeting.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: So, you do want it? 

If it's SEC you don't want it?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, if it's 

not, I want to know why.

DR. ULSH: It could be 250 days.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes, that's 

true.

DR. ULSH: I don't know.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, it says 32 

years, though.

MR. HINNEFELD: Don't know. We'll 

find out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I'm 

just going to put a NIOSH check on that one.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure what 

all organs track into the other respiratory 

model, either.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

there's any non-listed cancers that would 

check into that model.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Could be.

MR. HINNEFELD: Can't think of 

any.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That's 

why I'm asking.

MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: DuPont 

Deepwater Works. Have we done --

MS. BEHLING: We've done one of 

those.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, we have 

done one of them. And was it a site model? 

Was it a TBD-6000?

MS. BEHLING: It was a TBD-6000.

MR. HINNEFELD: 6001, I think.

MS. BEHLING: 6001, yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's right. 

I do remember now. So, I don't know that we 

need to do another case because it's the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

model, right, Stu? I mean it would be the 

same approach.

MR. HINNEFELD: With DuPont? 

We've done DuPont before?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: A TBD-6000 one?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it would do 

the same thing. Different sites that use 6001 

won't necessarily do the same thing, but a 

given site I think would.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I would say 

pass for that. How about the next one, 

Heppenstall. I don't think we've done that.

MS. BEHLING: We have done one, 

but I'm not sure what we've used there. It's 

a maximized --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this is a -

-

MR. HINNEFELD: 6001 as well.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Let's 

check it, and if it ends up -- I think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

other one was maybe a maximizing approach, 

right? An older TIB-4?

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

would call a 6001 maximized, probably. I 

don't know.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean the 

other one that Kathy is referring to.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, the other one 

that was done was -- it did -- I don't think 

it would be done 6001 and be referred to that 

way. It was probably a TIB-4 if they call it 

maximized.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can check 

that out.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I would 

say, let's -- let's check it for now. Let's 

include it.

MEMBER MUNN: That's very low.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's very low, 

yes. It is very low.

MEMBER POSTON: Have you included 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

it at this time?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean at 

least that's my feeling. It's not so much 

because men who work here as an experience, 

but it's really that we're reviewing the 

Heppenstall model, the 6001 model. Okay, 604, 

Nevada Test Site. 

MEMBER MUNN: What's this one?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I

was going to ask. Thyroid non-listed cancer.

MR. HINNEFELD: I think it is. I 

can find out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Send the 

question to NIOSH.

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't want to 

leave the spreadsheet here. After we're done, 

I can check.

MS. BEHLING: Back to the 

Heppenstall, that was OTIB-4.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay, 

so we're going to include this new Heppenstall 

one. And then the Nevada Test Site we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

going to have NIOSH check out whether it's a 

listed SEC cancer. If it's not, I would say 

we should take that. Clarksville facility, 

728, page number 728. Have we done anything 

at that facility?

MEMBER MUNN: Not that I know of.

MS. BEHLING: We've done one. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And was it a --

well, I don't know at this point.

MS. BEHLING: I'm not sure because 

individual --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is a TIB-2 

here, right? Oh, unmonitored Pantex TBD. So, 

you're using the unique approach on this. I 

mean it references the Pantex TBD. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was the 

other one, Kathy? Are you looking that up?

MS. BEHLING: I'm also seeing 

Pantex on that one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Did we 

get to that one, yet, or is in a -- I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

recall.

MS. BEHLING: No, we haven't 

gotten to that one yet.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

But you guys have done it, yes. Well, I would 

say pass on this one. It seems like a similar 

approach was used as on the last one. So, I 

would say pass because Kathy is describing 

what seems to be a similar approach.

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm betting it 

was.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, let's 

-- I would say pass on this one.

MEMBER MUNN: So, you're passing 

on 728 as well as 604, right?

DR. ULSH: 604 we're checking.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 604 NIOSH is 

going to check first.

MEMBER MUNN: Oh, so that gives 

them two to check?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 446: 

International Minerals and Chemical Corp. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

That one I don't recall. Kathy, we didn't do 

that one, did we?

MS. BEHLING: Yes, we have one. 

We haven't reviewed that one yet, and it looks 

like it was compensated, but I don't know. I 

have to go look.

DR. MAURO: It's John. This is 

part of the 12th set that we're just finishing 

up. I remember doing that one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This says, 

estimated photon dose based on Blockson site.

DR. MAURO: Yes, that's right. 

That was one of the problems with it.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's a radon. 

It's a prostate.

DR. MAURO: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it's 

relying on the radon model in Blockson, which 

is certainly going to bring us some issues.

DR. MAURO: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, but 

you'll have that case.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

DR. MAURO: The hard thing about 

it is I think it's a Florida facility. So, 

you may not have to use the radon models. You 

might be able to use the phosphate --

Yes, you got it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

DR. ULSH: Are we including that?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We have one 

just like it. So I would say skip this. Skip 

this one.

MR. HINNEFELD: Thyroid is a 

listed cancer.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. It 

should be in the SEC also. I'm not going to 

check it for now. I mean that should fall 

within the -- the -- it was all employees, 

right? It wasn't -- yes.

MEMBER MUNN: So, 604 is in?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 604 is out. It 

should be an SEC.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

DR. ULSH: So, 604, 728 and 446 

are all out?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 364. 

Okay, Kathy, have we done this one?

MS. BEHLING: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's all I'm 

going to say.

MS. BEHLING: No, we have not.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, all 

right. So, I think we want to pick that for 

that reason. And 690, Westinghouse Nuclear 

Fuel Division?

MS. BEHLING: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any objections 

to including that? All right, 169. I'm 

pretty sure we did General Steel.

DR. MAURO: That's for sure.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And is it 

the same -- I mean the approach would be the 

same for all General Steel cases, wouldn't it?

DR. MAURO: Yes, they have 

exposure matrix. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: They do not have any -

-

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

We've been through the --

DR. MAURO: You got it. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

why we picked this one the first time through, 

but I would say pass on this one.

DR. ULSH: Pass on 169?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 545, 

General Atomics?

MS. BEHLING: No, we have not done 

one of those.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. This is 

overestimating missed photons and unmonitored. 

This references Site Profile. Am I right 

about that? It's the best I can understand 

it.

MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we have 

a Site Profile for General Atomic.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

MEMBER MUNN: I am fairly sure you 

do.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess I have 

no objection to looking at this. Not sure if 

this -- perhaps this individual does not need 

data. I'm not sure if you have any personal 

injury data for this site, or if it's more of 

just Site Profile data.

MR. HINNEFELD: You know, I'm not 

real familiar with the site. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

we -- I guess we should --

MR. HINNEFELD: Although we do 

have an SEC class for it. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It doesn't 

overlap this time period, does it?

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 

DR. ULSH: Do you have the time 

period on that?

MR. HINNEFELD: Chances are that 

General Atomics is in the SEC, although the 

SEC lists certain buildings. You know, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

definition of a class with a certain building, 

and it's during the 60s. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this person 

has no indicated building, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: So, I -- this may 

not be in this claim. This case may not have 

done into the class.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I say 

vote it in for now.

DR. MAURO: This is John. I just 

noticed there is a General Atomics under the 

SEC package, but not under the Site Profile 

for the AWE or the regular one. So, I don't 

know if there's a special exposure -- if there 

is a Site Profile for General Atomics.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there is one. 

There's one on our website.

DR. MAURO: Okay. I just went on 

the website, too, to find that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Wanda just 

pulled one up. 

DR. MAURO: Okay. I see they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

on the SEC but not the Site Profiles.

MEMBER MUNN: Approved September 

26th, 2008.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: One hundred fortythree pages.

DR. MAURO: You got it. Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: Number 45. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

know, I was thinking case number. I'm looking 

at 610 now as the next one, another Savannah 

River, another best estimate. 

MEMBER MUNN: Why not? If the 

Board wants to check it out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we can 

always look at total number of Savannahs 

later. So, I would say leave it on for now.

MR. KATZ: So, that's number 

three?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Three or four 

of those. Next one is 694. This one is over 

45 percent. It's certainly in the later years 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

of Hanford.

MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's a best 

estimate.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it is a 

best estimate. I say take it, include it. 

Savannah River, 733. Not as interesting to 

me. Measured and missed, I guess. Pass on 

that one. Got a lot of Savannahs.

Another General Steel. Now, this 

one I can see maybe more -- it is General 

Steel again, but as Ted was saying, we had a 

reason for including these when we first went 

through them. It's the same model. It's 

Appendix BB to TBD-6000. This one is 49.14, 

and 24 years. It looks like pretty close to 

the cut off. I would say we could at least 

include that one.

All right, here is a Rocky Flats 

non-SEC model, right? So, I think that's part 

of the reason we picked this one. 540 I was 

saying keep it in.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The next one is 

maybe -- yes, it is in the covered period for 

LANL, 288. Short time period, but short time 

period working there, but beyond the SECcovered period. 

MEMBER MUNN: That's a best 

estimate too.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And best 

estimate, yes. I would say yes, include it. 

That's 288. Do we have a running tab?

MR. KATZ: Yes. We're up to --

that's 19 by my count.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so 

we have several more pages. Okay, 681, very 

close to the cut off. Sandia, we might've 

done some cases, but I don't think many. The 

best estimate is based on environmental -- or 

that's actually because of the job title, 

buyer and cash buyer, whatever that means. 

Buying cash?

MEMBER MUNN: You said 19 or 18?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

include that one, 681. So, this must be a 

non-SEC cancer on the next one, 661. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Could have it for 

medical benefits.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Either 

way, it looks like an interesting case to look 

at. It's pretty close to the 50th percentile. 

Best estimate and measured and missed 

uranium. Anyway, that's 661. 484: This is 

cited as Ames Lab, but it also has Jayhawks 

Works. 

MR. HINNEFELD: That's Spencer 

Chemical.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Have we 

done Spencer Chemical? 

MS. BEHLING: No, we haven't. 

MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It looks like a 

combination of sites.

MEMBER MUNN: Sure does.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 484, 

include that I would say. Next is number 719, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

best estimate and missed plutonium/uranium. 

MEMBER MUNN: This is an 

interesting combination of job titles if ever 

I've seen one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. What 

do people think on that one?

MEMBER MUNN: We've done a lot of 

that both on that site and that type of 

cancer.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: I can see passing on 

that one. How about 570? 

MS. BEHLING: We have done one 

from this facility just recently.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And what was 

the method of dose reconstruction, do you 

know?

MS. BEHLING: It was just a recent 

case. I'm not sure. I'll have to look.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This would be 

S50 --

MR. HINNEFELD: S50 is part of an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

SEC class, and we can't really do anything. 

This would just have medical probably.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see it says, 

external can't be reconstructed. Neither can 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: Internal?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, 

there's nothing for us to review really.

MR. HINNEFELD: No, not from 

there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

right, W.R. Grace, Kathy?

MS. BEHLING: I don't think we've 

done anything.

MEMBER MUNN: It's best estimate.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it is best 

estimate, unmonitored uranium/plutonium so the 

exposure matrix says. That's interesting.

MEMBER MUNN: External cancers. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

That's true. We're really reviewing the -- we 

-- we do those mini-Site Profile reviews on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

those.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's make a 

note of that, though, Wanda. You're right. 

If we have a more interesting cancer that we 

can use as part of the model, that would be 

preferable.

All right, 629, have we done that 

site?

MS. BEHLING: No.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thirty-eight 

years of experience. 

MR. HINNEFELD: There's a class. 

So, there may not be any.

Yes. I mean it would've been paid 

through the class, but -- probably. But there 

may not be a component. CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 

Yes. It says, cannot be reconstructed for 

SAM laboratory as overestimate. Unmonitored 

for external. 

MR. HINNEFELD: SAM stands for 

Special something Materials. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

we're going to pass that one for now. 744 is 

Alcoa.

MS. BEHLING: I don't see that on 

my list.

MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like it's a 

specific appendix to 6001.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Appendix R, 

okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, include it? 

Sounds like a lot of work for John coming up.

DR. MAURO: I love it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was waiting 

for your response.

DR. MAURO: I had to pick up the 

handset.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Making sure 

you're out there. Okay, 358, Pacific Proving 

Ground. Have we --

MS. BEHLING: I don't see that on 

our list here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

DR. MAURO: I don't recall. I 

would remember Pacific Proving Ground.

MR. HINNEFELD: There is a class 

for that. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There is a 

class, and the internal cannot be 

reconstructed with it. Is that -- and the 

other is an overestimate. Doesn't seem like 

it's anything site-specific that we're going 

to be reviewing.

MR. HINNEFELD: There might. We 

get exposure records sometimes. Not for every 

case, but we do get exposure records.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It's one 

year of experience, malignant melanoma. I 

don't know, what do people think? It could go 

either way.

MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's pretty 

hot out there.

DR. MAURO: Is this a partial 

where we only do external but not the 

internal?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What do you 

think for this one?

MEMBER GIBSON: Leave it in.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Leave it in? 

Okay, that was 358. Okay, 666.

MEMBER MUNN: Ooh, never do that 

one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Stu voted 

for that one.

MR. HINNEFELD: I can't vote on 

that. That's a --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let the record 

show Stu did not vote on that.

MEMBER MUNN: And Wanda said, ooh.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 666, we're 

voting it in. Nice number, too. 517 is --

MS. BEHLING: We've done one of 

these, and John --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes, 

Electromet.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

DR. MAURO: Electromet is 

undergoing extensive review, as you can 

imagine. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's a 

6001, I think.

DR. MAURO: 6001, yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got a codependent, and we just brought it up on that 

subcommittee. So, let's skip that. 648, 

Simonds Saw, I know we've done that one. Why 

did we pick it, you might ask. We've done at 

least one on Simonds Saw, right, Kathy?

MS. BEHLING: Three, and I see 

we've done based on TBD and IMBA. So, three. 

And it looks like we did from the Site 

Profile.

MEMBER MUNN: All estimates.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So, I 

don't think we're going to gain much review on 

this.

MEMBER MUNN: Probably not.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Skip that one. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

208, this one looks new.

MS. BEHLING: We haven't done any 

of these.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The job type is 

-- this is estimated based on HASL-40.

MEMBER MUNN: Environmental 

hazards.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we 

haven't reviewed that HASL-40. I mean, I 

don't think. So, I think it's worth looking 

at. Now, I'm back to Savannah River, 016. 

MEMBER MUNN: Another thyroid.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Another thyroid 

at Savannah River. Again, administrative sort 

of job type.

MEMBER MUNN: Missed dose, more 

ambient, environment stuff. I'd pass on it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

think there's going to be much exciting in the 

records on that, although 47th percentile.

MEMBER POSTON: I don't know how 

you get to 47.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know.

MEMBER MUNN: Overestimate.

MEMBER POSTON: Is that primarily 

it?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, it 

doesn't say overestimate.

MEMBER MUNN: It says 

environmental.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Environmental, 

yes.

MEMBER MUNN: And measured and 

missed onsite ambient.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean we could 

review it from that standpoint, too. I think 

that's fair, then.

DR. ULSH: All right, is that it?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's include 

it, then, because it does raise the question 

of how do you get that close to 50 percent.

DR. MAURO: What site is this?

MR. KATZ: 016, Savannah River 

site.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

DR. MAURO: And the only exposure 

was environmental?

MEMBER MUNN: It appears to be. 

Onsite ambient.

MR. HINNEFELD: On the internal. 

There is an external record.

MR. SIEBERT: If it's the thyroid, 

there may be a chance.

DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

right, next is -- last one is Ames Lab. Is 

this the last one?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MS. BEHLING: I don't see any Ames 

Lab on our list.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We haven't done 

Ames Lab? Open a 250-day question, right?

DR. MAURO: That's right.

MR. HINNEFELD: There's been a lot 

of discussion about Ames. I'm not sure --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

let's do one.

MEMBER MUNN: It's a best 

estimate.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Let's 

include 036. All right, and how many total do 

we have, Ted?

MR. KATZ: I have 29, but Wanda is 

too high. She has more than I have.

MEMBER MUNN: I don't know.

MR. KATZ: I may have missed one 

or two. 

MS. LIN: I have 29.

MR. KATZ: You have 29? Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: I have 32, one 

including a maybe and one including a NIOSH 

check. 

MR. KATZ: Did you have 29, John?

MEMBER POSTON: I have 29.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I have 30, 

just to confuse us even more.

MEMBER MUNN: I have 30 also, if I 

exclude the NIOSH.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll run down 

the list I have again. 680, 117, 138, 525.

MR. KATZ: I don't have that one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 657, 137, 753.

MR. HINNEFELD: That may have been 

the difference.

MR. KATZ: Yes, that's the 

difference.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 620, 564, 587, 

572, 596.

MR. HINNEFELD: No, 396.

MEMBER MUNN: 396 is the one that 

NIOSH is checking.

MR. KATZ: I wrote it as 596, too.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 596.

MEMBER MUNN: 596 is --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 396 you're 

checking, yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, we're checking 

on that. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought that 

was an SEC, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and then 596 is 

on the list.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I 

didn't include the two NIOSH checks.

MR. KATZ: Yes, I didn't either.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 364.

MEMBER MUNN: What about 748?

MR. KATZ: No.

MEMBER MUNN: You said no?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We changed that 

because it was a good reason.

MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Kathy said we 

had one of them already. So, 364, 690, 545. 

I'm sorry.

MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, 610, 694, 

460, 540, 288, 681, 661, 484, 754, 744, 358, 

666, 208, 016, 036. All right, that gives us 

30 with two NIOSH checks, and we'll bring that 

back.

MR. HINNEFELD: We're checking on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

396 for SEC. What was the other one we were 

checking?

DR. ULSH: 604.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 604 is right, 

yes.

DR. MAURO: Mark?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes?

DR. MAURO: Just stepping back a 

little bit, I know you folks like to try to do 

60 per year. Where would it be with these? 

These plus, I guess, 47 that are in -- it 

really straddles two years. I don't know how 

many of those would be -- like for example, we 

got 60 in for last year, but part of that 47 

goes to last year. 

Where I'm headed with this is with 

this 30, plus maybe ten or so from the group 

that was just finished, we're not up to 60. 

If you do want to reach 60 this year, you 

probably want to do more than 30 now. Because 

I'll tell you what's going to happen.

We'll look at the 30 here within a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

month or a few weeks. Usually it takes three 

or four months to move these out. So, the 

next time we did another 30 or 20, or whatever 

number to bring us to 60, that will happen 

this year. And I mean we're fine. This is 

going to fly very nicely, but just to alert 

you, you probably won't reach 60 this calendar 

year.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's 

bring that up at the full Board meeting, John. 

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If the full 

Board wants to immediately ask NIOSH to give 

us another list, then we can try to address it 

with the Board.

DR. MAURO: Yes. I just wanted to 

alert you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know it's 

pushing it. I understand.

DR. MAURO: You know what would be 

helpful? I know those 47 sort of straddle 

2009-2010. Some of them go to filling up the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

60 for 2009 out of the 47, and some of those 

47 could go towards 2010.

So, we've got an idea of how many 

we'd fall short this year to 60 if we only do 

these initial 30.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. I 

think we can -- I don't feel comfortable 

adding any more on than we have right now.

DR. MAURO: No, I understand.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. MAURO: I understand.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll take it 

up at the full meeting.

DR. MAURO: Sure.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, can 

we take a five-minute break, and then come 

back?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Five to ten, 

you guys on the phone. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 1:37 p.m. and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

resumed at 1:50 p.m.)

MR. KATZ: Okay, we're starting up 

again.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, John 

and Kathy, are you still with us?

MS. BEHLING: I'm still here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

DR. MAURO: Still here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're going to 

go back to the eighth set and make some 

headway. So, probably about four o'clock, 

we'll break off. So, if everybody can go back 

to the eighth set again; we left off -- Doug, 

help me out. 164.1, correct?

MR. FARVER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so you 

can take it from there.

MR. FARVER: 164.1, inappropriate 

method used for assigning core dose. As it 

turns out it looks like it was an error in the 

workbook, where an additional factor of 1.3 

was being used, which I guess, if that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

correct then the concern would be, has that 

been corrected and did it affect other cases.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it was an 

error in the workbook? Not the --

MR. FARVER: I believe. That's 

how I'm reading the response.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, how 

do we -- this goes back to that tracking-itthrough question. 

DR. ULSH: Well, tracking it 

through; do you mean like in terms of the dose 

reconstruction?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In terms of the

other cases we've done using this tool.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, assuming it 

was fixed, which I can't go back and look, if 

it's an overestimate, it's applying an extra 

factor of 1.3. So, it's not like we go back 

to do a PER.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. You're 

right. So, it is an overestimate. So, that 

wraps it up for this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

MR. FARVER: Probably should still 

verify that it was corrected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

But it wouldn't require a PER. So, we should 

verify that the workbook was fixed. You can 

go ahead on the next one.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 164.2, 

inappropriate method used for assigning missed 

dose. It goes back to the l over d over 2 

question. It shows an increase. So, it 

increased the dose by -- I don't know, 150 

millirem. And this is not an issue anymore, I 

believe, because --

MR. SIEBERT: One thing I'd like 

to find out; I think we should remove the 

first two words of the NIOSH response because 

we don't necessarily agree it's an issue 

because it occurred prior to the l over d over 

2 method being implemented. 

So, I don't see it as an error. 

It's just we did look at it, what kind of an 

impact it would have, if it had been in place, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

and it had no changes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, thanks.

MR. FARVER: So, 164.3 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, there's no 

-- so, it's done, right? Closed, no further 

action.

MR. FARVER: 164.3 has to do with 

assigning missed neutron dose. This is -- I 

would bet this is a Y-12 case.

MR. SIEBERT: Identical issue, 

Doug.

MR. FARVER: Same issue, different 

person. Also appears to be a machinist, 

worked in many areas.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this is 

really referred to the -- are we again 

referring this one to the Site Profile?

MR. FARVER: I would, just because 

it goes back to the Report 0033 statement 

about doses prior to 61.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You don't have 

any disagreement with the way they did it? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

It's just that --

MR. FARVER: They followed the --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they 

followed --

MR. FARVER: They followed the 

report.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

All right, and which one -- I'm just -- I want 

to make sure I copy the same referral. We 

transfer it to the Site Profile.

MR. FARVER: 163.3 was the other 

one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, thanks. 

163.3?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it was also 

163 something else.

MEMBER MUNN: 163.3.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, go 

ahead.

MR. FARVER: 164.4, the DR did not 

include U-235 exposure in the dose assignment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

or consider possible additional thorium 

exposures. As for the thorium, this is almost 

like it's a Site Profile issue, I would think, 

but I don't guarantee that.

MEMBER MUNN: Well, the PER is 

being evaluated.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

MR. FARVER: And I believe the 235 

exposure that's discussed is talking about 

full body counts, or actually lung counts. 

And what NIOSH did is they assessed the dose 

based on bioassay results, urine bioassay. 

So, now, I concur with their response.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 

only issue would be what is -- do we have a 

number on that PER? I mean is that on our 

list of --

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure how 

far along that is, to be honest with you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: Remember these 

responses were written two years ago.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to go 

back and find out. That may be something that 

we need to pick up with the Y-12 Site Profile 

review. It might be something for that, that 

issue, to make sure that thorium exposures are 

properly addressed. I don't know how else to 

phrase it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Part of 

the justification for the class was thorium, 

right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because that 

was in the early -- I'm trying to remember. 

MR. HINNEFELD: There is a thorium 

class at Y-12 for some period of time. I 

forget when it was, though. I don't remember 

a lot about it. 

This goes to Y-12 Site Profile 

more than anything.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I believe so.

MR. HINNEFELD: The thorium 

portion of it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If the case is 

redone, though -- this PER review is already -

- I mean this is two years ago.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's not familiar 

to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It could've 

been reevaluated by now.

MR. HINNEFELD: It may have been. 

I mean we can go back and look at that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, maybe NIOSH 

should pull the case and see if the thorium 

was reevaluated.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Check status of the Y12 for --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and this case 

in particular. Was this case reevaluated?

MR. SIEBERT: I'm checking right 

now. That claim has not been touched since 

this final version.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, so it hasn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

been reworked. So, we know that. We need to 

figure out what happened to all the Y-12 

thorium. That's not familiar to me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe next time 

we'll decide if we want to shift it to the 

Site Profile group.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But for now, 

respond back here. I have nothing more on 

that, unless Scott, do you have any -- are you 

looking at something?

MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking at the 

PER at that time. I'm looking at the PER 

right at -- PER 0031. The response we wrote 

up is there was no substantial change due to 

it, listed thorium 232, 228. I can look up 

the actual PER.

Y-12 TBD revisions. Yes, this was 

covered under the Y-12 TBD revisions. It was 

reviewed under the PER for those revisions. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it's 

in the Site Profile revisions?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

MR. SIEBERT: There was a Site 

Profile revision, and a PER in 2007 that came 

out of that. And this was evaluated under 

that PER, and determined to have no effect.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 

right.

MEMBER MUNN: So, it's done?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's done, but 

we haven't looked at the Site Profile. It's a 

Site Profile issue, right? Or, a PER issue. 

If that's on our list of -- do you have a 

number for the PER?

MEMBER MUNN: He said 0031.

MR. SIEBERT: PER 0031.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thirty-one?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

DR. MAURO: That's not among the 

list of five you recently got.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. But we 

selected off a large list, right? So, this 

could be in future --

MR. HINNEFELD: It could come up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

in the future.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I would say 

we should at least refer it to the Site 

Profile Work Group, which doesn't exist.

DR. ULSH: So, transfer to Y-12 

Site Profile?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

MR. KATZ: We can set that back 

up.

MEMBER MUNN: We are transferring 

it to them so they can take a look at the Site 

Profile issues with respect to thorium; is 

that --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're 

transferring it to the Site Profile group to 

address the change that was made in the Site 

Profile on how to reconstruct thorium, right? 

I mean this case, it'll close -- it'll 

transfer in this case. 

MEMBER MUNN: Okay. The case has 

been redone, we just heard.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

MEMBER MUNN: And the PER has been 

done. We've just heard. And yet we're 

holding this open even though the case has 

been redone and the PER has been done.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I think -- we 

haven't looked at it yet, but I think the PER 

0031 would be the place we could do it. I 

feel that way because apparently --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It would make 

more sense. It's on the list.

MR. HINNEFELD: There were some 

recognized -- there were some re-revised Y-12 

Site Profiles. Those reasons affect this 

case, but that revision was made. The PER was 

redone. This case was looked at under the 

PER. So, it would seem to me that PER 0031, 

in some review of that, which we expect would 

happen at some time.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. That makes 

sense.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

was my question. It makes more sense, but I 

wasn't sure if that was -- since it's not in 

our list of PERs to review, I didn't know 

where I was --

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that was 

just because Procedures hadn't got to it.

MEMBER MUNN: We can always start 

making a new list anytime.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But are we 

recommending that the Procedures group should 

include this one in their PER?

MR. HINNEFELD: It seems to me it 

fits better there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it does.

MR. HINNEFELD: It seems to fit 

better in the procedures group.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just didn't 

want to refer it to a list of PERs that then

the Procedures group says, oh, we don't want 

to review this one.

MR. KATZ: The Procedures group 

doesn't choose the ones in the first place. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

The full Board does.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the full 

Board. Yes, but I mean if we thought from 

this case that this should be one of them, I 

think we'd say that somehow.

MEMBER MUNN: We could put it in 

the report to the Board a recommendation that 

they --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 

wanted to -- yes.

DR. ULSH: Okay, so what status 

should we record for this?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, the case 

is closed. I think it's closed, and we're 

referring it to the PER review under the 

procedures. PER 0031.

MEMBER MUNN: PER 0031?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: PER 0031.

MEMBER MUNN: I hope we're 

recommending to the Board. Let's recommend to 

the Board at the next meeting.

MR. KATZ: Recommend to the Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

a review of this PER.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, all 

right.

MEMBER MUNN: Include this PER.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, got it. 

All right, Doug.

MR. FARVER: Finding 165.1, 

inappropriate factor used to convert electrons 

to organ dose. Basically, a factor of 2.04 

correction factor was used when, during 1958, 

the correct factor should have been 2.86, and 

this has to do with a parameter in the 

workbook, the calculation for INEEL 

calculation workbook under lookup parameters. 

It was in the 1.20 version, and it still 

appeared in the 1.76 version.

MEMBER MUNN: And so?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it doesn't 

have an affect on this case.

MR. FARVER: Well, I just --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We need NIOSH 

to check, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

MR. FARVER: Correct. It's a 

small change, but has it been corrected? Does 

it need to be corrected? It's -- the workbook 

is just selecting the wrong parameter, and 

it's an underestimate.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, I'm talking 

while I'm muted and you're probably not 

hearing me. Sorry about that. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the way 

it works.

MR. SIEBERT: The other thing I 

want to point out is 1958, I believe, is when 

they changed dosimetry in the middle of the 

year. So, that factor is appropriate for the 

first portion of the year, and the larger 

factor is appropriate for the second half of 

the year. But I don't remember exactly the 

breakdown.

MR. FARVER: It stops in March of 

58, and then the higher one picks up at the 

end of March, I believe.

MR. SIEBERT: Right. So, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

believe in a situation like that what we'll 

normally do for the workbooks is use the 

larger of the two just for the full year, 

rather than trying to have somebody break out 

the different portions. But we can check to 

make sure that that's been changed.

MR. FARVER: That's a good idea. 

Don't use the smaller one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH will 

check to make sure the workbook has been 

updated.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, go ahead.

MR. FARVER: 165.2 -- no. Yes. 

It's basically the same thing, only it has to 

do with missed organ dose.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so 

again NIOSH will check that.

MR. FARVER: It's a workbook 

issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, go 

ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

MR. FARVER: 165.3, neutron organ 

dose calculation in error. I used a dosimeter 

bias of 1.6, although when you look in the 

workbook, they don't multiply it by 1.6. They 

divide it by 1.6, which underestimates that 

dose by about 50 percent.

MR. SIEBERT: We're going to have 

to get back to you on that one and look at 

workbooks.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. How did 

the error result in a more claimant-favorable 

dose assignment? That's NIOSH's response.

MR. SIEBERT: If it used -- it was 

multiplied by the factor of 1.6 for bias, then 

it would be an overestimate. What that's 

saying is it's dividing. So, we'll have to 

look at that.

MR. FARVER: Okay, all right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH will 

review.

MR. FARVER: 165.4, neutron missed 

skin dose calculation in error. I believe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

that's another workbook error.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Is it the same 

workbook?

MR. FARVER: It's the neutron 

dose.

MR. HINNEFELD: Should be. I 

don't know if it's the same workbook.

MR. FARVER: No, I don't think so. 

This looks like this is a different workbook. 

This is the complex-wide best-estimate 

external tool 1.1.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Complex-wide. 

Your second question is, does it affect --

MR. FARVER: Let me find it. Oh, 

no, that's the bladder dose. Hang on. I'm 

one finding behind. Neutron skin dose, this 

goes back to the INEEL calculation workbook. 

This is where he used a dosimeter correction 

factor and applied it to a missed dose, which 

I don't believe it's appropriate to use the 

correction factor for a missed dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

MEMBER MUNN: I agree. That is 

not.

MR. HINNEFELD: Not if you 

published the limit of detection correctly.

MR. FARVER: That's what it comes 

down to.

MEMBER MUNN: The action was to 

revise the TBDs that weren't consistent with 

it.

DR. ULSH: It looks like the 

action item is for us to check the status.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I guess 

so. The question is -- it's one thing if the 

Site Profile is wrong. I guess it's more 

important if the workbook was wrong, right?

MR. FARVER: Correct. I believe 

it was the workbook that was in error.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The workbook, 

then. Does it impact other --

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, you've got 

the action right, Brant?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And then 165.5, 

uncertainty improperly calculated for medical 

organ doses. It was at 20 percent instead of 

30 percent. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, NIOSH 

agrees with this, right?

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MR. FARVER: 166.1 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait. Is there 

-- I mean was this a case-specific thing, or a 

workbook thing?

MR. FARVER: I believe this was 

case-specific.

MEMBER MUNN: It says, improperly 

calculated. So, that must mean --

MR. HINNEFELD: So, it's no 

further action, right?

MEMBER MUNN: No further action, 

yes.

DR. ULSH: The only thing that 

concerns me there is our response doesn't say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

it should've been -- it says, should've been 

30 percent, not 20 percent. 

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

DR. ULSH: There was no effect. 

That part is not there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that part 

is not there. Yes, I think you'd need to 

close that just to make sure.

DR. ULSH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But likely 

that's true.

MR. FARVER: And I don't know if 

it was a workbook or a --

MR. HINNEFELD: Follow up on that 

to see if it was a workbook error.

MR. FARVER: Since you're checking 

that workbook anyway. It is not clear. I 

know sometimes they'll use the workbook, and 

sometimes they won't. 

Okay, 166.1, failure to use glovebox factors in assigning recorded photon dose.

MEMBER POSTON: They're all the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

same, the next four.

MR. FARVER: Photon, missed 

photon, neutron and it looks like this is 

neutron. Yes, so we can just hit the next 

four with one swipe here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Apparently, there was 

a statement in the report, which I'm trying to 

find. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The statement 

in the report indicating the employee worked 

in glove boxes throughout his employment is 

erroneous. That might've just said he worked 

in glove boxes, but couldn't have done it 

before this time frame. Is that what you're 

saying?

MR. HINNEFELD: The conclusion was 

he did not during that time frame because the 

glove box was --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. He 

might've worked 60s through 80, and said, yes, 

I worked at them all the time. It really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

didn't happen until after a certain time, 

right? Is that what you're saying? 

MR. HINNEFELD: That's our 

argument. Don't have any evidence for our 

argument, but that's our argument.

MR. FARVER: I'm trying to find 

the quote from the -- okay. Here's the 

statement right from the DR. It was also 

assumed that the employee worked in glove 

boxes throughout the employee's employment. 

MR. HINNEFELD: So, it's from the 

DR?

MR. FARVER: Yes. So, it's kind 

of weasely words. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Kind of really not 

true. It really wasn't assumed that he worked 

in the glove box throughout his employment.

MR. FARVER: And that's probably 

what the finding was based on: that statement.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I think 

that's closed. We understand it, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

MR. FARVER: Yes, I understand it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: 166.5, failure to 

account for all medical dose. Apparently, 

additional X-rays were identified prior to 

approval of the dose reconstruction and did 

not get considered.

DR. ULSH: It looks to me like we 

need to check the status and make sure the 

additional X-rays are now included.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

MEMBER MUNN: A reassessment.

MR. FARVER: Now, it's another 

question; should he have caught this before it 

was signed off?

DR. ULSH: Our response says we 

should've.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have a QA 

thing there?

MR. FARVER: Yes. 166.6 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're not even 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

going to check the determinant?

DR. ULSH: We should make sure 

that those additional X-rays are in there.

MR. FARVER: 166.6, the CADW data 

is not consistent with the IREP input entries. 

Let me get some more information on this here 

quick.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm assuming 

from this language that it didn't affect the 

outcome, but it doesn't really say that.

MR. HINNEFELD: You should check 

that again. It's the same claim. We should 

check that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is the same 

claim.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We'll check 

the intake out of the IREP.

MR. FARVER: Yes. That's what it 

comes down to.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: There's a missing 

intake. I know a lot of times I'll go cut and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

paste numbers from, like, the CADW reporting 

to an IREP and things do get missed.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Last is an 

observation. This is the Super S observation, 

right?

MR. FARVER: That's our general 

Super S observation.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. ULSH: Scott, I don't know if 

you have the ability to check real quick and 

see if this one was reevaluated for Super S.

MR. SIEBERT: That's exactly what 

I'm doing. Hold on a second. I already 

started to look at the X-ray, but that was 

going to take me a little bit too long. It 

was not needed to be because it appears in the 

rework compensable.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it was 

compensable before Super S was included. Is 

that what you're saying?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why was it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

reworked before Super S?

MR. SIEBERT: Just a second. I'm 

looking through this one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe 

you can just provide that as a -- we don't 

need all of it right now, I guess. And maybe 

if these other things were considered, it 

kicked it over.

MR. HINNEFELD: It could've been 

an additional cancer, and that was enough to 

kick it over.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: True. That's 

true. Several reasons.

MR. HINNEFELD: Lots of reasons.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Don't want to 

speculate.

MR. HINNEFELD: Lot of 

possibilities for reworked cases.

MR. SIEBERT: There was a change 

in cancer information.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's more 

likely.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

MEMBER MUNN: Besides, it says all 

DRs with potential impact are being redone.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But in 

that case --

MR. HINNEFELD: They still needed 

to check the workbooks out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. External 

should've been -- yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: You don't need to 

verify, you don't need to see that all these 

things were taken into account, because the 

rework was comp. You still need to check the 

workbooks to see if they've been corrected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. All 

right, we're onto 167, right?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug?

MR. FARVER: Okay, I have the 

wrong document open. No wonder it didn't 

match. It has to do with selecting the 

correct recorded photon dose uncertainty, and 

we contend that it should be 30 percent. They 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

say they pulled it right from the table. 

So, I'm going to look at that 

table right now because I thought I looked at 

it. No, I'll stand by. It says that -- we 

agree. They chose to correct one. I'm not 

sure where our reviewer got the 30 percent 

from.

DR. ULSH: Maybe QA?

MR. FARVER: Could be.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, SC&A 

accepts the NIOSH response?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that's no 

further action, right?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We like those 

completely closed ones, right? This is --

that was 167.1. 167.2?

MR. FARVER: All right, I 

understand where that 30 percent came from. 

If you go later on into the Savannah River 

document, where it talks about assignment of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

external doses for monitoring data for best 

estimates, measured doses are treated as a 

normal distribution to standard deviation of 

30 percent. But in parenthesis, it says, or 

other appropriate value that may be provided 

in section 5.

So, if you didn't have a value in 

section 5, you used 30 percent. That's where 

the 30 percent came from.

MEMBER MUNN: Was there a value in 

section 5?

MR. FARVER: Yes, there was. 

There was a 25 percent. 167.2, it looks like 

our same l over d, our l over d over 2. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We asked the 

question earlier on Savannah River to --

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Under the DCF 

and LOD, whether they had any overall affect, 

right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we were 

talking about that earlier. LOD over 2, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

know, counting that is -- not for your missed 

dose but missed dose isn't exactly a wash. 

It's hard to predict which way it's going to 

go. It's not changing things a lot. 

MR. FARVER: That refers back to 

164.2, where we had a discussion before about 

the LOD over 2.

MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

MR. FARVER: Okay, so we can close 

that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Closed, no 

further action on this one. Twenty-three?

MR. FARVER: 167.3, failed to 

consider unmonitored neutron dose. And this 

is our friend neutron dose. 

Let's see if I summarized it. 

Well, TIB-7 was published -- this was another 

one of these cases where TIB-7 was published 

two years after the dose reconstruction. But 

even if you look at TIB-7, there's -- that's 

quoted over there about the claimant-favorable 

weight-of-the-evidence approach, with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

particular -- the source of information 

identified in Section 2.1, blah, blah, blah.

According to the CATI report, the 

EE was assigned to P reactor during 53 to 59, 

and I believe this is Savannah River. Yes. 

Concerning the reactors, the Technical Basis 

states that fission neutrons are also a 

concern. So, if you apply the claimantfavorable approach, we feel that they 

should've been assigned a dose from 53 to 59, 

unmonitored neutron dose.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we 

can go out and pull out the case and compare 

it to TIB-7 --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This was before 

TIB-7.

MR. HINNEFELD: The thing to 

recall though, the reactor neutron dose -- I 

think it's correct it's Savannah River --

provides a neutron dose in some areas. 

So, just being assigned to the 

reactor area does not mean that you're exposed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

to neutrons. And I believe we put some job 

titles somewhere that include the types of job 

titles that you would think would be exposed 

when they're assigned to the reactor. It's a 

relatively short list. 

So, we should go review that 

against those things. We can have Tim take a 

look at TIB-7 again to see if that's what we 

think is correct today, compared to what we 

thought was correct when we wrote it. Tim's 

been doing a lot of research on this matter. 

I don't know if he's been working on this or 

not, but he has been doing a lot of research. 

 

MR. FARVER: Apparently, the EE 

was monitored for photons during that time 

period also.

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they wore a 

photon badge. I mean they were -- that's for 

sure. They may have worn a neutron badge, but 

there is a certain expectation that these --

people who did this kind of work, Tim called 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

it a crane bay was where you were liable to 

have neutron dose in the reactor area.

MR. SIEBERT: He's a project 

engineer.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, these were 

like rad techs. I think reactor operators. 

Maybe a couple others were the job titles that 

you would expect to -- well, Tim is a lot 

smarter about Savannah River today than he was 

several years ago, so we'll see what he 

thinks. 

MR. FARVER: And I think a lot of 

this hinges on what was in TIB-7.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: About that claimantfavorable weight-of-the-evidence approach.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. ULSH: So the action item is 

for us to respond to your comment?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: 167.4 is a failure to 

assign correct occupational medical bills from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

53 through 59. This might be one of those 

cases where at the time this was performed, 

then it was correct. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was it 

corrected in the TBD? Reworded in the --

MR. FARVER: Let's see.

DR. ULSH: That is probably out of 

the occupational section of the DR.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Under DR? 

Right, right.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It would be 

there.

MR. FARVER: It was about her 

choosing the -- instead of choosing the 

remainder, they chose the thyroid, I believe. 

MEMBER MUNN: So is the action to 

check to see if that rewording has occurred?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I don't 

think they would -- they wouldn't reissue a 

report. This is the DR report.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I know. Put a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

note in the file or something?

DR. ULSH: I think that would be a 

possibility. What we're saying here is that 

we did the dose reconstruction right. It's 

just that we described what we did wrong.

MR. HINNEFELD: Described what we 

did wrong.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean it's a QA 

concern. It's listed as a QA. It's the kind 

of thing that we have to address in our action 

to QA, actually, because a number of the QA 

findings speak to that.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: You know, saying 

you did one thing when in fact you calculated 

something else.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. ULSH: So, is there an action 

item to check that, or are we closing it? 

What's the status?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

closed. I guess Wanda makes a good point 

though that is it somehow noted in the case 

file so that in the event this person gets 

cancer, gets reassessed or whatever. You 

know.

MR. SIEBERT: This has been 

reassessed since.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It has been?

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm having trouble 

figuring out where we'd put it in the case 

file where it would come up.

MEMBER MUNN: And I am not familiar 

enough with the protocol.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. When it 

was reassessed, the reissue -- you reissued a 

DR report to the individual?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And did that 

have any change in this language? Possibly 

not, because this hasn't come up yet. 

MR. SIEBERT: Checking now.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

DR. ULSH: Oh, I see why it was 

reassessed. It was for Super S. That's the 

one, right?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That may take 

us to the next one. I'll fill that one out 

now. It has been reassessed. Did it end up 

being compensable after Super S? Yes, yes. I 

see, 47 percent.

MR. SIEBERT: The way this version 

states is the current dose was assigned based 

on the remainder dose. It stated specifically 

in the X-ray medical dose portion.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it was 

changed correctly, right?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: And you wanted me to 

check Super S?

DR. ULSH: Well, we -- two lines 

down, we say that it was reassessed for Super 

S.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

DR. ULSH: Mark had a question. 

Did that change the compensability though?

MR. SIEBERT: Does specifically 

have Super S in it. Let me check the -- no.

DR. ULSH: Still non-comp?

MR. SIEBERT: Still non-comp.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All 

right, then 167.5? Four is closed. Yes, no 

further action on four.

MR. FARVER: 167.5, unable to 

match derived internal doses. And what this 

comes down to is there's -- if you use 

different CADW versions, you can get different 

results. 

For example, I give an example 

there. Version 6.0 produces results for this 

case, but about 14.3 percent higher than 4.3. 

So, I'm just kind of pointing out where the 

differences are. It's not so much -- it's 

just more of a statement, saying, this is what 

can happen when different versions are used.

Now, since the CADW Version 6.0 is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

14 percent higher in this case, it's probably 

going to be higher than the version that was 

used to calculate this person's doses, because 

I don't think they had 6.0 back then when this 

dose assessment was done. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was all 

reworked in 2008, right?

MR. FARVER: It should've been 

corrected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Do we 

need just to review that and make sure?

MR. HINNEFELD: I think that we 

need to understand what changed from 4.6 to 

6.0 --

MR. SIEBERT: I'm not aware of 

anything that would make a difference like 

that.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, what 

we need to do is find that because that then 

becomes, rather than -- rather than just sort 

of a version change on an existing package, 

make an upward revision in the doses turned 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

out by that workbook, which means you got --

you ought to reconsider at least some cases --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Whatever was done 

with the old ones.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I agree.

DR. ULSH: So, for 167.5, we'll 

respond.

MR. SIEBERT: Let me ask this. 

Can we get the files that Doug ran so that we 

know -- we can compare the version he's 

talking about?

MR. FARVER: Doug didn't run 

these.

MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. FARVER: So, that makes it a 

little more difficult. 

MR. SIEBERT: That's always my 

answer. I didn't recollect this. But whoever 

ran it, if we could get the files where this 

comparison was made, that would give us a 

starting point to make sure we're working from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

the same place. 

MR. FARVER: Well, I mean I think 

if you just take your files, and then run them 

with different versions, you can compare the 

versions.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we could 

do that. We could run -- I guess we still 

have CADW 4.3, right? Don't know?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you're not 

getting a big difference, then that's --

MR. SIEBERT: I don't know if we 

can go back in time and recreate the software 

that existed at that specific time. I'd have 

to talk to Keith about it.

MR. FARVER: I would think you'd 

have some sort of version control on software.

MR. HINNEFELD: Check with Keith 

and see what we can do there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: It's probably an 

issue of getting the first finding. Is the 

calculation not with SC&A anymore, or not on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

the project anymore?

MR. FARVER: I'll talk to the 

person who did it.

MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

Because I mean to me, that's relatively --

yes, check with Keith by all means to figure 

out if version 4.3 is around anymore.

MR. SIEBERT: Right. I'll take 

care of it. We're finding out what we can.

MR. FARVER: It could be just the 

issue with thorium doses. We mentioned in our 

review this has occurred several times, mainly 

for thorium dose calculations where we see 

differences.

MR. SIEBERT: If we're talking 

thorium, that's a different issue because, 

remember thorium, the DCF -- yes, the organ 

doses for thorium had to account for -- we had 

to remodel all thorium doses. You can't run 

thorium through IMBA because it does not 

handle the movement of thorium in your body 

appropriately. You get very large doses that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

you shouldn't be because it's carrying things 

through. So, thorium maybe is a different 

issue.

DR. ULSH: No, no. I think if I 

understood Doug's comment, he was saying this 

CADW issue might just apply to thorium. Is 

that what you were saying?

MR. FARVER: It might because the 

reviewer mentions that this has occurred 

several times, mainly with thorium dose 

calculations, where we received a difference 

in the CADW values in the versions.

DR. ULSH: Do you understand, 

Scott?

MR. FARVER: So, there might've 

been some change in the thorium calculations 

between 4.3 and 6.0.

MR. SIEBERT: I have somebody 

looking at this right now.

MR. FARVER: Obviously, the 

concern would be if you have someone close to 

50 percent --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

MR. SIEBERT: There is no thorium 

in CADW for this case. Did I actually 

understand that? Honestly, it would make life 

so much easier. We need to have the files 

from whoever did the comparison. I'm afraid 

we're going to be chasing our tails without 

necessarily being able to recreate numbers.

MR. FARVER: I'll try to get them, 

or get something that looks like them.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I believe that 

is a primarily SC&A action for now, with 

potential follow up by NIOSH. Okay, but I 

would say also that you don't have to -- I 

mean this always applies. You don't have to 

wait to bring them to subcommittee. You can 

just exchange them with Scott.

MR. FARVER: Exchange them with 

Scott.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, make sure 

you make copies for Brant. Give them at least 

to Brant as well.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: I've seen it before 

where there's differences between versions.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

MR. FARVER: In this case, it 

happened to be 14 percent, which I just wanted 

to bring up because at some point, that could 

be significant to a case. But I'll work to 

get you those files. We're down to 168.

DR. ULSH: Would we agree that Tab 

167 observation is closed then?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Okay. 

MR. HINNEFELD: It already has 

been reevaluated.

DR. ULSH: Just crossing the Ts. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 168.1 then.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 168.1, neutron 

organ dose calculation in error, and this also 

goes for 168.2, the missed neutron dose. The 

dose reconstruction, when it was performed, 

they considered the energy fractions twice is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

what it amounts to. It was already contained 

in one factor, and then they applied them 

again. So, it's in essence applying them 

twice.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: NIOSH agrees 

it's an overestimate. Won't affect the 

compensability, right? Is that right?

DR. ULSH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No further 

action, right?

MR. FARVER: No further action.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 168.2

MR. FARVER: 168.2, yes, that's 

the same as 168.1. 168.3, DR does not account 

for all of the medical dose. This kind of 

gets complicated because the individual 

indicates in the interview that he took some 

X-rays to the doctor. So after looking at 

everything, I agree with their response.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, so 

that's closed. 

MR. FARVER: And 168.4, the -- let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

me make sure of this. Typically, the medical 

doses are multiplied by a factor of 1.3, and 

that's taken from, in this case, the site 

document for Mound, where it says, for actual 

dose calculations, reconstructor should assume 

the normal distribution with an uncertainty of 

plus or minus 30 percent at the 99 percent 

confidence interval. However, reconstructor 

should use only positive uncertainty and 

multiply the doses listed in tables 3-4 

through 3-11 by a factor of 1.3, to include 

uncertainty at the 99 percent confidence 

level.

And our issue was that they did 

not multiply by a net factor of 1.3 as stated 

in the Mound Technical Basis. And it still 

goes back to that document that says -- that's 

what the document says to do.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The interesting 

thing is that you've never seen --

MR. FARVER: Well, we've seen this 

before in other cases where it's not optional. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

They do it.

MR. SIEBERT: The correct best 

estimate method for doing X-rays is normal 

distribution with 30 percent error.

MR. FARVER: According to PROC0061?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Yes, and I agree 

that's what that says.

MR. SIEBERT: Let me finish. And 

there were times early on where the TBD 

authors would put a comment like this that it 

should be done this way, and what they were 

trying to point out is it could be used as an 

efficiency method as an overestimate.

They may not have stated that 

because they may not necessarily have 

understood that from a dose reconstruction 

point of view when we were running the DRs, 

but from a dose reconstruction point of view, 

normal distribution, when it's 30 percent, 

would always be best estimate. I mean 1.3 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

factor is for convenience for overestimating, 

and we don't even do it now.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, then it's 

really -- the findings then is against the 

Site Profile?

MR. FARVER: Yes, correct.

MR. SIEBERT: Agreed. And we have 

been changing the Site Profile to pull that 

type of information, that type of wording out.

DR. ULSH: Okay, now I'm -- the 

Mound Site Profile is one of the early ones 

that had been written. Since it's under 

active consideration by an SEC working group, 

I'm certain that it has not been revised. 

When it is, then we might want to make that 

change in the Site Profile.

MR. FARVER: So even PROC-0061 

says, dose reconstruction should assign the 

doses from the TBD as a normal distribution. 

Well, if you go back to the TBD, the TBD says, 

multiply by 1.3.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, that's not a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

dose. That's direction on applying a 

correction factor.

MR. FARVER: I think you 

understand how that could get confusing.

MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I agree, and 

that's why we're pulling that wording out.

MR. FARVER: That's fine.

MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

MR. FARVER: I don't mind as long 

as you're consistent in both documents. 

That's all.

DR. ULSH: Okay, so, it sounds 

like there should be an action item to include 

in the next revision with the TBD a correction 

to the language.

MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking at it 

now because it has been looked at since.

DR. ULSH: You say it has or has 

not?

MR. SIEBERT: It has. It was 

updated in 2009. What work section is that 

in, Doug? Too many documents open.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

MR. FARVER: I know what you mean. 

What section of the Mound document?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Well, it's going to 

be section -- what? The medical dose under 3. 

So, it's -- yes, TKBS0016-3, Section 3.5. 

MR. SIEBERT: Okay, yes, it still 

needs to be updated because for actual dose 

reconstruction, reconstructor should assume a 

normal distribution with an uncertainty of 30 

percent. And it goes onto say, however, 

reconstructions should use only the positive 

uncertainty and multiply the doses by 1.3 to 

include uncertainty. 

So, it's stating actually two 

opposite things in that last -- that last 

sentence should be changed. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Okay, so we'll commit 

to changing the language in the TBD.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

what I put. Closed case. NIOSH is -- will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

change section 3.5 of the medical section of 

the TBD. That okay?

MR. FARVER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 168.5?

MR. FARVER: I'm going to take 

that back, and say I'm not sure about that 

one.

DR. ULSH: 168.5?

MR. FARVER: 168.5. What it comes 

down to is, we contend it should be used as 

one dose conversion factor, and you contend it 

should be a different one.

DR. ULSH: But neither one of 

those is actually what was used in the DR, 

right?

MR. FARVER: Let's see.

DR. ULSH: I think it says in the 

DR, underestimated dose. That leads me to 

believe that we didn't have the right --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. NIOSH 

says --

MR. FARVER: Okay, that's right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

I was reading a different one. Yes, 

apparently used the deep dose equivalent 

instead of the ambient dose equivalent.

DR. ULSH: It sounds like from our 

response here two years ago that we agreed 

that the DR was incorrect. We don't 

necessarily agree with the changes that you 

suggested, but we agreed that there was 

something wrong in the DR.

MR. FARVER: Yes. 

DR. ULSH: So, if this has not 

been revised since this was written, then this 

seems like a case where we need to put --

another case where we need to put a note in 

the file that the next time this is opened, 

this needs to be corrected.

MR. FARVER: All right. I'm just 

thinking, is this a workbook issue or is this 

a cut and paste issue

DR. ULSH: That I don't know.

MR. FARVER: This is -- I think 

we'll hold this open because I don't know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

The wrong values were used, but were they 

manually entered, or was it just a workbook 

doing on its own?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm going 

to turn this back over to you guys to answer. 

Right, SC&A?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You want to 

look back at this?

MR. FARVER: Yes. This is going 

to take some more digging on this one. And 

168.6 is an erroneous IREP entry for ambient 

dose.

MR. SIEBERT: Can I go back to .5? 

Whose responsibility was it to do something 

on this one?

MR. FARVER: Mine.

DR. ULSH: SC&A's.

MR. SIEBERT: Okay, that's the 

wrong answer, but okay.

MR. FARVER: I thought you'd like 

that one. Apparently there was an entry 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

number 22. It was an erroneous entry and 

should not have been included. It appears to 

be from a previous calculation.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it would 

only decrease?

MR. FARVER: Yes. It's not so 

much a dose concern as it is it should've have 

been there.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A QA?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, no further 

action, right? 

MR. FARVER: 168.7, not properly 

addressed radiological exposure in T building. 

This goes back to information that's 

contained in the CATI interview. It does more 

or less come down to a judgment call. The 

employee had one bioassay. It was a 

termination plutonium bioassay and it was 

equal to the decision level.

In our opinion, we believe he 

should've at least assessed the determination 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

sample at the decision level. But also in the 

CATI, the person reported names of four 

coworkers and seven supervisors. So if there 

was really any question about exposures in T 

building, they gave you a list of people to 

contact. 

And we've talked about this 

before, where people provide names of coworkers and supervisors, and -- and we believe 

it should be looked into if there's any 

question.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where did this 

person work? It says, T building. 

MR. FARVER: Mound.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I know 

Mound. But it says, T buildings and 

environmental dose was assigned as the NIOSH 

response. So, it -- the job type must not 

have been like an operator, I'm guessing 

anyway.

MR. HINNEFELD: We'll have to just 

go pick it up.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean SC&A has 

written essentially a rejoinder to put in our 

initial response. So, we'll have to go --

it'll be our action to go look at this.

MR. FARVER: Laboratory 

technician, foreman and manager.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Shall 

we just plunge ahead, or do you want to take 

five? Anybody need a five-minute break? 

That's 169 we're on?

MEMBER MUNN: Well, there's always 

a good break before long stuff like this.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

let's take a break.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 2:52 p.m. and 

resumed at 3:02 p.m.)

MR. KATZ: We're back. We're back 

again, folks on the phone. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 

we're picking up on the next case, the eighth 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

set matrix, number 169, finding 169.1. Doug?

MR. FARVER: Oh, yes. We do have 

that one.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we -- didn't 

we just talk about this?

MR. FARVER: We just talked about 

this. This is a Mound case again, and this 

has to do with that no statement in the Mound 

Technical Basis.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so, it's 

the same as the last one?

MR. FARVER: So it's the same as --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 168.1? Or no --

DR. ULSH: No, it's 168.4, I 

think. And we committed to change the 

language in the TBD at the next revision.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Then 169.2, the method 

used for deriving environmental doses is not 

described or referenced and could not be 

reproduced. Now, this case also is Mound and 

Rocky Flats. The Mound portion of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

environmental dose we could find because that 

was included in the workbook.

The Rocky Flats information, we 

just -- there was not a workbook included that 

showed how that was calculated, and it did not 

appear to be consistent with the Technical 

Basis, Attachment B tables. So, apparently, 

there was another spreadsheet or something 

that was used and was not included in the 

records.

Oh, and the other thing is it was 

-- instead of being the 250 keV photon, it was 

assigned as 15 keV.

DR. ULSH: Well, it was assigned 

as electrons --

MR. FARVER: Yes. It was a 

mistake in the assignment of the interview. 

So, the first is, we don't know where it came 

from, and then you had the little mistake on 

the assignment.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, the 

assignment -- to me, the assignment thing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

definitely is a small QA thing. But you 

didn't know where it came from --

MR. FARVER: Yes. Was there a 

spreadsheet that was missing?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that seems 

a little more important and may require a 

follow-up. I don't know. 

DR. ULSH: Wait a minute. I don't 

know. I can't get from our response -- it 

says the intent was to use -- and then it 

lists a worksheet.

MR. FARVER: Well, yes. See, in 

our review we state we believe you were trying 

to use the maximizing assumptions from the 

internal ambient dose summary Version 1.0 

worksheet.

DR. ULSH: We agree that we were.

MR. FARVER: But that was not 

included. That was just a guess. That wasn't 

included in the files. We just found that 

worksheet, and it appears that that's what was 

used.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But NIOSH is 

agreeing. They reviewed it, and they --

DR. ULSH: Yes. We say, what, did 

we use the wrong worksheet or something, or --

MR. FARVER: No, it wasn't 

included in the files.

DR. ULSH: Okay. Alright.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was bad.

MEMBER MUNN: He's just saying new 

eyes would not be able to figure out where 

that came from.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So then in that 

case, it's no further action, I guess. It's a 

QA error.

MR. FARVER: Right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But no further 

action?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: And then the Super S 

observation 169, no action.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was it done? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

Oh, currently being --

DR. ULSH: Well, that was two years 

ago.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that was 

two years ago. So it should've been done.

DR. ULSH: Do you want Scott to 

check on it? He seems pretty quick on that. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He's probably 

doing it now.

DR. ULSH: Scott, are you checking 

169 to see if it's been revised for Super S?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He left.

DR. ULSH: Because you gave up on 

him.

(Laughter.)

MR. SIEBERT: The darn mute button.

MR. KATZ: Come again, Scott, 

please?

MR. SIEBERT: That's 169; is that 

right?

DR. ULSH: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: The first thing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

was he said he was trying to talk with the 

mute button on. That darn mute button, or 

something like that. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, 

Scott, if you -- are you looking?

MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I'm looking 

here.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Yes. Yes, it 

was considered.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was 

considered, okay. Did it affect the case?

MR. SIEBERT: You keep asking me 

questions, don't you? Let's see. Still noncomped.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. ULSH: So, the action item is 

closed?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All 

right, Doug?

MR. FARVER: 170.1, NIOSH assigned 

a quarter dose less than the missed dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

value. This is the LOD over 2 concern we've 

talked about before and has been corrected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's no 

further action.

MR. FARVER: Correct. 170.2, 

failed to consider unmonitored missed neutron 

dose for two time periods. Like we talk about 

so often, this is always a judgment call about 

neutron exposure. When do you assign it? 

When do you not?

This is just another case, only 

this is -- the person worked at X-10 and Y-12. 

So, I tried to state our case on -- which is 

basically just quoting from the DR Report, and 

I don't know that you can come up with a good 

answer on this either way on these type of 

questions.

DR. ULSH: Well, it seems like 

we've got two options. Either we go back and 

digest what you've written and respond again, 

or we say to the Subcommittee, you've got both 

positions. It's a judgment call.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, 

yes, the first thing, I guess, would be to go 

back and, you know, to react to this. It 

becomes a pretty broad question. Are we going 

to try to -- any kind of recommendation about 

a resolution is going to be a pretty broad 

recommendation about dealing with neutron --

potential neutron doses at X-10, right?

MEMBER MUNN: Well, as Brant 

points out, ultimately it is a judgment call.

MR. FARVER: It is, and you're 

looking at a PoC of about 43 percent. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I guess if 

it's a judgment call, part of what we have to 

look at is, is NIOSH being consistent in the 

way they're evaluating these cases. I guess 

that's part of the formula.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

DR. ULSH: Well, it seems like 

consistently not applying it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

That's consistent.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the 

first action is to go back and see what we 

want to say in reaction to SC&A's reaction to 

our initial response. To me, it speaks to the 

instance of is there -- is the -- the 

instructions out there for doing dose 

reconstruction at Y-12, are those as suitably 

prescriptive or as prescriptive as they can 

be? 

And so, to me, it's a broad -- you 

know, a resolution of a disagreement like 

this, a judgment call resolution should be in 

the Site Profile. And what is -- what's the 

appropriate -- what is the appropriate 

guidance, and the appropriate, consistent way 

to treat claims? I think it's important that 

you treat the claims consistently.

MR. FARVER: A neutron dose was 

assigned here for a period.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

MR. FARVER: Up through 1961, but 

not before 51 and not after 62.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

MR. HINNEFELD: To me, it really 

gets to the Site Profile and the guidance that 

is given to the dose reconstructor so things 

are done consistently. Whatever is done is 

done consistently, and certainly that is a 

purview of the Board to make recommendations 

and provide advice on, given what we know 

about X-10 and the program, and all the 

evidence at hand. Is this suitably 

prescriptive? 

To me, it speaks to X-10 guidance, 

X-10 Site Profile, in order to really get to a 

resolution of something that you consider a 

judgment call.

MR. FARVER: And a lot of times, 

you don't have a good work history of whoever 

does the work.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Well, 

that's the other thing. If it's suitably 

prescriptive, or, in the cases where you don't 

have enough information --

MR. FARVER: Then what do you do?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- what is 

NIOSH doing? Is it always erring on the side 

of the claimant, or is it not necessarily that 

--

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, absolutely. I 

mean, to me -- 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- Done that 

way, so we need to extend that --

MR. FARVER: Or should there be a 

somewhere in the middle?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I 

think we're saying the same thing.

DR. ULSH: So, the action item is 

for us to consider SC&A's response?

MR. HINNEFELD: The first thing is 

to consider this response, and see how we want 

to structure it. And I would -- I would 

really view this as -- you know, if, in fact, 

we're at this situation, well, it's a judgment 

call, you could do this, you could do that, it 

almost is something you want -- I would rather 

get into Site Profile-specific guidance. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313

would rather have some specific -- as much 

specificity in the directions for the dose 

reconstruction as possible, and there may be 

work, some recommendations along those lines. 

I don't know if there's X-10 -- I think 

there's an X-10 Site Profile review. I'm not 

sure.

MEMBER MUNN: Well, the rationale 

that you gave sounds perfectly reasonable.

MR. HINNEFELD: As long as we're 

consistent in that. You see where I'm getting 

at? 

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: I want to make 

sure we have a consistent understanding and a 

common understanding, and the Board's advice 

on that area, I think, is worth a lot.

MEMBER MUNN: They identified, 

what, site practices, and on that basis made 

the judgment with respect to neutron dose. It 

appears -- and SC&A has some problem with that 

response? Did I miss a paragraph somehow?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314

MR. FARVER: I guess what we're 

saying is, the other time period should be 

considered, because we don't really know -- if 

we are still in the reactors division --

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: See, I think 

some of this comes down to -- like this issue 

comes up. I mean, it's on the flip side, but, 

I mean, SEC evaluations we do, can you really 

place people in buildings at times with 

certain job titles? And that gets tricky, 

we've found, in our SEC definitions. 

So, how can we be so precise in 

neutron dose assignment? That's the question 

I would have. And if you're not sure, then do 

you err on the side -- you know, do you -- I 

guess that's my question. And I see all, sort 

of all of these have the same theme.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you use the 

judgment of job title and the fact that, you 

know, you didn't think this laborer or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315

whatever would likely be near areas where 

they'd be neutron-exposed? That may be a good 

assumption, but I guess we need to -- extend 

the ground rules, yes --

MR. FARVER: On the other hand, 

that's what we point out in the finding, that 

neither the DOE records nor the CATI are timeperiod-specific concerning work locations or 

job functions. Therefore, it's not obvious 

that he had potentially -- potentially exposed 

to neutrons during the course of employment 

outside of the period of 52 to 61. 

So, you don't know if he had 

potential or not. So, what do you do?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think --

well, let us react to that initially.

MR. FARVER: Our position is, you 

should've considered it for the entire period 

he had assigned, for periods when it could not 

be reasonably demonstrated that he was not 

potentially exposed. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316

guidance for the dose reconstructor when they 

have to look at this? It's under the Site 

Profile or where?

MR. HINNEFELD: It should be some 

-- I don't know, maybe Scott can weigh in on 

this. But there should be some vehicle that 

translates the Site Profile information.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you. 

X-10 is not one of my sites.

MR. HINNEFELD: But there should be 

some guidance to the dose reconstructor, 

whether it's in a -- whether a workbook 

provides some information, or whether there's 

a set of instructions to go with the workbook.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this goes 

back to my, does this case not include those 

instructions, I guess.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And does 

that go in there -- so, we'd have to go -- we 

got to go reconstruct that, really.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317

right.

MR. HINNEFELD: Are we legal?

MR. KATZ: Jenny is carrying the 

water for me.

MR. HINNEFELD: All right. 

MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Motion to 

reassign DFO? No. Alright.

MR. SIEBERT: I was just going to 

go home early.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know, 

that's what I was thinking too, but I just 

missed my flight, so I can stay for a while.

(Laughter.)

MEMBER MUNN: So, NIOSH is 

responsible for --

MR. SIEBERT: I do have to check 

out, though. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was thinking 

by four, but we can break up quarter of four, 

that's fine. We'll get as far as we get. I 

mean, this is an ongoing body of work, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318

We've got 12 sets out there. 

MR. SIEBERT: How about quarter 

after three, Mark?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How about 17 

after three? Okay, let me get the action 

here. NIOSH will respond to this --

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, respond to 

this reaction --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But also to the 

general --

MR. HINNEFELD: I think our 

response, Brant, needs to really speak to the 

general --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: -- general question 

here of, how can we provide sufficiently 

distinct guidance and things like on the dose 

reconstruction, sufficient prescriptive? And 

is it appropriate to sufficiently prescribe --

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I would 

expect that you should find neutron doses in 

second period 6230. Everybody wore the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319

badge, and you have MTA film as well as betagamma film.

MR. HINNEFELD: And so, then, if 

everybody wore an MTA badge, would there be --

would everyone have had the potential who -- 

everyone who wore an MTA badge had the 

potential to be neutron exposed?

MEMBER POSTON: Well, I mean there 

was -- at that time at Oak Ridge National Lab, 

there were reactors every damn place.

MR. HINNEFELD: And there were 

people, probably, who moved freely around the 

lab. Once you're in the lab -- you know.

MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

MR. HINNEFELD: Job assignments 

can take you a number of places.

MEMBER MUNN: That's what the 

badge is for.

MEMBER POSTON: That's why 

everybody's badge was MTA film. Everybody 

wore the same badge. Nowadays, it wouldn't be 

that way, I'm pretty sure. There's only one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

reactor operating in that --

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: So, there shouldn't 

be a great deal of concern over whether a 

person was or was not exposed?

MR. HINNEFELD: We may be calling 

at some point during this to figure out --

maybe you can let us know on that.

DR. ULSH: At the risk of 

prolonging this even more, I know at Mound, at 

least during a certain time period, everyone 

wore an MTA badge, but the MTA film was only 

read if the photon dose was so high. So, even 

though you had it, were issued it, it wasn't 

read unless there was some indication.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Necessarily 

read or recorded, right.

MEMBER POSTON: That may have been 

the same way at Oak Ridge. I can't say that 

it was or was not. I just know that everybody 

had the same badge.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321

MEMBER POSTON: I know mine got 

read because I was exposed to neutrons.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hey, whoa. 

MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is one of 

those sidebar conversations.

MR. HINNEFELD: I was trying to 

determine whether my absence really required 

the -- I think the meeting can continue in my 

absence for a few minutes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

we'll --

MR. HINNEFELD: Running out, yes, 

okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- we'll retire 

by 4:00, anyway, so -- okay.

MEMBER POSTON: Are you caught up? 

Are you caught up?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 170.3.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 170.3, failure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322

to consider all classes of solubility in 

strontium and provide supporting references. 

I believe this statement is made in our review 

about Type S solubility, and it's not 

considered -- now I'm going back to the 

finding, and the finding in the original

document is a little -- the information is a 

little different than what's in the matrix. 

MEMBER POSTON: The SC&A response 

is a little strange.

MR. FARVER: I'm not surprised. I 

wrote it.

MEMBER POSTON: Well, I'm just --

I mean, as you well know, there's no 

difference between DWI and FS.

MR. FARVER: I understand that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MEMBER POSTON: And also both 

ICRP-30 and ICRP-60 say the same thing about 

the solubility classes. 

MR. FARVER: I understand that. 

It's nomenclature.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323

MEMBER POSTON: Yes. And so --

MR. FARVER: That's all that was. 

I was just pointing out that --

MEMBER POSTON: Do you just need 

clarification? Is that what you're asking 

for?

MR. FARVER: Well, I think part of 

it has to do with the supporting files that 

may not have been included, and --

MR. SIEBERT: Well, I can tell you 

strontium is either Type F as in fast, or S as 

in slow. And the only Type S strontium there 

is is strontium titanate. 

MR. FARVER: I understand. 

MR. SIEBERT: Which is a very 

unusual thing. So, the question really for 

this is determining, is strontium titanate 

appropriate for X-10? And I honestly just 

can't answer the question of -- that question 

off the top of my head.

MR. FARVER: It might be even 

simpler than that because it looks like, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

according to the DR report, there's a 

statement in there that says, the inhaled 

material was assumed to be of Type F 

solubility, as this assumption is expected to 

maximize the internal dose. And it's 

referring to strontium-90.

DR. ULSH: And what's the organ? 

Well, I mean if it's not lung, then assuming 

Type F would maximize --

MR. FARVER: It is colon.

DR. ULSH: Okay, well, then 

assuming Type F, even if it was Type S, is a 

maximizing assumption.

MR. FARVER: Maybe.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe. But 

nonetheless, scientifically not supportable 

may be right, is that what you're --

MR. FARVER: Well, if you're 

telling me that the only Type F out there is 

titanate --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Type S.

MR. FARVER: Well, I'm saying that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325

the DR says it's Type F solubility.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: Then it can't be 

strontium titanate.

MR. HINNEFELD: We're not aware of 

any strontium titanate, I think.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But that's the 

Type S one, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And so, that's 

why we used F.

MEMBER POSTON: Everything except 

strontium titanate is F.

MR. HINNEFELD: Is F. And we used 

F. That's why we used F, because there's not 

actually a requirement to do all topical 

solubility classes. The requirement is to do 

the feasible solubility classes. And if S is 

not feasible, there's no need to do it.

MEMBER POSTON: What's the -- help 

me with my anatomy and physiology. Is the 

colon the lower large or upper large 

intestine?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326

MR. HINNEFELD: No.

MR. SIEBERT: The colon is the 

amalgam of upper and lower large intestine.

MEMBER POSTON: It's together?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

MR. SIEBERT: It's not averaged. 

It's a weighted average in the table. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But 

nonetheless, even if S was more claimantfavorable, there's no reason to pick S if you 

don't have that compound. Right, right.

MEMBER MUNN: It's not feasible.

MR. FARVER: Disregard my 

response.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

DR. MAURO: I think the -- this is 

John. I think the confusion from looking at 

it is that apparently there's a language in 

TKBS-00125, that says, all DWNY will be 

considered in most limiting use. The reality 

is, when it comes to strontium, you wouldn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327

do that. You would just assume it's type F.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I guess 

understood there is all forms are present.

DR. MAURO: Yes, but in the case 

of strontium, they're not. As a general 

statement it's probably true when you're 

dealing with a lot of other radionuclides.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

DR. MAURO: I think that's what 

happened here, and they used Type F as in 

Frank, which is the appropriate one to use.

MR. FARVER: When I wrote that, I 

misread this whole thing completely.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

delete your response --

DR. MAURO: Okay. How about we 

withdraw it? 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- SC&A agrees -

- yes, withdrawn.

MEMBER POSTON: I was just trying 

to figure out why the colon was the organ, 

when I would have expected it to be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328

marrow.

DR. ULSH: Well, it's going to be 

wherever the cancer occurred.

MEMBER POSTON: Oh, so it's got to 

be where the cancer is, so even though it's a 

minor consideration --

MR. HINNEFELD: Minor 

consideration.

MEMBER POSTON: -- from a 

dosimetry standpoint. 

DR. ULSH: We always calculate the 

dose to the target organ, which is the organ 

where the cancer occurred in.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's not the 

limiting organ, obviously, yes.

MEMBER POSTON: Right. It's not 

the limiting organ. Not even close.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay, 

so SC&A agrees with the --

MR. FARVER: Yes. That's my 

fault. My bad.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329

right. And no further action. Obviously. 

Okay.

MR. FARVER: On 170.4, failed to 

include all years in europium intake. This is 

a wording in the DR Report, where the wording 

says it was considered for the entire period 

of employment, which is not what was done, and 

apparently is not what should've been stated.

MR. HINNEFELD: So, the words in 

the dose reconstruction --

MR. FARVER: Were incorrect.

MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

MR. FARVER: We've had this happen 

before, same deal. So closed. 170.5 is where 

we questioned the MDAs for bioassays value, if 

they were correct or not. NIOSH gives a very 

good explanation, and we concur with their 

response. Closed. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

MR. FARVER: 170.6 is very similar 

to 170.4, only this concerns uranium instead 

of europium, and it has to do with the text in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330

the DR report. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this person 

worked before 52, right? That's the notion. 

And it said for all his employment --

MR. FARVER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Before 52 --

okay, got it. 

MR. FARVER: The uranium intake is 

--

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Tab 170, 

this is the Super S, Scott? 

MR. SIEBERT: I'm checking. Yes, 

it was considered.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And remained 

the same?

MR. SIEBERT: You know, you'd 

think I would remember that you're going to 

ask me that every single time. Yes. Still 

non-comped.

 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, 171.

MR. FARVER: 171.1, this is the 

LOD over 2 for missed dose. And, like they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331

state, the case was worked prior to the 

decision to change methods. So, this is closed 

also.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The next one has 

no NIOSH response. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we're not 

going to talk about it today, since we have 

nothing --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The next two, 

yes.

MR. FARVER: I agree with their 

response. (Laughter.)

MR. FARVER: 171.4, failed to 

correctly assign coworker doses for 

unmonitored years. Now, you're going to have 

to go back and look at -- first also look at 

what we wrote in our report because it's kind 

of complicated.

This goes over many nuclides and 

many years, and sometimes it was done by 

bioassay, you assign dose. Sometimes coworker 

dose was assigned. Sometimes environmental 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332

dose was assigned. Certain combinations, 

sometimes none of any, and it gets very 

convoluted. For certain time periods, we 

believe the coworker doses should have been 

assigned.

DR. ULSH: So, the status on that 

was for NIOSH to consider SC&A's response?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And we're basing that 

on, number one, OTIB-34, where -- where it 

says, where records of monitoring are 

incomplete or unavailable, whether for 

discrete periods or for the entire period of 

employment, then you should assign coworker 

data.

And then also there's a statement 

in there from OTIB-60. But anyways, it's a 

little convoluted around certain dates and 

certain periods. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

MR. FARVER: 171.5, failed to 

address different solubility types. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333

Basically, the different solubility types were 

not included in the -- in the files. 

DR. ULSH: I see from the title of 

the file, does that indicate strontium 

uranium?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Looks like it.

DR. ULSH: It fits the strontium 

thing, is that the same as the previous --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Strontium would 

only have one.

DR ULSH: Yes, that would be one, 

but obviously uranium --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And uranium 

might have more. 171.6?

MR. FARVER: NIOSH failed to 

completely address contamination incident in 

the CATI report. The one big question is, is 

3022 located near 3019, where there was a 

nearby incident that went out and apparently 

they had an excursion, and it did contaminate 

the streets and buildings and so forth. I 

couldn't find a location of 3022.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334

DR. ULSH: Too bad Bob's not still 

here.

MEMBER POSTON: He wouldn't know, 

that's an X-10 site.

MR. FARVER: I know where target 

19 is -- was. I think it's still there. And 

then I did put a little blurb in there about 

the 3019 explosion. I think a lot of that 

hinges on where that building was.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so if we 

could figure that out might be the first 

follow-up, right? If that supports NIOSH's 

case, then they can let us know.

MEMBER POSTON: Would you like for 

me to find out where it is? I could find out 

where it is pretty quickly.

MEMBER MUNN: That would be nice.

MEMBER POSTON: One of my 

classmates was one of the HPs involved in the 

3019 incident.

MEMBER MUNN: So he'll know if 

they're different places. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335

DR. ULSH: Can we put you down for 

that action item?

MEMBER POSTON: I'll send him an 

email and call him.

MEMBER MUNN: That would save a 

lot of effort, I think.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'll put 

it down as a NIOSH action, but if you have 

information that you're sitting on, you can 

relay it.

MEMBER POSTON: It'll be Monday 

before I can call him. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

NIOSH is going to find this out till Monday.

DR. ULSH: We can wait.

MEMBER POSTON: The whole place 

will be shut down waiting for my answer.

(Laughter.)

MR. FARVER: The observation next 

is the standard Super S.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott?

MR. FARVER: Scott?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Number 2 parts.

MR. SIEBERT: That'll teach me to 

be paying attention to something else.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Case 171, Super 

S.

MR. SIEBERT: 171?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: To the union 

question first, still not done. And yes, it 

was considered.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 172.1?

MR. FARVER: Now, here something 

strange happens. For the next six findings, 

we agree with NIOSH. 

DR. ULSH: Oh, wow.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We might get 

through this yet. Looks like it.

MEMBER MUNN: Excellent.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The first one 

NIOSH is agreeing with you anyway, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337

MR. FARVER: Yes, there's some 

mistakes is what a lot of this amounts to.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So no further 

action on that. Oh, that was 172.1. There 

was only one finding for that case, right? 

173.1, the finding is correct. DR was 

favorable to the claimant. So, you answered 

the question on whether it changes the status. 

So, I don't think there's any further action 

there. 

Okay, 173.2? It doesn't really 

answer that question of, did this change 

anything. 

DR. ULSH: It seems -- our 

response on this seems to say that the IREP 

input sheet does not match the description in 

the report, but it doesn't tell which one is 

the correct one. If the one in the IREP is 

correct --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

the question, yes.

MR. FARVER: There's a little more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

description in our review where it says the --

and it gives the file name where the missed 

dose is for the 250 keV photons are correct in 

this file workbook, but they're not the same 

in the IREP table. It appears the workbook 

doses, which already account for 95 percent 

energy distribution, were then multiplied by 

0.95. And before it was put in the final IREP 

table.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, the IREP 

numbers would be lower then?

MR. FARVER: So it used the energy 

twice.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, so the IREP 

numbers are more claimant-favorable, or less?

MR. FARVER: The IREP ones would 

be five percent low.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, by 0.95. 

So, that could be -- that should be followed 

up on, anyway.

MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we should 

just follow up on all these, and make sure.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, 

right. I mean sometimes you address it, but 

this one -- 173.3, same thing, right, Stu? 

It's a NIOSH action.

MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, there's a 

string of them here where we're --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just wanted to 

keep my notes. 173.4 says SC&A accepts 

NIOSH's response. 

MR. FARVER: And this has to do 

with LOD over 2 values again.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so no 

further action. Next one, 173.5? Again, 

check on this for the magnitude, right?

MR. HINNEFELD: I don't quite 

understand that one. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure I 

understand that.

MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to have 

to -- let's feel that out a little more, okay? 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: Yes, 173.5 is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

little confusing. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And NIOSH is 

going to follow up on that. I was onto 174.1. 

It looks like in this case, there's no 

further action because you increased it, 

right? It was an error but it increased the 

dose. 

MR. HINNEFELD: An error upward.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And which was that, 

174.1?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Now we're 

onto 174.2.

MR. FARVER: Unless that was a --

is that a workbook issue? 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Error 

calculation in workbook, yes. Okay, so NIOSH 

will check to see whether the workbook was 

corrected. Strike that. No further action. 

We're getting there. 174.2?

MR. FARVER: 174.2, the methods 

for determining missed photon dose is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341

scientifically sound. Now, this finding is 

taken directly from review of the Site Profile 

for Portsmouth, where this -- there were some 

concerns about dosimetry there. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This person 

worked at obviously a couple sites, right? 

I'm gathering, because I see K-25 on the other 

one. So, must be. Yes.

MR. FARVER: Well, this is a 

Portsmouth case. The other one was a 

different case, 173.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 174.1 we just 

did. It says, the dose in K-25 error 

calculation.

MR. FARVER: Wrong one again. No, 

he worked at Portsmouth, but apparently they 

used the K-25 error workbook. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can I ask an 

obvious question on that one, too? Is there 

not a Portsmouth workbook or --

MR. HINNEFELD: We'll have to find 

out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: There might not have 

been at the time.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt there. 

MR. FARVER: So, 174.2 and 174.3 

are essentially just quoted directly from the 

-- the Site Profile review. The finding in 

the Site Profile review.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. ULSH: Is the action item for 

NIOSH to respond to these?

MR. FARVER: Well, I would just 

turn these over to Site Profile.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. They're 

being handled in the Site Profile review.

MR. FARVER: Because they're the 

exact same findings.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, these are 

transfers, right? Is that the way it works? 

That does make sense to me. I always hesitate 

at the end of the day when I'm getting tired. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343

Does that make sense? Transfer, yes. 

DR. MAURO: And I think there's a 

Site Profile review meeting for Portsmouth, K25 and Paducah coming up pretty soon.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

That's right. The new established group.

DR. MAURO: Exactly. The lead on 

that is Henry. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Pretty small 

site. Should go pretty quickly. 

DR. MAURO: Yes.

MR. FARVER: So, that takes us 

down to 174.4. DR does not account for all 

occupational medical dose. I just had a 

question about the hierarchy. And after a lot 

of digging, the hierarchy is pretty much 

described in, I think it's PROC-0061, where in 

this case, you would use the records first, 

and the TBD information.

So, instead of using a 

determination from the TBD or a table from the 

TBD that says it's annual, you would use the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

344

actual records according to PROC-0061. So, I 

agree with their response. They were correct. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's closed. 

174.5?

MR. FARVER: 174.5, Intake 

parameters incorrectly entered into the CADW. 

There's a little explanation over there. 

They divide it into a couple time periods, but 

the employee only worked for one quarter of 

62. Therefore, he should've took 25 percent of 

the 1962 intakes and entered them into the 

workbook, but that's not what happened.

So, this is -- and there's the 

time period where it was not entered 

correctly, where the 25 percent was not 

entered correctly. And them also, there's a 

part where the units were incorrect.

The units were entered in dpm per 

day, and they should've been picocuries per 

day, which are going to give you two totally 

different doses.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I agree with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

345

the QA aspect of this, but you said you reran 

it. You saw the reruns, and it doesn't affect 

the --

MR. FARVER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it is 

certainly a good example of a QA.

MR. FARVER: Yes, and that's all I 

was pointing out.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Instead of N, I 

would just make it --

DR. ULSH: Now I'm with you.

MEMBER POSTON: All you have to do 

is look for the little squiggles.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, makes it 

easier. DR. ULSH: So, further 

action on this or no?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

so. None further. Close it. 174.6?

MR. FARVER: Question the 

assumption used for deriving internal doses 

are not scientifically sound or claimantfavorable, and they're corrected. It's a Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

346

Profile issue, and it's another finding from 

the Site Profile. So, it's a Site Profile 

issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, this is 

still Portsmouth?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we have 

this as a finding in the Site Profile Matrix? 

Is that -- do we know that, or --

DR. MAURO: No. I tell you, the 

best thing to do here is when these are 

transferred, it's probably a good idea to just 

let the -- in this case, let Henry Anderson 

know that we transferred it.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

DR. MAURO: I couldn't say offhand 

whether we caught this.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, all 

right.

MR. FARVER: Yes. Actually, it's 

one, two, three, four separate findings under 

the Site Profile review.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

347

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

DR. MAURO: So, the findings in 

the Site Profile include the things you found 

here?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

MR. FARVER: All 174.6 is, is 

reprinting findings, four findings, from the 

Site Profile review.

DR. MAURO: Okay, now I 

understand. So, section 1.3 of the DR review 

was used to trigger these findings? 

MR. FARVER: No. It was written 

up as a separate finding, but the findings are 

the same exact ones.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They overlap, 

yes.

DR. MAURO: Okay, I got you.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

MR. FARVER: Because it's spelled 

out in our audit.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348

MR. FARVER: So we don't need to 

track them.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, we're 

onto a new case here, 175.1.

MEMBER MUNN: If you want to keep 

going.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, if we want 

to keep going. Stu gets to leave.

MEMBER POSTON: You don't have 

many more.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we're so 

close to the end. Let's finish this up. I 

think we can finish it up.

MR. FARVER: 175.1, report does 

not properly account for all missed neutron 

dose. Apparently, additional information was 

provided by DOE in 2006 after the initial dose 

reconstruction was completed.

DR. ULSH: Well, given that this -

-

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's under 

evaluation, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

349

DR. ULSH: Well, our response, 

whenever this was written, was that it's being 

evaluated. I assume that was a number of 

years ago. It should've been by now.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. ULSH: But I guess we can 

check -- check on the status. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

MEMBER POSTON: I guess I'm a 

little uncertain why this is a QA concern. 

MR. FARVER: I don't know. I 

might've got cut-and-paste happy when I did 

that.

MEMBER POSTON: I mean -- I mean, 

if DOE gave some additional information after 

the initial evaluation was done, why does that 

make it a QA concern?

MR. FARVER: I think a lot of it 

comes down to dates, and when things were 

signed off. I don't remember.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we can 

take that out where it says, NIOSH --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350

MR. FARVER: In other words, 

sometimes a DR is completed, and then, we'll 

say two months later, it's signed off from a -

- let's say from NIOSH. So, it's a matter of, 

did that fall in that window, and should it 

have been caught?

MEMBER POSTON: And in the 

interim, there may be additional information. 

Is that what you're saying?

MR. FARVER: Yes. I'll pull out 

that --

MEMBER POSTON: It's a concern. 

I'll agree with that.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: The case was 

completed in 2005, and it appears there was 

additional information given in 2006. 

MR. FARVER: Okay, I'll withdraw 

that QA.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we can 

take that out.

MR. FARVER: That's fine. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

351

MEMBER POSTON: Something needs to 

be done for that one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MR. FARVER: I figure if I put 

that comment in everywhere, I'm bound to get 

it right a few times.

MR. SIEBERT: This is a Brookhaven 

thing. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right, how 

about .2 for that?

MR. FARVER: Hypothetical internal 

dose model; did not apply the appropriate 

internal dose model. Okay, this is an OTIB-2 

workbook issue, where they used a uranium nonreactor site instead of a uranium reactor 

site, and this is Brookhaven. So, it's a 

matter of which -- which button is correct.

DR. ULSH: It seems like a simple 

decision, but it's never as simple as it 

seems.

MR. FARVER: And it's probably not 

even important because this case is being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

352

reworked, and will not use a hypothetical 

approach.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But down at the 

bottom, it says, reevaluated. But then it 

says, the change indicated in the finding 

would not result in a large change. I guess 

that's just your experience with the two 

models, they're pretty --

MR. FARVER: Well, the -- the 

difference is less than 2 rem.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

MR. SIEBERT: And it was reworked 

back in 2009, still non-compensable.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: That's probably not a 

QA concern, either.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, what do we 

say about that first one then? We don't have 

to check the status of the revision, since 

it's been revised, right?

DR. ULSH: Yes, but we would have 

to determine whether or not the missed neutron 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

353

dose --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, 

right. Okay, all right. And did -- did -- I 

mean the -- I guess that applies for the next 

one, too. Which internal dose model did you 

use when you revised it?

DR. ULSH: We'll check the status 

on both of those. Maybe 175.3 as well.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the rework 

gives OTIB-18 overestimates for internal 

versus OTIB-2. So, it wouldn't have that 

uranium reactor/non-reactor issue.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

DR. ULSH: All right, so does that 

change the status now? Can we close any of 

these?

MEMBER MUNN: It seems like we 

ought to be able to, since it's been 

reevaluated, and we know what happened.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And OTIB-18 is 

another overestimating -- which one is that?

MR. SIEBERT: Sorry. That's an air 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

354

monitoring overestimate one. Air sampling 

programs.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, that they 

had an air sampling -- I mean this gets tricky 

because, well, it is a reevaluation.

MEMBER MUNN: It's been done.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So to review 

that aspect would be reviewing a whole 

different case, really, you know? 

DR. ULSH: Okay, so what status do 

you want to assign to this?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure. 

I'm not sure on that. I'm just not sure 

because if we -- I mean, I would have a 

question on the application of TIB-18 on 

whether it was done appropriately, but that 

really wasn't in the case that we were 

reviewing at the time we started this review. 

MR. FARVER: Well, has this been 

reworked, or is this being reworked?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It has been.

 MR. FARVER: Then I think then we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

355

just probably need to take a look at it, 

especially for the next finding.

MEMBER MUNN: That's SC&A's action 

then, isn't it, the rework?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. If 

anything, it would be SC&A's action. I just 

didn't know.

DR. ULSH: So, 175.1, SC&A reviews 

the case?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 175.2.

MR. FARVER: Two and three.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

DR. ULSH: All right, then what 

happens to 175.1?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess one 

also.

MEMBER MUNN: They all will be 

affected.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: So, there's no point 

in taking them separately until the rework is 

done.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

356

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. SC&A will 

review -- rework the case, right?

MR. FARVER: Okay. You just have 

to get me the files, provide the files --

DR. ULSH: Okay. 

MR. FARVER: -- for the case.

DR. ULSH: I don't have any. Do 

we explicitly send them to you, or do you go 

into the AR?

MR. FARVER: It's probably best 

just to send it to me. I shouldn't need all 

of them, I wouldn't think. In other words, we 

already have the ones for DOE and DOL. I 

would just need the ones for the DR.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was the 

basis for the reworks, by the way?

MR. SIEBERT: Let me see. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only reason 

I ask is because when we're -- when we've had 

all these other ones that are reworked for 

Super S, we're not -- we're reviewing the 

Super S. You know, the application of that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

357

So, I'm just thinking of our own protocol, you 

know? 

MR. SIEBERT: It was for Super S 

updates to the Site Profile.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, it was for 

updates to the Site Profile as well?

MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes. It says 

previously unavailable information is being 

evaluated.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's true. 

So, that's a little different.

MEMBER MUNN: That itself is a 

single trigger for this one.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

DR. ULSH: So, SC&A review the 

revised cases, and NIOSH provide the files to 

SC&A?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

this is a unique circumstance, where --

MR. FARVER: This is a little 

different.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

358

broader Super Ss, we're not going to re-review 

all those.

MR. FARVER: No, no.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This could be 

an endless cycle.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

Those get captured in the PER reviews. That's 

why we're doing that. Okay, all right.

MR. FARVER: 176.1 has to do with 

the photon certainty, and I did confirm that. 

So, we agree with your response. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's 

closed.

MR. FARVER: Closed. 177.1, 

inappropriate method used in determining 

shallow dose. This appears to go back to the 

review of the Paducah Site Profile finding 19. 

It's the same thing. So, I'll probably just 

turn this over to --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sixteen or 19?

MR. FARVER: Nineteen, I believe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

359

is what I wrote. Nineteen.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

DR. ULSH: So, is this a transfer 

to the Portsmouth?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Paducah, you 

said, right?

MR. FARVER: Paducah, sorry.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the same 

group for all three. 177.2? We're close, 

Doug.

MR. FARVER: We're close, if I can 

just get the right file open. We'll wait 

until it opens. We're at 177.2, failed to 

address information in the CATI report.

DR. ULSH: We agree. We did some 

additional analysis. And it looks like you 

said you accepted it.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

DR. ULSH: There's some more stuff 

from the CATI.

MR. FARVER: I just quoted from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

360

the CATI report what was in there. So, we'll 

look and see.

DR. ULSH: Okay, so we agree on 

that one?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And you 

agree Brant and -- I'm catching up here, but 

did it affect the outcome in any way?

DR. ULSH: It did not.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No?

DR. ULSH: Total dose increased, 

but the compensability decision was the same.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is this also a 

Site Profile issue, 178.1?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: That was a transfer

to Paducah.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, is this 

178, is that a Paducah one, or -- I see. And 

last but not least, SC&A accepts.

MR. FARVER: Failed to consider 

internal dose from recycled uranium. And it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

361

was worked with -- in accordance with the 

existing technical documents at the time, and 

it's being reworked under PER-13, and we 

concur. I just didn't know what PER-13 was, 

because I didn't know where it was.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What is PER-13?

MR. FARVER: The evaluation of 

impact changes to isotopic ratios.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess we'll 

get that in the PER review. How did the --

when did the isotopic ratios change? Was that 

as a result of findings we made, or something 

you changed internally? I don't know. 

DR. ULSH: I can't answer that. I 

don't know if Scott can. But just from the 

title of the PER, the isotopic ratios might've 

changed in response to recycled uranium. 

DR. MAURO: Usually the 

introduction to the PER gives you a genesis of 

how this came about, or why the PER was 

prepared.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You mean if I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

362

read the document?

DR. MAURO: Yes. If you read it, 

right.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, all I have 

is a title here. I'm just trying to --

DR. MAURO: Yes, it might tell you 

the reason. It was triggered by this review, 

or triggered internally by their own, NIOSH's 

own, internal processes.

MR. SIEBERT: It was triggered by 

the biennial revision of the TBD section. So, 

it was on our side.

DR. MAURO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I'm not 

sure we have concurrence on the ratio. I 

mean, I think that's probably the initial 

finding was, do we believe the ratios that 

were set and how they're used for recycled 

uranium, but I think that's a Site Profile 

issue.

DR. MAURO: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: This claim was done 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

363

appropriately per the dose reconstruction at 

the time.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Per the -- at 

the time. Right. Got it.

DR. ULSH: So, was this a close, 

or is this a transfer to Paducah?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I believe it's 

in the Site Profile findings anyway, but it's 

also a PER question here, I think. Right?

DR. MAURO: It's both. I don't 

know whether this -- again, I don't know 

whether this is in as one of the findings we 

made when we reviewed the Site Profile or not. 

You know, if it's not, then certainly it 

should be transferred to -- explicitly 

transferred, then, to Henry's group.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think we 

should transfer it, and I'll note it to Henry. 

Yes. The question though is the ratios being 

applied for recycled uranium. Okay, that's a 

wrap.

DR. MAURO: Congratulations. This 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

364

is quite a --

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We made it 

through the eighth, yes. That's been two 

years. Not bad. Anything else before we 

close? Kathy, I will contact you about just -

- and I guess NIOSH is going to start that 

summary of the cases that we've looked at. 

But I also may need some other materials 

regarding our presentation at the Idaho 

meeting. So, I might contact you for some 

help there, and Doug.

MR. FARVER: Just to point that I 

just looked up our review of the Site Profile 

for Paducah, and there is one finding on the 

isotopic fractions of various enrichments, and 

there's another finding about the isotopic 

distribution of isotopes associated with 

recycled uranium.

DR. MAURO: There you go, Doug. 

It's there already.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is. And I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

365

captured it here, too. Okay, so, I think, 

unless anyone has anything else?

MS. LIN: I guess I get to close 

the meeting?

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, you get to 

close.

MS. LIN: All right. 

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You can say, 

meeting adjourned.

MS. LIN: Okay, this is the 

Designated Federal Official here today. Thank 

you, everyone in the room and thank you, 

everyone on the phone. Meeting adjourned. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 4:06 p.m.)