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

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 

+ + + + +

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE

+ + + + +

MONDAY

APRIL 18, 2011

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the 

Frankfurt 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

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member*

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU*

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, ORAU

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU*

BRANT ULSH, ORAU

*Participating via telephone
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

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

Status on 1st 100 Cases Report - NIOSH

QA/QC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Discussion of Selection Parameters for 

Set 14 of Dose Reconstructions 

to be Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Continue DR Set Reviews: Sets 7, 8, 9 . . .30

Schedule Next Meeting . . . . . . . . . . 346

Adjournment
4

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

2 9:07 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning everyone. 

4 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health, Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee. We 

6 have a pretty full house in the room. So 

7 beginning roll call with Board Members in the 

8 room.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

10 chairing the Subcommittee.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad Clawson, 

12 Work Group Member.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, Work 

14 Group Member. Subcommittee Member, please.

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, 

16 Subcommittee Member. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David 

18 Richardson, Subcommittee Member. 

19 MR. KATZ: And on the line? 

20 MEMBER PRESLEY: Bob Presley, 

21 Subcommittee Member.

22 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Bob. NIOSH 
5

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 ORAU team?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld, 

3 NIOSH.

4 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh from NIOSH.

5 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

7 team.

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Scott. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you. 

10 MR. SMITH: Matt Smith, ORAU team. 

11 MS. BRACKETT: Elizabeth Brackett, 

12 ORAU team.

13 MR. KATZ: SC&A team in the room?

14 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A.

15 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A.

16 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

17 MS. BEHLING: Kathy Behling, SC&A.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. And federal 

19 officials or contractors of the feds in the 

20 room? 

21 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

22 MR. KATZ: And on the line? Okay. 
6

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 And this is Ted Katz. I'm the Designated 

2 Federal Official. Any members of the public 

3 on the line? Very good. Then let me just 

4 remind the folks on the line to mute your 

5 phones, except when you're speaking. *6 if 

6 you don't have a mute button. And, Mark, it's 

7 your agenda.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I actually 

9 don't know the order that you ended up putting 

10 those items in, Ted, but I think I'd like to 

11 start with the printed version that Wanda is 

12 handing me. Okay, we can do it in that order, 

13 I guess. The first item is selecting cases 

14 for review for the PER-12, the highly 

15 insoluble plutonium compounds. And cases were 

16 distributed to the Subcommittee, is that 

17 correct? Somebody help me out here.

18 DR. ULSH: I think where we were, 

19 Mark, if my memory serves, is that Hans had 

20 come up with a pretty detailed set of criteria 

21 for selecting the cases, and then it was in 

22 our house, meaning NIOSH and ORAU's house to 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually select the cases. We've not yet 

2 completed that.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

4 Alright.

5 DR. ULSH: So if they were 

6 distributed --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we 

8 distributed a list and asked for comment but 

9 weren't going to wait for comment. Was that -

10 -

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, you had a list. I 

12 mean, you had developed a list. I don't know 

13 what happened after that.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think what 

15 happened is, I think selection still has to 

16 happen after that. I mean, it was --

17 MR. KATZ: By the Subcommittee.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, however we 

19 want to do it, but I'll have to go back and 

20 find that because I was thinking that we had 

21 distributed a list for one of those PERs at 

22 least.
8

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 MR. KATZ: There's only one.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Right now, I'm 

3 putting the matrices on the flash drive for 

4 people who I can't send it to, and this is an 

5 encrypted drive so I have to put it on each 

6 person's computer. But then after that I'll 

7 look for that, so if we can move this later.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We'll 

9 move this later on the agenda. Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll see what I 

11 can find out.

12 MEMBER MUNN: If you could give us 

13 an approximate date when you sent, when that 

14 was sent.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'll have to 

16 look. That's part of what I have to look for.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Let me 

19 move to item four. We can move that one later 

20 in the agenda. Item four is this first 100 

21 cases report and the QA/QC review. I think 

22 we, at one point, discussed a lot of the 
9

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 findings we have are related to QC/QA 

2 findings, and we were going to delve down into 

3 those further, and then we thought, well, as a 

4 good starting point, we should understand a 

5 little more and in better detail what ORAU and 

6 NIOSH do as far as QA/QC. So, NIOSH had 

7 offered to present to us on that. I think 

8 this was a couple of meetings ago, but, 

9 anyway, it hasn't happened yet.

10 The other, just talking last night 

11 with David, another option maybe to move this 

12 along might be if the Subcommittee or Members 

13 thereof could actually come to NIOSH, to your 

14 office, and get a briefing and kind of a walk 

15 through the system: how does it work, how does 

16 the data flow? I think that might be useful 

17 for all of us, and it might, you know. I 

18 don't know how, as a Subcommittee, I don't 

19 know how we'd do that, Ted, if it's a --

20 MR. KATZ: We could do that fine.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: How are you going 

22 to --
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

1 MR. KATZ: It's no trouble with 

2 that whatsoever. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can do it, 

4 and it doesn't have to be a public meeting or 

5 --

6 MR. KATZ: No, no, not to get an 

7 administrative run-through of the program.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I propose 

9 that we do that before the next full sit-down 

10 Board meeting.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, alright. 

12 Which is in late May.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that the end 

14 of May? So like mid-May, could we --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: As I said --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll have to 

18 clear it with ORAU because I think it would be 

19 most beneficial to start there --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 

21 absolutely.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and see how 
11

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 their process works.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Absolutely.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: In fact, the 

4 process does start on our side, but we'll 

5 start over there at ORAU and then we'll catch 

6 the beginning part of the process when we go 

7 to our side, to our building. Everybody's a 

8 U.S. citizen, so that won't be an issue. 

9 So, yes, I mean, we can schedule 

10 it just like any other Board meeting. We just 

11 want to make sure that ORAU will have people 

12 there, but I think one of the best people to 

13 be there is Scott Siebert, who is local. So 

14 he can usually get there on days we need it. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. 

16 Ideally, before the next Board meeting, but if 

17 it went a little after, I suppose, you know, 

18 just given schedules, I'm not sure we can 

19 coordinate the dates. Do you think that would 

20 give you enough time to --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes. I 

22 don't know that there would be --
12

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A lot of 

2 preparation.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a lot of 

4 preparation necessary just to kind of 

5 demonstrate the process.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what we 

7 were hoping, just to go there and get a lot,

8 you know. Do you want to look at dates for 

9 that or --

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can look at 

11 dates right now, or we can do that following 

12 this meeting. Either way, whichever you want.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's go ahead 

14 and look at dates right now. Might as well.

15 MEMBER MUNN: The first week of 

16 May you already have some schedules here.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, there's some 

18 meetings.

19 MEMBER MUNN: And then St. Louis 

20 is coming up the third week.

21 MR. KATZ: Well, that's at the end 

22 of the month.
13

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 MR. HINNEFELD: That's the 24th -

2 25th.

3 MEMBER MUNN: I guess that's the 

4 fourth week. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. For me, 

6 it would probably be that week before the 16th 

7 through the 20th.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. The 16th through 

9 the 20th you say? The 16th is a Work Group 

10 meeting. And, I mean, there are other Work 

11 Groups looking for dates. May I just suggest, 

12 this would be a better one actually. That 

13 gets so busy with Work Groups, and you hate to 

14 get in the way of a Work Group for this.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We can 

16 move after the Board meeting then, I suppose, 

17 right? Is that what you're saying?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. And after the 

19 Board meeting, typically, you know, it's a 

20 desert in terms of meetings.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: Nobody wants to meet 
14

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 after that, so that would be a good time.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we do 

3 have this classified meeting on June 13th, 

4 right?

5 MR. KATZ: Right. We could do it 

6 before that, though.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Before that? 

8 For some reason, June 6th --

9 DR. ULSH: I am on vacation 

10 starting June 11th. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That's late 

12 anyway. You're on vacation for a week or two 

13 weeks?

14 DR. ULSH: Oh, I hope it's two. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: I hope it's two, 

16 also.

17 DR. ULSH: I think it is two 

18 weeks.

19 MEMBER MUNN: You don't think the 

20 first week in May would be a good time to do 

21 that?

22 MR. KATZ: Well, what about the 
15

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 9th - 10th, before that? June 9th - 10th? I 

2 mean, they only need a day, right? You only 

3 need --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: June 9th -

5 10th?

6 MR. KATZ: The day would work, 

7 wouldn't it?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I would 

9 hope a day.

10 MEMBER MUNN: It would have to be 

11 the 9th for me.

12 MR. KATZ: It doesn't work for 

13 David.

14 DR. ULSH: Is that whole week out 

15 or just June 9th?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, early in 

17 the week I'm in Texas so --

18 MEMBER MUNN: And I'm still 

19 questioning why the end of the first week in 

20 May is not good. 

21 MR. KATZ: The end of the first 

22 week in May? You mean --
16

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: June's 1st, 

2 2nd, and 3rd, you mean? 

3 MR. KATZ: You mean May 30th or 

4 31st? Is that what you said?

5 MEMBER MUNN: No. I meant the 

6 first week in May.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, the first week in 

8 May.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Because that's 

10 further, that's before the --

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, we have 

12 Pantex meeting the 3rd.

13 MEMBER MUNN: You still have LANL 

14 on the 2nd, right? LANL on the 2nd, Pantex on 

15 the 3rd. And so you'll have some people who 

16 are already here. The 4th?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I couldn't do 

18 the 4th.

19 MEMBER MUNN: The 4th or 5th? 

20 What about the following week, the Mother's 

21 Day week? 

22 MR. KATZ: Well, what about the 
17

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 6th of May? Does that not work?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

3 probably okay.

4 MR. KATZ: It's a Friday, but does 

5 that work for you guys? Want to do it then? 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Yes, 

7 let's do it. Yes. We may not find another 

8 good day.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Bob, can you be on 

10 the 6th?

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: I just have to 

12 wait and see.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

14 MEMBER PRESLEY: That's a Friday.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: What day was 

17 this?

18 MR. KATZ: Sixth of May. It's a 

19 Friday.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we would 

21 just have to think about, I mean we'll have to 

22 go to NIOSH, right? Rather than here.
18

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 MR. KATZ: Right. So there's no 

2 reason to stay at this hotel, for example, 

3 because this is across the river. So we'll 

4 make arrangements.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Alright. 

6 So I think that will --

7 MR. KATZ: And, you know, two8 thirds of the day is plenty, right?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I would 

10 think. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: I would think.

12 MR. KATZ: Do we need to get in 

13 that morning because of the dissertation 

14 defense? 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I could get in 

16 that night, assuming there's not tears. I 

17 should be done by four.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we could 

19 start off in the morning. 

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, good. We 

22 made a little progress there then. I mean, I 
19

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 really would like to close out the first 100 

2 cases report, and it's been like held up for 

3 over a year waiting on this QC question. 

4 DR. MAURO: So in that report, I 

5 know that there's a lot of discussion 

6 regarding the QC issue, so this is really the 

7 part of the report which we actually walk 

8 through the process.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

10 I mean --

11 DR. MAURO: One of our --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hopefully, 

13 someone -- I think it's critical that Doug be 

14 there.

15 DR. MAURO: Doug probably, if he 

16 can, but we have other people, people like Ron 

17 Buchanan. So we'll have someone there.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

19 Then I guess we can -- where do we stand on 

20 item two, Ted, the selection, oh, selection 

21 parameters.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, we just need to 
20

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 sort of start off with some marching orders 

2 for DCAS.

3 MR. FARVER: That's the 15th set.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, the next set.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, the 

6 marching orders being give us another 40 to 

7 pick from, right?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, and if you have 

9 any --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And if we have 

11 any modifications to our normal selection 

12 criteria. Right, right, right, okay.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, I 

14 think you want to look at all internal and 

15 external, as our HP marks them, only. I mean, 

16 we've looked at that I think previously, 

17 haven't we? We used to do a random pull and 

18 we --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

20 lately we've pulling from an external, yes. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And then we 

22 should be able to pull a cutoff date, you 
21

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 know, a completion date because we wanted to 

2 look at more recent ones? We still need that, 

3 right?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, a 

5 cutoff date would be good. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So a 

7 completion date, anything completed after such 

8 and such a date, pull internal and external, 

9 and then, yes, we'll have to run the entire 

10 list by DOL because we've learned since the 

11 last selection and this one that our 

12 information on cases that are complete isn't 

13 up to date. We've been trying to pull cases 

14 that are done, meaning there's a final dose 

15 reconstruction of cases that have been 

16 adjudicated. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We thought we were 

19 getting information in a final decision letter 

20 that told us so we could do that pull. Well, 

21 we're not always getting that final decision 

22 letter, and it's been a while since we've been 
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

1 getting those final decision letters. So 

2 rather than try to remedy that situation, 

3 we're going to do our initial list, send that 

4 over to DOL, and say which one of these are 

5 finally adjudicated? They can tell us which 

6 ones are finally adjudicated, and then we have 

7 cases that are eligible for pull. We've been 

8 actually selecting from a smaller set, subset 

9 of --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So 

11 we should get a larger --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we should get 

13 a larger set of ready-to-review claims.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And for 

15 the next Subcommittee meeting, I think, Kathy 

16 or Doug, you've been keeping up with this, 

17 sort of the up-to-date matrix of what we've 

18 done, sort of demographics of the cases, you 

19 know, the statistics of the cases. 

20 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I've been 

21 keeping up with that, yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hi, Kathy. 
23

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 MS. BEHLING: Hi.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe for the 

3 next Subcommittee meeting, when Stu brings 

4 those cases, if we could have, you know, sort 

5 of your standard update on that so we can see 

6 what we've selected thus far and compare it to 

7 our criteria. I think that would be useful.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That will be 

9 fine.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, alright. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: What date was our 

12 last group of selections that we made? 

13 DR. MAURO: The 14th set?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, the 14th set.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, is this 

16 the 14th one coming? 

17 DR. MAURO: No, the 15th is 

18 coming. We're working the 14th right now. 

19 We're actually up to the --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So 

21 you got 14, so this will be 15.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I was trying to 
24

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 remember whether we had established a cutoff 

2 date at the time that we selected those. 

3 DR. MAURO: I don't remember when 

4 you selected the 14th. 

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 DR. MAURO: It almost comes as a 

7 way where we see how we're progressing in 

8 terms of getting back that current set that's 

9 active, getting it out the door. We know it's 

10 at least two months, just like today, and 

11 today to when we get the 15th set we're 

12 probably talking two months. So that's how I 

13 think about it, so that I'm thinking now --

14 that's why I like the idea if we could start 

15 as soon as possible on the 15th set. It will 

16 put us in a place where it will be just about 

17 the right time for us, without breaking stride 

18 --

19 MEMBER MUNN: Right, right. 

20 DR. MAURO: -- just to get right 

21 into the 15th set.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I was trying to 
25

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 think in terms of starting date for NIOSH to 

2 begin their selections.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we don't 

4 want to get too recent because there's a 

5 certain amount of time that it has to go 

6 through after we do a final dose

7 reconstruction for the adjudication of the 

8 case, so we're not going to go right up to the 

9 latest day. We're going to go back a month or 

10 two as the latest completion date we're going 

11 to use, and then we'll pick a date that will 

12 give us a nice big, a big but not unwieldy 

13 class of, you know, group of claims to choose 

14 from. How's that? 

15 And then the normal process is 

16 then this Subcommittee selects maybe some 40 

17 or so. And in this case, most of those should 

18 survive because we've already looked at them 

19 and said they're ready to be reviewed. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the set 

22 size, John, do you need more cases? Do you 
26

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 need --

2 DR. MAURO: Well, we have --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think you 

4 talked to me about this.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, we have an 

6 interesting situation. I'm looking at the 

7 future. Right now, we're busy. We have lots 

8 of SECs, but I can notice something is 

9 happening. The SECs are starting to get 

10 cleared. I can feel the homestretch on 

11 Fernald, on Savannah River, on Hanford. I can 

12 feel it coming.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm glad you 

14 can.

15 DR. MAURO: I almost see the light 

16 at the end of the tunnel, which is good.

17 MEMBER MUNN: It's a freight 

18 train.

19 DR. MAURO: It's a freight train. 

20 Now, what I mean by that is I think by next 

21 year we're going to largely have this wrestled 

22 to the ground, and that's our major revenue. 
27

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 Right now, that's where our investment is in 

2 terms of the Board's monies being spent. If 

3 you look at the big picture, that's where the 

4 money is going. 

5 So I can envision by next year 

6 we'll be in a position where there will be 

7 resources available to do the things that we 

8 haven't been doing because we've been so 

9 consumed by the SEC process. And one of the 

10 places certainly is this Subcommittee in terms 

11 of the Subcommittee, of course, has been 

12 working at right now one percent of the 

13 sample. We've been working one percent, and 

14 we're doing fine. All I can say is if there's 

15 any desire on the part of the Subcommittee to 

16 kick that up a notch and start to drive closer 

17 to two percent or two and a half percent, 

18 which was the original goal way back when. 

19 And the reality is starting next year it won't 

20 be unreasonable to start to move that up if 

21 the SECs start to close down, and I think that 

22 they are. I can see it happening. I don't 
28

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 know if you folks have the same feel I do for 

2 it.

3 MEMBER MUNN: I certainly hope 

4 you're right because there's been too much to 

5 even consider two and a half percent. There's 

6 too much.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can't keep 

8 up with the review --

9 MEMBER MUNN: No, no.

10 DR. MAURO: I'm watching the 

11 revenue flow. We have a certain budget every 

12 year, and we're holding it very nicely. We're 

13 coming right in every year nicely. It just 

14 worked out that way for some reason. The 

15 balance has always been there, and I can see 

16 that the nature of the program is now 

17 evolving. Basically, the procedure of the 

18 Subcommittee, we've completed 90 percent of 

19 the issues resolution.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I know.

21 DR. MAURO: We're almost done. 

22 And there aren't that many new procedures --
29

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 MEMBER MUNN: I keep trying to 

2 convince myself of that.

3 DR. MAURO: What are going to do 

4 without the Procedures Subcommittee?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I have an idea.

6 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

7 DR. MAURO: No great rush for 

8 that.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So for 

10 this set, we may not really need to deal with 

11 it.

12 DR. MAURO: Exactly, exactly. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But in the 

14 future, I think we might want to. And my 

15 concern would be, and I think this would be a 

16 domino effect if the SEC is closed, like you 

17 said, and NIOSH theoretically would have a 

18 little more time, and we could get the 

19 resolution process moving along quicker.

20 MR. KATZ: There's not much point 

21 --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 
30

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 MR. KATZ: Falling behind, further 

2 behind.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And I 

4 don't think we want to be working on the 20th 

5 set and reviewing the 9th. 

6 DR. ULSH: So I think the way that 

7 we normally do this, once we have the criteria 

8 in mind, we identify 50 or 60 candidate cases. 

9 Is that pretty typical? And then we bring 

10 them to you, and you guys pick which ones? 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And we're 

12 saying use the criteria we have for now.

13 DR. ULSH: Okay. But the same 

14 size set, 50 or 60 for you guys?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Pretty much. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

17 Okay. Now on to the more mechanical portion 

18 of the program. I think we're ready to go 

19 into the DR set reviews, 7th, 8th, and 9th 

20 set. And I think let's do the 7th set. I 

21 think there's only one issue or so to close 

22 out. But Brant forwarded some responses, 
31

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 right, Brant? And I'm going to pull those up 

2 live. I imagine most of us haven't had a 

3 chance to look at those.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Just scanned them. 

5 Ran them real quick. No absorption. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we got, 

7 let's see, case number 122.

8 MEMBER MUNN: An appropriate 

9 method used for estimating proton dose.

10 MR. KATZ: That's the only 

11 alternative for folks that aren't using their 

12 laptops.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Can they print off 

14 directly off one of these?

15 MR. KATZ: I mean, one person 

16 could have that in their computer and just 

17 read off that. It will never be on their 

18 computer --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: But they can't 

20 load it on the computer.

21 MR. KATZ: You can't load it.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Let me see 
32

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 what I can do.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we have what 

3 you just sent, though. 

4 MR. KATZ: Not everybody is on the 

5 government computer.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, right.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

8 MR. KATZ: Can we just put it on 

9 mine, and they can --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you're on 

11 the phone, stand by. We're trying to get 

12 everybody with the right materials here. 

13 MR. KATZ: I don't have my key 

14 fob.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I sent it to your 

16 email account, your government email account.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I don't have 

18 my key fob so I can't get into my --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MEMBER MUNN: Or you can read it 

21 from one of us who has it up.

22 (Off the record remarks.)
33

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. We're 

2 ready to, most people got pulled up?

3 MEMBER MUNN: We got something.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. I'm 

5 going to turn over, it's the 7th set matrix 

6 we're looking at, and a response was sent by 

7 Brant, Friday, was it? Thursday last week? 

8 Thursday last week. And I'll let you take it 

9 from there. It's case 122.1.

10 DR. ULSH: Right. And the finding 

11 number is 122.1-C.1.1A. You see that there's 

12 been a lot of interchanges back and forth, 

13 mostly remaining action for NIOSH. And April, 

14 there was a question about the film badges 

15 that were used. I guess maybe I should read 

16 the original finding. The summary of the 

17 finding is method used for measuring external 

18 submersion/surface contamination doses not 

19 claimant-favorable. Our latest response -- do 

20 you want me to just read it, Mark? 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure.

22 DR. ULSH: Alright. Twenty film 
34

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 badges used in the study were placed 

2 throughout the facility. Placement was not 

3 limited to the rolling mill, as is suggested 

4 in the comment. A review of the film badge 

5 result -- and there's an SRDB number for that 

6 file, it's SRDB reference ID number 12437. 

7 And a review of those results indicates that a 

8 badge was placed in the furnace area, and 

9 results indicated from this badge was not 

10 within the upper 50th percentile of the 

11 population of results. 

12 So that was the response that we 

13 sent on Thursday. Scott, I know you're 

14 online, right? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

16 DR. ULSH: Okay. Any other points 

17 that we need to bring up at this point or just 

18 open it for discussion?

19 MR. SMITH: I'd say open it for 

20 discussion. We also have Mutty Sharfi on the 

21 line from an AWE point of view, so he may need 

22 to answer on those specifics. 
35

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 DR. ULSH: Okay. 

2 DR. MAURO: You want me to pick it 

3 up from here? Conceptually, it's a classic 

4 example of how do you go about reconstructing 

5 the external dose when you have some data, 

6 whether it's film badge data or, in this case, 

7 they actually had film badges hanging from the 

8 ceiling sort of capturing the radiation field 

9 leading to external exposure. And then along 

10 comes a person that works in this facility, 

11 and he doesn't have any personal dosimetry, 

12 but you want to assign something to him. I 

13 think even NIOSH's procedures call for when 

14 you have a person that's working in an area, 

15 if you pick the geometric mean of, let's say, 

16 these 20 numbers, what you're basically saying 

17 is there's a 50-percent chance he might have 

18 gotten higher and a 50-percent chance he might 

19 have gotten lower. So it's always been our 

20 position, and I believe it's even in one of 

21 the procedures that say when you're in a 

22 situation like that you give the guy the 95 
36

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 percentile of the distribution, not the 50 

2 percentile. So I guess our concern here is 

3 that, for this particular person, you know, 

4 there's a 50-percent chance you may be 

5 underestimating his dose. So it's always 

6 been, and correct me if I'm wrong, the 

7 approach that's always been adopted by NIOSH 

8 is when you're confronted with a situation 

9 like this you put the high end value in the 

10 distribution. 

11 Now, one of the reasons given here 

12 is that it turns out this particular fellow 

13 worked in a furnace area, which, in classic 

14 AWE sense, the furnace area is often dirtier 

15 than other areas. And that was one of the 

16 arguments we gave that not only did you not, 

17 you know, you picked a median, but also he 

18 happens to be in the furnace area where you 

19 would think things might be worse. But you 

20 correctly come back and say, well, one of the 

21 badges actually was in the furnace area, and 

22 it wasn't so bad. I don't think that still 
37

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 drives it, even if one of the badges, you 

2 know, okay, you happen to have one badge in 

3 the furnace area and it didn't turn out to be 

4 so bad. 

5 I still think SC&A's position 

6 still is when you're in a circumstance like 

7 this, whether you're dealing with this film 

8 badge hanging from the ceiling or just a 

9 sampling of workers where you've got some data 

10 and along comes a guy that doesn't have any, I 

11 don't think you should be assigning the 

12 geometric mean to the person. I think you 

13 should be assigning the upper end, and that's 

14 been our position for the longest time. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I'm 

16 not sure how we close this one out. Is this 

17 during the residual period? I'm trying to go 

18 through the old comments. Is this the 

19 residual operation period that we're talking 

20 about?

21 DR. MAURO: It is operation.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is 
38

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 operation. MEMBER MUNN: So the 

2 question that John has raised then, not having 

3 the case file before us, is whether we do, in 

4 fact, have a procedure that indicates we 

5 should be looking at the 95th percentile 

6 instead of mean. Is that correct in that? 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that the 

8 normal protocol sort of is what you're saying, 

9 right? 

10 DR. MAURO: I'm pretty sure. In 

11 fact, that was one that goes back a ways, and 

12 I would argue that this becomes a quality 

13 assurance issue because I do believe there is 

14 an issue. There is a procedure that 

15 specifically says do it that way, and it's not 

16 being done that way. So I think it's a 

17 double-edge one. I know that there's some 

18 debate on internal on when you what, and that 

19 there's good reason why it's not so clean-cut 

20 when it comes to internal. When it comes to 

21 external, you're hard-pressed to pick the 

22 geometric mean.
39

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 MEMBER MUNN: But the argument has 

2 always been that you don't know where you've 

3 been, and if you have a situation where this 

4 person is identified as having been primarily 

5 in the furnace area then the argument that you 

6 don't know where he's been if the furnace area 

7 is the high exposure area normally sort of 

8 falls on soft ground because if he's working 

9 in the highest exposure area and you have 

10 readings for the highest exposure area then 

11 other readings that he would have had would 

12 not likely have been higher. 

13 DR. MAURO: Let me try again. 

14 You've got these film badges hanging from the 

15 rafters throughout the plant. It happens to 

16 be one of them is hanging in the area where, 

17 in theory, it might be higher than others --

18 MEMBER MUNN: That you would 

19 expect might be.

20 DR. MAURO: Right. But it turns 

21 out it's not. It's not. I don't think it 

22 takes away from the idea that, listen, you've 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got yourself a collection of data which is 

2 indicative of the range of exposures workers 

3 at this facility may have experienced, and 

4 really the question becomes when you have 20 

5 numbers and along comes the persons you're 

6 going to assign a number to, do you assign the 

7 geometric mean? I mean, it really becomes 

8 almost a common-sense kind of discussion. Are 

9 you comfortable assigning a geometric mean to 

10 a person? In my opinion, that's claimant11 neutral. That's not claimant-favorable. 

12 So I argue, I think high-end, an 

13 84th percentile, a 95th percentile. And in 

14 addition, I do believe there's a procedure out 

15 there that says that also.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

17 that's an important factor. Do you know what 

18 procedure, or you don't know offhand? 

19 DR. ULSH: I don't know. I could 

20 ask Scott or Mutty to maybe take a look and 

21 see what procedure we cited in that particular 

22 DR. I don't know if we can do that real quick 
41

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 but, if we do, we would have to look and see 

2 if that procedure allows us any flexibility to 

3 assign something other than the 95th. If it 

4 doesn't, then --

5 MR. SIEBERT: If I recall 

6 correctly, this one actually used the TBD for 

7 Simonds. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is an AWE, 

9 right?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Does anybody 

12 remember which one it is? 

13 MR. SIEBERT: It's Simonds Saw and 

14 Steel. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: So it has its own 

16 TBD, and the TBD is written to say assigned, 

17 and it says assign doses in this fashion.

18 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So that's the way 

20 the TBD was written.

21 MR. SHARFI: It's a single 

22 distribution model for Simonds in the TBD. 
42

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 This is Mutty Sharfi. Sorry. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So it was 

3 done in accordance with the TBD. Now, the 

4 question about a procedure is, you know, is 

5 that procedure, is that applicable to a TBD 

6 preparation. Maybe the technique that was 

7 used should have been done is one question, 

8 but to say that the procedure says use 95th 

9 percentile but this TBD didn't, I don't think 

10 the TBD author would be expected to follow 

11 procedure on dose reconstruction.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I would 

14 agree. Simonds Saw goes way back, so that's 

15 apprised that there might be a procedure in 

16 an old Simonds Saw AWE that calls for this 

17 because this was a discussion we had many 

18 years ago and we have matured since then. So 

19 maybe we take the QA issue off the table.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I think we should 

21 take the QA issue off the table, yes. 

22 DR. MAURO: It's just a matter now 
43

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 do we want to revisit this in light of the 

2 more recent procedures that say you really 

3 should go with the upper end when you're in a 

4 situation like this. Your call.

5 DR. ULSH: Well, if the procedure 

6 --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, here's the 

8 thing. I mean, the procedure is sort of 

9 irrelevant. Is it our practice now to say 

10 that dose reconstruction in this situation, is 

11 that really our normal practice? And so 

12 that's the kind of thing, and then, based on 

13 that, does the Simonds Saw and Steel Site 

14 Profile need to be revisited? You know, those 

15 are the questions that we need to take out of 

16 here.

17 Now, in this particular case, as I 

18 recall, it's not really going to matter, 

19 right? Isn't this one pretty low? I don't 

20 remember now, but I thought it was pretty far, 

21 and external dose usually --

22 DR. MAURO: External dose, yes. 
44

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But if it is, 

2 just to go back to the QA thing, if it is the 

3 procedure or policy that NIOSH does this, then 

4 this Site Profile should have been corrected a 

5 while ago. So from that standpoint, it does 

6 kind of --

7 MR. SHARFI: Mark, can I add that 

8 this isn't a coworker analysis, which there we 

9 would have a 50th and 95th. This is a fuel 

10 data analysis in which they tacked on the 

11 distribution to the field data, which is a 

12 little bit different than a coworker where you 

13 use a 50th versus 95th percentile. 

14 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Is 

15 that Scott Siebert on the phone? 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: That was Marty 

17 Sharfi. 

18 MR. SHARFI: Add that the 

19 operational period is now covered by an SEC, 

20 which was after the fact.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yes.

22 DR. ULSH: I think the SEC at 
45

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 Simonds, though, was based on thorium 

2 exposure, not on external, right? 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

4 But still this person would probably be 

5 covered right by that.

6 DR. ULSH: Well, I understand. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: The question is 

8 are people with non-covered cancers --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

10 right. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but people with 

12 non-SEC cancers are getting appropriately, a 

13 partial dose reconstruction. That's the 

14 question. The question remains that we just 

15 need to, I think we're not going to solve it 

16 here because I don't think we know here, 

17 sitting here how we would normally do things. 

18 We probably have other precedents. And it's 

19 not necessarily, and it's not a coworker 

20 precedent, the way Mutty said. It's a Site 

21 Profile, and so there's precedents out there 

22 and we just need to take a look at those 
46

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 probably with guys on our side, Dave Allen.

2 DR. MAURO: When it comes to AWEs, 

3 we're always dealing with what I call the 

4 generic -- for all intents and purposes;

5 they're all coworker models in a way. Whether 

6 you're using data or you're using your 

7 understanding of process knowledge, you're 

8 basically constructing, you know, one-size9 fits-all or maybe a little binning. So the 

10 way I see it is that really doesn't change the 

11 concept, do you go with a claimant-neutral or 

12 do you go with a claimant-favorable approach. 

13 And it seems to me here this was a claimant14 neutral strategy, how to use the data, and 

15 it's that simple. 

16 DR. ULSH: But if this is an 

17 underestimating dose reconstruction or, sorry, 

18 an overestimating dose reconstruction, which I 

19 think it is, because it's not common, 

20 claimant-neutral is perfectly fine. We can 

21 use a mixture of claimant-neutral and 

22 overestimating assumptions, we just can't mix 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 over and under because then you don't know 

2 where you are.

3 DR. MAURO: Wait, wait. So you 

4 have got a guy that you want to do an 

5 overestimate and he still comes in under, 

6 that's fine. But you didn't do an 

7 overestimate; you used the claimant-neutral 

8 one. 

9 DR. ULSH: If we overestimated his 

10 internal and his x-ray dose, and when it comes 

11 to external we use a claimant-neutral 

12 assumption, that's not a problem. John, we're 

13 not required to overestimate every single 

14 parameter of the DR.

15 DR. MAURO: If you're doing an 

16 overestimate -- wait, wait, wait. You've got 

17 a guy and you know he's not going to be 

18 compensated, so you give him the overestimate 

19 and say, listen, he was hit by three or four 

20 different pathways and you hit with everything 

21 you've got on all those pathways, but you 

22 didn't hit with everything you've got on this 
48

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 pathway. Now, I agree with you. If you did, 

2 it wouldn't turn this fellow, but I don't 

3 think that's in keeping with the philosophy. 

4 DR. ULSH: Well, you've hit on the 

5 question. I mean, for this particular DR, 

6 it's probably not going to make a difference. 

7 We can agree on that. But it gets to the 

8 philosophical question, and that is when we're 

9 doing, for example, an overestimating DR, is 

10 it appropriate to use claimant-neutral 

11 procedures in some parts of it and in other 

12 parts using an overestimating assumption, 

13 like, for instance, the internal and the 

14 medical. I say it is. We don't have to 

15 overestimate every single parameter.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't know 

17 how you would be able to come to a 

18 determination that, using an overestimating 

19 approach, the Probability of Causation was X 

20 unless you systematically used an 

21 overestimating approach. I mean, how do you 

22 have an intuition about what the gamma dose 
49

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 effect is going to be on the risk estimate for 

2 a given outcome under a given latency pattern 

3 and agent exposure function and saying that 

4 you think that, you know --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Neutral was 

6 okay, yes.

7 DR. ULSH: Because as long as we 

8 are not underestimating it, at worst, it's 

9 accurate. That's claimant-neutral. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But here, this 

11 is, I mean, we actually don't know the truth 

12 at all, right? I mean --

13 DR. ULSH: Well, no. We have a 

14 study here that shows the distribution of 

15 external doses.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: In a work 

17 area, but we haven't placed the worker into 

18 that field with any -- this is why we have 

19 this decision about the uncertainty around the 

20 external dose for that person and whether we 

21 want to err on the side of giving them the 

22 geometric mean or giving them some other part 
50

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 of the tail of this log normal distribution. 

2 We don't actually know what this person's 

3 experience was. We just have field 

4 measurements. So you can't say it's claimant5 neutral. It's highly uncertain. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: But we have field 

7 measurements at the high, the anticipated high 

8 exposure area. If you have five pathways and 

9 you are overestimating four of those pathways 

10 --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One person at a 

13 time for our court reporter, please. I know 

14 they're having these side conversations. 

15 Guys, let Wanda talk. Sorry, Wanda. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: If you assume that 

17 you have five pathways and you have 

18 overestimated four of those pathways and are 

19 neutral on the fifth, then you still have, 

20 clearly, a claimant-favorable approach. The 

21 stack-up of uncertainties when all of them are 

22 positive puts you in tenuous area with respect 
51

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 to arguing that you are accurate. That just 

2 simply doesn't mesh up. If you have, if the -

3 -

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess my 

5 position, I totally disagree with that 

6 argument. I mean, the only reason to expedite 

7 an evaluation by using the overestimating 

8 approach instead of making your best estimate 

9 is to do it in some sort of systematic way and 

10 not an ad hoc fashion to say I think one 

11 pathway is relatively inconsequential. I 

12 mean, this would be, this is a procedure of 

13 convenience to expedite the processing. In 

14 that case, I would think, as John said, you 

15 would throw everything at it. You would 

16 overestimate those pathways, make an 

17 evaluation of Probability of Causation, and 

18 then you can step back and it may be that you 

19 have to do a more detailed one. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because the 

21 idea is if you throw everything at it and it 

22 comes in over 50 percent then you might have 
52

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 to sharpen your pencil, as Jim Neton always 

2 says, and do a best estimate. So, yes, it 

3 doesn't seem logical to me to --

4 MR. FARVER: You can overestimate 

5 the entire internal and then do best estimate 

6 on the external. That's okay because you're 

7 doing your best estimate. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what 

9 Brant is saying kind of.

10 MR. FARVER: Well, I think the 

11 determinant of this being claimant-neutral is 

12 being synonymous with best estimate, and I 

13 don't think that's the case. 

14 MS. BEHLING: Mark? 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

17 Behling. The other thing that we should also 

18 keep in mind in this particular case is that 

19 this individual is a furnace operator, and so 

20 I think that plays an important role in 

21 assuming a 50th percentile or a 95th. It has 

22 to do with the fact that he is a furnace 
53

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 operator. CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

2 And that's the nature of the response. I 

3 think that brought out the badge data that 

4 pointed that it was near the geometric mean, I 

5 guess, or the below the --

6 DR. ULSH: Well, it at least 

7 wasn't in the --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the one 

9 measurement. Right.

10 DR. MAURO: I think this is 

11 important because I think we've come to a 

12 place where the longest time was our opinion 

13 that you had to hit them with everything. And 

14 I do not recall any procedure where when 

15 you're doing a bounding estimate for, you 

16 know, a maximizing approach for the purpose of 

17 denial you could let one off the hook. Now, 

18 the other way you could go, if you were doing 

19 a minimizing approach and you just did one 

20 case and you did a minimum and it came over, 

21 you're done. But I think that not in this 

22 case. I think the flip doesn't work. 
54

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 DR. ULSH: Well, I don't want to 

2 short-circuit anything. If you guys want to 

3 continue to discuss this, we can do that. It 

4 does seem to me that we're not going to come 

5 to agreement on this. We've put a position on 

6 the table, SC&A has stated their objections, 

7 and I think we hear and understand what they 

8 are. So the next step would probably be for 

9 us to come up with an additional response in 

10 light of, I mean, the alternative --

11 MEMBER MUNN: You're right. 

12 You're right. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

14 fine. I guess the one thing I would ask is in 

15 your response include the overall policy 

16 response, that is it NIOSH's position that in

17 the overestimating approach you don't have to 

18 overestimate all pathways? Because I think 

19 I've been like John. For 11 years here, I've 

20 been assuming that was the case. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

22 for two little pieces of clarification in 
55

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 helping me understand the problem? One is 

2 there is this description, which is the first 

3 time I've heard of this, of 20 dosimeters 

4 hanging in a room in a facility. The readings 

5 on those yielded kind of a log normal 

6 distribution of doses or dose rates. When you 

7 would, when you're getting the, let's say the 

8 mean or the 95th percentile of these 

9 distributions, are you fitting a log normal 

10 curve to that and then deriving that from 

11 that, for example; or is the 95th percentile 

12 the 19th out of the 20 readings? Is it an 

13 empirical value, or is it derived from a 

14 fitted curve? Because there would be two ways 

15 of saying what the 95th percentile is.

16 DR. ULSH: Right. It's not a non17 parametric. I think it's derived from a log 

18 normal fit. Am I correct, Scott and Mutty? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. 

20 DR. MAURO: Along those lines, 

21 another important issue. On many occasions we 

22 have engaged this very question when you have 
56

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 data, and very often we find that the tails 

2 don't always match the 95th very nicely. In 

3 fact, sometimes we see it going off. For some 

4 unusual reason, the high-end guys get more 

5 than you would expect if you fit. So one of 

6 our positions is when you see not the best fit 

7 in your distribution, you go with the rank 

8 order approach. We've taken that position in 

9 the past, and we feel as if it's more 

10 claimant-favorable, but I don't think we've 

11 ever come to resolution on, you know, that 

12 protocol. When do you use the best fit and 

13 are there times when you'd really be better 

14 off going with rank order? We've had that 

15 discussion on other occasions.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And is the 

17 empirical data set simply 20 measurements, or 

18 were there repeated measurements at these 20 

19 locations? 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We better look 

21 at that report. They reference the report, 

22 too, so we can get -- good question, but yes, 
57

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 yes.

2 DR. ULSH: It's presented in our 

3 response as 20 different locations, but that 

4 doesn't give you necessarily the number of 

5 measurements. I don't know off the top of my 

6 head. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, thanks. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mutty, do you 

9 have that? Or we can pull the report, I 

10 suppose.

11 MR. SHARFI: Yes, I don't know 

12 that off the top of my head.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

14 we'll leave it at that for now. NIOSH has the 

15 action again on this one. And to look back at 

16 the procedures we're doing, overestimating 

17 cases versus the Site Profile use for this 

18 case, does that capture it kind of? 

19 DR. ULSH: I think so, yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Alright. 

21 Moving forward. The first couple always take 

22 us the longest. 125.9 is the next one I have.
58

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 MR. KATZ: What page is it on? 

2 The page number is at the bottom. Is there an 

3 easier way to --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm scanning up 

5 to it. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: I'm just pulling up 

7 what he sent. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I just 

9 added in our response, to the page numbers, 

10 but anyway --

11 DR. ULSH: Are you talking about a 

12 page number in the matrix? 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The next one 

15 with yellow on it. Twenty four I have.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: It's 24 of 111 on 

17 mine. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's 24 on 

19 mine. 

20 MR. KATZ: See, these are all 

21 different. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: So this is still 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 125.9, right? 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is 

3 NIOSH did not properly address radiological 

4 incidents and potential missing bioassay data 

5 is the original finding on this. I'm not sure 

6 what site this is. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Hanford. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hanford. Okay, 

9 thank you. 

10 DR. ULSH: Well, we sent out a 

11 response, but it's not --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Not 

13 matrix form.

14 DR. ULSH: -- because it's kind of 

15 extensive.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 DR. ULSH: Mark, would you just 

18 like Scott or Mutty maybe to --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Summarize it, 

20 yes. You don't have to read the whole thing 

21 necessarily.

22 DR. ULSH: Alright. Scott, do you 
60

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 want to take a crack? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I'll be happy to do 

3 that. Basically, what happened was when we 

4 did the claim and SC&A did the review, they 

5 found some incidents that were reported in the 

6 DOE file that did not have follow-up bioassay 

7 reported by Hanford to us in their response. 

8 However, the incident files indicated that 

9 bioassay was required at the follow-up. 

10 The question was: Were we actually 

11 getting all the data from Hanford that we 

12 should be and were there actually bioassay 

13 results for these incidents that we hadn't yet 

14 received? The answer is no. We requested 

15 additional information from Hanford yet again 

16 specifically discussing with them these 

17 incidents, giving them the dates and actually

18 the pages in the DOE response with those 

19 incident files. They went back to all their 

20 records, and they came back with a little 

21 extra data, but what it turned out to be were 

22 results for plutonium samples prior to and 
61

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 around that time, but it was nothing that we 

2 didn't already have in the file. We already 

3 had those samples in the file. We didn't have 

4 results in REX because they usually did not 

5 put negative sample results in REX at that 

6 time. 

7 So we made the assumption that 

8 there's no result there that is below 

9 detection, and when we got this additional 

10 information that is exactly what we saw for 

11 those plutonium samples. The results were 

12 below detection. So the bottom line is we 

13 didn't have additional information. So, 

14 basically, the main question was: Were we 

15 missing data? And the answer is no. 

16 Now, to be thorough, what we did 

17 is we looked at, our basis initially was the 

18 fact that the bioassay that we already had in 

19 hand was acceptable for limitation of the 

20 incident. And what I went through the rest of 

21 this response for plutonium, uranium, and 

22 fission products is using the actual data that 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we already have on hand, assuming intakes 

2 occurred during those incidents and comparing 

3 them to what was assigned within the actual 

4 assessment that we did, doing a comparison and 

5 seeing if any of the potential doses from the 

6 incident could exceed what we already 

7 assigned. And in all the cases, what we 

8 assigned exceeded anything that would be 

9 incident-specific. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Done deal.

11 MR. SIEBERT: There are a lot more 

12 words in the response to cover that.

13 MR. FARVER: So in our finding we 

14 identified incidents that said bioassays were 

15 requested on it looks like at least four 

16 different occasions, and you're saying that, 

17 no, there were no bioassay results for those 

18 incidents. Or are you saying the bioassay 

19 results were zero? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: No, I'm saying that 

21 there were follow-up bioassays in the first 

22 incident, which we do have on hand and we 
63

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 always did. For the second two incidents, 

2 which were in May and July of '57, we did not 

3 find any additional bioassay that was follow4 up of it. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And your next 

6 samples are a couple of years later, right? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. The next 

8 samples are in like '59, and chest counts in 

9 '74.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

11 MR. SIEBERT: And those next 

12 samples that we actually do have, those are 

13 what they used to limit the intake based on 

14 the actual incident date and compare that to 

15 what we already assigned. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: So the bottom line 

17 here is you covered it? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. If you 

19 look at the actual incident data and go to 

20 later bioassay, it gives a smaller dose than 

21 anything we assigned. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.
64

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 MR. FARVER: So I guess what we 

2 learned from this is just because it says in 

3 the record that bioassay was requested, maybe 

4 it wasn't or we can't get the results? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: I can't say if it 

6 was actually requested or not for back in `57. 

7 All I can say is we've asked Hanford to go 

8 through all their records, and they gave us 

9 all the bioassay records that exist for this 

10 individual.

11 MR. FARVER: I mean, what prompted 

12 this is we're reviewing the DOE records and we 

13 see an incident form and it says bioassay 

14 requested, and then we try to compare that 

15 with the bioassay data we have and the dates 

16 don't coincide. So that's kind of what 

17 prompted this.

18 MR. FARVER: Which is a valid 

19 question, yes. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, 

21 another one is that, I don't know, when I was 

22 thinking back to this, I thought that there 
65

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 were like 114 confirmed internal depositions 

2 in the entire Hanford bioassay program, which 

3 seemed to be exceptionally small. And it 

4 raised a question. I mean, at least going 

5 back, this goes back through the epidemiologic 

6 cohort studies when we have tried to use the 

7 computerized records of the bioassay program 

8 and when Ethel Gilbert tried to use them. 

9 There were a very, very small number of 

10 workers who had a confirmed deposition and you 

11 set that against other facilities doing 

12 similar work, it looks very, very small, which 

13 raises the question, are those computerized 

14 records of the bioassay program complete? 

15 It's always one question I've had. I don't 

16 know where to go with this, except it's an 

17 interesting observation for a single worker 

18 you're encountering multiple situations where 

19 you thought there would be bioassay 

20 information and it's not there.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Well, one thing I 

22 will point out that they did go back to the 
66

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 paper records in this specific case and there 

2 was no additional information outside what was 

3 already in record from a bioassay point of 

4 view. So it wasn't just the computerized 

5 records. Everything in the computerized 

6 records matches up with this person's hard 

7 copy. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's useful. 

9

10 MR. FARVER: I guess we'll close 

11 out because they really can't do anymore. I 

12 mean, they did go back and look. This is the 

13 data that was available. It just appears to 

14 be incomplete. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the bottom 

16 line I think they're presenting is that the 

17 bioassay they did use is still bounding of 

18 these reported incidents. 

19 DR. MAURO: The '61 data covers 

20 it. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

22 right. And you're in agreement with that, I 
67

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 think, right? So I don't think there's 

2 anything else we can do with this one. I 

3 think it's closed, right, that SC&A agrees 

4 with NIOSH? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Do we want to 

6 discuss it a little bit more? Because it took 

7 me a lot of time to do all that work. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: I know, I know. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Let's 

10 open it up for discussion again. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: While we're 

12 sitting here quietly, I have a question for 

13 you. The later bioassay data are derived from 

14 in vivo counting; is that right? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: We had both in vitro 

16 and in vivo.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I've wondered 

18 if the limited detection on the in vivo 

19 counting is so high for some types of intakes 

20 that that was, you know, that's also kind of 

21 maybe a constraint on why there are fewer 

22 internal depositions there than places that 
68

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 made less use of in vivo counting. Does that

2 make sense to you? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: I can't specifically 

4 speak to Hanford and how they ran their 

5 program and everything, I can just tell you 

6 what we have.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I'm not 

8 speaking about the program. I'm just 

9 wondering about in vivo counting in general.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Your statement 

11 makes sense that in vivo counting, 

12 particularly for plutonium, has a quite high 

13 detection limit compared to regulatory 

14 intakes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the in vivo 

16 counts for americium, which is what we're 

17 actually looking at, are relatively low.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, that's true.

19 MR. SIEBERT: And it's a very good 

20 limitation for insoluble forms of plutonium 

21 mixtures. 

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. So 
69

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 you're looking for the trace of americium 

2 within the plutonium intake, right? So it 

3 would have to be --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It actually, it 

5 grows in as the plutonium grows. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: It's the americium 

7 that's originally in the mixture and any that 

8 decays in from the Pu-241, as well. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

10 we're ready to move on to the next one, which 

11 is the last one I believe on this 7th set. 

12 Number 135.1. I'm not sure of the page 

13 number, Ted. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: I got 45, 46.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On mine, it's 

16 on page 64. Sixty-five. I'm sorry.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the finding 

18 number?

19 DR. ULSH: 135.1.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, Brant, if 

21 you want to introduce it, I guess, and --

22 DR. ULSH: Well, this is going to 
70

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 be similar to the last one in that our 

2 response is somewhat lengthy. So I think, 

3 Scott or Mutty, do you want to summarize it? 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let's see. 

5 Basically, for 135.1, there was back and forth 

6 as to whether the appropriate number of zeros 

7 were used, this is a Y-12 case, whether the 

8 appropriate number of zeros were assumed for 

9 missed dose calculation of external. 

10 Originally, we agreed quite a while ago that 

11 the original version did undercount the number 

12 of zeros, and the claim has actually been 

13 reworked under a PER and/or a couple of PERs, 

14 and that's been rectified as well. The 

15 additional question that came out of that 

16 actually was SC&A was questioning how we could 

17 tell the difference since there were no 

18 monitoring results whether they were to be 

19 counted as zeros or if the individual was 

20 unmonitored and should have been dealt with 

21 using missed dose instead of assuming zeros 

22 across the time frame where we have no 
71

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 results. 

2 As I said, we re-worked the case 

3 and we used the number of zeros that were 

4 suggested. The question on actual monitoring 

5 comes down to, this is the bold section that's 

6 about halfway, a third of the way through the 

7 response, it was as a result of the 

8 criticality in '58. The program was 

9 instituted in '61 to monitor all Y-12 workers 

10 individually. So we make the assumption from 

11 their records that if an individual does not 

12 have monitoring results they were not 

13 recording zeros, they were just leaving 

14 blanks, we make the assumption that the 

15 individual was monitored during that time 

16 frame; however, a zero non-detect for the 

17 badge is what the record is actually 

18 reflecting and that's how we calculated the 

19 assessment that's been updated. As I said, 

20 the first revision of this, all those zeros 

21 accurately. And then the rest of the response 

22 is just giving more information about the 
72

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 rework that reflected it and the fact that it 

2 still was a non-compensable claim once the 

3 zeros were adequately counted. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then 

5 there's the response about treatment exposure, 

6 as well, right? Is that the --

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's the next 

8 response, 135.4.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

10 Alright. We'll hold off on that one.

11 DR. MAURO: So you're saying the 

12 weight of evidence is, given the 

13 circumstances, it's likely this person was 

14 badged? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

16 DR. MAURO: And he came back below 

17 the limits of detection, as opposed to 

18 unbadged, given the criticality? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

20 MR. FARVER: And that's from the 

21 Y-12 TBD?

22 MR. SIEBERT: The external TBD, 
73

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 correct. 

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. Which is? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Page ten of the TBD, 

4 if you want to look --

5 MR. FARVER: It probably has been 

6 revised since 2003? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, numerous times.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. Just looking 

9 at the reference that was used for that dose 

10 reconstruction. It was 2003, Rev 0.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: So additional 

13 information has been added since that time. 

14 Okay. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you're in 

16 agreement? 

17 MR. FARVER: Yes, if that 

18 information just wasn't available back when we 

19 did our audit of it. That's part of what 

20 comes out of this, we make modifications to 

21 the document.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And 
74

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 that closes that item out then. And then the 

2 next part of that, 135.4.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. And as you 

4 said, Mark, this actually has to do with 

5 tritium and tritium potential. The individual 

6 stated in their claimant interview that 

7 tritium was processed at Y-12 during time 

8 frame, and SC&A was questioning whether 

9 tritium exposure should be considered. 

10 Obviously, we did not. The Y-12 he is talking 

11 about, the fact that there was a 

12 radioanalytical analysis method available at 

13 Y-12 during that time, there was very minimal 

14 tritium work being done during that time 

15 frame, as well, as far as I'm aware. And the 

16 TBD does specifically say that people who were 

17 potentially exposed submitted three urine 

18 samples per month, and this individual had no 

19 urine samples whatsoever. Once again, tritium 

20 sampling being relatively straightforward and 

21 relatively inexpensive, individuals who were 

22 being monitored, who needed to be monitored,
75

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 would be monitored. So we did not assign 

2 tritium. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And any 

4 information on work area? I mean, given the 

5 time and the job he had, the work area he was 

6 in, no indication based on that that he should 

7 have been assigned tritium? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: He was a machinist 

9 and inspector, so, as far as I'm concerned, as 

10 far as I can tell from what I reviewed, I 

11 didn't necessarily see a reason why we would 

12 assume that he would be in areas where tritium 

13 was being worked with. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Except for the 

15 fact that he said he was, right? I mean, it 

16 does speak to the question of how do we value 

17 these CATI interviews. That's a pretty 

18 specific comment, you know?

19 MR. SIEBERT: He's also saying 

20 that tritium was present or processed at Y-12.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It doesn't say 

22 he was -- yes.
76

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 MR. SIEBERT: It doesn't 

2 necessarily say he was being exposed to it, so 

3 it's semantics. And I think the weight of the 

4 stuff that we're seeing, he doesn't have 

5 sampling and does not seem to indicate that he 

6 would be a tritium worker, so --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any follow-up 

8 with the individual? Probably not, I'm 

9 guessing.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Not that I'm aware 

11 of.

12 MR. FARVER: And, once again, what 

13 triggered it to us was he mentioned it in the 

14 CATI report, and there was only just a couple 

15 of words about tritium in the Y-12 TBD, almost 

16 nothing. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And inspections 

18 does sort of, it could possibly indicate that 

19 he was in an area where, you know, but you 

20 said machinist and inspector or something?

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that was the 

22 job title. 
77

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 MR. FARVER: And really what our 

2 findings said was that they did not consider 

3 it, which could be as simple as saying 

4 something in their report as, you know, we 

5 understand that he mentioned it in the CATI 

6 report but we have no indication that there 

7 was tritium exposure. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree that 

9 the report could probably reflect the fact 

10 that he said tritium and we did not say that 

11 we specifically addressed that issue. I would 

12 agree with that.

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, it mentions 

14 machinist and inspector. You know, there are 

15 situations where the machinists will make a 

16 part maybe outside of the tritium area, but 

17 it's to be installed in the tritium area for a 

18 tritium process and then he goes in there to 

19 inspect it to see if it's working properly. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree. But 

21 once again, generally, it comes down to the 

22 fact that tritium sampling was inexpensive and 
78

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 easy to do, so people who needed to be sampled 

2 generally were. Can I say that in all cases? 

3 It's hard for me to say that, obviously.

4 MR. FARVER: Well, are there 

5 tritium results for Y-12? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: There are tritium 

7 results for Y-12, just not for this 

8 individual. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. The other 

10 thing, I have not seen any tritium results for 

11 Y-12, so I was not aware that they did tritium 

12 sampling. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So there is no 

14 protocol for assigning any kind of coworker 

15 tritium at Y-12? It's only if you have 

16 evidence for the individual, right? That it 

17 would be assigned? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's 

19 correct.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And I 

21 guess that would be one question. I don't 

22 know if this was a -- oh, this was a lower 
79

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 level, right? I mean, the PoC was like 22 

2 percent, I think if I recall, the adjusted 

3 PoC.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the new PoC is 

5 around 22. 

6 MR. FARVER: And does the new TBD 

7 talk about when the tritium sampling was done, 

8 like typically it will say the years it was 

9 done, from such and such to such and such? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: That I can't speak 

11 to.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. I haven't 

13 reviewed the recent Y-12 TBD.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Right. But I can 

15 tell you there is an effort to revise the Site 

16 Profile right now. I don't know if that's 

17 being considered, but you can obviously 

18 mention it to the TBD office. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Is 

20 there a criteria to be able to be on the 

21 tritium sampling program, or were they just 

22 people that they felt were most highly 
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

1 exposed? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I can't speak to 

3 that. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: See, because as 

5 an inspector, you'll go into a lot of places 

6 continuously and they may not figure that 

7 you're there. We've seen this at Pinellas, 

8 we've seen this everywhere that these people 

9 were receivers and inspectors and they were in 

10 there numerous, quite a bit. That's kind of 

11 why I have a hard time with this one. 

12 MEMBER GIBSON: Because you might 

13 sign in on a general RWP instead of a job14 specific, so you may not be required to 

15 complete the sample. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. 

17 MS. BEHLING: Mark, this is Kathy 

18 Behling. I believe that in our initial 

19 finding we also quoted a statement out of the 

20 TBD that was available at the time that says 

21 the internal dosimetry program has included 

22 limited monitoring for cesium, technetium, 
81

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 thorium, plutonium, and tritium. So that was 

2 part of our initial finding. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And what's the, 

4 explain the relevance on that, Kathy. 

5 MS. BEHLING: Initially --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Limited, 

7 meaning it may not cover everyone that was --

8 MS. BEHLING: No, just indicating 

9 that Y-12 had limited monitoring for tritium.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

11 Yes, yes.

12 MS. BEHLING: That's not what I 

13 heard earlier on.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I think probably 

16 it would be limited compared to uranium. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

18 right. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Some tritium 

20 sampling was done, yes. 

21 DR. ULSH: I guess it comes down 

22 to, it's a quote that is given in the response 
82

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 here from the TBD that says as of 1957 

2 personnel engaged in processing materials with 

3 a potential for tritium contamination 

4 submitted three urine samples per month. It 

5 comes down to do you believe that? I mean, if 

6 you do, then the fact that this guy doesn't 

7 have tritium urinalysis indicates that he was 

8 not exposed. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: As of what year 

10 did it say? 

11 DR. ULSH: 1957. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We kind of have to 

13 know the basis for the statement.

14 MR. SIEBERT: And I seem to recall 

15 that this claimant was at Y-12 like from '76 

16 on through like 2002. 

17 MR. FARVER: Well, as I'm looking 

18 through the updated Y-12 TBD, there's a lot 

19 more information in there about tritium than 

20 just the one statement that we quoted in our 

21 findings. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it has been 
83

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 updated with regard to that? 

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. And it talks 

3 about the liquid scintillation and then other 

4 methods. It does explain a whole lot more. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

6 think we can close it out. I mean, I think 

7 the original nature or a big part of the 

8 original finding was just what we said, that 

9 it was mentioned in the CATI and not mentioned 

10 in the DR report. I think that stands, and 

11 NIOSH agrees it should have been at least 

12 explained why it wasn't --

13 MR. FARVER: Well, then the 

14 documentation didn't really mention that there 

15 was tritium sampling done on any regularity. 

16 So it was just kind of interesting all the way 

17 around. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Let me 

19 just update the matrix, and then we'll move 

20 on. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: And, Mark, when you 

22 say update the matrix, does that mean closing 
84

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 it? 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it will 

3 close it. But I'm just updating the -- yes. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I'm 

5 just making sure.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

9 that's the last one on the 7th set, right? So 

10 maybe this is a good chance for like a ten11 minute comfort break, and then we'll come back 

12 and start on the 8th set, if that's okay with 

13 everyone. Everybody on the phone, like ten 

14 minutes, and then we'll start up again, 

15 alright? Thank you. 

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

17 matter went off the record at 10:28 a.m. and 

18 resumed at 10:43 a.m.)

19 MR. KATZ: We're going back 

20 online, and I just have a request. Scott and 

21 Mutty, you both sound similar on the phone, so 

22 if you would just be sure to identify yourself 
85

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 when you speak that would be helpful. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: You got it. This is 

3 Scott. 

4 MR. KATZ: I knew that, but thank 

5 you. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good, good. 

7 Okay. I think Ted pointed out that on the 7th 

8 set, 137.6 and 137.8 were still highlighted, 

9 but they are closed, so I've removed that. 

10 I've updated the matrix for the 7th set, and I 

11 will email it out right after this meeting, 

12 actually, so I get it out of my hands. 

13 DR. ULSH: What was that? 137.6? 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 137.8. 

15 They're both closed, just the highlighting was 

16 left on. Okay. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: If you're going to 

18 be emailing, may I make a suggestion that 

19 perhaps it would be helpful, I'm sure it would 

20 be helpful for David, if we had your current 

21 updated copies of all of the current existing 

22 matrices. If they were all sent out at the 
86

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 same time to us then perhaps we could 

2 establish a file of nothing but matrices and 

3 we'd know we'd all be on the same page.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. You mean 

5 all the ones we're working on? 

6 MEMBER MUNN: All the ones we're 

7 working, yes. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. And 

9 I think I did that the last time. I sent out 

10 the 7th, 8th, and 9th. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you did. Yes, 

12 you did.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll do that 

14 again.

15 MEMBER MUNN: That would be nice.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

17 Okay. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Get us all updated 

19 at the same time. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So let's 

21 move on to the 8th set matrix. And, Brant, 

22 you'll have to tell me if you sent responses 
87

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 for this. I believe you did but --

2 DR. ULSH: Lots of them. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

4 DR. ULSH: About nine files, I 

5 think. And these were sent on Friday. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Does 

7 everyone have those files except for me? I 

8 think I just didn't download them, so I'll get

9 them off the email right now. This was sent 

10 Friday. Is that the only -- let's see. 

11 DR. ULSH: And they're also 

12 available, well, for us it's --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So 

14 they're all sprinkled throughout your email 

15 here. Okay, right. Alright. Well, maybe I 

16 can just turn it over to you, starting with 

17 the first one. Is it 162.1? Is that the --

18 DR. ULSH: I think it might be 

19 150.1, going in numerical order.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, you can go 

21 all the way back to 149.2 is in the matrix 

22 that you sent. 
88

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 DR. ULSH: This is going to take 

2 some jumping around. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We might 

4 have to jump around a little. That's fine. 

5 Alright. And what about --

6 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry. That was 

7 Scott. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That 149.1, 

9 just to go through the matrix sequentially 

10 here, 149.1 was not updated yet? On my 

11 matrix, it says NIOSH to review SC&A's 

12 analysis. 

13 DR. ULSH: I think you're correct, 

14 Mark. We did not finish that one yet. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So then 

16 on to 149.2. 

17 DR. ULSH: So the summary of the 

18 finding is that the use of the default values 

19 in the Site Profile likely resulted in 

20 substantial overestimates of the dose to this 

21 worker, and the NIOSH action item was to 

22 follow-up to determine whether something other 
89

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 than the 95 should have been assigned. We 

2 provided a response here in the matrix, NIOSH 

3 agrees that the TBD could be revised at a 

4 tiered coworker model rather than the one5 size-fits-all model. For this particular 

6 case, the DR correctly followed the guidance 

7 in the TBD. However, if a 50th percentile 

8 option was in the TBD then it would have been 

9 more appropriate since the worker's job 

10 category falls into the lower potential 

11 exposure category. The internal intakes are 

12 based on limited air sample data and, in cases 

13 like this, we commonly use the flat 95th 

14 percentile in order to limit variability due 

15 to limited data. So we agree with the 

16 argument that SC&A makes, but we can also see 

17 why we did it the way that we did it based on 

18 the way the TBD reads. 

19 DR. MAURO: And you can see the 

20 interesting dilemma we have. The previous 

21 one, the Simonds Saw one with the geometric 

22 mean, and at that time that's what you did. 
90

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 This one, which is Bridgeport Brass, I 

2 believe, with the 95th percent, and it turns 

3 out, interestingly, just the opposite of the 

4 last one, I wouldn't have used the 95th 

5 percent on this one because it was a nurse and 

6 didn't work in the production area. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Likely 

8 less exposure. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. So there is a 

10 parity issue here. And over time, it's not 

11 surprising these things happen. This was 

12 relatively recent compared to Simonds Saw. So 

13 we do have this what do we do about, you know, 

14 leveling the playing field is what we're doing 

15 right now, you know. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is 

17 also an overestimating case, I assume, or is 

18 that right? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think if 

20 we write a Site Profile and say give everybody 

21 the 95th percentile, we would not consider it 

22 overestimating, which is --
91

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Might be the 

2 approach.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the technique 

4 that we not consider it overestimating. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I would just offer 

7 that, in the case of a nurse, it's probably 

8 relatively straightforward that you could make 

9 a judgment about the extent. You know, nurses 

10 quite frequently are in work areas, spending 

11 time in work areas for whatever reason, but 

12 it's not a majority of their time. But the 

13 problem with having a tiered approach and a 

14 dichotomy is that you have to trust the 

15 quality of the work category job used, which 

16 may not be that good and you may just get the 

17 last job the person had, which rather than the 

18 jobs that they had throughout their career. 

19 So, personally, I'm not a real big fan of 

20 saying we can sort people into the ones that 

21 were really, you know, in an AWE that operated 

22 50 years ago, we can sort people that well. 
92

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 DR. MAURO: I think the philosophy 

2 you embraced in TBD-6000 where you have lots 

3 of granularity, you have years in all 

4 categories, and you say, listen, based on, I 

5 think it was the Harrison-Kingsley data we 

6 were able to bin things. But then at the very 

7 end, you say, listen, we don't know or there's 

8 some ambiguity, you go with the worst guy. I 

9 mean, I think that's the right philosophy. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So according to 

11 the TBD, in this case you should have assigned 

12 the 95th, right? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what it 

14 says.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And you did, so 

16 you stuck with the TBD. Right. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: I think one of the 

18 major reasons -- this is Scott. One of the 

19 major reasons this was a question is this was 

20 compensable at 52 percent. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that does 

22 change the playing field. 
93

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 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think the 

2 question really is, the Simonds Saw and Steel

3 question is how much do you really want to 

4 argue about using the full distribution, which 

5 really ends up using median, compared to using 

6 the 95th percentile routinely? Under what 

7 circumstances and how much do you have to 

8 know? Now, sitting here today, I'm not smart 

9 enough to tell you, you know, what we would 

10 use to differentiate, even today if we would 

11 even make that differentiation. So that's 

12 something that we have to deal with, the fact 

13 that that's already on the plate from the 

14 Simonds Saw and Steel case. 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'd advocate 

16 not revisiting a kind of policy question about 

17 dose reconstruction after you know the 

18 Probability of Causation. I mean, to the 

19 extent possible, I would lean towards 

20 developing procedures that are independent of 

21 the compensation decisions for fairness to the 

22 claimants.
94

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 DR. MAURO: Especially to be 

2 compensated. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Regardless. I 

4 mean, in a sense, you would want a procedure 

5 that would appear fair and blinded to the kind 

6 of case status.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: It is best, you 

8 know, if you could do it with a reasonable 

9 amount of efficiency, it's best to do it with 

10 best estimate and not to do an overestimate in 

11 general because there's a lot of downside. 

12 The main downside is a person who dying of 

13 cancer comes back and we do a best estimate 

14 and the PoC goes down. I mean, it's just not, 

15 I mean there are situations where it saves a 

16 lot of effort. Now, you might argue that 

17 we're not so behind the eight ball on claims 

18 now or claims are less than a year old and 

19 they're getting down to be like nine months 

20 old. So we don't have these eight-year claims 

21 hanging out there anymore, so maybe there is 

22 an argument to be made that you don't really 
95

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 need that sort of efficiency, so it's sort of 

2 a philosophical thing, I guess, for us to 

3 deal with a contractor amount first.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where do we 

5 take this one, John or Doug? 

6 MR. FARVER: Oh, back on that 

7 first one? 

8 DR. ULSH: 149.2

9 DR. MAURO: Can I -- I mean, to 

10 me, a process was put in place that was, 

11 protocol was followed, so no quality issue 

12 here. The protocol resulted in compensation 

13 of a person that, on closer inspection, if we 

14 were to revisit it today, would you have been 

15 this person as a nurse at the 95th percentile 

16 because you do have criteria now. In theory, 

17 one could argue that, you know, you could have 

18 put this person in the 50th percentile 

19 category, as opposed to 95th percentile. You 

20 know, our job is to raise these issues, but, 

21 in this case, you know, I don't think you do 

22 anything about it because, you know, the 
96

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 person was compensated. You're not going to 

2 redo the PoC. But whether or not you want to, 

3 you know, whether or not there's any issue 

4 that goes deeper than that, that is this 

5 philosophy, but I think the philosophy has 

6 been embraced in the TBD-6000. It's all 

7 there, so you've got it all. So what we have 

8 is everything is matured, years have passed 

9 and everything has matured, and it's getting 

10 pretty tight. And then we go back in history 

11 and we look at some cases with that vision 

12 and, in my mind, we don't do anything. What 

13 do you do here? You have to change the PoC.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, you might 

15 change the Site Profile, though --

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, the Site Profile, 

17 yes. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- 95th but to 

19 comply more with the 6000 approach. That's 

20 the question I'm asking you.

21 DR. MAURO: That's a good 

22 question. But now let's say there are a bunch 
97

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 of cases that were done at Bridgeport Brass 

2 that were done years ago under this procedure, 

3 are you going to deny people that were granted 

4 or --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, no, of 

6 course not. You're not going to reverse 

7 decisions.

8 DR. MAURO: Right. So I would say 

9 the only time you revisit Bridgeport Brass is 

10 if you need a PER where you used an approach 

11 that you need to increase people's doses. 

12 That's what we should have our eye on: are 

13 there any issues that we've raised here that 

14 we then would --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so not re16 evaluating cases necessarily but it would be 

17 modifying the Site Profile for future cases.

18 DR. MAURO: And then determine 

19 what could be affected --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, because 

21 right now is that still the practice. I 

22 imagine it's still the protocol, right? To 
98

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 assign a 95th for all? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It depends on 

3 whether there's been revision to the Site 

4 Profile. I don't know --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I don't 

6 know. I don't know. I mean, I think that 

7 would be the only action would be to revise if 

8 needed to be consistent with the 6000 

9 approach, at least that's what you're saying. 

10

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the note I 

12 took, whether you want to track it in here or 

13 not because we already have to do this under 

14 that Simonds Saw and Steel case, is to take a 

15 look at these old AWE Site Profiles that were 

16 developed before TBD-6000 and see if they 

17 faithfully carry forward, you know, the 

18 philosophy that we've evolved.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Consistent with 

20 --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: With TBD-6000 and, 

22 if not, we can make some revisions to the 
99

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 earlier Site Profiles from this point forward.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I can put NIOSH 

3 will compare the Site Profile with the TBD4 6000 approach and make revisions as necessary 

5 and no further action for this case. Yes, as 

6 necessary.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: The situations 

8 where TBD-6000 philosophy would cause us to 

9 actually raise the dose, then we would 

10 reconsider old cases. But if we were going to 

11 say, well, in this case, we wouldn't 

12 necessarily, we would have binned these 

13 people, that needs to be 6000, we won't have 

14 to go back to these cases. We're unpopular 

15 enough the way it is. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Does 

17 that mean this one will be closed and it will 

18 be carried forward on the Simonds Saw we 

19 already did earlier on since it seems to be 

20 the same action? 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Well, I 

22 put no further action on this case, so yes. 
100

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 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't know 

2 about the case. This issue. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Because we do have 

5 other issues on this case that I think are --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Yes, 

7 right. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: But 149.2 would be 

9 closed? 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, thank you. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You don't think 

14 so?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I do think so. 

16 Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. 

18 Moving on. Is it 149.3, the next one we have? 

19 MEMBER MUNN: The one that's 

20 highlighted. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

22 didn't know if Brant had anything on that one. 
101

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 DR. ULSH: No, I don't think I --

2 wait, wait. No. 

3 MR. FARVER: So which one did we 

4 close? Did we close 149.2? Not 149.1? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

7 DR. ULSH: Now, in the matrix that 

8 I sent out, Mark, the ones that we've made 

9 progress on are highlighted in light blue, and 

10 149.3 is not one that we --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I'm just 

12 --

13 DR. ULSH: I understand. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll walk 

15 through them. 

16 DR. ULSH: Yes, and it's going to 

17 be kind of tough because we have them kind of 

18 spread out.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

20 DR. ULSH: The next one I think 

21 that we have made progress on, and, Scott, 

22 jump in if I've missed one, 150.1, is that the 
102

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 next one? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree with 

3 that. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Mark, do you want 

5 to go through the rest of these 149s? 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

7 we need to. I mean, if there's still 

8 remaining actions --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, 149.5 is sort 

10 of the one we talked about. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't see any 

12 reason to revisit them unless you do, Stu. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, they look 

14 like they're all the same issue. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sort of fall 

16 into the same --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: One was 

18 transferred, and the others were the same, you 

19 know, should you use a tiered approach.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, right. 

21 Alright. 150.1. Go ahead, Brant.

22 DR. ULSH: The summary of the 
103

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 finding method for deriving internal doses is 

2 not claimant-favorable, and it looks to me 

3 that this is a Simonds issue. In November of 

4 2010, the resolution is listed as provide a 

5 response in light of the Simonds' evaluation 

6 report. We added an SEC for Simonds based on 

7 thorium exposures. So our response for this 

8 time around is, the TBD is currently being 

9 revised to incorporate the assessment 

10 documented in the SEC evaluation report. The 

11 revised methodology provides an intake 

12 estimate at the start of the residual period 

13 based on the average of general area air 

14 samples collected during the operational 

15 period. The resultant intake at the start of 

16 the residual period is 422 picocuries per day 

17 (as opposed to the value of 1.4 picocuries per 

18 day using the previous assessment). This 

19 intake has reduced the time in accordance with 

20 the methodology contained in OTIB-70. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We might 

22 be catching up because we're looking at these 
104

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 real time, right? 

2 MR. FARVER: I think we'll pass on 

3 this one.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you hear 

5 radio silence, that's why. We're all looking 

6 at these live. 

7 DR. MAURO: I have to admit I 

8 didn't go over all these Bridgeport Brass, the 

9 three special cases -- this is where we are, 

10 right? CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: I just didn't go 

12 through them in detail because I did these, 

13 but I don't remember them all. 

14 DR. ULSH: Maybe SC&A to consider 

15 NIOSH’s response, would that be the --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I guess 

17 that's where we have to go, yes. Alright. 

18 And then go ahead on the next one, Brant, 

19 while I catch up. 

20 DR. ULSH: Okay. I think the next 

21 one is 152.6. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. What 
105

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 was the resolution on that one? 

2 DR. ULSH: SC&A to consider 

3 NIOSH's response. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you. 

5 DR. ULSH: You're welcome. The 

6 next one we have progress on is 152.6. And 

7 finding was failure to account for internal 

8 doses from all fission products. Prior to 

9 this time, NIOSH will compare the model used 

10 and, in parentheses, that's the chooser 

11 approach, with the OTIB-54 approach. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry. 

13 This is 152.6? 

14 DR. ULSH: Yes. So we were to 

15 compare the chooser approach with the OTIB-54 

16 approach. Our latest response is that we did 

17 that comparison and it demonstrates that the 

18 chooser in the original assessment 

19 overestimated doses based on whole-body counts 

20 of cesium-137 and of 254. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. And 

22 this is one of the ones that has a bunch of 
106

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 supporting files.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which you'll 

3 probably need to look at. SC&A will have to.

4 DR. MAURO: But, conceptually, the 

5 argument is the actual way he did was more 

6 conservative than the OTIB-54 approach.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And these 

8 are all tied together. 152.6. There’s two

9 others that are further down the line, two 

10 more cases that we did all the work together 

11 for all three of the cases for the OTIB-54 

12 stuff, so we'll run across this again shortly. 

13

14 MR. FARVER: And, no, I have not 

15 had a chance to look at all the files. There 

16 are quite a few when you start uncompressing 

17 the file folders. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So it 

19 remains an SC&A action. We'll move it. 

20 Moving on.

21 DR. ULSH: Unless I am missing 

22 one, I think the next one -- Scott, is it 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 153.1? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

3 DR. ULSH: And we sent out these 

4 responses, a number of them together in one 

5 document. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is 150 --

7 DR. ULSH: 153.1. And other 

8 responses that are grouped in here together 

9 are 153.1, .2, .6, and .7. The issue here is, 

10 the finding was DR report does not include 

11 1982 photon doses less than 30 keV recorded in 

12 missed. And this is a rather extensive one. 

13 Scott, do you want to go ahead and summarize 

14 whether than me --

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, just a second. 

16 Let me pull it up. I thought I had this one 

17 printed out. Yes, let's see here. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now, this is 

19 not within that matrix, is it, Brant? 

20 DR. ULSH: No. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, it's 

22 separate from that. Okay. 
108

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 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. For 153.1 and 

2 for 153.2, they're both basically the same 

3 issue: low energy photons recorded missed 

4 dose. The original finding was that it 

5 appeared that we should have assessed less 

6 than 30 keV photons from '78 through '82, but 

7 we only assigned it during some of those time 

8 frames. Our initial response did not seem to 

9 be clear, so the new response has a lot more 

10 words to be unclear, as well. Basically, it's 

11 just an explanation of dealing with shallow 

12 dose and shallow doses at Savannah River. 

13 Basically, for this claim, for 1982, which is 

14 the specific year in question for this finding 

15 or these two findings, the shallow and the 

16 deep doses are equal, so that leaves you a 

17 non-penetrating component of zero. So it 

18 appears that we could have dealt with a small 

19 percentage of a deep component being assigned 

20 at a shallow dose, which apparently did not 

21 occur and we'll agree that it should have 

22 occurred for the 30 keV photons, less than 30 
109

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 keV photons. Basically, it's a very small 

2 amount. If you notice the numbers, you're 

3 talking about less than a millirem. And we 

4 did rework the claim on the Super S PER, and 

5 we evaluated the 1982 photon dose directly 

6 split between the less than 30 keV and 30 to 

7 250 keV, and the PoC, the compensability 

8 decision did not change. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think I'm 

10 not clear on what you said. Maybe you could 

11 talk me through this. There's a dosimeter 

12 result. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was the 

14 document sent in that same 4/15? I couldn't 

15 find this one for 153. Was it on the same 

16 Friday email that he sent it? 

17 DR. ULSH: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm looking 

19 through all the responses. 

20 DR. ULSH: Unless I didn't get it 

21 attached to the email, but I did put it in the 

22 O: drive. 
110

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Go 

2 ahead. I'm sorry, David. Go ahead and get 

3 your explanation. I thought if I pulled up 

4 the document it would be easier to read 

5 through. 

6 DR. ULSH: Scott, can you go ahead 

7 and walk David through the --

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Maybe we could 

9 start with, one thing that I don't quite 

10 understand is the first statement in here that 

11 prior to 1981 that there's an issue with the 

12 filters on a multi-element dosimeter. They 

13 weren't including aluminum and that somehow 

14 this impacted on how you would treat the kind 

15 of shallow dose estimate. Maybe you could 

16 start there. That's relatively late, I guess, 

17 for dosimeter technology, so what was the 

18 limitation prior to 1981? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Just a second, I'm 

20 reviewing. Matt Smith, are you on? 

21 MR. SMITH: Yes, I am. I'm trying 

22 to run my tape backwards. That's the year 
111

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 they switched to a Panasonic system. Let me 

2 go look at some TIBs, including TIB-17 and 

3 also some OCAS TIBs. Hold on. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Matt Smith is the 

5 principal external dosimetrist, for those who 

6 don't know him. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: While he's 

8 looking at that, there's one other issue. You 

9 described, in the dosimetry record, there's a 

10 recorded value for the shallow dose and the 

11 deep dose, and the difference between those 

12 was zero. That is, the recorded shallow dose 

13 equaled the deep dose. Is that what you said? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. What they 

15 actually record is, what they call shallow is 

16 open window, which would include shallow and 

17 deep together. 

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

19 MR. SIEBERT: And then they also 

20 give us the shielded, which would be the deep 

21 dose. And in this case, what they record as 

22 open window and shielded are the same number, 
112

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 so all of the dose was from deep dose, as 

2 opposed to shallow. When you subtract it out, 

3 the shielded from the open window you've got -

4 -

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: All the 

6 photons which struck the dosimeter had enough 

7 energy to penetrate through the shielding.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so why is 

10 this statement then, well, we didn't include 

11 the low energy photons because all the dose 

12 was high energy photon? That's what I'm not, 

13 that would seem to be the inference I would 

14 take from that. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Well, everything is, 

16 prior to '81, such as in this time frame, when 

17 you're subtracting out -- yes, you're right 

18 that the assumption is that all the photons 

19 had enough energy to get through that 

20 shielding. However, and this is what I'm 

21 relying on Matt looking all this up, prior to 

22 '81, the aluminum filtration could have 
113

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 resulted in an underestimate of shallow dose 

2 in plutonium facilities where there's that 17 

3 keV photon. We're dealing with that. In 

4 cases such as that, prior to 1982, we made the 

5 assumption of, although all of it is recorded 

6 at deep dose at that point, 25 percent of the 

7 dose is coming from less than 30 keV photons, 

8 basically, on the understanding that the 

9 filter did not filter, it filtered out those 

10 17 keVs, and I believe that is based on the 

11 source term for plutonium at Savannah River. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But why is the 

13 difference between the open and the shielded 

14 not capturing that? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: I'm not 

16 understanding your question.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There still 

18 should be a dose recorded on the open window 

19 of the dosimeter. There's no shielding there. 

20 And it should be higher.

21 MR. SIEBERT: No, it is identical. 

22 For this badge cycle, the dose is identical 
114

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 for the open window and the shielded. 

2 MR. SMITH: And in that case, 

3 there's no net non-penetrating radiation, in a 

4 sense. The guidance then is to take the deep 

5 dose and partition it, as Scott just said, 

6 into less than 30 keV and 30 to 250. This is 

7 Matt Smith. 

8 DR. ULSH: Does that make sense? 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It doesn't 

10 make sense to me still, no. There's the open 

11 window. It's not shielded. If there is 

12 presence of low energy photons, why aren't

13 they recorded by the dosimeter on the open 

14 window? 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In other words, 

16 why isn't there a difference, right? That's 

17 what you're asking? Yes, yes. 

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, this 

19 is just like kind of, I guess, a missed dose 

20 issue that I've never been exposed to before. 

21 So I can't, I'm still, I think I'm just not 

22 catching up with you on it. I'm familiar 
115

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 with, for example, multi-element dosimeters' 

2 poor response of the dosimeter at low energy 

3 photons, over response for example, but I 

4 haven't heard that a worker in a field with 

5 low energy photons would be somehow missed by 

6 the open window, that that component of their 

7 dose wouldn't be captured. 

8 MR. FARVER: Let me try to help 

9 out. The previous years, it looks like the 

10 dosimetry results, there was always a 

11 difference, that the open window was higher 

12 than the shielded window. So then based on 

13 their Attachment C to OTIB-17 for shallow 

14 dose, you would calculate a less than 30 keV 

15 photon dose, so you would have the low energy 

16 dose. But as it turns out, the one year, 

17 1982, the numbers were identical, 15 open 

18 window, 15 shielded. So you assume it's all 

19 shielded, so there is no less than 30 keV 

20 photon dose for that year, according to their 

21 OTIB. So it's the one year where both the 

22 windows were the same. 
116

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 DR. MAURO: So there are two 

2 reasons for why this raises eyebrows. One is 

3 years before they did have it; and, two, the 

4 isotopes they were dealing with did have these 

5 low energy that should have been --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Should have 

7 been the same, right? Yes. 

8 DR. MAURO: They should have been 

9 shielded out, but they weren't. So something 

10 about the data in that particular year raises 

11 questions. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And this is 

13 across the board for all SRS workers in 1982, 

14 there's no difference between open and 

15 shielded dose? 

16 MR. SIEBERT: This individual's 

17 badging. 

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I 

19 would assume that the dosimetry system was 

20 functioning properly and that, for some 

21 reason, they didn't have any low energy photon 

22 exposure, I guess.
117

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 MR. FARVER: I'm looking at it 

2 now, and it looks like they may have followed 

3 OTIB-17.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds that way. 

5 MR. FARVER: That's what it looks 

6 like from, I'm looking at the individual's 

7 data. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We're talking 

9 about a measurement of 15 millirem; is that 

10 what --

11 MR. FARVER: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

13 could it have just been a data entry error 

14 where they put the deep dose in both fields? 

15 MR. FARVER: No, there's only a 

16 couple of positive cycles. That's just the 

17 way it turned out. Apparently, it slipped 

18 through our review. We wrote it up when we 

19 shouldn't have. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Not on a low dose 

21 field. 

22 MR. FARVER: That's what I'm 
118

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 gathering from this is that they appeared to 

2 have followed OTIB-17. Just for this one year 

3 on this individual, the open window and the 

4 shielded were the same. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I'm 

6 getting a little confused, too, because Scott 

7 started off saying that NIOSH agrees that a 

8 small portion of the dose should have been 

9 assigned for less than 30 keV photons.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Even though there's 

11 no reason. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: That is based on the 

13 partitioning after subtraction --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

15 MR. SIEBERT: -- of the deep dose. 

16

17 MR. SMITH: I don't know if the 

18 group has access to getting at TIB documents, 

19 but if you're able to open up OTIB-17 and go 

20 to page 21 you'll see a table there that kind 

21 of summarizes the steps in Attachment C. 

22 DR. MAURO: This particular table 
119

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 has always been a brainteaser for me. 

2 MR. SMITH: It is a brainteaser, 

3 and the overall effect it's probably a 

4 claimant-favorable one, on the missed dose 

5 front. But you can see there the example that 

6 Scott's speaking of where you have an open 

7 window and a shielded reading both equal with 

8 each other. There's no net non-penetrating 

9 dose, obviously no missed dose. The photon 

10 energy is directed to be partitioned per the 

11 TBD or OCAS TIB-6. For this particular year, 

12 we would be using the TBD. And, Scott, that's 

13 where you got a fraction going to less than 

14 30, correct? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

16 MR. SMITH: Or was it 25 percent, 

17 if I'm recalling? 

18 DR. MAURO: I seem to recall that 

19 one of the dilemmas I always had in trying to 

20 tease this out when I speak to some of the

21 folks who do this is you have your exposure or 

22 your film includes not only the low energy 
120

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 photons but also electrons, and I think the 

2 difference, when you get a reading on your 

3 film badge that could be either from the low 

4 energy photons or the electrons, it does make 

5 a difference when you run your Probability of 

6 Causation if whether the dose is delivered 

7 from electron versus a photon. And this 

8 machination which is confusing, but I think 

9 it's right. You know, when it was explained 

10 to me, I could see why -- is this part of the 

11 play we have here, trying to deal with the 

12 electron versus the low energy photon issue 

13 here? 

14 MR. SMITH: You're somewhat 

15 correct. The PoC would be higher for the low 

16 energy photons compared to calling it 

17 electrons. The choice of whether to call it 

18 one or the other is going to be based on the 

19 facility and comparing that to the guidance in 

20 the TBD.

21 DR. ULSH: So it sounds to me, if 

22 I can try to summarize it as I understand it, 
121

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 we're faced with a situation where a year 

2 where the open window and the shielded are 

3 exactly the same. And in that situation, for 

4 this case, the TBD says take the deep dose and 

5 partition it into these different energy 

6 photon doses. We, in fact, did not do that, 

7 and I think that's what SC&A commented on, and 

8 we agree that we should have done it. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But it 

10 makes a minor difference. 

11 DR. ULSH: But it makes a minor 

12 difference. Have I adequately summed that up, 

13 Scott? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. The 

15 only caveat I would put in there is because, 

16 if it was a Monte Carlo calculation with the 

17 Monte Carlo tool and the fact that the 

18 partitioning of that less than 30 keV dose is 

19 very small, less than one millirem, it may 

20 have been considered and removed. But I 

21 cannot speak for sure of that one way or the 

22 other.
122

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 DR. ULSH: I don't know if that 

2 helps, David. By the look on your face, I'm 

3 guessing not.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So one follow5 up question. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe we should 

7 both look at OTIB-17. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I looked 

9 for it. I didn't find it right away. But 

10 when you partition the dose, you take that 

11 dose contribution; you're then saying that 

12 some of the total reported dose is not deep 

13 dose anymore and you subtract that out? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. It's 

15 partitioned out. The 25 percent of that dose 

16 comes from -- well, let me back up. I have to 

17 look at the facility and look at the 

18 partitioning. I don't know that off the top 

19 of my head whether it says you still assign 

20 100 percent to 30 to 250 keV and then an 

21 additional 25 percent to low energy photons or 

22 if it's partitioned in total up to 100 
123

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 percent. Matt, do you have that off the top 

2 of your head? 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's the 

4 question. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: There's a 75/25 

6 split.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, so it is 

8 split. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That, in a 

10 way, doesn't sound claimant --

11 MR. FARVER: Well, one of the 

12 things that concerns me now is I think if you 

13 go back to the DR report, did they split that 

14 into 100 percent less than 30 keV, 100 percent 

15 30 to 250 keV for 1978 to 1982? I'm trying to 

16 find it. 

17 MS. BEHLING: It's 100 percent 

18 less than 30 keV and 100 percent 30 to 250. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that Liz 

20 Brackett? 

21 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, Kathy. I'm 
124

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 sorry. 

2 MS. BEHLING: Sorry. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So I don't 

4 know what that means. What does that mean? 

5 Does that mean that you say that the worker's 

6 dose that's going to be entered into the IREP 

7 Program includes the recorded dose, the 

8 recorded deep dose as 100 percent of that 

9 recorded deep dose coming from higher energy 

10 photons and then, in addition, in the IREP 

11 Program for the same calendar year you say the 

12 recorded deep dose, there's a recorded shallow 

13 dose of identical magnitude coming from lower 

14 energy photons, where I mean less than 30 keV? 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

16 question, yes. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, this is 

18 Scott. Where are you pulling that it's 100 

19 percent/100 percent? 

20 MR. FARVER: Well, I was pulling 

21 that from our report, but now I'm looking in 

22 the DR report and I don't see any energy 
125

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 breakdown. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: The actual dose 

3 reconstruction report has the, let me pull out 

4 my calculator, but I want to say it's 25 to 75 

5 percent split. 

6 MR. FARVER: It does look to be 

7 that.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm sorry. I 

9 was also in our dose reconstruction audit. 

10 MR. FARVER: It's a little 

11 confusing because for that DR report, a lot of 

12 times they'll put down the split of the energy 

13 ranges, but for this one they didn't. So they 

14 calculated it into their dose conversion 

15 factors, so it is a little bit confusing to 

16 look at.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I can't 

18 imagine down-weighting a penetrating dose 

19 that's recorded on a film badge. I mean, I 

20 don't know, just as a starting point, it seems 

21 odd to me that you would then take it as 

22 three-quarters of that as actually the dose 
126

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 that was recorded by that dosimetry system as 

2 penetrating. 

3 DR. ULSH: Is it fair to say that 

4 we have a pretty lengthy response on the table 

5 and that SC&A might want to take some time to 

6 look at it? 

7 DR. MAURO: I have to say every 

8 time I go into OTIB-17 and I run into these 

9 questions, this is the most arcane product of 

10 dose reconstruction we work with. I always 

11 have to be refreshed. If you don't do it 

12 every day you sort of lose it. So all I can 

13 say is that right now it sounds like no one 

14 really has a really good handle on exactly 

15 what is going on here. 

16 DR. ULSH: Yes. And it might be, 

17 Mark, you might want to put down an additional 

18 action item that we should review our own 

19 response and make sure that we don't want to 

20 change anything. If you don't hear from us, 

21 we don't. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes. 
127

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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Actually, you 

2 really ought to let us know if you are or not 

3 because sometimes we miss things. 

4 DR. MAURO: A little primer on 

5 OTIB-17 and this nuance would help me. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think --

7 DR. MAURO: Because I've been 

8 doing this for a while --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that, I 

10 wouldn't put it in the matrix but I'd say as a

11 Subcommittee action we should all review OTIB12 17, this table. Right. 

13 DR. MAURO: Everybody is on the 

14 same page. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I think 

16 we can go around in circles on this. 

17 MR. FARVER: This is totally 

18 different because if you would go by this 

19 table for this year, that 1982 dosimeter 

20 result, by OTIB-17 there would be no less than 

21 30 keV dose because the open window and the 

22 shielded are even. But because you're going 
128

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 by the TBD, which breaks it down into energy 

2 level of 25 percent less than 30 keV, 75 

3 percent 30 to 250 keV, you do get a small 

4 portion of less than 30 keV dose. And I think 

5 the part of that is what's confusing this 

6 whole thing. 

7 MR. SMITH: I'll add one more 

8 document for consideration on this one, and 

9 that is DCAS or OCAS TIB number six. At the 

10 same time, I have to tell you that the text of 

11 OTIB-17 supersedes a little bit of this 

12 document, but when you take it all together 

13 the statements that Scott have made makes 

14 sense in terms of how this is being 

15 partitioned based on the procedures that are 

16 out there. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And from the 

18 dose reconstructor's standpoint, this is all 

19 in their worksheets, right? I mean, is this 

20 in the spreadsheets that they work from? 

21 MR. SMITH: That's correct, Mark. 

22
129

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So even 

2 this instance where they have open and 

3 shielded dosimeters with the same values, is 

4 there sort of some if, then kind of decision 

5 in the worksheet? Well, does it consider 

6 separately that kind of scenario? In other 

7 words, they don't have to go back to TIB-17 

8 every time and go through what we're talking 

9 about to decide what values to put in. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. It looks 

11 at the data and applies the OTIB-17 

12 methodology. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Much less OTIB-6. 

14 Now my brain is starting to hurt. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. And in 

16 this case you're saying it did apply it 

17 correctly, though? Because if that is 

18 automated and the dose reconstructor put in 

19 these values or whoever enters these values 

20 into the spreadsheet, it should have 

21 automatically selected the right partitioning.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And that's correct, 
130

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 and that's what I'm saying. I don't know if, 

2 since the dose was so small, why it didn't 

3 partition appropriately and left out because 

4 it was such a minuscule dose or whether it was 

5 not done correctly. I just can't tell you 

6 that.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

8 guess the point I was getting at is this, and 

9 we've done a lot of Savannah River cases and I 

10 don't think we've had this error come up 

11 repeatedly. And I think if it was a systemic 

12 problem in the system, we would have seen it, 

13 right? So it doesn't seem to be a worksheet 

14 problem is what I'm getting at, I guess. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And is this 

16 not a question that was, the original question 

17 was whether or not it was done correctly, 

18 right? Not knowing what the partitioning was 

19 at the time. What was the original finding? 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It didn't 

21 assign any shallow dose, right? 

22 MR. FARVER: For one year. 
131

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For that one 

2 year, right. And we all agree it's a tiny, 

3 you know --

4 MR. FARVER: And what we're 

5 finding out when we look into this is it's, if 

6 you look at the different OTIBs and the TBDs 

7 and everything, it probably was done 

8 correctly, but it would not be apparent unless 

9 you really started digging through the 

10 documents. In other words, according to OTIB11 17 you wouldn't have any dose, but according 

12 to the TBD you would have a small dose. But 

13 the small dose might be less than a millirem, 

14 so it won't get recorded. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's 

16 what I'm asking, from a QA standpoint, if the 

17 worksheet, theoretically, takes all that into 

18 account, what you just said, that it would --

19 MR. FARVER: Usually, yes. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Pretty much.

21 MR. FARVER: It should.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because in this 
132

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 case, it's a small exposure. 

2 MR. FARVER: So what I need to do 

3 is I'll go back and look at the doses, and 

4 I'll calculate it out by hand, and if it turns 

5 out to be less than a millirem then it was 

6 probably all done correctly and we can just 

7 close a few findings. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I guess 

9 we'll leave it as a NIOSH, like Brant said, a 

10 NIOSH and SC&A action to look back at this and 

11 check. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Just see if 

13 what was done was the right thing. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And, in the 

15 meantime, we as Subcommittee Members should 

16 probably pull TIB-17 and OCAS TIB-6 to refresh 

17 ourselves, yes. 

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, because it does 

19 get pretty complicated, and that's part of the 

20 thing that we go through when we review these. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's hard 

22 to -- alright. 
133

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 MEMBER MUNN: But my point is if 

2 it's really more of a QA issue than anything 

3 else then I'm not sure that I'm going to be 

4 further enlightened after I review the TIBs. 

5 DR. MAURO: I have to say when I 

6 review a TIB, I like to get to the place where 

7 it makes sense and I remember --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's always 

9 good. It's not intuitively obvious to the 

10 casual observer. Okay. Let's move on. I 

11 think let's leave it at that, and let's move 

12 on to 153.2. 

13 DR. ULSH: Those are both 153.1 

14 and 2.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. They 

16 cover both. Okay. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Right. It covers 

18 recorded and missed dose. 

19 DR. ULSH: And, unfortunately, we 

20 can't completely move on because 153.6 and 7 

21 appear to be the same kinds of issues only now 

22 for neutrons.
134

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 MR. SIEBERT: I wouldn't agree. I 

2 think it's a different issue for the neutrons. 

3 DR. ULSH: Well, explain. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Tell us why. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: This one for .6 and 

6 .7, the question is we assigned neutrons 

7 during '78 and '81 but did not assign them the 

8 other years that the individual SC&A thought 

9 they may have been exposed to neutrons during 

10 that time frame, whereas we did not assign it. 

11 So it really went back to a question of why 

12 did we not assign neutrons during specific 

13 years. They were talking about -- and, of 

14 course, we're going to bring in yet another 

15 TIB, OCAS TIB-7, which is dealing with neutron 

16 assignment at Savannah River, and that's an 

17 OCAS TIB-7, I might point out. SC&A was 

18 questioning the fact whether following that 

19 thought process was done adequately in this 

20 case or not. 

21 Our follow-up response is we don't 

22 believe by the information that we have that 
135

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 the individual was consistently routinely 

2 assigned to the B line facility, which is 

3 where you would be getting the neutron 

4 exposure potential. We did assign that 

5 facility for that whole time frame for photons 

6 to be claimant-favorable. However, we did not 

7 assign neutrons in years where the individual 

8 did not have neutron dosimetry. 

9 And if you look further in 

10 response, it gives some information as to the 

11 records that we have and indication as to 

12 areas where we believe the individual, at 

13 least where their records seem to indicate, 

14 they were in the shallow to deep dose ratios 

15 during those years as well and, based on 

16 those, where we think the likely facility they 

17 may have been working in and being exposed to 

18 in those time frames. And if you look at 

19 that, it's not the neutron areas during the 

20 years where we did not assign neutrons. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Scott, this is 

22 Brad. How did you come up with all this of 
136

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 where he was working and when he was working? 

2 Your records are that good? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: No, I didn't say 

4 they were great. What I'm saying is the 

5 individual, if you look at the response, in 

6 1978 the individual left bioassay and it was 

7 listed in a reactor facility. Same thing for 

8 '79 with the fission products and plutonium 

9 bioassay and is listed in a reactor or 

10 possibly F-canyon tank farm. That's the 

11 information that we have, and that's where we 

12 could pull that information. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: That's pretty 

14 decent. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: As well as the fact 

16 that this individual did have neutron 

17 dosimetry during a couple of those years, and 

18 that's during the time frame that we believe 

19 Savannah River was actually monitoring for 

20 neutrons on an as-needed basis. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this person 

22 was a laborer during that whole time period in 
137

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 question, right? Is that the job title 

2 listing? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: I believe so. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, he 

5 basically could have been any place on the 

6 site. It's just the main place that he's run 

7 out of. 

8 DR. MAURO: Every so often, we run 

9 into a case where the level of resolution and 

10 analysis that's done on a worker starts to 

11 really find, like you pointed out, we know he 

12 was there this week, he wasn't there that 

13 week. And then I look at the Probability of 

14 Causation, and I see it's like just right 

15 under 50 percent. And I have to say this. It 

16 seems to me that they're working really hard 

17 to get him under 50 percent. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that the 

19 case here? Is it near 50? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Forty-four percent, 

21 forty-four and a half. 

22 DR. MAURO: Well, I see a lot of 
138

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 that. I see a lot of that. And maybe there's 

2 some rationale. Don't get me wrong. I'm 

3 hearing an argument for, well, we think he 

4 wasn't there in that year because of this, 

5 this, and this. But you know what? My 

6 perspective is when you have to go that far, 

7 you know, let it go. Give him the neutron 

8 dose. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: I would argue with 

10 that because we followed the dictates of OCAS 

11 TIB-7, which gives us the information of how 

12 to make that decision and that is what was 

13 followed. It's not like we were trying to get 

14 him under 50 percent. We were trying to do 

15 the best estimate we could based on the 

16 information that we have and the documentation 

17 that we could source it back to, which is what 

18 was done. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the 

20 strangest part of that for me, Scott, was when 

21 you said that you assigned photons as if he 

22 were in those areas, you know, to be claimant-
139

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 favorable, but then you didn't assign neutrons 

2 as if he was in that area. That, to me, you 

3 know, seems a little bit illogical, at least 

4 from the claimant standpoint if they're 

5 getting this back. You know, if you're saying 

6 best estimate, why did you assume the photon 

7 exposure was from those areas? It was more 

8 claimant-favorable; those were you words I 

9 think, right? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But then you 

12 didn't do that for neutrons. I guess that's

13 just a little illogical for me. I mean, I'm 

14 not --

15 MR. SIEBERT: Well, a 

16 simplification of putting them in a facility 

17 that was claimant-favorable as opposed to 

18 pulling them into reactors for a year and then 

19 back into the FB line. You know, it's a 

20 simplification. I'm not saying that this is 

21 an absolute full best estimate, that's my 

22 point, when you're looking at the detailed 
140

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 assessment here in this table that the 

2 individual may have been in other areas. What 

3 I'm saying is what we did was claimant4 favorable, and, as I said, I don't see a 

5 reason here to be assigning neutrons from his 

6 records. 

7 MR. FARVER: So where did he work 

8 for that time period?

9 MR. SIEBERT: Well, look at the 

10 table that's there, you know, the bioassay 

11 that he left in '78 was the reactor facility; 

12 '79 reactor was F Canyon maybe; '80 reactor 

13 tank farm; '81 there's no bioassay; '82 

14 there's a couple of bioassays for plutonium, 

15 it looks like F area. As I said, from a 

16 neutron point of view, we're going back to 

17 OCAS TIB-7 and we followed the dictates of 

18 that thought process. CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 

19 And not being familiar with that TIB-7, I do 

20 see the response before was that SC&A 

21 indicated that in this case the E meets all 

22 three criteria in Section 3.1, Page 5 of OCAS 
141

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 TIB-7. So I guess there's a little dispute of 

2 --

3 MR. FARVER: Well, that hinges 

4 upon the work location. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Work 

6 location but also job type, right? What are 

7 the three criteria?

8 MR. FARVER: Three criteria are 

9 the work location, job description, and 

10 positive photon exposure.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay, yes.

12 MR. FARVER: So he had the photon 

13 exposure. He was a laborer, which I believe 

14 is part of that --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the 

16 location is in question, I guess. 

17 MR. FARVER: So it's the work 

18 location is what it comes down to. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And in OCAS 

20 TIB-7, there's an additional facility-specific 

21 direction for separations that have criteria 

22 of routine plutonium bioassay monitor and 
142

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 relatively high shallow dose to deep dose 

2 ratio greater than two and relatively little 

3 enriched uranium bioassay indicating the 

4 employee worked on FB or HD line. That is not 

5 met. The shallow to deep dose ratio is not 

6 relatively high. It did not exceed two in any 

7 of those years. 

8 MR. FARVER: Where are you reading 

9 that from, Scott? 

10 DR. ULSH: This is our response.

11 MR. SIEBERT: The bottom of OCAS 

12 TIB-7. I believe it's at the bottom of page 

13 three or top of page four, probably in the 

14 latest revision of it. I don't have it open 

15 at the moment. 

16 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. That's the 

17 latest revision, not the one that was used for 

18 the dose reconstructions. 

19 DR. ULSH: Well, the words that 

20 Scott just gave you are from our response, but 

21 our response refers you back to the bottom of 

22 page three, top of page four of OCAS TIB-7. I 
143

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 don't know that Scott said that this one 

2 wasn't used for dose reconstruction. 

3 MR. FARVER: No. Because I'm 

4 looking at the one that I believe was used for 

5 the dose reconstruction, and I don't see those 

6 words. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It doesn't talk 

8 about the ratio of greater than two, that kind 

9 of stuff. 

10 MR. FARVER: Correct. I don't see 

11 it. And if it is, that's why I was asking 

12 where it was so I can find it. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this 

14 actually says although -- TIB-7 wasn't in 

15 effect at the time, is that what you were 

16 saying? 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, yes. 

18 Revision 0 of OCAS TIB-7 dated 9/17/2003, I'm 

19 looking at it right now, the top of page four, 

20 separations 200, area, H and F Canyon, word 

21 for word what I just read from our response. 

22 MR. FARVER: Oh, I see it now 
144

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 under separations area. Okay. 

2 DR. ULSH: So it sounds like we've 

3 put a response on the table. We don't agree 

4 that we didn't follow the correct procedures. 

5 We're saying that we did. 

6 MR. FARVER: And I'll have to 

7 review that in detail. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So 

9 that's fine, SC&A to review. And that covers 

10 153.6 and 7, I believe, right? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So just as one 

13 last question. In trying to place the 

14 location, you had given, there had been focus 

15 on, was it the 200 area, the B line; is that 

16 right? And SRS being if the worker had been 

17 there that that would have been the greatest 

18 potential for neutron exposure? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. The 

20 plutonium area, correct.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The worker was 

22 also in the 100 area, the reactor area, and 
145

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 perhaps in other areas. And there's not the 

2 potential for missed neutron dose in those 

3 areas? 

4 MR. SIEBERT: I'm going back 

5 through. Once again, OCAS TIB-7 does address 

6 that, as well. Neutron exposure should only 

7 be considered for energy employees who might 

8 have been involved in maintenance activities 

9 in the crane wash areas of the reactors.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I had 

11 remembered earlier on at SRS that there were 

12 calibration facilities, the 300 area high 

13 potential for neutron exposure, that there was 

14 actually potential for neutron exposure, at 

15 least in the early Site Profile document, in a 

16 number of areas at SRS.

17 MR. SIEBERT: And once again, if 

18 I'm correct, I believe that's all addressed, 

19 how we deal with those is in OCAS TIB-7. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So, yes, 

21 SC&A will look closer at that. Okay. What's 

22 the next one, Brant, that you have that you've 
146

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 given a response on? Okay. Oh, 153.8, this 

2 is back to the chooser versus TIB-54.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is that the 

5 same response we had from prior?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Right. That's still 

7 another one Doug that we'll need to go through 

8 the files and verify.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The files, 

10 right. So I'll just update, while Brant looks 

11 I'll update that matrix item. 

12 DR. ULSH: Yes, 153.8 is the 

13 chooser.

14 MR. SIEBERT: I believe it goes 

15 down to 155.4, Brant. 

16 DR. ULSH: Right. That's what I 

17 just pulled up. The summary of the finding is 

18 that NIOSH used one-half bioassay data instead 

19 of one-half MDA data use, and the latest 

20 instruction was NIOSH would consider adding 

21 this instruction into the Site Profile 

22 document. So our response for this meeting 
147

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 is, the following has been placed in the SRS 

2 DR guidance document until it is added to the 

3 Site Profile and likely ORAU OTIB-60, as well. 

4 Now, here's the quote that's going to be 

5 placed in. MDAs contained in the Site Profile 

6 are intended as defaults when there is no 

7 better information available, i.e. sample8 specific MDAs. When the bioassay results in 

9 the employee's personal records include an MDA 

10 or a clear value that the site considers the 

11 value below, such as "less than 0.05," that 

12 MDA takes precedence over the site default 

13 value and is to be used in the dose 

14 assessment. This applies regardless of 

15 whether the sample's MDA is larger or smaller 

16 than the value in the Site Profile. So that's 

17 going to be placed in the DR guidance until we 

18 update OTIB-60 and the Site Profile. 

19 MR. FARVER: And where are the DR 

20 guidance documents kept so we can look at 

21 them? 

22 DR. ULSH: Scott, where is it that 
148

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 SC&A could access the DR guidance documents? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: They're kept in the 

3 tools folder along with all the tools. The 

4 Savannah River one would be in with the 

5 Savannah River tool. 

6 MR. FARVER: Okay.

7 MR. SIEBERT: As well as, and this 

8 is something that we dealt with quite a while 

9 ago, all DR guidance documents that are 

10 appropriate whenever we do a claim are also 

11 placed in the individual's dose reconstruction 

12 file, along with the assessment. It was not 

13 done back at the time where this claim was 

14 done because we're talking 2006, but we do 

15 that now and we have been for a couple of 

16 years. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you, 

18 Scott. You're anticipating my questions. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: I'm here for you, 

20 Mark. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've been down 

22 this path before, I know. And it's on the O: 
149

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 drive under, I don't find tools immediately. 

2 Is it a subfolder? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, everything is a 

4 subfolder.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, 

6 just so we know. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to 

8 have to move it, I think, to a place where you 

9 can see it. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We may not see 

11 it here. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think you 

13 guys can see it.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. You 

15 can take that as an action, Stu or Brant. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, Brant.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

18 DR. ULSH: Okay. I have as an 

19 action item for us that we're going to move 

20 the tools to a place where both SC&A and the 

21 Board can review it or can access it. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And 
150

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 these are, just for clarification, these DR 

2 guidance documents don't exist for every site, 

3 right? I think we've discussed this before. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. 

5 There's basically information as they come up 

6 that we have learned that we give additional 

7 guidance to dose reconstructors until it is 

8 incorporated into the TBD. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And one other 

10 question. Has the policy changed on the 

11 archiving of these dose reconstruction 

12 guidance? Because before I asked for the 

13 guidance that would have been in place at the 

14 time a case was done, and I was told that they 

15 weren't really saved, they were just updated 

16 and not archived, which I found incredible. 

17 But is that, I mean, I would like to be able, 

18 going forward, to know. And you said they are 

19 being saved in the case, so that helps, as 

20 well. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: These are supposed 

22 to be in the case file. 
151

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So I 

2 guess if it's in the case file that's a moot 

3 point, I guess. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's what we 

5 consider the archiving. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, alright. 

7 DR. MAURO: I'm going to be a 

8 little provocative. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure. Not you, 

10 John. We only have seven minutes of 

11 provocation to --

12 DR. MAURO: No, no. A lot of 

13 these special DR treatments for a particular 

14 case where we really get out and just take a 

15 closer look and do a better job, I'd like to 

16 know how many of those result in an increase 

17 in a person's dose as opposed to a decrease in 

18 a person's dose. So we are sharpening that 

19 pencil, and you always sharpen your pencil to 

20 get the guy's dose down. I'd like to hear a 

21 little more about that because I have to say 

22 I've been looking at an awful lot of these 
152

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 things and I see refinements and refinements 

2 and a level of sophistication that are really, 

3 I mean, at a point that are really getting 

4 down there and they're chipping away and they 

5 go out and we got rid of another millirem. 

6 Listen, I have to say it because it's on my 

7 mind. I've been doing this too long. I'd 

8 like to see a little bit of when that 

9 sharpening occurs, yes, many times we find we 

10 have to increase the guy's dose because we're 

11 really not doing it the right way here. When 

12 we're dealing with the circumstances, it 

13 should go up. I have a funny feeling when we 

14 take a close look at that we're going to find 

15 that they're going down. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's probably 

17 true --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, to be 

19 fair, in some cases they're starting off with 

20 overestimating approaches, so you'd expect 

21 them to go down, right? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think 
153

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 systematically you will see more go down 

2 because of doing an overestimate first and 

3 determining whether that overestimating 

4 approach will answer the question or not. If 

5 that overestimating approach provides with 

6 some particular level of expedience, then 

7 there might --

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. Fair enough, 

9 fair enough. 

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is the same 

11 thing that I've been saying for years. So you 

12 use an overestimating approach to above get 

13 them 50 percent or whatever --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we can't get 

15 them above 50. We do an overestimating 

16 approach because we think by that 

17 overestimating approach we'll still be below 

18 the compensation line and it doesn't work out

19 that way. It comes in above 45. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is what I'm 

21 saying. You initially start out with an 

22 overestimate, and if it goes over 50 then you 
154

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 start sharpening your pencil. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: If it goes over 45 

3 then we start sharpening the pencil. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Overestimations are 

5 not permitted to go over 50 percent. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least 

7 anymore. We learned that early on. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Wait a minute. 

9 Because what you're saying, that's when it 

10 starts, that's when the pencil is sharpened? 

11 MEMBER MUNN: At 45. 

12 DR. ULSH: At 45 percent. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I know, 

14 but that's the trigger, 45, not 50. Then 

15 that's when the sharpening starts going 

16 because you really stop -- it could be up in 

17 70 or 80 or something like that, but you're 

18 stopping at 45, starting to sharpen your 

19 pencil because you can't compensate on an 

20 overestimate. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But then to get 

22 to John's question, I don't know that you 
155

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 would have the data to indicate when you 

2 triggered at 45 but overestimating and then 

3 you reassessed the case which way they went. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know an 

5 easy way to find that, no. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: If you have an 

7 overestimating --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I expect most 

9 of them to go down, but some might go up and 

10 that would be an interesting split to look at 

11 anyway. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: But what you want is 

13 the best calculation so that if your 

14 overestimate doesn't give you the best 

15 calculation you want the best calculation. 

16 DR. MAURO: Very often you're in 

17 this nether land where you're really not sure 

18 and you have no alternative but to give the 

19 benefit of the doubt, so there are some places 

20 where we just don't sharpen it any further. 

21 Leave it alone, leave it alone. And that's 

22 what I wanted to offer up.
156

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 MEMBER CLAWSON: And my 

2 understanding, as small as it is on this, is 

3 that if you guys do an overestimating approach 

4 to it and they come nowhere near 45 percent or 

5 whatever, then that's where you say, well, you 

6 know, they can't be compensated. And this is 

7 where some of the people get into an issue of 

8 watching, well, last time I was 44 and now I'm 

9 38, and this is where one of the issues come 

10 in. But my understanding of the 

11 overestimating is to even see if there's a 

12 remote possibility that they were exposed. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: If there is an 

14 overestimating approach that saves you some 

15 amount of time. 

16 DR. MAURO: See, I would come at 

17 the problem, I'm going to do everything I can 

18 to give this guy the most dose I can give him 

19 without being unreasonable. You see, it's a 

20 philosophy. That is, you say you try to do 

21 realistic estimates -- but I'm confronted with 

22 a guy --
157

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I think 

2 that's the first triage is --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, 

4 John, you're espousing a philosophy that I 

5 don't think we have a different philosophy. I 

6 mean, our dose reconstruction techniques 

7 assign a lot of dose that, for instance, an 

8 epidemiology study would not. They would 

9 never use our dose reconstruction to do 

10 epidemiology. So we have techniques that are 

11 favorable. We want to make sure we don't 

12 cheat the claimant. The claimant at least 

13 gets a fair shake. If he gets better than a 

14 fair shake I don't really care as long as 

15 that's the best we can do. Like you say, if 

16 there's this area of uncertainty, that's why 

17 your technique then is a claimant-favorable 

18 technique, not an overestimating technique but 

19 a claimant-favorable technique. I believe 

20 that's built into our best-estimate approach 

21 is what you're talking about. 

22 And, Brad, to your point, I'm 
158

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 fully cognizant of the heartache it causes, 

2 the confusion and the antipathy it engenders 

3 when we send a dose reconstruction that's 40 

4 percent and the person gets another cancer and 

5 we do it again and it's 30 percent. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The second 

7 cancer is --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: It's completely 

9 illogical, and it happens far more, it happens 

10 far more than we thought it would when we 

11 started the program. So having said that, I 

12 think a legitimate argument here is should we 

13 even be overestimating at all at this point? 

14 There's a total of 1500 claims waiting for us 

15 to do dose reconstruction compared to 10,000 a 

16 few years ago. The oldest one, except for 

17 these outliers where we can't get an SEC 

18 through so there are a few oddball things that 

19 are holding some up, but except for those 

20 outliers everything is done in a year and 

21 almost in nine months. In another couple of 

22 weeks, everything will have been done in nine 
159

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 months from the time we get it, except for 

2 some oddball. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, maybe you 

4 should eliminate the overestimating --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: So the argument 

6 here is should we even be doing overestimates, 

7 even if it is expedient? That's a legitimate 

8 argument. And I have to go back and look, but 

9 I think there might be a theme to that in some 

10 of the ten-year review drafts that are out 

11 there. Now, there are draft part one's to 

12 most of the ten-year review report, and you 

13 can find them on our web site. I've got to 

14 find a link to what's called the docket 

15 because they're collecting comments on this, 

16 as well. But you can find those ten-year 

17 reports part one drafts on our web site and 

18 see if that satisfies, see if some of the 

19 stuff that's in there captures this issue 

20 appropriately. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I know we 

22 raised the concern in the first 100 cases 
160

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 review, too, but now it might have more merit 

2 because, like you said, the back load is gone.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's where we 

4 got into this whole overestimating was because 

5 of the backlog. We had numerous --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And they were 

7 years and years older and 10,000 of them --

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I realize 

9 that, and that's kind of -- you've got to 

10 understand I'm looking at it from a claimant 

11 or something like this that doesn't see all of 

12 this internally. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And those people 

14 all write to me, Brad. I don't see everyone, 

15 but I see it --

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand. 

17 It's hard for us as a group that's been 

18 involved in this to even capture it sometimes. 

19 That's just kind of hard. 

20 MR. FARVER: Well, one of our 

21 actions, we have two cases from the 8th set, I 

22 believe it's the 8th set, that we're supposed 
161

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 to look at and have been reworked, reworked 

2 cases that we're going to go back and look at 

3 and do a comparison between what was done for 

4 the original DR and then what was done in the 

5 rework so we can see what went up and what 

6 went down. And I hope to have those ready for 

7 the next Subcommittee meeting to show you, you 

8 know, just so you can see what happens when 

9 they do a rework. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I 

11 suggest we -- do we want to finish 155? 

12 There's a couple more. One of them is the 

13 chooser thing again I think, which I think is 

14 the same response maybe. 

15 DR. ULSH: Well, we just did 

16 155.4, and I can tell you that 155.6 our 

17 response says it's the same as 155.4.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

19 what I thought. What about 155.7 while I'm 

20 cut-and-pasting? 

21 MR. SIEBERT: That's the chooser 

22 one. 
162

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 MR. FARVER: So that completes 

2 155. MR. HINNEFELD: So does 

3 our work on the chooser satisfy those claims, 

4 as well, that the chooser was more, whatever 

5 we did for --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, SC&A is 

7 going to review that. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, okay. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then I 

10 think, where was that originally? Was that in 

11 151.1? Was that chooser? 

12 MR. FARVER: 152.6. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. This is 

14 Scott. Can I go back? 155.4 and 6, what was 

15 the resolution on that? What's the step 

16 forward? 

17 DR. ULSH: SC&A to consider our 

18 response. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Because all our 

21 response is, is what we are putting in the TBD 

22 what's in the DR guidance. For .4 and .6, all 
163

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 they asked us was to document -- we already 

2 hashed all this out. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, I 

4 think we can close that, actually. Good 

5 point, Scott. Thank you. 

6 DR. ULSH: So that was 155.4 and 

7 6? 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. If that 

9 language is acceptable, I think that -- yes, 

10 we got kind of sidetracked on the DR guidance 

11 and where it was and all that. But SC&A 

12 agrees with that, correct? Okay. So we'll 

13 close this, Scott. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you for 

16 bringing that up. So that was 155.4 and .6, 

17 correct? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'll change 

20 that. Okay. And then I think it's 12:05. I 

21 propose we break for lunch and take until 1 or 

22 1:05, whatever. One-ish. On the phone, you 
164

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 know, we tend to be a little late coming back 

2 from lunch, but we'll try for 1:05 for sure. 

3 Alright. Thank you all. We're breaking from 

4 the record.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

6 matter went off the record at 12:04 p.m. and 

7 resumed at 1:08 p.m.)

8 MR. KATZ: So good afternoon. 

9 We're rejoining after lunch. It's the 

10 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

11 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee. Let me just 

12 check and see that we have some folks on the 

13 line, starting with Bob. Are you there? 

14 Robert Presley? 

15 MEMBER MUNN: I guess he went to 

16 work. 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. No Bob at this 

18 moment. How about Scott, are you on the line 

19 with us now? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: I am here. 

21 MR. KATZ: Great. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: You're very weak, 
165

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 Scott. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's it. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We left 

4 off on the 8th set of cases. I have item 

5 number 156.1. I don't know if -- do you have 

6 some progress on that? 

7 DR. ULSH: That's where I'm at, 

8 too, Mark. This is another one of those work 

9 location questions that we're all so fond of, 

10 and the finding is that, after reviewing the 

11 DOE records, SC&A does not believe that NIOSH 

12 assigned the Energy employee to the proper 

13 work locations during select periods of 

14 employment. DOE records indicated that the 

15 employee was monitored for neutron exposure in 

16 1998 and 1999. However, NIOSH placed the 

17 employee in 200 F facility during those years 

18 and did not assign any neutron doses. 

19 So we provided an initial response 

20 on this, and that is, the specific concern 

21 mentioned was that 200F was used as a 

22 representative facility in '98 and '99, even 
166

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 though zeros were reported for neutrons for 

2 two cycles in '98 and the first six cycles in 

3 1999. The implication of the comment was that 

4 a facility with neutrons should have been used 

5 instead. The locations reported on the whole 

6 body counts are 735 for 1998 and 241H for 

7 1999. The TLD dosimeters issued at Savannah 

8 River for these years contained neutron TLDs. 

9 Information in the Site Profile gives 735 as 

10 their Rad and Environmental Science Building 

11 that analyzed environmental and bioassay 

12 samples and external dosimetry and that the 

13 radionuclides involved were fission activation 

14 products. 241H is at the H area tank farm for 

15 which the radionuclides concerned are fission 

16 products. Based on that information, use of a 

17 facility with neutrons was not supported. The 

18 photon energy mix is the same for 200F and 

19 200H so the use of the 200H facility in the 

20 tool and report would have no effect on dose.

21 So, basically, I think the heart 

22 of the matter is the interpretation of those 
167

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 zero results for the neutron dosimetry. I 

2 think SC&A interpreted those zeros to be 

3 indicative of a neutron exposure potential, 

4 but our response is that during that time 

5 period, the dosimeter issued by Savannah River 

6 had neutron TLDs in it. So that doesn't 

7 necessarily indicate a neutron exposure 

8 potential. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: And, Brant, I just 

10 want to point out, too, that there's one 

11 single response in this for .1 and for .5. 

12 The updated response is a single response at 

13 the very end of both of those responses. 

14 DR. ULSH: Thanks, Scott. Yes, I 

15 missed that. Alright. Let me give you the 

16 other part of it. The cancer diagnosis in 

17 this claim is prior to the zero dosimeter 

18 results for neutrons in '98 and '99 described 

19 in the finding. Cycles 11 and 12 were 

20 dosimeters that were issued in November and 

21 December of '98. The diagnosis date was July 

22 26th, 1998. Therefore, it is noted in the 
168

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 dose reconstruction these potential doses were 

2 not included in the dose used to estimate the 

3 PoC. Yes, thanks, Scott, that made it even 

4 easier.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's 

6 certainly all cleared up. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And, Doug, have 

8 you had time to --

9 MR. FARVER: No, all I've had is 

10 20 seconds to look it over. I mean, the 

11 second part of it, I mean if that was after 

12 the diagnosis date, that does explain that 

13 part and why it was not, why there were no 

14 neutron doses for '98 and '99. I always find 

15 the work location was a little fuzzy, so I 

16 have to go back and look at those. But you 

17 can probably go ahead and close the, what was 

18 that? 155.6?

19 DR. ULSH: 156.1. 

20 MR. FARVER: 156.5.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: so .5 parts

22 you're saying you're comfortable with? 
169

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 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, I have 

2 to verify that that's after the diagnosis 

3 date, but I believe Scott. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. But .1 

5 you need time to review? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: And let me point 

7 out, this is Scott, the reason I answered both 

8 of those together is they really went back to 

9 the same question. Point five is missed 

10 neutron dose, but it's based on the idea of --

11 we didn't assign it because of worker 

12 location, which obviously goes back to .1. 

13 And really the bottom line for all these is 

14 when the individual did begin to be monitored 

15 for neutrons it was about four or five months 

16 after the date of diagnosis. And in the '98 

17 time frame, we would consider an individual 

18 would be monitored for neutrons if needed 

19 because they had neutron dosimetry.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. We'll go ahead 

21 and close that one because I don't know how 

22 else to proceed on it. I mean, they were both 
170

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 linked together. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Anybody 

3 have any questions on that? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: No. This is pretty 

5 clean. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, we've 

7 had this work location thing come up on other 

8 ones. In this case, you know, it's the 

9 diagnosis part that might rule it out and get 

10 rid of the overall question of --

11 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, that's --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it comes 

13 up from time to time, so we can close this 

14 one, yes. I was just asking if others --

15 alright. Let me document that, and the same 

16 for 156.5. We'll close that also. Alright, 

17 what’s the next one? 

18 DR. ULSH: I think the next one 

19 that we have action on is 163.4. Is that what 

20 you have, Scott? 

21 MR. SIEBERT: I've got 157.1 and 

22 .2. These are actually initial responses.
171

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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. We don't have 

2 anything on the matrix for them so far. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you send 

4 those initial responses? 

5 DR. ULSH: Scott, is this one of 

6 the ones that dealt with the glove box TIB, 

7 the discussion that we had? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: No. 

9 DR. ULSH: Oh, okay. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is counting of 

11 zeros, and this was in, when Brant sent the 

12 things out on Friday, this was in the zip 

13 file. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: In bright red. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: I printed it out. 

16 You're right. It is red, isn't it? 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is. That's 

18 fine. Keeps us awake. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Catch your eye. I 

20 knew it would be right after lunch. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much. 

22 DR. ULSH: Oh, okay. I've got it 
172

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 now. Okay. This is a relatively long one. 

2 Scott, why don't you go ahead and give us the 

3 summary on that? 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. If we go back 

5 -- I'll go back, I don't want you to go back -

6 - to the matrix, the two findings are failure 

7 to properly account for external photon dose 

8 during all years of employment and lack in 

9 consistency in assigning missed photon dose. 

10 What they both tie back to is the assignment 

11 of zeros when we have nothing in the 

12 monitoring record. 

13 So what we have done with the 

14 claim, and the reason we have an initial 

15 response now is because it was pretty 

16 complicated to go back into, we have the 19, I 

17 mean 19, that's how old I'm thinking, the 2006 

18 version which is what SC&A reviewed. We based 

19 missed dose in zeros, especially during the 

20 1956 to '64 time frame, that the individual 

21 was monitored when he needed to be monitored. 

22 In other words, when there were no dosimetry 
173

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 record he was not being monitored. We're not 

2 counting those as zeros. And the basis for 

3 that, which is what was questioned, is the 

4 fact that in 1956 there's clear indication 

5 that the individual's permanent dosimeter 

6 badge was pulled, and from that point on, from 

7 '56 to '64, there are documented visitor or 

8 temporary dosimeters in this individual's 

9 file. 

10 So what we did is we based all 

11 dosimetry upon those visitor and temporary 

12 badges. When he had those, we assumed 

13 exposure. When he did not, we assumed there 

14 was no exposure and we assigned ambient 

15 instead. And we're comfortable that's exactly 

16 what should have been done. That's 

17 appropriate during that time frame because we 

18 have the records. 

19 That leaves open the other years 

20 where we did not assign missed dose, which 

21 were '52, '53, '72, '76, and '81 through '84. 

22 So we assigned ambient during that whole time 
174

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 frame. We agree that those years we should 

2 have addressed in different ways. For the 

3 first few years, we should have used coworker 

4 when we had nothing in the file, and from '76 

5 and '81 through '84 we should have used zeros 

6 which is based on OCAS TIB-6 during that time 

7 frame from '72 to '88 when an individual has 

8 no record, no dosimeter record if not -- they 

9 did not list zeros but individuals were 

10 monitored, so we made the assumption the 

11 individual was monitored with zeros. 

12 That whole method -- so the bottom 

13 line is we're agreeing that for some of the 

14 years we should have done some coworker and 

15 missed doses differently. But for the '56 to 

16 '64 time frame, which was really one of the 

17 big ones that was being keyed on, we're 

18 comfortable with the whole visitor 

19 badge/temporary badge thing. 

20 The rest of the response explains 

21 that we did rework this claim in 2009 under 

22 the Super S PER, PER-12, and zeros were 
175

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 evaluated, basically, as I spoke, the same 

2 during that '56 to '64 time frame we dealt 

3 with when there's badging. We assigned 

4 coworker during '52 and '53 and '72 and also 

5 filled out zeros for '76 and '81 through '84. 

6 The compensability decision did not change. 

7 And then on the next page there's 

8 a little bit more detail on a year-by-year 

9 breakdown as to how the zeros changed between 

10 the original reviewed version and the rework 

11 we did in 2009. And, honestly, I don't expect 

12 everybody to get their heads around this. I'm 

13 guessing this is going to be something that 

14 SC&A is going to want to review. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but that's 

16 pretty straightforward. That's easy to see. 

17 MR. FARVER: I don't know. I 

18 already have questions just from looking at 

19 it. You say the 2009 update had a PoC of 38 

20 percent, and the original one was 40 percent, 

21 and then you added 6 rem and went down 2 

22 percent. So I'm not sure. This is one of 
176

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 these cases where you looked at it, what 

2 prompted it, I believe, was the PER on 

3 insoluble plutonium, so that's what you should 

4 go back and look at. You also did this 

5 evaluation on these missed doses, added in 

6 some unmonitored doses, and then you added 6 

7 rem from unmonitored doses and then dropped 

8 the PoC 2 percent. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Is it rem or 

10 millirem?

11 MR. SIEBERT: Rem.

12 MR. FARVER: Rem. So that 

13 answer's from looking at it briefly. So I'll 

14 have to have a look at it. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, you need 

16 to have a look at it. I'm just curious about 

17 the review process on this case. 

18 MR. FARVER: Well, see, this is 

19 one where you almost have to go back and look 

20 at the 2009 reworked case and find out what 

21 changed, and I hate to volunteer to do that. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm pulling it up 
177

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 here. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No one else is 

3 stepping forward. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Everybody loves a 

5 volunteer. 

6 MR. FARVER: So, I mean, I'll have 

7 to go back and then review the response for 

8 these two specific findings, but I don't know 

9 if it's going to answer questions or generate 

10 more. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hey, Scott, you 

12 didn't, by any chance, write a Reader's Digest 

13 version of that that I can fit in the matrix, 

14 did you? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Maybe that's why we 

16 didn't stick it in.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. It's 

18 really hard to summarize all that. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: The Reader's Digest 

20 version is we agree that for '52, '53, '72, 

21 '76, and then the span from '81 to '84 the 

22 external dose was not calculated appropriately 
178

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 because we could have used coworker and 

2 filling in the missed zeros. And I am pulling 

3 up the most recent report. In each of the 

4 reports, now when we make changes we give an 

5 overview as to what the changes were. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a 

7 question? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Sure.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So this worker 

10 continued employment into the 1980s? That's 

11 right?

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so their 

14 dose was entered into the -- I don't remember 

15 what the electronic file is called for the 

16 dose of record at SRS. Is it -- oh, are you 

17 there? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. We're 

20 losing power. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Power 

22 flickering, yes.
179

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 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, that's not good.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: One way to end 

3 this meeting.

4 MR. SIEBERT: I mean, no, I'm not 

5 here anymore. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So their dose 

7 is entered into HPAREH, and so for the -- I'm 

8 just trying to think about what their dose of 

9 record is for '56, '57, '58 through '64. If 

10 the worker would ask the facility for kind of 

11 a summary of their occupational doses, for 

12 those years would the dose of record be this

13 temporary or visitor's dose? Was that entered 

14 into HPAREH? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes?

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that is where 

18 the doses are that are in HPAREH. That's 

19 correct.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's where 

21 these dose values are.

22 MR. SIEBERT: That's the dose of 
180

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 record, correct.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And they have 

3 no -- so they have a single record in there 

4 for the year, and it's -- I guess I have to 

5 wrap my head around it. And is it flagged as 

6 being a temporary dose? Is that how you know 

7 that, or have you also gone back and pulled 

8 the paper records? 

9 MR. SIEBERT: We also have the 

10 actual records themselves. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Which they're 

13 marked. In my response, it gives the pages 

14 where these specific visitor dosimeters are 

15 found. I'm actually looking at the record 

16 here right now.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's in 

18 the case file, right? Pages 73 through 75 and 

19 --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And I'm 

21 looking at the one that's on page 51 of the 

22 DOE response, and the badge is clearly marked 
181

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 as a V badge for visitor. So that's where we 

2 get the information for the V and T badges. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. It's 

4 interesting to me. So it doesn't mean there 

5 was a break in employment? They're just 

6 badging them with what's called a visitor's 

7 badge rather than a temporary badge. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Rather than a 

9 permanent badge, correct.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or a temporary, 

11 yes. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: They're using, their 

13 nomenclature would change at different times. 

14 They use V for visitor and T for temporary. 

15 I don't know the differentiation as to why 

16 they would assign the two. But during that 

17 time frame, the person does not have any 

18 routine -- he would not have the V or T 

19 numbering. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: In other facilities 

22 a visitor's badge is usually one or two days, 
182

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 and a temporary badge would be assigned if you 

2 were expected to be working there for a week 

3 or two. But I don't know whether that was 

4 true at SRS or not. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But a visitor, 

6 I guess, could have been an internal visitor, 

7 like from one area to another or something 

8 like that, not just outside of the facility.

9 MR. FARVER: And what I'm thinking 

10 is maybe he showed up at, say, the reactor 

11 facility and he didn't have his dosimeter with 

12 him, so they issued him a visitor badge or 

13 something like that or a temporary dosimeter. 

14

15 MEMBER MUNN: He wasn't badged --

16 MR. SIEBERT: They don't have any 

17 permanent dosimetry during that time frame for 

18 him. If that was the case you would have 

19 both. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: It's fairly common 

21 if your work takes you out of the area they 

22 take your badge away. 
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

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think, 

2 unless there are any more questions, I think, 

3 clearly, it's an SC&A action to look at this 

4 response. 

5 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'll review 

6 that. I really can't disagree with that first 

7 part of that. It's the second one that just 

8 kind of bothers me where you add 6 rem and 

9 then the PoC drops. Those kinds of things 

10 bother me more. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we're not 

12 saying that we added 6 rem. What we're saying 

13 is we use a total of about over 6 rem, whereas 

14 the badging dose record of assignment only was 

15 about 400 millirem. That's not comparison to 

16 the first versions, the 2009 version. The 

17 actual dose between the versions went up very 

18 slightly, somewhere between 14 to 15 rem of 

19 increase. It started off at 14 rem and went 

20 to 15 rem. It was about a rem increase 

21 overall. 

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. 
184

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 MR. SIEBERT: It wasn't nearly the 

2 large increase that you're thinking of. Maybe 

3 I wrote that a little confusingly. I 

4 apologize. 

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

7 have that as a SC&A action to look at this 

8 one. And 157.2, Brant or Scott? 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Those are both the 

10 same issue. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They're both 

12 the same issue. Okay, got it. Okay. So the 

13 next one must be that 160 -- what did you 

14 have, Brant? 

15 DR. ULSH: 165.1. Have I missed 

16 any, Scott? The next one I have is 165.1.

17 MR. FARVER: We have one on 160, 

18 which is to review the reworked case. 

19 DR. ULSH: Right. But we might 

20 not have progress.

21 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, I'm just 

22 saying that we haven't reviewed your reworked 
185

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 case.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Right. We gave Doug 

3 the -- for 160.3, and they haven't reviewed 

4 that.

5 MR. FARVER: Correct. You put the 

6 files out there, as I believe you also did for 

7 175? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: That sounds right.

9 MR. FARVER: I thought those were 

10 the two cases.

11 MR. SIEBERT: You are correct. 

12 Those are the ones.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Those are 160 -

15 -

16 MR. FARVER: All the 160s and --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Brant, before 

18 we get to the 163, we have the 162.1 and 2. 

19 That's the PER for the 100 percent AP issue.

20 DR. ULSH: Okay. Why don't you go 

21 ahead on that one? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Sure, I'd love to. 
186

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 This is one that Brant sent out that, if you 

2 look at 162.1 and 162.2, this is actually a 

3 Rocky Flats claim. But the latest responses 

4 of resolution is NIOSH will check old SRS 

5 claims that predate the new workbook, it 

6 started talking about the external dose 

7 workbook at Savannah River when we started 

8 using 100 percent AP for the DCFs versus using 

9 the max and min of all geometry. I think 

10 during one of the meetings we kind of went off 

11 on a tangent from this Rocky case because it 

12 also had a question about DCF, and that's 

13 where we got locked into looking into the 100 

14 percent AP issue for the Savannah River 

15 external dosimetry tool, just to kind of you 

16 give you a little background as to why we're 

17 discussing Savannah River for a Rocky Flats 

18 case, which is very odd. 

19 So what I have done is we pulled, 

20 the question was if we did a PER review of the 

21 100 percent AP issue, and an official PER was 

22 not determined to be appropriate at the time, 
187

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 but we did go through, we had a list of the 

2 claims, and I have re-run through that full 

3 list of claims that use that tool and 

4 determined almost all of them were either 

5 reworked under this -- we were looking into 

6 this issue, or they were reworked under 

7 another PER, such as Super S, lymphoma, 

8 something like that, or we were reworking the 

9 claim and it was administratively closed, such 

10 as the claimant passed away and there's no 

11 survivor, we just don't get any response, 

12 things like that. 

13 Brant, do you want to get any of 

14 the rest of the PER issues? That kind of gets 

15 us started.

16 DR. ULSH: Well, I think there 

17 were just a couple of claims where we still 

18 had a problem, right? If I recall correctly. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. From my list, 

20 I found three claims that were considered 

21 under the Super S PER and needed to be 

22 reworked. However, it appears those three 
188

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 were not requested or we did not get those 

2 back from DOL for rework at any point, so they 

3 would still need to be reviewed. 

4 DR. ULSH: I can give you the 

5 numbers on those if you're interested, or if 

6 that's more detailed than you want that's --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: What? The claim 

8 numbers? 

9 DR. ULSH: Yes. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Don't be 

11 describing claim numbers on the phone. 

12 DR. ULSH: Oh, alright. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Give me that 

14 explanation again for why SRS appears in the 

15 response. I mean, it was the AP geometry 

16 issue, but why were we asking for you to look 

17 at SRS claims, or did you look at Rocky Flats 

18 claims? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: The Rocky Flats 

20 claims had a DCF issue. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And, honestly, I 
189

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 can't tell you how we ended up on the rabbit 

2 trail of Savannah River by tracking what we've 

3 got in the matrix. But I believe it's the 

4 fact that under this Rocky Flats claim we used 

5 Monte Carlo calculations with a max and min 

6 such as what was used in the Savannah River 

7 external dosimetry tool at that time, and I 

8 think that's how we got on the track of 

9 ensuring that we looked at all the Savannah 

10 River tool claims to make sure they were 

11 reworked or reviewed as well if they were 

12 impacted by this issue. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So the 

14 claims you looked at, though, were Savannah 

15 River, not Rocky Flats? 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. All the 

17 claims that were looked at were the Savannah 

18 River claims that used the external dosimetry 

19 calculation workbook, which is where that 

20 systematic DCF max/min issue actually 

21 appeared. 

22 DR. ULSH: And if you go into the 
190

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 DR Subcommittee folder on the K: drive, 

2 there's a subfolder under there called 8th Set 

3 Responses '04 - '11, and there's a spreadsheet 

4 in there that shows the results of Scott's re5 evaluation of these cases, and there are three 

6 cases that are highlighted in red, which are 

7 the ones that we're going to have to go back 

8 and pull back and look at them again. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just help me to 

10 understand this. You checked the old claims 

11 that predate the new workbook and that new 

12 workbook approach was used -- the same 

13 approach was used in this Rocky Flats case? 

14 That new approach was used in this case, 

15 right? Or is that incorrect? 

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe this case 

17 was -- used Monte Carlo calculations using 

18 Crystal Ball, and the general process was 

19 based on the same thought process at the time. 

20 We didn't have a -- and this is from my 

21 memory but I believe this is correct, Rocky 

22 Flats did not have a best estimate Monte Carlo 
191

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 tool at the time this was calculated 

2 originally, so the methodology from the 

3 Savannah River tool was applied.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's how 

6 we got down this road. 

7 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith. 

8 That's correct. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks, Matt. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So where are 

11 we, Doug? 

12 MR. FARVER: Boy, that's a good 

13 question, Mark. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, before 

15 this, we accepted the response for this case, 

16 right? That it was -- it said SC&A accepts 

17 the response that the Monte Carlo approach 

18 used is appropriate, no further action.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But then we 

21 wanted to look back at these other. I think 

22 that was the concern. You're right. So now 
192

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 NIOSH has provided this analysis of the others 

2 and --

3 MR. FARVER: They did what was 

4 asked.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And it 

6 was, you know, I mean do you want to look at 

7 this analysis or it looks reasonable or --

8 MR. FARVER: It looks reasonable. 

9 I don't see anywhere to go from there.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I don't 

11 think there's much further to pull that 

12 string, is there? Does everybody agree with 

13 that? 

14 MEMBER MUNN: They've done what we 

15 asked to do. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would think 

17 we can close it out.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I think so. 

19 DR. ULSH: So 161.1 and 2 are 

20 closed? 

21 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: It should be closed. 
193

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So that was 

2 162.1 and 162.2? 

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Alright. 

5 Let me just make sure that I just switched 

6 160.1, 2, 3, and 4, to be an SC&A action, 

7 right? 

8 MR. FARVER: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In other words, 

10 NIOSH provided analytical files, and SC&A will 

11 review. I added that into number 160.1, .2, 

12 .3, and .4. I just want to make sure that's 

13 the right thing to do. 

14 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think we 

16 can go ahead. 

17 DR. ULSH: Okay. I'll take 

18 another shot here. I've tried to jump to 165 

19 a couple of times.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know. You 

21 were trying your best. 

22 DR. ULSH: Is now the right time 
194

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 to jump to 165? I think it is. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I hate to do this to 

3 you, Brant. 163.4. 

4 DR. ULSH: Alright. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: And then we'll get 

6 to 165. I promise.

7 DR. ULSH: 163.4. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: That's in the 

9 matrix.

10 DR. ULSH: That helps. Thank you. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's in the 

12 matrix, in your updated matrix. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: Page 41 of --

14 DR. ULSH: Got it, got it. 

15 Alright. So the finding on 163.4, the summary 

16 is that assigned occupational medical dose not 

17 correctly converted to the organ dose of 

18 interest for 1994 kidney cancer. Alright, the 

19 latest NIOSH response is that we agree that 

20 the finding is correct. As a way of 

21 explanation here, the lung dose is used as a 

22 surrogate for liver, gallbladder, stomach, 
195

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 thymus, esophagus, and in the TBD the larger 

2 of the male and female lung dose was carried 

3 over to the surrogates in the TBD table 

4 regardless of the employee's gender as a 

5 claimant-favorable assumption, and that is the 

6 female lung dose.

7 Since the kidney is not in the 

8 table, the DR used the same thought process to 

9 assign a surrogate dose, in parentheses lung, 

10 but used the male lung since the employee was 

11 a male and the direction on the surrogate 

12 organs was not cleared. The IREP sheet has 

13 been updated and run with the female lung 

14 doses as a surrogate dose, which resulted in a 

15 change of PoC from 45.2 to 45.24. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

17 will also add that the use of the surrogates, 

18 especially for these organs, have been 

19 difficult to track because most TBDs were very 

20 specific on how to deal with them, but every 

21 once in a while an organ would be left out and 

22 the dose reconstructor would make an 
196

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 assumption based on thought process, such as 

2 this. The present version of -- let me see. 

3 Am I talking about a procedure or an OTIB? I 

4 want to say OTIB-6, but I'm going to verify. 

5 We are updating the OTIB that handles x-ray 

6 assignments, and it is very specific and very 

7 clear about use of surrogate organs in cases 

8 such as this, for clarification purposes. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I want to 

10 document that because I think that's important 

11 that you're updating this as a result of some 

12 of these findings. NIOSH is updating, what is 

13 it? OTIB-6? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: ORAU OTIB-6. And I 

15 am aware of that because I am deeply ingrained 

16 in doing that lately, so I made sure that all 

17 got in there. 

18 DR. MAURO: Scott, this is John. 

19 So OTIB-6 did the follow-up look-up numbers in 

20 one of those tables. Right now you're saying 

21 that some of them are overly conservative as 

22 applied to particular organs and you're coming 
197

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 up with more specific doses to the organs of 

2 concern rather than using surrogates? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: No, it's more 

4 specific as to which surrogates to use for 

5 which organ. The problem in this case is 

6 kidney did not have a specific surrogate organ 

7 listed for it in the TBD, so the DR used the 

8 thought process of using the lung surrogate, 

9 which is the appropriate thought process. 

10 It's just they missed the thought of since 

11 there's some variability involved, from a 

12 project point of view, we've determined when 

13 they do the surrogate for the lung we pick the 

14 larger of the male or female lung doses for 

15 that surrogate.

16 DR. MAURO: Rather than leave it 

17 ambiguous?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's very clear 

19 now. 

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any follow-up 

22 on that, Doug? 
198

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 MR. FARVER: Well, I'll ask why 

2 was the lung used instead of the liver if it's 

3 a kidney cancer? 

4 DR. MAURO: There's probably a big 

5 difference, right? What's the difference if 

6 you use the lung versus --

7 MR. SIEBERT: There is no liver 

8 DCF in ICRP 74, if I remember correctly. 

9 MR. FARVER: I'm looking at Table 

10 A5, organ dose for a beam in 1982 to present. 

11 This says from --

12 MR. SIEBERT: In what document? 

13 MR. FARVER: Y-12 Technical Basis 

14 under the medical dose. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

16 MR. FARVER: Page 23 of 23, last 

17 page. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And what does 

19 it show? 

20 MR. FARVER: Well, I mean it has 

21 the whole list of organs and --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It has liver, 
199

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 right? 

2 MR. FARVER: And the lung dose.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again, 

4 liver is using the surrogate of lung. It may 

5 not list it there but --

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, is that right? 

7 Because they both look like the same number.

8 MR. SIEBERT: The liver is using 

9 the lung --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why 

11 you're clarifying.

12 DR. MAURO: And I was surprised 

13 because you would think that the chest -- the 

14 lung dose would be higher than the liver dose. 

15 You know, that's why your chest x-ray. Okay. 

16 I mean, there's no doubt it's conservative. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And that's 

18 what it was designed to be. 

19 MR. FARVER: Well, no, let's go 

20 back a step. The female lung dose is the same 

21 as the liver dose. The male lung dose that 

22 you used is less than the listed liver dose in 
200

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 the table.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

3 MR. FARVER: So you used a smaller 

4 value.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

6 MR. FARVER: For an organ that's 

7 not close to the kidney. I don't understand 

8 why you just didn't choose liver off that 

9 table and go with that dose value, like you 

10 would on any other organ there. You would 

11 just choose the dose value and go with it. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, in an optimal 

13 world, the kidney would be listed in that 

14 table. However, as I said, if something is 

15 not listed in that table, the dose 

16 reconstructor will generally go -- in this 

17 case what it appears that they did was they 

18 went back to the first principle of what 

19 surrogate is used for those organs. And for 

20 those organs, the lung dose is used as a 

21 surrogate. The mistake they made was they 

22 used the male lung dose because it was a male 
201

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 individual versus the female, which is a 

2 larger value. I understand what you're saying 

3 that they could have gone to the liver and 

4 just used the liver for the kidney. However, 

5 I'm just reconstructing what their thought 

6 process was at the time. 

7 MR. FARVER: And this is all taken 

8 care of in a workbook, isn't it? They're not 

9 really -- they're not really going through and 

10 selecting a value.

11 MR. SIEBERT: At the time this was 

12 done -- what plant are we on again? 163? 

13 MR. FARVER: Yes.

14 MR. SIEBERT: This was done in 

15 2006, so that may not have been specified in 

16 the -- well, if it wasn't in that table, I 

17 would venture to say that the kidney was also 

18 not in the tool. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that's 

20 a follow-up question. I mean, from a QA 

21 standpoint, it's not, you know --

22 MR. FARVER: No, I'm just 
202

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 concerned if this is a workbook error where 

2 it's selecting the wrong value.

3 MR. SIEBERT: No. I would say it 

4 was not a workbook error because the workbook 

5 would not have given you the option of kidney 

6 would be my guess. 

7 DR. MAURO: As an overarching 

8 issue, which would probably fall more toward 

9 Wanda than it would at this meeting, now that 

10 I -- the Procedures Subcommittee, all I'm 

11 saying is that I got to tell you, I mean I use 

12 OTIB-6 all the time when I check numbers, and 

13 I just go into the table and I look because I 

14 know we reviewed OTIB-6 and we love it. We 

15 love OTIB-6. But people that looked at it 

16 found it very claimant-favorable and 

17 appropriate, but now that I'm realizing that 

18 an awful lot of the organs' default values are 

19 lungs. And certainly that's claimant20 favorable. I mean, that would be the highest 

21 dose you're going to give -- I would imagine 

22 if you look at all of them you're going to 
203

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 find that up there. 

2 This goes toward this maximizing 

3 approach. In other words, it's so easy to, I 

4 guess, run an MCNP to say, listen, let's get 

5 better numbers for these other organs. That 

6 might buy you a factor of two or three 

7 difference if you were to go and become a 

8 little bit more realistic, rather than 

9 assigning this. So in a way, and I tell you 

10 these doses, these chest doses sometimes are 

11 not insignificant in terms of the 

12 contribution. This is just a thought more for 

13 maybe Wanda's group whether or not, you know, 

14 you want to rethink using this one-size-fits15 all almost, this lung dose to apply to all 

16 these other organs. It's certainly claimant17 favorable, but it wasn't until now that I 

18 realize that's what was being done. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: I thought it was 

20 chosen because it was claimant-favorable. 

21 That was my assertion. 

22 MR. FARVER: No. They did not 
204

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 choose a claimant-favorable one. 

2 DR. MAURO: On this particular 

3 case. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He's talking 

5 about the procedure. 

6 DR. MAURO: I'm sort of saying 

7 that the fact that the male/female difference 

8 is superseded by the fact that they're using 

9 the lung. I mean, you know, whether you use 

10 the male or the female, either way, that's 

11 going to be conservative as applied to this 

12 case. So I just went on to this thought that 

13 I had that, you know, it's not -- it is 

14 relatively straightforward to come up with 

15 realistic doses to these other organs rather 

16 than using the lung as your surrogate for so 

17 many organs, and that's something more for the 

18 Procedures Subcommittee. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're running 

20 out of procedures to review. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, we've got to find 

22 some work here.
205

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 MEMBER MUNN: When we've looked at 

2 OTIB-6 --

3 DR. MAURO: We did, and I have to 

4 say that I don't think we looked at it from 

5 the perspective of maybe it was overly 

6 conservative in some cases. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I thought we 

8 had, I thought we were using lung because it 

9 was the most sensitive one and, therefore, 

10 claimant-favorable in all cases, no matter 

11 what, at least from what little I remember of 

12 OTIB-6. 

13 DR. MAURO: That goes way back, 

14 and it was at a time when we viewed the world 

15 that way, that is, oh, it's claimant16 favorable, it's okay. I'm just saying that 

17 the world we live in now, we're trying to be a 

18 little more realistic so that there's parity. 

19 Probably not the best place to discuss this. 

20 This is more Procedures Work Group 

21 Subcommittee. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, where do 
206

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 we stand on this particular one? Doug, do you 

2 want more time to examine this?

3 MR. FARVER: I mean, I understand 

4 --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: It was just confusing 

7 because, you know, their DR report says the 

8 external dose to the kidney was determined by 

9 using dose calculated to the liver, but they 

10 didn't select liver out of the table. So when 

11 you go to that procedure and that page of the 

12 Technical Basis and you look under liver, 

13 that's not the dose they used. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Agreed, if you go 

15 from the table. I agree wholeheartedly with 

16 you. They should have used the liver dose. 

17 I'm just going back to the original thought 

18 process of the liver dose, if you go back to 

19 thought process, is surrogate by the lung dose 

20 and then the DR made the mistake of assuming 

21 it's a male individual so you use the male 

22 lung dose. That's all there is to it.
207

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 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 

3 other thing that came up in our previous 

4 discussion was that, if you look at the 

5 paragraph in the matrix, you know, that this 

6 should have been corrected during a peer 

7 review. I mean, the question of how did this 

8 get past the peer review came up at least in a 

9 prior discussion. Any insights on that? 

10 MEMBER MUNN: What's the use of 

11 the male versus female -- get by peer 

12 discussion? Is that --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, probably 

15 because it was a male claimant, wouldn't you 

16 think? 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, but why 

18 did two people make the same, let's say, 

19 divergence from the procedure? 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I'm going to 

22 say, likely, the procedure did not really 
208

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 cover kidney. That is the issue that it came 

2 down to. Kidney was not in the game. So in 

3 my mind, I could easily see that thought 

4 process being used by the dose reconstructor 

5 and verified by the peer reviewer. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you choose a 

7 surrogate, the surrogate you choose is for a 

8 male because you have a male subject.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the 

10 suggestion was to move it so that -- you're 

11 saying it's a limitation of the Technical 

12 Basis Document. There's ambiguity, and the 

13 reservation might be, as you suggested, go 

14 back and look at the Technical Basis Document. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: At the time the 

16 claim was run, yes. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I sort of 

18 agree with you kind of from the principle of 

19 these factors are from an ICRP report, which 

20 is almost 30 years old now, and there's been a 

21 huge amount done on -- what do they call it? 

22 Those little --
209

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 DR. MAURO: The tables and the --

2 well, this is more the MCNP modeling. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I mean, 

4 medical dosimetry.

5 DR. MAURO: Medical dosimetry. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Voxel 

7 phantoms. That's what we call them. Great 

8 dosimetry stuff going on where you could 

9 actually --

10 DR. MAURO: See, in this case what 

11 we're saying is you want a surrogate number to 

12 make sure you're being claimant-favorable, and 

13 you pick the liver, which you really didn't 

14 pick the liver, you really picked the lung 

15 which is claimant-favorable. And whether you 

16 picked the male lung or the female lung, it's 

17 still claimant-favorable. It's almost like 

18 gilding the lily. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it turns out to 

20 be inconsequential after it's --

21 DR. ULSH: Well, SC&A said we made 

22 a mistake, and you say we agree we made a 
210

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 mistake and we fixed it.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And the 

3 convincing thing for me was that you're 

4 modifying TIB-6, so that's good. I don't see 

5 any further action on this particular case. I 

6 mean, you know --

7 MEMBER MUNN: And now you've 

8 dumped it on me and --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So everybody's 

10 happy. Alright. So Wanda will report back to 

11 us next month.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I would have if I'd 

13 been allowed to put together a meeting. I 

14 tried. I was getting all kinds of flack about 

15 meeting too soon and nobody could do anything 

16 between now and then. So it will be July 

17 before you hear anything back. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

19 we can move past that one. Hey, Brant, we can 

20 do yours now, I think. 

21 DR. ULSH: Hey, alright. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 165.1. 
211

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 DR. ULSH: The summary of the 

2 finding is inappropriate factor used to 

3 convert greater than 15 keV electrons to organ 

4 dose. Let me pull up the other file. 

5 Alright. So our response is that, this issue 

6 was due to the overlapping dates in Table 6.5 

7 of the ORAU TKBS-0007-6, which indicate that 

8 electron dosimeter correction factors of 2.04 

9 and 2.86 are both applicable to 1958. The 

10 difference between the two 1958 correction 

11 factors is a factor of 1.4. Only after going 

12 back to the sections and discussing the 

13 various dosimeter types can the readers of the 

14 TBD determine that the end date for the 2.04 

15 correction factor should be the end of 

16 February 1958 and the start date for the 2.86 

17 correction factor should be March of 1958. So 

18 version 1.82 of the INL tool was issued around 

19 March of 2010 and included a modification to 

20 use the higher of the two potential correction 

21 factors for 1958. Other INL and Argonne 

22 National Lab West claims with organs that 
212

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 include shallow dose also had measured or 

2 missed electron doses assigned for 1958 and 

3 also likely been affected by this TBD and tool 

4 issue. So that's the response.

5 And it looks like we can get a 

6 two-for-one on this. 165.2 is the same. 

7 MR. FARVER: So the workbook has 

8 been corrected? 

9 DR. ULSH: It has been, in March 

10 2010. 

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. That had to do 

12 with the look-up parameters in the INEL 

13 workbook.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So NIOSH 

15 updated the look-up parameters in which 

16 workbook? 

17 DR. ULSH: This is Version 1.82 of 

18 the INL tool. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the earlier 

20 question; were there cases affected by this? 

21 DR. ULSH: These are other claims 

22 where shallow dose is an issue, and that would 
213

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 be organs including skin, breast, penis and/or 

2 testes, cancers of those organs with that same 

3 issue.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that tells 

5 us we ought to do something about it.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So other 

7 cases have been affected and --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: We got to go check 

9 and see and find those cases. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

11 DR. MAURO: So this process we're 

12 in right now is really a way to get to the 

13 tools. In other words, we had this 

14 conversation before and we've probably had it 

15 more than once, but what's really happened 

16 here is you've got your Site Profiles and then 

17 you've got all your 105 procedures and then 

18 they're being implemented on a case-by-case 

19 basis, and tools are developed to facilitate a 

20 consistent, reliable way of doing a dose. And 

21 those tools build into them all of the 

22 requirements or guidance that's provided in 
214

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 the Site Profiles and in the various 

2 procedures. But then they take another step. 

3 Sometimes, they have to do a higher level of 

4 granularity of resolution to deal with a 

5 particular case, and that becomes the new 

6 standardized approach for doing cases that are 

7 like this. 

8 So what I'm saying is so, in this 

9 programmatically, in this program where we're 

10 continually scouring and reviewing and 

11 evaluating, one of the things I was concerned 

12 about for some time but I think I'm no longer 

13 concerned about it is that the tools are, in 

14 fact, continually being revised and they're 

15 continually being reviewed through the process 

16 we're in right now. And that's a very 

17 important point because, you know, we were 

18 always nervous that reviewing the procedure, 

19 but they're not using the procedure, they're 

20 using a tool. But we are reviewing the tools. 

21 What we really have is very much a living 

22 process that has to be living because there's 
215

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 continuous improvement and refinement. But 

2 we're not missing those by going through these 

3 types of case-by-case evaluations and we're 

4 picking them up as we go through. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

6 DR. MAURO: I wanted to get that 

7 on the record. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: This is a pretty 

9 rigorous process. 

10 DR. MAURO: My question to, let's 

11 say, to Brant, we're doing one percent. In 

12 your sense, and Stu, too, in your sense, by 

13 doing one percent of the cases, do you feel 

14 that we're capturing most of the tools? In 

15 other words, the tools are not so unique from 

16 case to case to case to case that by sampling 

17 from realistic cases which are where the tools 

18 are used and the ones we've been looking at, 

19 let's say for the past year and a half or two 

20 years, we've been doing a lot of realistic 

21 cases, what we call realistic, do you have a 

22 sense that we're really getting a good 
216

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 sampling? Is SC&A doing a good job in looking 

2 at the tools that you guys work with, or are 

3 there a large suite of tools we're missing? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, 

5 Scott can certainly correct me, but the 

6 selection process focuses on sites with large 

7 numbers of claims, which are the sites where 

8 you're more likely to build a tool in order to 

9 do a lot of claims consistently. And so I 

10 would say that, yes, that most of the tools 

11 that come into play are covered in what's 

12 being done. Scott, you can certainly correct 

13 me if you want. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree with 

15 Stu. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Of course, he's a 

17 contractor and he specializes in saying --

18 DR. MAURO: By the way, I believe 

19 that. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: I could be on Fox 

21 News and he would say he agrees with me.

22 (Laughter.) 
217

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 MR. SIEBERT: I don't agree with 

2 that, Stu.

3 (Laughter.)

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. But I 

5 guess the only question I have on that is 

6 NIOSH is going to follow up on these cases. 

7 Where does that leave -- how do we know what 

8 happens from there, or do we need to follow 

9 that anymore on this Subcommittee? 

10 DR. ULSH: It sounds like a PER.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Would 

12 you establish a PER for this, or would we --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: It sounds like 

14 we're obliged to do that, to me. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So then we'll 

16 pick it up in that process. We'll see that 

17 you form a PER.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. It would be 

19 on the PER list, then, for review. Let's see. 

20 I forgot now. What was the issue we're 

21 talking about? 

22 DR. ULSH: Shallow dose. 
218

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 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So it's

2 going to be a handful of types of cancers. 

3 And other than skin, they're really not all 

4 that common. 

5 DR. ULSH: Well, breast cancer is.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, you're right. 

7 Breast is fairly common. Yes, I mean, it 

8 will be on there and available to look at.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. The 

10 reason I'm asking is then I think we can close 

11 it out here. Those two, I think we can close 

12 out here, and they're going to that PER 

13 process which I put in here. So if the Board 

14 ever wants to look at that again, you know, we 

15 can, but it can be closed for our purposes. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: For our purposes, I 

17 think so. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That 

19 sounds good. We've got to close some, right, 

20 Wanda? 

21 MEMBER MUNN: We have to because 

22 otherwise --
219

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 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, is 

2 the finding on this the correction factor of 

3 2.04 or 2.86? Is that really the finding? 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll take 

6 it.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So 

8 those two, for our purposes, are closed. For 

9 Stu's, they're not closed. Nothing is ever 

10 closed. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: From where I sit.

12 DR. ULSH: 165.3? 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 DR. ULSH: Alright. The issue 

15 there, the summary is neutron organ dose 

16 calculation in error. Alright. Use of a 

17 dosimeter bias of 1.6 to calculate the neutron 

18 doses to the bladder was incorrect because 

19 there is no basis in the INL TBD for the 

20 application of a bias factor. Because of the 

21 use of complex-wide best estimate external 

22 tool 1.10, which is a Microsoft Excel workbook 
220

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 with Monte Carlo capabilities, the measured 

2 and missed neutron doses were only 

3 underestimated by a total of .317 rem or by 

4 about 29 percent, and that's the comparison of 

5 the original assessment to the present revised 

6 version. 

7 MR. FARVER: Well, the concern was 

8 that the workbook was actually dividing by 1.6 

9 in the calculations. Right. It was dividing 

10 by a dosimeter bias of 1.6, which is going to 

11 underestimate your doses. 

12 DR. ULSH: I think this is 

13 probably similar to the last issue in that we 

14 need to go back and identify any cases where 

15 that was done. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: I want to point this 

17 out. This falls -- if I remember correctly, 

18 we're talking 165 and I didn't even look when 

19 it was done. 2006, yes. There was no best 

20 estimate tool for INEL at that time, and this 

21 is where we fall into the same thing they had 

22 at the Rocky Flats case before that kicked us 
221

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 over to Savannah River. If there's not a 

2 specific best estimate tool for that site, the 

3 dose reconstructors need to use the complex4 wide best estimate tool back at that time. 

5 What happened in this case, 

6 apparently, is there's a bias factor that is 

7 built into that tool that should have been 

8 removed for INEL that was not removed. So it 

9 would not be systemic for claims that -- the 

10 INEL claims. It could be systemic in best 

11 estimate INEL claims that were done using this 

12 tool. 

13 DR. ULSH: But it seems to me that 

14 we need to find out. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. How 

16 many best estimate claims use that tool, yes.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I'm not saying that 

18 we don't need to look at that. I'm just 

19 trying to narrow in on what the actual issue 

20 is. 

21 DR. MAURO: While we're going 

22 through these, I like to sort of bin them in 
222

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 my head as to, okay, yes, here's a procedure, 

2 you're supposed to follow the procedure or use 

3 this tool to follow the tool, and an error was 

4 made. And that's one of your quality 

5 problems. That shouldn't have happened. 

6 But then we have another 

7 circumstance, and this is an interesting 

8 nuance. A person is going through a dose 

9 reconstruction, and he's using all the tools 

10 available to him but there isn't any really 

11 particular tool for this particular problem so 

12 he jury-rigs in his best judgment. Nothing 

13 wrong with that, using the tools that are 

14 available that he believes reasonably apply to 

15 this particular problem. So now the dose 

16 reconstructor is doing his job, and he makes 

17 his judgment. 

18 Now, I think, and this is more of 

19 a question, when that happens, how transparent 

20 is it? And I really have to ask this question 

21 maybe of Kathy and of Doug. It should be that 

22 there's really nothing wrong with the person 
223

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 doing something like this. He's using his 

2 best judgment, and he's going to disclose it 

3 in his documentation to the world to see, for 

4 his QA people internally to see and, of 

5 course, eventually, if we happen to have one 

6 of those cases thrown our way, for us to see. 

7

8 I guess my first question would be 

9 to Doug. When you went through this case and 

10 found a problem, was this explanation -- in 

11 other words, the thought process that the dose 

12 reconstructor went through to get to where he 

13 got, was that disclosed? In other words, was 

14 there transparency to what he did and why he 

15 did it? Since he did not actually have a tool 

16 at that time, he had to resort to something 

17 else that he felt was reasonable.

18 MR. FARVER: Well, he did have a 

19 tool. He had a complex-wide best estimate 

20 external tool 1.1.

21 DR. MAURO: And he selected that 

22 thinking that was reasonably appropriate to 
224

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 this problem. 

2 MR. FARVER: And that's what was 

3 used to calculate the photon doses and neutron 

4 doses. 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. And then later 

6 on, in retrospect we're looking at it and we 

7 know that there's something else out there. I 

8 guess I'm trying to get to the genesis of the 

9 process where, you know, he does his dose and 

10 it sounds like he did it at the time to the 

11 best of his ability, best of his knowledge, 

12 and documented it as best as he could so that 

13 everyone could see what he did. It went 

14 through a QA process that was accepted. But 

15 then somewhere along the line up steps SC&A 

16 into the picture and has asked to review it. 

17 Now we're reviewing it through our lens, which 

18 might be two and three years later, and is 

19 that the reason the comment came out? Is that 

20 how this comment emerged? Because now we're 

21 looking at it from the perspective that has 

22 grown. 
225

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 MR. FARVER: No. We're looking at 

2 it from a perspective of there's an equation 

3 in this cell or this spreadsheet that divides 

4 by 1.16. Where does that number come from?

5 DR. MAURO: That's what I was just 

6 asking. I thought we just heard the answer to 

7 that.

8 MR. FARVER: Well, but according 

9 to the documents, that number shouldn't be 

10 there.

11 DR. MAURO: These documents? The 

12 ones he cites or the ones that we're looking 

13 at that we think don't apply? 

14 MR. FARVER: The ones that are 

15 referenced when he does his dose 

16 reconstruction.

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, so we do have a 

18 quality problem there.

19 MR. FARVER: Well, and what 

20 prompted the finding was where that 1.16 comes 

21 from because we're looking at this and 

22 comparing it to how we know the doses should 
226

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 be calculated and then it has an extra value 

2 in here.

3 DR. MAURO: Just help me out. Do 

4 we have a quality problem here? In other 

5 words, was there an error made at that time by 

6 this dose reconstructor where he inserted a 

7 1.6 when he shouldn't have? 

8 MR. FARVER: He didn't insert it. 

9 It was programmed into the workbook. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: The question is why 

11 it is in the workbook.

12 DR. MAURO: But he used the 

13 workbook. 

14 DR. ULSH: It's the application of 

15 the workbook that's the problem. 

16 DR. MAURO: What is that? What do 

17 you call that? Is that a quality problem? 

18 What is that? 

19 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so. I 

20 think this is one of those indefinable things. 

21 This is a site-wide workbook. 

22 MR. FARVER: No, this says 
227

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 complex-wide best estimate.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Pardon me. Complex3 wide estimate.

4 MR. FARVER: I believe it wasn't 

5 specific to INEL. They did not have their own 

6 workbook.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Understood. 

8 MR. FARVER: So this was taken 

9 from another place. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: This is the best he 

11 had at the time. He used the best that he had 

12 at the time. There's no way he should have 

13 been required to know that it would not be 

14 applicable to INEL.

15 MR. FARVER: Shouldn't he know how 

16 he's calculating his numbers and what the 

17 values --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

19 Shouldn't the peer review have caught the --

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You were 

21 pointing to a situation where you said you had 

22 a document which had an expression for 
228

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 calculating the dose, and when you set that 

2 against the spreadsheet you saw that there was 

3 --

4 MR. FARVER: Well, we understand 

5 that there's a basic way you go and you 

6 calculate your, in this case it's neutrons. 

7 You know, there's certain values that go 

8 together. And then even though they used the 

9 Monte Carlo calculation, that value is here in 

10 the cell equation. And multiply by 2.2 

11 factor, which is all documented in the 

12 Technical Basis. And then at the end, it 

13 divides by 1.16 or 1.6. 

14 DR. MAURO: And there's a reason 

15 for that. The complex-wide workbook includes 

16 the 1.6 factor for a reason. 

17 MR. FARVER: I don't know. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, you're not 

19 even sure on the complex-wide.

20 MR. FARVER: I don't know why this 

21 number is in here.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because we're 
229

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 getting the suggestion that it's a problem 

2 maybe for Idaho but shouldn't have a factor.

3 MR. FARVER: Why is it divided by 

4 1.6? The original NIOSH response is that it 

5 was bias, and that it was actually claimant6 favorable in increasing the dose, and then I 

7 replied back, no, it isn't, it's decreasing 

8 the dose. 

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the 1.6 is, 

10 as I understood it, is -- well, first, is this 

11 spreadsheet or this algorithm used, you said 

12 it was put forward as complex-wide and is it 

13 also, is it for a specific set of years or is 

14 it for all years? 

15 MEMBER MUNN: It's a dosimeter 

16 basis. It's a dosimeter bias. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I'm asking 

18 first about this expression, I mean this 

19 calculation. Is it used for a series of years 

20 or any? Because the dosimetry technology is 

21 changing over time and --

22 DR. MAURO: Maybe the bias isn't 
230

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 always needed in later years. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, it's not 

3 in all the cells. 

4 MR. FARVER: So for all years for 

5 this individual. I don't have the whole, it 

6 just has the years that there's doses. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. Yes, I 

8 would think, like, yes, there's dosimeter9 response issues. They change with the 

10 technology. Was the reason we thought it was 

11 only an INEL because they were using a better 

12 dosimeter than the rest of the sites, and is 

13 that true over all time? So I guess, I mean -

14 -

15 DR. MAURO: I have to say, I'm 

16 trying to find something systematic that might 

17 be important. I think that's what I'm headed 

18 to. The use of workbooks are invaluable, and 

19 what we have here is obviously a situation. 

20 Let's presume for the moment that the workbook 

21 itself was well conceived, well designed and 

22 implemented at the time it was prepared for 
231

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 the purpose for which it was intended, 

2 including the 1.6 factor. However, the person 

3 who did it never really realized that, you 

4 know, when it comes to INL maybe this doesn't 

5 really work. I don't know if there's anything 

6 you can do about it.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's 

8 the impression I got from Scott's summary. 

9 And then it would be a case of, you know, it 

10 could be systemic for Idaho best estimate 

11 cases but not complex-wide cases. I mean, if 

12 it's wrong for everything then --

13 DR. MAURO: Then it's wrong. Then 

14 there's a quality problem. But now we have a 

15 different quality problem. The quality 

16 problem really is the person that reviews its 

17 case for Idaho, for example, should have 

18 picked up and said you can't use this factor 

19 for Idaho. You know, it doesn't fly because 

20 there's got to be a place where you have to 

21 hang responsibility, and I'm just trying to 

22 find that. 
232

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 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's where I 

2 feel it should be picked up, the person who 

3 looked at this specific case and could have 

4 just pulled up this workbook and the first 

5 thing that pops up is --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But, I mean, 

7 the first question -- Scott, maybe you can 

8 weigh in on that. The first question, is it 

9 appropriate for complex-wide and just its 

10 application to Idaho is the problem, or are we 

11 understanding that correctly? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you. I 

13 just don't know off the top of my head. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

16 you a question? The first response to 

17 pointing this out was that it was claimant18 friendly rather than not. And I was 

19 wondering, because one of my, I don't know a 

20 lot of neutron dosimetry, but for, at least 

21 for some years, kind of the problems I've 

22 heard with neutron dosimeters is under-
233

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 response as opposed to over-response. You 

2 know, early years, it would be difficult to 

3 track. You may actually be in a neutron field 

4 where you're missing some of the dose. Is it 

5 possible that the thought process behind this 

6 factor for correcting dosimeter bias was a 

7 division as opposed to a multiplication? You 

8 know, it was reflecting a problem with neutron 

9 dosimetry that was complex-wide in the early 

10 years. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was supposed 

12 to multiply, yes.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It was very 

14 late, actually, that you thought the neutrons 

15 were reliable. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: No, there's no 

17 correction bias factor for neutrons in INEL in 

18 the TBD that I'm aware of for that. 

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm asking 

20 more generally about neutron dosimetry. I 

21 mean, when I mostly talk to people --

22 DR. MAURO: There's circumstances, 
234

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 because of the dosimeter you use, you want to 

2 reduce the dose because of the reading you'll 

3 get. So normally you've got to jack it up 

4 because it's missing less than one meV or 

5 whatever the cutoff is. Hey, we're at the 

6 circumstance. No, no, no, we're actually, 

7 whatever reading we're getting is too high. 

8 That might be true, and that's the 1.6 divisor 

9 is here. I don't know. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But I've 

11 looked at other facilities when they've 

12 introduced better neutron dosimetry technology 

13 that recorded neutron doses have increased 

14 substantially. It's not been that 

15 historically they were underperforming. 

16 DR. ULSH: I can add just a little 

17 bit about what I know, and it is just a little 

18 bit. The switch was from NTA film in the 

19 early years to neutron TLDs in the later 

20 years. And with neutron films, there is an 

21 issue about the response of the film to low22 energy neutrons, and you can define low 
235

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 energy. That's been the topic of a lot of 

2 discussion. But I don't think it's accurate 

3 to, across the board, assume that the NTA 

4 films under-responded. It depends on the 

5 neutron energy. I think that there are some 

6 neutron energy where it actually over7 responds.

8 DR. MAURO: And that could be the 

9 reason for this. 

10 DR. ULSH: It could be. That's 

11 about the limit of what I know.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. Except 

13 that this is a weird factor in that it seems 

14 to be across --

15 MR. FARVER: All energies. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Is it across all 

17 energies for all organs, or are we, in this 

18 particular case, we're speaking only to the 

19 bladder? 

20 MR. FARVER: We are just looking 

21 to the bladder. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: And is this 
236

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 correction factor specifically to the bladder, 

2 or is it to all neutron exposures? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: The write-up says 

4 organ DCF is applied, so you'd have an organ 

5 DCF that would be specific to the bladder --

6 MR. FARVER: It looks like it is a 

7 dosimeter bias.

8 DR. MAURO: For the bladder, 

9 though, you said. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no, I said 

11 it's not the bladder.

12 DR. MAURO: Oh, it's not the 

13 bladder. I'm sorry.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: The DCF for the 

15 bladder would have been applied separately 

16 than this factor where it says organ DCF. To 

17 me, this is a puzzle to me and, to me, the 

18 starting place of the puzzle is the best 

19 estimate tool and a division by 1.6 is the 

20 best estimate tool. Now, to me, that's the 

21 starting place of the puzzle. If that 

22 actually turns out, for whatever reason, to be 
237

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 correct, then the question becomes, well, to 

2 that point then, what criteria did you go to 

3 when you said I don't have a best estimate for 

4 this site, but I want to use it, you know, use 

5 this complex-wide best estimate tool. What 

6 vetting process do you go through to say that 

7 that tool is appropriate for this site which I 

8 want to use in that fashion? 

9 So, to me, it's a two-phase kind 

10 of thing. The first thing we've got to figure 

11 out is the origin of this factor in the best 

12 estimate tool. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

14 action then. You got it. 

15 DR. ULSH: Well, I think there 

16 might be two actions, one of which might be 

17 subsumed here. The first action is we've got 

18 to look and see whether or not there are other 

19 Idaho claims that used this bias factor 

20 inappropriately.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, let's start 

22 at the beginning. Let's start earlier than 
238

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 that. Let's start at the tool itself, the 

2 complex-wide best estimate tool, because none 

3 of us in here right now can think of a reason 

4 why you would have this division by 1.6. So 

5 let's start there, and then once we've done 

6 that, it may not just be an Idaho issue 

7 anymore, is the problem. It may be an issue 

8 with any case. If there's a problem with that 

9 workbook, then it's a problem with all cases 

10 done by that workbook. It's not an Idaho11 specific look anymore. 

12 DR. ULSH: Well, that was the 

13 second action I have. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's do that one 

15 first. 

16 MR. FARVER: And it's difficult 

17 for us to tell in this case because this 

18 workbook does not have a worksheet of look-up 

19 parameters, so we can't say, well, I went to 

20 this page and pulled this parameter. It 

21 appears to have macros running, and it's 

22 pulling numbers from somewhere, and that 
239

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 always makes it difficult.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's interesting you 

3 have the dosimeter correction actually of 2.2 

4 and min and the other dosimeter bias of 1.6.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: It appears, if you 

7 were going to have a bias or a correction 

8 factor, the two somehow confuses me.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's 

10 a good course of action, Stu. That makes 

11 sense to me, so I'm putting that down as our 

12 action. 

13 DR. MAURO: I've got one more 

14 little twist to this. I'm not a wiz at 

15 spreadsheets, okay? And I find myself, when I 

16 check -- I'm going to sort of bare my soul a 

17 little bit here. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why 

19 we've got Doug. 

20 DR. MAURO: You know why I do all 

21 the AWEs? 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because they're 
240

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 hand calculations.

2 DR. MAURO: Because they're hand 

3 calculations, and I can understand what 

4 they're talking about and I can use my slide 

5 rule. I can count on my fingers. I don't do 

6 these. You know why I don't do these? These 

7 things make my head explode. The spreadsheets 

8 and they're nested and nested, and I've got to 

9 tell you you've got to be born with certain 

10 kind of skills or spend years. We have a few 

11 magicians in our group, you know, and Doug is 

12 one of them and Kathy is one of them. But 

13 I've got to tell you these things are murder. 

14 I think you're pretty comfortable with them. 

15 You're okay. But believe me, I guarantee 

16 you, not everybody is. 

17 So my question is I guess to the 

18 group. Is it really fair to ask an auditor, 

19 whether it's internal to NIOSH or external, 

20 the Board, to have to be a wizard at 

21 spreadsheets in order to check to see if these 

22 things make sense? Never mind the nuclear 
241

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 physics that go behind it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: No, actually it 

3 isn't. But these things, you're right, 

4 they're like Russian dolls. You take one 

5 apart, and there's --

6 DR. MAURO: I tried to do it once. 

7 My daughter can. I can't do it. 

8 MR. FARVER: Actually, this one 

9 was pretty straightforward because the first 

10 thing that pops up is a description of the 

11 external dose calculations, and it's all 

12 documented. And then you can see it's very 

13 transparent what each number is, so this is a 

14 pretty straightforward one. You can look 

15 across and say, oh, what's that number for? 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to 

17 leave you all to ponder while I take a comfort 

18 break. So let's take a ten-minute break, and 

19 we'll reconvene on John's thought of the day. 

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

21 matter went off the record at 2:31 p.m. and 

22 resumed at 2:44 p.m.)
242

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 MR. KATZ: We're back after a 

2 short break. Scott, are you on? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: I am. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we're 

5 up to 165.4. And, Scott, Brant has just 

6 indicated that you might be the best to 

7 summarize this four-page response. 

8 DR. ULSH: I'm going to bag you 

9 with both of the next ones, Scott, 165.4 and 

10 5.

11 MR. SIEBERT: 165.4? 

12 DR. ULSH: Yes, start there. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: I'm actually going 

14 to ask if Matt Smith is on the phone and if I 

15 could bag it off to him.

16 MR. SMITH: I'm on the phone, but 

17 you talk it through and I'll have to just kind 

18 of back you up.

19 MR. SIEBERT: There. That will 

20 work for me. Basically, if you read our 

21 initial response, the question was, is using 

22 dosimeter correction factors with missed dose 
243

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 for the neutrons. Basically, our initial 

2 response is generically true for most sites. 

3 However, for INEL it actually has been 

4 determined to be appropriate to use the 

5 correction factors for missed dose, as well as 

6 for measured dose. So the initial response 

7 that we have is not accurate. We don't agree 

8 that we shouldn't be using it for missed dose, 

9 we should, and that it wasn't in the TBD and 

10 that it's what is done. 

11 MR. SMITH: And this is a case 

12 where it is NTA film, and the group was kind 

13 of discussing those correction factors earlier 

14 and that's the case here because of the lack 

15 of NTA response to some of those neutron 

16 energies. That's why the TBD does explicitly 

17 call out a correction in LOD values if you 

18 have a claimant in those reactor areas. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you're 

20 saying the workbook was correct in this case, 

21 though, right? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, because it 
244

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 assigned against missed dose as well as 

2 measured dose. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm just 

4 stalling for Doug to have a chance to look. 

5 MR. FARVER: Is that clear in the 

6 TBD? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. I'm trying to 

8 get to that section. It's Section 6.5.4. 

9 MR. SMITH: And in the original 

10 revision, it was 6.5.2. On this current 

11 revision, the revision number two that's not 

12 on the websites right now, it would be on the 

13 top of page 41. 

14 MR. FARVER: And, Scott, you said 

15 it's in the Rev 0 also?

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe so. I 

17 have that written down. I'm looking at it as 

18 we speak. Actually, I'm not quite looking at 

19 it yet, but I will be. 

20 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

21 also have another question. It appears, and 

22 I'm just looking at our dose reconstruction 
245

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 review, but it appears we also made mention 

2 that this correction factor, dosimeter 

3 correction factor was used for the skin dose 

4 calculations but not for the bladder 

5 calculation. I haven't verified that, but if 

6 that's correct that doesn't seem to make 

7 sense. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: No, I agree with 

9 you. It should be used for both. 

10 MR. FARVER: It does not look like 

11 it was used for the missed neutron on the 

12 bladder. This is part of that same 

13 spreadsheet, complex-wide best estimate 

14 external tool. I'm not sure why it wasn't 

15 used for bladder. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

17 MR. FARVER: That's why I was 

18 asking if it was in the TBD. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The original 

20 finding in the matrix said skin, but going 

21 back to the report, I'm wondering if I should 

22 say neutron missed skin and bladder dose 
246

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 calculation error. 

2 MR. FARVER: Well, originally, we 

3 thought they shouldn't apply the 2.2 factor, 

4 and that's why they did that for the skin.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, they did it 

6 for --

7 MR. FARVER: They applied it to 

8 the skin doses, the missed skin doses.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: And, typically, a 

11 dosimeter correction factor is not applied.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And they didn't 

13 put a bladder, and you thought that was 

14 correct for the bladder.

15 MR. FARVER: Correct.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

17 I see, I see. Scott, I mean, you're following 

18 this that you agree that it wasn't, it should 

19 have been done for the bladder then if it was 

20 --

21 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree that 

22 it makes sense it should be done for both 
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

1 organs. I don't have the tool in front of me, 

2 and I apologize. I'm not an INEL guy. I'm 

3 winging on this one. I just don't know on the 

4 original one for the bladder.

5 MR. FARVER: Well, I would think 

6 that, one way or the other, either they should 

7 both with the correction factor or both be 

8 without.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: We could figure out a 

11 reason we would do one one way and one a 

12 different way. 

13 DR. ULSH: So I think we're in 

14 agreement that there's inconsistency between 

15 the two organs. The question now is should 

16 they both have it or both not?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes.

18 DR. ULSH: And I think we have a 

19 position on that table that they should be 

20 applied. I guess it's up to you guys to 

21 review that and see if you agree.

22 MR. FARVER: If it's in the TBD, 
248

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 which is what I was trying to get at, then 

2 that's fine. See, the only other place I know 

3 where they apply a correction factor to the 

4 missed dose is, I think it's Portsmouth. Most 

5 of the time they do not apply a dosimeter 

6 correction factor to the missed dose. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: At Y-12? 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry. Is 

9 it a situation of, again, examining that tool 

10 or is the tool correct but the application 

11 should have been for both organs?

12 MR. FARVER: Well, if it's 

13 documented that you apply that 2.2, then the 

14 tool is incorrect, then it did not use that. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: Let me go back. I 

16 talked to, real quickly, our tools folks while 

17 we were on the break, and the complex-wide 

18 best estimate tool would have specifically --

19 it doesn't have the defaults for these bias 

20 and these correction factors. They would have 

21 been hand-entered by the dose reconstructor 

22 during the assessment. So it doesn't appear 
249

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 to be a general tool with the best estimate 

2 tool itself, just what the dose reconstructor 

3 put into this version of the tool that he used 

4 for this assessment. I'm not defending it. 

5 I'm just saying that's what this appears to be 

6 in this case, such as when we were talking 

7 about the 1.6 factor before. That's not 

8 generically in the tool. From what I was 

9 told, it would have been entered by the dose 

10 reconstructor. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That's a 

12 big difference from our standpoint, yes. 

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, I couldn't find 

14 any input that had that value, so I don't know 

15 where they would put it in. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, is this 

17 another case where we have to examine that 

18 tool, though? I mean, we already have that 

19 action. If this is another --

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. I would just go 

21 ahead and examine the neutron missed doses and 

22 review those calculations while they're 
250

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 looking at it. 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I ask a 

3 question about, for an individual who's doing 

4 a series of dose reconstructions, where does 

5 the tool reside I guess is the question? 

6 Like, is it possible for a person to have 

7 entered a value, like 1.6, and then propagate 

8 that error going forward because they start 

9 with the last time they used that spreadsheet 

10 and they update values for the next dose 

11 reconstruction for a different individual? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: No. The tools are 

13 kept in a specific folder, and when a new 

14 claim is begun the dose reconstructors go to 

15 that folder and use the latest version of the 

16 tool and the template that go with the site. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So they 

18 keep a clean -- somebody maintains a clean 

19 tool and they try to avoid propagating errors? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

22 DR. MAURO: And we call that 
251

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 configuration control. One of the biggest 

2 problems you have in your software is 

3 configuration control, and you nailed it. And 

4 that's going to be a big part of a QA process.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. What I 

6 have is NIOSH and SC&A, I just put it as both 

7 action, to review the tool and case to 

8 determine if this is a case-specific issue or 

9 broader potential issue. Alright. Obviously, 

10 it was treated differently for the two organs: 

11 skin and bladder. I just want to get to the 

12 bottom of where the mistake was made, if it 

13 was an incorrect entry of a correction factor 

14 or if it was in the tool itself.

15 MR. FARVER: And, see, the skin 

16 doses were calculated using a different 

17 spreadsheet, a different tool. So you have 

18 one tool that's calculating your bladder doses 

19 and another tool that's doing your skin doses, 

20 and they did them differently or they used 

21 different calculations. So one is correct 

22 probably and one isn't. 
252

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 MEMBER MUNN: Maybe they're both 

2 correct --

3 MR. FARVER: That could be.

4 MEMBER MUNN: -- for specific 

5 instance for which they were being used. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So 

7 let's agree to move on to the next, .5, right? 

8 165.5? 

9 DR. ULSH: Yes. The summary of 

10 the finding is uncertainty improperly 

11 calculated for medical organ and doses, and 

12 the response is fairly short so I'll read it. 

13 The response is, a 30-percent uncertainty was 

14 correctly applied to the x-ray doses to the 

15 bladder and a 20-percent uncertainty was 

16 incorrectly applied to the x-ray doses for 

17 each of the skin cancers. Because the x-ray 

18 doses were assigned as a normal distribution, 

19 the error in the uncertainty value did not 

20 affect the assigned doses. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I don't get 

22 the last part. 
253

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Say that 

2 again.

3 MR. SIEBERT: The assigned doses 

4 are based on the mean of the distribution, so 

5 the doses themselves did not change. It would 

6 be, the normal distribution around it should 

7 have had an error of 30 percent versus 20 

8 percent for the skin cancer. So the dose 

9 itself is identical. It's the distribution 

10 around it that was incorrect. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But do you or 

12 don't you use the bounds for the distribution 

13 of the estimated doses when you calculate the 

14 Probability of Causation, that is, to 

15 propagate the uncertainty in the doses and to 

16 derive the risk estimate? 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. It should 

18 have been 30 percent versus 20 percent, and it 

19 would make a small difference, could make a 

20 small difference in the PoC.

21 DR. ULSH: That's ultimately where 

22 we want to end up with the right calculation 
254

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 in the Probability of Causation. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Right. The doses 

3 themselves, which is frequently what we're 

4 looking at, the doses do not change but the 

5 distribution around them should have been 

6 appropriately applied. And when we applied, 

7 we did apply that correctly and re-ran IREP, 

8 so we knew there was no change in 

9 compensability. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I actually 

11 think that was the action from last time. If 

12 you look ahead, I think we had agreement, but 

13 then we said NIOSH will review to assure that 

14 the dose difference doesn't affect the 

15 outcome. So I think that's what you were 

16 looking at this time, yes.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And are you in 

19 agreement with that? 

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. That's just one 

21 of those things that should have been caught.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 
255

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 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is that 

2 something that's not in the worksheet, 

3 workbook? Is that something that has to be 

4 individually entered for --

5 MEMBER MUNN: Distribution?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. SIEBERT: To tell you the 

8 truth, back in 2006, I can't answer that off 

9 the top of my head.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And today? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Today it's built 

12 into the worksheets, the workbooks. So that 

13 error would not occur in a site-specific 

14 workbook. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So that 

16 item is closed. And moving on.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay. I think the next 

18 one that I have is 166.5. The summary of the 

19 finding is failure to account for all 

20 occupational medical dose, and our response is 

21 that, this claim was reworked based on 

22 additional skin cancer diagnosed in 2006. 
256

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 This latest version of the assessment included 

2 all x-rays in the record. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, a little 

4 background on this one. This is one where 

5 additional x-ray information came in 

6 approximately the time we were submitting the 

7 claim. So additional information came in 

8 about the time that it was being completed, 

9 and there's a question -- we probably should 

10 have caught that before it got submitted to 

11 DOL but we've gone back and looked at the 

12 rework that was done after that and it did 

13 include all of the additional x-rays that were 

14 received in the record. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No further 

16 action, I assume. 

17 DR. MAURO: Just a question on 

18 this process you're in where, you know, you're 

19 getting better all the time where there's a 

20 PER. I know the PER is very formal, but in a 

21 case like this what we really did is in the 

22 process of review we found an issue was 
257

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 raised. While you were addressing that issue, 

2 simultaneously you picked up something related 

3 to additional x rays, and that's fixed and 

4 it's re-run. There is a history here now 

5 that's unfolding. Is there a record of that 

6 history, sort of the way we try to track 

7 everything on the procedures, every meeting, 

8 everything, you know? Is that something that 

9 was documented, how a particular dose evolves 

10 in, let's say, the person's administrative 

11 record so that where it started and where it 

12 ended is all there for posterity, or is that 

13 not the case? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, each of the 

15 dose reconstructions would be there. As of

16 some date, I don't know, a year or two ago, 

17 each subsequent dose reconstruction explained 

18 what's different between it and the previous 

19 one. So as far as the entire history of the 

20 program, there would be some cases where it 

21 would maybe a little hard to figure out, going 

22 from one to another. But for now and for a 
258

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 while now, the most recent dose reconstruction 

2 should explain what has changed from when 

3 previous one was current.

4 DR. MAURO: Good. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 166.6; 

6 do we have anything? 

7 DR. ULSH: Yes. The summary of 

8 the finding is NIOSH's CADW data inconsistent 

9 with IREP input entries. And our response on 

10 this one is, this claim's original IREP sheet 

11 was updated to reflect the missed plutonium12 238 triangular dose for exposure lines 210

13 through 230. Overall, PoC changed from 48.38 

14 percent to 47.22 percent. 

15 If I look back in the resolution 

16 column, the action that we were supposed to 

17 take was NIOSH will check to determine if this 

18 affects the outcome of the claim. It looks 

19 like we did do that. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: That's what you were 

21 asked to do, and you did it. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: The purpose of the 
259

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 response is the fact that we agreed if that 

2 it's a QA issue. We corrected the issue, and 

3 it had no impact on compensability. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm kind of 

5 catching up, but is this one any concern of a 

6 broader application, or is this a specific 

7 issue for this claim? It seems like a 

8 specific one. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: I think it's 

10 specifically this claim. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is a specific 

12 issue for this claim. What it is, it's a cut13 and-paste issue that was not picked up in peer 

14 review. That's what it looks like the actual 

15 issue is.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think 

17 there's probably no further action. We 

18 identified it as a QA. Alright.

19 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm trying to 

20 review this. Is this where, was it just 

21 typographical or did you forget to include the 

22 intake in the dose? 
260

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 MR. SIEBERT: What it appears is, 

2 when the doses were cut from the CADW tool and 

3 put into the IREP sheet, the plutonium-238 

4 doses were either overwritten or not included. 

5 So as I said, it was a cut-and-paste issue.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. So at intake, 

7 doses were omitted and you added them in.

8 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct.

9 MR. FARVER: Correct. And the PoC 

10 dropped a couple of percent.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, a fraction.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: How did that 

15 happen? 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Because it's based 

17 on distributions.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: What's based 

19 on distributions?

20 MR. SIEBERT: The PoC.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm not 

22 following.
261

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 MR. SIEBERT: Because the 

2 Probability of Causation calculation is a 

3 Monte Carlo calculation, small changes in 

4 dose, whether they add small amounts of dose 

5 or subtract small amounts of dose, since 

6 things are driven by distributions, as well, 

7 at the 99th percentile, adding a small dose 

8 can actually reduce your PoC just like 

9 reducing by a small dose can also increase 

10 your PoC.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Only if you're 

12 not running your Monte Carlo simulations long 

13 enough to get the sampling variability out of 

14 the Monte Carlo process.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I would agree 

16 entirely.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, then you 

18 need, I mean, that's a fundamental, 

19 fundamental problem. If the same input values 

20 aren't resulting in posterior distributions 

21 that are stable, then there's a problem with 

22 the Monte Carlo tool.
262

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 MR. SIEBERT: Well, you're not 

2 thinking about the fact that when we hit into 

3 the 45 to 52-percent range, we also do, well, 

4 NIOSH runs 10,000 iterations. It runs the 

5 IREP calculation 30 times to come up with the 

6 PoC. That is not done outside of the 45 to 

7 52-percent range.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, you're 

9 talking about computational times that are, 

10 I'm imagining, on the order of seconds to 

11 minutes to go from 10,000 iterations to 

12 100,000 iterations. I mean, it shouldn't be 

13 that, if we ask a question about why is there 

14 an extra dose added and the Probability of 

15 Causation result changes, it's because of 

16 simulation error in the statistical tool. I

17 mean, in these days where you're not paying 

18 for processor time, that should be something 

19 which you can run out several decimal places I 

20 would think, I mean unless I'm really not 

21 picturing what's going on. But, I mean, that 

22 doesn't seem like the place where we should be 
263

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 having this kind of variation going on.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I understand 

3 your point. I think a better place to have the 

4 conversation would be in the Science Issues 

5 Work Group because I don't think the people 

6 engaged in this Work Group are going to be 

7 equipped to deal with it very well. But I 

8 think in the Science Issues Work Group, you'll 

9 have a different cadre of staff from our side.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But from an 

11 operational standpoint, though, I mean, I 

12 guess I would ask the same thing David is 

13 keying in on. How long do these runs take, 

14 the very complicated runs even?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the 30 runs 

16 of 10,000 run overnight. We don't sit and 

17 wait to run 30 iterations, 30 times of 10,000 

18 iterations. We don't ask anyone to sit and do 

19 that. We run those --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thirty IMBA 

21 runs.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Thirty IMBA runs. 
264

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 IREP. Thirty IREP runs of 10,000 iterations 

2 are run overnight. 

3 DR. MAURO: There's another reason 

4 why that could happen: the distribution you 

5 put in. In other words, you just added 

6 another number, some positive number that has 

7 a distribution in it, right? Now, I'm just 

8 thinking if it turns out that, let's say it's 

9 a triangular distribution and you have a lot 

10 of weight toward the left, the low-end dose, 

11 in other words so that, when it samples, is 

12 it possible that -- no, it still wouldn't --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: If you're adding a 

14 completely new dose --

15 DR. MAURO: If you're adding a new 

16 dose it can't. It can't.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: It does not make -

18 -

19 DR. MAURO: Alright. Yes, I'm 

20 just trying to find --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: -- my head, but 

22 that number should go down.
265

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 DR. MAURO: It can't go down.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It's pretty, I 

3 mean we've observed it from the start of the 

4 program. Small changes in dose have an 

5 unpredictable outcome in the PoC number that 

6 comes out of IREP. And, generally, you run 

7 the same number of iterations in random 

8 sequence, and so that's a bit puzzling to me. 

9 I'm not sure about same way in the seed. I 

10 think so. But to be honest, I don't think 

11 we're going to solve it here. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Less than one13 percent difference.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, when we 

15 chose the 45 to 52, that was chosen with the 

16 idea that if you get within 45, it might make 

17 a difference. Then you really want to make 

18 sure you don't have modeling error associated 

19 with those number of iterations, including the 

20 Monte Carlo. And so the 45 to 52 was selected 

21 for that purpose, feeling that it doesn't seem 

22 likely, based on our investigation, that you 
266

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 would have that large of a change based on 

2 just the way the Monte Carlo ran. And so it 

3 was chosen that way. I'm going to get over my 

4 head really quick on this, and we would 

5 probably want to have our statisticians --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I guess 

7 the surprise to me was you had to run some of 

8 these overnight for the full iteration. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: We run 30 IREPs at 

10 10,000 iterations, and we run those overnight.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's probably 

12 because of the complicated input files that 

13 you have, yes.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be that. 

15 It may be an artifact of how IREP does the 

16 arithmetic. You know, this was built for a 

17 particular, you know, particular instance in a 

18 particular way. And just because things are a 

19 lot faster now or newer now, it's not clear to 

20 me that the IREP program has been modified to 

21 take advantage of, perhaps, better processing 

22 speeds today than over ten years ago. So I 
267

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 don't know if that's true or not. But to me, 

2 it is, you know, just the basic run is 2,000 

3 iterations of every line on an IREP page. So 

4 one iteration is every line on the IREP page 

5 and sampling from every distribution goes into 

6 that line, which would be the distribution on 

7 the IREP page as well as sampling from the 

8 distribution of the risk model, which is 

9 hidden from all of us in IREP. And so there's 

10 a fair amount of sampling, I think, in the 

11 entirety of it. So the time for, you know, 

12 thirty 10,000 is significant enough that we 

13 don't do it at a desk; we run it overnight. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Something we 

15 can examine but not here probably. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it 

17 certainly could warrant some examination. I 

18 would love for someone to explain it to me. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I mean, 

20 I think that item is closed out for the 

21 purposes of our work here.

22 MS. BEHLING: Mark, can I ask a 
268

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 question here?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure.

3 MS. BEHLING: This question not 

4 only applies to this particular case. In 

5 fact, I was thinking about it during our 

6 discussions of a previous case, 165. When you 

7 asked the question, or when Brant was trying 

8 to respond to the question of the impact of 

9 finding 166.6 and, as we've just been 

10 discussing, it actually may be reduced to PoC, 

11 when you look at this particular case, 

12 shouldn't we be also considering the impact of 

13 other findings, not just 166.6 but if we also 

14 include the fact that there was some 

15 additional x-ray doses from, you know, finding 

16 166.5. It seems to me that we're looking at 

17 one specific finding, changing the values 

18 based on the change for that finding, but did 

19 we also incorporate any changes in this 

20 particular case that has to do with other 

21 findings and then reassess the impact? 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Was this 
269

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 the way we just said for PoC? I forgot.

2 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Well, this PoC 

3 is 46 or 48 or something like that. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes. 

5 Yes, I think in the past, Kathy, you're 

6 right. If we had ones that were close, NIOSH 

7 sort of said, well, we have to examine all, 

8 you know, you have five findings that may have 

9 added a little dose, so we have to sort of

10 redo everything.

11 MS. BEHLING: Right. Also 165, I 

12 hope, if there are still open items there that 

13 everything in combination be looked at when 

14 we're re-assessing because it's not just one 

15 finding, it may be a combination of findings. 

16 That will increase the dose and --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right, 

18 right. We've done that in the past where 

19 we've asked, you know, and I know for a couple 

20 of Savannah River cases, Stu, I think you 

21 probably recall this, that NIOSH re-ran 

22 basically the entire cases because they were 
270

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 very close to, you know --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes. I 

3 mean, we should do that on each of these if 

4 there's several findings rather than just, you 

5 know, sample one finding.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 DR. ULSH: For some of these that 

8 we've talked about, we said that this case was 

9 re-run, but I don't remember if that was clear 

10 or not. I mean, we wouldn't have just re-run 

11 it for one issue. We would have re-run it for 

12 all the updated issues --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but I 

14 think the way we worded it in the matrix, it 

15 says NIOSH will check to see if this affected 

16 the case, and Kathy is saying what about all 

17 the, you know, all five of these. So it's a 

18 good point that we don't want to lose sight 

19 of, I guess. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: We were talking 

21 about 165. That claim was re-worked. It 

22 stayed non-compensable. We can look at the 
271

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 factors as to whether everything that was 

2 mentioned in these findings were addressed in 

3 that re-work or not.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, I 

5 think that's --

6 MS. BEHLING: In 166, the PoC is 

7 48 and change, so I think we have to look at 

8 all findings there, too. 

9 MR. KATZ: Wouldn't that be 

10 standard procedure after you go through this 

11 when you validate that certain findings are 

12 correct in your view? Don't you, wouldn't you 

13 automatically, if it's anywhere out of 

14 potential, you would re-run it, right? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I think so, but, 

16 sitting here today, I don't know exactly what 

17 we did. So we'll make sure that's what 

18 happened. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: I do want to point 

20 out, going back to 165, I'm sorry. This is 

21 Scott. When we did re-run that to determine 

22 if the PoC was affected, we did include fixing 
272

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 the 1958 factor for the skin cancers, the x2 ray is corrected, and the 1.6 bias factor 

3 pulled out. All those things were addressed 

4 in the numbers that I gave you in the 

5 response. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's for 165?

7 MR. SIEBERT: 165, yes. It was 

8 not just response number six. It was all 

9 those responses are rolled into, they were 

10 corrected for that final PoC.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Scott, do you 

12 know if something similar was done for 166? 

13 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second. 

14 Actually, give me more than a second. Yes. 

15 As I said, for 166, we had to do a re-work 

16 based on the Super S PER and additional 

17 cancers. And the re-worked claim did stay 

18 non-compensable. So I'd have to go back and 

19 look to see if any, like the CADW cut-and20 paste issue was corrected, which I assumed it 

21 would be. But we would have to go back and 

22 look at that.
273

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So for 

2 166, you can verify. Yes, we'll leave that as 

3 an action to verify. But for 165, it seems 

4 like it was done. What was the resulting PoC 

5 for 165? Does anybody have that number? 

6 After you did your re-runs and everything, 

7 what was the PoC for 165? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: I may not have that 

9 because it may have been at a 45 to 52-percent 

10 range, and that's outside what I can see. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: I'm trying not to 

13 say actual claim numbers out loud as I type. 

14 Okay. What we would have done is 46.55, then 

15 it would go over to DCAS for the 30 run. I 

16 don't think I have that number. 

17 DR. ULSH: Well, you conclude that 

18 it's between 45 and 52. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: You conclude it 

20 between 45 and 50. That's non-compensable. I 

21 just don't have the results of the 30 IREP 

22 runs at my fingertips. Brant, you may have to 
274

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 find that one out for us.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So 

3 then we'll track that down, and then 166 

4 you're going to check to make sure that all 

5 findings were considered in the re-analysis. 

6 Alright. And then we're moving on. 

7 DR. ULSH: The next one I have is 

8 167.3. The summary of the findings is that 

9 failed to consider unmonitored neutron dose. 

10 This is a pretty long response, so maybe I'll 

11 have Scott summarize.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry. I'm writing 

13 a note to the last one. Just a second.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask 

15 when you, this would be related to that note, 

16 when you get the answer about what the value 

17 is, could you tell us the 30 values, the 

18 results for the 30 runs, each of the 30 runs? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. 167.3. Let’s

20 see here. This is going to be near and dear 

21 to all our hearts. This has to do with 

22 assigning neutrons when there's not neutron 
275

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 dosimetry available for an individual based on 

2 worker location and so and so forth in OCAS 

3 TIB-7. This is that issue yet again. In the 

4 latest version from SC&A and the responses and 

5 the resolution from July, SC&A believes that 

6 TIB-7 was published two years after the dose 

7 reconstruction was completed, but the relevant 

8 sections are given. And then they believe 

9 that all those relevant portions actually fit 

10 and neutrons should be assessed. 

11 When we went back to look at it, 

12 the first part of the paragraph is basically 

13 just describing, yes, it's a subjective, but 

14 you go back to OCAS TIB-7. OCAS TIB-7, 

15 actually, the original version of it was in 

16 place when we assessed this claim, so we used 

17 the original version of OCAS TIB-7, which is 

18 not horrendously different from what SC&A was 

19 looking at the time, especially for this 

20 portion of it. So that's kind of a, it 

21 doesn't really matter a whole heck of a lot.

22 OCAS TIB-7 does a claimant-
276

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 favorable approach with the information that's 

2 in Section 2.2.1, and that's when you meet or 

3 do not meet the things that you have to 

4 consider for whether there's neutron exposure. 

5 None of the conditions in that section are 

6 met for this claim where there's no neutron 

7 monitoring from '71 later, there's no 

8 documentation of the use of 17 keV calibration 

9 curve for shallow dose, and there's no neutron 

10 monitoring in any of the dosimetry responsible 

11 for this individual. All three of those, 

12 there is no indication that there's exposure 

13 to neutrons for OCAS TIB-7. Therefore, it all 

14 relies on the employee's work and location and 

15 job. 

16 The individual apparently worked 

17 at P reactor for some or all of their time. 

18 Reactors are known for facilities where 

19 neutrons could be a potential exposure. But 

20 once again, going to another section of OCAS 

21 TIB-7, Section 2.2.2., it discusses the 

22 specifics of the reactor facilities and 
277

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 occupations being maintenance, clerics or 

2 other individuals responsible for radiation 

3 monitoring in the workplace, and this 

4 individual's occupation does not fall. So per 

5 OCAS TIB-7, we don't believe the neutron 

6 exposure was likely, and it should not be 

7 assigned.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What was the 

9 occupation?

10 MR. SIEBERT: I knew you were 

11 going to ask that, and I'm in the midst of 

12 pulling that up as we speak. 

13 MS. BEHLING: It was an engineer.

14 MR. FARVER: I'll have to go back 

15 and review the response.

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is one where, 

17 SC&A is going to review that response? 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was this 

22 something, I think we're ready to move on, but 
278

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 was this something that was brought up by the 

2 individual in the CATI, or did you just, oh, 

3 yes, according to the CATI.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It says they noted 

5 in the CATI related to technical --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So then 

7 just put down location and --

8 MR. SIEBERT: Right. We pulled 

9 more information from the CATI. Rather than 

10 just stating that the individual was an 

11 engineer, they did state specific things in 

12 the CATI, which, once again, did not seem to 

13 support any neutron exposure. Technical 

14 engineering of uranium slugs, electroplating.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. It's an 

16 SC&A action, so we'll leave it there. And we 

17 can move ahead.

18 DR. ULSH: The next item that I 

19 think we have action on is 168.4. The issue 

20 on this one, the summary of the findings says, 

21 improper method used to determine medical 

22 dose. If you look at the latest resolution on 
279

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 this, let's see --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You were going 

3 to correct this section of the TBD, right? 

4 DR. ULSH: Yes. NIOSH agrees and 

5 indicates that Section 3.5 of the medical 

6 section of the TBD should be corrected. And 

7 then our response for this meeting is, until 

8 the TBD is updated, the following wording has 

9 been added to the Mound dose reconstruction 

10 guidance document under the medical x-ray 

11 section. The medical x-ray TBD for Mound 

12 presently states to use positive error only 

13 when assigning error to medical x- rays after 

14 a discussion of reasonable-error TBDs. In 

15 order to be in line with medical x-ray 

16 assignment throughout the project, and 

17 parenthesis, and ORAU Procedure 61, DRs will 

18 assign medical x-rays as a normal distribution 

19 with a 30-percent standard deviation, not by 

20 multiplying by the factor of 1.3. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Mound where 

22 the TBD was -- it specifically said that you 
280

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 could use the distribution, the normal 

2 distribution with 30 percent or going on the 

3 1.3 and just using the high bias on that. And 

4 then it seemed to recommend only using the 1.3 

5 factor, whereas we're updating it to reflect 

6 what we do across the project, which is all x 

7 rays are normal with that distribution. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we're 

9 okay with that. 

10 DR. ULSH: Well, that being the 

11 case, I believe the next one is 168.5. The 

12 summary of the finding there is ambient dose 

13 improperly converted to organ dose. And we 

14 committed to, under the resolution, NIOSH will 

15 check back to determine how ambient doses were 

16 calculated.

17 So our latest response is that, we 

18 agree that the spreadsheet documenting the 

19 application of DCFs, dose conversion factors, 

20 to the ambient dose was not included in the 

21 initial assessment and should have been. This 

22 assessment was concluded before this 
281

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 Subcommittee agreed upon clarifying that all 

2 supporting tools/sheets/documents should be 

3 included. Oh, my gosh, this goes on for a 

4 long time. Let me see if -- Scott, do you 

5 want to summarize? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, but you were 

7 doing such a fine job. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: He was doing so 

9 nicely.

10 MR. SIEBERT: We start off 

11 basically agreeing that the spreadsheet that 

12 demonstrated how ambient doses were calculated 

13 should have been included. We'll all agree 

14 with that. That being said, it is correct 

15 that the organ dose DCF isotropic were used 

16 and that ambient isotropic DCFs should have 

17 been used. There is a discussion on the 

18 proper DCFs to be used for ambient in OCAS IG19 1 and Procedure 60. In the original 

20 assessment, actually maximum ambient dose 

21 values were used with the incorrect DCF 

22 values, so we agree that the isotropic DCFs 
282

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 should have been used to be most appropriate. 

2 But the fact that the overestimating maximum 

3 ambient doses were used, when you correct that 

4 and use the best estimate ambient doses and 

5 the appropriate DCFs -- and then we also, just 

6 like we talked about for the previous cases, 

7 we also included the errors that we agreed on, 

8 158.1 and .2, when we included all those 

9 things together the PoC was, combined PoC of 

10 39.61 percent. So there's no change in 

11 overall compensability.

12 MR. FARVER: So was there an error 

13 in the workbook that it was pulling the wrong 

14 value from a table or was --

15 MR. SIEBERT: The issue is there 

16 is no workbook at that time for assessing 

17 ambient dose at that point. So it was done --

18 apparently it was done separately in a 

19 spreadsheet by the dose reconstructor and that 

20 should have been included in the submission 

21 and apparently was not. And we back22 calculated, both you guys and we back-
283

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 calculated. It appears the inappropriate DCFs 

2 were used. And when you make that correction, 

3 along with the other assumptions, 

4 compensability doesn't change. 

5 MR. FARVER: So you never found a 

6 worksheet. You just did your back-calculating 

7 like we did?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And since then, 

10 these values are all in the workbook, right? 

11 Since this time when this case was done, these 

12 values are now all in your workbook or your 

13 tool; is that correct, Scott?

14 MR. SIEBERT: I can't say that for 

15 sure, but I would assume so. We can look that 

16 up. This was, once again, done back in 2006.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So basically 

18 they're agreeing that it was -- yes.

19 MR. FARVER: It was an error, just 

20 don't know why it was made or how it was made.

21 MR. SIEBERT: I hope to have an 

22 answer to that in the next, you know, few 
284

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 minutes, so we may want to go on and then I 

2 can yell back on that.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, 

4 alright. Go ahead, Brant.

5 DR. ULSH: Okay. Hold on. I want 

6 to make sure I get this. I'll erase it if he 

7 gets it. Otherwise, I don't want it to slip 

8 through the cracks. The next item that I 

9 think we have action on is 168.7. This is 

10 another long response, so I'll summarize the 

11 issue. NIOSH did not properly address 

12 potential radiological exposures in T 

13 Building, and we can investigate this further, 

14 and then we have a rather lengthy response. 

15 Scott, do you want to summarize or make me 

16 read the whole thing? 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry. The server 

18 kicked me off, and I'm trying to get back on 

19 here real quick. If somebody could send me 

20 Stu's thumb for that thumb print, that would 

21 probably help me out. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It should only 
285

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 take about 15 minutes with the level of 

2 password protections.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Or would you rather 

4 we sent you his thumb? 

5 DR. ULSH: Well, I'll start 

6 reading the response anyway. Okay. So our 

7 response is, the employee was not exposed to 

8 plutonium above environmental levels. He did 

9 not work with plutonium. The determination 

10 bioassay was less than half the MDA, and you 

11 can tell where that is in the DOE file, and 

12 the error of the result was equal to the 

13 result. A determination bioassay sample was 

14 standard procedure at the time. The site dose 

15 reconstruction project did not determine 

16 likely exposure to plutonium. We used default 

17 assumptions to assign dose based on the sample 

18 equal to the DL. This is clearly stated in 

19 the letter to the employee dated 9/11/2002. 

20 This states, due to the scope of the project, 

21 exposure investigations were not conducted as 

22 part of these re-assessments, and we give a 
286

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 citation for that. Additionally, the employee 

2 had a lung count conducted on July 1st, 1992, 

3 which is clearly marked as a practice exam, 

4 and we give a citation for that. It's 

5 unlikely that any count conducted for actual 

6 monitoring purposes would be marked as a 

7 practice exam. And finally, given the 

8 employee's job duties and the various 

9 information in the record, there is no reason 

10 to suspect an occupational plutonium intake.

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

12 just want to point out this specific response, 

13 I just want to make sure everybody knows this 

14 is a Mound case and the letter that's written 

15 that's talking about this was part of a 

16 project that I worked on as a dose 

17 reconstruction calculation project and I was 

18 part of that project. So I just want that on 

19 the record when we discuss this. 

20 DR. ULSH: So it's probably better 

21 that I read the response anyway.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly. 
287

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 MR. SIEBERT: I'm glad you did, 

2 actually, once I realized which one it is.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well, his only 

5 bioassay had been a termination plutonium 

6 bioassay.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What were these 

8 practice exams? You read about practice 

9 exams. What were they? 

10 DR. ULSH: Yes. Well, what we say 

11 in the response is that the employee had a 

12 lung count conducted July 1st, 1992, which is 

13 clearly marked as a practice exam. We give a 

14 citation in there in his DOE file for that. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What is a 

16 practice exam at Mound? Were they practicing 

17 their technique, or what were they --

18 DR. ULSH: I really don't know off 

19 the top of my head.

20 MEMBER GIBSON: For the record, I 

21 worked there, too, and I was involved with a 

22 lot of people, but I've never heard that term 
288

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 at all. Ever.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They never 

3 practiced on you, right? 

4 MEMBER GIBSON: No. 

5 DR. ULSH: I mean, if you want 

6 follow-up action I can --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I'm just 

8 curious what that means. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don't have 

10 any idea what it was. 

11 MEMBER GIBSON: What year was 

12 that? 

13 DR. ULSH: Ninety-two.

14 MR. FARVER: Someone asked what 

15 occupation it was. Laboratory technicians, 

16 foreman, and then manager.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Lab tech, 

18 foreman and manager?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Who would have 

20 probably been more than happy to be a part of 

21 a practice exam.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So they 
289

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 could have been involved in something called, 

2 whatever that is. 

3 DR. ULSH: In our response, we 

4 give where you can find that in the DOE 

5 response. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

7 MR. FARVER: I'll review it.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

9 we'll have to just --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Especially if you 

11 had new equipment and were setting it up. 

12 Makes sense to me. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It raises a 

14 question about the validity of the exam 

15 result, would be one counterpoint to it. If, 

16 in fact, it's a new piece of equipment and 

17 they're trying to figure out how to use it, do 

18 you trust something flagged as a practice exam 

19 as opposed to -- I don't know. Just putting 

20 that out there. Given that we don't know what 

21 it is and we're speculating about what it 

22 means.
290

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 MR. FARVER: My experience is 

2 those type of like lung counts or chest counts 

3 or anything, whole body counts never made it 

4 to employee's file. It would go to your test 

5 records, equipment records, calibration 

6 records, that type of thing.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why I'm 

8 surprised it's shown up in the record.

9 DR. ULSH: Well, to add to the 

10 speculation, around 1992 I know that at Mound 

11 they switched. Prior to that or around there, 

12 they recorded the results on a tape, like a 

13 paper punch tape. And I know that around '92, 

14 new persons in a whole-body counter and they 

15 changed that where it was being electronically 

16 reported. I don't know if that is related to 

17 this being a practice exam or not. It could 

18 just be coincidence that the time frame is the 

19 same.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Well, 

21 you can pull the source document. Okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And you have a 
291

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 termination bioassay.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the issue 

3 that was in here was that the person had named 

4 coworkers and supervisors that were supporting 

5 their contention? 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was part 

7 of it, yes. Or not supporting it. I think 

8 they just referenced people that would know of 

9 their work, right? That's usually what's in 

10 your questionnaire. Do you have anyone that 

11 knows of your work or exposures --

12 MEMBER MUNN: It's to verify the 

13 statements of building conditions. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, of 

15 building conditions. That's right, that's 

16 right.

17 DR. ULSH: Well, and I think maybe 

18 the issue with this practice exam, it's marked 

19 a practice exam is perhaps that's being 

20 interpreted as evidence of plutonium exposure 

21 but, in fact, we're saying that you shouldn't 

22 interpret it that way. 
292

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 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

2 Additionally, the termination, the yard sample 

3 is also a termination sample. There is no 

4 indication of any other sampling for this 

5 individual for plutonium during their 

6 employment.

7 MEMBER MUNN: One would think if 

8 they were a laboratory person or a manager, 

9 they would be aware of potential exposure.

10 MR. FARVER: I just glanced at his 

11 CATI, and there was nothing that really stood 

12 out. So like I said, I'll review in detail.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

14 Yes, we can stop speculating. So 169.1, are 

15 we on that one? 

16 DR. ULSH: I think we are. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, this is the 

18 same thing, to redo Section 3.5 of the medical 

19 section. Is this the same action? 

20 DR. ULSH: Medical dose not 

21 properly documented is the summary of the 

22 finding. 
293

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the action 

2 was to update.

3 DR. ULSH: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's the 

5 same as before.

6 DR. ULSH: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just 

8 find what one that was before. Does anyone 

9 know offhand?

10 MEMBER MUNN: What was your 

11 question? 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is a 

13 repeat, and I'm trying to find out where it 

14 was before. 

15 MS. BEHLING: 168.4? 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 168.4? Yes, 

17 that's it. That's it. So I'm just going to 

18 cut and -- that will close that out, right? 

19 It's the same issue; is that correct? 

20 DR. ULSH: Well, we closed 168.4.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean I'm 

22 going to close this --
294

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 DR. ULSH: 169.1? 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly. 

3 Unless there's something else to that finding. 

4 Doug, Kathy, is that okay? 

5 MR. FARVER: I think it's okay, as 

6 long as, you know, they're consistent with 

7 their PROC 61 and under guidance. I mean, 

8 that was what came out of this is that there 

9 were two different sets of guidance. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So what about 

11 the PROC 61 part of that response?

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's the same 

13 as they had for the previous.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Were you 

15 requesting update to that, as well, or no?

16 MR. FARVER: I believe it was just 

17 modifying the Mound TBD.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. To be 

19 consistent with PROC 61?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I 

22 think we have that, right? 
295

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 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. 

3 Moving on.

4 DR. ULSH: Yes. I think the next 

5 one is 171.2. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 170.2?

7 DR. ULSH: 171.2.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I see. 

9 There's some yellow on --

10 MR. SIEBERT: There's a 170.2.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I don't 

12 know if you have a response for that, but 

13 there is. 

14 DR. ULSH: Well, in this document 

15 I'm looking at here, I don't see a response.

16 MR. SIEBERT: It's not in the 

17 matrix. It's a side one.

18 DR. ULSH: Thank you. Oh, here it 

19 is. Okay. Alright. This looks like another 

20 fairly lengthy response. Let me read the 

21 finding for you. The original finding is 

22 failed to consider and assign unmonitored and 
296

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 missed neutron dose for 1947 through '51 and 

2 1962 through '88. We've had a couple of 

3 iterations here. Scott, do you want to go 

4 through our latest response? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. This is going 

6 to be something they're going to want to spend 

7 some time reviewing. But this comes down to, 

8 once again, the assignment of neutrons or not 

9 based on likelihood of exposure. Basically, 

10 these six paragraphs say we don't think they 

11 should be exposed to neutrons. There's early 

12 employment period from '47 through '51, they 

13 worked in a lab setting. There's incident 

14 reports. And in 1950, they have a personnel 

15 exposure questionnaire that says the employee 

16 didn't work regularly with radioactive 

17 material, doesn't appear that they were 

18 working in any neutron areas.

19 Sixty-two to '88, the individual 

20 was not monitored for neutron exposure. The 

21 external TBD, and this is Oak Ridge National 

22 Lab, states that neutron monitoring was 
297

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 available for those workers who had potential 

2 for neutron exposures. For those workers 

3 without monitoring, neutron exposures would be 

4 expected to be incidental or zero, so not 

5 assigned. The records indicate visited Y-12 

6 during a couple of years. Neither of these 

7 bore out the fact of any neutron exposure to 

8 be assessed during that time frame.

9 What that leaves is the time frame 

10 from '52 through '61. And then as I said, the 

11 rest of the response really is a defense as to 

12 why we don't believe there were neutron 

13 exposures during that time frame, and I'm 

14 guessing that's just, rather than read through 

15 it, something that SC&A is going to want to 

16 spend some time considering. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you answer, 

18 the one part of the previous action was that 

19 NIOSH, not only for this case, but include a 

20 response of where the guidance for how to make 

21 these judgments is located or is documented? 

22 Do we have that? You made that one statement 
298

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 from the TBD. Is there, I think that was part 

2 of what we were asking. Is there any more 

3 explanation of which building --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Neutron dose is 

5 provided in ORAU TIB-23 for the assignment of 

6 incidental neutron dose, and that's -- the 

7 fourth paragraph discusses that and gives as 

8 quote from Section 6 of that OTIB considering 

9 discussing missed neutron doses. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this OTIB 

11 was available at the time of the dose 

12 reconstruction, I assume.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I believe so.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: What OTIB was it? 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Twenty-three.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I don't 

19 think we need to spend much time on it since I 

20 think, clearly, Doug will have to look into 

21 this.

22 DR. ULSH: Well, I think the next 
299

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 one I have is 171.2, unless I've missed 

2 another one. These look pretty lengthy, as 

3 well.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: These are new 

5 responses by you, right? 171.2?

6 DR. ULSH: Yes, yes. 171.2, the 

7 issue summary is NIOSH failed to assign and 

8 unmonitored and missed neutron dose for 1965 

9 through '89. Scott, can you give us a quick 

10 summary? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second 

12 here. Well, the first thing, I want to note 

13 that the finding indicates that neutron 

14 assignment ended in '64 when they actually 

15 ended it in '74, just to point that out. And 

16 the claim was assessed and written as an 

17 overestimate, not a best estimate. I want to 

18 get those things out there. The DR judgment, 

19 determine the application of unmonitored and 

20 missed dose was based on overestimating 

21 assumptions. More realistic assumptions could 

22 have been, once again, based on the OTIB. 
300

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 This is very much like the previous one, based 

2 on the X-10 external dosimetry Technical Basis 

3 Document and OTIB-23 and the claimant 

4 interview. 

5 Based on the job descriptions and 

6 the fact he was not monitored for neutrons at 

7 any time during his employment, it's unlikely 

8 we would probably assign neutrons in the best 

9 estimate assumption. However, once again, as 

10 I said, this was an overestimate. Based on --

11 let's see what this is. There were no 

12 positive photon doses at all past '75, so the 

13 dose reconstructor determined it was entirely 

14 incidental neutron, if there were any at all, 

15 and assigned no neutron whatsoever from that 

16 point forward. And rather than get into the 

17 specifics prior to '75, he went with the 

18 assumption of, well, let's go ahead and give 

19 him neutrons because we were overestimating at 

20 that point.

21 So, once again, this is a mixture. 

22 Pre-75, it's just very claimant-favorable 
301

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 overestimating assumptions because we couldn't 

2 really, didn't specifically need to get into 

3 specifics beyond that. But from '75 on, they 

4 determined not to because of job locations and 

5 the fact that there just was no photon 

6 positive dosimetry at all. So that's where we 

7 are.

8 MEMBER MUNN: So were those 

9 responses sent separately from all the others? 

10 DR. ULSH: I would direct you to 

11 the DR Subcommittee folder on the O: drive 

12 because that's where I placed everything. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, okay. 

14 DR. ULSH: But they're spread out, 

15 kind of depending on the length. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think pretty 

18 clearly that you're going to have to look at 

19 this one, right?

20 MR. FARVER: Which one was that? 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 171.2. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: 171.2 and 171.3.
302

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 MR. FARVER: Did you say the 

2 responses are on the O: drive, right? 

3 DR. ULSH: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'll find 

5 them.

6 DR. ULSH: And we've actually got 

7 responses for 171.2 through .6 in the same 

8 document.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, SC&A will 

10 review. 

11 DR. ULSH: Can we move on? 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 DR. ULSH: Alright. 171.3 is the 

14 next one. Occupational medical x-ray dose not 

15 assigned for the pancreas for 1984 through 

16 '89. This is a fairly short one. Our 

17 response here is that, the 1984 through '89 

18 medical x-ray dose for the pancreas were 

19 inadvertently left out of the IREP input. 

20 This was probably due to a copying and pasting 

21 the internal dose into the IREP sheet, not 

22 realizing that the '84 to '89 x-ray doses were 
303

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 overwritten. The X-10 workbook used to 

2 calculate the doses had the 1984 to '89 doses 

3 included, and this should have been identified 

4 during the peer review. A new IREP sheet was 

5 created with the x-ray doses applied through 

6 '89, and the PoC for the pancreas increased 

7 from 7.84 percent to 8.13 percent. The 

8 combined PoC including all three cancers 

9 increased from 46.69 percent to 46.86 percent, 

10 so the claim determination would not have 

11 changed. The latest revision to the dose 

12 reconstruction in 2010 rectified this problem, 

13 and the annual x-ray doses to pancreas were 

14 applied.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I have a 

16 Kathy Behling question, which is when you 

17 recalculate it, since this is pretty close, 

18 did you account for the rest of these findings 

19 in 171? 

20 DR. ULSH: Do you know the details 

21 of the latest revision in 2010, Scott? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: I know it corrected 
304

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 the pancreas x-ray issue. For time savings, I 

2 believe the neutrons were assessed identically 

3 to the previous version, so they would have 

4 been overestimated. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or at least 

6 half of them are overestimated or something 

7 like that, right? Prior to '75, yes. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: I believe it was 

9 done pretty much the same way. And then for 

10 the rest of the findings, I can't speak to 

11 that off the top of my head.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just something 

13 for us to keep in mind as we go through this 

14 whole case, I think.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I -- as an 

16 observation, like what we're doing is, I 

17 guess, this is right now a one percent sample 

18 of the cases, and today we've heard two or 

19 three examples of cut and paste errors as one 

20 source of the generation of errors that go 

21 through to kind of processing the claims. I'm 

22 not quite sure, this is the first time I've 
305

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 been to this Work Group, but if we would 

2 multiply this by -- we've only reviewed 20 or 

3 30 cases, it suggests that cut and paste is 

4 one mechanism which should be an easily

5 resolvable mechanism for dealing with data 

6 entry problems. And I wonder if there's not 

7 kind of an engineering fix to that source of 

8 error. I mean, I know when I work with data I 

9 hate doing cut and pasting because I always 

10 make that mistake, and I wonder if there's not 

11 a way of exporting the spreadsheet and 

12 importing it into IREP. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

14 Again, I want to point out that these claims 

15 that we're discussing were done anywhere 

16 between 2003 and 2006. And you are correct. 

17 We have made many automation and exporting 

18 changes to the tools to avoid these types of 

19 situations in the last five years. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

21 would be good for us to understand a little 

22 better. Maybe, you know --
306

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 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So does that 

2 not occur anymore? 

3 DR. ULSH: You know, I wonder if 

4 this should be a topic that comes up at QA.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

6 was just going to say because I think, you 

7 know, along with documenting the trends and 

8 findings, we'd like to document changes that 

9 have occurred over the program history. 

10 DR. MAURO: That's a good 

11 question. The current QA report, does it look 

12 at these kinds of questions? That is, I guess 

13 --

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The ten-year 

15 report, you mean? 

16 DR. MAURO: No, the work that 

17 you've been working on.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the 100 

19 cases.

20 DR. MAURO: The first 100 cases, 

21 whether or not they could be binned that way 

22 to see what the number in the first decade, 
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

1 second decade of, you know, that kind of 

2 thing.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't think 

4 we have that kind of granularity right now. 

5 We probably could get it. I mean, a lot of 

6 those first 100 you remember were all from the 

7 early years, obviously. 

8 DR. MAURO: Well, it would be, you 

9 know, cases that was done from 2001 to 2003 

10 because I don't know how far off we are on 

11 that one. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

13 DR. ULSH: I've made a note that 

14 we'll include that.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That's 

16 good.

17 MR. FARVER: Scott, on that case, 

18 you said they cut and pasted, overlapping the 

19 medical dose on the pancreas, correct?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. What doses did 

22 they cut and paste?
308

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 MR. SIEBERT: If I remember 

2 correctly, it appeared that the internal doses 

3 that were pasted into it went over the 

4 pancreas x-ray doses. 

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's in the 

7 response for 171.3.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. Just curious, 

9 why did they paste in the -- well, I guess 

10 they pasted in the internal doses because 

11 they're coming from someplace else.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Remember, 

13 external doses and internal doses have to be 

14 done in separate tools. There's not this one 

15 single tool that you can deal with those 

16 things, so you have to combine them at some 

17 point. And, actually, that's one thing that's 

18 being worked on in the present tools is a 

19 better way to do that. 

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 DR. MAURO: It would seem to me 

22 when you're assembling your IREP input from 
309

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 all your reconstructed doses, and let's say 

2 you have to do it by piece, let's say, you 

3 know, whatever it is, external, internal, 

4 neutron, and you're layering in, you know, 

5 line numbers 1 through 27 and 28 through 50, 

6 whatever, if that's how it's done, I don't 

7 know how it's done, but it seems to me if you 

8 crash in, in other words if there's an 

9 overlap, I could see software being written. 

10 When you're layering in the different lines 

11 for your IREP input, if you leave a blank or 

12 you overlap, it's almost like one of these 

13 little software things that will alert you 

14 that there was this error made. It seems to 

15 be like a pretty easy fix by building that 

16 into the process of assembling your IREP 

17 input. Am I looking at this in a naive way, 

18 or is that something that could be a way to 

19 fix this? 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think maybe 

21 when we, if we get the kind of QA thing. I'd 

22 be curious what the resolution has been or is 
310

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 --

2 DR. MAURO: Sort of like when 

3 you're working in Word and you make a mistake, 

4 it reminds you you've done something, you 

5 know, a syntax error or a spelling error.

6 MR. FARVER: I was just trying to 

7 think. The only way you're going to catch 

8 that through peer review is if you happen to 

9 look at the dates of the medical doses and 

10 realize that you've left out five years 

11 because even some of your doses you're not 

12 going to know what the correct doses are if 

13 you believe the IREP table doses are correct.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

15 DR. ULSH: The status on 171.3 is 

16 SC&A review? Is that --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The status is 

18 SC&A review. No, the status is --

19 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm going to 

20 review all those, the 171.2 to 6. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. But I 

22 thought for this the status was -- the only 
311

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 tickler I'd put in there was that NIOSH will 

2 determine if all modifications from the case 

3 findings affect the outcome of the PoC.

4 DR. ULSH: I do have that for all 

5 of 171.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, 

7 right.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think this 

10 finding in particular is kind of closed, 

11 right? Or you want to look at them all and --

12 MR. FARVER: I'm going to check 

13 them, but, I mean, I'm not sure what I'll --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I've got it 

15 yellow more for the overall question of did it 

16 affect, you know.

17 DR. ULSH: Alright. So we'll move 

18 on to 171.4? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Can 

20 I point one thing out? We can't actually do 

21 that comparison to see if the rework addressed 

22 all the situations until we determine what the 
312

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 appropriate path forward is, which I know we 

2 haven't done on at least .2.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why I 

4 said it's kind of on hold because we've got to 

5 resolve that neutron one before we -- yes, I 

6 agree. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks. I just want 

8 to make sure of that. Thank you. 

9 DR. ULSH: He's already thinking 

10 about the action items coming out of this. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

12 DR. ULSH: Okay. 171.4. Let me 

13 read you the finding. NIOSH failed to 

14 correctly assign coworker doses for 

15 unmonitored years. Basically, our response 

16 comes down to OTIB-34, the procedure that was 

17 used to allow us some flexibility in terms of 

18 determining whether or not we're going to 

19 apply coworker intakes, and the meat of our 

20 response is that, based on this employee's job 

21 description, it's unlikely that the employee 

22 had more than a low potential for exposure to 
313

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 airborne radionuclides in the workplace. The 

2 DR made a decision to apply internal dose 

3 based on the employee's exposure potential, 

4 not a gross overestimate of intake for the 

5 entire employment period. It would be 

6 unlikely that this employee would be 

7 considered a radiation worker by site 

8 standards. A draftsman, senior engineer, and 

9 design technologist would only have brief 

10 periods of exposure potential, which is 

11 indicated in the employee's bioassay records 

12 and external dosimetry records. So, 

13 basically, for this claim, the DR used a 

14 combination of bioassay results, coworker 

15 intakes, and environmental intakes to provide 

16 a more realistic internal dose estimate than a 

17 gross overestimate.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think this is 

19 going to go into the category of you need to 

20 review.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

22 DR. ULSH: 171.5 is fairly long. 
314

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 Let me read you the issue as soon as I find 

2 it.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, Brant, 

4 this is a relatively straightforward one, if 

5 you want me to handle it.

6 DR. ULSH: Okay. Go ahead.

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is one where 

8 SC&A was questioning whether all solubility 

9 types were accounted for in the assessment 

10 before we assigned the most claimant-favorable 

11 one. That falls into two categories. First 

12 of all, type S and super type S plutonium, 

13 obviously, Super S was added, I shouldn't say 

14 obviously but Super S methodology was added 

15 after this assessment was first done, so that 

16 means Super S could not be considered at the 

17 time because we were not assessing it. Also, 

18 at the same time, the OTIB-34, which was in 

19 effect at the time, also stated that type S 

20 plutonium did not need to be assessed for 

21 systemic organs in intake periods. So the 

22 dose reconstructor followed the method that 
315

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 was in place at the time. That has since been 

2 updated to include looking at type M, type S, 

3 and type Super S, which I can tell you that, 

4 in the 2001 claim that was done, this was 

5 rectified and all three of them were assessed. 

6

7 When it comes to strontium and 

8 uranium-234, actually all the solubility types 

9 were considered. It's just not an easy place 

10 to show where they were considered and where 

11 that outcome is. One of the tools, I included 

12 an opened up tool there's hidden tabs in the 

13 tools where a lot of this work is done and 

14 pulled out, opened up the tools. And I 

15 included, and Doug can take a look at this, 

16 there's a file called chronic annual dose 

17 workbooks strontium and uranium evaluation 

18 XXX, which if you want to pull it up, the 

19 pancreas is the one that I made a copy of. I 

20 opened up all the tabs, and I specified 

21 specifically where in all the tabs it's shown. 

22 I've done the intake tab in this range where 
316

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 all the solubility types were actually 

2 calculated and the most claimant-favorable one 

3 was selected, which was type S for both 

4 strontium and uranium in this case. And it 

5 just clearly shows that we did assess all 

6 three, all the solubility types and selected 

7 the most claimant-favorable one. It was in 

8 the tool. It's just not easy to get at within 

9 the tool.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. This 

11 becomes your action. Analysis file, yes. 

12 DR. ULSH: 171.6. Finding is that 

13 NIOSH failed to completely address the 

14 contamination incident reported in the CATI. 

15 This is another long one. Scott, can you give 

16 us the condensed version? 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. The condensed 

18 version is we do have plutonium sampling later 

19 on for this individual. SC&A went back 

20 through records and found what they believe 

21 would be a likely intake scenario as to when 

22 this explosion occurred and this guy worked in 
317

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 an adjacent building and had to clean up his 

2 office later on. I just took at face value 

3 the 1959 incident being the incident of 

4 interest and used the urinalysis data from 

5 '65, '70, and '71 to limit what a potential 

6 bounding intake would be from that and 

7 compared it to the assessment of what we 

8 actually already assigned. Well, the basic 

9 point is what we assigned is larger than if we 

10 assigned it as an incident on that date. So 

11 even if we assigned an incident during that 

12 time frame in 1959, what we already assessed 

13 is higher dose than actually assessing it at 

14 intake during that incident, obviously 

15 assuming that actually is the incident for the 

16 individual. 

17 DR. ULSH: The same status? 

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'll look at it. 

19 DR. ULSH: Alright. That, I 

20 believe, is the end of the 171s with one 

21 caveat. I see here that we have a tab 171 

22 observation, and we had it highlighted in blue 
318

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 for some reason. But it says no further 

2 action, so that highlighting may be --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't recall. 

4 Yes, let me look at it. It's probably just 

5 because I moved it from somewhere else. I 

6 tend to use yellow. Yes, I think it's no 

7 further action. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Are you referring to 

9 the observation?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the observation 

12 was just that it was re-evaluated to Super S 

13 and still stayed non-compensable. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. SIEBERT: That's all there is 

16 to it, so, yes, I believe it's closed out.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. For some 

18 reason, I can't remove the blue on this one. 

19 Anyway, I'll get John on it. He's an Excel 

20 expert.

21 DR. ULSH: I think there are still 

22 a number of findings left, Mark. Do you want 
319

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 to keep going? 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, where do 

3 we stand with people's flights? I think David 

4 is okay and everyone else is staying, I think. 

5 Doug, are you flying tonight? 

6 MR. FARVER: Late, late, like 

7 usual. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

9 we can probably go for another half hour or so 

10 anyway. I think people are going to start to 

11 fade. 

12 DR. ULSH: Okay. Well, the next 

13 one I think is 173.2. The issue here, the 

14 summary says that greater than 250 keV missed 

15 photon dose was improperly calculated. And 

16 the NIOSH action here was NIOSH will check to 

17 see if this affected compensability, and our 

18 response here is that IREP re-run with changes 

19 based on findings one, two, three. PoC was 

20 reduced from 47.12 percent to 46.93 percent, 

21 and there is no effect on compensability. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is this another 
320

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 example of adding dose and reducing the PoC?

2 DR. ULSH: I don't know if this 

3 was added or not.

4 MR. FARVER: I know for this 

5 finding, this is where they multiplied twice 

6 by the percentage of the energy distribution. 

7 So instead of 0.95, it was 0.95 times 0.95. 

8 So it reduced it. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

10 MR. FARVER: And this was in the 

11 workbook, so this would be something that I 

12 don't know if it could happen again. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which site is 

14 this?

15 MR. FARVER: Los Alamos. 

16 DR. ULSH: I do note that we have 

17 some supporting IREP files here, so if you 

18 guys want to look at those, we can.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I guess 

20 that would be okay. I think the bigger 

21 question that Doug raised on this is that if 

22 it's a carry-through error in the workbook, is 
321

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 it potentially affecting other cases? And I 

2 don't know that you examined that.

3 DR. ULSH: I don't know that we 

4 did. We just did the action items.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I know, 

6 right. We probably missed it in our little 

7 summary. I mean, Scott do you have any sense 

8 whether this was, these were workbook errors 

9 or whether they were input errors to the 

10 workbook, going back to that same kind of --

11 MR. SIEBERT: Let me see. This is 

12 LANL in 2005. I'm not sure if there was even 

13 a specific LANL workbook in 2005. I can't 

14 answer off the top of my head. I apologize. 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It might be 

16 worth having one more action item before 

17 closing that one. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think SC&A 

19 should review the NIOSH response, and NIOSH 

20 should check on, although this is potentially 

21 a carry-through error, you know, a workbook 

22 error. 
322

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 MR. FARVER: Yes, there was a 

2 workbook. It looks like it's, it doesn't look 

3 like it's specific to Los Alamos. I'll go 

4 back and find out exactly where the 

5 calculation is. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So NIOSH will 

7 review the workbook used, I guess, or the tool 

8 used, right? It may have been a generic tool. 

9 Is that okay, Scott? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Anything you say. 

11 DR. ULSH: Alright. The next one 

12 is 173.3.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He must be 

14 getting tired, too.

15 DR. ULSH: The summary of that 

16 issue is failed to properly account for all 

17 reported neutron doses. The NIOSH action item 

18 was to check to see if this affected 

19 compensability. Well, I think the response is 

20 the same. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the identical 

22 response because both of those were just check 
323

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 the issue of compensability. 

2 DR. MAURO: So SC&A reviewed the 

3 procedure where those three criteria of 

4 neutron-no neutron. A lot of the answers to 

5 whether or not neutron should have been 

6 included or not in a given year go back to 

7 this. I just don't remember that, those three 

8 steps. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: This specific one, 

10 this is not whether we should have assigned 

11 neutron at all. There was a reported neutron 

12 badge result that got overlooked and should 

13 have been included. That's what the issue was 

14 on this finding.

15 MR. FARVER: And it looks like 

16 they, another cut and paste where it may have 

17 been pasted in and that one year omitted. And 

18 the one before that, which was the photon dose 

19 where they multiplied twice by 0.95, it looks 

20 like the workbook multiplied it by 0.95 and 

21 then they copied that and again multiplied it 

22 by 0.95. 
324

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the workbook 

2 could have been okay probably, but it's worth 

3 checking. 

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. It just looks 

5 more like human error than workbook error. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. We'll 

7 put the same basic action. 173.5 are we on? 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So when 

9 somebody is entering in these neutron dose 

10 values into the spreadsheet to work with, does 

11 that happen at NIOSH or does that happen 

12 before the case gets to NIOSH? 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you talking 

14 about in a dose reconstruction? Most of those 

15 are put together by our contractor.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So they 

17 get all the source documents. They re-key the 

18 information into a spreadsheet?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. They have 

20 quite an extensive data entry re-keying group, 

21 or at least it was extensive. 

22 DR. ULSH: 173.5? 
325

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 DR. ULSH: Okay. The summary of 

3 the finding is inappropriate method, slash, 

4 justification for not assigning ambient doses. 

5 The action item was NIOSH will review their 

6 own response. It sounds like maybe we were 

7 less than clear on that. Well, I'll just read 

8 this one. It's not that long. ORAU PROC 60 

9 was not published until approximately nine 

10 months after this claim was assessed. 

11 Although the TBD does not specifically state 

12 that ambient doses were not subtracted from 

13 the dosimetry results, in parentheses, in 

14 other words, part of the dose of record, close 

15 parentheses, the method understood at the time 

16 by the dose reconstructor was that the ambient 

17 dose would be assigned in addition to dose of 

18 record only if the TBD stated to do so. 

19 Again, it was the more unusual situations. 

20 For the 20 sites in the latest version of PROC 

21 60, Attachment A, only a single site applies 

22 ambient to monitored workers for all years and 
326

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 five others where it depends on the year of 

2 interest, but that is spelled out specifically 

3 in the TBD. So the bottom line is this claim 

4 was done correctly per the version of PROC 60 

5 now available. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: The basis for this 

7 question came down to the TBD did not specify 

8 one way or another whether ambient doses were 

9 subtracted out of the badge result, the 

10 recorded badge result or not. And SC&A's 

11 position in the initial finding was stating 

12 that, in the case of it not stating it one way 

13 or another, you should assign it to be 

14 claimant-favorable. Our position is it's very 

15 unusual for us to have found a site where we 

16 do have to assign ambient doses along with 

17 monitored doses, and this individual was 

18 monitored. So the dose reconstructor's 

19 thought process was, it's an unusual 

20 circumstance, so we do not assign it unless 

21 told specifically in the TBD. And, per 

22 additional review into the situation, it's 
327

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 exactly correct. The latest version of PROC 

2 60 shows that, for this site you do not have 

3 ambient for monitored individuals. So it 

4 comes down to the TBD did not specify one way 

5 or the other.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So with the 

7 film badge, a film badge would have been left 

8 exposed -- well, tell me if this is right. It 

9 would have been left outside, but you would 

10 have had a referent film badge kept in an 

11 office.

12 DR. MAURO: My understanding is 

13 that the person is issued a film badge. He 

14 might work outside, he might work inside. And 

15 he has his film badge on during the eight-hour 

16 or ten-hour day he's working and whatever 

17 exposure is recorded there is what's on his 

18 record. Now, if he was, I guess if he was 

19 outside, I'm working my way through this, you 

20 wouldn't subtract. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: It has to do with 

22 the storage location when the dosimeter was 
328

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 not being worn and of the background 

2 subtraction --

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Background 

4 subtraction.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: If you have a 

6 badge rack film badge for instance, if you 

7 store your badge on a badge rack and you have 

8 background badges to the racks and you 

9 subtract off that background from those 

10 dosimeters, then you have essentially 

11 subtracted off the ambient dose that a person 

12 would have received. So in that case, you 

13 would want to add it back in in the dose 

14 reconstruction. If the background subtraction 

15 is based on badges that are stored in a 

16 shielded location in the bioassay laboratory, 

17 then you are not collecting the ambient dose 

18 on your background badge. And so by 

19 subtracting those laboratory backgrounds, the 

20 ambient dose captured by the person's badge is 

21 still reported on the badge and is included in 

22 his dose. And so if there's ambient dose 
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

1 overnight, you've actually added a little 

2 extra, you know, if he stored it in the badge 

3 rack or if he took the badge home. So that's 

4 the basis for whether you have a monitored 

5 dose plus ambient or not depends upon the 

6 background subtraction. 

7 DR. ULSH: So what do you want to 

8 do with this one? 

9 MR. FARVER: My only question was 

10 I didn't find anything that talks about Los 

11 Alamos in PROC 60. So I didn't see where that 

12 really provided any guidance for whether to 

13 use ambient dose or not. Basically, I just 

14 didn't see anything in there for Los Alamos. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: It's in Attachment 

16 A. Just a second. I've got to pull it out.

17 DR. ULSH: Well, the response says 

18 Attachment A. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: I'll give you a page 

20 number in a second here. Page 14, Attachment 

21 A, external on-site ambient dose assignment 

22 for monitored site employees, and one of the 
330

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 sites is LANL. And the question is assign 

2 external on-site ambient doses for monitored 

3 employees, and the answer is no. 

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. What revision 

5 number is that?

6 MR. SIEBERT: That is Rev 1, 

7 effective 6/28/06.

8 MR. FARVER: Yes, see, that's a 

9 different rev than was used to do the dose 

10 reconstruction. They used Rev 0 which has no 

11 guidance for Los Alamos.

12 MR. SIEBERT: I agree 

13 wholeheartedly. What I'm saying is, if the 

14 TBD and PROC 60 were silent on the issue at 

15 the time, the dose reconstructor went back and 

16 looked at this was before we used DR guidance 

17 documents in a documented way. I would guess 

18 it was either in something like that or it was 

19 known by the dose reconstructors you do not 

20 include ambient, and then this next version of 

21 the PROC 60 came out and we made sure it was 

22 in there for clarification. 
331

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 MR. FARVER: I would have 

2 defaulted to the guidance under Section 6.1 

3 that says that, you know, you should, as 

4 described in OCAS ID 001 on-site ambient doses 

5 apply for both unmonitored employees who were 

6 not likely to have been exposed to workplace 

7 radiation and to monitored employees whose 

8 monitoring results may have reflected a 

9 subtraction of elevated on-site ambient 

10 radiation doses. It's a toss-up. I mean, 

11 okay, it's a toss-up. It just really didn't 

12 mention it either place. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, is 

14 there any question about the latest revision? 

15 Do you agree with that?

16 MR. FARVER: I haven't reviewed 

17 it, so I'm not going to question it. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. But I 

19 wonder if that's, that might be more of a Site 

20 Profile issue, though. 

21 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If LANL had the 
332

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 circumstances where this should be done, 

2 that's a different issue than dose 

3 reconstruction. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

5 MR. FARVER: Well, in any case, 

6 it's been corrected now. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's 

8 corrected now, so I'd say no further action 

9 for this case. 

10 MR. FARVER: Alright. Close it.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Do we 

12 have something short left, or we might want to 

13 wrap up otherwise. I don't want to open up a 

14 whole new case if there's a bunch of -- 174 

15 has several of them? 

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe there's 

17 only a single one for 174. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: It looks like it. 

19 174.1.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, let's just 

21 rip that up, I guess. 

22 DR. ULSH: 174.1. The summary of 
333

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 the finding is DR overestimates the reported 

2 prostate dose. Let's see if there's anything 

3 of note here. NIOSH will check to assure that 

4 workbook was corrected. Why was K-25 workbook 

5 used and not Portsmouth? The response is 

6 that, the K-25 error calculation workbook was 

7 used because a specific tool to calculate 

8 error for Portsmouth did not and does not 

9 currently exist. This tool simply calculates 

10 the error for best estimate cases. Any site's 

11 tool could be used for error calculation as 

12 long as the site-specific parameters for 

13 correction factors are changed within the 

14 tool. In this particular case, the site15 specific parameters were not entered in the K16 25 tool. Instead, the doses were multiplied 

17 by a factor of two which resulted in a higher 

18 dose and associated error. The generated 

19 errors were then used in a complex-wide best 

20 estimate tool for prostate cancer only. 

21 MR. FARVER: I guess the only 

22 question I have is: Is something like this 
334

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 likely to happen again, or have we moved 

2 beyond this tool that they've used and into 

3 something else? 

4 DR. ULSH: Do you have a quick 

5 answer to that, Scott? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I would tend 

7 to say I don't see an error here. I can see 

8 an efficiency methodology that the dose 

9 reconstructor used to get the claim done in an 

10 expedited manner. I don't think anybody is 

11 arguing that they what they assessed is not 

12 claimant-favorable or overestimating in a non13 compensable claim. The question was just a QC 

14 question as to why the K-25 workbook was used 

15 versus Portsmouth, and the answer is there is 

16 no Portsmouth tool for calculating those 

17 errors. There's no reason to. You can use 

18 any of those error calculators for the tool 

19 just as long as you put in either the site20 specific numbers or an overestimate. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess the 

22 question is, does it open you up for errors in 
335

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 the future. I mean, has that been changed? 

2 Because it seems like the whole idea for the 

3 tools would be that you don't have to re-enter 

4 the site-specific parameters each time or cut 

5 and paste in new values. If you had a 

6 Portsmouth tool available, even though they're 

7 very similar tools -- I understand what you're 

8 saying -- it just would make it less likely 

9 for any kind of cut-and-paste type errors. 

10 Does a Portsmouth tool exist now for that 

11 function?

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, it did not and 

13 does not. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And does not. 

15 Right. 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And what's the 

17 doubling? I'm not quite following what the 

18 doubling was. What was doubled? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Rather than use 

20 specific correction factors from the site, 

21 they just used a factor of two to double the 

22 dose as an overestimating assumption. 
336

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 MR. HINNEFELD: So I think this is 

2 actually sort of an old legacy approach. I 

3 think if there were certain biases that were 

4 assumed about early dosimetry, they're low 

5 biases, but you didn't have the site-specific 

6 information at hand of those dosimeters, they 

7 were at least half as good as they should have 

8 been. So the true dose wouldn't have been any 

9 more than twice the reported dose on those 

10 film badges, and so it was kind of a legacy 

11 expedience that came in like --

12 DR. MAURO: Was that part of the 

13 original OCAS IG-001 as being an option? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It may be. It may 

15 be.

16 MEMBER MUNN: It goes way back.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think this 

18 one at least warrants SC&A to look at it a 

19 little closer, especially for the question of 

20 could this result in further QA problems.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I guess that 

22 is this is such a legacy case that --
337

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, they 

2 still haven't updated the tool, though. They 

3 still use the same process.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe there's 

6 no reason. I don't know.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: But could you use 

8 that same tool if you have site-specific? You 

9 now know the site-specific parameters and you 

10 just have this tool and the tool allows you to 

11 put in the site-specific parameters, it's 

12 essentially going to be a multi-site tool as 

13 opposed to the --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: If that's the 

16 case, then that might, that would be a 

17 situation you'd probably let go on rather than 

18 write a whole new tool just to put in a few 

19 different site-specific parameters when you 

20 have a tool that allows you to put in site21 specific parameters. That would be a 

22 possibility. 
338

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 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess I could 

2 argue both sides of that, that if you had the 

3 Portsmouth tool, if you need ten of those, 

4 they're the same tool with different 

5 parameters. If I'm going to use them a lot, I 

6 might as well have one that has Portsmouth in 

7 all the time and I don't have to enter in 

8 those values.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll just --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

11 Well, I think this is a good place to --

12 because I know I've kind of had enough. I 

13 think it's a good break point. 

14 DR. ULSH: We've got more.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know, I know. 

16 Wanda wants to keep going.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: She's just 

19 getting warmed up, you know. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: PER-12 is now on the 

21 deck. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Well, honestly, 
339

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 there are only two findings in the 9th set 

2 that we have responses for, and they're very 

3 straightforward. 

4 DR. ULSH: You're breaking up, 

5 Scott. We can't hear you.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

7 we'll call it because we have a lot of SC&A 

8 responses on the 9th set, as well, don't we?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we have 

11 this site visit scheduled for May. I forget 

12 the date now. May 6th. Thank you. And then 

13 we'll schedule another Subcommittee. I'll get 

14 these matrices out. I'm only going to send 

15 the 7th and 8th since we didn't do any work on 

16 the 9th, right? But I'll send updated 

17 matrices for the 7th and 8th, and we'll 

18 reconvene at Subcommittee meeting shortly 

19 after the full Board meeting, I would say. 

20 Maybe three weeks after that, somewhere in 

21 there. Do we want to pick a time for that? 

22 MR. KATZ: We can. Do you want to 
340

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 talk about where we are with selecting the PER 

2 cases and what needs to be done to wrap that 

3 up? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Well, it 

5 might be worth a little bit of discussion. As 

6 I understand it, and I haven't looked back at 

7 the PER review specifically, but based on 

8 emails I've found, email traffic I found, 

9 there's essentially a four-by-four matrix of 

10 cases, you know, 16 blocks to look at of cases 

11 that fit all of these categories and four 

12 different target organs or target organ

13 categories by four different possible ways of 

14 assessing the internal dose, so it would be 

15 about five, I'd say. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The four target 

18 organs were lung, extraterrestrial -- extra 

19 thoracic, GI tract, and there's something 

20 called systemic which I believe would be 

21 organs like bone, liver, maybe a couple of 

22 others where plutonium in the bloodstream was 
341

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 in the dose. And so systemic gives you 

2 several target organs. It gives you leukemia. 

3 It gives you bone cancer. It gives you liver 

4 cancer and things like that. So we could talk 

5 a little bit about, you just want to go, like, 

6 how many of you want to --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and do you want 

9 to go with leukemia and the liver or just 

10 leukemia’s, or how do you want to do that 

11 systemically for that? And then lungs will be 

12 lungs. LMPH would be for lymphomas. So, I 

13 mean, there's kind of a broad, because there 

14 were like 1700 claims. Our original list that 

15 we pulled for PER was 1700 claims. I think 

16 that all the claims that we re-did for PER-12 

17 and not necessarily the ones that fit into the 

18 binned target organs. So we can do a little 

19 more culling down automatically, but we want 

20 to start with a manageable number of claims 

21 that we can put in the bins based on target 

22 organs because once we get to how was the dose 
342

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 assigned, in many cases, we're going to have 

2 to open up that claim to see, you know, 

3 actually look at the individual information in 

4 the claim to see how was the dose assigned, 

5 the urine ones, air sampling, overestimate. 

6 So if you would like to just let 

7 us do what we want, you know. We'll hit all 

8 the stuff in all the cells. Then we may 

9 decide, well, we have quite a few leukemia’s

10 and not very many livers. I kind of get that 

11 feeling liver is not very common in our 

12 claimant population, although I'm not 100 

13 percent sure that's true. Of course, leukemia 

14 is not terribly common. We can decide 

15 ourselves how many we're going to start with 

16 in each cell and then start looking for cases 

17 that match the four different intake regimes 

18 and then just keep adding a few more cases, if 

19 we don't get any in any of these, we'll add a 

20 few more cases and look at those. So it might 

21 be easiest. I mean, it's going to take a fair 

22 amount of work on ORAU's part to review enough 
343

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 claims to fill in all the squares.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then we'll 

3 want to have at least a representation across 

4 sites, or does that matter as much?

5 MR. HINNEFELD: It's going to be a 

6 little tough because you're going to run out 

7 the depth of the claims --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Sites --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for a lot of 

10 these sites. I mean, you're going to have the 

11 big ones, like probably Rocky and Savannah 

12 River and Hanford. But there are a lot of 

13 other sites in there. I think Oak Ridge is 

14 probably in there. 

15 DR. MAURO: I mean, the protocol 

16 for PER has crossed all boundaries. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

18 DR. MAURO: And then like you 

19 said, you bin them by the endpoint and then 

20 there's a basic pathway. So in other words, 

21 you tier down. I have to say there's probably 

22 no one in a better position than you to make 
344

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 the judgment. I mean, if you were doing it 

2 yourself and said, listen, I'd like to find 

3 out for myself how well we did on capturing a 

4 good cross-section, I mean there really is no 

5 one else --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd be interested 

7 in leukemia. I'm a little surprised 

8 leukemia’s were not the best one to start 

9 with, you know. It doesn't take a lot of dose 

10 to get a leukemia PoC above 50 percent. So 

11 I'm a little curious about leukemia. I'd 

12 weight my selection toward leukemias rather 

13 than the liver. 

14 DR. MAURO: Why couldn't we just, 

15 you know, you bring forward what you think you 

16 would do if you were asking the question and 

17 serve it up, you know, to the Work Group. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

19 that's probably the best way.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And bring the 

22 cases but also describe the methodology, like 
345

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 why we weighted it the way we did or whatever. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Why we picked 

3 these cases and what were our selection, yes. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then if we 

5 agree, then we can just pass them on to SC&A -

6 -

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, you know, 

8 we might even get the four big areas for this, 

9 but I'm not so sure we can really spread the 

10 locations, the site records --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right. 

12 I'm pretty sure you can but at least not to 

13 have them all from one site. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. And then it would 

16 probably be good to have Hans and --

17 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

18 MR. KATZ: -- listen in for that -

19 -

20 DR. MAURO: We need Hans in at the 

21 back end of this process, yes. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: If they let him back 
346

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 in the country. 

2 DR. MAURO: He'll be back at the 

3 end of this month. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, for the next 

5 meeting. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That 

7 sounds good. And then how about a date for 

8 the next meeting? We're going to have a NIOSH 

9 site visit for the QA stuff May 6th, and then 

10 after the May 24th meeting, I would say, let's 

11 go at least three weeks out from there, right? 

12 So we have some work done, you know.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we want to 

14 go after the in-person meeting, right after 

15 the face to face --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I'm 

17 talking like June or July. Maybe toward the 

18 end of June. A lot of vacations go July and 

19 August, right? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: It's the last week 

21 of June.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: The Health Physics 
347

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 Society is around then. It's the 26th. It 

2 always starts on Sunday and will run through 

3 Thursday. The week of the 27th of June.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What about June 

5 20th? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: It's up to you, but 

7 I am in Florida from the 14th until the HPS 

8 meeting. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. Then 

10 why don't we do July.

11 MR. KATZ: Now, July, the first 

12 week, the week of July 4th is already --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I wouldn't 

14 use that. How about July 11th?

15 MR. KATZ: July 11th is the Board 

16 teleconference.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: We have Procedures 

19 on the 14th.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, Procedures 

21 on the 14th?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
348

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 MR. KATZ: So why not do it the 

2 13th and pair up travel?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or the 15th.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, or the 15th.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'd rather the 

6 15th for my travel schedule.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, 15th is 

8 open right now. If that works for --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Let's 

10 take it. 

11 MR. KATZ: July 15th. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, great. 

13 On that note, any more, anything else for the 

14 order? Anything else out of order? Alright. 

15 I think we'll adjourn, then. Meeting 

16 adjourned.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

18 matter went off the record at 4:48 p.m.)

19

20