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 REVIEW

+ + + + +

MONDAY

FEBRUARY 4, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Mark Griffon, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member*

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, 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

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

*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

Call to Order 10

 Ted Katz

Blind Dose Reconstruction Quality 11

Control Case Reviews

 Grady Calhoun

 DCAS

Case Review Issue Resolution 13

 Set 8 16

 No. 149.1 17

 No. 149.3 29

 No. 160.1 30

 No. 160.2 30

 No. 160.3 34

 No. 160.3 35

 No. 165.4 36

 No. 165.5 37

 No. 166.6 41

 No. 171.2 42

 No. 171.3 44

 No. 171.4 49

 No. 174.1 76

 No. 175.1 78

 No. 175.2 80
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 8 (Continued)

 No. 175.3 82

 Attachment 1, Bridgeport Brass 85

 Finding 1 85

 Finding 2 99

 Finding 3 109

 Finding 4 112

 Finding 5 113

 Finding 5(a) 114

 Attachment 2, Harshaw 134

 Attachment 3, Huntington 138

 Pilot Plant

 Set 9 142

 No. 179.1 149

 No. 179.3 159

 No. 179.4 162

 No. 180.1 165

 No. 180.2 183
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 9 (Continued)

 No. 183.5 185, 194

 No. 184.1 188

 No. 185.1 208

 No. 187.1 209

 No. 187.3 213

 No. 191.1 215

 No. 191.2 216

 No. 191.3 217

 No. 192.1 218

 No. 194.4 225

 No. 195.1 228

 No. 195.2 236

 No. 195.3 237

 No. 195.4 237

 No. 196.1 242

 No. 197.1 245

 No. 197.2 246

 No. 197.3 247
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 9 (Continued)

 No. 200.1 251

 No. 200.2 257

 No. 201.1 262

 No. 201.2 269

 No. 201, Observation 1 272

 No. 202.1 277

 No. 202.2 278

 No. 205.1 279

 No. 205.2 282

 No. 205, Observation 4 288

 No. 205, Observation 5 288

 No. 206.1 291

 No. 206, Observation 1 303

 No. 206, Observations 2, 3, 4, 5 304

 No. 207.1 305

 No. 207.2 306

 No. 207.3 307

 No. 207.4 307
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 9 (Continued)

 No. 208.1 309

 No. 208.2 309

 No. 208.3 310

 No. 208, Observation 1 311

 No. 208, Observation 1 315

 No. 211.1 319

 No. 211, Observations 1 and 2 323

 No. 212.1 324

 No. 212, Observations 1 and 2 326

 No. 214.1 327

 No. 215.1 328

 No. 215, Observation 1 329

 No. 215, Observation 2 335

 No. 215, Observation 3 337

 No. 215, Observation 4 338

 No. 216.1 340

 No. 217.1 329
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 9 (Continued)

 No. 218.1 347

 No. 218.2 352

 No. 218, Observation 1 354

 No. 218, Observation 2 355

 No. 218, Observation 3 355

 No. 218, Observation 4 356

Discussion of Next Meeting Date 358, 365

 No. 278.1 364, 365

 No. 278.2 367

 No. 278.3 368

 No. 278.4 370

 No. 278, Observation 1 371

 No. 278, Observation 2 372

 No. 278, Observation 3 374

 No. 279.1 374

 No. 280.1 376

 No. 280.2 381
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Review Issue Resolution (Continued)

 Set 9 (Continued)

 No. 280.3 386

 No. 280, Observation 1 388
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

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

2 9:02 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone.

4 This is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health, the Subcommittee 

6 on Dose Reconstruction and Review.

7 Our Chair is here. We will get 

8 started. Let's just get going with roll call, 

9 and we can speak to conflict of interest. We 

10 need to, as we go through that, beginning with 

11 the Chair, Board Members.

12 (Roll call.)

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then, the agenda 

14 for the meeting is posted and there are some 

15 materials, I think, posted related to this 

16 meeting.

17 And it is your meeting, Mark.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. Let's 

19 see, I am still logging onto my computer but 

20 as I do that, because I want to pull up the 

21 notes from the last meeting.

22 But I guess we can start with 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

11

1 update on the blind dose reconstruction 

2 quality control case reviews, NIOSH's blind 

3 reviews.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, this is Grady.

5 Yes, this one is going to be brief 

6 because we have only completed a couple more 

7 since our last time. So, I haven't come up 

8 with a new assessment or anything like that. 

9 There is really nothing new to report on that.

10 I believe that we are either on 

11 our way or we have completed providing you 

12 guys access to it. I am not sure about the 

13 exact status of that, but I think it is close.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Access should be 

15 available to the Board Members.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: They should be 

18 able to click on the application from the 

19 staff tools and see the same things that we 

20 see when we click on it.

21 MR. CALHOUN: And that is really 

22 all I have got as far as an update.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Has anybody tried 

2 that access?

3 MR. KATZ: Dave?

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, I 

5 have got it.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, you do? Okay.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I have got it 

8 now.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: I haven't tried 

10 it, but good. I am glad.

11 Alright. Well, that was a quick 

12 update.

13 I think the other items we are 

14 going just kind of move through our cases, 

15 which is why we called for this meeting, too, 

16 to catch up.

17 So, without further ado, I guess 

18 we can start off with Sets 8 and 9, hoping to 

19 close those out. And then, we are going to go 

20 into the site-specific sets, right? Is that 

21 okay?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, I have 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

13

1 a question. I thought that SC&A was going to 

2 do some blind reviews, too, didn't they? 

3 Didn't you --

4 MR. KATZ: They have been tasked. 

5 They have been tasked.

6 MR. STIVER: They haven't been 

7 assigned yet.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, okay. Okay.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, we still have 

10 to select those cases, which actually maybe we 

11 can talk about the mechanics of that, too, at 

12 some point in this meeting, maybe after lunch 

13 when I really get my bearings.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: While we are on 

15 blind reviews, I just had that question.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

17 just have to be refreshed on how we did it 

18 last time. Stu, I don't know if you recall 

19 how we selected the --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we 

21 selected from a larger selection matrix, and 

22 we just decided we will take these two 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

14

1 make them blind reviews, as opposed to the 

2 typical --

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it was in a 

4 normal selection process. We just took out 

5 two of them for blind reviews?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think we 

7 just designated two of them as blind from the 

8 ones we were going to review.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that is 

11 what we did. Now we could put some additional 

12 criteria on it --

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in terms of 

15 selection, and we could use the last group we 

16 put together. You know, we have put together 

17 a selection matrix not that many months ago to 

18 select. Was that the 16th set?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: We could choose 

21 from that, if there are any on there you feel 

22 like, or we could generate another -- if 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

15

1 want to generate a list just for blind 

2 reviews, and it is going to be a relatively 

3 small selection, we would generate a smaller 

4 list of cases, and you could make them newer 

5 that way. It will take so long to do that.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, let's think 

7 about that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: And we don't have 

10 to do that right now, but good point. We will 

11 add that to the list of things to do.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it says 8 and 

14 9, if we can find those matrices and work from 

15 that, assuming we still don't have our 

16 database functional.

17 MR. KATZ: That is too soon.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

19 MR. KATZ: That's too soon.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

21 We are still going to work from 

22 the matrices at this point, and then we 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

16

1 use those to populate the database, I assume. 

2 Okay.

3 So, sets 8 and 9, starting with 

4 set 8. I am going to try to find the latest 

5 copy.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now Beth 

7 sent something on Friday, right? You sent a 

8 copy of the eighth and ninth set matrices on 

9 Friday?

10 MS. ROLFES: I did.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Does that include 

12 the most up-to-date information that we have 

13 provided?

14 MS. ROLFES: Correct.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, our 

16 most up-to-date stuff would be on Beth's 

17 message from Friday.

18 MR. KATZ: And I sent that to your 

19 CSB. Well, Beth sent it actually to your CSB.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, I have 

21 the latest version that was sent from NIOSH, 

22 and is it safe to assume the highlighting 
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

1 still applies to that? If it is highlighted, 

2 they are --

3 MS. ROLFES: I did not remove any 

4 highlights.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. So, 

6 that would be probably the quickest way to go 

7 through. If it is highlighted, it is an open 

8 item.

9 And I see on No. 149.1, there was 

10 an update on 1/31/13.

11 MS. ROLFES: There is a new TBD 

12 out, and Jim signed it. And I am told it is 

13 waiting for DOE to review it.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, final DOE 

15 review is where it is at right now, and it 

does contain a 95th 16 percentile.

17 MR. FARVER: And I believe this is 

18 a Bridgeport Brass --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now I don't 

21 know if this problem comes into play with 

22 talking about the attachments, Attachment 1, 
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

1 where we did a mini-Site Profile of Bridgeport 

2 Brass.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. FARVER: I am not sure if this 

5 particular issue is in that. We will have to 

6 keep that in mind when we get to Attachment 1, 

7 the findings.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Sure.

9 DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John 

10 Mauro.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Hi, John.

12 DR. MAURO: Can you guys hear me 

13 okay?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, I just wanted to 

16 jump in. On these Bridgeport Brass and a 

17 couple of others, as you know, we had those 

18 three attachments, which was Bridgeport, 

19 Harshaw and Huntington. You may know -- and 

20 this might help to expedite the process, is 

21 the only reason I bring it up -- 149 is 

22 Bridgeport Brass.
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

1 I noticed in the blue information, 

2 the new information, that apparently there is 

3 some new material that NIOSH put out. But I 

4 guess I believe that in our previous work on 

5 Bridgeport Brass, Harry Chmelynski and SC&A 

6 carefully reviewed other exchanges. And there 

7 is actually some material in the very back of 

8 this matrix where Harry delineates a 

9 reevaluation of the data.

10 I believe all the original 

11 Bridgeport Brass mini-Site Profile review 

12 issues -- that was that Attachment 1 to the 

13 eighth set -- have been resolved, including, 

14 now which I find interesting, including the 

15 item that is in blue right here on Item No. 

16 149 dealing with this factor of two. I 

17 believe that Harry reviewed that data from 

18 another perspective, now not this new material 

19 that is in this new TBD, and came to a 

20 conclusion that, no, it looks like NIOSH was 

21 right and we were wrong, so to speak.

22 But we haven't seen this new TBD 
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

1 and how it deals with this issue. So, this is 

2 a new twist. But I thought the Bridgeport 

3 Brass issues were primarily resolved.

4 MR. KATZ: Is the new TBD just 

5 implementing the 95th percentile? Is that the 

6 only change?

7 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know of all 

8 the changes that have been made, but --

9 DR. MAURO: You can actually see 

10 the write-ups at the very, very end of this 

11 matrix where Harry goes through his own 

12 analysis -- that was done some time ago -- on 

13 this factor of two business and where he comes 

14 out on it. This was something that was 

15 discussed and I believe resolved.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, I still have 

17 some open -- I mean, I am looking, John, at 

18 the back of the matrix.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: And if these were 

21 resolved, they don't show up that way in this 

22 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

21

1 DR. MAURO: Well, I'm sorry, I 

2 shouldn't say the word resolved. Harry and 

3 SC&A's recommendation is that we believe these 

4 matters were addressed, based on our 

5 reanalysis.

6 Certainly, you folks would want to 

7 hear a little bit more about that, and that is 

8 fine. But this is what SC&A has done.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, I mean, 

10 it sounds like we could come to quick closure 

11 on this --

12 DR. MAURO: We could.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- but we haven't 

14 seen what you and Harry have worked on, or 

15 whatever, have we? Have you brought it to the 

16 Committee? I don't think so. It doesn't show 

17 up as --

18 DR. MAURO: Well --

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, the last 

20 note I have is NIOSH to provide additional 

21 information on that 95th percentile versus 

22 factor of two.
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

1 MR. FARVER: I believe it was in 

2 our March of 2012 responses.

3 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

4 That's correct.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe we 

6 just didn't get to them.

7 MR. FARVER: We didn't get to 

8 them.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

10 MR. FARVER: Correct.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, let's do that. 

12 Let's try to get to those today, then. So, 

13 let's hold that, John.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. But it 

16 sounds like you might be closing that, and 

17 maybe we can come back to this Item 1 as well.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes. What I did is I 

19 took Beth's matrix and their responses and, 

20 over the weekend, added some of our responses. 

21 So, I can just send this whole thing to you.

22 CHAIR 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

23

1 MR. FARVER: And then, you will 

2 have the information of Harry's analysis, and 

3 you can just paste it in.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. You edited, 

5 you worked from hers and --

6 MR. FARVER: Yes.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Maybe I should put 

8 any comments into yours. That would make the 

9 most sense.

10 MR. STIVER: His is the most 

11 updated version.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: If it is the most 

13 updated. You have everything that she put in, 

14 right, and then you added some --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, and additional 

16 material on top of that.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, I think 

18 I should work from your copy, if you could 

19 send that.

20 MR. FARVER: And also, I don't 

21 believe her copy, and I am not even sure that 

22 your original copy, had their initial 
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

1 responses to some of the Attachments 1, 2 and 

2 3.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: I think those were 

5 missing because we have sent things in 

6 separately.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. FARVER: And they just didn't 

9 get added to the matrix.

10 MEMBER MUNN: What date was that 

11 sent, do you think? Do you think that was a

12 part of what we were supposedly discussing 

13 back in March? Do you know what date it 

14 was --

15 DR. MAURO: March 2012 is when I 

16 believe we first delivered this package of 

17 Harry's responses.

18 MR. FARVER: We never talked about 

19 at the meeting.

20 DR. MAURO: But we didn't talk 

21 about it, yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, all right. 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

25

1 explains why we don't have --

2 MR. FARVER: And Mark added some 

3 of the responses afterwards.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: And that is why I 

6 believe it says it was not discussed at the 

7 meeting there on some of the items.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. Mark, I just 

10 sent you the email that has those attachments 

11 to your CSB.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Can you send me a 

14 copy of that, too? This is Wanda.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. I sure will, 

16 Wanda.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I appreciate it. 

18 Even if it is a duplicate, it would be 

19 helpful.

20 MR. STIVER: Okay. Do you have 

21 access to your CDC account, Wanda, right now?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well, actually, 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

26

1 would prefer the AOL account.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay. Alright. Here 

3 it comes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It is the one I keep 

5 up more easily.

6 MS. LIN: Wait. If it is Privacy 

7 Act information, you should not send it to the 

8 AOL account.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is 

10 something that has got some personal 

11 identifying information in it.

12 MS. LIN: Wanda, did you hear 

13 that?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I did. I will 

15 go to the CDC account.

16 MS. LIN: Okay. Thank you.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, we will 

19 just move past this one for now. And when we 

20 get to the attachment stuff, maybe we can come 

21 back to 149.1. But I would say, if you are 

22 satisfied -
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

1 MR. FARVER: With what, 149.1?

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: If we close 

3 Attachment 1, then we can say 149.1 is, you 

4 know --

5 MR. FARVER: Just so you know, my 

6 computer died this morning.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: I would like to 

8 know that NIOSH --

9 MR. FARVER: It would not boot up. 

10 It was giving me hard-drive errors. Mine is 

11 dead. So, we are going with a backup plan on 

12 some of this.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: If we are a little 

15 slow at telling you an answer to something, it 

16 is because I don't have all my files in front 

17 of me.

18 MR. STIVER: We have about three 

19 layers of attachments to get through.

20 MEMBER MUNN: That never happens 

21 to me.

22 (Laughter.)
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

1 DR. MAURO: This is John.

2 One point related to this 149.1, 

3 the way I see it, it is a two-step process. 

4 One, we probably should put to bed Harry's 

5 material at the very back of this on 

6 Bridgeport Brass. And everybody get 

7 comfortable where we are coming from. And 

8 then, of course, once we have that Site 

9 Profile addressed, then going to 149.1 itself, 

10 these are the specific issues on a particular 

11 case, which basically draw from the original 

12 review of the Bridgeport Brass.

13 What I find interesting, and why I 

14 would be interested in it, is I noticed in 

15 this matrix -- mine are in blue. They are 

16 yellow and blue under resolution. Under the 

17 blue one on 149.1, there is some new material 

18 here, dated 1/31/2013, indicating that there 

19 is a new TBD, something that I have not seen. 

20 I don't know if others have reviewed it.

21 In theory, I think we believe we 

22 resolved the issues. However, there is 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

29

1 now new material that is out there regarding 

2 the Bridgeport Brass in terms of the Site 

3 Profile that is new on the stage, so to speak.

4 MS. ROLFES: I would have to ask 

5 Dave Allen why there is another one out.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: We are going to 

7 check that, John, to see if whatever you 

8 reviewed is consistent with this.

9 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Let's move 

11 on to 149.3, then, in the meantime. I see 

12 NIOSH is continuing to examine this issue.

13 MR. CALHOUN: The same thing.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is that kind of 

15 the latest -- yes.

16 MR. CALHOUN: It is the same 

17 issue.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: It is the same 

19 issue.

20 DR. MAURO: The same issue.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Okay.

22 MR. STIVER: So, that was it 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

30

1 149, right?

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. And I am 

3 looking for highlighting.

4 MR. FARVER: 160.1. This is a 

5 finding where a photon dose for a specific 

6 year was not included in the final IREP 

7 tables.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: The case was 

10 reworked, and it was corrected during the 

11 rework. So, we can go ahead and suggest 

12 closing this one.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, I 

14 assume, not hearing otherwise, that we can 

15 close that. Alright.

16 160.2, is 160.2 similar?

17 MR. FARVER: 160.2 is similar, but 

18 a little different.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: The photon dose was 

21 not added in the first one. This has to do 

22 with the neutron dose where 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

31

1 proton/neutron correction factor. They 

2 reworked the case, but when they reworked the 

3 case, they didn't include a dose for '52 or 

4 '53, and I don't understand why. I mean, 

5 there was a recorded photon dose for '52 and 

6 '53. So, you would apply a neutron/photon 

7 correction factor, but to just zoom in for '52 

8 and '53.

9 MS. ROLFES: Scott told me earlier 

10 that we cannot hear him.

11 Scott, are you there?

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I am here.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Did you get that, 

14 160, or do you have anything on that one?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Let's see, 160?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Point two.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it is a 

18 question as to why neutrons were not assigned 

19 in '52 and '53, is that correct?

20 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. What I am 
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

1 seeing here is the individual was in Building 

2 313, which is a fuel fabrication facility and 

3 not listed as a neutron area. That is 

4 information that we got from a CATI in 2010 

5 that we didn't have for the original 

6 assessment back in 2006. So, when we reworked 

7 it, we reflected that information. So, we 

8 would not assign neutrons for those two years 

9 based on the facility.

10 MR. FARVER: It was just those two 

11 years you had that facility?

12 MR. SIEBERT: That is what I am 

13 seeing, yes.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. That is a fair 

15 explanation. I suggest we close that, then.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it was based 

17 on the CATI, you said? Based on the CATI 

18 information?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we had a new 

20 CATI, a survivor CATI, in 2010 that was not 

21 available. Well, let me take that back. I 

22 assume it was a survivor since it was later. 
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

1 It could have been we came back and talked to 

2 the same person again. I honestly am not 

3 sure. I made that assumption just a second 

4 ago. But we did have a new CATI in 2010 that 

5 we didn't have in 2006.

6 MR. FARVER: So, when they did the 

7 rework phase, they just had more recent 

8 information.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. No, I 

10 understand. I am just thinking of using the 

11 CATI information of a survivor to sort of 

12 place a worker to take away dose. You know, 

13 this is an interesting wrinkle.

14 MR. FARVER: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't know how 

16 close the case was.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Chances are it was 

18 not a survivor because the claimant is not 

19 deceased.

20 MR. FARVER: Now, Scott, was this 

21 a compensable case?

22 MR. SIEBERT: It was when 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

34

1 reworked it in 2010, yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Or after the 2010, 

4 yes.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. In that 

6 case, I think it is fine. Alright.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, and just for 

8 the record, it was not a survivor.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I just saw 

10 that, too.

11 MR. FARVER: Go on to 160.3, and 

12 this has to do with the internal --

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Just to say we are 

14 going to close that out.

15 MR. FARVER: yes.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

17 MR. FARVER: 160.3 has to do with 

18 the internal doses for the same case. When 

19 they reworked the case, they just did a 

20 partial DR, and they did not do internal 

21 doses. So, therefore, the finding is no 

22 longer relevant.
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: That should be an 

2 easy closure.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: And I believe this 

5 was one of the cases that Kathy wrote up the 

6 report on. I believe so.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. And 160.4, 

8 oh, is that similar? Yes, internal dose 

9 again, right?

10 MR. FARVER: 160.4, the same 

11 thing.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, it is 

13 closed.

14 MEMBER MUNN: We will close it.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Close it, Wanda.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, good.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. And that 

18 is it for that case.

19 MR. FARVER: That is it on 160.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it 

21 seems like Mauro's work is going to hold us up 

22 from closing this out, 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

36

1 (Laughter.)

2 I am just teasing.

3 We miss you here, John, you know.

4 DR. MAURO: I could tell. I could 

5 tell.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. STIVER: He is here in spirit.

8 MR. FARVER: I think the next one 

9 is 165.4.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: There you go, yes, 

11 165.4, which is -- just for our reference, 

12 what site is this?

13 MS. ROLFES: INL.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: INL? Okay. Is 

15 the June 6th, 2012 update the last that we 

16 have? NIOSH review all INL claims and 

17 identify non-claimants that were in the area. 

18 Is that the right one? NIOSH was supposed to 

19 report back on it?

20 MR. FARVER: And then, they had a 

21 response in there. It is in green under the 

22 NIOSH response column.
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: It is brand-new.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

3 February --

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

6 I tried to put the newest stuff in 

7 green, so it stuck out.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you very much. 

10 That was most helpful.

11 MR. FARVER: Based on their 

12 response, we would suggest closing it.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Yes. 

14 Okay. Yes, that answers the question. So, 

15 that is closed.

16 And then, 165.5.

17 MR. FARVER: 165.5, this is the 

18 wrong uncertainty was used for the medical 

19 exams. It should have been 30 percent, but 

20 they used 20 percent.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I am curious. 

22 How would you determine that? What 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

38

1 based on?

2 MR. FARVER: The procedure says 30 

3 percent.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It was just a 

5 simple mistake?

6 MR. FARVER: It was --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thirty 

8 percent was the number --

9 MR. FARVER: Yes.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- that should 

11 have been there?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It is 

14 not a question of your deciding that 30 

15 percent was a better number than 20?

16 MR. FARVER: No, no.

17 MR. STIVER: It is not based on 

18 the science. It is just it was a --

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

20 Fine.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it looks like 

22 it was an individual override, 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

39

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: The tool wasn't 

3 messed up, right. That is what we asked, 

4 right, was, did this impact all cases? So, it 

5 is just a quality assurance problem and 

6 nothing wrong with the tool?

7 MR. FARVER: It is a QA problem, 

8 but I am not sure that is a typical parameter 

9 you would enter. The 30 percent should be 

10 hard-coded.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: So, I am not sure how 

13 you would get to 20 percent.

14 MR. STIVER: So, it was entered 

15 separately by the dose reconstructor at the 

16 time.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is one, if you 

18 recall correctly, this is one of the INELs 

19 that we did. I am sure this is going to come 

20 rushing back to you with pain.

21 (Laughter.)

22 We had to do a best estimate, but 
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

1 there was no best estimate tool for INEL at 

2 the time. So, they used the complex-wide best 

3 estimate tool and made adjustments to that to 

4 fit the circumstances of INEL.

5 What the dose reconstructor did in 

6 this case with medical x-rays is they did not 

7 put it in the tool. They had the values for 

8 the medical x-rays and just did a side 

9 calculation because they didn't want to do 

10 more changes to the tool. And unfortunately, 

11 when they did that site calculation, they 

12 multiplied by .2 instead of .3.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. I have seen 

14 them do that before, and they just do it on 

15 the sidebar of the IREP table.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: They just do that 

18 calculation, multiply it by .3, or in this 

19 case they just typed in .2. Okay. I 

20 understand.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: It is just a QA, 
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

1 another QA issue.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

3 MR. FARVER: But we can go ahead 

4 and close this.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Please do.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. That is 

7 closed.

8 MR. FARVER: 166.6, this looks 

9 like the CADW data was inconsistent with the 

10 IREP input data. What it came down to is we 

11 were tasked to go back and review a NIOSH 

12 response from March of 2012, and we did that. 

13 And we agreed with what they did. So, we 

14 suggested closing this finding. That is the 

15 short response.

16 You know, it is another QA issue.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: Without having the 

19 work showing in the file, so not being quite 

20 clear on what was done and why.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, but I think 

22 we are okay with closing 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

42

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: We are not losing 

3 the fact that it was a QA here.

4 MR. FARVER: No.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Closed, Wanda, 

6 okay?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, fine. And I am 

8 just thinking how nice it would be if we had a 

9 database squared away, so that we could just 

10 click on that attachment there.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I was very clear 

13 at the design meeting that nothing would be 

14 done for this meeting.

15 (Laughter.)

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I know.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: I thought at the 

18 design meeting we assigned this to Wanda to 

19 finish. Maybe not. I could be wrong.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. STIVER: We have gotten adept 

22 at working with three or four 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

43

1 versions of a matrix.

2 MR. FARVER: 171.2.

3 MR. STIVER: What site is this 

4 for?

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, this was in 

6 your hands to review further, SC&A.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes. We reviewed it 

8 further. The original finding indicated that 

9 the neutron assignment ended in '64. However, 

10 NIOSH did assign interim doses through '74. 

11 And beginning in '75, all the employees' 

12 photon doses were zero and no neutron 

13 monitoring was performed.

14 So, based on that information, the 

15 job description, SC&A agrees that the neutron 

16 dose after '74 is unlikely, agrees with NIOSH, 

17 and recommends closing the finding.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I am not seeing 

19 anything like that on the entry here. We are 

20 just now entering it?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 CHAIR 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

44

1 MR. STIVER: She said she didn't 

2 see what you just read, page 8. But she 

3 doesn't have it.

4 Wanda, I did email that to your 

5 CDC account.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

7 MR. STIVER: So, the latest 

8 version with Doug's comments is in that.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Good. Thank you 

10 very much. It wasn't there when I last 

11 checked, but I go look again.

12 MR. STIVER: Okay.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, let's 

14 close 171.2. We are saying closed.

15 MR. FARVER: It looks like 171.2 

16 is closed.

17 171.3, occupational medical x-ray 

18 dose was not assigned for the pancreas from 

19 '84 through '89. It was inadvertently left 

20 out of the workbook, the '84-to-'89 data.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Was this a 

22 case of pancreatic cancer or what?
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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: It must have been 

2 or it wouldn't matter.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Why wouldn't 

4 you look at the pancreas?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they did, 

6 but they just left a few years out. Those 

7 five to six years were inadvertently left out 

8 of the dose reconstruction.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But the rest of 

11 the employment they did.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Doug, can you email 

14 that matrix to Scott Sieber?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Actually, why 

16 don't you send it to all of us? I mean, we 

17 are working from Beth's, and you have added 

18 things to that.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. It is not that 

20 much different until we get down to the 

21 attachments.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: 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

46

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Can you tell me, I 

2 see the note on 171.3 that NIOSH will 

3 determine if all these modifications from 

4 these case findings taken together would 

5 affect the case outcome? You looked at the 

6 case --

7 MR. CALHOUN: Scott, hello?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'm sorry, I 

9 didn't know you were addressing that to me.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: No, I was broadly 

11 addressing it, but anyway.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry about that.

14 Yes, this claim was actually 

15 reworked in 2011, and the dose reconstructor 

16 took into account a lot of these issues and 

17 addressed it. Obviously, those medical x-rays 

18 were included in the most recent version as 

19 well. And it was still non-comp.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: And what was the 

21 PoC?

22 MR. SIEBERT: Oh --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I didn't catch 

2 that number, the oh.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second 

5 here.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure, sure.

7 MR. SIEBERT: The updated PoC in 

8 the latest version was 42.35.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it 

10 wasn't really, really close. Okay.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro 

12 again.

13 I had an administrative question, 

14 the answer which I thought we should have 

15 known. But when you have a circumstance like 

16 this where an issue comes up on a particular 

17 case, and you realize, oh, yes, we do have to 

18 fix this, and you fix it, just as you have 

19 done, how is that captured? There is a new 

20 PoC and it is still uncompensated. How is 

21 that captured administratively within the 

22 record?
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: It depends on what 

2 drives us to look at that change. If there is 

3 a procedure that changes, we will catch it up 

4 with a PER.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Okay?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 MR. CALHOUN: If there is new data 

9 that comes up, we will catch it with what we 

10 call a PAD, a post-approval dosimetry review. 

11 Those are individual reports.

12 If it is something that would 

13 change compensability, we would request a 

14 rework from the Department of Labor and revise 

15 the claim.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, the rework 

17 occurs and reissued on a much more formal 

18 basis when there is a reversal on a 

19 compensation decision, but the records just 

20 administratively that apply if this didn't 

21 move forward, that is more of an internal 

22 document to the NIOSH records?
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: Right, right.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, where 

3 we left off, 171.3, I think I got the answer 

4 we wanted, which was that they did look at all 

5 these issues and rework the whole case, and it 

6 really didn't have any bearing on the PoC; it 

7 wasn't important. So, I am comfortable with 

8 that.

9 MR. KATZ: Closed.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Closed?

11 MR. FARVER: Closed.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. I have sent the 

14 latest matrix with the updates to all of you.

15 MS. ROLFES: Thank you.

16 MR. KATZ: Good.

17 MR. STIVER: It should be showing 

18 up momentarily.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: 171.4 then?

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. This has to do 

21 with assigning coworker doses for unmonitored 

22 years. This is where I am going to have 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

50

1 -- you really need to look at Table 5 of our 

2 DR review because it spells out the yearly 

3 assignments. It is kind of confusing unless 

4 you look at that. I really couldn't include 

5 it in the matrix.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: This is in what 

7 you just sent?

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, this should be. 

9 What page are we on?

10 MR. FARVER: Page 86, 87.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, dose responses, 

12 and then keep going way down in 88 or 89.

13 MR. FARVER: Now if I can find 

14 that document?

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Now help me. We 

16 were on 171.4, right?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes. I will have to 

18 look and see what case that is.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we had two 

20 questions in here, while he is looking for 

21 that. One was on the case, but one at the 

22 bottom, before the blue, where SC&A entered 
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

1 their information, it says, NIOSH will 

2 consider the policy conversation on the 

3 decision-making process for the returning 

4 worker, the workforce potentially exposed for 

5 the model versus non-exposed, you know, versus 

6 environmental. That is something that I think 

7 we -- this is a generic issue, I guess. I 

8 don't know if it is captured in the 

9 overarching guidelines. Stu, do you know?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think it 

11 is on the list right now.

12 With respect to that, it is 

13 generally done off of information about the 

14 employee's work and whether there is 

15 sufficient information to conclude that this 

16 person really wouldn't have been exposed 

17 particularly. And so, they would get 

18 environmental, versus someone who potentially 

19 was periodically exposed.

20 So, it is essentially a three21 point decision. Someone who was not probably 

22 exposed would get environmental. Someone who 
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

1 was exposed somewhat, you know, who wasn't 

2 excluded from radiological areas, but didn't 

3 necessarily work there all the time or didn't 

4 work with hands-on reactive material, they 

5 could get 50 percent of a coworker. And then, 

6 people who we would expect to be fairly 

7 readily exposed would get the 95th percent. 

8 So, it is a three-piece decision, and it is 

9 based on information in the file. The less 

10 information in the file, the more likely you 

11 are going to be at the higher end of the 

12 distribution because you, essentially, start 

13 there, absent evidence of -- that you believe 

14 something else.

15 So, that is how it is done, but I 

16 don't know where that is written down 

17 anywhere.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, that is 

19 consistent across all the sites, right?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is our 

22 philosophy?
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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: It just may be the 

3 different teams --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Then, the 

5 application of that --

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: There is judgment 

7 there, too.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: There will be 

9 judgment in the application of that.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And I can't argue 

12 with that.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: But is the policy 

14 spelled out in a certain document or is it --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Boy, I bet it 

16 is --

17 MR. CALHOUN: I think it is.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

19 MR. CALHOUN: I can't point to the 

20 document, but I know that in some of the 

21 coworker TIBs that exist --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It is in 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

54

1 yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

3 that is what we were --

4 MEMBER MUNN: Excuse me. I don't 

5 know if it is my phone or not, but I am not 

6 getting a lot of what you are saying.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the same goes 

8 for me.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Are you not 

10 hearing certain people or nobody?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it sounds like 

12 your conversation is taking place a long way 

13 away from the microphone. That is just what 

14 it sounds like, but maybe it is not true.

15 I really didn't get the gist of 

16 what that discussion was about. Did I gather 

17 correctly that there is some question about 

18 what the guidance document is for the action 

19 that was taken here?

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, the 

21 overarching -- can you hear me better now, 

22 Wanda?
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Beg your pardon?

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Can you hear me 

3 better now?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I can hear you 

5 a little better now.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: So, the comment 

8 about OTIB-60, is that still being debated?

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't know that 

10 we brought up a particular OTIB, but we were 

11 asking the question on the bottom of 171.4.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: That NIOSH will 

14 consider the policy regarding assigning worker 

15 exposure levels or environmental, coworker or 

16 environmental. And Stu is saying that the 

17 philosophy is to do 95th if they are 

18 definitely exposed a lot, 50th if they are 

19 likely in areas where they would get 

20 exposures, and environmental levels if they 

21 are not likely to be in areas where they would 

22 get 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

56

1 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which makes sense. 

3 And I just asked if that is in some of the 

4 overarching guidance documents, and that is 

5 what we were -- Grady seems to think that it 

6 is in probably several, but that is all we 

7 were discussing.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Alright.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: No controversies.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So, we don't 

11 actually know whether the OTIB which was 

12 referenced earlier in our discussion of this 

13 particular item is, in fact, adequate? That 

14 is the bottom-line question here, right?

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I don't know 

16 that we were discussing any particular OTIB.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, well, the only 

18 reason I keep bringing that up is because that 

19 was a part of the response earlier to 171.4.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think what she 

22 is referring to is TIB-60, Section 5.4.2.1. 
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

1 It should be on page 87. There is a yellow 

2 highlight.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, right.

4 MR. STIVER: Excerpts from that 

5 OTIB.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes, you're 

7 right, OTIB-60. I'm sorry, Wanda. I wasn't 

8 looking at that part. Yes, yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, well, that is 

10 the only reason I keep bringing it up.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I am wondering, 

13 since we discussed it before, is that now all 

14 moot.

15 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know if 

16 it is all moot, but it is all confusing 

17 because, really, you have to go back and look 

18 at the Table 5 from our original report 

19 because we spell it out year-by-year, what 

20 they assigned. Sometimes they assigned an 

21 environmental dose; sometimes they will assign 

22 a coworker dose; sometimes it will be no 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

58

1 MEMBER MUNN: You're wondering 

2 why?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: Because it doesn't 

6 appear to be consistent with the OTIBs or just 

7 consistent across the board.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Got it. Okay. I'm 

9 sorry, I didn't mean to have you rehash the 

10 whole thing you had already talked about.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: No, that is okay. 

12 Thank you, Wanda.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mark, this is 

14 Brad.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: How do they 

17 classify the person? Is this under job titles 

18 that they would do the environmental dose or 

19 how?

20 MR. CALHOUN: No, we would take a 

21 look at a bunch of things. You know, you look 

22 at the era when it occurred. You look 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

59

1 records that you have, the dosimetry records. 

2 You look at the CATI and see what the 

3 individual said where they worked. And you 

4 have got to take all those into account and 

5 try to come up with what we think is the best 

6 approach.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So, do 

8 you --

9 MR. CALHOUN: We don't just plug 

10 somebody into a category. It is a much more 

11 detailed thing to do, because somebody may 

12 have a job category that sounds like they were 

13 in an administrative area without looking at 

14 anything else --

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

16 MR. CALHOUN: -- but you have got 

17 to look at everything.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is what I 

19 was getting at.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, that was my 

21 concern. You might have somebody who was 

22 pulled from what would appear to be you 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

60

1 an engineering or an accounting-type job; they 

2 might have to go into the dirty area for a 

3 particular job, and it might not have shown 

4 up.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Right, that 

6 is how it is done. I, obviously, don't know 

7 all the details of this one yet, but --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: But that is my 

9 point. When you say it is a much more 

10 detailed thing, is it outlined anywhere?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I believe it 

12 is.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. I'm 

14 sorry.

15 MR. CALHOUN: I got that down. I 

16 am going to try to find out where that is.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. That is 

18 what we were looking for, I think.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is the point 

20 I wanted to get to.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we 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

61

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- something 

3 established that we can hang our hat on? This 

4 is how this process would go before we would 

5 do that?

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. And then, of 

7 course, there is still going to be some --

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: There is going to 

9 be some judgment in there.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Judgments, right, 

11 in an application, but if there is some 

12 guidance overall, that would be good to know, 

13 yes.

14 MR. FARVER: And what they are 

15 based on.

16 Yes, if you go back and look at 

17 Table 4 and Table 5, Table 4 just lists the 

18 assigned intakes and intake periods and what 

19 it is based on, whether it is based on 

20 bioassay or coworker or environmental. I 

21 mean, so that is how we started to break them 

22 down to look at each individual intake, what 
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

1 is it based on?

2 And then, we summarized it by year 

3 in Table 5, by year and nuclide. And when you 

4 go across the board, it is not always clear 

5 what they are assigned or, well, why they 

6 weren't assigned. Because, for some of the 

7 years, they are assigned cesium-137 intakes 

8 and -- well, it looks like half and half --

9 and then, half the time they are not. But I 

10 am not sure that the job function had changed.

11 So, when we try to correlate this 

12 with the job function, it doesn't always make 

13 sense is kind of how we are looking at it.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, maybe it has 

15 nothing to do with the campaign timing.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Or urinalysis, if it 

17 existed.

18 I don't know; Scott, do you have 

19 any more details on that than we do? I am 

20 looking through some records here and I can't 

21 come up with anything quickly.

22 MR. SIEBERT: In the original, 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

63

1 dose reconstructors seemed to have based it 

2 mostly upon the fact that the individual did 

3 or did not have internal monitoring, bioassay, 

4 during the various timeframes. And that is 

5 what they seemed to have mostly based the 

6 decision upon, whether a person was being 

7 monitored as to whether they were being 

8 exposed.

9 That is why there is some 

10 inconsistency, it appears, from Table 5, 

11 because there are times where they may have 

12 been monitored for strontium when they weren't 

13 receiving it, or something of the sort.

14 When we redid it, we were more 

15 consistent in how we assigned things because 

16 just basing it on the monitoring alone seemed 

17 to be, well, as is mentioned in this point, it 

18 was a little spotty. So, when it was 

19 reevaluated, it was more consistently assigned 

20 based on the actual bioassay monitoring as 

21 well assuming coworker exposures through --

22 I'm looking real quick; give me a second 
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

1 here -- I believe through '72, when the last 

2 bioassay sample was collected.

3 So, we actually assessed and 

4 assigned more internal in the rework, based on 

5 the fact that we assigned coworker across the 

6 board to '72 instead of in a spotty manner 

7 that it was in the original assessment.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, and why was it 

9 reworked?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second 

11 here.

12 MR. KATZ: While you are looking 

13 into that, Scott, can I just ask everyone on 

14 the line -- I don't know who the culprit is, 

15 but someone has some sort of, I don't know if 

16 it is a speaker phone or a strange wireless 

17 connection or what, but we are getting these 

18 shrill, little back noises that are annoying. 

19 So, if everybody could maybe mute their phone 

20 except for whoever is speaking, maybe that 

21 will help. Or maybe it is another problem. 

22 We don't know, but let's try 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

65

1 MR. CALHOUN: Scott, I got this. 

2 It looks like -- oh, wait a second, that was 

3 '11. Rework complete. Wow, this thing might 

4 have been reworked again just now in 2012.

5 This one, it looks like in '09 

6 there was a PER, and then it was returned and 

7 it was reworked. Let me make sure I have got 

8 the right case. And then, additional data, we 

9 just got additional data, a new employment in 

10 '11, and the case was reworked again.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

12 MR. CALHOUN: And it was reworked 

13 in January of 2012.

14 So, the first one was reworked 

15 because of a PER. The second one was reworked 

16 because we got additional employment from 

17 Y-12. And that is where we stand now. That 

18 is where the current dose reconstruction is.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: And I am trying to 

20 understand why the original, going back to 

21 Doug's question, why was the original 

22 assignment of coworker versus 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

66

1 spotty, as you said, based on whether the 

2 person was monitored or not? If it is 

3 supposed to be this complicated, detailed 

4 approach, not just looking at one thing, how 

5 would it end up relying on monitoring to 

6 determine whether you assigned a coworker 

7 model or not? That seems inconsistent with 

8 your policy.

9 MR. FARVER: Well, some years were 

10 monitored.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Was it just a 

12 mistake or was it --

13 MR. FARVER: Some periods the 

14 nuclides were based on monitoring; some were 

15 based on coworker.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: Some were based on 

18 just environmental levels.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

20 MR. FARVER: Some were not 

21 assigned at all. But it was very spotty. In 

22 other words, sometimes they will assign 
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

1 coworker doses for a certain time period, 

2 except for certain nuclides, and then, those 

3 will be environmental or those will be no 

4 intake.

5 MR. STIVER: So, there is a whole 

6 patchwork, the thing on the nuclide and the 

7 time period. Whether it was a measurement of 

8 coworker or environmental, it was just kind of 

9 hard to try to unravel that --

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

11 MR. STIVER: -- to determine the 

12 cause, the reasons for the choices that were 

13 made.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Was the actual DR 

15 reviewed in this case the one completed in 

16 '06? Or was it the one completed in '10?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: This must have 

18 been '06.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that is what I 

20 am thinking.

21 MR. SIEBERT: The original is the 

22 2006 version.
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Okay.

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the '06 

3 version here.

4 MR. KATZ: Scott, I think it is 

5 your phone because, when you muted, it was 

6 fine, and now we are hearing it again.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, so this was done 

8 in 2006.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Now I just muted it 

10 and I could still --

11 MR. KATZ: Oh.

12 MR. FARVER: So, I don't know what 

13 to do about this finding because it has all 

14 changed since then.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: But I don't know that 

17 it has been correct --

18 MR. CALHOUN: Well, if it is the 

19 same case that I owe you whatever my 

20 determination of environmental versus 50th 

21 versus 95th we found, that could help.

22 MR. FARVER: So, make this another 
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

1 item to check up on.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I think one way to 

3 look at this is to try to decide what has 

4 happened since 2006 when this was first done, 

5 that would standardize, essentially, the 

6 decisions about environmental versus coworker. 

7 I think what has been done since 2006, and 

8 how we fixed a situation that allowed this one 

9 to occur in this fashion, and do we feel 

10 confident that we are not going to have 

11 something like this?

12 Looking at Table 5, it seems like 

13 there is a work location decision being made. 

14 For instance, at some point the person worked 

15 in a facility where plutonium was feasible and 

16 sometimes he didn't.

17 The same question could be made 

18 for some of the fission products. It looks 

19 like there is a suite of environmental 

20 isotopes that are provided at environmental 

21 times which doesn't include the whole raft of 

22 potential. And so, this is going to be 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

70

1 hard to unravel, but I think if we can come up 

2 with something that says, since 2006 we have 

3 done a better job of standardizing this 

4 decision about environmental versus coworker, 

5 I think that is where the search has to be on 

6 there.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes. Yes, that is 

8 what we are after. But you understand that 

9 that is a little confusing initially just 

10 looking at that and --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is what I am 

12 thinking.

13 (Laughter.)

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have got 

15 in one period, 1969, we have got no for 

16 uranium-234 and plutonium-239 but a yes for 

17 americium-241.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: I guess, Stu, that 

19 is why I was trying to understand whether this 

20 was an individual situation -- because I 

21 understand 2006, it is an older case, but 

22 there were a lot of DRs done from 2000 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

71

1 2006, I mean, in this program. So, if you 

2 improved 2006, does that mean it is going to 

3 be spotty going backwards or is this kind of a 

4 one-off? I guess that is what I am trying to

5 understand.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I understand 

7 exactly what you are saying.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, if 

9 there was no guidance out there, then can we 

10 assume that --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, what guidance 

12 was used in this case?

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Because we know 

15 what site it is from.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, what 

18 guidance was out there at the time and could 

19 other stuff have been done in that fashion, I 

20 guess? I suspect a lot of cases from this 

21 site would have been reworked under the Super 

22 S plutonium PER --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which would 

3 have occurred. That is probably the..., what we 

4 reworked it under.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Actually, this one 

7 was reviewed for three different PERs.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Twelve, 14, and 16.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I would think 

11 that most of the things that had been done by 

12 this time probably were reworked because of 

13 the PER, that Super S PER. So many cases were

14 reworked under the Super S PER. So, I suspect 

15 everything has been reworked. So, the 

16 question, have we standardized the situation 

17 sufficiently and had we standardized 

18 sufficiently by the time we did the PER 

19 work --

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that we 

22 essentially addressed 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

73

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: And that is for 

2 Idaho or --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: This is not an 

4 Idaho case.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It is X-10.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: I'm sorry, X-10.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It is X-10.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

10 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me for just a 

11 second. This is Kathy Behling. Can I make a 

12 quick comment?

13 It is a little bit of an aside, 

14 but I just finished -- well, in fact, a few 

15 weeks ago, I sent out the comparison of the 

16 second blind review that SC&A did, and I made 

17 the comparison between SC&A and NIOSH. It is 

18 interesting that this particular issue came up 

19 also in that blind review. Hopefully, perhaps 

20 at our next meeting I will be able to make 

21 that presentation.

22 But it was also the X-10 facility, 
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

1 and NIOSH did not assign any coworker data, 

2 and SC&A did. So, I think this is an 

3 important issue because I believe that case 

4 was also reworked, but it was also done at the 

5 end of 2006.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, that is 

7 why I keep harping on this. I think we have 

8 heard this issue before, you know, and that is 

9 why the question on guidance and timing and 

10 when it changed I think might be important, 

11 and whether it is a broader issue I think is 

12 important for our overall audit.

13 So, I guess the next step is to 

14 find out if there are guidelines and when they 

15 were, as you said, improved or what existed 

16 prior to them improving, and then, a little 

17 more on understanding this case possibly, if 

18 it can be unraveled. I think that is 

19 secondary. I think the bigger issue is the 

20 broader question.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. So, 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

75

1 is just a NIOSH action, I think.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, one 

3 thing I would like to compliment NIOSH on, 

4 though, I like when Grady was able to go 

5 through all the different changes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: That showed, you 

8 know, that we are tracking what is going on. 

9 I did want to compliment you guys on that 

10 because that shows we are keeping track of 

11 what and why. That sure helps.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Let's move 

13 on to the next one then.

14 So, that remains a NIOSH action.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: I believe the 

16 next one is 174.1.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: I still see one 

18 before that.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, it is 

21 observation. It is the Tab 171 observation.

22 MEMBER MUNN: How about 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

76

1 reevaluation? That is a graph.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes. No 

3 further action. I don't know why it is still 

4 in blue. Anyway, okay, I think that is okay, 

5 right?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I guess because 

7 we haven't closed it yet.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: I think all of us 

10 had tried to remove that highlighting and it 

11 is stuck there.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think that is 

13 what it is, yes. I have had that happen, yes. 

14 It is permanent highlighting.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: 174.1 pretty much has 

17 to do with using a K-25 workbook --

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Wait, 174.1?

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Go ahead.

21 MR. FARVER: -- a K-25 workbook 

22 for a Portsmouth case, and there was an error 
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

1 in the workbook apparently. Anyway, the final 

2 action was for NIOSH to review all the 

3 Portsmouth cases, other Portsmouth cases used 

4 with this tool that have the same error.

5 MEMBER MUNN: But there were only 

6 four.

7 MR. FARVER: There were only four. 

8 None of the other three used the K-25 

9 workbook and were not impacted by this issue.

10 So, the only thing we are going to 

11 come back with is, okay, is there some 

12 guidance now for what they used for 

13 Portsmouth? Is there a Portsmouth workbook? 

14 Or is there something that says don't use K-25 

15 workbook? So, we don't have this come up 

16 again.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: And maybe they 

18 have done that. Has that been done, Scott or 

19 anyone?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Just a second here; 

21 I'm looking.

22 MEMBER MUNN: So, what is 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

78

1 questioning? Are you questioning why they 

2 used the best estimate workbook?

3 MR. FARVER: No, no, what is in 

4 place now so that it doesn't happen again. In 

5 other words, we have four cases and only one 

6 of them used a different workbook, and we have 

7 a problem with that. So, now what is in place 

8 so that doesn't happen again?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: In other words, if 

11 there is not a specific workbook for 

12 Portsmouth, is there specific guidance on what 

13 workbook to use for Portsmouth?

14 MR. SIEBERT: I am going to have 

15 to send a message to the tool folks and find 

16 out. I should be able to get an answer by 

17 today, so we will be able to come back to this 

18 one.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. We will put 

20 that one on hold.

21 All right. Moving on, 175.1, is 

22 there anything? 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

79

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is 

2 another case that Kathy reviewed, reviewed a 

3 reworked case and compared it to the original.

4 So, for 175.1, the DR report did 

5 not properly account for all missed neutron 

6 dose.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: And to refresh my 

8 memory, the reason was they got the records in 

9 the middle, kind of?

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: They hadn't 

12 received these records from DOE? And then, 

13 they got more records.

14 MR. FARVER: They were received 

15 afterwards.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, and then, 

17 they were used in the rework?

18 MR. FARVER: They were used in the 

19 rework and considered in the rework. And so, 

20 we are closing that one --

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: -- because the rework 
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

1 corrected it.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: That seems 

3 reasonable.

4 MEMBER MUNN: That is -- give me 

5 that case number again.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: 175.1.

7 MR. KATZ: 175.1.

8 MEMBER MUNN: 175.1?

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is closed.

10 MEMBER MUNN: In which the last 

11 entry we had was December of 2011?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Okay.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Actually, well, 

15 other than your recent one, right, the 

16 February 2nd?

17 MR. FARVER: Right.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Moving on.

19 MR. FARVER: 175.2, we didn't feel 

20 they applied the appropriate hypothetical 

21 internal dose model when they did the rework. 

22 They used the more contemporary dose model, 
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

1 OTIB-18 rather than OTIB-2. And therefore, we 

2 suggest closing that finding.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: What did you say 

4 at first, that you didn't think they used the 

5 appropriate --

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, this was we were 

7 maximizing the award. Yes, they didn't use 

8 the appropriate hypothetical internal dose 

9 model. They used OTIB-2.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-2 had what, 

11 four choices?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It was like 

14 reactor and non-reactor, uranium or not 

15 uranium.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes, yes.

17 MR. FARVER: Right.

18 MR. STIVER: In the rework, they 

19 used the TIB-18.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, you are 

21 recommending close?

22 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

82

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it seems 

2 reasonable. Alright. Closed. 175.2 is 

3 closed.

4 And 175.3?

5 MR. FARVER: NIOSH failed to 

6 properly address all information submitted by 

7 the EE during the CATI.

8 And then, they start off over in 

9 the yellow column and it goes on for a ways. 

10 Basically, our action was to compare the 

11 reworked case with the original case. At the 

12 time of the rework, NIOSH was considering the 

13 absence of internal bioassay monitoring under 

14 an SEC. With regard to external dose, the DOE 

15 provided additional dosimetry data that was 

16 used in the reworked case. And all other 

17 external doses were maximized. Therefore, 

18 this finding is no longer relevant.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, that makes 

20 sense, yes.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, so we are 

22 closing 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

83

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Closed. Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That sounds like an 

3 excellent response. Why do I not have a copy 

4 of it somewhere?

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: We are looking at 

6 that last -- do you have the last one that was 

7 sent out, Wanda?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I thought I 

9 did. I thought I was looking at what just 

10 came out yesterday, today.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Today.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I thought that is 

13 what I am looking at.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: And you don't show 

15 in the blue a 2/2/13 response from SC&A?

16 MEMBER MUNN: So, I must not have 

17 the right copy. Okay.

18 MR. STIVER: Wanda, it should be 

19 the one that I sent you about an hour ago.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Page 107.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: That's 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

84

1 We are almost done with these.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I didn't have 

3 that back when I checked even the second time. 

4 So, I will try it one more time.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, are we done 

6 with the regular --

7 MR. STIVER: We are done with the 

8 regulars.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: We are on to the 

10 attachments?

11 Alright. Can I ask can we take a 

12 10-minute break, so I can visit that new -- I 

13 haven't been here since that new, little 

14 coffee bar came.

15 (Laughter.)

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Are they open all 

18 day?

19 MR. KATZ: I don't know.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: I need coffee.

21 MR. KATZ: A 10-minute break?

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, let's take 10 
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

1 minutes and we will start with the 

2 attachments.

3 And, Wanda, you can find the email 

4 by the meeting, hopefully.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It wasn't on my CDC 

6 email the last time I checked a half-hour ago. 

7 Thanks.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. Ten 

9 minutes.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 10:13 a.m. and 

12 resumed at 10:27 a.m.)

13 MR. KATZ: Scott, are you back on 

14 the line?

15 MR. SIEBERT: I am.

16 MR. KATZ: Great.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Ready to 

18 start back up, and we are moving into the 

19 eighth set with the attachments, which I think 

20 the first one is the Bridgewater Brass one, 

21 correct?

22 MS. ROLFES: Bridgeport Brass.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Bridgeport Brass. 

2 I'm sorry.

3 MR. FARVER: Correct. Attachment 

4 1 is the Bridgeport Brass.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Bridgeport Brass.

6 So, Doug, you can start. I am 

7 sure John is probably going to weigh in a 

8 little bit.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: But take us 

11 through this.

12 MR. FARVER: Now NIOSH had a 

13 response from April of 2011 that was not 

14 included in the matrices that was going 

15 around. So, I included it in here on this one 

16 that I sent out.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

18 MR. FARVER: It just provides a 

19 little bit more background information.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: When you say, see 

21 attached response, where is your attachment?

22 MR. FARVER: Oh, it is at the very 
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

1 end.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, I could help with 

3 this -- I am quite familiar with it -- if you 

4 would like.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Take it 

6 away, John.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. Let me just 

8 march through these.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, first, your 

10 attached response is all the way at the end of 

11 the matrix? Is that --

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, if you scroll 

13 down to the bottom, you will see --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

15 DR. MAURO: -- a write-up that was 

16 prepared by Harry that goes through many of 

17 the issues that we will be talking about.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: The more important 

20 ones, in fact.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

22 DR. MAURO: 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

88

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. Go

2 ahead, John.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. The first issue 

4 that came up, No. 1, had to do with the 

5 airborne sampling data. Bridgeport Brass was 

6 a facility -- there was really a couple of 

7 labs, one in Michigan and one in Connecticut, 

8 that rolled the uranium and thorium as an AWE 

9 facility.

10 In order to do internal doses, the 

11 Site Profile, the exposure matrix for the 

12 facilities made use of data -- I believe it 

13 might have been some bioassay or hair-sampling 

14 data -- that were collected in the '60-61 time 

15 period and were used to extrapolate back to 

16 reconstruct internal doses for earlier years. 

17 And our concern was, can you do that?

18 NIOSH responded back and said, I 

19 think we can because, though we only have a 

20 limited amount of data in the early years, the 

21 data seems to indicate that, related to this, 

22 if there had been more data, it would show 
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

1 that the later years were really limiting. 

2 This is a little unusual because you know it 

3 is usually the reverse.

4 So, what we did is -- and that is 

5 what the blue little indicator is, if you go 

6 to the back of this, and I can give you the 

7 30-second sound bite. We went back to the 

8 SRDB, pulled some records, did some data 

9 review, data adequacy/completeness analysis. 

10 And, lo and behold, without a doubt, the later 

11 concentration numbers with relatively abundant 

12 data were, in fact, clearly limiting compared 

13 to the earlier years.

14 So, we concluded on that basis 

15 that, unlike at other locations, other 

16 facilities that we worked with, especially AWE 

17 facilities, in this particular facility, using 

18 the little bit later data in the early sixties 

19 and to extrapolate back is claimant-favorable.

20 So, on that basis, we would 

21 recommend that this issue on Bridgeport Brass 

22 be closed.
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

1 And the data is back there. You 

2 could take a look, if you go back, at the 

3 summary in the back, to Harry's work. You see 

4 the workup is actually the data there.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: John, looking at 

6 the table you have there, the B, BRA3 --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- they are 

9 showing 146 people were studied in that. I 

10 mean, the maximum weighted exposure was 

11 exactly the same as the number of people? Or 

12 is that just a coincidence?

13 DR. MAURO: No, there is number of 

14 personnel studied.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. We have, yes --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: It is just a 

18 coincidence, I guess?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I guess the 

20 important point is the concentrations.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, that were 
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

1 observed in 1960 --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: -- versus, let's say, 

4 '56. If you actually move down, that is what 

5 brought us to the point.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure.

7 DR. MAURO: Clearly, there are 

8 more personnel there, but the amount of data 

9 we had was much less. In the earlier years, 

10 they were taking maybe one or two samples a 

11 year, while in the later years they were 

12 taking more like 9-10 urine samples a year. 

13 And it is for that reason there is a richer 

14 dataset in the later years, and they came out 

15 with higher concentrations also. So, we felt 

16 that did the trick for us.

17 But I see your question, the 146 

18 versus the 17. I don't have an answer to 

19 that.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, and, also, 

21 the 146 and the 146. I mean, it is just a 

22 coincidence that the disintegrations per 
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

1 minute per meter cubed is exactly the same as 

2 the number of --

3 DR. MAURO: I would have to say I 

4 don't have an answer to that.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. I just 

6 didn't know if that was like you put the wrong 

7 number in the wrong field or something like 

8 that.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, it is possible. 

10 We could certainly go back to the original 

11 workup that Harry did and check things out, if 

12 you would like.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I don't 

14 know. I guess I don't have so many questions 

15 on that, except that if you had 146 people 

16 studied, I understand you are saying -- that 

17 must have been across the board, right? It 

18 must have been everybody at the plant or 

19 something?

20 DR. MAURO: Well, I believe that 

21 they are only taking about one sample a year 

22 for each person --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: -- in the early years, 

3 while in the later years they were taking a 

4 lot more samples per person.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I am sure 

6 you have this in your --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, we could pull 

8 this out.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- richer write10 up, but you have 17 people. How many samples? 

11 It is a lot more samples you are saying?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: In fact, the write-up, 

15 if you read the write-up -- it might be right 

16 in here -- the shift that occurred was the 

17 number of samples collected per year per 

18 worker was much higher in the 1960 timeframe 

19 than it was in the '56 timeframe. And the 

20 results, also, in the dpm -- well, this is air 

21 sample, but there was also bioassay sample.

22 So, I guess that is the best I can 
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

1 do at this time.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes. And you 

3 are confident that the reason they went down 

4 to 17, they honed in on the more-likely5 exposed people? Is that the sense you have 

6 or --

7 DR. MAURO: I am sorry, I can't --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: I can't be that 

10 specific. As I said, we could actually pull 

11 together the report. It may very well be on 

12 file.

13 What we have captured here was the 

14 essence of it. And certainly, we could have 

15 done a better job in telling the full story, 

16 but I would have to run down the full report 

17 that we did.

18 In effect, what we were trying to 

19 do here is confirm the statement made by NIOSH 

20 that the concentrations were higher in the 

21 later years where we had more data. So, 

22 extrapolation back seemed to be reasonable. 
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

1 And we went and checked that independently and 

2 ran down the SRDB reports and confirmed that.

3 I guess that is about the level of 

4 granularity I can give you at this time.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Mark.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Looking at this, 

8 I am just reading a little bit here, and it is

9 talking about there is a total of 14 different 

10 types of uranium handlers investigated, and 

11 then it goes into a total of nine job 

12 categories that were studied, meaning that 

13 there was other -- were there other ones that 

14 they excluded out of this?

15 MEMBER MUNN: That was what HASL 

16 85 did.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, which is 

19 what we have to work with.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. And, yes, I 

22 had the same question, Brad. It seems 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

96

1 they honed in on job categories that were most 

2 likely exposed, I would guess.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. That was 

4 what I was trying to get the feel; are these 

5 the highest exposed or --

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, that 

7 is the guess I would have, but I don't know. 

8 John said he wasn't sure.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, I can't speak to 

10 that until I go back to the original work.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: The write-up says 

13 they calculated the exposures of individuals 

14 rather than using the collection of exposure 

15 readings, irrespective of identity. And so, 

16 it spanned a wider range than that of the 

17 collective distribution. So they looked at 

18 what they considered the widest possible range 

19 of workers.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, yes, I think 

21 that is just SC&A's analysis of the data.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, 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

97

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That is correct.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Individual versus 

4 collective distribution, I guess, yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

6 MR. STIVER: Mark, would you like 

7 us to track down that report for you?

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, do others 

9 have comments on that?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I, myself, I 

11 would actually like to --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand 

14 where they are going out with this.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

17 the recommendation. But, unfortunately, some 

18 of the numbers don't quite jibe to me. I 

19 would like to be able to see the actual whole 

20 report.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: When you say full 

22 report, do you mean the report that Harry --
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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Harry --

2 MR. STIVER: SC&A has reviewed it 

3 after HASL 85, is what you are saying. It is 

4 HASL 85. We have got an SRDB citation for it 

5 right here.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. No, more of 

7 the full SC&A write-up I think is what you are 

8 after right now, isn't it?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: That is all I 

10 want, yes.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: John, this is Stiver.

13 Could you get a hold of Harry --

14 DR. MAURO: Sure.

15 MR. STIVER: -- or maybe Nancy, 

16 and see if we can track that report down --

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: -- and send it to the 

19 Work Group?

20 DR. MAURO: I will take care of 

21 it.

22 MR. STIVER: Okay. 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

99

1 Thanks.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Assuming we are 

3 okay with that, that takes us through a lot of 

4 the findings, right, on --

5 DR. MAURO: No.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Or they are 

7 different, separate issues? Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: No, they are 

9 substantive --

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay.

11 DR. MAURO: -- substantially 

12 different issues.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right.

14 DR. MAURO: For example, the next 

15 one, Finding 2, is different in nature.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, let's 

17 go on to that for now, Finding 2, yes.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I will try to 

19 be brief on this.

20 Now this case has to do with 

21 external exposure and something that is 

22 referred to as correlated versus uncorrelated 
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

1 data when you are building a coworker model.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. The best way I 

4 think about it is let's say you have 100 

5 people, and each person had one measurement 

6 taken a month, okay, a film badge reading. 

7 So, in theory, what you have got here is 100 

8 people times 12. You have 1200 numbers, let's 

9 say, in a given year.

10 What you can do is, let's say you 

11 pooled all those numbers together. So, you 

12 have these 1200 numbers in a pool with no 

13 personal identifiers. And you said, okay, I 

14 am going to use these data to build a coworker 

15 model for the workers I don't have data for. 

16 But, certainly, for the workers I do have 

17 data, I could use the data to reconstruct 

18 their external doses.

19 But if I don't have data for some 

20 people and I want to build a coworker model, I 

21 am going to take these 1200 numbers, and I am 

22 going to go in and, since they are monthly 
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

1 readings -- now it turns out I think they were 

2 more than monthly, but let's just, for the 

3 sake of the understanding conceptually it was 

4 done.

5 You go in and you say, well, that 

6 means for any given worker, there are 12 

7 readings. So, let's go in and randomly pick 

8 from the 1200 numbers 12 and add them up, and 

9 that would give you one random estimate of 

10 what a person's dose would be for the year.

11 Then, I go in and do it again, and 

12 I do it again, and I do it again. And in the 

13 end, you have got a collection of annual 

14 doses, if you are following me, that are taken 

15 from this pool. And then, you plot that and 

16 you pick off the upper 95th percentile. Okay? 

17 Stay with me.

18 This would be considered 

19 uncorrelated data. That is, you have taken 

20 the pool of numbers, you are not assigning 

21 them to any people, and just pulling numbers 

22 out. Alright?
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

1 We reviewed the coworker model 

2 that was done. At the time we did the review, 

3 NIOSH claimed that they did an uncorrelated --

4 I'm sorry. Correlated would be I don't 

5 randomly go in and I sort them by people. I 

6 say, no, I am going to take Person No. 1, take 

7 his monthly readings. That is Person No. 1. 

8 That is his dose. And then, Person No. 2, 

9 that is his dose. That would be correlated. 

10 That is, I am grouping the numbers by people.

11 From there, I would have these 100 

12 people, each one with their real annual dose. 

13 And that would be a different way to come at 

14 the problem. And then, I would take that real 

15 annual dose or real people and plot that and 

16 pick off the 95th percentile.

17 So, when we reviewed NIOSH's work, 

18 we believed that they processed the 

19 information as if it was uncorrelated. And 

20 that is important because, if you actually 

21 have a group of people that tend to have the 

22 highest exposures, by doing it uncorrelated, 
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

1 you are not going to get a good representation 

2 of the spread.

3 So, we expressed concern that we 

4 think their coworker model where they said, we 

5 went through this process and picked off the 

6 upper 95th percentile, and are using that as 

7 our coworker model, we went ahead and checked 

8 that both using a correlated approach and an 

9 uncorrelated approach. And we ended up coming 

10 up with exposures that were twice those of 

11 NIOSH. We felt that there was something wrong 

12 with the way they did their work.

13 Well, it turns out we went back 

14 and re-performed the analysis, taking each 

15 person where we had data. And say let's take 

16 Person No. 1. Let's get his annual dose. 

17 Let's get Person No. 2.

18 And the outcome was a graph that 

19 you could see in the plot. It turns out, when 

20 you pick off the upper 95th percentile, we 

21 rechecked the numbers, basically. We went 

22 back and redid them and said let's do it by 
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

1 correlated approach, pick off the upper 95th 

2 percentile, and see how different that is for 

3 the 95th percentile that NIOSH is using. And 

4 it turns out that we ended up matching their 

5 number.

6 So, after revisiting the issue, we 

7 concluded that NIOSH was correct all along, 

8 and we are recommending that we close this 

9 issue.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Wonderful. That 

11 explains why I was so pleased when I saw that 

12 graph.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: And we believe it is 

16 the right way to do it for building a coworker 

17 model for external exposures.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Wonderful.

19 DR. MAURO: I hope that everybody 

20 understood that. That statistics stuff always 

21 shakes me up a bit.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And 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

105

1 end, NIOSH chose which model?

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. We thought, I 

3 have to say we thought that they did an 

4 uncorrelated analysis. In fact, they came up 

5 with this number. And when we checked it, we 

6 went through it and did our own statistical 

7 workup in our own way. If the numbers were 

8 correlated -- we didn't actually do it by 

9 person.

10 So, when we originally did our 

11 check, there are certain statistical 

12 techniques that many of you may be familiar 

13 with. And if Harry was on the line, I am sure 

14 he could explain it better than I could. But 

15 there are statistical techniques where you 

16 could take your population of 1200 film badge 

17 readings and establish some degree of 

18 correlation between numbers, higher numbers 

19 and lower numbers, as if there is a 

20 relationship between them.

21 And he processed them as if they 

22 were correlated. He ended up coming up 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

106

1 an upper 95th percentile dose when he treated 

2 the data as if it was correlated, with a value 

3 that was twice that that NIOSH selected for 

4 its coworker model. So, we felt that maybe 

5 NIOSH did something wrong, that they didn't 

6 really use a correlated approach to the data 

7 processing.

8 When NIOSH came back and said, no, 

9 no, we did, and it's right, we said, hmm, you 

10 know, we have another way to check this. And 

11 the way we will check it is we will actually 

12 go get the people, you know, not use a 

13 statistical method, but let's go grab the 

14 people and rank them and plot them. And when 

15 we did that, we got their numbers.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, what was the 

18 number? NIOSH's number is about 110. Is 

19 that --

20 DR. MAURO: It might be here. I'm 

21 not sure. The actual result, the annual dose, 

22 you mean? The upper 95th percentile --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, it has got to be 

3 here somewhere. I actually have the report 

4 here. I could probably run it down. Let's 

5 see what we have got here.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: You have 95th 

7 doing it two different ways. You get 122 and 

8 108. So, NIOSH's was consistent with that?

9 DR. MAURO: Mark, as usual, you 

10 are ahead of me. I would have to go back and 

11 do a little more homework.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, no, this is 

13 just in the bottom of the --

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, the report?

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: The very bottom of 

16 your attachment, yes. Page 129.

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. Let me get my 

18 hard copy real quick.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, the Table 1, 

20 right below the graph.

21 DR. MAURO: Here we go. Let's 

22 see.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I assume that is 

2 the data that you are talking about --

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- that when you 

5 went back and did it -- yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, 108 compared 

8 well with what NIOSH had reported. Is that 

9 what you are saying?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Instead of 

12 being like a doubling factor?

13 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright.

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. Let's see. We 

16 could go on to --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, this one I 

18 am more comfortable -- I mean, I don't know if 

19 others have comments on this, but this one I 

20 am more comfortable closing, with what we 

21 have.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, it kind of makes 
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

1 more sense because --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. STIVER: -- the median is 

4 quite a bit higher --

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

6 MR. STIVER: -- even with the 95th 

7 percentile, you know, depending on the amount 

8 of error.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

10 MR. STIVER: It is a little lower, 

11 actually.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I am certainly 

14 pleased with it. Closing it is logical to do.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. Closed.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Good.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, that is 

19 Attachment 1, Finding 2, closed.

20 Okay. John, go ahead on to the 

21 next one, then.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay. This is we are 
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

1 in Attachment 1. What finding?

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: No. 3.

3 MR. FARVER: No. 3, I am not sure 

4 we received a response from NIOSH to begin 

5 with on Finding 3, but John might have some 

6 more information on anything he knows about 

7 Finding 3.

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

9 The finding should be --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Localized exposures.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a minute. 

12 Sorry. I was going to a different one. Never 

13 mind.

14 DR. MAURO: This is extremities, 

15 hands, forearms exposures.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

17 DR. MAURO: I don't have any 

18 additional information over and above what is 

19 here in the matrix regarding the status of 

20 this. Namely, I guess we were expecting a 

21 report.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And it reflects 
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

1 NIOSH was expecting you to conduct the --

2 DR. MAURO: Well, in the matrix 

3 that I am looking at, and this is what I am 

4 going by, the last entry, this blue item that 

5 is dated February 2nd, 2013. SC&A has not 

6 received NIOSH's initial response of its 

7 finding. So, I believe that is the latest 

8 position, as we understand it.

9 MR. STIVER: I could not find any.

10 MEMBER MUNN: No, I think that is 

11 the wrong finding. Or maybe I am looking at 

12 the wrong finding.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: No, there is --

14 MEMBER MUNN: Attachment 1, 

15 Finding 3, March 2012, says NIOSH/ORAU notes 

16 from the December 11th meeting, indicate that 

17 SC&A will conduct additional review.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think you 

19 are still looking at the old Version 1. That 

20 is in there, but, then, SC&A added another 

21 comment.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I see it over 
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

1 in the other column, right.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott again.

4 There is an April 2009 SC&A White Paper named 

5 SC&A Follow-up to NIOSH's Responses to 

6 Bridgeport Brass Site Profile Review Findings. 

7 And the original responses appear to be in 

8 that.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Can you forward 

10 that to everyone, Scott? Yes, because I 

11 think, even if we have it, we might need to 

12 re-get it, right? It may have been sent, but 

13 at this point I think we just need to 

14 distribute it, yes. So, Scott, can you 

15 forward that to folks?

16 Alright. Going on to Finding 4, I 

17 assume Scott is going to forward that. I 

18 didn't hear.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

22 CHAIR 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

113

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, with regard to 

2 Finding 4, this is linked back to this concern 

3 we had regarding the external-dose business. 

4 When Harry reviewed the data, he said one of 

5 the problems you always run into when you try 

6 to fit data to a log-normal distribution and 

7 there is a lot of scatter, one of the things 

8 you like to ask yourself is, if there is a lot 

9 of scatter, and there may be some numbers 

10 which you consider to be an outlier that you 

11 may or may not trust, you leave it out and you 

12 redo your geometric mean, standard deviation, 

13 et cetera, to see how it affects the results. 

14 So, he called this a leave-one-out analysis.

15 And he suggested at the time -- if 

16 I had had the presence of mind, I would have 

17 called Harry this morning -- he suggested at 

18 the time, why don't you do a leave-one-out 

19 analysis and see how important they are. That 

20 is, in terms of affecting the results of your 

21 distribution.

22 But it turns out that, after 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

114

1 did that re-analysis that we talked about 

2 before with the curve, there weren't any 

3 outliers to speak of. So, the outcome meant 

4 that, well, listen, if we really don't have 

5 any outliers when we do it this way, you know, 

6 doing the individual workers and say annual 

7 dose for this worker, annual dose for this 

8 worker, et cetera, there were really no 

9 outliers and they fit that log-normal pretty 

10 nicely.

11 So, as a result, we concluded that 

12 the whole issue related to leaving one out 

13 goes away, and our recommendation is to drop 

14 it. That's it.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I am 

16 satisfied with that.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Others?

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, that sounds 

21 good. Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: Closed.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Finding 5.

2 DR. MAURO: Five, I think.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: That was done, 

4 right?

5 DR. MAURO: That was done, yes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, Finding 

7 5(a).

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, well, we know what 

9 this is. This is the residual period --

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes.

11 DR. MAURO: -- resuspension factor 

12 issue --

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: -- with 10 to the 

15 minus 6, which we have been struggling with 

16 for a long time.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: We love this one.

18 DR. MAURO: And I don't think it 

19 is still entirely resolved.

20 For those of you who haven't been 

21 involved in this, this is one of these 

22 overarching issues that I believe -- 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

116

1 certainly, if anyone wants to correct me -- I 

2 believe there is agreement that there are 

3 times when it makes sense, when you are 

4 dealing with residual radioactivity on the 

5 surface and you are concerned about it 

6 becoming resuspended and inhaled through 

7 people walking around and vehicles and stuff, 

8 there are resuspension factors which relate 

9 the activity in the air to the activity that 

10 is on the surface.

11 For the longest time, SC&A has 

12 been concerned that the standard number used 

13 by NIOSH to derive airborne dust-loading, 

14 given the dust-loading on the surface, a value 

15 which is 10 to the minus 6, it is basically 10 

16 to the minus 6 picocuries per cubic meter in 

17 the air per picocurie per meter squared on the 

18 surface. It is an empirical relationship. 

19 For the longest time, we felt that 10 to the 

20 minus 6 looked low.

21 And after lots and lots of 

22 discussion and data acquisition and review, 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

117

1 think we have come to an agreement. And that 

2 is, when the site is relatively clean and has 

3 been cleaned up, there still may be some 

4 residual radioactivity, but most of the 

5 removable material has been removed, the 10-

6 to-the-minus-6 number is a good number.

7 However, if you have got a really 

8 dirty place, which does occur, especially in 

9 the early years of AWE facilities, that 10-to10 the-minus-6 number may not be a very good 

11 number, and you might be better off with 

12 something like 10 to the minus 5.

13 And I believe NIOSH has actually 

14 memorialized this and has taken that position 

15 in OTIB-70, the latest revision to it. 

16 Correct me if I am wrong. And so, there is a 

17 new paradigm where there is sort of -- I guess 

18 we have converged on how to deal with this 

19 problem.

20 And so, the question, then, really 

21 becomes with regard to this issue, for 

22 Bridgeport Brass, are we dealing with 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

118

1 circumstance where the 10 to the minus 6 might 

2 work out pretty good if it was relatively 

3 clean and they cleaned up after their 

4 operations? Or it was a pretty dirty place,

5 such as, oh, Bethlehem Steel, where you had 

6 lots of residual uranium on surfaces that 

7 could easily be resuspended.

8 I am not in a position at this 

9 point in time to answer that question. I 

10 haven't looked closely enough at Bridgeport 

11 Brass in some time to say whether the 10 to 

12 the minus 6 might be okay or might not.

13 But I think all I could say right 

14 now is that the 10-to-the-minus-6 issue is a 

15 generic issue that was overarching. It has 

16 been resolved to, I believe, everyone's 

17 satisfaction in OTIB-70 in its latest version. 

18 And unfortunately, right now, the question 

19 becomes, well, what does that mean to this 

20 issue as it applies to Bridgeport Brass? And 

21 I am really not in a position right now to 

22 say, in my opinion, whether I think we are 
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

1 dealing with a relatively clean or relatively 

2 dirty place.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Based on the 

4 conversations we have had in the Subcommittee, 

5 John's synopsis is pretty accurate.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, I guess the 

8 question I have is, how are we going to be 

9 able to apply it to this?

10 DR. MAURO: I have to apologize. 

11 If I had had the presence of mind, again, to 

12 go back to the Bridgeport Brass data and 

13 review it and their practices, you know, I 

14 might be in a better position to advise it 

15 looks like this might have been a dirty place 

16 or not. But I really don't have that 

17 information for you at this time.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know for 

19 sure, but this question may be one of the 

20 things addressed by the Bridgeport Brass TBD 

21 revision. Didn't we talk about that earlier 

22 on? That there is a revision that 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

120

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- going through 

3 DOE's final approval for public release. The 

4 reason I say that is that we have modified 

5 other documents for this specific purpose, to 

6 incorporate the agreement that was reached on 

7 TIB-70 into the Site Profile document. So, I 

8 suspect it was addressed in that.

9 So, I believe, to complicate 

10 matters further at Bridgeport Brass, there has 

11 been a change in the designation of one of the 

12 two facilities from DOL, I believe from an AWE 

13 to a DOE facility. So, for that facility, the 

14 residual contamination portion goes away. So, 

15 it would only apply, if one of the sites 

16 remains an AWE, it would pertain to that part.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, when we do a 

18 TBD from now on, to be able to effectively 

19 implement this OTIB, it will basically call 

20 out if it is a clean, relatively clean, or 

21 dirty facility?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It should specify 
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

1 what, of the TIB-70 avenues -- TIB-70 gives 

2 actually various avenues. And it is, you 

3 either write one into the TBD or refer to the 

4 TIB-70 specifically enough that this is what 

5 you would do with it. That is what they 

6 should do.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So, when 

8 we looked at a TBD, we would be able to see 

9 what avenue it was going to -- how they were 

10 going to apply the OTIB?

11 MR. FARVER: And this relates to 

12 AWEs.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Residual 

14 contamination periods only exist for AWEs.

15 MR. FARVER: Yes. But is this 

16 resuspension factor an issue for other DOE 

17 facilities?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, not in the 

19 same fashion because in a residual 

20 contamination period where there is no 

21 radiological work going on ---

22 MR. FARVER: Is it handled 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

122

1 same way? I mean, can a TBD say, for a DOE 

2 facility like it would be for an AWE facility?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is not 

4 likely because you are going to need to 

5 continue to have active operation in a DOE 

6 facility. And so, you will not have the 

7 situation where you just have a residual with 

8 resuspension being the primary exposure 

9 method.

10 So, if you are in an operating 

11 activity, you would have bioassay data, which 

12 would include it all, all the intakes, or air 

13 sampling, which would include it all, or 

14 things like that. So, I don't see it arising 

15 in a TBD.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because I 

17 remember mainly it was an AWE issue.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think it 

19 is, yes.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, you would be 

21 forced to use a source term resuspension in 

22 order to derive an intake.
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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't see how 

2 that would --

3 MR. FARVER: And I don't remember 

4 it coming up in any of the DOE facility DRs 

5 that we looked at.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: Well, TIB-70 is 

8 specific to the AWE.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is 

10 specific to residual contamination --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, residual, which 

12 is --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: -- which is 

14 specific to AWEs.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Just to put a coda on 

17 this, Mark was asking on the side where this 

18 stood with Procedures. Procedures, as you 

19 know from the last Board meeting, is starting 

20 to report out on its closeouts on procedures, 

21 and it has started to report out on TIB-54, I 

22 think 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

124

1 MEMBER MUNN: Fifty-two.

2 MR. KATZ: Fifty-two at the last 

3 Board meeting. It is going to report out 

4 again on that more fully at the next Board 

5 meeting and probably some others. And this 

6 one may be one, 70. So, the Board will get to 

7 hear and understand the closeout of that 

8 procedure by the Subcommittee.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just specific to 

10 this one, because Bridgeport Brass is kind of 

11 the interesting one, especially where you have 

12 a facility going to DOE versus AWE, I just 

13 wonder about people being able -- between the 

14 two or --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, they were in 

16 different states.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, okay.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So, normally, we 

19 know which one they were at.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

21 MEMBER MUNN: This particular 

22 finding is on Harshaw, is it 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

125

1 MR. HINNEFELD: No, this is 

2 Bridgeport Brass.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Bridgeport Brass.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, Bridgeport 

5 Brass.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: It might come up 

7 on Harshaw, too.

8 MEMBER MUNN: So, we are deciding 

9 5(a)?

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: 5(a), yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

12 DR. MAURO: One of the things I 

13 would like to suggest is, in light of the fact 

14 that there is a new version of the Bridgeport 

15 Brass that I only became aware of now, as a 

16 result of participating in this, the fact is 

17 even though the big ones we closed out without 

18 that -- in other words, we still have, of 

19 course, this issue we are talking about, 10 to 

20 the minus 6, but what we really have here is 

21 we managed to convince ourselves that really 

22 most of the issues that we originally raised 
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

1 we are okay with, you know, without the 

2 benefit of looking at the latest version of 

3 the Bridgeport Brass.

4 So, I hope the degree to which the 

5 Subcommittee feels it might be worth having a 

6 look at it, which I don't think would be a 

7 very complicated process, just to read it and 

8 see how it dealt with these various issues, I 

9 would probably do on my own time anyway, you 

10 know. I am interested in seeing what it looks 

11 like. But it might be worthwhile just closing 

12 this loop by saying, yes, we took a look at 

13 the new one and there are no surprises; 

14 everything looks like it is in order, or there 

15 may be a couple of places where we want to mop 

16 things up.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. No, I think 

18 that makes sense. I think most of it is going 

19 to be consistent with what you have already, 

20 with what we have closed out. So, I don't 

21 think it will be a big deal. But I think it 

22 is worthwhile, 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

127

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, especially 

2 where you have got a new Site Profile that has 

3 been reviewed.

4 MR. STIVER: Another way we might 

5 possibly do that would be to, you know, in the 

6 next set of dose reconstruction reviews, pick 

7 one from Bridgeport, just a recent case, if 

8 there any available at this time. So, you can 

9 kind of do a follow-up kind of in relation to 

10 the original mini-Profile review.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I don't know 

12 if we have -- yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, in this 

14 case, we are writing a revision to the Site 

15 Profile to resolve findings.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, out of this 

17 case. So, yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The way we do it 

19 in the other procedures is, when we revise a 

20 technical document, there is a review of the 

21 revision to see if the findings were, in fact, 

22 addressed by the revision. It seems like 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

128

1 is what we are doing here. Our revision is 

2 just sort of this is our latest response and, 

3 then, asking, look, did we, in fact, treat the 

4 finding in that revision?

5 I don't see this as any particular 

6 big deal at all. I would be surprised if we 

7 have any Bridgeport Brass site cases that were 

8 done in accordance with the new TBD because it 

9 is just coming out.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, we would have to 

11 wait for a year anyway.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I don't think you 

13 will get any more -- well, all of Bridgeport 

14 Brass I think have already been filed, or 

15 whatever. I don't think that we --

16 MR. STIVER: Okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: But SC&A still 

18 has to review this to make sure that --

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, we are just 

20 going to follow up.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: It will also take 
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

1 care of 149.1 because we will go back and be 

2 reviewing the TBD, and we should be able to 

3 answer 149.1.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: And I just checked 

5 and I was correct in that designation 

6 business. The one in Michigan has been de7 listed as an AWE and will be listed as a DOE 

8 facility. So, the whole residual question 

9 goes away for Michigan.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, I didn't hear you. 

11 Did you say Bridgeport is being designated as 

12 a DOE facility? So, the residual period goes 

13 away?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: For one. Only the 

15 Michigan part.

16 DR. MAURO: Only the Michigan? I 

17 forget which one that is. Adrian?

18 MR. CALHOUN: Adrian.

19 DR. MAURO: Adrian?

20 MR. CALHOUN: Adrian's is 

21 Connecticut I believe.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, it is 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

130

1 Michigan, and it is Havens Lab in Connecticut.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Adrian is the one 

5 in Michigan. That is the one that is becoming 

6 a DOE facility.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, and I 

8 misunderstood you. I thought it was a 

9 building in the next one. Okay. Thank you.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which one is this 

11 case from or this, what we are doing now? I 

12 thought it said Adrian.

13 MR. FARVER: I thought it was an 

14 Adrian.

15 DR. MAURO: There is a Havens Lab 

16 and the Adrian Lab. I don't know which one is 

17 Michigan and which one is Connecticut off the 

18 top of my head.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, Adrian is in 

20 Michigan. I just don't know where this 

21 case --

22 MR. STIVER: We just 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

131

1 whether Case 149 was from Adrian or --

2 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, oh, I will 

3 figure that one out.

4 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy.

5 It is from Adrian.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, explain that, 

7 Stu. Since this one is Adrian, and it is a 

8 DOE facility, you don't think this 

9 resuspension question is in --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it won't be 

11 pertinent to this claim. But the fact of the 

12 matter is the TBD --

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the Bridgeport 

15 Brass TBD should describe how we will do 

16 residual contamination at the Havens 

17 Laboratory --

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in accordance 

20 with TIB-70. It should say which of the 

21 TIB-70 things are we going to use at Havens 

22 Laboratory in Connecticut.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: That is what it 

3 should say. Now I am going out on a limb 

4 here. I haven't read it.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: The TBD is 

6 covering both facilities?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I am pretty sure 

8 it did.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. I 

10 wasn't sure on that.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, it is kind of an 

12 overarching, generalized mini-review of the 

13 Site Profile.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right.

15 MR. CALHOUN: And if the Adrian 

16 facility, if what is currently listed as the 

17 AWE period now remains the operational 

18 period --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: The DOE 

20 operational period.

21 MR. CALHOUN: -- the DOE 

22 operational period, yes, there is only 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

133

1 person, instead of getting covered employment 

2 through '85-ish, will only have a year and a 

3 half covered.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The impact 

5 really on this case, I mean, it is pretty 

6 clear we are concerned on this case. But the 

7 question remains, for finishing out these 

8 attachment findings, it all depends on the 

9 Site Profile. Does it address those findings?

10 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, is it still 

11 applicable to Havens?

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: And I will save my 

13 comments on TIB-70 for the Board meeting. I 

14 can't wait to hear the presentation.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we need a task 

16 to review that or --

17 MR. STIVER: Do we need a formal 

18 tasking or just kind of a follow-on?

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: No, just continue 

20 to work, right? Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: Okay. So, John, feel 

22 free to follow on that as soon as you 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

134

1 like.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. Read it when it 

3 is out.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. I will be glad 

5 to.

6 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We can provide it 

8 or at least let people know when it is 

9 available on the website.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, so it is not out 

11 on the web yet?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: No. DOE is 

13 reviewing it for public release.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It is all approved 

16 and everything. DOE is reviewing it for 

17 public release. When they say okay, then it 

18 will be there.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right, Doug or 

20 John, Attachment 2.

21 MR. STIVER: Attachment 2 is 

22 Harshaw.
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: And I don't have any 

2 good news on that one. I need to do better 

3 and promise a response by next time.

4 I think that what we need to do is 

5 reevaluate all the data and justify whether we 

6 need a 95th percentile or not. There is a 

7 move afoot to change some of the AWE TBDs, or 

8 whatever the methodology, to include a 95th 

9 percentile, but I can't answer this off the 

10 top of my head. I didn't start it early 

11 enough to give you a good answer.

12 MEMBER MUNN: You are far, far 

13 away from your microphone.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I think I am just 

15 speaking quieter than I usually do.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, okay.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Basically, I said 

18 I'm sorry.

19 (Laughter.)

20 But, yes, I don't have a good, 

21 detailed response for that one yet. I know it 

22 has been dragging on forever, and I can'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

136

1 claim ignorance too many more meetings.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Wanda, this one is 

3 third apology now.

4 MR. CALHOUN: That is okay. I 

5 will send her a private one.

6 (Laughter.)

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

8 DR. MAURO: So, at this time, am I 

9 correct that at this time there is no action 

10 item for SC&A on Harshaw?

11 MR. KATZ: That is correct.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is this for all 

13 Harshaw, Grady?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Basically, we can 

16 skip over this?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, there's a few 

19 that have been closed, as we go down through.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: But they are not 

21 highlighted anymore, right?

22 MR. FARVER: 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

137

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, that is fine. 

2 Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: If you look at 

4 Finding 3 under Attachment 2, there is a 

5 little note that says Mark Griffon needs 

6 additional time to consider approach.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: When was that, in 

8 2010?

9 (Laughter.)

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Last week.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Well, would 

13 this constitute additional time, two years?

14 MEMBER MUNN: One would probably 

15 think so.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Three years? That 

17 was on my birthday. I get a little break on 

18 that one, I think.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MEMBER MUNN: And the same break 

21 in 2011.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: I know I had 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

138

1 stomach hurt at this meeting or in an incident 

2 with the Chemical Safety Board.

3 (Laughter.)

4 Alright. I will look at that 

5 while NIOSH looks at the rest of it. So, I 

6 will say I'm sorry I didn't do that, either.

7 MR. CALHOUN: We are a sorry lot.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

9 (Laughter.)

10 Going on to Huntington then.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, Attachment 3 is 

12 Huntington Pilot Plant.

13 John, are you --

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, I am here. I 

15 could help with that.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. Good.

17 DR. MAURO: Just to help 

18 conceptually, it is a facility that receives 

19 -- you know these diffusion barriers that are 

20 used at the gaseous diffusion plants? These 

21 are nickel barriers that the diffusion occurs 

22 through. They would send all these barriers 
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

1 over to Huntington Pilot Plant, where they 

2 would clean them up; in other words, 

3 chemically remove the nickel from these 

4 barriers. And they would always have lots of 

5 uranium entrained in there.

6 They would do the chemical process 

7 where you would separate the uranium, which 

8 had various levels of enrichment, and that 

9 would go in one place, and the clean nickel 

10 would go somewhere else.

11 It turns out in the process, you 

12 generate airborne radioactivity that consists 

13 of nickel mixed with various levels of 

14 enriched uranium. And you also generate these 

15 birdcages where the uranium that was separated 

16 from the nickel is sitting in a geometry that 

17 is safe from a criticality perspective, but it 

18 raises the potential for external exposure. 

19 So, that is the picture. I suppose it is good 

20 to have a little visual in your head.

21 Now what happened here is we had a 

22 number of comments. And in preparing 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

140

1 meeting, I looked at that. NIOSH has issued a 

2 revision to the Site Profile for Huntington. 

3 I could tell you what the comments are, but 

4 before we get into that and what our concerns 

5 were, apparently, there is a revision out 

6 there. I went online to read it over the 

7 weekend. A note comes up that it is not 

8 available because it has not yet been screened 

9 for 508 compliance. So, I was not able to 

10 physically download it and read it.

11 I think maybe a lot of the 

12 concerns I had that are raised here may have 

13 been addressed, maybe not, but I don't have 

14 it. And now, is it correct that that document 

15 is still not available for me to review or 

16 SC&A to review?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We can make it 

18 available to review.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, that would be 

20 great, yes.

21 And I think that there are a 

22 couple of issues. I mean, once we review 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

141

1 maybe we could revisit this issue again. If 

2 you would like to go over what the issues are, 

3 I could certainly do that, and why we have 

4 expressed certain concerns. Some are more 

5 important than others. Or do you just want to 

6 wait until we have a chance to look at this 

7 new version?

8 MR. KATZ: It makes sense to wait.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, why don't we 

10 just wait, yes?

11 MR. KATZ: 508 compliance is just 

12 a posting issue, John. So, there is no 

13 problem making it available.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, I understand 

15 that, yes. Yes. Sometimes when I go onsite 

16 and I see I can't actually find a document 

17 because I am not looking in the right place. I 

18 looked in a few places and I couldn't find it, 

19 but you say that that actually is not up there 

20 yet, but you could make it available to me?

21 MS. ROLFES: He is right. I 

22 looked and it is not up 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

142

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

2 It appears to be there that I can 

3 see.

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

5 MS. ROLFES: I asked about it last 

6 week.

7 DR. MAURO: I went online the way 

8 I normally go and then tried a couple of other 

9 ways. I kept getting that message, the 508 

10 compliant message.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, we will 

12 figure it out. And either way, we will get 

13 access to the document and, then, we will 

14 discuss it later, right? We will hold it, 

15 yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 DR. MAURO: Then, we can revisit 

18 it.

19 MR. KATZ: Next meeting.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, are we 

21 on to the ninth set?

22 Doug, can I ask, did you 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

143

1 same thing with the ninth set that you did 

2 with the eighth? Did you add in responses?

3 MR. FARVER: I did not.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, we 

5 could work from this.

6 MR. FARVER: Because we had some 

7 malfunctions with the operating equipment.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. We can work 

9 from the copy of that.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes, and my 

11 handwritten notes. We are back to paper 

12 copies.

13 MR. STIVER: The most reliable 

14 form available.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe this is the 

16 wrong time, and tell me if it is. I know that 

17 Stu said we wouldn't have the database, but 

18 could we kind of figure out -- I just wanted 

19 kind of an update of it. Because just looking 

20 at this, it is kind of hard to go through. I 

21 was kind of a little bit excited for the 

22 database. I was wondering, could we have 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

144

1 an update on that? I was just wondering where 

2 we were at on it?

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: And we had the 

4 meeting, right?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have had 

6 the design meeting.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: You sent around 

8 some notes on the --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The notes 

10 that we captured about things to be done were 

11 I think just recently sent around for 

12 everybody's review.

13 I don't have really an update. I 

14 mean, we came out of that meeting saying, 

15 look, there are other things that our TST is 

16 working on, and there won't be anything for 

17 this meeting. So, we didn't try to make any 

18 progress for this meeting.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: We can muddle 

20 through with our matrices for the meantime, 

21 yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes, I 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

145

1 just kind of wondering where we were at, if 

2 the ball was rolling on it or what.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, the ball is 

4 rolling. It was a good meeting. We got a lot 

5 worked out in terms of what we think is needed 

6 as a starting point.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we want 

8 to go starting with the sixth set, is that 

9 what we decided?

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Skip the 

11 first five, right. Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, there 

13 will be a significant data entry, a 

14 significant and complicated data entry, 

15 because of the way the matrices are formed, to 

16 get things in in sequence.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: So, it is going to 

19 be a fairly significant, complicated data 

20 entry process to get these things in.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It is not going to 

22 be a trivial effort.
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

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: So, we will work 

3 on it, but I didn't expect I would give any 

4 report today.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, and I 

6 apologize, I was just kind of wondering 

7 where --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It is a decent 

9 design. I mean, we have got a pretty good 

10 design.

11 MR. KATZ: No, that is fine. It 

12 is a good question, yes.

13 MR. STIVER: I guess the question 

14 is one of implementation, about when do you 

15 expect to start getting IT people working on 

16 developing the modules and doing all that, the 

17 data transfer?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it didn't 

19 come with a report. I tried to set that 

20 expectation at the beginning.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: And, Wanda, are 

22 you listening for this 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

147

1 MEMBER MUNN: I am.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was just going 

3 to make a comment about how your process has 

4 made it easier for me to go through and find 

5 information. And I guess that is why I was 

6 just kind of looking at this, because it has 

7 made it easier for somebody like myself to be 

8 able to follow through where the process was.

9 I didn't mean to put Stu in a bad 

10 situation because I know he didn't come with a 

11 report. I am just curious.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I am going to send 

13 you a gold star.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I will put 

15 it on my forehead.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I will tell you 

18 that this last week Dave Sundin and I met with 

19 our TST team lead to talk about the items that 

20 we are working on, you know, the list this 

21 long. So, it has got to fit into the list 

22 somewhere.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, in the 

2 meantime, after this meeting, I will generate 

3 the eighth and ninth, and whatever we get; I 

4 will generate the newest single version, so we 

5 can all work from one. That is part of the 

6 problem, is that we have complicating matters 

7 here, is that we get multiple versions.

8 MR. FARVER: And that is why I 

9 just try to update the NIOSH one, just to keep 

10 it all in the same --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I will try to 

12 have a master copy with this meeting date.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Then, I will see 

15 how far --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: For downstream 

17 when we start loading six and seven, we need a 

18 defined matrix for six and seven.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. 

20 Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: For usability, we 

22 might make this a two-tiered. We might start 
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

1 entering things we are working on now.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: So, that it is

4 useful. And make the sixth and seventh set 

5 and eighth set, you know, kind of make that a 

6 side issue or a second string. So, that would 

7 make it useful if we don't wait until we get 

8 all those.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Otherwise, 

10 you will always be catching up.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we will never 

12 catch up. It will be hard to catch up.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you. I 

14 appreciate that.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. So, in 

16 the meantime, moving on to my beloved 

17 matrices, the ninth set, working from the one 

18 that Beth sent around.

19 Doug, did you come down to the 

20 first one that is open? Is the first one 

21 open, 179.1?

22 MR. FARVER: 179.1 is 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

150

1 DR. MAURO: Doug, if you want me 

2 to help out --

3 MR. FARVER: Please, because I 

4 don't have anything, John. I'm squirming.

5 (Laughter.)

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. That was one of 

7 mine. All these AWEs, they are sort of the 

8 thing I do.

9 The first one, No. 1, in the 

10 original DR review where they talked about 

11 external exposures, there really was very 

12 little information available for us to make a 

13 judgment whether the numbers that they used 

14 were reasonable.

15 I think the answer they gave us 

16 here in green answers it. As far as I am 

17 concerned, I am okay with it. You know, I 

18 would recommend close it, Item No. 1.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: And the answer is 

20 that they didn't start dumping material there?

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, and see, the 

22 information that was provided -- there is 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

151

1 Site Profile --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: -- for Ashland Oil. 

4 So, all the information I had was based on 

5 what was in the DR report, whatever other 

6 sources I could find. And I was having a 

7 little trouble confirming the external 

8 exposure rates that were employed, this 57 

9 micro-r per hour.

10 But they provided information --

11 there was this survey done in '58 --

12 information regarding when the dumping 

13 occurred, the conservative assumptions 

14 regarding the number of hours of exposure, and 

15 taken together, it seems to be a reasonable 

16 answer. So, I know I am comfortable with 

17 that.

18 The actual detailed data, it might 

19 be useful to have that available. Are there 

20 any other sources of data that we should have 

21 access to? Your answer is good for me, but, 

22 you know, it would be good to have the SRDB 
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

1 numbers, and so forth, where all this comes 

2 from.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: John, can you tell 

4 me a little story? I mean, what did Ashland 

5 Oil do? I know you like to tell stories.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, it was a dumping 

7 site --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it is before 

9 lunch.

10 DR. MAURO: -- for residue that 

11 came from Linde, I believe. Wait, I might 

12 be --

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: A dumping site for 

14 residue that came from Linde?

15 DR. MAURO: Give me a second. 

16 Some of these start to blur together.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

18 DR. MAURO: Give me a second. I 

19 have the actual Site Profile review in front 

20 of me in hard copy, and that will help me get 

21 myself oriented.

22 I read these before the meeting 
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

1 began, just to get myself a little oriented. 

2 Let's see. Ah, okay.

3 I'm correct. It turns out that 

4 this was a facility that was simply a storage 

5 location where they dumped large quantities of 

6 residue from the Linde facility at the Ashland 

7 Oil site in the time period from 1947 to '75. 

8 So, you had this pile of stuff, of residue.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: '47 to '75?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am looking, I 

11 am actually reading from my summary of the 

12 background information.

13 Ashland Oil was in existence.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: When this dumping 

16 occurred, when the actual dump occurred might 

17 have been --

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Fifty-seven, 

19 right.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, it ended early. 

21 Even though the site has been there until '75, 

22 the actual Linde production activities ended 
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

1 in 1949, as we know actually from Linde. 

2 Right.

3 And about 8,000 tons of uranium 

4 tailings and residues are spread over two5 thirds of the 10-acre site, the site we are 

6 talking about. No residues were added after 

7 1948. Okay. So, it was in the late 1940s 

8 when they piled up all this stuff at the site.

9 And then, okay, it wasn't until a 

10 fellow named Weinstein in 1958 gave some 

11 reports, some surveys were done. Radiological 

12 surveys were conducted in 1957. And the 

13 numbers we are looking at are a result of the 

14 measurements that were made at that time. I 

15 believe that is correct.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, this 

17 stuff was buried at this site at Ashland?

18 DR. MAURO: No, it actually 

19 wasn't.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Or it was a mound?

21 DR. MAURO: That was one of the 

22 questions I had, whether there was a soil 
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

1 cover.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: And I don't think 

4 there was.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it was just 

6 piled up or whatever?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: And then they provide 

10 this information in the answer, that this is 

11 what the survey revealed. I wish I could say 

12 that I recently looked into the Site Research 

13 Database to look at the survey and data, et 

14 cetera, et cetera, but I did not.

15 What we have in front of us is the 

16 answer that we are looking at. That came in 

17 in February 2013. And I am taking it at face 

18 value, you know, and have not checked the 

19 source documents behind which those numbers 

20 came.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: But this is an 

22 AWE?
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

1 DR. MAURO: This is an AWE 

2 facility.

3 MR. STIVER: Hey, John, this is 

4 Stiver.

5 A minute ago, you said that, based 

6 on that review you are looking at, they 

7 started dumping residues at Ashland in '47?

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. I am actually 

9 reading from the hard copy of the DR review I 

10 prepared back in 2008. I tried to refresh my 

11 memory over the weekend to get up to speed.

12 Yes, it looked like the dumping 

13 occurred up through -- the last dump -- what 

14 did I say? -- is 1948. No residues were added 

15 after '48.

16 And that was about the time when 

17 the activities at Linde ended. All this was,

18 was a dumping ground for residue from Linde.

19 MR. STIVER: The reason I am 

20 asking was the response in green indicates 

21 here that Ashland didn't start dumping 

22 material until 1957. So, the 1958 survey 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

157

1 reasonably representative of the early 

2 exposures.

3 But you are telling me, based on 

4 this review, that, no, that is not true; in 

5 fact, they started 10 years earlier.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, you caught me. 

7 You're right.

8 MR. STIVER: So, I guess that is 

9 kind of still up in the air then?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree. So, 

11 there is a little bit of, yes, maybe we are 

12 not okay with this. A little homework may be 

13 due. I just didn't dig that deeply into it.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, and it has been 

15 four years since --

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. I would have 

17 done it, but I tell you I didn't really jump 

18 on this thing until late last week. I'm not 

19 sure when all this came out.

20 MR. STIVER: It came out late last 

21 week.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, 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

158

1 MR. STIVER: You didn't have a lot 

2 of lead time.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I think a 

4 little more follow-up maybe is needed on that 

5 one.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, a little homework 

7 here.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this will 

10 fall under SC&A follow-up, correct?

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: And you may see that 

14 a lot with some of these AWE cases here.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think, as we 

16 revisit these.

17 MR. FARVER: We just haven't had 

18 time to look at the responses and dig into 

19 them.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Moving 

21 ahead.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Could I just ask 
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

1 one question? Where is this Ashland Oil, 

2 where was it dumped at?

3 MR. STIVER: Geographically where?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, 

5 geographically where? Because I see Niles, 

6 Ohio and Western Reserve Refinery. Is it in 

7 Ohio that this was done?

8 MR. STIVER: It's upstate New 

9 York, isn't it?

10 DR. MAURO: It is probably close 

11 to Linde.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Tonawanda.

13 DR. MAURO: Tonawanda.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: New York. Okay.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, it says in New 

16 York, in the Tonawanda area near Linde.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I see that 

18 now. Okay.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 179.3 looks 

20 like the same question, I think, to me, 

21 anyway.

22 MR. FARVER: Pretty much 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

160

1 179s are where you have to look at.

2 DR. MAURO: On No. 3 --

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: -- I do have a concern 

5 with that one. It turns out I took a look at 

6 it. It was after the data and our review.

7 We had a concern, the original 

8 concern was that the dust-loading, .3 

9 picocuries per meter cubed may not be the best 

10 number. We went back to the original report 

11 by Weinstein.

12 What he did is a dust-loading in 

13 milligrams per cubic meter that was measured 

14 at the site and, also, measurements made in 

15 the material that was on the site. What 

16 fraction of it was uranium, and the rest was 

17 other material.

18 Using those two numbers, we came 

19 up with a concentration of airborne uranium 

20 that was about four times higher than the 

21 numbers that were done in this dose 

22 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

161

1 So, one of our findings, which 

2 still stands, is that now we are coming up 

3 with numbers four times higher, for the 

4 reasons I just gave. So, unlike the other one 

5 in which I was ready to say I think we are 

6 okay with, which we are not, this one, I am 

7 still concerned that maybe they underestimated 

8 the internal doses by, at least the airborne 

9 dust-loadings, by about a factor of four.

10 There were other aspects, by the 

11 way, to this calculation, the assumptions 

12 regarding occupancy times, that sort of thing, 

13 which are conservative. So, there are many 

14 factors. But if you just look at the 

15 concentration of the dust in the air, what we 

16 found reported in the literature: it looks 

17 like the numbers that were used by NIOSH in 

18 the DR could be low by a factor of four.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: And if I may, 

20 John, I think the question on the dumping 

21 versus the survey timing still stands for this 

22 one, 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

162

1 DR. MAURO: I agree.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

3 DR. MAURO: I agree.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, you have both 

5 factors.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

7 MR. STIVER: So, an additional 

8 error or an additional issue.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right. So, I 

10 guess there is a question on the number, 

11 right --

12 DR. MAURO: Yes.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- that NIOSH came 

14 up with? So, NIOSH might want to re-look at 

15 that, and you can also check on the survey 

16 stuff, the timing of the dumping versus the 

17 survey, SC&A.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 179.4, this 

20 looks like some comments in the CATI report.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. My little note 

22 that I put down here when I read this 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

163

1 I put down okay. In other words, after 

2 reading this, what I think we have here is 

3 there was some incompatibility, at least in my 

4 mind, between how the location of this worker 

5 was represented compared to where he lived and 

6 said he lived in his CATI. And there is an 

7 explanation provided here, February 2013, that 

8 points out that, no, everything is okay.

9 In my mind, I guess the reality is 

10 I don't even know if it makes a difference. 

11 So, I think, you know, the fact that we had a 

12 finding of what appeared at the time we did 

13 the review an incompatibility between what the 

14 person said his location was in his CATI 

15 compared to where he was assumed to be in the 

16 DR, and that is why the comment is here.

17 But the response that we are 

18 looking at says, no, everything is okay. And 

19 I don't know if this really would affect 

20 anything anyway. You know, regarding the 

21 assumptions you would make in the model, it 

22 wouldn't change, notwithstanding this location 
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

1 question.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think that is 

3 correct. That is correct, right?

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, if DOL says he 

5 was there, he was there.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: He was there, yes.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: And he is going to 

9 get the site doses.

10 DR. MAURO: He is going to get the 

11 dose anyway.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Right. 

13 Okay. So, that is closed.

14 DR. MAURO: Good, good.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. And 

16 then, 180.1. Yes, go ahead.

17 MR. FARVER: The finding is, it 

18 has to do with the employment period and job 

19 location, basically, which are identified. It 

20 is the Bridgeport Brass case, Havens Lab. And 

21 we haven't discussed this for quite a while. 

22 So, this response is even rather old.
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

1 But the worker claimed that he 

2 worked at Havens Lab from '42 through '80. 

3 However, the Site Profile states that 

4 operations ended in '62, and operations were 

5 transferred to the Seymour Specialty and Wire 

6 facility.

7 So, our inquiry is related to 

8 whether the worker might have been transferred 

9 to Seymour and experienced exposures at that 

10 location that were not accounted for in the 

11 DR.

12 MR. CALHOUN: I think that is kind 

13 of a similar thing --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: -- as we just 

16 discussed. Unless Labor puts him there, he is 

17 not there. We have to go by the verified 

18 employment.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Haven't we 

20 referred some to Labor just to check on it in 

21 the past?

22 MR. CALHOUN: 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

166

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, is that 

2 one that we --

3 MR. CALHOUN: I don't recall 

4 having done that.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: We can't really do 

6 much about this.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

9 MR. CALHOUN: But, you know, we 

10 did have a relatively successful story. I 

11 can't remember the details, but I think 

12 somebody ended up getting comped out of the 

13 deal.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Right.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: And that came out 

18 of the Subcommittee.

19 MR. CALHOUN: It did, yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Because we forwarded 

22 it to Denise.
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

1 MR. KATZ: Denise brought the folk 

2 to DOL, and they sorted it out.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, right.

4 MR. KATZ: And the person was 

5 comped; that's true.

6 MR. CALHOUN: And in that case, we 

7 had actually referred it to DOL at least on 

8 two different occasions.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: We said, are you 

11 sure, and they said yes. That is all we can 

12 do. I don't know if we have done that on this 

13 one.

14 MR. FARVER: And the reason we 

15 bring it up is because there is information 

16 that is inconsistent with what is in the DR. 

17 So, we just bring it to your attention.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't think we 

19 can do much with it from a DR standpoint here, 

20 but I think it might be worthwhile forwarding 

21 to DOL and requesting that they look into it, 

22 just like they did the other 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

168

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, the company 

2 was sold, or?

3 MR. FARVER: Operations were 

4 transferred to another Bridgeport Brass 

5 facility called Seymour Specialty and Wire.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Which is an AWE.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which is an AWE.

8 MR. FARVER: Which is an AWE, 

9 right.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, the person 

11 could get more, yes.

12 MR. STIVER: It would certainly be 

13 worth checking up on.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: I am looking here. 

16 It looks like we might have done that.

17 MEMBER MUNN: She did.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, you did? You 

19 did?

20 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on a second. 

21 Let's look.

22 MS. ROLFES: DOL sent it to 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

169

1 because Kim questioned it.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, one of our 

3 PHAs, we are reviewing the claim to make sure 

4 that we have correct location. Not specified 

5 locations as Havens or Adrian. We didn't ask 

6 about Seymour, it doesn't look like.

7 And then, let's see. They came 

8 back and verified that, no, it was Havens. 

9 Location is Havens.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: This is a little 

11 different question in 2005.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, the question 

13 was, was it Havens or Adrian? And it is 

14 Havens.

15 MR. CALHOUN: What is the specific 

16 information that makes you think it was --

17 MR. FARVER: The worker -- let's 

18 see --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Was that the CATI or 

20 something?

21 MR. FARVER: I believe it is the 

22 CATI, and the time period is from '42 to 1980, 
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

1 and the location is given as Bridgeport Brass. 

2 I am not sure how specific that is. But, 

3 apparently, the Havens Lab ended in '62. So, 

4 how could he have employment up through '80?

5 MR. CALHOUN: Unless he went to 

6 Seymour.

7 MR. FARVER: But operations were 

8 transferred to Seymour. But if he doesn't 

9 list Seymour in his work history, are they 

10 going to check Seymour?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it looks like 

12 the CATI was all done by a survivor.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Seymour is in 

14 Tonawanda or Buffalo?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is a 

16 different one.

17 MR. FARVER: This is a different 

18 one. This is Bridgeport.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Bridgeport Brass, 

20 yes.

21 MR. FARVER: And I don't know 

22 where it is. And I am not sure if it is 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

171

1 the CATI report or -- what is it? -- the E3.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm looking 

3 now, but you guys can go ahead.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: It is not quite as 

5 strong of evidence as we had in the last case, 

6 frankly, but yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, if 

8 operations went on, if it went from Bridgeport 

9 Brass to Seymour, are we classifying Seymour 

10 and Bridgeport Brass as the same?

11 MR. CALHOUN: No. No, it is 

12 different facilities.

13 MR. FARVER: The thing is, if you 

14 don't check their records, are you going to 

15 find them?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. I 

17 understand what you are saying now.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I am looking at 

19 the initial DOL application, and they don't 

20 mention Seymour in the application.

21 MR. FARVER: No. Do they mention 

22 a time period up through 1980?
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: Would I be correct --

3 this is John -- if he did go to Seymour and 

4 work there, and that was not picked up as part 

5 of his dose reconstruction, that would be a 

6 problem. You would have to revisit that 

7 because that would be dose you missed.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Only if Labor says 

9 that he worked there.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is the key. 

12 Yes, Labor is --

13 MR. KATZ: It is an issue between 

14 the claimant and Labor to pursue if there was 

15 employment elsewhere.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Seymour has covered 

17 period of '62 to '64, and then, it is a 

18 residual from '65 to '91, and then, DOE, '92 

19 to '93 remediation.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, does Havens 

21 Laboratory have a residual?

22 MR. CALHOUN: Let's look. I think 
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

1 yes, off the top of my head, but let's verify.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It is going to be 

3 Bridgeport Brass then.

4 MR. STIVER: Well, they did 

5 contract work through '64, but it doesn't say 

6 how long the facility was open after that. 

7 So, it still at work there.

8 MR. CALHOUN: It is just that 

9 Seymour is an AKA as Bridgeport Brass.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. They are an 

12 AWE 51-52, and there is no residual period 

13 after '62.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: After '62, there 

15 is no residual for Havens Laboratory. So, 

16 that kind of lends credence to the argument 

17 that he may have moved to the Seymour 

18 Specialty and Wire facility. Even though the 

19 contract ended in '64, there was a residual 

20 period that might have passed through his 

21 employment. He may have continued to work 

22 there, but not on DOE 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

174

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: It sounds like 

2 something before he was released.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes, it could have 

4 been he may not have even known he was working 

5 on DOE-related activities.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think it is 

7 worth following up on.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we ought to 

9 send this to --

10 MR. CALHOUN: Now you think that, 

11 ultimately, it is something from CATI, right? 

12 Is that what you are saying?

13 MR. FARVER: I don't know without 

14 looking further into it.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: He probably didn't 

16 only describe it in his CATI; he gave his 

17 employment years on his application.

18 MR. FARVER: He probably just gave 

19 the employment period.

20 MR. CALHOUN: I looked that up, 

21 but it only gives -- I have got to find it 

22 again -- it only gives Bridgeport Brass. But 
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

1 if it was known as Bridgeport Brass --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: But does it give 

3 any year? Does it give the years he worked?

4 MR. CALHOUN: It probably does 

5 now.

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, I think the 

7 years were not consistent with the Bridgeport 

8 Brass time period.

9 MR. CALHOUN: This is the initial 

10 case, and keep in mind that this is done by a 

11 survivor.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. The covered 

14 period that is provided here is, oh gosh, '42 

15 to '80.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: That is from the 

17 DOE summary you are looking at now?

18 MR. CALHOUN: No, that was 

19 DOL's --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: DOL's summary?

21 MR. CALHOUN: -- covered period. 

22 The application that they put in was '42 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

176

1 '80, Bridgeport Brass Company, Bridgeport, 

2 Connecticut.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, they 

4 sent applications for Bridgeport Brass in 

5 Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Seymour Specialty 

6 and Wire I assume is in Connecticut.

7 MR. STIVER: I assume they would 

8 move it, so it is a really close-by facility,

9 Seymour, Connecticut, yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, the question 

11 to DOL should be the person said they worked 

12 at Bridgeport Brass, although they shut down, 

13 but there was this other facility that was 

14 known as Bridgeport Brass that operated 

15 through 1980. Could his employment have 

16 switched to Seymour Specialty?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I can send that 

18 really quick to our PHAs.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright. 

20 So, a referral, and I think we are kind of 

21 done with this.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We are 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

177

1 done unless there was a change in employment.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, we are done 

3 with it.

4 MR. KATZ: Closed?

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, closed and 

6 referral to DOL.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes, for 

8 this one, but I guess I am looking at a little 

9 bit of the broader picture that we are getting 

10 from this. Do we have other claimants that 

11 maybe fell into this? Because this operation 

12 period, the operations were transferred to 

13 Seymour, do we --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, the question 

15 in Bridgeport Brass, I mean, yes. Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we have lots 

17 of other claimants that would have fallen 

18 under this same process that may not even have 

19 called out Seymour --

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Good 

21 question.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- because 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

178

1 worked for Bridgeport Brass?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that is 

3 searchable.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Beth, Grady is 

6 busy writing, so you are going to have to take 

7 notes on this one. Beth, Grady is busy 

8 writing, so --

9 MS. ROLFES: I heard.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So, what we 

11 will need to do is search for Bridgeport Brass 

12 cases that are described as being at Havens 

13 Lab past 1962, because any of those, then, 

14 would be suspect. Since Havens closed in '62 

15 with no residual period, it sounds like they 

16 were done. They emptied the place. And so, 

17 those people may have, in fact, switched to 

18 Seymour Specialty --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Did they close the 

20 place or is it just no rad?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, regardless, 

22 there would be a residual period, Grady, 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

179

1 they --

2 MR. CALHOUN: It depends on why

3 they closed it.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we would 

5 have to look at the termination report.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, because they 

7 may have existed until then. But that is just 

8 a question. I will look at that.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Check it 

10 out.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. Right, 

13 they could have continued to exist, but our 

14 residual report says there is no potential for 

15 contamination --

16 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in which case 

18 they would not have --

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- cleaned it up 

20 to zero.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if they did 

22 a good cleanup and had a survey, we are going 
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

1 to say it is not contaminated. If they did 

2 have a cleanup and had a survey, we are going 

3 to say -- actually, if they have a survey --

4 MR. CALHOUN: If they had a 

5 survey.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- with the 

7 results going off or if they did a good 

8 cleanup -- it is either/or; it is not both.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, Seymour, we 

10 have got information on it. It is a covered 

11 facility, isn't it?

12 MR. STIVER: Yes. I am looking at 

13 it right now.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, I was just 

15 wondering how we --

16 MR. STIVER: It is a TBD-6000 

17 appendix.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, there 

19 may be some people --

20 DR. MAURO: I don't remember doing 

21 a Site Profile review on Seymour. We might 

22 have, but I am looking at my list here 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

181

1 different AWEs.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think 

3 there is --

4 DR. MAURO: There isn't one? Oh, 

5 okay.

6 MR. STIVER: John, it is Appendix 

7 C/D to TBD-6000.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, so it is TBD-6000?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: But I have got to say 

11 I don't remember looking at it.

12 MR. STIVER: I don't remember 

13 doing one.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It may have been 

15 written after you guys made your review. That 

16 appendix could have been.

17 MEMBER MUNN: But just looking at 

18 what is on it, it doesn't look like there is 

19 an awful lot of information about Havens, 

20 Seymour. It looks like Seymour had a very 

21 limited time covered. There's ample 

22 requisition forms from August of '52 through 
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

1 March of '64. That is floor smears, 

2 urinalysis, air samples. But a contamination 

3 survey at the facility after operations had 

4 ceased occurred on October 7, 1964. So, it 

5 doesn't look as though Seymour actually was 

6 doing anything other than '64.

7 DR. MAURO: You know what would be 

8 interesting, too? I know, Kathy, you keep a 

9 database of this. Have we ever reviewed a 

10 case from Seymour?

11 I don't know if Kathy is still on 

12 the line.

13 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I am on the 

14 line here.

15 Somehow that rings a bell with me. 

16 Also, looking down my list, I don't see that 

17 that was the sole site, but I am wondering if 

18 it was along with some other. Let me just 

19 scan quickly here.

20 DR. MAURO: I mean, the name is 

21 familiar, but I don't remember -- I don't 

22 think we ever reviewed the 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

183

1 And the fact that the name is familiar might 

2 be because I reviewed a case.

3 MR. STIVER: Regarding that thread 

4 we were talking about, how long was the 

5 Haven's Lab operational? Basically, it says 

6 here in the appendix or the TBD-6000 that, 

7 after decontamination in '62, the site was 

8 closed down, converted into a school.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Boy, they must 

10 have got it to zero then. But I guess my 

11 thing on here is I think we have got some 

12 loose threads on this because it sounds like 

13 to me that, basically, the workforce, the 

14 whole workforce that was working on this may 

15 have been transferred.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is a good 

17 question. So, they are going to follow up on 

18 that.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we will 

21 leave it at that. Let NIOSH pull this thread 

22 and see what they 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

184

1 John, how about 180.2? This is a 

2 similar issue that we discussed.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, well, we talked 

4 about that. That was that factor of two 

5 because of correlated --

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

7 DR. MAURO: As long as everybody 

8 is happy that we have dealt with that in the 

9 Site Profile, then this issue could be closed.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: And we are still 

11 going to get the full report, right? That is 

12 what we asked for before.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

15 DR. MAURO: I mean, if you want to 

16 leave the decision on that --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Your full report, 

18 right.

19 DR. MAURO: -- we could do that, 

20 or whatever.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: We are leaving it 

22 open for now until we see your --
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

1 DR. MAURO: Sure.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, you have 

3 provided it before. We just haven't looked at 

4 it in a while.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, we are going 

6 to put that down, awaiting SC&A's report?

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: The full report?

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Or the 

10 Subcommittee is going to look at the full 

11 report, right.

12 Okay. Let's see, is there another 

13 quick one we can tackle before lunch?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: We could do 181 

15 and 182.

16 (Laughter.)

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, done. A 

18 comedian.

19 (Laughter.)

20 How about 183.5? Dare I try to go 

21 into this?

22 MR. STIVER: Modeled intake versus 
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

1 ingestion.

2 MR. FARVER: I don't have anything 

3 unless John does.

4 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is very 

5 simple. Notice the comment. You are talking 

6 about 183.5?

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, we are 

9 referring to, apparently, the 1 percent per 

10 day. Do you remember in the old days one of 

11 the ways you would model the rate of decline 

12 of residual activity is one percent a day? 

13 That is all gone.

14 I believe, Stu, you folks I know 

15 you might be doing a PER to revisit that 1 

16 percent per day. But now you are using .00067 

17 per day as being the way to deal with the 

18 residual period, the rate of decline.

19 Now I know that that part of the 

20 dose usually isn't very important.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

22 DR. MAURO: But that is what 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

187

1 issue is here. You know, the concern we 

2 raised here had to do with that.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: What site are we 

4 talking about? Do we know?

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. I have it here. 

6 That is Herring Hall.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Herring Hall/Marvin 

8 Safe.

9 DR. MAURO: I have 183 is called 

10 Herring Hall.

11 MR. CALHOUN: It is a comp case.

12 MR. STIVER: This is already a 

13 comp case.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Marvin Safe, 

16 that is correct.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: It was 

19 compensated, yes.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, it is a comp 

21 case.

22 MR. STIVER: And the issue itself 
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

1 is already, it is counted in the TIB-70 

2 revision.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. STIVER: So, it is not like it 

5 is common to other cases.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. So, this 

7 is covered in the TIB-70 revision. So, we can 

8 close it for this case, I think, right?

9 MR. STIVER: Yes.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, and it had to be 

12 compensated as -- you know, the dose may go up 

13 marginally if you go to that.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, and we 

15 couched that issue elsewhere, yes, the TIB-70 

16 revision. Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: Closed?

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, closed for 

19 this.

20 184.1.

21 DR. MAURO: That is Hooker.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, 6001 closed 
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

1 this out for us.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Thank you, 6001.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Well, 6001 is gone, 

5 right?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the uranium 

7 refining --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: Now there are 

10 independent, standalone --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

12 DR. MAURO: -- Site Profiles for 

13 each of the ones that used to be under it.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is right.

15 DR. MAURO: But 6001 really does 

16 not physically exist anymore.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

18 Nonetheless, was this issue, I mean it seems 

19 like it was discussed there.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: And that Work 

21 Group went away.

22 MEMBER MUNN: That is a PER, 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

190

1 DR. MAURO: Hooker, I have to say 

2 I didn't get this far. Hooker would be one 

3 that I normally would look at and try to put 

4 to bed for you, folks. And this issue that we 

5 are looking at, I would need a little time to 

6 look at this.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: How about this? 

8 We break for lunch and you --

9 DR. MAURO: And I will take a look 

10 at it, sure.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- take a look at 

12 it?

13 (Laughter.)

14 DR. MAURO: No, it usually doesn't 

15 take long.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: No. I mean, if 

17 you can, really, if you can look at it and it 

18 is quick, you know --

19 DR. MAURO: Yes.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Otherwise, we will 

21 just hold it. I am just teasing a little bit.

22 DR. MAURO: No, no, that is true.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, if it is 

2 something simple, you know, okay.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: And I don't know 

5 if anybody was on the 6001 Work Group. Wanda, 

6 are you on that Work Group?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I was not, no. I 

8 was on 6000, not 6001.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I am not 

10 sure what was done there.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Hey, John, didn't 

12 Bill work --

13 DR. MAURO: I am going to call 

14 Bill during the lunch break.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright.

16 DR. MAURO: I am going to try to 

17 get him into this because he is the expert on 

18 this facility.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, he knows that. 

20 Great.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, John has got 

22 his assignment, and I think we should break 
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

1 for lunch until 1:00. How does that sound?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

3 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everybody.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Thanks. We made 

5 some progress.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter went off the record for lunch at 11:55 

8 a.m. and resumed at 1:04 p.m.)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
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

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

2 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, Dose 

3 Reconstruction Subcommittee. We are getting 

4 back going after lunch.

5 Let me just check on the line and 

6 see, do we have our Board Members, Ms. Munn 

7 and Dr. Richardson?

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

9 Richardson.

10 MR. KATZ: Hi, David.

11 Wanda, do we have you, too?

12 (No response.)

13 Not at the moment.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we will 

15 start. I am sure Wanda will come on in a 

16 second.

17 MR. KATZ: Sure. You have a 

18 quorum.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, we have a 

20 quorum.

21 MEMBER MUNN: And I'm here.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: And Wanda's 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

194

1 Great.

2 So, the first item, I think, if 

3 John has done his homework, maybe we can hear 

4 from 183.5.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, I will make it 

6 quick.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: I did speak to Bill 

9 Thurber. What we have here is, when we 

10 reviewed the Hooker case, this case, it was at 

11 a time when it was a subset of TBD-6001. And 

12 the comment that we had here was that the 

13 duration of exposure, a person's experience, 

14 we thought was too short, for a variety of 

15 reasons.

16 Now it turns out that in the 

17 interim between when we made this comment, we 

18 could see the green provided here which 

19 indicates that, well, there is now a 

20 standalone Hooker Chemical Company Site 

21 Profile that has been issued that SC&A has not 

22 reviewed.
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

1 And coincidentally, I think it was 

2 Thursday or Friday, because of the PER 

3 discussions that, Wanda, will be held tomorrow 

4 -- and you will hear more about this -- you 

5 know, the review of the PER -- stay with me; 

6 this is an interesting bridge between the 

7 differing Work Groups and the Procedures 

8 Subcommittee, the DR, and the Work Groups, an 

9 interesting blending issue and has some 

10 importance.

11 In any event, Bill actually did 

12 read through very recently the new version of 

13 Hooker from the perspective of, well, has it 

14 changed to such a large extent that we really 

15 need to -- we can't pull a PER review? And he 

16 read it and he went over it, and he sent the 

17 memo in. And John will talk about this 

18 tomorrow.

19 But the bottom line is, with 

20 regard to this one issue -- this is a call you 

21 guys have to make -- this business of 5 

22 percent of the time, Bill, when he read 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

196

1 new Site Profile for Hooker felt that NIOSH 

2 provided a good rationale for why the 5 

3 percent was a good number. And in his 

4 opinion, we could close this issue.

5 However, the interesting part of 

6 this is this is really part of a larger Site 

7 Profile that has never been reviewed, this 

8 revision. There are lots and lots of issues 

9 that are in play. In theory, one could ask 

10 yourself the question, well, should we be 

11 closing out this issue if, in fact, the Site 

12 Profile within which this issue has been 

13 addressed has never been reviewed? And this 

14 raises questions like the cross-cutting across 

15 the DR, the Procedures, and the AWE Work 

16 Group.

17 Do you see what I am getting at? 

18 I hope I didn't confuse things. But it is an 

19 interesting dilemma.

20 We believe we can close this issue 

21 out, based on Bill's review of the answer as 

22 provided in the latest version of the Hooker 
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

1 Site Profile. So, from a technical 

2 perspective, that would be our recommendation.

3 But, at the same time, the 

4 circumstance you are in is that, well, really, 

5 that particular Site Profile has never been 

6 reviewed. And so, it becomes a question of, 

7 should we move forward with that, even though 

8 it really is something that should be looked 

9 at by the AWE Subcommittee, the AWE Work 

10 Group?

11 MR. KATZ: Right, that is the 

12 TBD-6000 Work Group. So, it doesn't sound 

13 like much of a dilemma for this Subcommittee 

14 at all.

15 DR. MAURO: Well, you could close 

16 it out, but it would be closing it out in 

17 advance of, let's say, Dr. Anderson saying it 

18 is okay.

19 MR. KATZ: It is not Dr. Anderson, 

20 is it?

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm not sure --

22 MR. KATZ: No, no, you're 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

198

1 No, you're right. You're right, it is Dr. 

2 Anderson.

3 DR. MAURO: Am I correct? Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. But it doesn't 

5 sound like it is a dilemma for the 

6 Subcommittee, which is just considering the 

7 case, not --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, I mean, it 

9 is a little odd because weren't we doing these 

10 as mini-Site Profile reviews?

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. So, this really 

12 is kind of an individual case.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, Hooker is not. 

14 Hooker has a Work Group --

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Hooker has, yes.

16 MR. KATZ: -- that is charged with 

17 the TBDs and SECs.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, yes, 

19 yes.

20 DR. MAURO: You see, the issue is 

21 the answer that we received from NIOSH here, 

22 basically, could have been just an 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

199

1 directly to the question and said, okay, we 

2 believe the 5 percent is good for the 

3 following reasons. And Bill could have looked 

4 at it and said, yes, we agree, and it would 

5 have been very well clean. It would be clean.

6 But the answer that is provided 

7 here is that, well, we have a whole new TBD. 

8 And if you look at it, you will see in it 

9 there is an answer to this question that we 

10 believe takes care of the problem. So, you 

11 see the issue it raises.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I mean, I 

13 think we could -- and that is the importance 

14 of linking these things.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, we could 

17 say at least that we came to this decision, 

18 and for your information, you might want to 

19 consider what the Subcommittee did. We don't 

20 want to go over the same turf again, right?

21 And SC&A is probably going to be 

22 assisting that Work Group as well. 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

200

1 think you would have the same opinion, right?

2 MR. KATZ: Right, and that Work 

3 Group dealt with a lot of TBD issues in 

4 dealing with the Hooker SEC.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: So, I don't know how 

7 much the new TBD already reflects discussions 

8 that occurred on the SEC issues for Hooker --

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. KATZ: -- but I imagine there 

11 is significant overlap because they went into 

12 it in considerable detail.

13 DR. MAURO: See, this would be one 

14 of those interesting Site Profile issues that 

15 are not an SEC.

16 MR. KATZ: No.

17 DR. MAURO: It has to do with, did 

18 they use the right time length?

19 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. I 

20 understand, John. So, I understand there may 

21 be issues that the Work Group hasn't 

22 addressed, right, that are strictly sort 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

201

1 TBD issues.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. And the 

4 thing I think to do here is to simply raise 

5 with that Work Group, are you going to be 

6 looking at the TBD? I think that would take 

7 care of it --

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

9 MR. KATZ: -- because they have 

10 other --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: -- things they need to 

13 do.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: And then, it doesn't 

16 sit on your plate, Mark, here.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Which is to 

19 say it is just being transferred to the AWE 

20 group.

21 MR. KATZ: In effect. In effect.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Now tell me 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

202

1 John, tell me where this 5 percent reference 

2 is. You keep saying the 5 percent.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, well, in --

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: In our matrix, 

5 show me where.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, in 184-1.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: In the comments, right 

9 there, right next to it, you will see the 5 

10 percent is in there. In other words, it 

11 basically assumes one day per month.

12 In modeling -- I will tell you the 

13 story. It is simple.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Wait. 184.1?

15 DR. MAURO: 184, page 7, the 

16 bottom of page 7.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, 5 percent, I 

18 got it. Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: You got it.

20 What we are saying is this.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: In the initial 

22 finding, 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

203

1 DR. MAURO: All this magnesium, 

2 this material that you generate, the magnesium 

3 fluoride that is produced when you do 

4 reduction, you know, you are making uranium, 

5 you have got some slag, what happens is they 

6 sent tons of this stuff over to Hooker and 

7 they used this hydrochloric acid to digest it 

8 and separate out whatever residual uranium was 

9 present there.

10 And embedded in that process is 

11 assumptions regarding, well, how long was the 

12 worker actually directly involved in handling 

13 this material, inhaling the material? And in 

14 the TBD, they use, I believe, one day a month 

15 or 5 percent of the time on that. I think 

16 that was the number.

17 And we were critical of that. We 

18 explained at some length why we thought that 

19 was a little bit short, for a variety of 

20 reasons.

21 However, it turns out, recently, 

22 we had a chance to look at that new version 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

204

1 the TBD, and in it is the rationale and 

2 justification for that, which Bill just told 

3 me it seems to be a pretty good argument. And 

4 so, in his opinion, this issue, SC&A would 

5 recommend closing the issue on that basis.

6 But I wanted to bring up this 

7 other matter because it goes toward the 

8 overall new version of this TBD.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. And so, 

10 then, in the green we have this issue was 

11 brought up, discussed, and resolved in the 

12 6001 Work Group. Is that --

13 DR. MAURO: No. This is --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is what you 

15 are saying; there is a new TBD since then?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

18 DR. MAURO: There is a new TBD 

19 that has come out that we haven't reviewed 

20 formally as part of the TBD-6000 -- I'm sorry 

21 -- as part of the TBD-6001, the new AWE Work 

22 Group. We have not been asked to review 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

205

1 But we did review it sort of. It 

2 turns out that one of the questions that came 

3 up is, under Wanda's Subcommittee, there is a 

4 PER that has been identified for review, which 

5 is basically a PER dealing with the fact that 

6 Hooker Chemical has a PER that the 

7 Subcommittee, the Procedures Subcommittee, 

8 would like us to review.

9 But we come back and say, well, 

10 hold the presses. You know, this is a whole 

11 new TBD. Shouldn't that be reviewed first by 

12 the AWE Work Group?

13 I don't know if you are following 

14 this.

15 MR. KATZ: No, we understand this, 

16 John.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

18 MR. KATZ: But the comment --

19 DR. MAURO: There are these 

20 linkages --

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 DR. MAURO: -- that I think are 
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

1 important. And all I am doing is alerting to 

2 you that we have three separate operations 

3 going that are linked: the work you are doing 

4 right now with the particular case --

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: -- Wanda's 

7 Subcommittee on Procedures, and Dr. Anderson's 

8 Work Group dealing with Hooker.

9 MR. KATZ: Right, we understand, 

10 John.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: The only reason Mark is 

13 a little bit questioning this is because it 

14 says specifically this issue was brought up 

15 and discussed and resolved in the TBD-6001 

16 Work Group. And that sort of relates to what 

17 I was saying. The TBD-6001 Work Group, when 

18 they dealt with the SEC, they dealt with a 

19 number of issues that may, you know, they deal 

20 with more than what ends up being strictly SEC 

21 issues.

22 CHAIR 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

207

1 MR. KATZ: Some end up being TBD 

2 issues. So, maybe they did; maybe they 

3 didn't. But I think the way to just sort of 

4 put a period on this is I will send an email 

5 to Dr. Anderson for that Work Group -- I will 

6 copy you, Mark -- just saying, raising the 

7 issue of considering looking at the new TBD 

8 and seeing what issues have not been addressed 

9 that need to be put to bed, that weren't 

10 covered by the SEC discussions. And that will 

11 take care of it, John.

12 DR. MAURO: Good.

13 MR. KATZ: And then, if they need 

14 to task you, they will task you.

15 DR. MAURO: No, I just wanted to 

16 put it in --

17 MR. KATZ: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: -- because I think 

19 it --

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: No, that is okay. 

21 It is confusing. Alright.

22 MEMBER MUNN: It was appropriate 
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

1 for you to put in. It is good for everybody 

2 to be aware that those went up here, and that 

3 that is very real.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it is closed 

5 from our standpoint. We will refer to, or Ted 

6 will send an email referring it.

7 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, are we 

9 on to 185.1?

10 DR. MAURO: Well, 185 is 

11 Huntington --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: -- Pilot Plant, the 

14 whole string of them. Should we wait until we 

15 have reviewed the new Huntington? Or do you 

16 want to talk about them now, our issues 

17 related to the Huntington new -- we have a 

18 whole list of issues --

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: -- related to this, 

21 and the birdcages, and all --

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, we said 
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

1 refer, we said --

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think this 

3 should be grouped with the --

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Attachment 3, 

5 right, was it? Yes. Okay. I forgot. Yes, 

6 that came up before.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, we will wait 

9 and defer that until you review the new one.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: So, the next meeting?

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

14 Most of all these cases are yours, 

15 huh, John?

16 DR. MAURO: I am a busy guy.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: I thought you were 

19 retired.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, no way.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: No way.

22 Alright. Let's see, I guess 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

210

1 is nothing on these. What is 187.1? Why do 

2 we have Vitro Manufacturing in there? I am 

3 not sure why that is in there.

4 MR. FARVER: Probably just so you 

5 know what site it is.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, we know the 

7 site, yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know that we 

9 have anything new. The last thing we had was 

10 in 2012, I think.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: But in 187.1, we 

12 had no initial response, did we? Or did we?

13 MS. ROLFES: I just got that in 

14 from Dave.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

16 MS. ROLFES: He said an 83.14 was 

17 an initiated and a Class was designated.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes.

19 MS. ROLFES: A PER was done today. 

20 It wouldn't be done with the radium intakes 

21 because of that.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 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

211

1 Vitro --

2 MR. CALHOUN: The entire 

3 employment of this case is within the 

4 established SEC.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it was an SEC?

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Do these findings 

8 have any effect on non-SEC dose 

9 reconstruction? I mean, are we treating this 

10 sort of as a mini-review as well?

11 MEMBER MUNN: This is all 

12 employment verification stuff.

13 MR. FARVER: I don't have the case 

14 in front of me.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Well, the first two 

16 talk about unmonitored dose and internal dose.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 MR. CALHOUN: So, those are going 

19 to be N/A because of the SEC.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: We added an SEC 

21 Class because we couldn't reconstruct it from 

22 the doses.
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, those 

3 components would not be reconstructed in it.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: But unmonitored --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: If they were 

6 employed during the period of the SEC, they 

7 can't reconstruct the internal dose.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: You did it based 

9 on internal, but the first one is unmonitored. 

10 Wouldn't that be external? I don't know.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: What's that?

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: The first one says 

13 potential unmonitored dose. I assume that is 

14 external.

15 MR. STIVER: That is an external 

16 dose.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Well, again, if it 

18 is unmonitored dose, if it is an SEC, a lot of 

19 times you are not going to have a coworker 

20 approach, internal or external.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, they will just 

22 assign the people that have records, 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

213

1 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, I thought in 

3 some cases you did try to do external?

4 MR. STIVER: We try to do partial 

5 reconstruction.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, refresh my 

7 memory. The 83.14 was for internal dose only?

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, let's 

9 assume the first two are not applicable. So, 

10 they will go away, right? We are not going to 

11 worry about them. What about other ones, 

12 187.3?

13 MR. CALHOUN: Talked about 

14 employment prior to '49.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Prior? Okay.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Verified employment 

17 is only '50. He is comped.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Was I mistaken when 

19 I said this was all record-of-employment 

20 issues?

21 MR. CALHOUN: The first two were 

22 not, Wanda.
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: They were not?

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, we are just 

3 walking down, Wanda, yes.

4 DR. MAURO: One is external. Two 

5 is internal. And then, the third one I 

6 believe has to do with --

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: His employment, 

8 yes.

9 DR. MAURO: -- employment.

10 MR. FARVER: And as I recall, 

11 there was something in, I believe it was the 

12 CATI report that said that he was employed 

13 beginning earlier, like 1940.

14 But I know we have been through 

15 this before because I have got this one --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, they don't have 

17 anything prior to 1949.

18 MR. FARVER: Right. And I think 

19 what it comes down to is the action was DOL, 

20 to determine whether this issue was 

21 communicated to DOL. In other words, did 

22 anyone mention it and they did their 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

215

1 here. So, I don't know that there is any more 

2 we can do on this.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Plus the 

4 fact that the case is an 83.14, anyway, right? 

5 So, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: So, I would close 

7 that one.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think it is 

9 closed, right.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: That means there 

11 was an SEC added that included this case.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Sorry, yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: And the last 

15 statement there pretty much says we can't go 

16 any further than that, right?

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, we are 

18 up to 191.1, I guess.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: Mark, this is John.

21 I am going to break. I think we 

22 have cleared all the AWE sites. The rest are 
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

1 DOE. And I am going to, unless you would like 

2 me to stay on, I am going to break.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks, 

4 John.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. Bye-bye, 

6 everybody.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

8 MR. FARVER: I would like to keep 

9 this one open until I can go check this. This 

10 is where my computer went on me, and I 

11 couldn't go in and look at the files.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is that true for 

13 the rest of the matrix or no?

14 MR. FARVER: Some of these we can 

15 close just by reading the responses.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, 191, 

17 you think or --

18 MR. FARVER: 191.1.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, just that 

20 particular one? Okay. Alright. So, next 

21 time. Okay.

22 191.2.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 MR. FARVER: Electron dose 

2 assigned to incorrect cancer location. So, 

3 this one is agreed upon. They corrected it. 

4 Did not result in a change in compensability.

5 MR. CALHOUN: That is a comp case, 

6 it looks like.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: It was 

8 compensated?

9 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it is a QA 

11 error, but --

12 MR. FARVER: It is a QA error.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: But it is closed?

14 MR. FARVER: Closed.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. CALHOUN: And Clarksville, 

17 Medina are now SECs, anyway, I believe.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, is that what 

20 this one is? Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: The next one has to 

22 do with converting neutron doses to organ 
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

1 doses. And you can see in their response --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: The same thing, 

3 right?

4 MR. FARVER: -- the same thing, 

5 closed.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it is 

7 QA? Okay.

8 Alright. What is our next one, 

9 192, Observation 1? Oh, this is a skin dose, 

10 measuring skin dose question?

11 MR. FARVER: Skin dose at Fernald, 

12 I believe.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Was this 

14 referred? NIOSH is suggesting referring.

15 MR. FARVER: They are suggesting 

16 refer it.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: It seems like it 

18 should be -- I don't know.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Looks not specific 

20 to me.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes. You 

22 don't want it, Wanda?
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: You're right.

2 (Laughter.)

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright, Bradley, 

4 that is yours.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It really does look 

6 clearly to me.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think it 

8 makes sense that it should be brought to the 

9 Fernald Work Group. The thing is I don't 

10 think it is going to be -- it is not going to 

11 be a top-burner for Fernald.

12 MR. CALHOUN: This was also a comp 

13 case.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: This was comp, 

15 too.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Which one is it?

17 MR. FARVER: 192, at the bottom of 

18 page 15.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is this the 

20 question that has --

21 MR. FARVER: It was the 

22 question --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- that has arisen 

2 before, that it is skin doses where --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Skin doses where 

4 you may have had contamination on the skin.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Hot spot, yes, 

6 yes.

7 MR. STIVER: Localized exposure, a 

8 hot particle.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, you don't 

10 really have hot particles in a uranium plant, 

11 but you can get contamination.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, when you have 

13 localized, yes.

14 MR. FARVER: I believe it is about 

15 using the film dosimeter data to assess the 

16 skin dose. And I don't know the exact 

17 location, but --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I think the 

19 critical question has always been, in a 

20 situation like a plant at Fernald where there 

21 is a chance for skin contamination to occur 

22 without a particular warning bell sounding, 
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

1 for instance, are you, in fact, capturing what 

2 the dose might be to exposed surfaces? It 

3 comes up at the Oak Ridge plants as well, 

4 gaseous diffusion plants. So, that has come 

5 up in that context. We have had some 

6 discussions about this before, but I don't 

7 think we have got a resolution.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. This ought 

9 to be referred to my group, though, because I 

10 think we are looking at this a little bit 

11 right now.

12 MR. STIVER: I don't think we have 

13 looked at the issue of film dosimeters and 

14 skin dose contamination at Fernald as a 

15 particular sub-issue. It might be something 

16 we want to look at.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe we need to 

18 look at that.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes. You can 

20 certainly bring it over.

21 MR. KATZ: Well, it is not an SEC 

22 issue.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I don't think 

2 it is an SEC issue.

3 MR. STIVER: But you can still put 

4 it in a TBD.

5 MR. FARVER: I want to go back and 

6 look and find out exactly what the --

7 MR. STIVER: Right, let's check.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: We need to make 

9 sure that Mark, and I guess me -- I am our 

10 other Fernald person -- because I will forget 

11 it, make sure he is aware of this item, may in 

12 fact come up at the Fernald Work Group.

13 MR. CALHOUN: What is the exact 

14 issue? I'm sorry, I am trying to look 

15 through --

16 MR. KATZ: He has a problem with 

17 Fernald, but on the issue of dealing with skin 

18 doses, he is the one who --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: He has dealt with 

20 this, I believe, at Bethlehem Steel and 

21 perhaps at --

22 MR. KATZ: A number of places 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

223

1 has dealt with this. It's always his standard 

2 assertion that this is really -- dealing with 

3 this on a case-by-case basis.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there is not 

5 a standard approach to it.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: But wouldn't 

7 Fernald be a little bit different case? I 

8 guess I am looking at it a little bit 

9 different because in like Bethlehem Steel, or 

10 something like that, where they have 

11 particulates, we really wouldn't have that at 

12 Fernald. They are trying to use film badge 

13 data for skin contamination.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, no, they are 

15 using film badge data as the dose to the skin. 

16 The contention from SC&A is that, at a plant 

17 like Fernald and Bethlehem Steel, where you 

18 are using uranium, essentially bare uranium 

19 without containment, you are going to have 

20 uranium contamination around. It could be on 

21 people's skin, their exposed skin, in the 

22 workplace. It could be their hands. It may 
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

1 be their forearms. And based on that, that is 

2 usually what's exposed.

3 And so, in a situation like that 

4 where contamination of the skin would not 

5 necessarily be unexpected and would not rise 

6 to the level of notice that you would have a 

7 recording of it each time it occurred, are you 

8 accounting for doses that may have occurred 

9 from that type of contamination appropriately 

10 if you only use film badge reading, which 

11 theoretically would read the skin from being 

12 close to the uranium, but may not read the 

13 dose that was because of some contaminated 

14 uranium rust or something, uranium particles 

15 that get on your neck or your forearm or 

16 something.

17 So, that is it, and it is the same 

18 here. It is the same in some of the gaseous 

19 diffusion plants. It is the same at Bethlehem 

20 Steel and maybe some other places as well. 

21 So, that is the question.

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is 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

225

1 I just want to point out that the 

2 Work Group should already know about this 

3 since the rest of the observation cases are 

4 concerned and taken directly from SC&A's 

5 review of the Fernald Site Profile. So, it 

6 should already be covered in the Site Profile.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. So, maybe it is 

9 not something that is unique to Fernald. It 

10 is really a global issue.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright, 194.4.

12 MR. FARVER: It looks like another 

13 one we suggest going over to the Fernald Work 

14 Group.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

16 MR. FARVER: About thorium doses. 

17 "Failed to calculate internal doses 

18 associated with potential exposure to 

19 thorium."

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think that 

21 is something --

22 MR. STIVER: Thorium is something 
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

1 that has been discussed --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes. So, 

3 that makes sense.

4 MR. STIVER: -- in a lot of 

5 detail.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I know 

7 that is on the list of actions, anyway, right?

8 MR. STIVER: Yes.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

10 MR. STIVER: It is ongoing.

11 MR. KATZ: Are you closing these 

12 with a reference to Fernald? Is that what you 

13 are doing?

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, is that --

15 MR. CALHOUN: Well, in this case, 

16 it looks like we didn't include it because it 

17 is comped.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So, the 

19 broad issue. So, in that case, definitely we 

20 should close it, then, and refer it, yes. If 

21 it is comped, I don't think we have to worry 

22 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

227

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. It was 

2 assigned uranium, neptunium, plutonium, and 

3 technetium internal dose; comp the case.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: But the Fernald 

6 Work Group is still looking at that, though.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: They're looking at 

8 thorium exposure.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, the 

11 broad issue is still being referred.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: But this is 

16 compensated, so there is no further --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, with this 

18 case.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: 195.1.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. This has to 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

228

1 with using the rotational geometry for certain 

2 cancers on the external doses. And this has 

3 been brought up before. And this is a 

4 compensated case.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: But is this a 

6 bigger picture?

7 MR. FARVER: It is a recurring 

8 problem, yes.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: And the way the --

11 gosh, where is this worded? This is in 

12 IG-001.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is related 

14 to the PA or anything other than --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes. It is worded 

16 that, I believe you are supposed to justify 

17 either using or not using -- would we use 

18 rotational geometry or would we use isotropic 

19 geometry in the external doses? When you 

20 consider the dose correction factor, what 

21 geometry do you use?

22 There is a blurb in there 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

229

1 says one may be more representative and more 

2 claimant-favorable.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, this is a 

4 bigger picture than from what is on this for 

5 this --

6 MR. FARVER: For this case, yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- for this case?

8 MR. FARVER: This comes up time 

9 and time again.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: So would this be 

11 considered a QA problem or?

12 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know if 

13 it is a QA problem. I think part of it is I 

14 haven't seen it done where they have used the 

15 rotation. And we do see it quite a bit where 

16 they do not use the rotational; they use the 

17 AP geometry or the isotropic.

18 MR. SIEBERT: They assume 100 

19 percent AP?

20 MR. FARVER: I do not have this in 

21 front of me right now. So, I do not know, but 

22 I believe 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

230

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Doesn't this go 

2 back to the original issue with the geometry?

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, that is what I 

4 was thinking; it gets back to the IG --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: IG-1 has a set of 

6 different geometry dose conversion factors. 

7 And there has been criticism, particularly of 

8 the PA --

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, PA.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as being 

11 incorrectly valid. But there is PA and there 

12 is AP rotational isotropic.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: And in going 

15 through this, in almost all cases, AP yields a 

16 higher dose conversion factor for most organs.

17 MR. FARVER: For most.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: But not for 

19 leukemia. Isn't that what we are talking 

20 about? Maybe something else.

21 MR. FARVER: There's a few.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: There are two 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

231

1 three.

2 MR. FARVER: I think lungs is one.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes. So, the 

4 remedy to get out from under this rather 

5 cumbersome DCF regimen, and the fact that you 

6 really cannot make very many good judgments 

7 about what someone's geometry was in the 

8 workplace -- you just don't know enough about 

9 their orientation -- why don't we just use AP 

10 because that is the highest one, except for 

11 those cases when it is not the highest one?

12 MR. FARVER: Right.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And now, it sounds 

14 to me like the directions or the instructions 

15 are not terribly clear.

16 MR. FARVER: If someone can pull 

17 it up, the IG-01 and look at that little 

18 statement, I believe it says for those certain 

19 cancers you are supposed to use the higher 

20 one, like rotational, unless you justify using 

21 and saying it is not appropriate.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. And in 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

232

1 particular case, it would seem like there is 

2 some confusion adopted by the dose 

3 reconstructor by saying, "Well, if I choose 

4 the highest one, it is like they were judging 

5 that to be an overestimate," which it is 

6 really not, which is really the instructions, 

7 "This is what you are to do," is use the 

8 highest one.

9 And so, they said that "This is a 

10 compensable case. I don't want to use an 

11 overestimate for a compensable case. And so, 

12 I'll use this lower one, and it is still 

13 compensable. And so, I use that."

14 It sounds to me like that is what 

15 went on here. And that, I think, is not the 

16 correct decision to make. The correct 

17 decision to make was the IG-1 says use 

18 whichever one gives you the highest dose, 

19 regardless of outcome. That is what it says, 

20 I believe.

21 So, I think there was a mistake in 

22 interpretation of that. So, it may have to 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

233

1 with how clear the instructions are.

2 MR. FARVER: Right. And then, 

3 really, what I said here was we will accept it 

4 for this case because it is compensated, 

5 because I can understand that. But I believe 

6 there is a statement saying that, if you do 

7 not use the higher ones, you are supposed to 

8 justify why you didn't.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: And we do not say 

11 that, see that sentence anywhere.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: We do see this come 

14 up quite a bit where they don't use the 

15 rotational, but we don't see any statement 

16 saying why.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. The 

18 statement is what was missing.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay, but it is 

20 closed. I think it is closed.

21 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

22 Kathy Behling.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes?

2 MS. BEHLING: There was a table 

3 added. I am not sure if it is already in Rev. 

4 2, but I know it is certainly in Rev. 3 of the 

5 IG-001, the internal -- guide. And it is 

6 Table 4.1(a), and that is exactly what you are 

7 talking about right now, the correction 

8 factors for rotational isotropic for bone and 

9 lung.

10 And since this was added, as Doug 

11 is saying, we see this occasionally or we have 

12 seen it routinely. I don't believe that there 

13 has ever been a PER associated with this 

14 change. And I am wondering if that shouldn't 

15 be the case, to go back and look at these 

16 certain types of cancer and see if these 

17 correction factors were applied.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is a good 

19 point. And it is probably only a few cancers, 

20 right, like you said, that would use the 

21 rotation or should use the rotation.

22 We are thinking about it, Kathy.
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

1 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: I am making a 

3 note. I am making a note. I am not sure I am 

4 smart enough to answer that today, but we are 

5 making a note to go back and figure out where 

6 we --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Where is that 

8 discussed? What is the reference for that 

9 rotational versus AP?

10 MS. BEHLING: I am looking at --

11 MR. KATZ: IG-001.

12 MS. BEHLING: I am looking at page 

13 39 of Revision 3 of IG-001, and it was dated 

14 November 21st, 2007. And I am not sure if it 

15 was introduced in Rev. 2 or not. I will try 

16 to go back and find that.

17 MR. KATZ: You don't need to 

18 because DCAS is going to go back and look at 

19 this anyway, Kathy.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Yes, that 

21 should be picked up in the PER.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank 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

236

1 MR. KATZ: So, maybe we could just 

2 hear what came up looking at this at the next 

3 meeting.

4 So, do you want to leave this 

5 open? Do you want it closed?

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think it is 

7 closed for that case.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, then, NIOSH is 

10 looking at the general issue.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: 195.2.

15 MR. FARVER: The DR report said 

16 they are using the 95th percentile of the 

17 neutron-to-photon ratio, and what they 

18 actually used for the geometric mean. And 

19 NIOSH gives a good explanation of it.

20 Basically, all we can say is it 

21 should have been caught in the peer reviews. 

22 This is a QA issue. There is really nothing 
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

1 further we can do.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it is 

3 closed but a QA, yes.

4 195.4.

5 MR. FARVER: 195.3.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, I'm sorry.

7 MR. FARVER: Which I am going to 

8 defer until the next meeting because I want to 

9 look at those files that they mention.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: I knew that. 

11 That's why I said --

12 (Laughter.)

13 Okay. 195.4.

14 MR. FARVER: Internal dose from 

15 cesium was not included. Basically, it looks 

16 like there was some whole-body counts that 

17 were slightly greater than the fallout levels 

18 listed in the TBD. And we thought they should 

19 have been calculated as an occupational dose. 

20 However, the case was compensated, and the 

21 dose from that was not needed.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: We are 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

238

1 what, 195?

2 MR. FARVER: 195.4.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: We also think the DR 

5 report should have said that the cesium was 

6 not necessary, like they put in sometimes 

7 saying it is already beyond the 50 percent and 

8 they don't really need it. But this does come 

9 up occasionally, the cesium levels again.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is still 

11 Fernald, right?

12 MR. FARVER: It is probably 

13 Hanford.

14 MR. CALHOUN: It is multiple 

15 sites.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: When you say 

18 "comes up frequently" --

19 MR. FARVER: Well, occasionally.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, occasionally?

21 MR. FARVER: This question about 

22 the cesium levels.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

2 MR. FARVER: And they describe 

3 some, let's see, "This is described in the TBD 

4 as a condition for classifying a cesium-137 

5 intake as occupational, since the results only 

6 technically meet one of the two conditions for 

7 classifications, but don't meet any of the 

8 conditions for classification as 

9 occupational."

10 The correct classification is not 

11 plainly evident. And I think that is the key 

12 thing that we run into occasionally where the 

13 answer is not clear.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. I 

15 mean, this kind of thing does look like a Site 

16 Profile issue if it was one site. I think 

17 Grady said it was multiple sites.

18 MR. CALHOUN: It is.

19 MR. FARVER: It is, but I think 

20 the cesium levels are in the Hanford TBD.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: In the Hanford 

22 part of it, 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

240

1 MR. HINNEFELD: This sounds like 

2 Hanford.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, it sounds 

4 like Hanford, yes. And I am sure this issue 

5 is on the Hanford Site Profile radar, right?

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, depending on 

7 the year that we are talking about. The SEC 

8 is up through, what, '82?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes, '82, isn't it? 

10 I think it is '82.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, depending on 

12 the year, if there is an SEC, it might be in 

13 recent years.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Well, I 

15 think it is closed for here.

16 MR. FARVER: I think so.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: I don't think we can 

19 go any further on this.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: But would this be 

21 referred to the Hanford Work Group or --

22 MR. STIVER: Well isn't this 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

1 situation where whenever you have a fission 

2 product dose determination, this type of a 

3 thing would apply, whether it is background 

4 from fallout or an elevated level of one of 

5 the components.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: But what Stu says 

8 is true; we have got an SEC in that area, but 

9 if they don't fall under the SEC, wouldn't 

10 this --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, or how they 

12 are handling it beyond the SEC period.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, yes. Past the 

14 SEC or for non-compensable cancers.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, this really 

16 ought to be made to the Hanford Group.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Or the broad issue 

18 could be referred, yes. I just think they

19 have it already, but, yes, we can do that.

20 MR. FARVER: And I don't know if 

21 the Hanford TBD, is that going under some 

22 modifications?
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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it kind of 

2 goes stepwise as Classes are added.

3 MR. STIVER: So, the latest was 

4 2010.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we just 

6 did one.

7 MR. STIVER: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: We just did one.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, Stu, the new 

10 one we just did only incorporated the SEC 

11 wording.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. So, it 

13 didn't address this.

14 MR. SIEBERT: There were no new 

15 changes.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. So, 

17 going on? 196.1. There is a question of 

18 revising and distributing workbook tools 

19 without verifying them. If the calculations 

20 are correct, then, it is certainly of interest 

21 to us.

22 Maybe we can step back. Can 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

243

1 describe this? What is this? What site is 

2 it?

3 MR. CALHOUN: That is Hanford.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: It is Hanford?

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Do you have any more 

7 details on that one, Scott?

8 MR. SIEBERT: No. When we made 

9 that comment a year ago, it was we were 

10 looking at that issue. And that is part of 

11 what we discussed over the various 

12 presentations we have given over the last 

13 year.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: So, that is really 

16 what we were focusing on pointing out, that we 

17 are looking at the situation, doing QA/QC 

18 issues, and, you know, we have presented to 

19 you what we do with tools.

20 MR. FARVER: And I think our big 

21 concern here is that we see workbook errors. 

22 We see, whether it is a calculation that 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

244

1 wrong, whether it is a divide by bias, or 

2 something that shouldn't be there, we are 

3 seeing that. Now, to us, that indicates there 

4 is a problem somewhere, if we are seeing 

5 errors in the workbook.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. And that's 

7 why we are raising these things in aggregate, 

8 too, where NIOSH has prepared a new QA program 

9 into effect.

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, we discussed 

11 this particular issue in relation to that.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. STIVER: Validation and 

14 verification of tools --

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

16 MR. STIVER: -- as they were 

17 generated.

18 MR. FARVER: That is what this one 

19 would fall under.

20 MR. STIVER: Yes.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, for this 

22 particular one, I think it is closed. Is 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

245

1 right?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes, because I am not 

3 sure we can do any more on it other than what 

4 we are doing.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

6 Okay. 197.

7 MR. FARVER: 197.1. "NIOSH did 

8 not appear to use appropriate procedure for 

9 recorded neutron dose."

10 I think it was a good explanation 

11 of the modification factor that was used. And 

12 basically, after reading that and re-looking 

13 at the file, we agree with them and suggest we 

14 close this case.

15 MR. KATZ: You are withdrawing the 

16 comment, in other words?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes. Because what it 

18 was, was we didn't understand how they came up 

19 with that number.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. So, yes.

22 Okay. Moving 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

246

1 MR. FARVER: The next one is 

2 197.2. "NIOSH did not account for all missed 

3 shallow dose. Shallow dose was not calculated 

4 for '73, '78, '77, and '79." And that was 

5 done in error.

6 Their response is that OTIB-17 has 

7 been implemented and should take care of it. 

8 I mean, I understand it was a QA error. They 

9 didn't calculate the doses when they should 

10 have. And the only question is, how is this 

11 prevented from happening again?

12 I don't know if that will take 

13 care of it, implementing OTIB-17.

14 MR. SIEBERT: The answer is the 

15 new 2012 answer --

16 MR. FARVER: Right.

17 MR. SIEBERT: -- in which the 

18 application of OTIB-17 has been integrated 

19 into all the external tools. So, it is 

20 already in there, so this won't happen again.

21 This claim was done prior to that 

22 being implemented in the tools but after 
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

1 OTIB-17 went live.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: So, we had to do it 

4 off to the side back then, but it has been 

5 implemented in all the tools since.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. We will go 

7 ahead and close that one, in spite of that 

8 explanation.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think it is 

10 closed.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes.

12 197.3. "NIOSH did not use the 

13 correct procedure for unmonitored photon 

14 dose." And it has to do with -- well, I am 

15 going to have to go back and look at -- they 

16 refer to OTIB-52.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This one is the 

18 factor of 1.4 being applied --

19 MR. FARVER: Right.

20 MR. SIEBERT: -- with the doses. 

21 And the question really became, when you 

22 looked at a year-by-year basis, you couldn'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

248

1 back out the 1.4 factor when you looked at the 

2 coworker.

3 And our response to that is, 

4 basically, the fact that it is not a 1.4 

5 against all the coworker, because coworker 

6 includes measured and missed dose. And the 

7 1.4 factor only applies to the measured 

8 portion of it.

9 So, the overall factor, when you 

10 have measured and missed mixed together like 

11 you do in coworker studies, will fluctuate 

12 between 1.0 and 1.4, which is exactly what you 

13 see.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 MR. STIVER: Alright. That makes 

16 sense.

17 MR. FARVER: And is this contained 

18 in a workbook?

19 MR. SIEBERT: No, that 

20 information, how it is done is in OTIB-52. 

21 And then, it applies within the coworker 

22 studies that are done, either within the TBD 
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

1 or the separate OTIB for those that have a 

2 separate OTIB.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. I would still 

4 like to go back and look at this one.

5 MR. STIVER: Scott, this is John 

6 Stiver.

7 Just kind of a little sidebar 

8 here. This is applicable to something we will 

9 be talking about tomorrow, which is our case 

10 reviews or PER-14, which gets back to TIB-52. 

11 And the question being, are these workbooks 

12 that actually show how these measured and 

13 miscalculations that were applied for the 

14 different sites available? And if so, can we 

15 get them?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Are you asking the 

17 calculational workbooks that created the work 

18 that --

19 MR. STIVER: Either that or the 

20 tables and the input, so that our reviewer 

21 could actually see that, indeed, they were 

22 done correctly. Because just looking 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

250

1 tables in the individual Technical Basis 

2 Documents, it is not clear how those numbers 

3 were derived.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Is that what you 

5 guys mean about --

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, we had an email 

7 discussion.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Because, John, I got 

9 a G2K in on that --

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. That is what 

11 I --

12 MR. CALHOUN: -- just to find out 

13 what the extent of that would be, because it 

14 was more than just the workbooks. There was 

15 something about almost raw data that was --

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, I will have to 

17 go back and look at the email string.

18 MR. CALHOUN: I just want to make 

19 sure, you know, see how much it is going to 

20 impact here.

21 MR. STIVER: Alright. I don't 

22 want to take any more time here. We can talk 
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

1 about it tomorrow.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right, right. Okay.

3 MR. STIVER: But since we were on 

4 that point, I thought I would bring it up.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, we will 

7 leave that open, pending you guys further 

8 looking at it.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: 200.1.

11 MR. FARVER: 200.1. "The DR 

12 report did not evaluate the employee's urine 

13 bioassay result."

14 Oh, they did not evaluate the 

15 urine bioassay. Instead, they just used a 

16 hypothetical urine bio based on hypothetical 

17 urine bioassay measurements. And it was not 

18 explained or discussed in the DR report.

19 So, we basically said, "Why didn't 

20 you use the results that you had?" And I 

21 think what this basically comes down to is a 

22 QA issue, why it wasn't caught.
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: Is this Case No.

2 200?

3 MR. FARVER: 200.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Well, also, it is 

5 something that we wanted to look for back in 

6 2006. You know, it was an overestimate. We 

7 knew it would be an overestimate. Now we tend 

8 not to overestimate as much. We are trying to 

9 get away from overestimating as much as we 

10 did.

11 MR. FARVER: But you wouldn't 

12 normally overestimate if you had the bioassay 

13 results, would you?

14 MR. CALHOUN: We have, yes. Sure. 

15 It is like assuming that somebody has 52 

16 weeks of missed doses on their external badge 

17 without looking at their badges, and they may 

18 only have had quarterly badge exchanges.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we have done it 

21 in the past. We are getting away from it, 

22 internally and the external.
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

1 Scott, I don't know if you have 

2 got any more on that.

3 MR. SIEBERT: No, I agree 

4 wholeheartedly.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is there any 

7 mores?

8 MR. FARVER: I don't know we can 

9 go any more on that.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. CALHOUN: And another point 

12 about that one is it was above 45. Just 

13 because it is above 45 now, that would push 

14 you into a best estimate territory, and that 

15 would go away. They wouldn't have any more.

16 MR. SIEBERT: What about these 

17 questions about were the data considered? The 

18 second concern that was raised about the peer 

19 review?

20 MR. FARVER: Those are questions 

21 that are on the peer review checklist form. 

22 So, I would think that, if someone looks 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

254

1 those, they should clue them in. One of the 

2 questions, are all positive bioassays 

3 considered? Were all internal radionuclides 

4 considered?

5 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I can't answer 

6 that now. I think Scott has got more on that. 

7 But it was six years ago. I think we have 

8 grown a lot since then.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I can tell you, 

10 the peer reviewer, if the urine samples, all 

11 the bioassay was below detection, just like 

12 Grady said, at that time, using a hypothetical 

13 overestimate to get an answer to the claimant 

14 in a more expeditious manner, that was not 

15 unusual. So, the peer reviewer wouldn't 

16 question that approach because that was a 

17 valid approach at the time.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is when we 

19 were trying to push through a backlog of 

20 cases. So, we would overestimate? Okay.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, it is a 

22 good QA question.
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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I don't 

3 disagree with what Scott said, but if I am a 

4 peer reviewer and I have that question come 

5 up, all positive bioassay samples considered, 

6 I don't just check "yes," if they weren't, you 

7 know. I don't know. I mean, if that is on 

8 your list to do as a peer reviewer, I wouldn't 

9 just like dismiss it and say, "Yes, sure they 

10 were."

11 MR. STIVER: Has Form 41 also been 

12 updated to kind of coincide with the new 

13 approaches?

14 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know that. 

15 Scott would have to answer that one.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, I don't 

17 know that we can do much more with this, 

18 but --

19 MR. FARVER: Oh, I don't think so.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: But it is a QA, 

21 yes.

22 MR. FARVER: It is kind of a pet 
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

1 peeve I have with that checklist form. You 

2 know, I think it is very good and very useful, 

3 if it is used.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the question 

5 arises, of course, when you see something like 

6 this, how thorough a check do you anticipate 

7 that a peer reviewer is going to do?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I do want to 

9 point out that the dose reconstruction report 

10 does clearly state that no samples were found 

11 that were above detection. So, when it comes 

12 to a peer reviewer looking at: were all 

13 positive bioassays entered?

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright.

15 MR. SIEBERT: We would agree that 

16 they already looked at it and said there 

17 weren't any.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Good point.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: And I wouldn't 

22 anticipate that a peer reviewer would go back 
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

1 to all of the raw data to try to -- I don't 

2 know, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think I like 

4 Scott's answer on that anyway.

5 Okay. Let's move on to the next 

6 one.

7 MR. FARVER: 200.2. "The DR 

8 report does not properly address incidents 

9 identified in the CATI report."

10 And on the yellow SC&A response, 

11 we just give a little excerpt from the DR 

12 report. "Records of the telephone interviews, 

13 as well as the monitoring records provided 

14 were evaluated carefully by the dose 

15 reconstructor. No records of involvement in 

16 radiological incidents were contained within 

17 these records.

18 "But during the telephone 

19 interview with the employee's children, they 

20 identified an incident believed to have 

21 occurred in '52." And that comes up with a 

22 couple of different incidents with a couple 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

258

1 different siblings.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ted, what site is 

3 this on?

4 MR. FARVER: This looks like it is 

5 INEL.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: It is INEL.

7 MR. FARVER: This is the 1960.

8 MEMBER MUNN: This was SL-1.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

10 I mean, it was done in 2006. I 

11 mean, I hate going back to that answer, but I 

12 believe that was prior to the time where we 

13 specifically start calling out everything in 

14 the CATIs to clarify to the claimants that we 

15 were addressing their concerns. The dose 

16 reconstructor was really looking into actual 

17 incident information. So, once again, I agree 

18 wholeheartedly it would be wise to have more 

19 in the dose reconstruction report to address 

20 that.

21 MR. FARVER: Well, that is okay, 

22 except the first sentence says, "The records 
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

1 of the telephone interview." Now, to me, that 

2 is the CATI, isn't it?

3 MEMBER MUNN: It is supposed to 

4 be.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The issue here is 

6 that this was a deficiency in what we 

7 considered deficiencies that we have 

8 identified and fixed since this was done.

9 MR. FARVER: Probably. It is an 

10 early case.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: When did you do 

12 the fix? It is hard to remember.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it was a 

14 number of years ago.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: But it was because 

17 of these kinds of discussions.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. But I am 

19 just wondering because now we are into 2006. 

20 I think it was still after this?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it was 

22 probably after 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

260

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I can't remember.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: That is pretty 

3 early; 2006 is pretty early.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: There is nothing more 

6 we can do on this one.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: No. Right. Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe we have 

9 fixed this.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think it is 

11 fixed, yes. Okay.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Would it be too 

13 much to ask, how did we fix it, though? Was 

14 it --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It was because of 

16 findings from this Subcommittee that we, 

17 NIOSH, sent instructions to ORAU that said, 

18 "You have to address each of the items in the 

19 CATI." And it might be, I mean, people will 

20 mention in the CATI, "Well, I was exposed to 

21 verillium," and things like that.

22 It doesn't matter. You have 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

261

1 say that they said they were exposed to 

2 beryllium, which would not affect the dose 

3 reconstruction.

4 MR. FARVER: And I will say, the 

5 recent cases we looked at are much better.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I think this 

7 is an issue that we agreed was an issue, and 

8 we have since fixed.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, it was a 

10 snapshot in time six years ago.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: Things have improved 

13 considerably since then.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Now there is still 

15 a question. I mean, on a case-by-case basis, 

16 there might still be a question where SC&A or 

17 we don't think they adequately addressed --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't read 

19 every dose reconstruction. I don't know that 

20 they all --

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- are what 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

262

1 wonder consider adequate.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: But, yes, the 

4 instructions were, if it is mentioned in the 

5 CATI, you have to describe in the dose 

6 reconstruction how it was considered.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: At least respond 

8 to it in their -- right.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: How it was 

10 considered or why it didn't happen.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Whether it is 

12 adequate, that might be up for debate. Right. 

13 Okay. Alright.

14 201.1.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. "Reviewer 

16 questions whether all records were provided."

17 This is in vivo records.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is a new 

19 case, correct?

20 MR. FARVER: Pardon?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is not the 

22 INL anymore?
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

1 MR. FARVER: This is a different 

2 case, but I do not know what site it is.

3 MR. CALHOUN: It is INEL as well.

4 MR. FARVER: Another INL case.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, that's 

6 fine.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Apparently, 

8 the DOE records say there should be a 1974 

9 whole-body count, but there are none. I don't 

10 know exactly. I do not have the case in front 

11 of me.

12 (Pause.)

13 Keep going. Wait a minute. Hang 

14 on.

15 MEMBER MUNN: You either have the 

16 records or you don't, right?

17 MR. FARVER: Well, you could have 

18 the records and not provide them.

19 It should have been before. Just 

20 keep going. Look for a file.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Certainly, it is not 

22 crystal-clear.
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

1 MR. FARVER: That is 201.

2 MEMBER MUNN: There might be 

3 another record somewhere, but how can one 

4 check to see if there is another record 

5 somewhere, other than what has already been 

6 done? How can you do anything about that?

7 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know. 

8 You could ask them if they sent all the 

9 records.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. On the other 

11 hand, if one of the record reports has a 

12 mistaken date on it, as has been implied here 

13 but not substantiated, then --

14 MR. FARVER: Well, we will try to 

15 substantiate it.

16 MEMBER MUNN: How do you do that?

17 MR. CALHOUN: The case was 

18 revised, it looks like, since you guys 

19 reviewed it. I am trying to figure out if 

20 anything changed.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. This also 

22 comes back to the CATI report, apparently, 
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

1 where the employee states that, after an 

2 incident, an in vivo measurement was taken. 

3 Apparently, it was a documented incident in 

4 March of '73.

5 Once again, this comes back to 

6 what the employee says, and there was no 

7 record. So, I don't know what you do.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: And they are 

9 saying there was a record in '73, but you are 

10 saying it looks like it is '93?

11 MR. FARVER: I think it is '93 --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: -- just from the type 

14 of form it is.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

16 MEMBER MUNN: You think it was '93 

17 instead of '73?

18 MR. FARVER: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: And there is no 

20 indication. There wasn't a high badge reading 

21 in '73.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, there 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

266

1 MEMBER MUNN: But no indication of 

2 an in vivo count.

3 MR. FARVER: Other than the 

4 employee saying that he received an in vivo 

5 count.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Has NIOSH looked 

7 at this, this '73 versus '93 question?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I can tell you 

9 that the revised DR that you guys -- that was 

10 done afterwards -- talks about '73 where it 

11 talks about external.

12 Stated in the interview Mr. So13 and-So received approximately 1800 to 1900 

14 millirem. This is captured in DOE records for 

15 March 1973, 1900 millirem.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: External.

17 MR. CALHOUN: It talks about 

18 external, yes.

19 And I will see if we recorded a 

20 request of any other additional information.

21 MR. FARVER: But I think if you 

22 look in the CATI --
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: These are all skin 

2 cancers, too, by the way.

3 MR. FARVER: I think if you look 

4 in the CATI report, it will mention that he 

5 had an in vivo measurement.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, in the CATI 

7 report he does mention an incident, actually, 

8 he says, in 1972, and he does say that the in 

9 vivo count was done. However, there is 

10 nothing in the record stating so.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. And that is 

12 why we came up with our finding that we 

13 request and question whether all the records 

14 were provided.

15 MR. STIVER: It is going to matter 

16 how far you are going to go in trying to 

17 verify what is in the CATI.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

19 MR. STIVER: I mean, if you don't 

20 find it in the records --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

22 MR. STIVER: -- you do due 
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

1 diligence to get that, what else can you go 

2 with?

3 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

5 MR. STIVER: You would have to 

6 make a comment, I guess, as Stu had mentioned 

7 earlier in the CATI.

8 MR. FARVER: Right. That is what 

9 you would expect, just to see the comment 

10 saying it was not found in the records.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we captured 

12 the incident. You know, that is in there. 

13 But, as far as somebody saying that they were 

14 monitored in a certain year and they weren't, 

15 according to the records, maybe before or 

16 after that, I doubt that we would ever capture 

17 that. You know, that almost gets to the point 

18 of reproducing the CATI and the DR.

19 MEMBER MUNN: But surely the badge 

20 reading was incorporated into the DR.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Is this Idaho 

22 still?
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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: To me, I think 

3 that is as far as you can take it.

4 MR. FARVER: I don't think you can 

5 go anywhere on this.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes, I 

7 think it is closed. I think it is closed.

8 MR. STIVER: You have chased it 

9 down as far as you can.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

11 MR. FARVER: I mean, you 

12 understand why we wrote it up the way we did. 

13 It was because there is a little discrepancy 

14 in the CATI with what was in the report.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

16 201.2.

17 MR. FARVER: 201.2. Really, this 

18 is a repeat of one that we identified during a 

19 review of the Site Profile for INEL about the 

20 accuracy of the shallow-dose measurements. 

21 So, it really is like the -- it is captured in 

22 our Site Profile review findings. It is 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

270

1 new issue.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: And it can't be 

4 taken any further, right?

5 MR. FARVER: Not by us.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It has been 

7 done. You've got it.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it has been 

9 referred to where? To the Site Profile Group?

10 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know if 

11 it has been referred to them. It is contained 

12 in our Site Profile review.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: It is in the Site 

14 Profile, right.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: The Work Group 

16 will take care of it, right?

17 MR. FARVER: They should.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Does this have any 

19 bearing on this case? I mean, it was a skin 

20 dose case, right?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: A skin dose 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

271

1 Non-comp?

2 MR. CALHOUN: I think it is non3 comp.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. CALHOUN: 201, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: I mean, that site 

7 finding could have a bearing on many cases.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes. Well, 

9 especially where this one is close.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes, but, I mean, 

11 that Site Profile issue can have --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: -- an effect on a lot 

14 of cases.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I mean, my 

16 only question here is, how do we handle it if 

17 it is close and we are saying we are referring 

18 this issue to the Site Profile? You know, it 

19 is close. What is the percentage? What is 

20 it?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Forty-nine.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Forty-nine.
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

1 MR. STIVER: Forty-nine percent.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Well, wait a second. 

3 It was 49, the one you reviewed. I have to 

4 look. I don't know what it is now.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh. So, it may 

6 have gotten reassessed?

7 MR. CALHOUN: It may have gotten 

8 higher or lower.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Or lower, right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: It is comped, '52.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. No further 

12 action, closed. Thank you. That makes it 

13 easy.

14 This 201, Observation 1, geometry.

15 Okay. So, yes, it is pretty self16 explanatory. But did NIOSH look at this at 

17 all any further?

18 MR. CALHOUN: Is this Observation 

19 1?

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It seems to be 

22 tied to OTIB-13, and there are active 
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

1 discussions about OTIB-13 going on now with 

2 Procedures Subcommittee meetings.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: And its relevance 

4 to this site, though, I guess, right, to 

5 Idaho?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. That is the 

7 question, I guess, is whether or not it is 

8 applicable to INEL.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

10 maybe amongst other general questions that are 

11 out there.

12 MEMBER MUNN: This is another 

13 dosimetry, another geometry.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Apparently, this 

15 is a dosimetry geometry observation.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what 

18 this person's special geometry was for this 

19 work, but --

20 MR. FARVER: Well, in general, 

21 OTIB-13 is just a way to correct from a chest22 worn dosimeter to people's hands.
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

1 MEMBER MUNN: The hand.

2 MR. FARVER: So, you are 

3 multiplying by in this case 2.2 and saying, 

4 well, that is what the hand dose would be. 

5 And so, they have this OTIB-13 out there for 

6 this one site, Mallinckrodt.

7 Now is it applicable to INEL? Is 

8 it applicable to other sites?

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: To other sites, 

10 yes, that is --

11 MR. FARVER: Is there a general 

12 policy on how to apply these geometric 

13 correction factors?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, there is an 

16 overall TIB that addresses that, isn't there, 

17 Scott? I am pretty sure. It might even be in 

18 the glovebox.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it is the 

20 revision of this one.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

22 MR. STIVER: Yes, TIB-13 is going 
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

1 to be the topic of discussion tomorrow. It is 

2 related to the glovebox scenario and the 

3 modeling that took place to drive this factor. 

4 And so, there is a little bit of discussion 

5 about what the appropriate factor should be.

6 I believe, without jumping too far 

7 ahead, that based on the latest analysis, that 

8 we are pretty close in agreement with NIOSH, 

9 based on whether what we were looking at was 

10 just a film badge correction or the adjustment 

11 for the incident radiation on the organ and, 

12 also, the film badge. And so, that was quite 

13 a contention there.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it would be a 

15 program-wide document?

16 MR. STIVER: Well, it is related 

17 to TIB-13.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes.

19 MR. STIVER: To me, it is kind of 

20 more generic, but it depends. You know, the 

21 devil is always in the details of how you 

22 model that particular glovebox --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: -- what materials and 

3 things are listed.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: There is a 

5 glovebox TIB and, then, there is the special 

6 geometry TIBs. So, the lathing and the source 

7 on the floor and the source overhead. So, I 

8 think 13 is the special geometry. I think it 

9 was originally written for Mallinckrodt, but 

10 the revision changed it into just a general 

11 special program-wide. So, the fact that 

12 Mallinckrodt is in the title of this TIB kind 

13 of went away because it is generally --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I think we 

15 will refer it to Wanda's, to the Procedures, 

16 the question being the applicability broadly, 

17 you know.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there is so 

21 much commentary going on about --

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: You have already 
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

1 got that one, right, Wanda?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we have got 

3 lots of geometry discussions going on.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: You can tell me 

5 the closeout on Thursday or Wednesday.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Sure.

7 (Laughter.)

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Don't hold your 

10 breath on it.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Let's see, 202 --

13 MR. FARVER: 202.1. Improper 

14 accounting of recorded photon dose.

15 Apparently, for two years, 1961 

16 and 1963, the doses were entered incorrectly. 

17 It is a QA problem, and I am not sure whether 

18 they were entered incorrectly into the 

19 workbook, I believe, but it is a QA problem. 

20 Otherwise, we can't do much about it.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, just 

22 note it as a QA and close.
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

1 MR. STIVER: The same applies to 

2 .2.

3 MR. FARVER: .2 is a little 

4 different. They have got the internal intake 

5 in picocuries per year instead of picocuries 

6 per day. Now that is a little bit of a 

7 "oopsie".

8 (Laughter.)

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, a little bit.

10 MR. FARVER: You know, I think 

11 something like that should get caught.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: You are off by a 

14 factor of what, 365.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So far, with 

16 the blind reviews that NIOSH has done, none of 

17 these types of issues have come up, is that 

18 correct? The quality issues that we continue 

19 to encounter with these older records?

20 MR. CALHOUN: No, we certainly 

21 find things that are not perfect. We are 

22 looking at more of the newer claims, though. 
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

1 So, we don't see as many of them.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: We will have to --

3 and, David, I think you were on earlier when 

4 they said online we have access to that 

5 database. So, it might be worth looking at 

6 that at some point in your leisure time.

7 And, I mean, I think at some point 

8 on this Committee we are going to get some 

9 sort of aggregate report out eventually, yes. 

10 But that is something to watch.

11 202.2, did we do? Yes, it is QA 

12 and close.

13 MR. FARVER: 205.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: What are we up to, 

15 205?

16 MR. FARVER: 205.1.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: "Missed dose was not 

19 assigned for the Medina facility."

20 Agreed, now that the TBD is 

21 available, missed dose would be assigned in 

22 lieu of environmental dose that was assigned 
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

1 in Rev. 1 of the case.

2 Once again, it was just --

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Would this have 

4 made any difference for this case?

5 MR. CALHOUN: It was comped 

6 already.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: It was 

8 compensated, yes, yes. Alright.

9 MEMBER MUNN: It is essentially 

10 closed for it.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, I would suggest 

12 closing it because I don't know how to fix it.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think when we 

15 did this, we didn't have Medina's TBD done.

16 MR. FARVER: Probably not.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Since then, we 

18 have, what, been in 83.14?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Plus, we did a 

21 Site Profile CBD review of that, too.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, it has 
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

1 changed since then.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: I don't know how we 

4 would fix it because it is already taken care 

5 of in the new documents.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: It is a deficiency 

8 that has been corrected through changes to the 

9 TBDs and the application of an SEC.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it is 

11 closed here, right?

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

13 I just want to point out that, 

14 when that TBD was released, there was a PER on 

15 the 65 claims that had been done previously 

16 that were non-comp, and that was covered under 

17 PER-27. So, that has been addressed.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Any more on 

19 that? Doug, any more on that?

20 MR. FARVER: On 205.1?

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: 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

282

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Moving on, 

2 205.2.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. I am trying to 

4 find the case.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And wasn't the 

6 response from last June adequate for us to 

7 close this?

8 MR. FARVER: Bear with me. I am 

9 trying to pull up the case report, so I can 

10 give you a little bit more information.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, after the DR, 

12 you had a decision. "This dose could have 

13 been fine based on the badge cycle," but the 

14 claim determination was compensable. In 

15 addition, it was on the PoC. So, things have 

16 changed, and it would be done differently now. 

17 But, in any case, it wouldn't change the 

18 outcome of the DR. Was that done?

19 The filing has achieved its 

20 purpose.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Give them a second 

22 to look, Wanda. They are looking at their 
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

1 original report.

2 (Pause.)

3 Why don't we take a 10-minute 

4 break now. So, Doug can --

5 MR. FARVER: Oh, I have got it 

6 now.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, you got it? 

8 Hold on. Alright. Alright. We got it. Here 

9 it is. Wait for it, Wanda.

10 MEMBER MUNN: I'm waiting.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. You will like 

12 the outcome, Wanda, but we are going to get 

13 there first.

14 How this came about was the 

15 employees stated in the CATI report that they 

16 wore a badge every day, wore film badges all 

17 the time. This was at the Medina facility. 

18 Okay?

19 And in our finding, we note that, 

20 that that was in the CATI report. And also, 

21 the DOE records listed x-ray and gamma film 

22 badge results for the Medina facility, 
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

1 although those results were zero. But they 

2 still had a list.

3 So, we thought that they should 

4 have had some assignment for the -- I believe 

5 it was for the Medina facility; yes -- more 

6 frequent than I guess what they did. Okay?

7 And what really got me was their 

8 initial response that said, "Well, workers 

9 often confuse a security badge with a 

10 dosimeter." And that is not true. I mean, 

11 the guy had worked there, I think, for 30 

12 years, and they know the difference between 

13 security badges and dosimeters. So, I took 

14 offense to that statement to begin with.

15 But, as it turns out, you know, 

16 there is not much they could have done. They 

17 could have done it a little differently. It 

18 would not have affected the dose much. But 

19 the point is, he did put it in there in his 

20 CATI information, and I got the feeling it 

21 just wasn't taken seriously.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: This person 
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

1 worked at Medina and then transferred to 

2 Pantex, I believe.

3 MR. FARVER: I think it was other 

4 places.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Other places 

6 beyond, because Medina was not around for that 

7 long.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I found it 

9 interesting; I think the first NIOSH response 

10 sort of conceded that they should have done 

11 it. You know, the current procedures, they 

12 would have assigned more missed dose. But it 

13 is compensated anyway. I think we could have 

14 kind of closed it there, I mean except for 

15 that statement that you --

16 MR. FARVER: Yes.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes. I agree 

18 with that point, but I think the idea, I think 

19 they are saying, also, in that first part, not 

20 the green response but the other part, that 

21 the TBD, that was issued after this case was 

22 completed, the 1-0 would have been assumed 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

286

1 be a summary dose and more missed dose would 

2 have been assigned, is what they are saying, 

3 right?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And this 

5 would have fallen under that PER that we 

6 mentioned earlier --

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

8 MR. SIEBERT: -- if it was less 

9 than 50.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. So, 

11 notwithstanding that security badge versus 

12 dosimeter, I think there is not much more we 

13 can do.

14 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, no, no. I 

15 agree with closing it.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. No, I think 

17 it is a good point. A good point, yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and besides, 

19 it may have been worded improperly, but it may 

20 not be completely erroneous, either. I am 

21 sure that confusion has arisen and it probably 

22 should have said, "Some have...," instead 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

287

1 "may".

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: But that doesn't 

4 change the fact that that has very little 

5 bearing on what we actually are looking at 

6 here, which is, did potentially a missed dose 

7 get overlooked which would have changed the 

8 outcome?

9 The problem has been cared for in 

10 the revision that was issued. It is done.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: It is done.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think we 

13 are okay with that one.

14 MR. FARVER: I think we can close 

15 this one.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

17 MR. FARVER: Now we can break.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, wait a 

19 second. There is one more for that case. Why 

20 don't we do that?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: It is 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

288

1 observation. And then, we can take a break. 

2 Maybe there are two more. Alright. Anyway,

3 while we are thinking Medina, 205, Observation 

4 4.

5 MEMBER MUNN: A month and a half 

6 of electrons.

7 MR. FARVER: I want time to check 

8 those numbers.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: I mean, it is really 

11 an observation; we don't really have to bother 

12 with it, but I just want to check those 

13 numbers.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. For No. 

15 4?

16 MR. FARVER: Yes.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: And how about No. 

18 5?

19 We will hold No. 4.

20 MR. FARVER: I don't know that 

21 there is much we can do with No. 5. Is that 

22 what we are going to talk about?
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: It is really just 

3 pointing out that, you know, usually, they 

4 don't report millirem, less than a millirem.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: But it looks like in 

7 some instances they did. And mainly, it was 

8 just to bring it to their attention.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes. So, it is kind 

11 of a "no, never mind," uh-hum.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, there 

13 is no action on that, right?

14 MR. FARVER: No.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Was that case 

16 compensated?

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is that same 

19 case we have been talking about.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Compensated, yes.

21 Alright.

22 MR. KATZ: The previous was 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

290

1 observation, too.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

3 MR. KATZ: I mean, do you really 

4 need any follow-up? I mean, those are notes 

5 to DCAS, in effect.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Well, 

7 sometimes, quite frankly, your observations 

8 have been as interesting, if not more, than 

9 the findings. So, I don't know.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: You know, it is 

12 all how they are being characterized, I think. 

13 Let's look at the substance rather than the 

14 category, I think. That is the way I have 

15 been handling it.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. Let's 

18 break. And I would say at least a healthy 10 

19 minutes because I would love to go outside 

20 maybe and get some fresh air.

21 MEMBER MUNN: That is probably a 

22 good idea.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Wake up.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Oxygen may help.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, at least until 

4 10 of 3:00.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Bye.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Bye.

7 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

8 went off the record at 2:38 p.m. and went back 

9 on the record at 2:54 p.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. We are going to 

11 get started again, the Dose Reconstruction 

12 Subcommittee.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay. We 

14 are continuing with our work through the 

15 matrix, on Case No. 206 now, 206.1.

16 We are hoping we may be able to 

17 punch through a lot of this 9 set.

18 Go ahead, Doug; 206, I think is 

19 where we left off, right?

20 MR. FARVER: 206?

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Let me find the 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

292

1 here.

2 MR. CALHOUN: And that is an NTS 

3 non-comp, by the way, just looking, to staff 

4 off.

5 MR. FARVER: And as I recall, this 

6 is where there were, I think, like thousands 

7 of other records that mentioned this person 

8 that were not requested at the time, just 

9 because there were so many.

10 And it was things like, I believe 

11 he participated in many of the test shots. 

12 So, it was information from different 

13 logbooks, but there was a lot of extra 

14 information. It was not requested because I 

15 guess they did not think it was necessary.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Even though it 

17 was not compensated? It is one thing if they 

18 were compensated.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes, and under the 

20 initial NIOSH response, the decision was made 

21 not to request the other monitoring data 

22 unless the data was needed for resolution 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

293

1 an ambiguous compensability decision.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Forty-three 

3 percent might be viewed as ambiguous.

4 MR. FARVER: That is one way of 

5 looking at it. But I don't know how much it 

6 would have affected the doses. Of course, you 

7 don't know because you don't have the data.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: The information we 

9 did receive for some persons, external 

10 exposure records and their bioassay records. 

11 I believe they did bioassays. And then, we 

12 had assumption of medical x-rays.

13 So, the kinds of things that NTS 

14 has for all these shots are access log sign15 in's.

16 MR. FARVER: I think it is like, 

17 yes, logbooks.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: And some of them will 

20 have dose rates.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: There may, in 

22 fact, be some dose rate measurements.
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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And there may be 

3 some air-sampling results from a particular 

4 entry, because records are kept sort of like 

5 entry-levels, you know, per shot and, then, 

6 the entries for the shot.

7 And so, these are retrievable, but 

8 they are not readily retrievable. And so, DOE 

9 doesn't, as a matter of routine, provide these 

10 to us with our requests. They provide the 

11 individual's external exposure measurements, 

12 bioassay measurements, and medical, which we 

13 believe is sufficient to do the dose 

14 reconstruction.

15 The fact that, if you have got the 

16 person's film badge record, whether they 

17 signed into a shot re-entry 10 times that year 

18 or 15 or 20 times that year, it doesn't really 

19 matter if you have their exposure --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That is 

21 certainly true. On the other hand, you have 

22 to be confident that those other data that 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

295

1 didn't seek has nothing about dose, right?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Those records 

3 routinely have no dose readings.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Individual dose 

5 readings. You don't have to have 

6 information --

7 MR. FARVER: No. It would be like 

8 a dose rate measurement or, like you said, an 

9 air-sampling result, or something like that, 

10 that would be contained in that type of 

11 information.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Some of these are 

13 a best estimate and best estimate approach and 

14 an IMBA calculation.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Can you tell me, 

16 just to step back in the decision-making 

17 process, what would you define as an ambiguous 

18 compensability decision? Would that be 

19 over --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is -

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Did you find that, 

22 in other words?
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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- not defined. 

2 It is not defined on a percent basis.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. It would be 

4 more on a case-by-case --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It would have to 

6 be a situation where, for some reason, the 

7 presence at a shot may cause you to make a 

8 different interpretation of what their badge 

9 reading was.

10 Perhaps a situation like this: a 

11 person has skin cancers and was in an area 

12 that was affected by what they called a 

13 blowout, where the buried explosion wasn't 

14 sufficiently contained and they have this 

15 huge, you know, debris and stuff that settled 

16 out on some people through the shots.

17 So, if a person was a member of 

18 that, you know, was present at that shot, 

19 then, theoretically, the presence there might 

20 give you -- I mean, there might be records 

21 associated with that -- in particular, with 

22 surveying decontamination of the affected 
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

1 people -- that would be helpful to that. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Would this case 

3 be a total best estimate?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, at 43 

5 percent, there could be some overestimating 

6 approaches in there. I don't know whether 

7 there is or not.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I was just 

9 looking up above. Some of them were a best 

10 estimate and some was best estimate approach.

11 MR. CALHOUN: I am trying to look 

12 here. I clogged up my computer trying to 

13 download some dosimetry.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, this is 

15 kind of in SC&A's court.

16 MR. FARVER: If it were me, I 

17 probably would have started requesting some of 

18 the records and looking at them, and at least 

19 determine whether they would be useful or not. 

20 You know, it looks like the employee's 

21 bioassay results started in '63, yet he was 

22 involved in, gosh, what's that, 20-or-so test 
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

1 shots from '61 through '65. So, I mean, there 

2 is a long timeframe that there was no 

3 bioassay.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, he would have 

5 been a part of Plowshare, all low shots.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I imagine he 

7 is comped to the SEC.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: If he has the 

9 right cancer.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Leukemia.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, he is comped 

12 then.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, he is comped.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, he is comped 

15 anyway.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Since this dose 

17 reconstruction was done, we added classes 

18 based on the internal exposures. So, that 

19 internal essentially goes away because we have 

20 determined that -- well, I think what we 

21 determined, if we have got bioassay data for a 

22 non-SEC case, we will agree with the person'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

299

1 bioassay data. I think that is what the 

2 decision was, that we will do what we can, but 

3 we can't give them that person's bioassay 

4 data.

5 So, I mean, realistically, I just 

6 don't -- you know, if you have the dosimetry 

7 information and they badged everybody from 

8 some date forward -- I forget what the start 

9 date was.

10 MR. CALHOUN: They have external 

11 early, well, back in the sixties. I don't 

12 know when he started.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: At some date, they 

14 started the practice of badging everybody who 

15 got the mergers. So, you'll have his 

16 dosimetry, his dosimetry information, and the 

17 actual access. You know, how many times did 

18 he enter after the shot doesn't seem to us to 

19 be informative, particularly when you look at 

20 the degree of what you are asking DOE to do to 

21 provide these. I mean, it is expensive to get 

22 these things.
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

1 MR. FARVER: Right. And that is 

2 why I said I would probably use a graded-group 

3 approach and start looking at some of the 

4 earlier data and see if it is useful.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: I think we actually 

7 have an idea of what they give us, because it 

8 is usually the same. When we ask for that 

9 additional data, it is going to be logbooks 

10 that go with --

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: For each shot, 

12 right, yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, for shots, but 

14 some of that still has useful information, you 

15 know, if you have got dose rates and air16 sample results.

17 MR. CALHOUN: I don't think dose 

18 rates in that area would trump dosimeter 

19 results for that individual --

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, if you didn't 

21 have --

22 MR. CALHOUN: -- because he 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

301

1 monitored throughout his employment, I 

2 believe.

3 MR. STIVER: If you didn't have 

4 dose rate, if you didn't have dosimetry 

5 results, then you could back and --

6 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: -- and get the 

8 contours and the overlapping fallout fields, 

9 and get an idea of what the exposure could 

10 have been, given a certain exposure scenario.

11 MR. FARVER: I think if my dose 

12 rates were not consistent with my dosimeter 

13 results, I would raise some questions.

14 MR. STIVER: Well, I can tell you 

15 from experience that when you look at those 

16 contour maps that they drew after these shots, 

17 and they look very nice and smooth curves, and 

18 you think they did a really good job, but when 

19 you start overlaying ones taken in different 

20 time periods and back-extrapolating, and you 

21 have got all kinds of variations, huge 

22 uncertainties and a factor of 10 of 100, 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

302

1 within a couple hundred yards from the shot on 

2 these contour lines. So those dose rates might 

3 be useful in kind of bounding the situation, 

4 but in trying to really determine an exposure 

5 rate or trying to correlate an exposure rate 

6 for a given period of time out in a fallout 

7 field to an integrating dosimeter reading that 

8 might span a couple of weeks, it would be a 

9 very difficult task.

10 That would be one of the reasons 

11 you guys ended up going to an SEC --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: That is our 

13 position.

14 MR. STIVER: -- is that you 

15 couldn't do it. You just couldn't tease out 

16 all those different components.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it is 

18 now an SEC.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, it is an SEC.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: There is no more 

21 to say on this one, yes. Yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: But, also, 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

303

1 there were some shortcomings in the Site 

2 Profile which we are in the process of now --

3 NIOSH has made several corrections to it, and 

4 we are rechecking that as far as abilities, 

5 and so forth.

6 So, I think, myself, I think this 

7 is kind of taken care of in all of that.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: Closed.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: What about the 

11 observation? It looks like this is something 

12 that is also being taken up in the TBD review.

13 MR. FARVER: It looks like the 

14 same stuff that has been in our TBD reviews.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, I think 

16 that is no further action for us anyway, 

17 right?

18 MR. FARVER: That's correct.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: That would 

20 probably go to the Nevada Test Site Group.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Alright.

22 MR. FARVER: 207.1.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I am looking 

2 at these. Sorry. I was looking at these 

3 other observations. I think they are all in 

4 the TBD, right? Observations 2, 3, 4, 5?

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I think they 

7 would all fall under the TBD. So, I think 

8 they are all closed for our purposes, right?

9 MR. FARVER: Correct. Yes, these 

10 are all things that are being changed in the 

11 TBD.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Environmental 

14 resuspension --

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, resuspension --

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: -- is no longer going 

18 to be an issue.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Go ahead, 

20 on to 207.1.

21 MR. FARVER: Oh, improper 

22 accounting of recorded proton dose. What 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

305

1 comes down to is the employment period that 

2 was entered into the workbook was off by a 

3 year. So, there was a year that was not 

4 accounted for in, I believe it is external 

5 dose -- yes, photon dose. Okay?

6 And it is a compensated case. So, 

7 it wasn't needed, but that is not the reason 

8 it wasn't done. It was a mistake. They 

9 entered the wrong year. It falls under a QA 

10 mistake. When you read through all of that, 

11 that is just --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: That it is 

13 compensated, yes.

14 MR. FARVER: And it is 

15 compensated.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it is a QA.

17 MR. FARVER: It is a QA. Close 

18 it.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Close it and move 

20 on, right. Okay. Point-2?

21 MR. FARVER: Point-2 says, 

22 "Recorded dose model has 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

306

1 Okay.

2 This has to do with the text that 

3 is in the DR. It is incorrect. It stated 

4 that the K-25 results were below detection. 

5 The text incorrectly states that the EE was 

6 monitored from '57 through '61 for uranium. 

7 Actually monitored from '52 through '61 and 

8 had positive results from '57 through '61.

9 It's an oopsie, it's an error in 

10 the text that should have been corrected 

11 during a peer review, a QA.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. And close.

13 MR. FARVER: Closed.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Solubility type.

16 MR. FARVER: 207.3.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: The most claimant19 favorable solubility type was not selected by 

20 NIOSH. Uranium Type F was selected for the 

21 dose assessment. The statement in the DR 

22 report was incorrect in stating that 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

307

1 yielded the highest dose to the stomach 

2 because that should have been Type S.

3 Once again, that is something that 

4 should have been caught when it was reviewed.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. And 

6 closed.

7 MR. FARVER: Closed.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: And QA. Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: 207.4. Now I am 

10 guessing this is an INEL case.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Hanford.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: It sounds like 

13 Hanford.

14 MR. FARVER: Hanford? Because it 

15 looked very similar to 195.3, which I am going 

16 to look at. And they reference the same files 

17 that I said I wanted to look at.

18 MR. CALHOUN: And they indicate 

19 25.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: So, it is a mixed.

22 MR. FARVER: It is a mixed 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

308

1 Okay. So, I am going to go ahead and look at 

2 these files.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: It falls in the same 

5 category as 195.3.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: SC&A follow-up? 

7 Alright. This is good, Doug. You're moving.

8 MR. FARVER: Not bad for winging 

9 it, huh?

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: To 208.1.

11 That is not good for the record.

12 (Laughter.)

13 208.1.

14 MR. FARVER: Oh, I'm not really 

15 winging it. Come on.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: No.

17 MR. FARVER: Improper accounting 

18 of recorded photon dose. The dose was 

19 incorrectly entered from the dose records for 

20 it looks like two years, 1945 and 1956. Once 

21 again, a QA error. And I believe this was a 

22 data entry error into the file that gets 
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

1 uploaded into the workbook, or the tools.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. And was 208 

3 a compensated case or wasn't it?

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, X-10 comp.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: It was also an 

6 X-10 comp? Okay. So, QA and closed, right?

7 MR. FARVER: 208.2. Improper 

8 assignment of the intakes.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: There is 

10 agreement. NIOSH has agreement, right?

11 MR. FARVER: It was an error.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: And I will give you 

14 an example. The strontium-90 intake was 

15 listed as, let's say, 16,000 DPM per day 

16 instead of 165,000 DPM per day. So, you are 

17 off by this much. So, there were some mix-ups 

18 there.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Alright. QA 

20 and closed.

21 MR. FARVER: Closed.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Point-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

310

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. The improper 

2 assignment of the geometric standard 

3 deviation. It was assigned as 3 for all years 

4 when 7.9 should have been used for the time 

5 period of '53 through '55. It doesn't change 

6 the PoC.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which?

8 MR. FARVER: 208.3, the bottom of 

9 page 49.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Thanks. It 

11 doesn't change the PoC or doesn't change the 

12 decision?

13 MR. FARVER: It doesn't change --

14 the PoC is not -- well, that is not impacted.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: It said it changed 

16 the PoC. Alright. Anyway --

17 MR. FARVER: It's not impacted.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- it is closed. 

19 It doesn't impact it, right?

20 MR. FARVER: It's closed.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: It's a QA concern. 
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

1 Okay. Now we've got some observations.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Just for 

3 completeness, we should address these, if we 

4 can.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. The first 

6 observation has to do with the number of 

7 zeroes for calculating missed dose. I think a 

8 lot of it has to do with just actually being 

9 able to read some of the site records. I 

10 mean, it is not hard to come up with different 

11 numbers. So, that was the first one.

12 And it's just pointing out that we 

13 just didn't agree with their numbers, but we 

14 also understand that the records are not the 

15 easiest to read.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: But even though it 

17 doesn't affect this case, this sort of is a 

18 bigger deal for the broad set of cases, right?

19 MR. FARVER: We do run into this 

20 occasionally with the records that are hard to 

21 read.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Is that someone 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

312

1 the phone or?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, it is me. 

3 Sorry.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh. Go ahead, 

5 Doug. I'm sorry.

6 MR. FARVER: I say we do run into 

7 this occasionally on records that are 

8 difficult to read and they are not very 

9 legible.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. STIVER: So, it is a 

12 transcription error possibly?

13 MR. FARVER: Because we will go 

14 back and look at the records and try to count 

15 the zeroes, and I think a lot of what NIOSH 

16 does is their data is data entered. So, that 

17 person is interpreting the records, and then, 

18 those files are uploaded into the workbooks.

19 I don't know that there is that 

20 much you can do about that. I mean, you can 

21 see the difference was plus or minus 1 to plus 

22 or minus 4 zeroes.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, do we know 

2 anything about, just thinking overall here, do 

3 we know anything about whether this 

4 happened -- is it certain sites that are more 

5 difficult to read or --

6 MR. FARVER: I think it is just 

7 age of records.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, I was 

9 just wondering if -- no, it is not?

10 MR. FARVER: No, it is just the 

11 age of records.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: The older, yes, 

13 the earlier years --

14 MR. FARVER: Records from the 

15 fifties are usually in pretty bad shape.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, across the 

17 board, it is not necessarily one site?

18 MR. FARVER: Yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: There would be 

20 some of them where they were probably doing 

21 weekly exchanges, right?

22 CHAIR 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

314

1 MR. FARVER: And the reason we 

2 didn't make this a finding was you can see, 

3 No. 1, it is hard to read and, No. 2, the 

4 differences are very low, you know, 1 to 4 

5 zeroes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. 

7 Yes, yes. Okay. Alright. So we'll just put 

8 no action.

9 Now we have Observation 2.

10 MR. FARVER: It is right here, if 

11 you want to read it.

12 MR. STIVER: Actually, I have it 

13 pulled up in the case file here. This was an 

14 issue of using different versions of the 

15 workbook, Annual Dosimetry Workbook, Version 

16 4, versus Version 5, which is what we used for 

17 our audits.

18 There was basically a difference 

19 of a factor of about 2.5 times higher for the 

20 total alpha dose for '44 to 2000. And so, it 

21 was one of these issues of, you know, this 

22 changed pretty significantly, but --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: -- we weren't able to 

3 figure out why, what the basis was for the 

4 version change here.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Also how many of 

6 the other cases were underestimated using the 

7 same workbook.

8 MR. FARVER: See, we have seen 

9 this before where the version of the CADW 

10 program changes and you get different doses 

11 whether you are using different versions.

12 MR. SIEBERT: I would like to 

13 point out that is not the case here. The case 

14 here is that X-10, when you use the OTIB-18 

15 tool for X-10 for the 1944-to-'47 timeframe, 

16 the TBD does clearly specify that only 

17 plutonium and uranium are to be included in 

18 that, everything else is to be excluded. And 

19 when that was run by SC&A, they did not 

20 exclude those things. That is why there is a 

21 difference.

22 MR. FARVER: 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

316

1 MR. STIVER: Right. Yes, Version 

2 5 includes thorium isotopes and polonium-210.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Right. But it is 

4 not the fact that the version changed as much 

5 as the TBD informed you only to use two 

6 specific elements, and those are the only ones 

7 that were assigned and so would be assigned.

8 MR. STIVER: Oh, okay. The 

9 version change is a different finding then.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. So, it is 

12 really just how it was implemented, whether 

13 proper nuclides were considered.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: But, I mean, I 

15 think Scott's point is important really.

16 MR. STIVER: Oh, yes, absolutely.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, that would 

18 withdraw your observation.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, that is no 

20 longer a concern --

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. STIVER: -- after 
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

1 understanding what was done and why.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: And sometimes we will 

4 put like an observation in there because we 

5 don't really understand why it was done or --

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure.

7 MR. FARVER: -- why it is so 

8 different.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, because, I 

10 mean, this could have been a more serious 

11 thing.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think his 

14 explanation makes sense.

15 MR. FARVER: But it was one of 

16 these deals where we went through and came up 

17 with one number but it didn't match their 

18 number. And so we're just going to point that 

19 out, that it doesn't match, and you can tell 

20 us why.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: And you are 

22 satisfied with that answer, 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

1 MR. FARVER: Well, yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. So, no 

3 action.

4 MR. FARVER: No.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 211.1.

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, I can't find 

7 211. It may be in the next set.

8 "The method to calculate the 

9 prostate dose underestimates the 30-to-250-keV 

10 dose. NIOSH agrees that the doses appear to 

11 be low, beyond the differences from the Monte 

12 Carlo calculations."

13 They are not really sure why. 

14 They suspect it is a cut-and-paste error. We 

15 don't believe it is a cut-and-paste error 

16 because it is the same IREP table that comes 

17 out of the EDCW 1.2 workbook. So, it is not 

18 like they had to paste anything.

19 And we consider it significant if 

20 it underestimates and it affects the PoC up to 

21 3 percent.

22 MR. CALHOUN: You got any more 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

319

1 that, Scott, since June?

2 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is kind 

3 of like what we said before. We are looking 

4 at the full process. Specifically, the EDCW 

5 cited a specific historical tool that we no 

6 longer use. We are looking specifically at 

7 that issue and don't have -- you know, we 

8 haven't gotten a resolution as to whether it 

9 was a specific issue on that or not, but we 

10 are looking into it. We will likely be tying 

11 that into the PER for Savannah River when the 

12 TBD gets updated. But we are looking into it.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: The issues, 

14 the questions you are raising, aren't they 

15 addressed in the blind cases that are done? 

16 Not every single case, but there will be a 

17 number which are --

18 MR. STIVER: Our blind reviews 

19 or --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, in theory, that 

22 kind of thing would 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

320

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But we don't 

2 understand --

3 MR. STIVER: We have only done two 

4 at this point.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, I 

6 understand, but that is on our agenda?

7 MR. STIVER: Yes.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I mean, the 

9 answer to your last question is how many cases 

10 were underestimated.

11 MR. FARVER: Well, we don't know. 

12 You know, if it is a workbook error, it could 

13 be many. If it is just an isolated, single 

14 error somehow, then it is probably just this 

15 case.

16 MR. CALHOUN: If it is a quality 

17 error, it is one thing --

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: And I think the 

19 importance is also looking back, how many --

20 does it warrant a PER, right, I guess, is what 

21 you are saying, looking backwards? I mean, 

22 your current blind is going forward.
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

1 MR. CALHOUN: We probably won't 

2 catch that because --

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

4 MR. CALHOUN: -- after that it was 

5 discontinued.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. So, 

7 looking back, do we need to address a broader 

8 problem?

9 MR. CALHOUN: Well, that is what 

10 Scott said.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Unless the TBD is 

13 revised --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

15 MR. CALHOUN: -- then, we will 

16 institute a PER, if one is necessary --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: If one is 

18 necessary.

19 MR. CALHOUN: -- if the doses go 

20 up anywhere.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. FARVER: Because, 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

322

1 case, when it was done correctly, the PoC 

2 jumped up 3 percent.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: Now that could be 

5 significant on some other cases.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: On some cases, 

7 right.

8 MR. CALHOUN: '48 or so, it could 

9 be an issue.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, I put that in 

11 NIOSH's follow-up. NIOSH is going to follow 

12 up on that.

13 Then, you've got two observations 

14 here.

15 MR. FARVER: I think this looks 

16 like our standard --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: This looks 

18 familiar, yes.

19 MR. FARVER: -- one from our Site 

20 Profile review. And so does the second 

21 observation, where we believe the two-element 

22 and multi-element TLD dosimeters may 
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

1 underestimate doses.

2 And the second one has to do with 

3 the neutron/photon ratios used may 

4 underestimate neutron doses.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: And these are both 

6 under the SRS Site Profile review, right?

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, we will 

9 give them to that Workgroup, whoever they 

10 might be. Okay.

11 212.1.

12 MR. STIVER: This is a non-comp 

13 bladder case.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: What site is this, 

15 212?

16 MR. STIVER: This is Savannah 

17 River.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Savannah River 

19 again? Okay. So, last we heard, you were 

20 looking at this more, SC&A?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, I am going to 

22 have to look at this. I don't think it 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

324

1 going to get us anywhere because it looks like 

2 it is a case of checking off boxes on the CATI 

3 report.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: And they had more 

6 specific information on where the person 

7 worked. But I will take a look at it.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: There is only one 

9 finding you have on this one, right?

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: A couple of 

12 observations.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Didn't consider that 

14 they may have been exposed to uranium, 

15 plutonium, and iodide.

16 MR. FARVER: One finding and then 

17 the two observations from the same ones as the 

18 previous case.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: What is the PoC on 

20 this one? Do you know?

21 MR. FARVER: I do not know.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Forty-three 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

325

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Forty-three 

2 percent. Alright. We will let you look at it. 

3 Next time, we will get a report on that, 

4 right?

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. And then, 

7 the two observations are the same.

8 MR. FARVER: The two observations 

9 are the same.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, they will go 

11 to the work group. Okay.

12 212.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: By the way, that 

14 is you, Mark, just so that you know.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: I know. I am 

16 aware of that.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 214.1. 

19 What site is this?

20 MS. ROLFES: Y-12.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Y-12?

22 MR. CALHOUN: Non-comp.
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

1 MR. FARVER: Incorrect uncertainty 

2 distribution entered. This would be for the 

3 X-ray doses.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, the first one 

5 is just a QA finding.

6 MR. FARVER: It is just a QA 

7 finding.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: There is no 

9 further action.

10 MR. FARVER: No further action.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. That is 

12 closed.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And, Mark, just so 

14 you know, the rest of them in the 9th set are 

15 all Y-12, to save you a little trouble.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, thank you.

17 MR. FARVER: And I know this will 

18 come as a surprise for 215.1. It is Y-12, and 

19 there is a question about neutron doses being 

20 assigned. You know, does the employee work 

21 where there are neutron doses?

22 CHAIR 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

327

1 MR. FARVER: This is our standard 

2 one.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Location really, 

4 right?

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

7 where does this one stand?

8 MR. FARVER: Well, I have not had 

9 a chance to --

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: We do have a June 

11 2012 --

12 MR. FARVER: -- evaluate the 

13 latest.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: So, I am going to 

16 pass that off to my buddy Ron. So, we are 

17 going to look at this one.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, it's in 

19 your court.

20 MR. FARVER: Our court.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is 215.1. 

22 SC&A will follow 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

328

1 And then there are some 

2 observations.

3 MR. FARVER: The first one just 

4 repeats some of what was identified in the 

5 Site Profile review: the lack of external 

6 monitoring data, inapplicable coworker data, 

7 and so forth.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. I mean, I 

9 guess we can look at that. I wonder if we 

10 looked at that in the Y-12 SEC review.

11 MR. FARVER: In the where?

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: In the Y-12 SEC 

13 review. I wonder if we considered that 

14 question. It is a pretty broad question, lack 

15 of data.

16 MR. FARVER: Well, it is probably 

17 more specified in the --

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, yes.

19 MR. FARVER: -- Site Profile 

20 review that SC&A did.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, there is 

22 no Y-12 Workgroup, is 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

329

1 MR. KATZ: No, there is not.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Initially, there 

3 was just one Workgroup that looked at 

4 Mallinckrodt, Y-12, and --

5 MR. KATZ: It wasn't a Workgroup. 

6 It was the Board.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, it was the 

8 Board? Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: On Mallinckrodt?

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Mallinckrodt, the whole 

12 Board took on Mallinckrodt.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: I remember we had 

14 a couple of meetings in NIOSH's offices, 

15 actually.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, but that was --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think it 

18 was this Subcommittee that kind of --

19 MR. KATZ: It might have been 

20 something like that, but --

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Anyway.

22 MR. KATZ: That was before my --
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Before your 

2 tenure, yes. They were actually having 

3 Workgroup meetings in NIOSH's offices at that 

4 point. Stu, were you --

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: That was the 

6 Larry Elliott time.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, Larry Elliott 

8 was there.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Larry would have 

10 been the Director.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Chances are I was 

13 around by the time Workgroups started meeting.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: At any rate, 

15 something probably has to be done with the 

16 Y-12 findings that were non-SEC. You know, we 

17 had a whole matrix.

18 MR. KATZ: Who has that?

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Probably -- SC&A 

20 certainly has it. Joe Fitzgerald I think was 

21 the point person.

22 MR. KATZ: Y-12, follow up 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

331

1 Joe.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: That came out, Y-12 

4 and Mallinckrodt were being dealt with 

5 together?

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, or one after 

7 the other, yes. Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I think they came 

9 up at the time of the addition of the Y-12 

10 Class. When the Class was added, I believe 

11 there were still some Site Profile questions 

12 open.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If that's what you 

15 are talking about.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Like we 

17 put some aside.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let me 

20 follow up with Joe and get the matrix from 

21 him.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, and 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

332

1 goes for Mallinckrodt, but it is not here. 

2 But the same goes for Mallinckrodt, I think, 

3 right?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall and 

5 Mallinckrodt --

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: There was no 

8 matrix with other issues, though?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall 

10 any. I mean, we had a pretty -- there were 

11 certain years we decided that Mallinckrodt's 

12 data was not reliable. And so we didn't 

13 utilize that data. For other periods, a 

14 deficiency was the separated uranium progeny, 

15 you know, that you couldn't really -- you 

16 didn't have a good method for doing those, but 

17 there was a pretty robust set.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: But didn't we 

19 always carve out that we could do external?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we have got 

21 a really complete set of external dosimetry 

22 from Mallinckrodt.
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

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: I may be wrong on 

2 that, yes.

3 MR. KATZ: John?

4 MR. STIVER: Yes?

5 MR. KATZ: For Y-12, would you 

6 please check with Joe and see about getting me 

7 a matrix on --

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. Okay.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: I am not sure on 

10 Mallinckrodt.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm not sure. I 

12 don't recall exactly. I do recall that on 

13 Y-12 there were Site Profile issues that were 

14 kind of put aside.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. That's 

16 fine. So, what about Observation 2?

17 MR. FARVER: Observation 2. "NIOSH 

18 included acute doses with the chronic dose 

19 entry in the IREP tables."

20 Now, typically, all your internal 

21 doses in the IREP tables are chronic, I 

22 believe. But, in this case, some of them were 
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

1 marked "acute". I don't think it makes any 

2 difference calculation-wise, IREP-wise, but --

3 MR. STIVER: The distribution 

4 might be different.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a second. Let 

6 me take a look at that. I don't think that 

7 was necessarily the finding.

8 MR. STIVER: Entries 95 to 147 for 

9 prostates and 95 to 150.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the actual 

11 observation here seems to be saying, why are 

12 you combining acute intake doses with chronic 

13 intake doses?

14 MR. STIVER: Right.

15 MR. SIEBERT: And as Doug said at 

16 the beginning, all internal doses are applied 

17 as chronic doses because the dose is applied 

18 over time, whether it is an acute intake or a 

19 chronic intake. So, combining those two is no 

20 problem.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes. Okay. That 

22 makes sense. Intake is acute, the 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

335

1 accrual is chronic.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. SIEBERT: It's the difference 

5 between intake and the actual dose.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Dose, right.

7 MR. STIVER: Okay. That makes 

8 perfect sense.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, I think 

10 that is withdrawn or no action. Okay.

11 To Observation 3.

12 MR. FARVER: Observation 3, really 

13 that explains it pretty good. Uranium lung 

14 burdens were less than the actual measured 

15 values in the calculations that were provided 

16 with the files. And then NIOSH provides their 

17 explanation.

18 So, we are asking, well, why 

19 didn't you consider the in vivo measurements 

20 to use for the lung burdens? You know, use 

21 the actual measurements instead of the 

22 projected lung burdens.
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

1 MR. STIVER: And their response, 

2 they are using the most limiting data, would 

3 be consistent with your approach.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. Basically, they 

5 used the urinalysis. This provided a more 

6 realistic evaluation of the data, which it 

7 usually does.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. So, that 

9 is no further action.

10 MR. FARVER: Now, Observation 4, 

11 215.4, that is the difference in the CADW 

12 versions.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes.

14 MR. FARVER: And we see this with 

15 the different versions, things slightly 

16 change. So, this is just one of those, "Well, 

17 gee, we saw a change. Why is that?" And they 

18 give a good explanation.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, the explanation 

20 is very detailed and direct to the point.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Well, the 

22 question, the doses are increased. Certain 
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

1 organ doses increased. Does that warrant any 

2 look-back? Or it is not that significant, or 

3 what? You know, I see at the bottom --

4 MR. STIVER: Right.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- of that 

6 response -- I mean, I don't know how big these 

7 doses are, either, but one says the dose is 

8 unchanged. Dose to kidneys and spleen 

9 increased.

10 MR. STIVER: Oh, there is 

11 decreased --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: If they increased, 

13 what was the --

14 MR. STIVER: So, bone marrow and 

15 spleen --

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. STIVER: -- were the only two 

18 that would result in an increase. I guess, is 

19 that increase enough to justify a PER?

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: That is the 

21 question, yes, I'm asking.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, any input 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

338

1 that, Scott?

2 MR. SIEBERT: I don't off the top 

3 of my head.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we should 

5 close that question out.

6 MR. FARVER: I mean, when they 

7 change CADW versions, do they do a test on it 

8 to see what is changed, how much it's changed?

9 MR. CALHOUN: Potential impact?

10 MR. FARVER: This all goes back to 

11 V&V and checking out your workbooks.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I have got it 

14 written down for us to check on that.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: Ready for 216.1?

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Sure.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is a 

19 finding you will see in many Y-12 cases. One 

20 of the things we look at on our checklist --

21 and it is Item A(2) -- is, is the data 

22 adequate for NIOSH to make a PoC 
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

1 determination? You know, basically, we are 

2 looking at it to see is this scientifically3 sound information that they can use.

4 And in this case, we say no. And 

5 for a lot of Y-12's we say no because they are 

6 pretty much limited for a certain time period 

7 that all they can do is medical doses. That 

8 is all they can assign.

9 And it is not their fault. I 

10 mean, that is just the way it is written, but 

11 we have got to say that is not adequate to 

12 make a PoC determination, if you are just 

13 looking at people's X-ray doses.

14 You know, there is a stipulation 

15 they can't use the internal data.

16 MR. STIVER: So, it is a 

17 limitation on how you can do a partial 

18 reconstruction.

19 MR. CALHOUN: It is the result of 

20 an SEC.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, it is the result 

22 of an SEC. So, it is a conditional PoC. 
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

1 Given this limited data, this is what we would 

2 have gotten.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, the best we can 

4 do.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Yes. So 

6 there is nothing more than can be done, right?

7 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know. 

8 I mean, is it appropriate that you just assign 

9 a PoC based on people's medical X-rays? Is 

10 that a scientifically-sound dose 

11 reconstruction?

12 MR. CALHOUN: Sure, if we don't 

13 have anything else. That is why we 

14 established the SEC.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: This is a partial, 

16 yes.

17 MR. FARVER: The SEC says that you 

18 just can't do anything or the data is not 

19 adequate.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know what 

21 it says exactly, but --

22 MR. FARVER: But it is something 
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

1 to that effect, that you are not allowed to 

2 even --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Certain things are 

4 not feasible to reconstruct, and I don't know 

5 what they are in this case. So, certain 

6 things are not. If those are not, then what 

7 is the remainder is what we consider a 

8 scientifically credible dose reconstruction, 

9 or whatever term you use.

10 MR. FARVER: Partial dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: What we can do 

13 within the confines of the program.

14 MR. STIVER: So, there is always 

15 going to be that issue of --

16 MR. FARVER: Always.

17 MR. STIVER: -- if there's a claim 

18 and it doesn't qualify for the SEC --

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Policy for a 

20 while, yes. Yes.

21 MR. STIVER: Or they may get a 

22 lower dose as a result of that, if they 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

342

1 have a qualifying cancer. You know, it 

2 happens sometimes.

3 MR. FARVER: You can't bound in 

4 any way --

5 MR. CALHOUN: If we could bound 

6 it, it wouldn't be an SEC.

7 MR. FARVER: This is well8 established --

9 MR. STIVER: Well, I understand 

10 that.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: And we also have this 

13 criteria that we are supposed to look at when 

14 we review these.

15 MR. KATZ: But you only apply it 

16 to the parts of the dose that can be 

17 reconstructed. You can't apply it to the 

18 parts of the dose that have been determined to 

19 be not reconstructable.

20 So, your question is, is the 

21 science valid for the doses that you can 

22 reconstruct, not is the science valid 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

343

1 doses you can't.

2 MR. FARVER: No, it is, is the 

3 data adequate for NIOSH to make a PoC 

4 determination, an adequate PoC determination?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, but the PoC 

6 determination is only made for the doses that 

7 could be reconstructed. So, that's the 

8 limitation.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I would propose 

10 that that question has meaning only in the 

11 case where an SEC has not been added. Once an 

12 SEC has been added, there is a foregone 

13 conclusion that the data is not adequate to 

14 make a PoC determination.

15 MR. KATZ: It applies in a limited 

16 fashion still for the doses that can be 

17 reconstructed because, I mean, that still 

18 matters for that claimant. But it only 

19 matters --

20 MR. STIVER: You have to look at 

21 it within the framework of the SEC and the 

22 policy that is in place. If there is 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

344

1 and you have a guy with a prostate cancer, he 

2 is in that period, he doesn't qualify or 

3 doesn't qualify for the 250-day, you just have 

4 to look at a subset of what exposures are 

5 applicable, and then make a determination on 

6 that basis.

7 You can't look at, well, if you 

8 did include all these other things, this would 

9 have been a higher PoC. You can't even look 

10 at that. It is off the table at that point.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, it's a 

12 policy call.

13 MR. FARVER: I understand it is a 

14 policy call. I understand that part. It is a 

15 policy call, it's what it is.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: But I can look at 

18 these and I can say that I don't think that 

19 the data was adequate or sufficient to make a 

20 PoC.

21 MR. KATZ: Again, it is for the 

22 doses that you are covering. So, from 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

345

1 forward, that is how you handle it. It is 

2 appropriate for the doses you are covering. 

3 That's the question. You don't apply the 

4 question to the doses that aren't being 

5 covered.

6 That is just the way it is. I 

7 don't want to continue the discussion, but 

8 that is the way it is.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right. 

10 Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: You apply to the doses 

12 that are eligible to be reconstructed, and 

13 that's it.

14 MR. STIVER: And if those doses 

15 are only medical doses, so be it, that is what 

16 we look at.

17 MR. KATZ: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: We may look at 

19 changing our criteria A(2) then.

20 MR. KATZ: Let's move on.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. 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

346

1 for 17.1.

2 MR. STIVER: Maybe we don't need 

3 to change the criteria, just acknowledge that 

4 in this situation, a limited, partial 

5 reconstruction, we look at only these 

6 particular sources of exposure.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: When we did 

8 these, did we have the SEC for Y-12?

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, I think they 

10 did, yes.

11 MR. FARVER: Otherwise, it 

12 wouldn't have a partial.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: Like Ted said, 

14 let's move on, off of this.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay. Where are we 

16 now?

17 MR. FARVER: 218.1. This is 

18 another one where we believe the employee 

19 should have been assigned neutron doses.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Wait. Did we do 

21 217.1?

22 MR. FARVER: 217.1 is the same as 
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

1 216.1.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, they are the 

3 same?

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

6 MR. STIVER: We are going to get 

7 to 218 here in just a second. Okay. We are

8 on 218, Y-12 and K-25, prostate and skin. And 

9 let's see, anything further here?

10 MR. FARVER: You could read 

11 through the yellow section on our response. We 

12 have a general disagreement on how they 

13 interpret the Report 33. But in this case, 

14 based on the employee's department 

15 information, we concur with their response, 

16 but not because we would agree with how they 

17 interpret the Y-12 neutron report. This is 

18 another ongoing finding.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: If we ever 

21 wanted, in some statistical testing in the 

22 future, if we ever wanted to go back and look 
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

1 at PoCs that have been done, would we have any 

2 idea that this was a partial reconstruction? 

3 Well, you have the date, I guess. But the 

4 PoCs are not designated, like, partial 

5 reconstruction PoC? They are just what they 

6 are? So, they wouldn't be useful probably if 

7 there was any statistical --

8 MR. KATZ: You would want to leave 

9 those ones out, right, the partials out?

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That is what 

11 you would want to do.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, this, the 

15 broader issue, where is that captured? That 

16 is my only question here. I think it's closed 

17 for this case, 218.1, but is the broader --

18 you say that is an ongoing issue.

19 MR. STIVER: That is an ongoing 

20 one that we will report again.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: But, for Y-12, I 

22 mean, I think --
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

1 MR. STIVER: For Y-12 --

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: But we don't know 

3 if we even have a matrix for Y-12.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, we are going to 

5 dig that up.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, maybe just add 

9 that onto the question for Joe. If we find 

10 this Y-12 TBD matrix, this issue should be on 

11 it, right?

12 MR. KATZ: It should be on it or, 

13 anyway, it should be referred to the Workgroup 

14 that we established.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: That we 

16 established, yes.

17 (Laughter.)

18 Yes, the future one. Okay. So, 

19 closed, but Workgroup issue.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, refer issue to 

21 Workgroup.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: For 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

350

1 Workgroup.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right. 218.2.

4 MR. FARVER: Incorrect organ dose 

5 values used for 1976 and 1984. Agreed the 

6 organ doses that is used for the skin of the 

7 hand were entered wrong in the IREP sheet.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: I understand your 

9 "however" part, but what do you mean steps 

10 should be taken?

11 MR. FARVER: Well --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we have 

13 taken those steps, right? Yes, they are 

14 taking some of them, I suppose.

15 MR. FARVER: It is my standard 

16 thing about --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: -- how you are going 

19 to prevent it in the future.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. Okay. So, 

21 it is QA and it's closed, I think, right?

22 MR. FARVER: 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

351

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think we have 

2 tried, and NIOSH, too -- these are kind of 

3 some old ones, aren't they?

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, these are still 

5 old ones.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

7 MR. STIVER: Go back to that 

8 previous one about Report 33. I mean, I was 

9 wondering how many revisions of Report 33 have 

10 taken place since this finding came out. You 

11 said that is still an ongoing issue.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: It is. It has to 

13 do with how you interpret zeroes and blanks.

14 MR. STIVER: Right. But I wonder 

15 if that might have been addressed in a more 

16 recent version --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: In a more recent 

18 version.

19 MR. STIVER: -- of Report 33. 

20 Let's take a look here.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: You can follow up 

22 on that, 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

352

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, I can follow up 

2 on it.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Where are 

4 we at? 218, Observation? Observation 1.

5 MR. FARVER: Observation 1 looks 

6 like a regurgitation of something that was in 

7 our review of the Site Profile about the lack 

8 of external monitoring data for the applicable 

9 site --

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. FARVER: -- for coworker data.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which we already 

13 brought up the Workgroup question, right?

14 MR. FARVER: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: 218, Observation 

16 2.

17 MR. FARVER: Two, another Site 

18 Profile issue about the beta dose to hands.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, we are going 

20 to check these, whether they are --

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, these are being 

22 checked 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

353

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

2 MR. FARVER: 218, 3. Similar on 

3 issues with the K-25 Site Profile about 

4 tech-99 beta dose, and the calibration of 

5 K-25.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, we do have a 

7 K-25 Workgroup, right?

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, we do. It is 

9 another Fitzgerald.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. STIVER: And I believe there 

12 were three matrix items that were discussed at 

13 the last meeting. I can follow up on that.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. 218, 

15 Observation 3, give to the K-25 Workgroup.

16 And Observation 4, let's look at 

17 it. So, this is a question of the tech-99 

18 coworker data, right?

19 MR. STIVER: Yes.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Coworker model, 

21 coworker data, I would imagine.

22 Is TIB-19 a K-25-specific coworker 
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

1 model or is it --

2 MR. FARVER: No, that is a general 

3 just how to handle coworker bioassay data.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes, okay. 

5 MR. FARVER: I don't really know.

6 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, if 

7 there is a question on this coworker model, I 

8 don't know if this is being examined by the --

9 MR. FARVER: Do you want us to 

10 look some more at this one and find out what 

11 it is?

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. I will go 

14 ahead and take that as an action.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: And it is the last 

16 one, right?

17 MR. STIVER: Yes.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: I think we are 

19 going to be able to work later because David's 

20 plane is not going to --

21 MR. KATZ: Because no plane is 

22 leaving.
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

1 (Laughter.)

2 David is spending the night.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: If it's just 

4 snowing, if it stays a little cooler and just 

5 keeps snowing, it is not a problem. It is 

6 only when it turns to rain.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. FARVER: Well, that is what it 

9 was supposed to do.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that is 

11 what it was supposed to do, but this looks 

12 like it's doing the opposite, and it is two 

13 hours --

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. I propose 

15 we take a five-minute break, and then, we will 

16 figure out if we can go on to the other ones, 

17 the other sets.

18 I just want to get a sidebar and 

19 see what we think is ready. But let's take 

20 five, just a stretch break.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Take five, on 

22 the phone.
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

1 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

2 went off the record at 3:54 p.m. and went back 

3 on the record at 4:06 p.m.)

4 MR. KATZ: So, we're back, Dose 

5 Reconstruction Subcommittee.

6 David and Wanda, we were checking 

7 calendars during the break for the next 

8 meeting, because we have a lot of homework 

9 that has already been done on Sets 10 through 

10 13, the Savannah River, Rocky Flats, Los 

11 Alamos. We are going to try to get to a 

12 little bit of that this afternoon, but there 

13 will be plenty left. And then we will try to 

14 add to that as well, but just to continue 

15 making progress here.

16 So, we are looking at fairly soon 

17 another meeting, and the dates we have as 

18 possibilities are March 25th, which is a 

19 Monday, or the 28th. So, can you let us know? 

20 Or can you check your calendars now and see 

21 if either of those work for you?

22 MEMBER MUNN: I will have to 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

357

1 get my Board calendar. I don't have it on my 

2 desk.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I will let you know 

5 as soon as I can.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Either of 

7 those are okay for me.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good.

9 MEMBER MUNN: I think they will be 

10 for me, too, but I need to check.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you 

12 repeat the dates once more, March 25 --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, March 25th, which 

14 is a Monday, or the 28th.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: All right.

16 MR. KATZ: And then we will have 

17 to check with Poston.

18 Okay. Well, we can carry on now. 

19 And then, Wanda, just let us know during this 

20 meeting if you have a problem with one of 

21 those days.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 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

358

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, in the 

2 meantime, we are pulling up -- I have a matrix 

3 or a document called "SC&A Responses 10 

4 through 13, SRS Findings, August 6th, 2012". 

5 That is when I updated it last, and I am sure 

6 I circulated it.

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 MR. CALHOUN: I've just got 

9 June's. My says June 2012.

10 CHAIR GRIFFON: Do you have it 

11 easily that you can --

12 MR. KATZ: I can't get into the 

13 system with this computer.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I can do the 25th or 

16 the 28th.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. I think you 

18 wanted to say either works? Okay. Then, I 

19 think we are going to go with the 25th, right? 

20 Isn't that better for you, Mark, the 25th?

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Yes, the 

22 Monday.
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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. So plan on March 

2 25th, then.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. And if I 

4 send this to, let's see -- is there a way -- I 

5 don't have everybody on my list, Ted. Is 

6 there a way I can --

7 MR. KATZ: Just send it to Stu. 

8 Stu can forward it to Grady.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, if you send 

11 it to me, I will forward it.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Stu can send it. 

13 Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: But everyone else 

15 should have gotten it because I would have 

16 sent it to everybody, unless you just updated 

17 your own and didn't send it to me.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, I usually 

19 do this pretty --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: I don't know 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

360

1 have received one, unless you sent one out 

2 recently.

3 MR. KATZ: I didn't send it 

4 recently. I send it right after I get it from 

5 Mark. So, it's not recently.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Did you send 

7 one for the Savannah River ones?

8 MR. KATZ: I sent out Mark's 

9 matrix after he sent it to me.

10 MR. FARVER: Right.

11 MR. KATZ: Whenever he sent it to 

12 me --

13 MR. FARVER: Did he send you one 

14 for Savannah River findings?

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, he did, 

16 and he did it on August 7th.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: It would have been 

18 right after the meeting.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I have it on 

20 August 7th.

21 MR. KATZ: August 7th. Oh, if you 

22 have it, everyone else got it 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

361

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: The 7th.

3 MR. FARVER: I couldn't find it, 

4 but that doesn't mean I didn't get it.

5 MR. CALHOUN: January 7th?

6 MR. KATZ: August 7th.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: The meeting was 

8 August 6th. So, it was sent out right after.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay. We've got the 

10 August 6th version. So, could you send me the 

11 August 7th version, please?

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: You know what? 

13 I didn't have my government computer, and you 

14 just sent them to me at Hunter. That is what 

15 it is. So, he just sent me special a date 

16 late.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, the same version, 

18 right.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Stu, I just sent 

20 it to you.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: If anybody else 
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

1 needs it, could you forward it to them? I 

2 don't know who.

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: And once you have 

5 it, we are on page 13. I think we did some 

6 work up to that point. So, we are on Case No. 

7 278.1, or Finding No. 278.1.

8 MR. KATZ: Mark, do you want to 

9 start at 8:30 next time or is nine o'clock 

10 better for you?

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Better start at 

12 9:00. I might catch a Monday morning flight 

13 again.

14 MEMBER MUNN: An epiphany. 

15 Welcome to my world.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. KATZ: One for Wanda.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Wanda likes the 

20 7:00 Eastern Time starts.

21 MR. FARVER: 278.1, here we are.

22 CHAIR 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

363

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. Oh, Okay. 

2 "Improperly converted recorded photon dose to 

3 organ dose."

4 This is the max/min DCFs used in 

5 the EDCW workbook, which has already been 

6 addressed by the Subcommittee earlier and 

7 corrected.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, it is a QA 

9 problem, but it has been corrected?

10 MR. FARVER: It is not even a QA 

11 problem. It was just a workbook thing where 

12 they were using -- gosh, what was that?

13 MR. SIEBERT: We are using the 

14 maximum of all geometry and the minimum of all 

15 geometry, if I remember correctly. And then, 

16 once we realized we should be using the 

17 maximum/minimum of AP, we changed it.

18 MR. FARVER: Right.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, yes.

20 MR. FARVER: That's it.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, I think 

22 that's closed.
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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, we can 

3 close it.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, it was 

5 a workbook thing that got corrected in the 

6 workbook, I believe. Yes.

7 278.2 is the same issue for missed 

8 photon dose to organ dose. The same workbook, 

9 the same issue, the same correction. So we 

10 can close that one.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: And for both of 

12 these, just refresh my memory, but it wouldn't 

13 impact older cases, right? Is there any 

14 evaluation to see the impact on previous 

15 cases?

16 MR. FARVER: That I don't know if 

17 it led to a PER or anything.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there was a PER 

19 involved.

20 MR. FARVER: Well, okay. So, 

21 that's a yes.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: You don't happen 
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

1 to know the PERs for those two?

2 MR. CALHOUN: I could probably --

3 278, is that the case number?

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Let me look. 

7 I might be able to see.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. For 278.1 

9 and .2, for those. All right. Go ahead on 

10 while he's looking for that.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Oh, 278.3. 

12 "Failed to properly account for all missed 

13 photon doses."

14 This was our standard Savannah 

15 River Site LOD-over-2 issue. It was a 

16 workbook that got corrected and has already 

17 been taken care of. So, we can close that 

18 one.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. And I would 

20 have the same question, you know, that you are 

21 looking for PERs associated with this, if any.

22 MR. CALHOUN: It's not 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

366

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: What is the topic of 

3 the PER?

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, the first 

5 two are --

6 MR. FARVER: Oh, gosh.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- photon to organ 

8 dose.

9 MR. CALHOUN: I am going to have 

10 to look because I can't -- I don't think I can 

11 find that quickly. I will keep trying.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright. Fine.

13 MR. FARVER: And the second 

14 concern was the issue -- remember, if it's 

15 less than LOD over 2 you would treat it as a 

16 missed dose? Is that how it was, instead of 

17 putting the actual number in?

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Right? There was 

20 that concern.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: 278.4. "Failed 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

367

1 address an incident reported in the CATI 

2 report."

3 "There was an inaccurate statement 

4 in the DR that no incidents were listed in the 

5 record. Should have stated that no incidents 

6 were considered, since the claim was already 

7 above 50 percent."

8 Fine. This is our same CATI one 

9 that we've talked about before, previously 

10 discussed. We suggest closing this finding.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. And, yes, 

12 this has been corrected, but it was a QA 

13 question earlier.

14 MR. FARVER: Yes.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Not even a QA 

16 really, I guess. But it has been corrected?

17 MR. FARVER: Right. This was back 

18 in a 2004 case or so.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MR. FARVER: Ancient.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: Observation 1 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

368

1 278 is the same one from our Site Profile 

2 review about the two-element and multi-element 

3 film dosimeters may underestimate dose by 25 

4 to 40 percent.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Did this go to the 

6 SRS Site Profile? I mean, I think, right?

7 MR. CALHOUN: This is an SRS TBD 

8 PER. It is PER-30. That is the driver here.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes, for those 

10 first ones we were talking about?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MR. CALHOUN: 2007.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: All right.

15 MR. CALHOUN: December.

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: So, back to 

17 Observation 1, then, did we say this is a Site 

18 Profile --

19 MR. CALHOUN: It was a Site 

20 Profile one. It was identified in the Site 

21 Profile review.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: And sent 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

369

1 Workgroup, right?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: 278, Observation 2 

5 just points out that the same findings we had, 

6 three findings we had for the photon doses 

7 above also apply to the neutron doses, but we 

8 didn't write them up as findings because they 

9 have already been corrected.

10 No. They have not been corrected 

11 at the time of the report, but we just didn't 

12 write them up again. These were standard ones 

13 that we were writing up every single time we 

14 did the Savannah River Site case.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. FARVER: We would write them 

17 up for photons. We would write them up for 

18 neutrons.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

20 MR. FARVER: It got to the point 

21 where we were just writing up findings and we 

22 were already talking about these 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

370

1 Subcommittee. So, by the time this case came 

2 around, we said, "Well, let's just not write 

3 up all these extra doses for neutrons. We'll 

4 just point out that the same ones would apply 

5 and they are going to get corrected the same 

6 way," which they did.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's also why 

8 these are observations, isn't it?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes, we didn't make 

10 them findings just because we didn't want to 

11 keep going over this.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: Observation 3 has to 

14 do with another SRS TBD concern that was 

15 identified over the limited data that was used 

16 for the interpretation, and the interpretation 

17 of such data for defining location-specific 

18 neutron-to-photon ratios. Remember the 

19 neutron-to-photon ratios we talked about 

20 earlier for Savannah River? The same thing, 

21 but that's contained in the Site Profile 

22 review. So, that is a Workgroup issue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

371

1 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, to the 

2 Savannah River Workgroup. Okay.

3 And 279.1.

4 MR. FARVER: 279.1. "NIOSH did 

5 not account for all the missed tritium dose."

6 Okay. They assessed it based on 

7 all the results, assuming that everything was 

8 less than 1 microcurie per liter, but it was 

9 not the case. They should have actually used 

10 the data because some years the detection 

11 limit was above 1 microcurie per liter.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Is this an SRS?

13 MR. FARVER: SRS, yes. Anyway, I 

14 didn't close this one.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Which one was 

16 that? I'm sorry.

17 MR. FARVER: 279.1. Because, had 

18 we used the actual results, it would come up 

19 with a little lower dose.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: But that's not why 

22 they did it. They did it because it was 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

372

1 mistake.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. So, it is 

3 a QA --

4 MR. FARVER: It is a QA issue.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: -- finding, right, 

6 but closed, anyway?

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

9 MR. FARVER: 280.1. "NIOSH did 

10 not use the appropriate procedure for 

11 determining photon dose."

12 They give an explanation about --

13 it has to do with the energy range used. The 

14 DR applied a 30-to-250, 100 percent, and this 

15 differs from what is in the TBD, Table 

16 5.3.4.1-1. That gives a different energy 

17 distribution.

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. So, this is 

19 a QA type of finding, but closed?

20 MR. SIEBERT: No, this is actually 

21 an overestimation finding. The dose 

22 reconstructors used 30-to-250 keV as 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

373

1 overestimating assumption rather than using a 

2 split, which would lower the PFC. Now, I will 

3 agree, probably they should have stated in the 

4 Dose Reconstruction Report --

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: -- that they did.

7 MR. FARVER: If it is an 

8 overestimate, they should probably state that. 

9 Then, it differs from the one in the TBD.

10 MR. CALHOUN: And that is 2004, 

11 too.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, it has been a 

14 while.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. I was just 

16 reading that you, in your response, said that 

17 it should have been caught during one of the 

18 peer reviews.

19 MR. FARVER: Well, it should have 

20 been caught, then if they are going to use an 

21 overestimate, they should say that.

22 CHAIR 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

374

1 MR. FARVER: It was not the same 

2 one as in the TBD.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, how do you 

5 know in this case whether it is an error or 

6 whether this person -- I mean, that it happens 

7 to be an error versus it was just done wrong.

8 MR. FARVER: Let me ask Scott.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that I can 

10 tell you because I know that we used that as 

11 an overestimated assumption quite frequently. 

12 So, the fact that it was run that way, there 

13 is no doubt in my mind that it was an 

14 overestimating assumption and just was not 

15 written up.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: As opposed to 

17 being just kind of force of habit and the 

18 person has gotten used to putting a value in 

19 and did it erroneously when they weren't even 

20 thinking that?

21 MR. SIEBERT: No, it is not an 

22 error. It is an overestimate. The error 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

375

1 comes from it was not explained in the Dose 

2 Reconstruction Report.

3 MR. FARVER: I think in this case 

4 it probably was an overestimate that they got 

5 used to using. I think sometimes it is 

6 difficult to tell if it is an estimating tool 

7 or if it is an error. But in this case I 

8 think it probably is just an overestimate tool 

9 that they just didn't explain.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is it 

11 documented in the table, the value that you 

12 had expected to be there was documented in a 

13 table?

14 MR. FARVER: No. No. The table 

15 expects a 50 percent split between 30 to 250 

16 keV and greater than 250 keV photons. So, you 

17 are expecting two different distributions.

18 What they did is they assigned it 

19 all as 30 to 250 keV. They assigned 100 

20 percent instead of splitting it. So, it was 

21 not what we expected to see when we go to the 

22 TBD and look at the table of energy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

376

1 distributions. And that is why we wrote it up 

2 as a finding.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And we agree 

4 that the dose reconstructors should have put 

5 that information in the dose reconstruction 

6 write-up.

7 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. I don't 

8 know how much more we can do with this one.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: It was about 

10 eight-and-a-half years ago.

11 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. STIVER: I guess the issue is 

13 if you are going to deviate a given procedure 

14 just to say so somewhere in the report.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, it sounds 

16 like that was the norm for overestimating, 

17 right?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it is. It is 

19 very common to use that.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is one of 

21 the things where you came back to show your 

22 work of why you did what you did. Is 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

377

1 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, I don't 

2 mind him doing it as an overestimate. The 

3 thing is, it was different than what was in 

4 the TBD and there was no explanation.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right, right.

6 MR. FARVER: And we will see that 

7 again in the next finding. 280.2 did not use 

8 the appropriate procedure for the assignment 

9 of shallow dose. Instead of assigning it to 

10 less-than-30 keV photons, they assigned it to 

11 20 keV photons.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, I think 

13 you mean they listed it as less than 30 when 

14 it was, in fact, 17 from plutonium. And you 

15 were saying that they ought to accept it, get 

16 ahead of the game. You wanted them to say 20 

17 keV instead of less than 30 because it's 

18 identified as a plutonium exposure, which is 

19 fine.

20 MR. SIEBERT: However, IREP only 

21 takes the binning of less-than-30 keV, 30 to 

22 250 keV, and over 250 keV.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

378

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MR. SIEBERT: So, that is why we 

3 used that binning process and --

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

5 CHAIR GRIFFON: But you didn't 

6 recommend closing here?

7 MR. FARVER: No.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: I mean, you didn't 

9 come to agreement here?

10 MR. FARVER: No, because there is 

11 a table --

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right.

13 MR. STIVER: There is a table in 

14 the Dose Reconstruction Report. They should 

15 have labeled it 20 as opposed to less than 30.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. I believe what 

17 happened is they used the dose conversion 

18 factor for 20 keV, and it was labeled less19 than-30 keV. So, I am looking for a less20 than-30-keV dose conversion factor. But the 

21 one they have there is different.

22 MR. STIVER: The one they have 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

379

1 for 20.

2 MR. FARVER: But it is labeled 

3 less-than-30. 

4 MR. STIVER: Right. So, it was a 

5 matter of just using the proper heading.

6 MR. FARVER: Because if you go 

7 back and look at what is suggested there on 

8 the far right, they suggest you go to the TBD 

9 and that guidance concerning the use of the 

10 20-keV dose conversion factor for plutonium 

11 facilities, because that is not talked about 

12 in the TBD.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Is this kind 

14 of an isolated incident or is this kind of a 

15 mistake?

16 MR. FARVER: It is something they 

17 pull out of Table 4.1(a) out of OCAS-IG-001.

18 MR. SIEBERT: There is no mistake. 

19 When we are using low-energy exposure and we 

20 determine it's from plutonium, we use the DCFs 

21 that are from OCAS-IG-001 which are 

22 specifically for low-energy photons 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

380

1 plutonium versus the generic less-than-30-keV 

2 photon DCF.

3 MR. FARVER: I understand, but I'm 

4 not --

5 MR. SIEBERT: I just pointing out 

6 -- the question was asked, is this is error? 

7 -- and I am just pointing out that it is not 

8 an error.

9 MR. FARVER: No, it is not.

10 MR. SIEBERT: But what Doug is 

11 saying, and it should be clarified that it is 

12 not the normal less-than-30 keV --

13 MR. FARVER: Right.

14 MR. SIEBERT: -- although you need 

15 to mark it as less-than-30-keV in IREP because 

16 that is the only bin that is acceptable, and 

17 it seems obvious to me that 20 keV is less 

18 than 30 keV.

19 MR. FARVER: No, no, I think the 

20 confusion was, when we looked at the dose 

21 reconstruction and the table of parameters, 

22 there's your dose DCF for less-than-30 keV, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

381

1 but it is not really the less-than-30 keV, it 

2 is the 20-keV dose conversion factor. Okay?

3 MR. STIVER: It is true, but Scott 

4 has a good point that in the IREP input there 

5 isn't --

6 MR. FARVER: Oh, I understand 

7 that, but I am just saying, when we are going 

8 to these DRs and looking up their parameters, 

9 we are looking for a less-than-30 keV dose 

10 conversion factor. Okay?

11 MR. STIVER: That is something 

12 that should be, well, it should be spelled in 

13 the Dose Reconstruction Report.

14 MR. FARVER: And really, I wasn't 

15 even aware of the IG-001 Table 4.1(a) until 

16 Scott pointed it out earlier, and we went and 

17 looked it up. And that's okay because that 

18 talks about lower-energy photons for plutonium 

19 facilities.

20 But that information, or neither a 

21 reference to that, is contained in the 

22 Savannah River document. So, you might put 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

382

1 some connection between the two, saying for 

2 plutonium facilities you may want to use the 

3 lower-energy DCFs of IG-001.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and I agree. I 

5 believe when we are updating the Savannah 

6 River TBD, we are going to be putting 

7 something of this sort in there. It was 

8 written before OCAS-IG-001 was updated. It's 

9 an old TBD.

10 MR. FARVER: Well, yes, it is. 

11 But, I mean, that was the suggestion. It was 

12 just to make a connection in the TBD between 

13 the two, so that it doesn't come up again. 

14 It's not that what you did was wrong.

15 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. So, we will 

16 close it out, and they will consider updating 

17 the TBD.

18 MR. FARVER: Sure. Right.

19 CHAIR GRIFFON: That's fine.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Will that go to 

21 the Workgroup? Savannah River?

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: Well, I think 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

383

1 is just NIOSH will consider updating the TBD.

2 MR. FARVER: This is an 

3 implementation guide.

4 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

5 280.3.

6 MR. FARVER: 280.3 did not 

7 appropriately account for all the missed 

8 tritium dose.

9 CHAIR GRIFFON: I don't think this 

10 is legal here. You referred us to a finding 

11 ahead.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, I referred you 

13 on down the road, which probably just loops 

14 back.

15 (Laughter.)

16 CHAIR GRIFFON: And I am sure you 

17 said refer us to 280.3 on that one.

18 MR. FARVER: It's an endless loop 

19 that will keep us here for hours.

20 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. SIEBERT: This goes back to 

22 the Savannah River TBD, the values that were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

384

1 put in place for tritium at the time were 

2 based on the reporting values for tritium, not 

3 necessarily the detection values for tritium.

4 Once we use the actual detection 

5 values that are in the case itself or the 

6 tritium values that you see, they're at 1 

7 microcurie per liter versus the reporting 

8 level that may have been at 5 or 10 

9 microcuries per liter, depending on the 

10 timeframe. And we agree that the Savannah 

11 River TBD is going to be updated to reflect 

12 that. And we do have this information in the 

13 DR guidance document for Savannah River, and 

14 have had it in there for quite a while.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. So, all it 

16 comes down is --

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Updating the TBD.

18 MR. FARVER: -- when you update 

19 the TBD, add the correction information, 

20 that's all.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

22 CHAIR GRIFFON: So that's closed, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

385

1 and NIOSH will update the TBD.

2 MR. FARVER: And now we go back.

3 CHAIR GRIFFON: Alright.

4 MR. FARVER: 280, Observation 1.

5 DOE record for this case included 

6 program of PER, individual case Evaluation 

7 Report, and the guidelines in OCAS-PER-12. 

8 So, this DR may not be affected by the 

9 presence of Super S plutonium, although not 

10 for the reasons given by NIOSH in their PER 

11 report. They are looking into it.

12 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: And I think it has to 

14 do with just a justification that was in the 

15 letter, the PER letters or the ICE letters. 

16 It didn't match up with what was really done.

17 CHAIR GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Okay.

18 MR. FARVER: Not that it would 

19 have changed anything. It just was not the 

20 same.

21 CHAIR GRIFFON: And this one isn't 

22 any more serious because the response is 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

386

1 green. But I shouldn't take that as --

2 (Laughter.)

3 I am just kidding.

4 NIOSH's response is in like a 

5 green font on my computer.

6 MR. SIEBERT: No, I believe that 

7 is just text.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Okay. Alright. 

9 So, that is still NIOSH is going to follow up 

10 on that one.

11 And let's see. I'm going to 

12 propose that we knock it off there.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIR GRIFFON: Has everybody had 

15 enough? Grady has had enough.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely.

17 (Laughter.)

18 CHAIR GRIFFON: For those on the 

19 phone, I will send updates of the matrices 

20 soon because. Because if I don't do it soon, 

21 I won't do it.

22 MR. KATZ: Good. Send them to me, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

387

1 and I will forward them on.

2 CHAIR GRIFFON: Right. We will 

3 get those out soon.

4 And we are on for March 25th, 

5 unless we hear otherwise.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, and I am posting 

7 the note.

8 CHAIR GRIFFON: Yes. Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: The weather will 

10 improve by then.

11 MR. KATZ: Right. That will get 

12 the spring blizzard.

13 CHAIR GRIFFON: And with that, I 

14 think we are adjourned.

15 (Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the 

16 meeting in the above-entitled matter was 

17 adjourned.)

18

19

20

21