NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MARCH 25, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Paris Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 

2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, at 9:00 

a.m., Mark Griffon, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman 

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member*

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member* 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A* 

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS 

DOUG FARVER, SC&A 

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS 

JENNY LIN, HHS 

JOHN MAURO, SC&A* 

BETH ROLFES, DCAS*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team* 

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A 

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

C O N T E N T S

Welcome and Roll Call...................... 4

Discussion

Items Related to NIOSH 10-Year Review

Update on DCAS "Blind" Dose 

Reconstruction Quality Control

Case Reviews .......................... 5

Case Reviews Issue Resolution

Sets 8-9 ............................. 20

Sets 10-13, Savannah River Site ..... 225

Sets 10-13, Rocky Flats Plant ....... N/A

Sets 10-13, Los Alamos National ..... N/A

Laboratory

Identification of Next Sites for .... N/A

Issue Resolution from Review

Sets 10-13

Assignment of SC&A Blind DR Cases from

Set 16 .............................. 324

Adjournment.............................. 358
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (8:58 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

5 Reconstruction Review Subcommittee. I'm going 

6 to get started. Let me just check on the 

7 phone. Do we have David and Brad? 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

9 MR. KATZ: Brad, hey. David, are you 

10 on the line, too? 

11 (No response.)

12 MR. KATZ: We can get started. Mark 

13 has to make a meeting that starts at 9:00, so 

14 we're going to miss him for a little bit. But 

15 let's just get started with roll call and go 

16 from there. We are discussing Savannah River, 

17 LANL --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the rest of 

19 the eighth and ninth still, right? 

20 MR. KATZ: Eighth and ninth, but 

21 LANL and Rocky Flats was the third, and Rocky, 

22 so speak to conflict of interest with respect 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 to those three sites as well, for Board 

2 Members when we do roll call. Just Board 

3 Members. So let's get started with 

4 attendance.

5 (Roll call.)

6 MR. KATZ: So the agenda is posted, 

7 and, Mark, it's your meeting.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And why 

9 don't I, because I have my phone call --

10 what's the first item? I'm sorry. 

11 MR. KATZ: The first item, I think, 

12 is blind dose reconstruction. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Blind dose 

14 reconstruction. Okay. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: And that's just really 

16 going to be an update.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, an update.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And if NIOSH can 

19 give that update, and I'm going to slip out 

20 and do my phone call, and, David Kotelchuck, 

21 if you can act as Chair while I'm gone?

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. Thank 

2 you. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, good. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. This is Grady. 

5 Basically, we're still in the process of 

6 getting things done here. We only got five 

7 additional blind DRs done since our last 

8 assessment was written. However, we do --

9 we've got 18 actually assigned that are in the 

10 process of being completed. 

11 One of the things that we're looking 

12 at that's giving us a little bit of difficulty 

13 as far as timeliness and getting our blinds 

14 done, is something that's affecting some of 

15 the Board Members here, too, and that's our 

16 ability to readily get the tools. You'd think 

17 it would be much easier than it is, but it's 

18 not. And the tools that ORAU uses, we're 

19 trying to get those, and it's not quite as 

20 easy as just saying give them to us. Sure, 

21 they're ours. But because of some computer 

22 issues between what they do and what our folks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 tell us we're allowed to do is causing us some 

2 problems.

3 Just to give you a little bit of an 

4 idea, one of the things that we've emphasized 

5 here is we always wanted to make sure we had 

6 the latest tool. Okay? What ORAU does is 

7 they can go out and I think it's called like 

8 One Click or something like that and they 

9 click a button. It goes out to the internet, 

10 to their cache of tools, it finds the most 

11 current tool, sucks it into the system. We're 

12 not allowed to do that, for some reason.

13 So we're working on a process to try 

14 to get their -- I'll call it a hard copy, but 

15 just copies that we don't have to go out and 

16 get. But, additionally, there's some issues 

17 with the Monte Carlo-type programs. We used 

18 to use Crystal Ball. That's no longer 

19 allowed. Then they went to Vose, and I don't 

20 think that's allowed. And so now we use 

21 @Risk. So that's what we're trying to get 

22 together.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 So, sure, we can come up with the 

2 same Probability of Causation or decision, I

3 would say. But for us to actually come up 

4 with a closer Probability of Causation value, 

5 we really need to use the exact same tools 

6 that they're using. 

7 But, anyway, we're in the process of 

8 that, and I promise we'll have more of them 

9 done next time and I'll have a full assessment 

10 written up. But that's where we are, and I 

11 believe you asked me for some of those tools a 

12 while back and that's the problem we're 

13 having. Wasn't it you? 

14 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

15 Stiver. Yes, back in November we had this 

16 conversation. That was one of the things we 

17 were concerned with was being able to access 

18 to the latest tools or at least the same set 

19 that was used. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is going to be 

21 far more complicated than we thought. And to 

22 be more specific about what the issue is, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 tools have applications written in a --

2 essentially, it's a little routine written in 

3 the tool, programming language, essentially. 

4 It's a Microsoft Office plugin. I think it's 

5 called Visual Studio or something, and they've 

6 written code in that application that pulls 

7 things. And that's what does the one click 

8 deployment. That is not a CDC-authorized 

9 software. 

10 Now, the fact of the matter is, on 

11 the ORAU side, their authority to operate and 

12 their certificate of compliance allows them to 

13 make their own determinations about what 

14 software packages they can buy and be 

15 compliant. And they actually have a more 

16 secure system than CDC because everybody at 

17 ORAU is already on Windows 7, but not 

18 everybody in CDC is.

19 So CDC has not approved this 

20 particular software-writing or routine-writing 

21 software. And so it's okay on the ORAU side, 

22 but we don't have CDC-approved use over here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 So that's the issue. It affects the one click 

2 deployment. It may affect some other things. 

3 And there may be even a further 

4 complication to run these things through 

5 CITGO. If and when we get them on our system 

6 so that we can run them at our desktops, it 

7 still may be an issue. It's not clear that 

8 everyone will run on CITGO, and that has to do 

9 with some libraries that are consulted. And 

10 while, you know, CITGO, since it is a CDC-wide 

11 configuration, you have to get CDC to agree to 

12 host those libraries, and it's unlikely that 

13 we're going to get that far. We're already --

14 we're in extended conversation with CDC about 

15 our databases and encrypting our databases, so 

16 we're not their favorite people already. They 

17 don't dislike us, but we're just a pain to 

18 them because we've got all this PII in our 

19 databases and they don't like that.

20 So it's probably, you know, once we 

21 get the tools on our desktops, we're just 

22 going to have to try to run them through CITGO 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 and see which ones run. And at that point, 

2 then we'll know what can be made available 

3 through CITGO. You know, we can, if it comes 

4 down to this, we could host somebody at our 

5 office from SC&A that wants to come and do 

6 some stuff. We can set up a workstation in 

7 the office where you'd be working on a 

8 desktop, and you could --

9 MR. KATZ: But you have problems in 

10 your own office, is what you were saying. 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right now we do. So 

12 once we get them running in our office, they 

13 still might not run on CITGO. 

14 MR. KATZ: So right now the option 

15 is to go to ORAU and work in their office?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we could 

17 conceivably do that. 

18 MR. KATZ: That's conceivably a 

19 solution.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: We could conceivably 

21 do that, but what we're really trying to do is 

22 get it running at least on our desktops.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: And it could, and I 

3 would think ORAU would have a seat at the 

4 table.

5 MR. KATZ: Because SC&A is going to 

6 be doing blind dose reconstructions this year 

7 that have to get done this year. And if this 

8 looks like it's long in resolution, it might 

9 make sense to send someone to ORAU and sit in 

10 their office and do their --

11 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John. 

12 That sounds like a very good idea. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'll address 

14 it with them. You guys have been there 

15 before, I think. 

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, we've been there. 

17 And as long as you're willing to host --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: We'll bring it 

19 during baseball season, when the Reds are in 

20 town. You know, just arrange your schedule 

21 appropriately. Yes. 

22 MR. FARVER: Make sure they're in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 town. 

2 MR. KATZ: But, anyway, I mean, you 

3 know, it's slightly expensive, but it's a 

4 solution for the interim because I think SC&A 

5 is going to be hard-put if they have to wait 

6 very long, given that --

7 MR. STIVER: We were going to try to 

8 do about five or six a year. 

9 MR. KATZ: Well, five or six this 

10 year. Next year is a whole other story. But, 

11 anyway, we only have nine months left. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Talking about six 

13 months if you're doing fiscal years.

14 MR. KATZ: No, calendar years. SC&A 

15 is calendar year. So let's work on that then, 

16 if you'll --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. The Reds 

18 schedule is online for when you want to 

19 schedule your travel. The schedule is online. 

20 I'm not joking. You know, you work all day 

21 and go to a baseball game at night. 

22 MR. STIVER: In that case, I might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 want to go, too. 

2 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

3 Does DCAS plan on issuing another blind 

4 report at some point in time? 

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. So maybe, Kathy, 

6 you missed the beginning of this, but Grady 

7 was explaining that they have had these IT 

8 hitches which have delayed their progress, 

9 which is why they don't have as many cases 

10 done as they would like to have had, which is 

11 why they're not ready to give a full report 

12 yet.

13 MR. CALHOUN: I could have written 

14 up a report on just five, but I thought I'd 

15 wait until we get ten or so. 

16 MR. KATZ: Right. So maybe the next 

17 meeting we'll actually have --

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: We've taken one 

20 other thing, I think we did this, we had one 

21 case that came up that had just multiple skin 

22 cancers. You know, that was one of the ones 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 that pull. So for our guy to do, for our HP 

2 to do a real dose reconstruction and plug 

3 through this is just really -- you're really 

4 now, all of a sudden, investing a whole lot of 

5 time in this one. So I told Grady, look, it's 

6 okay to just make an arbitrary cutoff if you 

7 happen to pull a case that has more than three 

8 cancers, three primaries or two primaries or 

9 whatever number you want to pick. Just reject 

10 it and pull a replacement, because it's just 

11 too much time to invest in one case. We're 

12 trying to keep this moving and keep up with 

13 it, and it's turned into a lot -- with this 

14 tool business, it's turned into a lot.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

16 sounds like that's fine. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, this is Brad. 

18 I've got a question. Help me understand 

19 this. Because of the security plans and 

20 everything else that CITGO has put on ours, 

21 our computers, we can't get these? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, the issue is, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 it's a computer security issue. The tools 

2 utilize a software package that's a plugin to 

3 Outlook or part of Outlook -- or part of 

4 Office, not Outlook necessarily, part of 

5 Office. But that particular piece of that 

6 particular Microsoft product is not on CDC's 

7 approved software list. Now, probably the 

8 main reason why it is not is because CDC runs 

9 several different versions of Windows. Not 

10 all of CDC is on Windows 7. And so there is a 

11 security vulnerability with this particular 

12 plugin in earlier versions of Windows. 

13 So for that reason, CDC is not going 

14 to approve the use of that software package on 

15 the CDC system, which is what we're on. So 

16 that's the reason why the tools, we can't get 

17 the tools on our desktop. The further issue -

18 - go ahead.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: So with ORAU and 

20 everyone, then what is it? Because they're 

21 using their own personal computers --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No. It's because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 their entire system is on Windows 7, and they 

2 are in a place where this is acceptable to 

3 them. And they have their own system for 

4 approving software, and that's allowed under 

5 their authority to operate. 

6 MR. KATZ: Right. Brad, SC&A is in 

7 sort of a different situation than ORAU. ORAU 

8 had their whole computer system, in effect, 

9 approved by CDC for IT security, which it's 

10 sort of an extensive process of doing such a 

11 thing, but it allows them to sort of set up 

12 their home system in-house. And, in effect, 

13 they have their own containment, so they don't 

14 have to -- and there's control and security 

15 risks. Everyone else, including SC&A, 

16 including DCAS, they're all on a CDC-wide 

17 network, and so they have to abide by the 

18 rules of the CDC-wide network. And that 

19 network doesn't deal well with peculiarities 

20 like we have with this program. So that's 

21 sort of the issue. It's very big sort of --

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 starting to wonder, because I thought they 

2 were supposed to be on a secure system, and I 

3 wasn't understanding how they were going 

4 without that. 

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. So they actually 

6 have a very nice secure system, but it's just 

7 in-house. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: So this is John Mauro. 

10 Just an overarching question. I presume you 

11 are in a position, however, to check these 

12 dose reconstructions but not necessarily using 

13 their tools. So that when a DR does move 

14 through and the system and NIOSH signs off, 

15 you do have the ability to check those 

16 numbers? 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. So it's just the 

19 tools just allow you to go through a process 

20 that allows you to do what we're calling the 

21 blind DRs, and you've set that up in a way 

22 where you have no choice but to use exactly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 the same tools as they're using? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there are two 

3 reasons to do that, you know. One is it's a 

4 lot quicker to use those tools if you're going 

5 to do this. And the second is that it makes, 

6 the tool makes multiple decisions, 

7 essentially, at once, and it's easier to make 

8 all those multiple decisions, you know, the 

9 choices correctly when you make them once, as 

10 opposed to going through and doing it manually 

11 and having to make the correct decision or the 

12 consistent decisions at every step. So it's 

13 an expedient thing, to a large extent; but it 

14 also provides for consistency of choices of, 

15 you know, of the decisions that are made in 

16 it. So it provides consistent decision17 making.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So should 

19 we go on now to sets eight and nine? So eight 

20 is, eight is the set of dose reconstruction 

21 cases, and then Bridgeport Brass, Harshaw, 

22 Huntington Site Profile reviews. So this is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 big one. So who starts? Who begins this 

2 discussion? 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I guess I can 

4 start a little bit here. 

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: The first one, and, 

7 Scott, feel free to jump in on this --

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: 149.1.

9 MR. CALHOUN: 149.1, I believe, is 

10 Bridgeport Brass, and what we have here, what 

11 I have written down on the final matrix here 

12 is that the updated TBD has been reviewed. It 

13 said not published and under DOE review. 

14 However, that was from last time, and right 

15 now it has been published. It was published 

16 in February, so I guess we believe that we've 

17 answered most of those questions, and I think 

18 that SC&A or the Work Group is going to look 

19 at that. And I believe we just got something 

20 out on Bridgeport Brass. I don't know if they 

21 looked at the actual, if they looked at the 

22 new one or not. I would imagine they would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 have. I got an email on that on Friday. 

2 MR. FARVER: I can give you the 

3 short answer. The short answer is they 

4 reviewed the TBD, and, for this finding, about 

5 the 95th percentile, apparently that's been 

6 corrected in the TBD, so we can close this 

7 finding. 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. By 

9 the way, which committee looks at that for 

10 this Bridgeport Brass? Is that the 

11 Procedures? 

12 MR. FARVER: No, we looked at it. 

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, all right.

14 MR. CALHOUN: So I guess the next, 

15 the remaining item is to review the report 

16 that was written and see how that comes out 

17 that you guys sent us Friday because I imagine 

18 there's more issues. I didn't look at it. 

19 MR. FARVER: I don't remember. 

20 There's so many reports lying around. 

21 MR. KATZ: John is on the line. 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. In the last 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 meeting, there were a number of, we discussed 

2 Bridgeport Brass. I think the big issues have 

3 been resolved, and I was also asked to, by 

4 Mark, to read it, which I did. And I 

5 certainly did not perform a detailed review, 

6 but there really was, the real important part 

7 was this business that we brought up 

8 previously that Harry Chmelynski reviewed. 

9 And I was asked, well, you know, take a look 

10 at it to see if there is anything in there 

11 where there's substantial changes that perhaps 

12 may warrant SC&A to take a closer look, 

13 similar to, by the way, we'll get to 

14 Huntington Pilot Plant in a little while. But 

15 is there anything about it, and I have to say 

16 my initial impression of reading through 

17 Bridgeport Brass is that we really don't need 

18 another full SC&A review. I think the issues 

19 that were raised originally and the way it was 

20 done by Harry in addressing some of these 

21 matters, you know, demonstrates that it 

22 certainly appears to us that -- and this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 really, unfortunately, this is just my opinion 

2 because I read it, I guess, Friday and read it 

3 cover to cover while we were trying to close 

4 out these other matters. And I, for one, feel 

5 that there's nothing in there that is a sea 

6 change. It's basically further development. 

7 They have 95th percentile values in there. 

8 It's a richer document, but it's not that 

9 there's something that has changed 

10 substantially, in my mind, from what was done 

11 previously. When I say previously, I mean 

12 that we did not previously review.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: All right. The next 

16 one I have open is 149.3, and that's the same 

17 issue. 

18 MR. FARVER: Same issue, same 

19 response. We can go ahead and close this. It 

20 has to do with the 95th percentile --

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So close 

22 that. Go to 149.4.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 MR. FARVER: Transferred to the 

2 Procedures Subcommittee. Yes, we didn't have 

3 an action on that one. The next action is --

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, I see. 

5 MR. FARVER: -- way down --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: You say only the 

7 highlighted ones? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: 174.1. This is Scott. 

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

10 DR. MAURO: Did you just jump to the 

11 ninth set? 

12 MR. STIVER: No, John, we're still 

13 on the eighth.

14 DR. MAURO: You're still on the 

15 eighth at 179.1? 

16 MR. KATZ: 174.1.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just making sure 

18 we closed 149.1 and 149.3, right? 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. And by the way, 

20 from this meeting forward, SC&A is keeping the 

21 matrices, just as a matter of record. So SC&A 

22 will send around the updated matrices after 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 the meeting. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

3 cover this, if you'd like. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: That would be great. 

5 I'm still paging down. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: What page is it on, 

7 Scott? 

8 MR. SIEBERT: 99 of 132. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: For 174.1, we closed 

11 at the last meeting, but there was an 

12 additional step that the Subcommittee asked us 

13 to look at. This is the old Portsmouth claims 

14 where we had a best estimate that was done, 

15 and there was no dosimeter error workbook for 

16 Portsmouth at the time. They used the K-25 

17 workbook which doubled the dose. 

18 We had gone back at the last meeting 

19 and covered the fact that no other dose 

20 reconstruction, we went through all of them, 

21 none other was affected by this issue. And 

22 then the last outstanding question that I can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 answer now was the present tool, how does it 

2 handle it, could this occur again? 

3 Are we there? Sorry. I didn't mean 

4 to jump ahead.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sorry. I'm 

6 still trying to locate --

7 MR. SIEBERT: The highlighting is 

8 actually in the NIOSH column, as opposed to 

9 the resolution column. 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 174.1 --

11 DR. MAURO: Mine is on page 86. I 

12 don't know if you're looking at a different 

13 one. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: On this latest one, 

15 it's on 99. 

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

17 good. Okay. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. So what I was 

19 saying is the last thing we needed to cover 

20 was looking at what the present tool does to 

21 ensure that this could not occur again. And 

22 when we reviewed that, the present day best 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 estimate tool we used for Portsmouth claims 

2 has that information, the error calculation 

3 integrated in the tool itself already, so they 

4 don't have to use dose reconstructors, don't 

5 have to use a separate tool for the error 

6 calculation. So the bottom line is it 

7 couldn't occur again because the tool already 

8 covers it, and that's really the only point. 

9 MR. FARVER: So there is a separate 

10 Portsmouth best estimate tool? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: It uses the complex12 wide best estimate tool, but now that includes 

13 the error calculation. It didn't used to. 

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: All right. 

16 Funny thing is, this doesn't have any 

17 markings. That's why I was --

18 MR. KATZ: Do you have the latest 

19 version, David? 

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Maybe I don't 

21 have the latest version.

22 MR. KATZ: Because there was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 version sent out in the morning and then a 

2 version sent out --

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

4 MR. KATZ: -- in the afternoon.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Because 

6 that's why I was having trouble. I saw 174.1 

7 and then I didn't see, I didn't see the 

8 markings on it. Let me try and go back. 

9 Meanwhile, so where do we go next? And I'll 

10 go get the right one.

11 MR. FARVER: I believe the next one 

12 we jump down to the attachment, attachment one 

13 about Bridgeport Brass. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That is 

15 on one --

16 MR. CALHOUN: Twelve. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. So 

18 if you folks will begin discussion, I will try 

19 to get the updated version. 

20 MR. FARVER: Well, for this one, the 

21 question Mark had was -- our answer is 

22 attached at the end of the matrix, and there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 was a question about the table that has two 

2 146s from the number of personnel studied in 

3 the final column and the maximum weighted 

4 exposure. They both were 146, and Mark said, 

5 well, that's unusual, could you go back and 

6 check that? 

7 So we did, and, actually, the number 

8 of personnel studied should be eight instead 

9 of 146. And the maximum weighted exposure 

10 still remains 146. It really doesn't change 

11 the answer any, but it was an error in the 

12 table. 

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

14 see. So it's that. So I haven't yet gotten 

15 attachment one. Okay. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: And that's on page 

17 129.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. 

19 Okay. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: So say that again, 

21 John. 

22 MR. FARVER: There's a table down in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 and over in the far right-hand column, the 

2 lower right, there was 146 for number of 

3 personnel and 146 for the exposure. And the 

4 top number of personnel should be eight.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It's supposed to be 

6 eight.

7 MR. FARVER: It was a typographical 

8 error. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, okay.

10 MR. FARVER: And that was Mark's 

11 question. You know, it looks too coincidental 

12 to be true.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I remember when 

14 we were looking at that before, and it didn't 

15 make sense. Okay. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: Is that in the current 

17 TBD? 

18 MR. FARVER: I'm not sure where that 

19 came from. 

20 DR. MAURO: The 146 tables? Yes, 

21 those are, where we did the work -- that was 

22 me, by the way. I made that mistake. We went 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 into the SRDB -- the issue has to do with 

2 back-extrapolating from 1960 data down to 

3 1957, and there was an SRDB -- and NIOSH's 

4 position was, well, we think we could do that 

5 because the 1960 data actually has higher 

6 concentrations in the air. And so by back7 extrapolating, we're claimant-favorable 

8 because there was more data in 1960 than '57. 

9 What I did originally was go back 

10 and look at the SRDB and convince myself that, 

11 yes, the 1960 air sampling data is higher. 

12 And that table comes out of that SRDB. 

13 However, when I made the table, I made a typo, 

14 and I put the 146 in twice. It should have 

15 been eight. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: So the question is how 

17 is it corrected? 

18 DR. MAURO: It's corrected. 

19 However, in my opinion, our position is that 

20 this issue is resolved. Now, I still believe 

21 that NIOSH is correct that the 1960 data is 

22 richer; and, not only that, it is more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 claimant-favorable, notwithstanding that typo. 

2 So it's just correcting the typo. SC&A's 

3 position, I believe, unless there's some other 

4 thoughts on this, is that our original 

5 position that back-extrapolation, in this 

6 case, works. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: So we're going to 

8 correct the official copy of this report now 

9 so that it will no longer say 146. 

10 MR. FARVER: Right. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: It will say eight. 

12 And how are we going to know that happened? 

13 MR. FARVER: When you get the final 

14 matrix, you know, that I'll send out after 

15 this meeting, it will have strikethrough for 

16 the 146, it will have the eight, and then it 

17 will have a little note that it was corrected 

18 on such and such a date. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Super. All right.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So do we 

21 go to attachment one, finding three? 

22 MR. FARVER: John, do you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 talk about finding three? 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. In reviewing this 

3 issue, the bottom line is that I think we 

4 still have an issue, but it might be something 

5 you would consider overarching. It has to do 

6 with beta exposure. Let me just make sure. 

7 Yes. 

8 The Bridgeport Brass -- we're 

9 talking Bridgeport Brass. I believe we are. 

10 Yes, attachment one. And the issue has to do 

11 with skin exposures, and there is a very nice 

12 guidance provided on how to do it, and it's 

13 all based on film badges. However, one of the 

14 things that we've raised before, and this 

15 might be best suited as an overarching issue, 

16 is, in this particular case, I believe there 

17 was a very real possibility for skin exposure 

18 and contamination, such that it would be 

19 advisable to include that. That is direct 

20 deposition not just from the film badge but 

21 from direct deposition, on how to go about 

22 doing that. And I don't think we've ever 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 resolved that issue. If you have particles 

2 being generated, large amounts of particles 

3 being generated, and falling on a person's 

4 face or neck, what do you do with that? And I 

5 think that's been a longstanding question 

6 we've raised, and I'm not sure if that has 

7 been dealt with.

8 MR. KATZ: John, I think that has 

9 been resolved. I could be wrong, but I think 

10 the discussion has always ended from Neton 

11 that this gets, is only addressable on a case12 by-case basis, so there's not an overarching 

13 approach to it, other than the determination 

14 that you have to consider the individual case 

15 and the circumstances. I think that's where 

16 that issue stands. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: There's also another, 

18 there's also another way that we look at this, 

19 and this is Grady. If we have evidence that 

20 there is a significant issue with hot 

21 particles or whatnot, we actually write that 

22 into the TBD. And we've done that with, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 believe, Hanford site and maybe INL as well, 

2 during certain eras. But unless we have some 

3 kind of indication that there was a 

4 significant problem or we have a documented 

5 skin contamination, we just go by the badge 

6 readings and any geometric correction factors 

7 that might be associated with that site. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there are too 

9 many variables. 

10 DR. MAURO: Let me ask now, this 

11 case by case, and I understand what you're 

12 saying and I agree that that's certainly a 

13 good way to go and you make certain judgments 

14 on a particular case, is there any protocol, 

15 like using VARSKIN, or how do you do that? I 

16 know that when I look at it and I say, well, 

17 how would I do it, we went through a few 

18 exercises on our own to say, okay, what would 

19 the dose be underneath that little particle? 

20 And it's one thing to say you could deal with 

21 it on a case-by-case basis, but there's 

22 another matter. There's a lot of judgment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 involved on how you're going to do that, and I 

2 don't believe there is any OTIB that says, 

3 okay, if and when you do that, you have a 

4 circumstance where you need to do that, how 

5 are you going to do it? I guess maybe I'm 

6 going beyond the issue here, but I think that 

7 is an important issue. I'm still uncertain on 

8 how you would do that. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: In the past, where we 

10 have had documented skin contaminations, I 

11 know that we've used VARSKIN. Now, as far as 

12 a TIB, I don't know that off the top of my 

13 head. But when we do have a documented skin 

14 contamination and it's a skin cancer, 

15 obviously, in that area where the 

16 contamination occurred, we would use VARSKIN.

17 DR. MAURO: The ambiguity comes on 

18 two levels, and I'll be brief. One is: 

19 depending on what you assume is the size of 

20 the particle and its thickness will very much 

21 affect what the dose is underneath that 

22 particle to the skin. And the second, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 have to say, this is something that's always 

2 been an enigma for me, is if the dose is only 

3 -- so we're assuming that the skin cancer that 

4 the guy has, let's say on his ear, is because 

5 there was a particle, it might have been 

6 because a particle landed on his ear. So 

7 let's say, over the course of a day, before he 

8 went home and took a shower, let's say, he 

9 gets this dose, and the dose is only delivered 

10 there. How do you go from that to determine a 

11 Probability of Causation when the risk is --

12 let's say a skin cancer risk is usually based 

13 on a film badge reading where you're assuming 

14 the entire exposed body experienced that dose. 

15 This has always been one of these brain 

16 teasers, and I don't think it really has been 

17 aired out. How do you do this, and how do you 

18 relate that very localized dose that you might 

19 calculate using VARSKIN to converting that 

20 into a Probability of Causation? 

21 MR. CALHOUN: It's still input into 

22 IREP the same way. Now, what we would do, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 you mentioned the whole-body dose. Sure, if 

2 we've got a whole-body beta dose, for example, 

3 listed on a badge, and we don't have any skin 

4 contaminations to go by, we'll just plug that 

5 in. But by the same, you know -- let's just 

6 say we've got skin cancer on the back. The 

7 dose that we will assign for medical X-rays, 

8 for example, is going to be different on the 

9 back for a PA exam than it would be on the 

10 calf, for example. 

11 So we've always taken into account 

12 the location of the skin cancer and plugged it 

13 into IREP. So if we have a localized dose 

14 calculated with VARSKIN, we still have a beta 

15 dose, we still know the energy of the betas, 

16 and we plug that in. If it's a whole-body 

17 dose with a badge measurement, we plug that in 

18 as well.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So if you get 

20 a localized dose that's fairly high to the ear 

21 over a relatively short period of time because 

22 of this particle, are you saying that you'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 assign that dose to the whole body?

2 MR. CALHOUN: We assign that dose to 

3 the cancer. It's just the cancer model that 

4 we plug in. You know, the skin cancer models, 

5 we're calculating the highest dose to that 

6 area.

7 MR. FARVER: John, I just read into 

8 this, reviewing a Hanford case. Now, the 

9 Hanford TBD has some guidance for how to 

10 handle particles. I guess for certain time 

11 periods certain particles fell, and they could 

12 determine what the dose rate was of a particle 

13 in rads per hour, and the mean residence time. 

14 So based on that, you can get a localized 

15 dose. And then you go back to OTIB-17, 

16 shallow dose, and you would take that and you 

17 would spread it out over the 18,500 square 

18 centimeters of skin. 

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, so you spread it 

20 out. You're answering my question. So there 

21 is a protocol that takes into consideration 

22 that it's really not the whole body, you've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 got to adjust for that. 

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, very good. I got 

4 you. I'll tell you the truth, that protocol, 

5 which obviously was developed and implemented 

6 at least in the Hanford site, would certainly 

7 be something that would serve the program well 

8 and the process whereby -- under what 

9 circumstances you make that decision that, 

10 yes, we do have particle problems; and, two, 

11 when you do have particle problems, what was 

12 just described to us by Doug as being the way 

13 in which you do it.

14 I understand why you would do that. 

15 And it would be good to memorialize that. 

16 MR. FARVER: Is that something that 

17 you would like to see added to the Bridgeport?

18 DR. MAURO: No, no, I'm sorry. No. 

19 It sounds like it's something that is --

20 here's where we have a disagreement. It 

21 sounds like on Bridgeport the judgment has to 

22 be made, and we don't know if this judgment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 was made or not, that particles are a problem. 

2 Clearly, in the current version, and I read 

3 the current version, there's no mention that 

4 particles might have been a problem. So I 

5 guess that's step one. Some judgment needs to 

6 be made whether or not, do we have 

7 circumstances here that warrant that 

8 consideration, and, you know, in my opinion, 

9 it does.

10 The second part, of course, is, once 

11 you decide that, yes, we do have that, the 

12 protocol you would use does not necessarily 

13 need to be in Bridgeport, but it should be 

14 someplace so that, the protocol that you do 

15 use when you trigger this scenario, there is 

16 some standardized guidance for how you go 

17 about doing that. 

18 MR. FARVER: Well, it is pretty much 

19 standardized in OTIB-17.

20 DR. MAURO: The particle part?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, then --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 MR. FARVER: The specifics are 

2 contained in, like the Hanford TBD has, you 

3 know, the nuclides, the dose rates, the mean 

4 residence time for the particles.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: That's why I said: is 

7 that something that you think should be 

8 considered for Bridgeport?

9 DR. MAURO: No. For Bridgeport, the 

10 only thing I'd consider is they probably 

11 should have a statement in Bridgeport whether 

12 or not, given the nature of the work, whether 

13 or not that is an issue, and right now it's 

14 silent on that matter. I guess that's the 

15 only thing I would suggest. Now that we're 

16 having this conversation, that issue did come 

17 up, and that's the reason why we have the 

18 language we're looking at. It looks like that 

19 might very well have been an issue at 

20 Bridgeport. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: So I've got some 

22 history here, so if I can comment a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 bit. If I'm not mistaken, this has come up at 

2 uranium plants like Bridgeport, some of the 

3 AWEs, probably the DOE sites that were the DOE 

4 uranium plants for a long time, the Oak Ridge 

5 plants and Fernald, where there was no 

6 monitoring. There was no contamination 

7 monitoring before the guys left. You know, 

8 they took a shower, and they went home. And 

9 so they worked in coveralls. They didn't 

10 work, you know, all dressed out in anti11 contamination clothing. And given the nature 

12 of what was done at Fernald, it's not unlikely 

13 that people got uranium on their skin during 

14 the workday, on some parts of their skin. 

15 So this is where that came up. It 

16 came up in a uranium context where, as opposed 

17 to Hanford where it's highly likely you're 

18 going to have particles, hot particles --

19 uranium particles aren't that hot. You know, 

20 they're not really hot the way spent fuel is. 

21 So it's a different kind of question than 

22 what we normally call a hot particle. You 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 know, this is just contamination that gets on 

2 the skin during the work day and how you deal 

3 with that. 

4 And so it's been talked about a 

5 little bit, but I don't know we've ever 

6 resolved it, except maybe at one place. I 

7 think John mentioned one time that there was 

8 an approach taken at Bethlehem Steel that 

9 might be instructive for these kinds of plants 

10 in general, having to do with, you know, 

11 what's a reasonable amount of contamination in 

12 a reasonable time?

13 You know, the problem with inventing 

14 contamination, too, what we're doing here is 

15 we don't have any evidence that these people 

16 were contaminated. It's just reasonable to 

17 figure that some of them probably had uranium 

18 on their skin, but we don't have any evidence 

19 of it. There was no survey done. 

20 So once you start deciding, well, 

21 they were contaminated, then the question 

22 becomes, well, how contaminated do you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 imagine that they were and how long a time do 

2 you want to imagine that they were 

3 contaminated? You know, where do you stop? 

4 Once you start, essentially, assuming it, 

5 where do you stop? 

6 So it's kind of a tricky path to go 

7 down, unless you, essentially as a policy 

8 matter, decide this is how we're going to deal 

9 with it. I don't know that there's a 

10 scientific explanation. You know, there's no 

11 scientific answer because you don't have any 

12 data. 

13 DR. MAURO: A couple of ideas, 

14 though. I think that -- first of all, I agree 

15 completely with you. Uranium is going to 

16 deliver a relatively low dose, a hot particle 

17 of some very high specific activity material. 

18 That would be at Hanford. I would say that, 

19 if you had a site where it was at one of these 

20 AWE sites, they were machining uranium, a lot 

21 of airborne particles, and there's a guy that 

22 comes down with cancer on the face, neck, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 skin, ears, where we know that it's a very 

2 good possibility it could have -- that would 

3 trigger it. In other words, yes, I think 

4 we've got a circumstance where it's possible 

5 that that cancer might have been caused by 

6 some localized dose. We need to at least look 

7 into it, and right now I think that there 

8 really is no protocol for looking into that. 

9 And you're completely correct. It would be 

10 uranium handling in the early years where 

11 there was, let's say, a lot of airborne 

12 particles and you didn't really know whether 

13 or not the guy was walking away with any 

14 surface contamination. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Dr. 

16 Poston? 

17 MEMBER POSTON: I have a question or 

18 a statement, just to clarify. Has the 

19 computer code been modified to take into 

20 account surface contamination as opposed to 

21 hot particles? That's a question I don't --

22 the original program was written only for hot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 particles. It's not written for 

2 contamination. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking 

4 VARSKIN? 

5 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, VARSKIN. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall. I 

7 don't know. 

8 MEMBER POSTON: Well, the point is, 

9 if it hasn't been modified, you're misusing 

10 the code.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

12 MEMBER POSTON: It's only written 

13 for hot particles. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. John, this is 

15 John. When we were looking into this, we 

16 simply said, okay, let's assume some 

17 relatively small particle of uranium and other 

18 radionuclides, and we just came up with some 

19 arbitrary size, and we deposited it directly 

20 on the skin and ran it and see what type of 

21 doses you'd come up with. Well, it turns out 

22 with the high specific activity you got really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 large doses to these localized areas, the 

2 basal cells under the particles. The uraniums 

3 are relatively low but certainly not 

4 insignificant. 

5 So I was still looking at it as if 

6 it was a uranium particle, in other words, 

7 because of these flakes that are generated 

8 when they're grinding uranium. So I wasn't 

9 thinking of more like a fine dust, but, 

10 actually, that would be microscopic. But as a 

11 particle, it would settle out --

12 MEMBER POSTON: John, what size 

13 particle did you assume? 

14 DR. MAURO: We actually were looking 

15 at things on the order of a millimeter, a few 

16 millimeters like that, so small flakes. 

17 MEMBER POSTON: VARSKIN is in the 

18 microns. 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did not, we did 

20 not --

21 MEMBER POSTON: And so that's one of 

22 the problems. The other problem is: I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 understand your statement about high specific 

2 activity. Uranium 238 has a four and a half 

3 billion year half-life so --

4 DR. MAURO: That's why I'm saying --

5 MEMBER POSTON: -- it's very low 

6 specific activity.

7 DR. MAURO: You know, and I agree, 

8 I'm agreeing with Stu that uranium is not like 

9 talking about a particle of a high specific 

10 activity-- so, yes, you're absolutely right, 

11 but the dose is still not, you know, if you're 

12 seeing relatively small or no doses on your 

13 film badge, and then you say, but let's assume 

14 for a minute that a flake may have fallen, a 

15 small flake during the grinding on a person's 

16 ear or neck, what kind of doses are we talking 

17 about to the basal cell underneath that 

18 particle? And they're not insignificant. 

19 Now, they're certainly nowhere near the doses 

20 you get from a high specific activity 

21 particle, but it's still something that needs 

22 to be talked about. It needs to be part of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 the analysis. 

2 MEMBER POSTON: Well, having been there and 

3 done that as a young man in 1957, I would 

4 think that you're stretching this tremendously 

5 to try to get a dose. 

6 DR. MAURO: You know, and I'm fine 

7 with that. You might be right, I don't know 

8 that.

9 MEMBER POSTON: Let me finish.

10 MR. KATZ: John, let Dr. Poston 

11 finish, please. 

12 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry.

13 MEMBER POSTON: We were required to 

14 wear coveralls. We were also supplied with 

15 underwear, socks, and everything to wear. And 

16 we were also required to take a full-body 

17 shower at the end of every shift, wash your 

18 hair, completely wash. And I think that, 

19 having a situation or making an estimate of 

20 having a person walk out of the facility with 

21 contamination, especially on easy-to-wash 

22 places like your ears and your face and so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 forth, is really stretching it. I just don't 

2 see that.

3 DR. MAURO: In my own defense, I've 

4 been looking at AWE facilities which start in 

5 1940s and go to early '50s, and the level of 

6 controls there were very minimal, and they 

7 were dirty. So, you know, I'm looking at the 

8 problem through a lens of very old AWE 

9 facilities that were machining uranium.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I must say, if 

11 you're talking about the ear, the classic 

12 example is that people don't wash behind their 

13 ears always when they shower.

14 MR. STIVER: If you're in the 

15 shower, the water runs --

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

17 true. The water comes there whether you scrub 

18 or not. Okay. I was wondering, though, about 

19 whether you make distinctions about exposed 

20 versus unexposed skin. Suppose you're dealing 

21 with an alpha emitter. At one point, you said 

22 you'd divide by the total surface area of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 skin, but that's not where the -- well, the 

2 particles can go on your clothes, but they are 

3 more likely to accumulate and be dangerous if 

4 they are a local exposure to your face and to 

5 possibly your hands. 

6 MR. FARVER: Right. That was the 

7 method that's in the OTIB on how to do, how to 

8 handle shallow doses, skin doses. That's the 

9 method that's already --

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And that 

11 is taken into account. 

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay, all 

14 right. 

15 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

16 I've got a question regarding the mechanics 

17 and the applicability of VARSKIN. Now, from 

18 what Dr. Poston said, they're assuming very 

19 small particles, so I would imagine self20 absorption is pretty much non-existent in that 

21 situation, as opposed to larger uranium 

22 flakes, and also the dose rate per area of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 contamination is going to be considerably 

2 lower.

3 I guess I'm not that familiar with 

4 VARSKIN, but does it have those values kind of 

5 hardwired into the code, like so many rads per 

6 hour per microcurie per square centimeter? Is 

7 that something that the user can actually 

8 adjust? 

9 MR. SMITH: Can I make a VARSKIN 

10 comment? Yes, this is Matt Smith with ORAU 

11 Team. 

12 MR. STIVER: Hey, Matt.

13 MR. SMITH: Versions 3, 4, and then 

14 they're also coming up with a Version 5 of 

15 VARSKIN right now, going back to the earlier 

16 question about particle versus contamination 

17 incident, in the versions that are on the 

18 street now you can define a disk type of 

19 source. So if it is a contamination incident 

20 and we have information from the contamination 

21 report regarding approximately how many square 

22 centimeters of the skin were affected, we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 adjust that source and assume a disk type of 

2 source.

3 Whether or not you can adjust the 

4 actual parameters or the specific activity, 

5 the answer is no. That kind of stuff is kind 

6 of hardwired into the library. But you can 

7 certainly do a lot of things now with VARSKIN 

8 that you couldn't do with the earlier versions 

9 with respect to even photon dose calculation, 

10 as well. 

11 DR. MAURO: When we did our 

12 calculation using a small disk, the big 

13 question: was how thick was it? By the way, 

14 of course, the alpha doesn't contribute, but 

15 it's the beta. And our struggle was not so 

16 much the diameter, because what you're really 

17 doing is you're delivering the dose beneath 

18 that diameter. So whether it's small or 

19 large, you know, the dose doesn't change. But 

20 the thickness of the particle was our dilemma, 

21 the flake that was landing on the person's 

22 skin. So the very fact that we're having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 this conversation tells me that it does need 

2 to be explored and maybe put to bed once and 

3 for all. But it's been lingering, especially 

4 as it applies to uranium. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, as a matter of

6 perception, it appears to me that the reason 

7 we're having this discussion is because the 

8 rationale that was given at the beginning is 

9 always going to apply, i.e., you've got to 

10 look at each individual case. There's no way 

11 you can broad-brush this issue. There's just 

12 not going to be any way to do that. 

13 DR. MAURO: Well, Wanda, would you 

14 agree that, at a minimum, the Site Profile 

15 should indicate whether or not this is or is 

16 not an issue at this site? 

17 MEMBER MUNN: I have some 

18 reservations about that. In this particular 

19 case, perhaps --

20 DR. MAURO: For Bridgeport Brass.

21 MEMBER MUNN: -- perhaps so. We're 

22 talking about Bridgeport. This was a machine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 shop. Perhaps a sentence is to be certainly 

2 considered for it. But without any specific 

3 information, I think you would have to have at 

4 least some kind of contamination information 

5 from some period. If not the operational 

6 period, certainly you need to get some kind of 

7 residual data to be able to make any kind of a 

8 statement of that sort. I can't remember what 

9 the report said from the residual period, but 

10 you have to have some data if you're going to 

11 make a statement like that, John. And --

12 DR. MAURO: Well, I guess I'm making 

13 a really simple statement. It was very early 

14 years. The level of controls were minimal, 

15 and they were generating airborne particles, 

16 flakes, due to the type of operations. And 

17 this is universal for early AWE machining, 

18 cutting facilities. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it pretty much 

20 is. I agree.

21 DR. MAURO: And that's as far as I 

22 go with it. And I'd say, well, when you have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 that, and there's reason to believe that the 

2 person may not have been scanned before he 

3 left for the day and showered, you know, but 

4 maybe you would say, but when he goes home, he 

5 takes a shower, like everybody else. So maybe 

6 for an eight-hour period he could have had 

7 some size particle sitting where, you know, 

8 that caused the cancer. 

9 The problem I always had is do we 

10 assume that the cancer, let's say it's on his 

11 ear, was due to the dose that was delivered 

12 there by that particle that landed there, 

13 which makes it a different way of approaching 

14 it than dividing by the whole skin area. You 

15 see, I'm having a lot of trouble with this 

16 issue. I don't know how I would do it. In my 

17 mind, you could say, well, listen, this guy 

18 got cancer on the ear. Certainly, more likely 

19 than not, it was because of the sun, but let's 

20 say but he did work in a place, like 

21 Bridgeport Brass, where it's very possible 

22 that, on one or more occasions, particles 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 could have landed on his skin, his face, his 

2 neck, his ears, delivering whatever localized 

3 dose is associated with those particles, 

4 whatever size you want to assume they are in 

5 thickness. 

6 This has been a matter that I 

7 raised, but I have to tell you I don't have a 

8 solution. I'm not sure how you deal with it, 

9 and I don't think that, you know -- and you 

10 deal with it, I agree you have to deal with it 

11 on a case-by-case basis, but, you know, I 

12 don't think you're going to have very much 

13 information to allow you to do that. All 

14 you're going to be able to say is, yes, it 

15 looks like it could have happened. It was a 

16 scenario that very likely happened, at least 

17 on occasion, at a facility in those early 

18 days. And you have that, let's say there's 

19 general agreement, yes, I guess that could 

20 have happened and it may not have been that 

21 rare, what do you do with the guy that shows 

22 up with skin cancer on his face, neck, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 ears? 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm pretty sure I 

3 understand your concern, and I think it's a 

4 concern for anyone who approaches the problem. 

5 It's just that we, there's an extreme danger 

6 in beginning to make up scenarios based on 

7 what could have happened without any basis in 

8 fact for what actually did happen. It's a 

9 pitfall that has been approached and fallen 

10 into on more than one occasion, and it's 

11 difficult, I think, for us, if not impossible, 

12 to decide where to draw the line when you get 

13 into a fantasy world. And fantasy world is 

14 only one thought away from unsubstantiated 

15 scenario. Even though we know what happened 

16 in some cases, we can't extrapolate what 

17 happens in some cases to what happens in all 

18 cases. And that just underscores, in my mind, 

19 the need for individual consideration of each 

20 case that comes along, not even on a site-wide 

21 basis, but --

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 want to speak to that because I've taken a 

2 look at this and I've looked at our whole 

3 process that we do. We're using the 95 

4 percentile over here because we really don't 

5 know what went on with this, so we're going to 

6 use this. This is going to give them the best 

7 estimate here. We're talking about people 

8 that were in there that were machining this. 

9 You're going to have particles all over the 

10 place. And John, as he said, he was in there, 

11 and they did machine. They had coveralls and 

12 everything else like that. Let's take other 

13 plants, like Fernald and everything else like 

14 that. You're saying in a fantasy world where 

15 people could have happened. How about a 

16 reality world where they do get this uranium 

17 on them continuously? 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we know --

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This isn't a 

20 fantasy. These people did get that, and John 

21 made the comment, okay, well, I have to go 

22 shower and stuff like that. Well, I live in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 that world right now. We're supposed to go 

2 shower after being in a contaminated area. 

3 Some still don't. I think I'm agreeing with 

4 what John is saying, and I see both sides, but 

5 I think this is something that is true. 

6 I don't think that we can wide-brush 

7 this, but I also think that it's something 

8 that does need to be addressed, especially in 

9 the AWEs and the machining. This was a day-in 

10 and day-out occurrence, in my eyes. 

11 MR. STIVER: Brad, this is John 

12 Stiver, if I could kind of weigh in on this. 

13 I've had this very same experience in my 

14 previous job, which was working with the 

15 atomic veterans and the whole issue of skin 

16 contamination from descending fallout that 

17 would deposit on unprotected areas. And while 

18 we realize that this was a real possibility 

19 based on the scenario of exposure, just 

20 analogous to what would happen in one of these 

21 machining mills where you obviously are 

22 generating dust, it's settling out, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 on the areas that are exposed, behind the 

2 ears, or on the neckline, any area that's not 

3 covered. So how do you then, knowing this 

4 could possibly have taken place but without 

5 data -- I think that's what Wanda was getting 

6 at about getting into the realm of fantasy, 

7 because you don't really know how to bound all 

8 these different parameters that you can use to 

9 model this dose, and so you find yourself 

10 trying to high-side every single one of them, 

11 you know, the effectiveness of showering, the 

12 length of time the material was on the skin, 

13 the particle size, all these different 

14 parameters. And you find yourself -- because 

15 you don't have any hard data, any way to 

16 actually bound these, you wind up in a 

17 situation where the doses become so high as to 

18 be compensable, so there's really, it's a 

19 matter of sufficient accuracy here. 

20 So that's really what we're 

21 grappling with, I think. We have different 

22 tools to approach this, but without some sort 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 of way, based on, say, the CATI report, the 

2 workers' own experience and recollections, 

3 detailed knowledge of the process, how do you 

4 go about really bounding these values and 

5 defining them? And that's where this kind of 

6 becomes an overarching issue. And as Stu was 

7 saying before, I can agree with him that you 

8 get into a situation where you're going down a 

9 slippery slope, and how do you really decide 

10 where is the point where we've got something 

11 that's reasonable and claimant-favorable, as 

12 opposed to just completely, you know, highly 

13 claimant-favorable but not necessarily 

14 realistic? 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, John, what I 

16 hear you saying is then you can't do it. 

17 MR. STIVER: I don't know if it's 

18 possible to do it, except on a case-by-case 

19 basis. That's the problem we're dealing with 

20 here. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I believe that 

22 this is true that it has to be done on a case-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 by-case scenario, but the thing is, you have 

2 these people that sat in front of lathes for 

3 hours on end, for years on end that this 

4 should be taken into consideration. 

5 DR. MAURO: I’ve got an idea. You 

6 know how you deal with medical X-rays? You've 

7 got OTIB-0006 where, you know, over certain 

8 time periods you make certain assumptions, and 

9 it's a look-up table. And we all realize that 

10 it works. And whenever I see a DR report and 

11 they default to OTIB-0006, it's solved. It 

12 seems to me that, yes, we've got a 

13 circumstance here that, when a person is 

14 dealing with machining uranium, I believe that 

15 if we went through the calculation right now 

16 we would show that, if it's landing on any 

17 place but direct skin, the doses from the 

18 uranium flake, natural uranium flake is going 

19 to be negligible because of self-shielding 

20 from the clothing. I'm not sure, but you're 

21 going to get that.

22 But if it lands directly on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 skin, it may be a different circumstance. And 

2 if there's a generic calculation that can be 

3 performed, I'm saying when we decide that this 

4 scenario is real, and that's going to be a 

5 judgment call, whether Bridgeport Brass is 

6 real or not, because of the year and the kinds 

7 of controls that were used and the kinds of 

8 operation. Then there would be a generic 

9 calculation done that said we don't believe 

10 it's plausible that a localized dose could be 

11 very much higher than this, and the real 

12 question when you do that, by the way, is the 

13 thickness of the particle, not the area. 

14 I think a run needs to be made at 

15 this because we keep running into it, and I'm 

16 not convinced that it's something that we 

17 should walk away from. And to say that we'll 

18 deal with it on a case-by-case basis, I 

19 understand why you're saying that. I've 

20 looked at, literally, 50 AWE cases, and you're 

21 not going to have any information except that 

22 did they do things there where particles were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 generated or not? And that's going to be the 

2 end of it, and you're not going to know any 

3 more than that. All you're going to hope to 

4 say is, yes, they did do things where there's 

5 a very real possibility that there were

6 airborne particles of uranium. It's always 

7 natural uranium because it's very early years. 

8 Very rarely was it recycled uranium or 

9 enriched uranium. And whenever I see a person 

10 that has cancer on the face or the skin, I 

11 always raise this as a question, as an issue 

12 that needs to be answered. And the answer 

13 always comes back, well, we'll deal with it on 

14 a case-by-case basis, and it's never dealt 

15 with. So I've got a problem with this. 

16 MR. STIVER: John, this is exactly 

17 the same problem we dealt with at DTRA. In 

18 that case, we were dealing with fresh fallout, 

19 which is incredibly hot --

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, that's really nasty.

21 MR. STIVER: -- compared to the 

22 particles that we're dealing with here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 MR. STIVER: But, yet, the problem 

3 was always defining -- and we looked at every 

4 one of these parameters, including an 

5 enhancement factor from perspiration causing 

6 this material to collect in areas like around 

7 the collar, so we actually have a factor two 

8 or three higher than what would just have been 

9 deposited directly on there. You had to take 

10 into account the effectiveness of showering, 

11 you know, the shop-specific parameters, all 

12 these things. And you can do that, but it's 

13 all a matter of assumed parameter 

14 distributions for a particular model. In our 

15 particular case, we were coming up with doses 

16 in the 500-600 R range, which, in that case, 

17 in that program, were compensable. So it 

18 became a matter of generating compensable dose 

19 as opposed to looking at the cancer itself.

20 So it was really kind of an inverse 

21 problem in a way, but I guess that's the thing 

22 we're dealing with here. It’s really how do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 you go about it, even if it is on a case-by2 case basis. What kind of tools and procedures 

3 and protocols do you use to approach the 

4 problem? And that's what we keep coming back 

5 to again and again. 

6 DR. MAURO: And I think this is 

7 tractable. I think that sitting down and

8 giving some thought to it, you probably can go 

9 through an exercise and come up with a single 

10 set of tables that will allow you to say, yes, 

11 at this site, it looked like it was something 

12 that could very well have occurred, like an 

13 early AWE facility with uranium, and here's a 

14 dose that may have given a person cancer in an 

15 exposed area. This is the protocol we're going 

16 to use to place a plausible upper bound on 

17 what this dose is and have that be part of the 

18 PoC.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I thought I heard that 

20 was being done already, not from tables, but 

21 that this kind of assessment was being made. 

22 MR. KATZ: That's for hot particles 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 of a certain size at Hanford. So that's a 

2 different situation, and John is talking about 

3 uranium. 

4 The only way to move this forward 

5 is: either DCAS has to decide they want to 

6 look at this and give an answer in writing as 

7 to why this is a "no, never mind" or here's 

8 why we think we can do something that takes 

9 this into account or whatever. I mean, 

10 there's no point really batting this around 

11 the table more. We're not getting, we're not 

12 going to get anywhere with that. So I would 

13 suggest that the first thing is for DCAS to 

14 just take this question on and give it its 

15 answer, whatever it wants to be, and then we 

16 can consider whether we want SC&A to review 

17 that, and whether they want to counter-propose 

18 or whatever, that's fine. But then they have 

19 to come up with a concrete counter-proposal 

20 because it doesn't make sense to just talk 

21 about this abstractly here without anyone 

22 running any numbers and seeing what --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But the 

2 discussion was moving forward, do we try to 

3 resolve this? And I was also thinking, I 

4 remember when I first started on the Board I 

5 was impressed at the fact that so many skin 

6 cancers were compensated. That's, if I'm not 

7 mistaken, the major type of cancer that is 

8 dealt with by the Board and compensated. So 

9 we were moving, I think, toward having a 

10 committee, a report, a decision that we need 

11 to do something about this. So, I mean, if 

12 DCAS were to --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: We can come up with 

14 a position. I mean, Grady and I aren't ready 

15 to do it here today. We'll go back to the 

16 office, and we'll have some discussions about 

17 our approach on this.

18 DR. MAURO: Could I add one more 

19 dimension to this? Keep in mind that when you 

20 grant an SEC, skin cancers are not included. 

21 So here we have a circumstance where you can 

22 be granted an SEC and you feel that everything 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 is covered, but you know what? And then you 

2 do the dose reconstruction as best you can for 

3 the people who are not compensated, which, by 

4 the way, includes people with skin cancer. 

5 These people, you know, are being sort of left 

6 out in the cold. And I think, by having a 

7 protocol, you could put this one to bed. 

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, I wouldn't, 

9 I really wouldn't take into account SEC 

10 matters. That's really an independent issue. 

11 So, I mean, I understand what you're saying, 

12 John, that it's important to people, but it's 

13 not, you know, I don't think that's necessary 

14 to take into account. We have a practical 

15 issue here, and DCAS can come up with its 

16 initial response, and then we'll get an SC&A 

17 review, and the Subcommittee can consider 

18 that, where that leaves us. I think it will 

19 be helpful to have also some hard numbers if 

20 someone comes up with an approach, too, as 

21 opposed to this sort of vague, these doses --

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Do others agree 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 with this? It makes sense to me. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's appropriate, 

3 I think.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

5 Yes, I'm just thinking that this committee is 

6 the appropriate one to deal with that. 

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, sure.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

10 Fine. Well, then that is resolved or we have 

11 a path to resolution.

12 MR. FARVER: We're going to give 

13 DCAS an action to look into this for the next 

14 meeting. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is that 

17 fair enough? Next meeting? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: When is the next 

19 meeting? 

20 MR. KATZ: Probably in a couple of 

21 months, because we're still trying to clean up 

22 our backlog here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fair. We 

2 should be able to do that.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

4 fine. Good. I think that was fruitful. So 

5 let's go on to page 116.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Attachment two.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Harshaw 

8 Chemical, attachment two, finding one. 

9 MR. KATZ: And for the record, Mark 

10 is back with us. 

11 MR. FARVER: We have attachment one, 

12 finding 5A.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. What 

14 number was this? 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Harshaw 

16 Chemical, attachment two, finding one. And 

17 it's on page 116. 

18 MR. FARVER: We have one finding 

19 before that. 

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, did I 

21 overlook one?

22 MR. FARVER: It's attachment one for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 finding 5A. It's just before the Harshaw one.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: That was not closed. I 

4 don't believe it was closed.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Attachment one, 

6 5A. Okay. So I'm still working on the old 

7 one.

8 MR. FARVER: And this is an easy one 

9 to deal with. This finding dealt with the 

10 residual period at the Adrian Plant. But 

11 since the Adrian Plant is now a DOE facility, 

12 the residual period is just a moot point. So 

13 that finding gets withdrawn and closed.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Closed. 

15 Somehow, I did not get the updated one, Ted, 

16 but I'll get to it. 

17 MR. KATZ: It was sent to your CDC 

18 address.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, no, I saw 

20 it. I'm on my CDC computer. I came back to 

21 the old one instead of -- now we'll go to page 

22 116, attachment two, Harshaw Chemical. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 MR. FARVER: And for these, I'm 

2 going to turn these over to John because these 

3 are AWE issues. 

4 DR. MAURO: This is the Harshaw 

5 number one. Yes. We're recommending we close 

6 this item because I believe that they are, in 

7 fact, going to be using the 95th percentile. 

8 I think that was the issue. And that's, in 

9 fact, that solves that. That's all we were 

10 looking for. 

11 MR. FARVER: And I believe one and 

12 two are pretty much the same finding with the 

13 same answer. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: By the way, I 

16 don't know if anybody wants to correct it, but 

17 somewhere, in talking about it, they say 

18 "since the medium of a log normal 

19 distribution." Just for statisticians, we'll 

20 correct that somewhere. 

21 MR. STIVER: I also saw a reference 

22 to Bridgewater Brass in there somewhere.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. But 

2 is this now resolved? 

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. We propose 

4 closing finding one and two because they both 

5 deal with the same issue. 

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is that 

7 OK?--

8 DR. MAURO: By the way, Doug, I 

9 believe there was some text that went with 

10 this. In other words, right now it just says 

11 we recommend closing, but I believe that I 

12 prepared some material explaining why we've 

13 come to this place. And I don't have that in

14 front of me. I know Mark very often likes to 

15 see the rationale. 

16 MR. FARVER: Well, was that a paper 

17 that was sent out --

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, I put a memo 

19 together on this somewhere.

20 MR. FARVER: Did that get sent to 

21 everyone?

22 DR. MAURO: Yes --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 MR. FARVER: Is that something Nancy 

2 distributed? Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: It may very well be in 

4 everyone's hands.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because it's 

6 difficult to add huge paragraphs to the 

7 matrix.

8 DR. MAURO: No, I understand that, 

9 but I'm doing this really because I know Mark 

10 likes to see the rationale. 

11 MR. KATZ: We should do, like, 

12 procedures. We should have a couple of 

13 sentences, a synopsis at least, just to put a 

14 rationale there, even if it, you know, even if 

15 it's very succinct and hard to decipher. We 

16 should have something there in substance. 

17 MR. STIVER: Well, in this 

18 situation, it looks like it was selecting the 

19 median or 95th percentile. I know for 

20 Bridgeport there was a question of whether, it 

21 was the whole correlated versus uncorrelated 

22 data set for the coworker model and whether 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 the 95th percentile was appropriate. Are we 

2 getting those two things conflated here, John, 

3 or did you actually look at something --

4 DR. MAURO: I wrote something on 

5 this. I can go -- you know what? Right now, 

6 my recommendation that I passed on to the Work 

7 Group is that we close it, but I do recall 

8 preparing some written material that went with 

9 that. And, you know, let me run it down and 

10 make sure that I did, and then I'll make sure 

11 that everyone gets a copy of it. 

12 MR. FARVER: I'll make a note to add 

13 some text here. 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. I was just saying, 

15 John, you can help with just a sentence or two 

16 text to synopsize --

17 MR. FARVER: He did write a report 

18 on it, but it's --

19 MR. KATZ: Right, right, I 

20 understand. That's what I'm saying, a couple 

21 of sentences. 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 closes that, I think. What about now the next 

2 finding, number three, on 117? Where is that? 

3 Open for DR Subcommittee final determination 

4 on status. Mark, you're mentioned here so --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In the update, I 

6 took my name out of it. Did you notice that?

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right -- yes. 

8 MR. KATZ: As we go forward with 

9 these, when we have a live system, you'll be 

10 able to add links right to the summary, so 

11 you'll have all of that information handy with 

12 each resolution.

13 MR. FARVER: And, actually, John and 

14 I have talked about do we want to reformat 

15 these matrices so they look --

16 MR. KATZ: They reflect that.

17 MR. FARVER: -- similar to what 

18 we're going to be using.

19 MR. KATZ: Which I think is a good 

20 idea, yes.

21 MR. FARVER: And we can go ahead and 

22 do that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So this one, 

2 this finding really deals with the question, 

3 the larger question of just surrogate data, 

4 period. 

5 MR. FARVER: John, are you still 

6 there for finding three? 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm looking at it 

8 right now. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. This was the one 

10 we weren't going to close. We were going to 

11 close several of these other Harshaw because I 

12 believe Joe still had some concerns. 

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. This is the 

14 adjustment factors. Yes, I have a write-up on 

15 that. I just had to find out what this was 

16 about. Yes. If I got the right edition, 

17 you're talking about Joe Zlotnicki? Yes. I 

18 asked Joe, he's our specialist on film badges.

19 MR. SIEBERT: John? 

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. I think 

22 you're talking about finding five, which would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 be adjustment --

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Oh, okay, 

3 then --

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

5 believe the latest is NIOSH and SC&A all 

6 agreed to a closure on this, but Mark wanted 

7 to review it further because it was a 

8 surrogate data issue. I believe that's the 

9 last thing I remember it being.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the question 

11 I have remains whether it was appropriate to 

12 Mallinckrodt. Was it similar enough to this to 

13 use Mallinckrodt data as surrogate data. 

14 DR. MAURO: I have to admit I did 

15 not look at this, so I really can't help out 

16 here. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I would have 

18 to resurrect, but I'll defer to the other 

19 Committee Members, if they felt strongly that 

20 it was okay. I would defer at this point 

21 because I haven't looked at it in a while, but 

22 that was my initial concern.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Does anyone know if 

2 this was a covered operational period 

3 question, as opposed to residual? I mean, 

4 Harshaw, didn't we add Harshaw SEC for its 

5 entire operational period? 

6 MEMBER MUNN: I believe we did, 

7 didn't we? 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: I know it's Harshaw 

9 SEC.

10 MR. KATZ: We can look that up 

11 quickly.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe it's the 

13 entire operational period. So, I mean, if we 

14 don't do it in this fashion -- well, of 

15 course, it's almost irrelevant because lung 

16 cancers are all getting paid by the SEC 

17 anyway, unless it's less than 250 days. And 

18 Harshaw and Mallinckrodt were chemical 

19 companies that were the early uranium 

20 producers. I mean, they were the early, 

21 during the war, companies that --

22 MR. CALHOUN: August '42 through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 November of '49 is SEC. I'd have to check and 

2 see what the covered period is now, though. I 

3 imagine, I don't know if it's a short --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. We 

5 may start getting some data from Harshaw later 

6 on.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And so do people 

8 recall the model that was proposed? Was it 

9 operational data to cover our residual period 

10 or --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: See, I don't recall, 

12 and I'm not even sure that '49 was the end of 

13 their operational period, now that we've found 

14 out the Class goes through `49.

15 MR. CALHOUN: The operational period 

16 is through '55. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So at some 

18 point, we decided we could do it. Okay, so my 

19 argument goes away. I don't know. They are 

20 pretty similar. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry. So 

22 there's an SEC for only part of the time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 period? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, only part of 

3 the operational period. From '50 through '54 

4 or '55, whatever the ending is, it's 

5 operational. That would have been when HASL 

6 started, and, if they would have started 

7 paying attention, we would have got their data 

8 or bioassay data at that time.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: How do we move 

11 to resolve this? 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I'll be 

13 honest with you, it's been so long that I 

14 don't recall exactly my, you know -- I think 

15 the question is this surrogate issue and

16 whether they're similar enough. It seems like 

17 they were operating in the same time period, 

18 so that part of it meets the --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: It would seem like 

20 it, as long as the radon data is from that 

21 time period.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, right, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 right.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Since you raised 

3 it and it's certainly a legitimate issue, 

4 you'll give us some report on it? 

5 MR. KATZ: It's for DCAS to take a 

6 look and see --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. All 

8 right, fine. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: The Board has adopted 

10 a set of criteria that should be met in order 

11 to use surrogate data, and so we would expect 

12 what we would provide then is our 

13 determination of this use based on those 

14 criteria, which may already be done; I don't 

15 know. But we'll see. It will be something 

16 like that. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. So 

18 that at least moves us towards resolution.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. So that's in 

20 progress, to use the nomenclature. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. And then 

22 the very next one is the finding four on 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

86

1 detailed guidance on the reconstruction of 

2 doses to extremities. Well, we discussed 

3 this, we have discussed this earlier, and we 

4 will have a report from DCAS at the next 

5 meeting. Okay, good. 

6 MR. FARVER: And this is for finding 

7 four? 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Four, yes. 

9 Finding four. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: Isn't this Harshaw 

11 versus Bridgeport? 

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, this is 

13 Harshaw. Okay. Finding five. 

14 DR. MAURO: Do you want me to jump 

15 in? This is the one I started to describe 

16 before. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure, sure. 

18 DR. MAURO: NIOSH did respond. We 

19 were concerned that consideration was 

20 inappropriately given to adjustment factors 

21 for the film badge readings for beta exposure. 

22 NIOSH, in response, the large green write-up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 said, you know, go take a look, this is well 

2 covered in OTIB-10. And so we did take a look 

3 at that, and it turns out OTIB-10 then refers 

4 you to some other OTIBs, and we looked at 

5 those. 

6 And here's the issue, and I think it 

7 does still remain. The issue has to do with

8 in the early years, and I'm giving you 

9 information now that was passed on to me by 

10 Joe Zlotnicki, who is very familiar with this 

11 subject, the use of film badges and why this 

12 is a special issue that transcends the 

13 guidance that you folks have. 

14 And the way he explained it to me, 

15 and I believe we will have a written report 

16 which may have arrived. I don't know. By the 

17 way, Doug, did Joe submit a written report on 

18 this? Did you see anything come through over 

19 the weekend? It may have come in. If it did 

20 or didn't, you know, it's an 11th hour thing, 

21 but he did explain to me over the phone, I 

22 think it was on Friday, and he said he'll try 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 to write something up and send it in. 

2 But let me tell you, conceptually, 

3 what the problem is. It has to do with the 

4 fact that, in the early years, there were a 

5 lot of problems with the readout that you get 

6 for beta from, I guess it would be called the 

7 open window part, in that they were always 

8 covered with, there was some type of cover, 

9 some type of bag that covered it. And not 

10 only that, in these dirty environments, not 

11 only that, they placed, they actually placed 

12 the film badge in some type of -- he referred 

13 to it as a baggy. And these would often, in 

14 these dirty environments, get very 

15 contaminated. Not contaminated. Dusty. And 

16 his experience is that, unless you calibrated 

17 the film badge under those circumstances, what 

18 will happen is you will significantly 

19 underestimate the dose because, in the real 

20 world, a lot of that beta is going to be 

21 shielded out, and you're going to get a 

22 relatively low reading on the film badge if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 you did not calibrate under those 

2 circumstances.

3 MEMBER POSTON: You're talking about 

4 betas, not photons, right? 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, he was talking 

6 about betas in particular.

7 MEMBER POSTON: I want to make that 

8 clear.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes. Clearly, it had to 

10 do with adjustment factors for beta exposure. 

11 So the best I can do at this point in time is 

12 communicate that if, in fact, there's reason 

13 to believe that it was calibrated under those 

14 circumstances for that particular film badge, 

15 there's a good chance you could significantly 

16 underestimate the beta exposure. 

17 So that's the best I can do in 

18 trying to say that we did look at 0010 and its 

19 supporting other material, and it was found 

20 that it really didn't get into this subject, 

21 which, in the early years, is especially 

22 important. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. John, help me 

2 out here. What we're saying or what you're 

3 saying is that the bag that was placed on the 

4 dosimeter to protect it from getting dusty 

5 would then attenuate the beta particles to the 

6 extent that you would have less recorded on 

7 the film badge than you should --

8 DR. MAURO: Correct, unless you 

9 calibrated it under those --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: -- unless you 

11 calibrated it with a bag on it? 

12 DR. MAURO: You got it.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: Potentially.

15 DR. MAURO: Potentially. That was 

16 the concern, yes. And that is not addressed 

17 in any of those OTIBs that are referred to 

18 here. 

19 MR. CALHOUN: And that would be an 

20 issue for cancer to uncovered surfaces of body 

21 only.

22 MR. FARVER: We're going to provide 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 a written response or review of this issue. I 

2 know Joe provided one, but we want to get one 

3 officially out to everyone. 

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

5 Okay. That would --

6 MR. FARVER: We'll do that before 

7 the next meeting.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

9 Okay. Before the next meeting. 

10 MR. KATZ: It sounds like you can do 

11 that very soon, if you've already written it 

12 out.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: So DCAS will have that 

15 report soon. 

16 MEMBER POSTON: It would help to 

17 know the thickness of the bag, if there's any 

18 estimate. 

19 MR. STIVER: You'd have to model the 

20 beta attenuation.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, this is easy to 

22 do. You don't have to do any modeling. All you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 need to know is the thickness of the bag.

2 MR. FARVER: I'd like to give Joe a 

3 chance to look at this again because it looks 

4 like, from what he wrote, it was just a pretty 

5 -- something in a hurry. I wanted to go back 

6 and look at it in more detail. 

7 DR. MAURO: It was. I caught Joe 

8 just about as he was taking off to go on 

9 vacation. And so, yes, just give Joe a chance 

10 to -- give us a chance to put together 

11 something and get it in writing to you. But I 

12 think I gave you the essence of the problem. 

13 MR. STIVER: John, I just looked at 

14 what Joe had sent out, and you pretty much 

15 paraphrased it exactly as he wrote it. He 

16 sent about a one-pager with the indication 

17 he's going to follow up with a more detailed 

18 response. 

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

20 that sounds good. I was wondering. It's 

21 about 10:30. There are quite a few still to 

22 go. Even though we're on page 119 of 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

93

1 there are still quite a few issues to discuss. 

2 Should we take a little break now? Would 

3 people like that? Okay, very good. 

4 Excellent. All right. So it's 10:30. Do we 

5 want to get back together at 10:40? 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, that sounds good. 

7 Just a ten-minute break. 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Ten9 minute break. It's actually 12 minutes, and 

10 that's a compromise between 10 and 15. 

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

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

13 resumed at 10:42 a.m.)

14 MR. KATZ: We're back. Let me just 

15 check online to see if we have Dr. Richardson. 

16 David, are you on there? And Brad Clawson? 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. 

18 MR. KATZ: David, are you on? Maybe 

19 not.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I was going to 

21 say he's going to that number six or hash six 

22 or whatever.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, attachment 

2 two, finding six; is that where we're at? 

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, we're 

4 actually, I think we're at seven. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Seven. Six was 

6 done, so seven. And thanks, David.(THE CHAIR 

7 RETURNS TO CHAIRMAN GRIFFON)

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure, glad to.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 

10 this is, it was in NIOSH's court, I believe. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm back.

12 MR. KATZ: Thanks. Welcome back. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is the 

14 Monday morning sampling. This is a familiar 

15 issue. Okay. And the last update I have was 

16 quite a while ago, but it was still in NIOSH's 

17 court the last time, as far as these notes go. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Mark, this is 

19 Scott. We do have a new response in there 

20 discussing the Monday morning sampling. And 

21 also, Liz Brackett is on the phone since she 

22 wrote this up, so if there's any questions on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 that, I will defer to her. 

2 MR. KATZ: Do you want to just 

3 summarize it?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's a new 

5 response in what? I don't see it in this 

6 matrix that I'm looking at. Do I not have the 

7 --

8 MR. KATZ: There was a morning and 

9 an afternoon matrix. They were both sent out. 

10 But the afternoon one --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So I'm 

12 looking at the one I sent out, but there's 

13 been stuff added to this? 

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, responses from DCAS.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay, all 

16 right. 

17 MR. KATZ: So, Scott, why don't you 

18 synopsize that? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Synopsize. 

20 MS. BRACKETT: Would you like me to 

21 do that? 

22 MR. KATZ: Or Elizabeth, yes, sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Go ahead, 

2 Liz. 

3 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. The issue was 

4 that if you have a chronic intake but then a 

5 two-day break and then the sample is collected 

6 on a Monday morning, you underestimate what 

7 the intake would have been. But in looking at 

8 the data from Harshaw, if you have the 

9 response in front of you, you can see the 

10 breakdown. The samples weren't actually 

11 collected all on Mondays. There are more on 

12 Monday than other days of the week, in 

13 general, but they're pretty much spread 

14 throughout the week. Wednesdays have a 

15 substantial fraction of the same number of 

16 samples as Monday does. 

17 So the way we kind of aggregate the 

18 data, we take, you know, on an annual basis, 

19 all the data are put together and we use 

20 those. So by using a combination of all of 

21 the data, there's not a substantial 

22 underestimation of the dose because when you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 sample during the week, Tuesday through 

2 Saturday, you actually overestimate. If you 

3 sample in the morning, you're overestimating 

4 what the intake would have been. So it 

5 balances out when you collect the samples 

6 throughout the week.

7 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't appear to 

8 be indicative of anything. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think that 

10 last part of your explanation is useful, Liz, 

11 so it would balance out, even though there's 

12 still, like, two to one on Mondays. But if 

13 you're looking at the rest of the week, 

14 overall, it's going to balance out. 

15 MS. BRACKETT: Right. Sunday you 

16 would also underestimate collecting then, 

17 since there was no intake on Saturday, but 

18 there's only 190 samples on Sunday. But then 

19 the rest of the days you'd be overestimating. 

20 So it would balance out. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That seems -- any 

22 comments on that? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 MEMBER MUNN: The mere fact that 

2 there are seven days there is impressive, I 

3 think.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Saturday and Sunday 

6 samples, that's pretty impressive for that 

7 period. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any comment --

9 David, any comments on that? 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or David 

12 Richardson? 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I'm 

14 struggling a little bit with being right on 

15 average versus being right. By balancing out, 

16 it means that you're right on average. It 

17 doesn't mean that your variance is right and 

18 you're claimant-favorable in all situations, 

19 or does it just mean that we don't know, so 

20 some of the people get overestimated and some 

21 get underestimated? 

22 MS. BRACKETT: Well, this is not for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 individuals, this is for the coworker study. 

2 For an individual, in most cases, well, the 

3 dose reconstructor doesn't necessarily use the 

4 Monday sample. If it's a missed dose, it 

5 would be whatever their last sample was. So 

6 it's going to vary. We have correction 

7 factors that we can apply for individuals. If 

8 the sample being used to calculate their dose 

9 happens to fall on a Monday, then we would 

10 apply the correction factor. But I guess I 

11 was looking at, I thought this was in regards 

12 to the coworker study. That's what I was 

13 specifically discussing. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think it 

15 is a focus on the coworker. 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. 

17 MS. BRACKETT: So we wouldn't be 

18 underestimating some people and overestimating 

19 others because we're applying the 

20 distribution. We're using all of the data to 

21 assess the distribution --

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There's a true 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 value, and there's an assigned value. I guess 

2 the question is: does the, I mean the answer 

3 is yes, the assigned value is in error, and 

4 I'm starting to think about what the error is. 

5 Does that make sense? 

6 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I mean, the 

7 coworker study in general is an approximation 

8 anyway. It's not an exact value. So I'm not 

9 sure how we could compare. I did look at --

10 well, we have a document, and maybe it would 

11 be helpful if I put this together and sent it. 

12 But if we look at the intake retention 

13 fraction, assuming a constant chronic 

14 throughout 24 hours a day, and then what they 

15 are relative to assuming an intake five days a 

16 week just during the day. And if we weight --

17 if you do a weighted average looking at Type F 

18 relative to what the value would have been if 

19 it was actually uniform, then I came out with 

20 94 percent. So there's a possibility we're 

21 six percent low for Type F with this 

22 distribution, as opposed to if a person were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 actually exposed chronically over 24 hours 

2 versus what an actual exposure pattern would 

3 be. 

4 That would be the maximum because, 

5 Types M and S, there's much less variation 

6 over time. So by the time you get to Type S, 

7 the Monday morning sample has little effect. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You say you have 

9 that analysis, Liz? Is that something you can 

10 provide?-

11 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, I'll have to 

12 write it up. I was just asked about this a 

13 couple of days ago so --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, no, that's 

15 okay. 

16 MS. BRACKETT: -- I put something 

17 quick together, but I would be able to write 

18 this up.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it might 

20 be worthwhile just to have, so we have NIOSH's 

21 response and Liz will give us this additional 

22 information.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't recall class 

2 F compounds at Harshaw, right? Liz, do you 

3 recall at Harshaw? 

4 MS. BRACKETT: That's a good point. 

5 I was just --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I know you 

7 looked at all three. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Generally. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: But in your 

10 analysis, bear in mind that I don't think 

11 there were class F compounds at Harshaw. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're right. I 

13 was thinking of the general issue, too. 

14 MS. BRACKETT: Right. Yes. So if 

15 there's no type F, then it would be even -- it 

16 would be less than that. But I can look at 

17 that, too. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'll just 

19 leave that as an action for NIOSH to provide 

20 some follow-up data information on this, and 

21 then the Work Group will reconsider. Alright. 

22 Can somebody capture that? That's so it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 remains in NIOSH -- yes, okay. I like that. 

2 Anyway, moving on. Attachment three, finding 

3 one. So we're on to, this is the Huntington

4 Pilot Plant. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: And there's a new 

6 response from NIOSH. You got it? 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't have it. 

8 What did I do with it? Okay. So this was a 

9 NIOSH follow-up? 

10 DR. MAURO: This is John. Actually, 

11 I think it was an SC&A action item.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

13 DR. MAURO: The way we left it off 

14 at the last meeting was we had, on our 

15 original review, it was one of these special 

16 reviews, we had 12 findings. And at that last 

17 Subcommittee meeting, NIOSH indicated, well, 

18 we believe we've addressed adequately all of 

19 the 12 issues in the revised version of the 

20 Huntington Pilot Plant. So it didn't really 

21 get into specifics, just said we think we're 

22 okay. So SC&A was given an action item to go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 ahead and review the Huntington Pilot Plant 

2 and, you know, make a judgment on the degree 

3 to which each of these 12 items can be closed. 

4 I prepared a report on this, which 

5 probably didn't show up. Doug, do you know 

6 whether this was distributed? 

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, I got it. 

8 DR. MAURO: You both have it?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, it was late.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, you got it late? 

11 Listen, I will run through it quickly, and I 

12 think we should take care of this pretty 

13 quickly. I read through it carefully, and it 

14 is a complete rewrite. And as you will see, 

15 as you march through, I didn't perform a 

16 formal review. You know, there was too much 

17 to do that, and we're actually in the process 

18 of looking at certain issues. But I am in a 

19 position to identify which issues I think we 

20 could close at this time, which ones probably 

21 do need to wait until we finish our review. 

22 So if you'd like, we could quickly march 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 through the 12 items and where we come out. 

2 The first item, finding one, had to 

3 do with adequacy of documentation. Bottom 

4 line is we recommend closing that issue. The 

5 new revised Site Profile is very thorough in 

6 its documentation, and in the little report 

7 that I provide, you know, it's explained that, 

8 yes, the information is there now. So I'd 

9 like to recommend that we close that for the 

10 reasons given in the report. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. The second issue 

13 has to do with, I believe, the number of 

14 different locations where -- these are these 

15 barriers. By the way, what we're talking 

16 about is these diffusion barriers made of 

17 nickel that were sent to Huntington for 

18 processing to clean them up, these nickel 

19 diffusion barriers that are used in the 

20 enrichment process. And Huntington, that's 

21 what they did. 

22 And the second issue had to do with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 whether or not there were, the degree to which 

2 Paducah, Portsmouth, and Oak Ridge were 

3 involved in this process. And the response to 

4 that is, yes, it certainly appears that the 

5 most recent discussion gets into this matter, 

6 but it turns out it really is not all that 

7 important. The real issue is, you know, in 

8 terms of documenting the history of the use 

9 and where they received these barriers from is 

10 certainly useful background information, but 

11 it really has no bearing on the actual dose 

12 reconstruction. The dose reconstruction is 

13 driven by the airborne sampling data, and this 

14 just makes for a better story that, yes, it 

15 was more than just Oak Ridge, it was also 

16 Portsmouth and Paducah that were involved in 

17 the process. So as far as I'm concerned, 

18 finding two could be closed because it really 

19 has no direct relevance to the dose 

20 reconstruction. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's more 

22 background and history --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 DR. MAURO: It's more background.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- operational 

3 history, but any comments? I think I would 

4 agree with that. Any others comment? 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, John covered it 

6 pretty well in his report. 

7 DR. MAURO: Moving on to finding 

8 three --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then the 

10 Subcommittee agrees, closed on that one.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, John. 

13 Sorry. 

14 DR. MAURO: Okay. In finding three, 

15 the essence of the problem goes like this: 

16 there was air sampling data collected on the 

17 amount of airborne nickel in these facilities, 

18 and that is really the rock that the internal 

19 dosimetry stands on. We have considerable 

20 amount of airborne sampling which are 

21 expressed in milligrams of nickel per cubic 

22 meter. And they have information on how much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 uranium. It turns out about one percent of 

2 the mass of this nickel barrier was uranium of 

3 various enrichments. 

4 So the rock that they're standing on 

5 here is: you have a good idea of what the 

6 airborne dust loading of the nickel was. And 

7 NIOSH provides a table with all of the data, 

8 and we looked at the data, and NIOSH has 

agreed to go with the upper 95th 9 percentile, 

10 as appropriate, to assign that dust loading, 

11 you know, for nickel. And from there, of 

12 course, you can go on and get the uranium and 

13 get the intake.

14 The concern that was raised here 

15 that actually still remains a concern, but let 

16 me give a little qualifier, is when you look 

17 at the data that was provided in support of 

18 this position, it's a long table of airborne 

19 concentrations of nickel that was collected. 

20 And it represents data that was collected in 

21 the time period of interest, I believe in the 

22 50s, and then also data that was collected 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

109

1 years later. And the table actually indicates 

2 which numbers are recent numbers and which 

3 were numbers that were collected in the past. 

4 And our concern was that, you know, you 

5 really should only work with the older 

6 numbers, the ones that were collected during 

7 the time period of concern, and come up with 

8 what the 95th percentile would be from that 

9 data set, which turns out to be ten numbers, 

10 as opposed to the, whatever, 20 or 30 numbers 

11 that are in the table which includes both the 

12 old data and what I'll call the new data.

13 When you do that, you come up with a 

14 95th percentile that is considerably higher. 

15 But here's the only qualifier, and this is 

16 really a matter for discussion. I'm not sure 

17 what to do about this. It turns out when you 

18 look at that data set of ten numbers that 

19 represent the time period of interest, there's 

20 one number that's an outlier. It's what I 

21 call the refinery number where there's a 

22 single number that's five milligrams of nickel 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 per cubic meter. All the others are sort of 

2 in line with the new data, but there's one 

3 number that is sort of an outlier and it skews 

4 the distribution such that the upper 95th 

5 percentile, when you look at the old data set, 

6 these ten numbers, is quite a bit higher. I 

7 don't know, maybe a factor of ten. I have the 

8 numbers here in the write-up. It's quite a 

9 bit higher than the upper 95th percentile when 

10 you have, when you use all the data sets.

11 So I'm sort of ambivalent. You 

12 know, I hate to see one outlier that happens

13 to be amongst a set of ten numbers drive the 

14 whole process, but bottom line is if you just 

15 work with that data set and pluck off the 95th 

16 percentile, you come up with a substantially 

17 higher value for the airborne nickel 

18 concentration than you would do if you pick 

19 off the 95th percentile from the full data 

20 set. And I just wanted to pass that on to the 

21 Work Group, the Subcommittee, to see what your 

22 thoughts are. What do you do about that? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I didn't go back 

2 and look at the original table. I just read 

3 your response there, John. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: And five milligrams 

6 seems to be, just reading the data that you 

7 have here, not looking at the table, that 

8 appears to be significantly outlying. 

9 DR. MAURO: It is. It is 

10 significantly higher. It's a factor of ten 

11 higher than all the other numbers.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It makes you 

13 wonder if there is a decimal point misplaced 

14 somewhere, which would, you know, what you've 

15 come up with using the method that you did is 

16 a figure that's about 80 percent higher than, 

17 about eight times more, I should say --

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes, yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: It's still a long way 

20 from 95 percentile, but you can't help but 

21 question the five milligrams.

22 DR. MAURO: I understand.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 MEMBER MUNN: Even though, refinery, 

2 by definition, would lead you to believe 

3 that's where you would get a higher historic 

4 count. But it just, it looks as though it 

5 might be a good idea to take a look at the 

6 original report, if that's possible to do. I 

7 don't even know how accessible that is.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, it is. That's 

9 where we got it from. That number is there. 

10 Now, whether or not -- we didn't go any deeper 

11 than that. That is, simply, we looked at it, 

12 said, well, this is what the original report 

13 says, and whether or not there's no indication 

14 that this is a questionable number. You know, 

15 you're always stuck with this problem when you 

16 have a single outlier in the distribution, 

17 what do you do about it? 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: There are, I 

20 mean, there's a lot of debate about what 

21 represents an outlier in the statistics 

22 community, but there are a range of different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 options that people use. We have to be 

2 claimant-favorable, so I think we have to keep 

3 this, unless we can show that the range of 

4 outlier definitions that are around in 

5 standard statistics books and the statistics 

6 community show that this is an outlier, that 

7 there would be general agreement among 

8 statisticians this is an outlier. Otherwise, 

9 we have to include it.

10 So I wonder if somebody could look 

11 at that. It's a matter of going through 

12 statistics texts and literature. I suspect we 

13 probably have, maybe some of us have contact 

14 with mathematicians. I don't know if DCAS --

15 maybe you could ask that person to please give 

16 us a range of definitions and the standard 

17 range, if you will. There are conservative, 

18 less conservative ones. And if this exceeds 

19 the numbers in those standard accepted 

20 definitions, then I think we can, in good 

21 conscience, drop it. Otherwise, we have to be 

22 claimant-favorable and accept it, as we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 to accept it unless otherwise shown. Does 

2 that seem reasonable? 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Probably, although 

4 it's so difficult to talk to statisticians 

5 generally. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Ours has a Romanian 

7 accent.

8 MEMBER MUNN: They speak only to God 

9 normally, and I don't qualify.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but I think 

12 we need their help here. 

13 DR. MAURO: This is John. From a 

14 practical standpoint, I looked at a lot of 

15 industrial operations where there is airborne 

16 particulates generated. And five milligrams, 

17 it's high. Actually, from a nuisance dust 

18 perspective, it's actually right at the TLV. 

19 So it's high, but it's not in a place where 

20 you say, oh, my goodness, that can't happen. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Not beyond 

22 possibility. Probably beyond probability, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 not beyond possibility. 

2 MR. STIVER: Also, the fact that 

3 it's in the refinery, which is an area you'd 

4 expect to have the highest concentration. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a question 

6 for John Mauro. John, you described the data 

7 that were collected from the air sampling as 

8 being from an earlier period and a later 

9 period.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Are those periods, I 

12 mean the later period, is that a period of 

13 operation when they were no longer dealing 

14 with contaminated -- I mean, what's the 

15 separation between the earlier period and the 

16 later period? 

17 DR. MAURO: All I can say, 

18 unfortunately, is that in the table, the 

19 source document, there's a little footnote 

20 that says C, footnote C, and it says the data 

21 collected during the same time period where 

22 this uranium operation was going on, that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 the AWE period of interest. All the other 

2 data were collected 20 years later. And I'm 

3 operating on the premise that it's a 

4 completely different time period where there 

5 could have been different controls.

6 But the important point is, out of 

7 the ten numbers that are with the designation 

8 C, they all look pretty much like the ones 

9 that were collected 20 years later, except for 

10 this single outlier. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: It's worth looking at. 

12 Thank you, John. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we're going to 

14 have NIOSH follow up on this; is that --

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and just 

16 report back what the statistician would 

17 suggest. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: Maybe even check our 

19 source documents and see if we did transpose 

20 something. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Or if the source 

22 document might contain a typo. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's true. So 

2 finding four, moving on. 

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. Finding four, I 

4 simply raised the issue originally, this 

5 business of breathing zone versus a general 

6 air sample, as has come up on many occasions 

7 where we know that breathing zone samples are 

8 very often quite a bit higher than general air 

9 samples, and I make reference to a couple of 

10 ICRP publications. 

11 Now, in looking at the revised Site 

12 Profile, the new one, there's some language in 

13 there that explains that the company, Inco, 

14 that did the work, that made the measurements, 

15 when they collected the air samples, they were 

16 specifically taking them to get a pretty good 

17 idea of what the workers were being exposed to 

18 over an eight-hour period. That was the 

19 extent of the information. But it wasn't that 

20 it was a general air sample, it was an air 

21 sample designed -- the data that we have on 

22 nickel dust loading was intended to do the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 best they could at the time to see what these 

2 people were being exposed to, as opposed to 

3 just a general air sample. 

4 So, you know, I'm easy. On that 

5 basis, I'm saying that it looks like they at 

6 least made an effort to make it 

7 representative air, you know, air that the 

8 people were breathing over this eight-hour 

9 period while they were working there. So on 

10 that basis alone, I'm recommending closing 

11 this finding. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're losing 

13 your edge, John. 

14 DR. MAURO: I'm getting old. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You are getting 

16 old, yes. I had a birthday recently, I can say 

17 that.

18 (Laughter.)

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I also thought 

20 that NIOSH was doing a general paper on this 

21 subject. It seems like this has been one of 

22 those broad issues that's been hanging out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 there for a while. Is it Jim Neton's inbox? 

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: There should be 

3 something more. There should be a lot of 

4 literature on that. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I thought --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It's not an open 

7 question, I don't think. It's a question of 

8 checking on that literature, if somebody needs 

9 to. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I agree 

11 there's a lot of literature. I thought they 

12 were putting a position thing together on how 

13 to handle the --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we generally 

15 look for breathing zones, and if we don't have 

16 it I don't, you know, if we don't have 

17 breathing, you know, like the samples appear 

18 to be attempted to be breathing zones for the 

19 samples --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I'm --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we try to 

22 decide that we got data sampling for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 breathing zone, and I don't know that we've 

2 gone down the path of extrapolating what are 

3 clearly general air samples to an intake. I 

4 don't know if we've gone down that pathway. 

5 In fact, some of our Evaluation Report 

6 summaries will describe we've got some air 

7 sampling data that's general area.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought it came 

9 down --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But in general --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- for Simonds 

12 Saw and Bethlehem Steel, I think it came up 

13 with something --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: No, there was 

15 breathing zone sampling, I believe. I believe 

16 it was breathing zone sampling.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Some was general -

18 - anyway, okay.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Some of it was 

20 general area. Some of it was general area, 

21 but not for, like, contamination -- it was 

22 used for other types of activities, as opposed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 to --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I thought 

3 it was --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think we 

5 used the GAs. I think it was breathing zones.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

7 That's good. Okay. And then, aside from 

8 that, I agree with John's approach. So we'll 

9 close it. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Closed. Finding 

11 five. 

12 MR. KATZ: Finding five, John. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay. Finding 

14 five, finding five is subsumed by the last one 

15 we just talked about, finding three. In other 

16 words, if finding three is resolved, finding 

17 five is resolved. Okay? Finding six. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Did you say three? 

19 Is it subsumed by three or four? 

20 DR. MAURO: Three. This business of 

21 that outlier, when a decision is made on that 

22 outlier and what to do about it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So finding 

2 five then depends on three, is what we said.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes. So, in a way, 

4 finding five is really redundant with three. 

5 I can help out a little bit. The concern in 

6 finding five had to do also with, they weren't 

7 using the 95th percentile, I believe, in the 

8 original report. But now they are using it, 

9 and the question is what is the right 95th 

10 percentile, you know, based on number three. 

11 So finding five sort of goes away. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Finding six. 

13 DR. MAURO: Finding six. In the 

14 original review, there was no mention of the 

15 ingestion pathway. The revised Site Profile 

16 does, in fact, explicitly address the 

17 ingestion pathway, and it uses the well-known 

18 point two rule of thumb in OTIB-9. So, 

19 therefore, we have reviewed that thoroughly, 

20 and I'm comfortable with it. And the 

21 Procedures Subcommittee has judged it to be 

22 resolved, so, therefore, on that basis, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 recommend that finding six be closed. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anybody disagree 

3 with that or question that? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: No. Closed. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds good. 

6 Alright. Finding seven, John? 

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. I combined seven 

8 and eight because they are related. And just 

9 give me a second to catch up a little bit 

10 here. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. I think this is 

13 one of the items that we're still looking at. 

14 Yes. And let me just try to give you, 

15 conceptually, what this is about. Okay. 

16 There's a brand new strategy being used here 

17 for doing these external exposures, so a new 

18 analysis was run using Microshield and a new 

19 set of doses were calculated, as compared to 

20 the original analysis. So a new modeling was 

21 done, which is good because we were concerned 

22 about the original analysis. We have not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 checked those numbers, the new numbers. So 

2 what I can say is that the new Site Profile is 

3 very responsive to this issue, has a whole new 

4 analysis presented, but we have not yet had a 

5 chance to independently check those numbers, 

6 which is ongoing as we speak, and it's going 

7 to take us a bit of time to go through this 

8 and a couple of other items that are still 

9 actively being looked at. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So 

11 we'll leave that open --

12 DR. MAURO: So I think we should 

13 leave that open until we finish our 

14 calculations. 

15 MR. KATZ: Anyway, that's an SC&A 

16 action item.

17 DR. MAURO: And that's an SC&A 

18 action, yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And item eight is 

21 similarly --

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, the two go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 together. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, okay. 

3 Alright.

4 MR. KATZ: And that will be ready 

5 for the next meeting two months from now? 

6 DR. MAURO: I'm expecting, at best, 

7 we'll have answers to this in a month, maybe 

8 two. I'm not sure because we have this and we 

9 have some internal issues. We want to review, 

10 you'll see, a couple of items: one dealing 

11 with external, one dealing with internal. 

12 I've already turned on the crew to do the 

13 numbers, and I would say, at best, we'd have 

14 something for you, their work will be done in 

15 a month, you know, or maybe a little longer. 

16 So that should be certainly plenty of time for 

17 the next meeting. 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Finding nine, 

20 John. 

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. Give me a second. 

22 Oh, this is simple. We had a concern in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 original review of the method to reconstruct 

2 medical exposures because they did not employ 

3 the protocol we were used to seeing, namely 

4 OTIB-6. In the new revised version, they 

5 adopt OTIB-6 and, as far as I'm concerned, 

6 that solves the problem and we recommend this 

7 item be closed. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds good. Any 

9 objections to that? 

10 MEMBER MUNN: None. Closed.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. We 

12 can close it.

13 DR. MAURO: Finding ten has to do 

14 with photofluorography. In our original 

15 review, we said, gee, this is pretty early 

16 days. In those days, perhaps they used 

17 photofluorography. If you recall, there was a 

18 time when SC&A was under the impression that, 

19 you know, before a certain date, I think it 

20 was 1970, at least at DOE facilities, the 

21 automatic fallback position in OTIB-6 is 

22 assume there's photofluorography. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 It turns out, since then, and we've 

2 all concurred with this for AWE facilities, 

3 you don't automatically assume that unless 

4 there is affirmative evidence that, in fact, 

5 there was photofluorography and that it was 

6 performed on-site because, for AWE facilities, 

7 if there was, for a condition of employment, 

8 there was a requirement for medical X-rays, 

9 including photofluorography with the early 

10 days, then you would include that dose, and it 

11 was done on-site. But if it wasn't part of 

12 the contract, then you don't necessarily need 

13 to include that. This all occurred over a 

14 course of some time, but we're now in the 

15 position where we do not expect that 

16 photofluorography be assumed for AWE 

17 facilities unless there is affirmative 

18 evidence that it, in fact, occurred, either 

19 through contract or through people's records.

20 So in light of, you know, when we 

21 originally did the analysis, we were operating 

22 under that impression. That has all changed, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 and so we recommend withdrawing this, closing 

2 or withdrawing this comment. We do not 

3 believe PFG is an issue under the current way 

4 in which we do business now. 

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Would interviews 

6 with individual workers help us in this 

7 situation? Would they know the difference 

8 between X-ray and photofluorography? Might 

9 they remember? I mean, photofluorography has 

10 that classic green thing. I don't know if 

11 they even saw those, but people might 

12 remember. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: It's been a long time 

14 since I've seen a CATI, but my memory is that 

15 there are questions on the CATI about that.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

17 MR. KATZ: I think the issue is with 

18 photofluorography they have to set up shop 

19 there, right? It's sort of an industrial 

20 scale process. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Photofluorography 

22 was on DOE sites too, essentially units were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 brought to do a lot of X-rays at a time. And 

2 they could do a lot at a time, and it just --

3 I don't think we've ever encountered a 

4 situation like that in AWE. In fact, a lot of 

5 AWEs clearly sent their employees that they 

6 were giving X-rays, sent them to a clinic off7 site. They wouldn't even be included. I 

8 mean, we're essentially granting them credit 

9 for having the X-ray machine on the property 

10 at Huntington in order to assign the dose at 

11 all. 

12 DR. MAURO: I agree completely with 

13 what Stu just said. I don't think I've ever 

14 seen, and I've looked at a lot of Site 

15 Profiles and cases, where photofluorography 

16 was a matter of practice on site at an AWE 

17 early facility. 

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And we 

19 asked questions about it. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: CATI does that. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm satisfied. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 closed. And item 11, John? 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, 11. I combined 11 

3 and 12 because they were related. Let me see. 

4 Let me just catch up a bit. Okay. This is 

5 the residual period, and we're recommending 

6 that we keep this item open. And my 

7 rationale, I'm reading right now, the bottom 

8 line is that we're recommending we keep it 

9 open. And if I do a quick read, I have to try 

10 to get my reason for it here. I guess 

11 everyone else can take a look at it, too, if 

12 you have that in front of you. It's not 

13 jumping in my head. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: You wanted us to talk 

15 about it, essentially.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. In other 

17 words, I'm just reading my -- it covered a lot 

18 of material, so it's not just jumping into my 

19 mind right away why I'm recommending leaving 

20 this open. They did something unusual here. 

21 This might be something worth talking about. 

22 Give me a second here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 MEMBER MUNN: I think you thought it 

2 was unclear whether or not the procedure 

3 preferred was going to be completely bounding. 

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, there was something 

5 good here. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't have a 

7 standby --

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, oh, I see what they 

9 did. Oh, this is important. Yes, yes, it's 

10 just coming back to me, reading my notes. 

11 They're recommending that, during the residual 

12 period or it might be the decon period that 

13 occurred later, they're saying, well, the 

14 approach we used during the operations period, 

15 we'll just apply that to the residual or decon 

16 period. I think it might be the decon period. 

17 Yes, yes, yes, here's how it goes. The 

18 operations period ended in 1962, okay? And 

19 then there was this standby period up until 

20 1978. Now, let's just talk about for a minute 

21 -- then from '78 and '79, they did a 

22 remediation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 So the question one has to ask 

2 themselves, okay, well, what are you doing 

3 about the standby period, which is from 1962 

4 to 1978, and what are you doing about the 

5 actual remediation period where folks came in 

6 and cleaned the place up in '78 and '79? The 

7 answer is, from '62 to '78, the report is 

8 silent. They're treating it as if there was 

9 no potential for exposure in the standby 

10 period. Now, that may very well be true. 

11 Maybe there was nobody there, and there was no 

12 potential for exposure. Right now, the report 

13 is silent on that. It did address it in the 

14 original one, and I believe the original one 

15 did have some protocol that we questioned for 

16 assigning exposures during the standby period.

17 The standby period now has no 

18 exposures assigned. And I'm just presuming, 

19 and I'd like to sort of drop this one on 

20 NIOSH, is we need a little rationale and 

21 justification why there's no exposures during 

22 the standby period. It may be the place was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 shut down, and no one was in there. I don't 

2 know.

3 But the issue then goes to: but they 

4 do explicitly, NIOSH, the new Site Profile 

5 does explicitly address '78 and '79. And the 

6 approach they're recommending is, well, we'll 

7 simply assign the exposures that we assigned 

8 during the operations period to the 

9 decontamination period. Now, this is unusual. 

10 I haven't seen that before. This is a first. 

11 Now, I would be the first to admit 

12 that, from an external exposure point of view, 

13 they did not have all these drums. Remember 

14 earlier we talked about they have a whole new 

15 method of doing the external exposure where 

16 they ran, I believe, MCNP with these full 

17 barrels filled with this material. They're 

18 going to assign that for this decon period. I 

19 would be the first to say that it's very 

20 unlikely that anyone could have gotten 

21 exposures during -- external exposures --

22 during the decon period because those big
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 barrels of residue were not there. So some 

2 would say, yes, well, sure, that bounds it. 

3 Whether or not, I mean, it seems to be 

4 throwing a big number at a problem and putting 

5 the problem to bed, and that's really a 

6 judgment you folks have to make. 

7 With regard to internal exposure, 

8 they're using the same approach. Once we 

9 resolve this dust-loading business we talked 

10 about earlier, this upper bound, the outlier, 

11 well, they're basically, you know, plan to use 

12 the same approach for this D&D period. Now, 

13 that might be a little bit more intuitively 

14 appropriate.

15 One could argue that, you know, that 

16 would place an upper -- I mean, it's plausible 

17 that there was some residual dust of residue 

18 of this material, and that during D&D you 

19 generate airborne activity and, therefore, the 

20 numbers that you use that were airborne during 

21 operation would bound what one would 

22 experience during D&D, and that may very well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 be plausible. I'm not sure, you know. You 

2 think about D&D and you think people are 

3 ripping things up, tearing it down. 

4 So you've got offsetting problems. 

5 One is it's likely that, you know, you're not 

6 going to have, you know, during the operations 

7 period, you were actually producing this 

8 residual stuff, material, there was airborne 

9 activity, directly injected airborne as a 

10 result of the nickel operation that was going 

11 on. That was the process that caused the 

12 airborne dust loadings that were observed 

13 during operations.

14 Now, all of a sudden, it's many, 

15 many years later. It's what? Twenty years 

16 later or fifteen years later. And they're 

17 D&D'ing the place. The mechanism by which you 

18 get airborne radioactivity is a lot different. 

19 You're ripping things up. You're cleaning 

20 things. You're going through a D&D process. 

21 And there certainly could have been some 

22 residue around being generated.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 So the scenario that would take 

2 place here during D&D is going to be a lot 

3 different than the scenario that took place 

4 during operations. So -- 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: John? I think 

6 NIOSH has something --

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes. I'm talking 

8 on and on.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that, you 

10 know, for the '78 to '79 period, I think we'd 

11 have to -- I don't know what I can say about 

12 that. We'll wait and see. The standby period, 

13 the facility isn't covered.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's not covered.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a DOE facility. 

16 It's not an AWE. It's a DOE facility. 

17 Residual contamination periods are defined 

18 only for AWE. DOE facilities don't have a 

19 residual contamination period. So if coverage 

20 stops in '63, according to the DOE facilities 

21 page, and then it was a DOE decontamination 

22 from '78 to '79, so those two years are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 covered. So the standby period is not 

2 covered. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's just an odd 

4 way of -- yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, we run 

6 into that at Weldon Springs, too. You know, 

7 Weldon Springs was a DOE facility, got turned 

8 over contaminated to the Department of Army. 

9 Well, this coverage stopped when it got turned 

10 over to the Army. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: So it's not covered 

13 under the standby period. Now, the discussion 

14 of the remediation and the clean-up, that's 

15 something that needs to be pursued further 

16 when we get -- I guess John said, this is the 

17 one where he said there's going to be a more 

18 significant evaluation because he just took a 

19 quick --

20 DR. MAURO: Right. This is a 

21 preliminary review. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. But the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 standby is excluded because it's not covered.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So you 

3 don't need to focus on the standby, John, but 

4 --

5 DR. MAURO: You know, I have to say 

6 I thought Huntington was an AWE. I probably 

7 wouldn't have gotten it if -- I didn't know 

8 that. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: It may, you know, 

10 sometimes the classifications have changed 

11 over time, and it may have started as an AWE, 

12 but it's currently classified as a DOE 

13 facility. 

14 MR. STIVER: I think it was 

15 considered an AWE when we did our initial 

16 review. In 2008, when you produced the new 

17 report, it was covered as a DOE facility. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, alright.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Remind us, what are 

20 the activated isotopes that we're concerned 

21 with here? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: It's the uranium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 contamination on the nickel.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's still uranium 

3 contamination. It's not activated nickel? 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Alright. Just 

6 checking. Thank you. 

7 DR. MAURO: But to close this out, 

8 just to let you know as almost a preview of 

9 what is it that we think is important that we 

10 need to look at --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Coming features. 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. We already talked 

13 about the external exposure we're revisiting. 

14 From an internal perspective, what we're 

15 revisiting is the following. In the original 

16 analysis, the default assumption was that 

17 these barriers contained uranium and that the 

18 uranium that was there was at the upper end of 

19 the contractual -- I thought it was 

20 contractual. See, it was my understanding 

21 that this was a contract. And that the 

22 highest concentration that was allowed to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 handled was 36 percent enrichment. In the 

2 original analysis, it was assumed that that 

3 was the enrichment level of the uranium. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Of everything? 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, for everybody, 

6 which is extremely bounding. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: It sure is.

8 DR. MAURO: Right, exactly. And as 

9 a result of that, they used that, and they 

10 also assumed that the amount of uranium that 

11 was in the nickel was one percent by weight. 

12 So you could envision how you go about, once 

13 you know the airborne dust loading of nickel, 

14 you can see how the calculation is done.

15 Now the new Site Profile doesn't use 

16 this. They assume that the enrichment that 

17 everyone experienced is at two percent 

18 enrichment, which is more realistic. 

19 Oh, I forgot a very important point. 

20 When they assumed it was at 36 percent from 

21 the previous one, they said, listen, because 

22 of that, that more than accounts for any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 contribution from recycled uranium. It's 

2 recognized that recycled uranium was handled 

3 here and they know, well, based on the 

4 knowledge of what the composition of recycled 

5 uranium was at the gaseous diffusion plants, 

6 you know, they have some idea of what that is. 

7 But what they said in the original 

8 Site Profile was: we're not going to 

9 explicitly address recycled uranium because 

10 we're so conservative regarding enrichment 

11 using this 36 percent. And we accepted that at 

12 the time.

13 However, now they've made a major 

14 revision where, no, no, no, we're not going to 

15 do the 36 percent anymore, we're going to use 

16 2 percent enrichment, but we are going to 

17 explicitly address recycled uranium. So now 

18 that's become -- so you can see it's a real 

19 brand new Site Profile.

20 So the other thing that we're 

21 looking at is this new strategy, whether or 

22 not we believe using two percent is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 appropriately bounding enrichment, whether or 

2 not assuming that the mass composition of one 

3 percent of uranium by weight in the nickel is 

4 appropriately bounding. And, of course, we're 

5 also looking at the particular amount of 

6 recycled uranium, neptunium, and plutonium 

7 that is assumed to be associated with the 

8 uranium is, in fact, a good value.

9 So that's what we're doing right 

10 now. And we will be putting a report out on 

11 those major subjects within a month or so. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds like a much 

13 more realistic assertion. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, especially 

15 regarding internal.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

17 MR. FARVER: Are you going to 

18 provide a report on -- how should I word this? 

19 Provide a report on --

20 DR. MAURO: It's going to be a 

21 complete Site Profile review. This is a brand 

22 new Site Profile.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

2 DR. MAURO: So we're going to submit 

3 a brand new Site Profile review. What I'm 

4 trying to say, though, is we know where the 

5 action is. The action is checking those 

6 external exposures and checking these new 

7 internal exposures that I just described. The 

8 business of the residual period -- I'm sorry, 

9 not residual. The D&D period. It sounds like 

10 maybe we shouldn't look at that right now. 

11 NIOSH is going to be visiting that? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, actually, no. 

13 What we would like is for you to complete 

14 your evaluation of the Site Profile, the new 

15 Site Profile, and let us go from there. I 

16 mean, that would be --

17 DR. MAURO: Bear in mind, I think 

18 our finding regarding this D&D period is going 

19 to be what I just told you. There really is 

20 no -- now, what we could do, I mean we're 

21 certainly going to have that finding, as I 

22 described it. What we will do, though, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 when we do our research on the Site Research 

2 Database, on the D&D operation, we'll see what 

3 kind of data are out there for that '78 and 

4 '79 time period and address the degree to 

5 which we believe that there are data out there 

6 that will allow you to do a more realistic 

7 treatment of the problem than the current 

8 method in your current Site Profile. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So from our 

10 standpoint, it would be most convenient for us 

11 if you would complete your review of the new 

12 Site Profile, and then we can take it up --

13 MR. STIVER: That's how we'll go 

14 ahead and do it. 

15 DR. MAURO: Very good. That 

16 concludes my story.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thanks, 

18 John. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: And thank you for the 

20 White Paper, John. It was very helpful, the 

21 individual statements about what's going on 

22 with the various findings. Thanks. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think that 

3 brings us to the end of the eighth set. Given 

4 the time, I think we should start the ninth 

5 set. It's a bit early for breaking. So let's 

6 go into -- yes. So the ninth set. Do we have 

7 these -- is 179 still open, or is that --

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 179.1 then. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. This is my last --

11 if you're ready to go, I have a quick one for 

12 you, and then I'll step out of this. Ashland 

13 Oil, right? We're talking Ashland Oil? Yes. 

14 A question was raised, I believe, originally. 

15 Ashland Oil was a site where Linde sent its 

16 residue for storage. It was near the Linde 

17 site. And in the original, our original 

18 review basically said, you know, that the 

19 material was shipped there in 1957 or '56 and 

20 that there was actually a survey, a walkover 

21 survey performed in 1957 where they came up 

22 with some exposure rate. I believe it was --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 I forget the exact number. I have it here in 

2 my notes somewhere. So, therefore, we have 

3 survey data, walkover survey data which allows 

4 you to assign an external dose to a worker, 

5 this particular worker who was there from 1948 

6 or maybe even earlier, well through '57.

7 And, Mark, at the time, you said, 

8 wait a minute, John, hold the presses. We 

9 believe that the material that was sent to 

10 Ashland may very well have been much earlier; 

11 so, therefore, maybe we got the story wrong. 

12 The reality is that the guy who worked there 

13 from the 1940s right through the '50s, he 

14 might have been exposed, if, in fact, the 

15 material was deposited there in an earlier 

16 year, let's say 1948, then that '57 survey may 

17 not be all that useful because so many years 

18 have passed. And, Mark, I believe you're 

19 right. 

20 We looked at the Ashland Oil source 

21 documents. Not only that, we looked at the 

22 Linde documents, so we came at it from two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 separate places independent. And both 

2 documents confirmed that shipments of sludge 

3 from Linde occurred up to and perhaps ended in 

4 1948. 

5 So what we have here is, okay, the 

6 shipments went there up through 1948. Then 

7 the survey, the walkover survey for this guy 

8 was performed in -- that we're using, the data 

9 -- in 1957 or '58, that time period. And the 

10 question becomes, oh, okay, we were wrong, you 

11 know. This time period did pass. Can we use 

12 '57/'58 survey data to reconstruct external 

13 exposure to a worker that was there in the 

14 1940s when this material was originally 

15 deposited? In fact, we believe there were no 

16 more deposits after 1948. That was the last 

17 shipment.

18 So I think we still have an open 

19 item. That's where I'm coming down on this 

20 one. What do we do with that? The fact is, 

21 yes, it looks like that survey data, who knows 

22 what happened between those time periods? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 Material could have been removed. There could 

2 have been some cover material laid down, which 

3 creates a circumstance where it's possible 

4 that that survey performed in 1957-'58 was not

5 representative of the field, radiation field 

6 in 1948 when the guy was working there and 

7 when there was residue. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And, John, have 

9 you shared your basis for that conclusion with 

10 NIOSH?

11 DR. MAURO: I sent in, I believe 

12 there is a written response somewhere to that 

13 effect that was prepared recently. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

15 DR. MAURO: I don't know if the 

16 Subcommittee has that. John or Doug, do you 

17 know whether that was distributed, that little 

18 story I just told? 

19 MR. STIVER: I don't believe it was, 

20 but I have it here and I can send it out. 

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 that's important. It seems to contradict what 

2 the understanding was earlier. So if you have 

3 references and everything with it, I think 

4 it's something NIOSH needs to look at.

5 MR. KATZ: So you have this as a 

6 memo, or what is this? 

7 MR. STIVER: We discovered this 

8 during the last meeting. This Weinstein 

9 report which came out in '58, I believe it 

10 was, indicated that the dumping took place and 

11 it basically stopped in '48. So there was a 

12 bit of a disconnect there, and that's why we 

13 followed up and went ahead and produced this 

14 additional study. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, if you can 

16 share that with NIOSH. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That really was 

18 57 microrems? 

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes, 57 micro-r per 

20 hour. Right. It wasn't very high. 

21 MR. FARVER: But that's based on a 

22 1950s survey, which may not be representative.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure. 

2 MR. KATZ: So you're sending this to 

3 Nancy or distributing it properly, or how are 

4 you doing this? 

5 MR. STIVER: I can certainly do 

6 that. 

7 MR. KATZ: Because when we have 

8 White Papers and memos, we should distribute 

9 those according to formula. 

10 MR. STIVER: I'm seeing whether 

11 this qualifies as a White Paper here.

12 MR. KATZ: If it's just a response 

13 to go in the matrix, then just plunk it in the 

14 matrix.

15 MR. STIVER: It's more of a memo 

16 really.

17 MR. KATZ: I mean, if it's too much 

18 to work in the matrix, and it deserves to be a 

19 memo or a White Paper --

20 MR. STIVER: Yes, we can go ahead 

21 and do it through Nancy. It's just sort of a 

22 four-page response, so it is fairly lengthy. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. Let's do that.

2 MR. STIVER: Formalize it.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks. 

4 MR. FARVER: We did summarize it in 

5 the matrix.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. 

7 MR. FARVER: More details and 

8 references.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. So SC&A will be 

10 sending a memo and DCAS can respond.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So do we have the 

12 next one, John? Is it 179.4? John? 

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, hold on. 

14 MR. FARVER: 179.4. If you read the 

15 NIOSH response, it says that we closed this in 

16 the February meeting. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. This 

18 is wonderful that the transcripts are now 

19 becoming more available quickly. I did go 

20 back and look through the transcript of the 

21 last meeting because I had this one closed in 

22 my notes, and I give the reference as to page 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 and line where we actually did state it was 

2 closed in the transcript. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Scott. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's why SC&A 

5 is taking over the task. Alright. So we 

6 already closed that. We don't need to re7 discuss it. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's gone. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Moving 

10 on. 180.2. Now, this says the Committee is 

11 to review the SC&A report. Did all the 

12 Committee Members review the SC&A report? 

13 Having heard none --

14 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. This is 

15 Bridgeport Brass again? 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 180.2. I'm not -

17 -

18 MR. SIEBERT: 149.1. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Is this still Ashland? 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: No. 

21 MR. STIVER: This is the same issue 

22 as 149.1 and Bridgeport Brass. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is -- I'm 

2 sorry to interrupt. Yes, this is Bridgeport 

3 Brass. It's the 95th percentile question, and 

4 I believe we resolved that. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's the same 

6 issue as in 149. 

7 DR. MAURO: Exactly, only it comes 

8 in here because it's a real case. You see 

9 where I'm going? 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, yes.

11 DR. MAURO: And we resolved the 

12 factor of two. If you remember, it had to do 

13 with the correlation versus non-correlation.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

15 right. Okay.

16 DR. MAURO: Right. And we resolved 

17 the correlation issue; so therefore, I would 

18 suggest that we close this issue.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And I think 

20 I was referencing the report that was given in 

21 the other, for your mini Site Profile review 

22 or whatever, yes. So I would say, yes, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 agree, I think we can close it. Is that okay?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Close and reference 

3 the 149 finding. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Moving 

5 to the next one, 185.1; is that right? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: And just so everyone is 

7 aware, this is the Huntington Pilot Plant.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Thank you. 

9 MR. FARVER: We reviewed the TBD. The 

10 revised TBD presents a new strategy for 

11 deriving external penetrating and non12 penetrating doses. Because this approach is 

13 new, we're still looking into it. And SC&A is 

14 currently performing an independent evaluation 

15 of the new approaches. 

16 MR. STIVER: So part of our final 

17 Site Profile review. 

18 MR. KATZ: When will that be ready? 

19 Will that be ready for the next meeting? 

20 MR. STIVER: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Great. And does 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 that apply to the other ones on this case, 

2 too, or just that 185.2? Let's just step 

3 through them, I guess. 

4 DR. MAURO: I'm looking at -- all of 

5 these should be resolved when we finish our 

6 review. The Huntington Site Profile is an 

7 exposure matrix. And once we deal with the 

8 issues in Huntington, all the issues 

9 associated with this case probably will, you 

10 know, we'll be in a position to address them. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we can skip 

12 past 185, all these -- right, okay. 

13 DR. MAURO: You know, we could get 

14 rid of the ones that we closed. For example, 

15 there's one here that talks about ingestion. 

16 Keep in mind that there were certain issues 

17 that I recommended we close, and 185.5 is an 

18 ingestion one, and so we probably could close 

19 that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Agreed, yes, yes. 

21 So 185.5. Any others, John, that would be 

22 closed? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 DR. MAURO: I'm looking at it right 

2 now. No, all the others are still alive.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, thank you. 

4 All right. Yes, down to 191.1. 

5 DR. MAURO: Everyone on the phone, 

6 listen, I'm going to break. I think my role 

7 on the AWE work is done, so, unless you need 

8 me, you can certainly give me a holler, but 

9 I'm going to break.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, John. 

11 Have a good day. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Who is 191? What site 

13 are we looking at? 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug is going to 

15 tell us in a second. Or Scott.

16 MR. SIEBERT: 191 is the Clarksville 

17 Pantex claim, and the general issue with this 

18 is, in the initial findings, there were 

19 positive dosimetry values, I mean, greater 

20 than zero, that were not addressed as positive 

21 dosimetry readings. In other words, we did 

22 not assign them as a measured dose, and SC&A 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 questioned that. We went back and we looked, 

2 and all the ones that were above zero were 

3 actually less than the LOD over two, so we 

4 assigned those as missed dose, as opposed to 

5 measured dose. And I believe the last meeting 

6 we had that written up, and SC&A was going to 

7 go back and verify that. 

8 MR. FARVER: What did I write? Oh, 

9 yes. SC&A agrees with NIOSH response. Doses 

10 in question included values that were less 

11 than half the LOD and were treated as missed 

12 dose. So we recommend closing this. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, alright. 

14 So closed, hearing no other issues. Alright. 

15 And where is the next? There you go. 195.1. 

16 Scott, what site is that?

17 MR. SIEBERT: Grand Junction/De 

18 Soto/Hanford. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. A 

20 triple. And I think it, I think the only 

21 reason I kept this highlighted, the first one, 

22 is that it says something about NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 considering whether a PER is needed for this 

2 issue because we sort of decided it was a QA 

3 issue, but I think at the last meeting there 

4 was some discussion of whether it may be a 

5 broad issue and should be a PER. Does anybody 

6 recollect that? 

7 MR. STIVER: NIOSH has a response 

8 indicating --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And I'm 

10 looking at my old matrix again so --

11 MEMBER MUNN: Is this also the one 

12 where there was a typo on the report with 

13 respect to AP/PA?

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. If I 

15 remember correctly, the issue is, and this is 

16 a somewhat generic issue we've run into a few 

17 times, those few organs where AP is not the

18 most claimant-favorable in all cases: red bone 

19 marrow, lung, there's a few of them. That's 

20 outlined in OCAS-IG-1 to deal with the 

21 rotational geometry and determine if it's 

22 greater, unless it's determined that the AP is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 a more appropriate factor for the type of work 

2 that the EE was doing. 

3 I believe the typo we discussed on 

4 this one was just the fact that we did not put 

5 in the report the type of work that the 

6 individual was doing. It made more sense to 

7 assign AP than rotational. If I remember 

8 correctly, that was that issue. But as I 

9 said, I looked at a transcript, and we agreed 

10 the issue for this claim was closed, but we 

11 agreed to look into whether a PER or a 

12 clarification on this issue is appropriate. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

14 have in my notes --

15 MR. FARVER: IG-1 basically says 

16 that, for certain cancers, you should consider 

17 these other geometries. And if you don't, you 

18 have to put in your DR why you don't. And I 

19 have yet to see one that either considers 

20 those geometries or puts in there why they 

21 don't consider it. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why they don't. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 Right, right, right. 

2 MR. FARVER: So I think that's why 

3 the question of the PER came up.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. All right. 

5 So that's sort of a standing action on the 

6 PER question, right? But for the cases, we 

7 agree it's closed. It was a QA item. So I 

8 don't know how we track these going forward. 

9 That's why I left it highlighted, you know, 

10 where we're asking for NIOSH to consider. I 

11 mean, I guess if NIOSH came back and said, 

12 yes, we are doing a PER on this, then we'd say 

13 that on this, and we'd close it. But I didn't 

14 want to -- that's why I kept it highlighted, 

15 Stu, just to, because I didn't know how to 

16 make sure we don't lose track of it. 

17 MR. FARVER: Do you want to look 

18 into it for the next meeting and --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Probably. 

20 MR. FARVER: -- see if we can come 

21 out closing it?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, probably, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 want to look into it for the next meeting. 

2 Scott, was the question about AP versus 

3 rotational, was that for all three sites the 

4 person worked at or that was a generic 

5 approach that was used in every case at every 

6 site? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: That I don't know off 

8 the top of my head. I'm assuming that AP was 

9 used across the board, based on the type of 

10 work --

11 MR. FARVER: It's just that IG-1 

12 says that, for certain cancers, you'll 

13 consider these other geometries because they 

14 have a higher DCF. If you don't do that, then 

15 you should put in why you don't do that. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. And I think 

17 part of the reason we decided to close this 

18 one was it was a compensable case anyway, 

19 right? 

20 MR. FARVER: For this case I don't 

21 think it mattered. But it keeps coming up.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That might have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 been part of it. I don't think it's an issue 

2 for this case. The general question, yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: So that would be 

4 like an IG-1 rather than a site-specific.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

6 Alright. 195.3. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. I missed 

8 the resolution on that. 

9 MR. FARVER: You're going to fix it. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: We're supposed to 

11 come back -- we, NIOSH, is supposed to come 

12 back with some idea about PER plans if we 

13 think one is required. If we think it's not 

14 required, why wouldn't it be? That kind of 

15 thing. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I just wanted 

17 to make sure I had that. Thank you. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And 195.3 then. 

19 SC&A, I think this is in -- 

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. This is going to 

21 also take care of one later on.

22 MEMBER MUNN: This is another one of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 those --

2 MR. FARVER: This is another ongoing 

3 issue, and I did get to review their files, 

4 and I do agree with all that they had there. 

5 And this goes into the zinc-65, sodium-64 

6 whole body counts. This has been going on for 

7 a very long time. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So you 

9 basically did the additional review, and 

10 you're okay with --

11 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, if any of 

13 the Subcommittee Members have questions or --

14 otherwise, I think we, you know, if SC&A is in 

15 agreement, I think we can close this. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Was there any 

17 decision, any action on the question of PER?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For the last 

19 meeting, you mean? 

20 MR. CALHOUN: I think we're going to 

21 respond with --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 respond with something next week.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was for 

3 195.1. 195.3 I think we can close. And 

4 there's nothing more on 195, I don't think. 

5 This may be a good --

6 MR. KATZ: Is there any more on the 

7 set? 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, 197.3. I'm 

9 not sure how many more there are in the whole 

10 set here. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: There's a bunch. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay, yes. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: We're only halfway 

14 there. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, there's 

16 still several down here. So why don't we --

17 MR. KATZ: You want to break for 

18 lunch? 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think it 

20 makes sense to break before we get into 

21 another case.

22 MR. KATZ: So we're going to start at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 197?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 197.3, yes. And 

3 break until 1:00; is that okay? Alright. 

4 MR. KATZ: Very good. So we're 

5 breaking until one. Thanks, everyone hanging 

6 in there on the phone, and we'll pick up then.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

8 matter went off the record at 11:58 a.m. and 

9 resumed at 1:01 p.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: So good afternoon, 

11 everyone. We're back from lunch break, the 

12 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review. 

13 And we're still working through set nine. 

14 We're on 197.3, I think. Let me just check on 

15 the line and see do we have Brad and David? 

16 Are you on the line? 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm on the line, 

18 Ted. 

19 MR. KATZ: Hi, Brad. And David, 

20 too? Richardson? Okay. Well, we can carry 

21 on. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 this is yours, 197.3.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. And this is just 

3 a carryover from a while back anyway. It has 

4 to do with the construction worker doses in 

5 OTIB-30 and OTIB-52 and applying the different 

6 correction factors. And you can see by the 

7 yellow response there that they can differ 

8 from 1.1 to 1.4. And so we had a little 

9 question about how they are corrected.

10 So, anyway, I went back and I 

11 reviewed OTIB-30 and OTIB-52, and I finally 

12 figured it out. They're correcting a little 

13 bit differently, depending on the site, 

14 depending on the year, and so forth, depending 

15 on the doses for that site. So I think we can 

16 go ahead and close this one now that I kind of 

17 understand it better, which was the whole 

18 point behind it. We just didn't understand 

19 how they came up with their values. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: They kind of have 

21 those responses out of order there.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Help me with this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 then, Doug, because my understanding was that 

2 when we reviewed OTIB-52, and you can correct 

3 me if I'm wrong, but I thought that that OTIB, 

4 from what I understood, was not going to be 

5 used. We had to show the ability to be able 

6 to reconstruct. 

7 MR. FARVER: Now, for OTIB-52, I 

8 believe that the -- oh, I forget, the table in 

9 the back there for the reconstruction workers, 

10 that already is modified by the factors. So 

11 you don't take those numbers and multiply them 

12 again, if I understand it correctly. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: We had quite a bit 

14 of discussion on --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: What site are we 

16 talking about? What site is this case from? 

17 MR. SIEBERT: The site is Hanford. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. That's one of 

19 the sites, Brad, where the data set was used 

20 from Hanford in the development of OTIB-52, 

21 and in those instances what we said was OTIB22 52 certainly is used as the default for those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 sites. 

2 MR. FARVER: For this, yes, for 

3 Hanford. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: I'm not too familiar 

6 with these other concerns.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it came after 

8 --

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, okay. 

10 MR. STIVER: Really, the guidance 

11 that's emerged from the review of OTIB-52 is 

12 to look at a site-specific basis, and, in this 

13 case, it came from Hanford to begin with.

14 MR. FARVER: Right. So this is a 

15 simplified version. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: So we're closing that 

18 one? 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And I'm not 

20 sure what this is, 201, observation one, if 

21 something is still there. I'm not sure if we 

22 addressed this or not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 MEMBER MUNN: Geometric correction 

2 factor. 

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. The observation 

4 was just to point out that they did a 

5 correction for extremity dose, and right now I 

6 believe that the place to do that is the TIB7 13, which specifically is for Mallinckrodt 

8 workers. That's what it was developed for, 

9 but we're starting to see it apply to other 

10 instances. And so we just wanted to make a 

11 note that this is developed for Mallinckrodt 

12 workers, and it may or may not apply to 

13 activities at INL. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. I think when 

15 the finding was written that it applied for 

16 Mallinckrodt, but I think that TIB has been 

17 replaced now by the TIB that essentially just 

18 says geometry --

19 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: When this was 

21 written, it probably just said Mallinckrodt.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, it did.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And it's been 

2 replaced with another one that's more general. 

3 You know, you've got this geometry. It 

4 doesn't matter where that geometry is --

5 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think that's 

7 the answer, and that closes it, I think. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe 

9 there's anything else to consider. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

11 205, the next one, observation four. 

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. And this was 

13 for, I believe the Medina site. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so. 

15 MR. FARVER: And we just were a 

16 little confused where the 11,500 picocuries 

17 per day of tritium came from, where they got 

18 that value. And they give an explanation, and 

19 the only problem I have, I could not find that 

20 version, that revision of the document, you 

21 know, TIB 39 from May of 2006. I couldn't 

22 find that on the Huntington technical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 documents on the website. The only thing they 

2 had was rev 0 from November of 2006. And even 

3 in that instance, they go through a similar 

4 process, except when you get down to the 

5 bottom they come up with about 18,000 

6 picocuries per day and they say that it was 

7 less than a millirem, so it's a, no, never 

8 mind in the rev 0 November of 2006 version. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: So a little over six 

10 percent of it.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, 6.4 percent was 

12 HTO. 

13 MR. FARVER: So, dose-wise, it's not 

14 a problem. It was just, you know, we were 

15 confused about where they came up with the 

16 eleven and a half picocuries or eleven and a 

17 half thousand picocuries per day. And like I 

18 say, the 2006 November version has a little, 

19 comes up with a little different answer. But 

20 it also says that the doses are going to be 

21 less than a millirem, so it's a, no, never 

22 mind. I mean, even when we went through and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 wrote this up as an observation, we showed 

2 calculations that it was still on the order of 

3 a millirem or so, and it really wasn't a big 

4 concern. It was just we'd like to know for 

5 the future we you get the numbers from.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And doesn't this June 

7 last year entry say that, though? 

8 MR. FARVER: It does.

9 MEMBER MUNN: It gives you the 

10 assumptions.

11 MR. FARVER: It does, but I could 

12 not find the document that they reference, so 

13 I could not verify what they wrote. In the 

14 November version, it's very similar, and it 

15 comes down to the conclusion that it's less 

16 than a millirem and, you know, it's not an 

17 issue. But I just couldn't come up with their 

18 exact wording. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. If we 

20 look back at this one, it was done a couple of 

21 months before that November rev was on the 

22 streets.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 MR. SIEBERT: So as you see in the 

3 response, it was assessed, those values came 

4 out of the draft version that was in place. 

5 It wasn't in place. Let me rephrase that. 

6 That was available to the dose reconstructor 

7 at the time, even though it was not the 

8 official document yet because we knew the 

9 update was coming. That was to get that claim 

10 out in a timely manner. It's generally not 

11 something we do, but, once again, this was 

12 something that was done back in 2006. 

13 MR. FARVER: And really all I would 

14 say then is, if you're going to do that and 

15 use a draft document, you should probably go 

16 ahead and put all these assumptions in your 

17 dose reconstruction. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: I agree 

19 wholeheartedly.

20 MR. FARVER: Since it's not in an 

21 approved document. 

22 MR. CALHOUN: And we are definitely 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 not in the business of using draft documents. 

2 MR. FARVER: That was all the 

3 concern was, how did you come up with the 

4 number, and that's been explained.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That pretty much 

6 closes it. 

7 MR. FARVER: That pretty much closes 

8 that. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The 206.1 then, 

10 page 42 to 43. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: The transcript says we 

12 closed it. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

14 That's another one I found in the transcript 

15 that I believe we closed. 

16 MR. FARVER: We probably did 

17 because, even looking at this, I really don't 

18 know what to do with it, and I think that's 

19 what I said the last time. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. It's 

21 closed. 

22 MR. FARVER: Well, it comes down to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 a judgment call, and you can do this or you 

2 can do this, and there's no good answer, which 

3 I think is what we came up with the last time: 

4 no good answer. So if it's okay, we'll still 

5 consider this closed. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I guess it's 

7 okay in this case. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is everybody okay 

10 with that? 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

12 MR. FARVER: I think the next one is 

13 207.4. And this goes back to, it's the same 

14 response we had for 195.3. There were some 

15 files out there to review. It's the same zinc 

16 65, sodium 24 issue. And, you know, I went 

17 back and reviewed it, and I have no concerns. 

18 So I recommend closing this, like we did the 

19 other one. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Well, 

21 let's close it then. 211.1, is that next? 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Now, while 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 you're thinking, I thought prostate was not, 

2 prostate cancer was not covered. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: It's not an SEC 

4 cancer but we do dose reconstructions for 

5 them. 

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Actually, the 

7 truth is all cancers are dose. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, every one.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. FARVER: And this has to do 

12 with, it looks like the doses were a little 

13 bit less or less than we thought they should 

14 be, even though it was done with the Monte 

15 Carlo calculation. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: It says they're 

17 continuing to review it. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Stu 

19 and Grady, we sent you a report over late last 

20 week. Would you like me to kind of touch on 

21 it really quickly? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I figured that 

2 was the answer. This is, we found -- and 

3 we've discussed this in the Subcommittee the 

4 last couple of times that the best estimate 

5 tool for Savannah River used Crystal Ball for 

6 the Monte Carlo calculations before we went to 

7 the Vose simulator. So one thing we have 

8 found over time, and we actually determined 

9 this right before we switched over to the Vose 

10 software, that it appears that when we ran 

11 Crystal Ball remotely through the network on 

12 the server, it would sometimes give us values 

13 that were lower than to be expected. When it 

14 was run remotely on our desktops, on our 

15 laptops locally, and when it was run directly 

16 on the server from people in the COC, we did 

17 not have that issue and we didn't have it 

18 every time it was run remotely on the server. 

19 But it does appear that, at various times, we 

20 never figured out exactly why Crystal Ball was 

21 doing this. There were some times where it 

22 would bias low, specifically in the 3-250 keV 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 range. 

2 So we, at that point, we had given 

3 dose reconstructors directions on how to check 

4 that versus the regular tool to be looking for 

5 that. That was late in 2009. And in March of 

6 2010, we switched over the Vose tool. Since 

7 that time, we've been looking into the 

8 situation, and, as I said, we just sent a 

9 report over to DCAS. We went back and pulled 

10 all dose reconstructions that used that EDCW 

11 tool, and we reran Crystal Ball locally on all 

12 those tools and compared it to the original 

13 doses that were assigned. And we found 

14 approximately, it looks like 15 to 18 cases,

15 that we will likely look at under a PER type 

16 scenario or roll it into Savannah River PER. 

17 However they do that, that's up to NIOSH. But 

18 we did find some cases that were consistently 

19 lower that we're going to have to deal with 

20 in, apparently, a PER process. That was out 

21 of 300 and some cases, so you can see how it 

22 was sporadic.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 MEMBER MUNN: It's a mystery. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that is very 

3 odd. But I guess that's the -- I mean, I'm 

4 not sure what else we can do with this. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, Mark, does 

6 this fall under a QA issue, you know, to catch 

7 something like this? This is Brad. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Who knows.

9 MR. FARVER: I think it does, Brad, 

10 because, if you're checking your calculations

11 and verifying your software, these things 

12 aren't going to happen. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand that, 

14 and I commend them on their effort for this 

15 because this shows a lot of work that they 

16 found the problem. They don't know why it was 

17 doing that, but, to me, this kind of falls 

18 under a QA issue. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

20 you're right. I think the action is the same, 

21 right? But I think you're right it should be.

22 MR. FARVER: I mean, I don't know we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 can do anything about it, but I'm just saying 

2 --

3 MR. STIVER: It kind of raises the 

4 issue in general, something we probably 

5 haven't looked at. And the software V&V is, 

6 you know, this issue of running from different 

7 --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, different 

9 platforms or whatever.

10 MR. STIVER: -- remotely and network 

11 versus -- it shouldn't make a difference. 

12 You're possibly accessing an older version or 

13 a different version than you thought you were 

14 but --

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't have the 

16 knowledge base to even offer an opinion.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

18 MEMBER POSTON: So this isn't a 

19 Monte Carlo problem, it's a what you're 

20 running it on, a platform --

21 MR. STIVER: Sounds like it. 

22 MEMBER POSTON: I was going to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 if you ran the Monte Carlo problem a hundred 

2 times, you'd get a hundred different answers.

3 MR. FARVER: But I think it was 

4 significantly lower than you would expect the 

5 differences to be. 

6 MR. STIVER: By chance or by 

7 probability. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, too low. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. On average, you'd 

10 get the same results with the Monte Carlo 

11 site.

12 MR. STIVER: Offset if they were 

13 using that access to one platform versus the 

14 other, so it's kind of strange. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think we, 

16 I don't think there's any further action here, 

17 except the follow-up on the PER question, 

18 right? I think that's the main --

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: What I was trying 

20 to mean by this, Mark, is I know that we've, 

21 that they've been taking corrective actions to 

22 do this, but I was just thinking, under our QA 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 program, this is something that we may want to 

2 just kind of follow up with to make sure that 

3 these, you know, have been functioning well. 

4 That's all I was trying to say. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and I agree. 

6 I think it should still be categorized as a 

7 QA finding. But the action, I don't think 

8 there's any effect on this case, it looks 

9 like, right? So the action would be the 

10 action that NIOSH is taking, which is to look 

11 to see the impact, the broader impact.

12 MR. FARVER: No, it wouldn't impact 

13 this case because you're only looking at a PoC 

14 of about 39 percent.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's in 

16 the green there, right, or somewhere they 

17 address the -- right above the green, yes. So 

18 I think it's closed for this case and the PER 

19 follow up, but I think it should be labeled as 

20 a QA. So, you know, when we pull these 

21 together and do a wrap-up report, we'll have 

22 that information as a QA finding, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 MR. FARVER: And we wrote it up 

2 because it was approximately, our doses that 

3 we determined were about 50 percent. Well, 

4 about twice what the NIOSH dose was, and 

5 that's why that would be a difference we 

6 didn't attribute to just the Monte Carlo 

7 calculation. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

9 MR. KATZ: It's a little bit weird 

10 to call it a QA issue because this is not a 

11 problem we expect to catch even in -- we 

12 wouldn't normally be doing QA for this kind of 

13 -- you don't expect this to happen. 

14 MR. FARVER: You do from now on. 

15 MR. KATZ: No, I know. No, I know, 

16 going forward. But I'm saying, in other 

17 words, we've categorized a lot of problems as 

18 QA because QA should have been, should have 

19 caught it. And all I'm saying here is the 

20 distinction here is you really wouldn't expect 

21 this problem to occur. We don't even 

22 understand why it's occurring. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

2 MR. KATZ: So it's not something you 

3 have a QA program that should have caught and 

4 then ultimately did, because they did catch 

5 it, but, I mean --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Even if they're 

7 testing the software, they're not likely to 

8 look at different servers and --

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, exactly. Right. So 

10 that's all I'm saying is it's not really a 

11 criticism of the QA program in this case. 

12 MR. FARVER: Well, I mean, I'm going 

13 to have to take issue with that because, I 

14 mean, we caught it. We're looking to compare 

15 their doses to what we think the doses should 

16 be. 

17 MR. KATZ: No, but you caught it 

18 because you're reviewing these cases. I mean, 

19 they're not reviewing all their cases this way 

20 to --

21 MR. FARVER: Well, they're doing 

22 peer review on all their cases. You should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 have some idea what the doses should be, and 

2 if you're running about half of what it should 

3 be, that should send up a flag. 

4 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I'd 

5 say this is something that would kind of come 

6 out of the blue. I mean, I don't see, in any 

7 V&V system I've ever been involved in, we 

8 wouldn't have really looked at running the, 

9 you know, how the particular code was accessed 

10 in a run. It's just not something you would 

11 expect to cause a problem. But they did 

12 discover it, and so I guess there is some 

13 issue, at least with that cell-based programs 

14 maybe. So I don't know if it's really 

15 something you can describe to a deficiency in 

16 the QA process. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: So what do you do?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How would you 

19 describe it? 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is Brad 

21 again. And let's step back to the program if 

22 it's not a QA issue. I guess we just blew 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 that one out of the water. This is why I'm 

2 saying I understand that with this case it 

3 isn't an issue, but when we're doing our blind 

4 reviews, to be able to look to make sure these 

5 programs are doing what they're supposed to be 

6 doing, I agree with Doug on this that this was 

7 caught but maybe a periodic check or whatever 

8 to be able to make sure that -- because my 

9 understanding is that a lot of these are being 

10 done remotely from other areas, accessing 

11 these programs, and just to kind of make a 

12 quality to be able to make sure that 

13 everything is running as it should be for 

14 this. 

15 MR. STIVER: Call this a lesson 

16 learned and, in the future, you know, look at 

17 that aspect. 

18 MR. FARVER: But, I mean, in this 

19 specific instance, you know, for what we were 

20 looking at, that we came up with twice of what 

21 NIOSH did, for that year there were 25 zero 

22 cycles for a missed dose. So now you've got 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 25 times 20 millirem, so you're looking at --

2 what's that? Five hundred millirem. So right 

3 there is 500 millirem that you kind of look at 

4 and say, okay, that's 500 millirem, we're 

5 going to have some modified factors, but I 

6 came up with 120 millirem and I didn't even 

7 add in my shielded dose yet, my deep dose. 

8 I mean, you kind of have to get a 

9 feel for what you're doing and be able to look 

10 at these doses and see if they're reasonable. 

11 That's my opinion. I mean, I think that, 

12 especially if you're working on these doses 

13 and you're specifically working on a site, you 

14 should have an idea on what those doses should 

15 turn out to be. 

16 MS. LIN: Doug, do you have an idea 

17 of what the dose is going to turn out to be 

18 before you actually run the dose or look at 

19 the dose value? 

20 MR. FARVER: Just by putting the 

21 doses together that you've got 25 missed doses 

22 at 20 millirem a piece? Right there is 500 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 millirem. So if I'm coming up five with 120 

2 millirem, then I'm thinking something might be 

3 off.

4 MS. LIN: Is that how you caught 

5 this issue? 

6 MR. FARVER: Well, I didn't 

7 necessarily do this case.

8 MS. LIN: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: No, we caught this 

10 issue because we picked a year, we went back 

11 and looked at it, and did a dose, you know, 

12 manually. We compared it to their doses, 

13 realizing that they used a Monte Carlo 

14 calculation, and we understand there's going 

15 to be 10 - 15 percent differences, but this 

16 was over 50 percent, so we wrote it up as a 

17 finding.

18 MS. LIN: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: But I'm just saying, if 

20 you're working with this spreadsheet all the 

21 time at the same site, you're going to have an 

22 idea on what those doses should be based on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 the parameters that are input. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Missed doses are so 

3 problematical. They really are. You know, 

4 you're making a claimant-favorable assumption 

5 that a dose actually was somehow overlooked, 

6 and the reality is that may be the case, but 

7 it may not be the case. It may be that there 

8 was no dose during that particular time, and 

9 it's always been problematical. But I see 

10 what you're saying, Doug, you know. You're 

11 right. You ought to have a, if you've done a 

12 half dozen of those cases for that area, you 

13 generally have some feel.

14 MR. FARVER: I mean, granted, it's 

15 not an easy thing to catch. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. But --

17 MR. FARVER: But I'm not going to 

18 rule it out and say, oh, no, there's no way, 

19 someone would have caught that. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's a puzzle. 

21 And added to the difficulty of the puzzle is 

22 so what do you do about it now? Can you do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 anything about it?

2 MR. FARVER: All you would do about 

3 it now is make sure that your Vose system 

4 works on all different, you know, whether it's 

5 remotely or --

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Because you're using 

7 @Risk --

8 MR. FARVER: You better do a lot of 

9 testing. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we use @Risk. I 

11 think ORAU still uses the Vose Monte Carlo 

12 method for all their stuff. I think Doug's 

13 point, yes, when you have a tool, you know, 

14 what kind of configurations are you going to 

15 run in the end? And it should run the same in 

16 all those configurations. I mean, that's --

17 MR. FARVER: I mean, that's what 

18 we've learned from that.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That's what we've 

20 learned from that. Yes, I think that, if 

21 you're the dose reconstructor, when you push 

22 the button and run the tool, it seems to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 some sense to say, well, maybe spot check and 

2 see did it come out about where it should? 

3 You know, that's what you're saying.

4 MR. FARVER: Right.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I guess I'd 

6 have to talk to some people who do dose 

7 reconstructions to see what they say about 

8 that. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: You don't know because 

10 if there was more dose, more actual dose, your 

11 missed dose is going to go down, you know? So 

12 --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, you'd 

14 have to know which line you're talking about 

15 and how many zeros were in there. So it would 

16 take a little looking. It's not an easy, 

17 particularly straightforward --

18 MR. CALHOUN: I still don't even 

19 know how it really happened. Scott, do you 

20 have anything on that? Did you guys dig any 

21 deeper? Do you know what actually happened? 

22 Is it just a function of the different, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 running from different machines or different 

2 starting points? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Like I said, we dug 

4 into it about as much as we could, and that 

5 was our best guess as to what was happening. 

6 But as I said, it wasn't even, if I remember 

7 correctly, and, like I said, we did this, you 

8 know, three or four years ago, the values that 

9 were coming out, it didn't happen every time. 

10 It was not necessarily replicable. The error 

11 was not occurring every time, even if you were 

12 doing it remotely. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: And that's what really 

14 and truly hits you in the back of the knees. 

15 What do you do after that? 

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

17 because now you don't know if you're running 

18 into outliers on your bell curve. We brought 

19 it up because it was just that large 

20 difference. That's why we brought it up. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's worth 

22 knowing about. Whether there's something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 constructive one can do about it is a 

2 different question. I don't see any clear 

3 path for construction there. 

4 MR. FARVER: Other than you might 

5 want to just, you know, check for --

6 MEMBER MUNN: Just check it once in 

7 a while, yes. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Hey, Scott, when you 

9 said it wasn't replicable, did you mean that 

10 if you ran the same case in the same 

11 configuration more than one time that it would 

12 be different or that sometimes if you ran a 

13 case with the, you know -- remote running on a 

14 server, that's the issue, right? On some 

15 cases, when you did that, it came out okay, 

16 and on different cases when you ran in that 

17 configuration you got this error? 

18 MR. SIEBERT: I can't say for sure, 

19 but I seem to recall the same person could run 

20 it and get the same low values, but another 

21 remote person could take the same input deck 

22 and get the, you know, what should be the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 correct values. And I believe that is how we 

2 actually tracked it out back in 2009 because a 

3 peer reviewer had run it again and actually 

4 gotten something slightly different, actually 

5 significantly different, and then started 

6 investigating into the issue. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Holy cow. I don't 

8 have the knowledge base to offer -- I'm going 

9 back to my earlier comment. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and that's the 

11 kind of thing that drives mathematicians or 

12 anybody that mathematics routinely nuts. 

13 There's no -- repeatability is our stock in 

14 trade, and it's --

15 MR. FARVER: See, that's the way it 

16 should be --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly, exactly. So 

18 when you run across something that's an item 

19 for the journal of very producible results, 

20 then you don't know how to address it. 

21 MR. FARVER: But that was good a 

22 peer reviewer did have a different result.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

3 MR. STIVER: The system worked in 

4 this case, and it was captured. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: It's good to know. I 

6 just don't know what to do about it. 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is 

8 absolutely required for the calculations. 

9 They're not several -- you discussed 

10 alternative ways of getting this result. Is 

11 there only one way in Monte Carlo? 

12 MR. FARVER: Well, they have a 

13 spreadsheet they use with their Monte Carlo 

14 calculations. We didn't do that. We did hand 

15 calculation, but ours was quite a bit 

16 different. That's what flagged it for us. I 

17 mean, I don't think there's anything that we 

18 can do about this. 

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: You can't let it 

20 lie. You can't close it. We cannot close it. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: We can suggest that 

22 the folks who do this type of calculation in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 frequent intervals check their, run through a 

2 process that tells them whether they're having 

3 this difficulty routinely. But I don't know 

4 what else you can do, other than --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, we can go 

6 back to other cases before where we used the 

7 Monte Carlo and see about whether the people 

8 are going to, whether we can reproduce the 

9 difference or whether the difference 

10 disappears. 

11 MR. FARVER: They looked at over 300 

12 and they found 15 cases or so that --

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. I 

14 missed that. I missed that.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and another 

17 thing -- this is Scott. Another thing to 

18 remember, this is Crystal Ball, which we 

19 retired, you know, four years ago or three 

20 years ago. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we hope it's 

22 not happening on the new system, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's the key --

2 this is Brad -- that it's not happening with 

3 the other ones. I guess I'll just throw my 

4 two cents' worth into this is, Scott, I think 

5 that you guys did a marvelous job and I 

6 appreciate looking at what the corrections are 

7 that you guys did when you did see an issue 

8 like this. I think the only thing that we 

9 could do is to suggest to the quality 

10 assurance people that are spot-checking some 

11 of these, to tell them to keep this in the 

12 back of their mind. That's all we're going to 

13 be able to do. But if we do see problems with 

14 these programs like that, we do just as you 

15 have done, and that is run through the 

16 programs, try to make the corrections that we 

17 have, and go on for it. 

18 I really think, to tell you the 

19 truth, this also shows us that the QA program 

20 that has been starting into the process is 

21 doing what it should, too, because you saw an 

22 issue, you addressed it. I guess what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 just looking at, there's no clear cut, we've 

2 got to check what we're going to be able to do 

3 with this, but to be able to just make sure 

4 that people are aware that this glitch has 

5 been seen in other programs and to keep an eye 

6 out. And maybe if there's a spot-check you 

7 can do, check to make sure that they're doing 

8 it. That's, I think, all that we can do. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let me ask 

10 the broader question because you said you 

11 reviewed 300 cases and have 15 instances. But 

12 Crystal Ball, I assume, would have been used 

13 for more than 300 cases; is that wrong? 

14 You're just talking about this one --

15 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, it would not 

16 have been because it's only used in the best 

17 estimates.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's only --

19 okay, okay. All right. So that was the 

20 universe of the cases.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. We pulled 

22 every Crystal Ball, every EDCW tool that used 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 Crystal Ball.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 

3 wanted to make sure of that. I thought there 

4 would have been a bigger population. Well, I 

5 don't know if we can take this any further. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Just ask that remote 

7 users be made aware of the potential.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is one 

10 of the things that the people that spot-check 

11 this, when they're seeing that, you know, it's 

12 being done remotely or something like this, it 

13 just may be to double check that we don't have 

14 another glitch in one of these systems. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think we 

16 can move on to the next one, 212.1. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just for the 

18 record, this is David. I've been here for a 

19 while listening and shaking my head. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought I heard 

21 that, David. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Any comments on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 that last topic, David? 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: None that are 

3 productive. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. All right. 

5 212.1. 

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. 212.1, NIOSH did 

7 not consider the employee may have been 

8 exposed to other things that were reported in 

9 the CATI report. This goes back to -- let's 

10 see. The CATI report has section -- let's see 

11 what section it is. I forget what it is. 

12 Section 3 where they go through and they can 

13 check off the different chemicals and 

14 radionuclides they have been exposed to. Do 

15 you remember that block section, Mark, and 

16 then the CATI report where people just go 

17 through and check it off. 

18 Apparently, this employee also 

19 checked off uranium, plutonium, and iodine. 

20 And the finding came because they were not 

21 considered in the DR. 

22 Anyway, I looked at the case files, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 I looked at the CATI, and that's the only 

2 place it was mentioned was just in, you know, 

3 those three check blocks. So I'm, I have a 

4 hard time criticizing NIOSH too much for that 

5 because it really wasn't based of the work 

6 activities as much as just the checking off of 

7 the blocks. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: All it really says is 

9 it was at present --

10 MR. FARVER: Yes. So I would just 

11 go ahead and suggest closing this. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

13 we've got agreement on that, right? 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Is 215.1 

16 the next one? 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it looks 

18 like it.

19 MEMBER MUNN: It looks like. Let's 

20 see the response. 

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let me see what 

22 I wrote. Okay. For this specific case, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 went back and looked at NIOSH's response and 

2 all the employees' data and the TBD. And for 

3 this case, for the time period of '61 to '74, 

4 we do agree with not assigning missed neutron 

5 dose based on where the employee worked, not 

6 so much based on the report which was report 

7 33 which I think has a new number. But, 

8 anyway, not so much based on their report but 

9 based on just where the employee worked for 

10 this case. 

11 I just want to point out that we 

12 reviewed the Y12 TBD back in 2005 and 

13 identified ten findings, which I don't believe 

14 have been resolved, and finding five of that 

15 report had concerns about the neutron 

16 dosimetry. It would have dealt with this 

17 finding. 

18 But in this case, I don't see 

19 anything more we can do. But I just want to 

20 let you know that those other TBD findings are 

21 still hanging out there. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Yes, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 don't see it here, but I know, at some point, 

2 we talked about Y12 Work Group, which I think 

3 is non-existent right now. We don't have one, 

4 but we have these outstanding findings. So I 

5 think that comes up later in one of our 

6 comments, but this one is, you're right --

7 MR. FARVER: I will go ahead and 

8 close it. I just don't, I want everyone to 

9 remember those findings are still out there.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Mark, your discussion 

12 on that is in the very next one, the 

13 observation number one.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I thought it 

15 might be coming up. Okay. Thanks, Scott. 

16 MR. KATZ: No, no, no, your 

17 findings, when --

18 MR. FARVER: 2005. 

19 MR. KATZ: 2005. Okay. So there 

20 haven't been revisions since 2005?

21 MR. FARVER: I don't know if there 

22 have been revisions or not. I don't believe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 there has. 

2 MR. STIVER: Those findings came out 

3 of the review in 2005. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, that seems like a 

5 long time ago. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So, 

7 yes, observation 215, observation one actually 

8 does say that about the refer to Y12 Work 

9 Group, which I think we should mention to the 

10 Chair we need a Y12 Work Group. I don't know 

11 if there's anything else on this --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, Mark? I 

13 brought this up to Jim, and he was willing to 

14 set up a Work Group. Just one of the things 

15 on this was we didn't want to miss this when 

16 the Work Group does come up. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure, all right. 

18 So he's on top of it. Alright. And 

19 observation one then, is there anything else 

20 with that? I think that was the main thing, 

21 right? --

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. Really, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 observation one just went back and cited some 

2 findings, one and two, from that Site Profile 

3 review.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: From the matrix. 

5 Yes, yes, okay. 

6 MR. FARVER: Should we just keep 

7 that open, or what do we want to do?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think if we are 

9 referring it, you know, we're going to set up 

10 a Work Group and it will be handled in the 

11 Work Group. So we don't have to keep it 

12 yellow.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It will be 

15 handled in the Work Group. 

16 MR. FARVER: I didn't make it 

17 yellow.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Somebody did, 

19 though. It can be closed for our purposes and 

20 referred to the non-existent Y12 Work Group 

21 but soon to be established. The Work Group 

22 formerly known as Y12. We won't get into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 that. Okay. Alright. I don't see -- there 

2 we go. 218, observation one, is that the 

3 next? Oops, all right. I missed one. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Observation four, 

5 where we turned polonium into lead. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Don, if you'd like, 

8 I'll cover that one for you, if it's all 

9 right. 

10 MR. FARVER: Sure. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: The initial issue was 

12 that when we ran CADW, the polonium doses, 

13 when we initially ran them in the dose 

14 reconstruction, were higher than when SC&A 

15 went to replicate them in their assessments. 

16 And the question was what was the difference 

17 in CADW, why was it giving us different 

18 values? And we've addressed that before, the 

19 fact that between those time periods we 

20 determined that this is a non-metabolic 

21 cancer, so you used the highest non-metabolic 

22 organ. We determined that bone surface was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 initially in the list of non-metabolic organs, 

2 and it should not have been. It's a metabolic 

3 organ. So it was actually giving us larger 

4 doses in that list of non-metabolic organs. 

5 It was always the highest non-metabolic organ.

6 So once we removed that out, because 

7 it is not a non-metabolic, the doses obviously 

8 dropped for all the highest non-metabolic 

9 organs. Wow. I just used the metabolic a 

10 whole heck of a lot. 

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And you said it 

12 quite well. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In one long 

14 sentence, yes, yes. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: So that's the generic 

16 issue that's been addressed here. The 

17 additional question that came out last time, 

18 which I wanted to address, is because of the 

19 second bullet that we had there, there was a 

20 question about what happens when the doses go 

21 up instead of down in CADW. Unfortunately, 

22 when I looked back at this, it was just an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 over-exuberance of cutting and pasting on my 

2 part. That second bullet should never have 

3 been there because it actually refers to lead 

4 210, as opposed to polonium 210. The polonium 

5 210, at the very beginning of it, is a 

6 misprint. 

7 I pulled this from the document that 

8 we keep of updates to CADW, so we keep a list 

9 of what's been updated in CADW. 

10 Unfortunately, that said polonium at the 

11 beginning, and it really is lead-210, which 

12 makes sense because it's talking about progeny 

13 and independent and mixed kinetics. 

14 So that second bullet should have 

15 never been in there. But since it was there, 

16 it brought up the question at the end what are 

17 we doing in cases where CADW has increased 

18 doses? And the bottom line is we are looking 

19 into the point -- we have never had a PER on 

20 that process so far, but we are looking into 

21 the possibility of doing that, along with 

22 DCAS. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. A little bit of 

2 background how this came about. When we were 

3 reviewing this case, we went and used the 

4 parameters for the intake and solubility, put 

5 it into the CADW program, and it came out with 

6 a dose that was about six times lower than the 

7 dose that NIOSH had listed in their dose 

8 reconstruction, which makes you go hmm. 

9 And so we started looking and we 

10 found out that we were using the version 5.04, 

11 and NIOSH was using 6.02. And then we 

12 wondered, well, why is there a difference 

13 between versions, and that's what brought up 

14 the whole issue because it was just, you know, 

15 being off by a factor of five or six was more 

16 than we would expect. But that's how that 

17 came about. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And, Scott, you 

19 say you are checking old cases? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we presently are 

21 not because our client has not asked us to do 

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

210

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, right, right, 

2 right. I mean, it says in here --

3 MR. FARVER: NIOSH is reviewing a 

4 need for a PER for this issue. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Expect me to say 

6 something intelligent about this. Everybody 

7 is saying when have you ever said anything 

8 intelligent? 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is in cases 

10 where you're overestimating the doses? --

11 MR. CALHOUN: I think what I heard 

12 him say is this is when cases go up, and we've 

13 never done a PER for that, you know. We're 

14 not going to pull money away. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: How about Scott, 

17 Grady, and I talk about this some time, and 

18 maybe it will make some sense to me because 

19 right now it doesn't make sense to me. 

20 MR. FARVER: Okay, that's fair. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: All right. So you'll 

22 continue to review --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, fair enough. 

2 Okay. 218, observation one. And, again, if 

3 we set up a Y12 Work Group, these will go to 

4 the Y12 Work Group. So we can just, there's 

5 no further action. I think it's a referral, 

6 and that's it, right? 

7 MR. FARVER: What one was that? I 

8 missed --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 218. The same 

10 thing with -- 

11 MR. FARVER: So we're just writing 

12 those as no further action? 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. The same 

14 thing with two, observation two. And then 

15 four, this one says SC&A will follow up on 

16 this issue, so that's a little different, I 

17 think.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes. I think I have 

19 something in here, as soon as my computer 

20 comes back to me. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: We still have 10 

22 through 13 on the agenda. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, then you can go. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: We've still got three 

3 hours, guys. 

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I have a 6:00 

5 appointment. 

6 MR. STIVER: Technetium-99, coworker 

7 data used. Monitored employees may not be 

8 appropriate or claimant favorable through 

9 1988, a period that includes this EE's work 

10 period. And we were to follow up on that 

11 issue. Doug's computer is hung up at this 

12 point.

13 MR. FARVER: It's spinning. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: So are we looking at 

15 218, observation four? 

16 MR. KATZ: Is it online, or is this 

17 just on your hard drive? 

18 MR. FARVER: It's just on the hard 

19 drive. 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: So which one are we 

21 looking at now? 

22 MEMBER MUNN: The very last one, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 bottom of the barrel. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Two-eighteen, 

3 observation four. 

4 MR. KATZ: Observation four.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Two-eighteen, 

6 observation four. Thank you. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. We're 

8 not disconnected, just a little radio silence 

9 here. 

10 MR. FARVER: It's a good thing I 

11 sent this back and had it fixed. Yes, the 

12 blue screen of death. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Doug, do you want 

14 a few minutes? We can take our break now.

15 MR. FARVER: Sure. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was trying to 

17 finish the matrix and then take a break. 

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, this is 

19 the last one. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's take ten 

21 minutes, and everybody go get some caffeine 

22 and come back. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Ten-minute break. 

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

3 the record at 1:57 p.m. and resumed 

4 at 2:07 p.m.)

5 MR. KATZ: We're back from a short 

6 break. Brad and David, are you still with us? 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

9 back.

10 MR. KATZ: Great. Okay, then. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is your computer 

14 working again? 

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, and it's kind of 

16 like a, no, never mind. That observation is 

17 not necessarily applicable even to this case 

18 because you can see that, in NIOSH's response 

19 at the bottom there, it did not have any 

20 appreciable dose while at K-25. This person 

21 worked at several sites. 

22 The observation refers to K-25, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 it is part of our review from the Site 

2 Profile. So it's basically number six from 

3 the Site Profile review that makes this 

4 statement about the coworker data up through 

5 1998, we had some concerns about it. We can 

6 go ahead and close this.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You can close 

8 this case, picked up in the Site Profile 

9 review.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. That's 

12 great. Now we're on to the other matrices, 

13 right? And I guess we should start off with 

14 the Savannah River one? it's on the agenda. 

15 I may need some help here because I don't 

16 know if I have the newest matrix that I sent 

17 out to everyone because I had it on my other 

18 work computer and I don't think I sent it to 

19 myself. So if someone can just tell where 

20 we're starting? 

21 MR. CALHOUN: Do you need it? 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Can someone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 --

2 MR. CALHOUN: Could I email it to 

3 you? 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Is this the one that 

6 says NIOSH update, March 2013; is that the end 

7 of this name? That's the one I got. I don't 

8 know how I got it but --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I should have one 

10 named as the last meeting date, the February -

11 -

12 MR. SIEBERT: Grady, yes, that is 

13 the last one.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Is it?

15 MR. SIEBERT: The one that Mark sent 

16 out with an addition of March 2013. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So if you 

18 can --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Which email address 

20 should I send it to you?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The csb.gov.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 MR. FARVER: According to my notes, 

2 the last time we dealt with the Savannah River 

3 was back in August of 2012. And we ended at 

4 277.4.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, no, no, we 

6 dealt with them in February. We discussed a 

7 few of them in February. Not many. 

8 MR. FARVER: Did we?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and that's 

10 what --

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Maybe that's 

12 pre-February notes. 

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: 321 I got. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: I'll send it to --

15 MR. KATZ: He doesn't have access to 

16 it. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the date when 

18 we got this? 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What time do you 

20 have to go, John? 

21 MEMBER POSTON: They moved it up an 

22 hour, so I probably should leave about 3:15. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 MR. FARVER: Three-oh-two is where 

2 we ended in February. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Is this something I 

4 can't send to a non-government thing? Let's 

5 see. Okay. Well, then John is out of luck. 

6 MR. STIVER: That's fine.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll read them 

8 out loud the best we can. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if I got 

10 that from Beth or if I got that from --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It came from Beth.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Did you find it for 

13 you, Stu?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Beth sent it on 

15 March 21st it looks like. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: Do you need it, too?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got it.

18 MR. CALHOUN: You got it? 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, now SC&A is 

20 going to update these things. So I used to do 

21 it all, and that was ridiculous. I mean, I 

22 got a memory stick, if you want to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 MR. SIEBERT: Just so everyone 

2 knows, the only change from when Mark sent out 

3 what's in the one that has NIOSH update in 

4 March is one single response. So if we want 

5 to talk around that, that's not a huge 

6 problem.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay, sounds good. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did you send 

9 that, Grady? Oh, great, yes, I got it. 

10 MR. FARVER: I don't think there was 

11 much difference.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, probably not 

13 much difference.

14 MR. FARVER: I think it was just one 

15 or two responses.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we didn't 

17 get very far, but we did do a little.

18 MR. FARVER: Oh, I mean, that we 

19 stopped at 302 in February, but the new matrix 

20 that Beth sent out only has one change to it. 

21

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 did we leave off, though?

2 MR. FARVER: Three-oh-two is what I 

3 had in my notes. We finished that. 

4 MR. STIVER: March 2013 update from 

5 DCAS, 280.2. 

6 MR. FARVER: Correct. They did an 

7 update on 284.2.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So should 

9 we start there, 280.2, and describe it as best 

10 we can so John has a sense? This is a shallow 

11 dose question. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, if you'd like me 

13 to, I can probably --

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, I think this is 

15 the 30, 20 keV issue or something like that. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: That's exactly what it 

17 is. 

18 MR. FARVER: Go ahead, Scott, if 

19 you've got a --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. This came down 

21 to the values that were in the TBD that were 

22 less than the 30 keV photon energy bin were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 not the values that were used in the dose 

2 reconstruction because the individual was in 

3 the plutonium areas. And when we have shallow 

4 dose, when the individual is in the plutonium 

5 areas, we use actually the 20 keV photon DCFs. 

6 And there was just a lot of discussion back 

7 and forth that it wasn't well referenced in 

8 the dose reconstruction report when we said 

9 less than 30 keV, whether we were really 

10 talking about the less than 30 keV out of the 

11 TBD or the plutonium special less than 30 keVs 

12 that are in OCAS-IG-1. 

13 So as you can see from the response 

14 that I added this week or last week, we are 

15 just going to, rather than wait for a TBD 

16 update, we're going to put in the Savannah 

17 River template clarifying language that states

18 that when we're using, when an individual is 

19 in the plutonium areas, the less than 30 keV 

20 photon DCFs are actually the 20 keV photons 

21 that are coming out of OCAS-IG-1. Just 

22 clarification documentation is all it is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

2 MR. STIVER: Eventually, this will 

3 go into the TBD, as well? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Eventually. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I would assume 

6 that there will be a statement in the TBD to 

7 reference back to OCAS-IG-1 for the plutonium 

8 areas. That would be my understanding. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: But just to be clear, 

10 Scott, it's not changing anything we're doing? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. It's what 

12 we've been doing for quite a while. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: The last NIOSH comment 

14 we had was that they'd consider revising the 

15 TBD. So I guess --

16 MR. CALHOUN: This is SRS the TBDs. 

17 MR. FARVER: It was just a matter of 

18 linking up the two. That was all. 

19 MR. KATZ: Closed? 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think closed, 

21 yes, yes. What are we on? 

22 MR. FARVER: I think we stopped at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 302. 

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I don't think 

3 this was marked all the way through then. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I have 

5 nothing for 280, observation one, actually. 

6 To be precise, right? And then 302.1. So do 

7 we have anything to say for 280, observation 

8 one? 

9 MEMBER MUNN: That's what we just 

10 did. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did we do that? 

12 I didn't think we did observation one. I 

13 thought we did 280.1. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, 280.1, that's 

15 closed. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Now 

17 observation one --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, you're saying 281? 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Observation one. 

20 Sorry. So NIOSH says they were looking into 

21 this, right? I'm not sure when that was but -

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

224

1 MR. CALHOUN: I can't add anything 

2 to what's in there. I don't know. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can hold it 

4 open. I just want to make sure we're clear of 

5 what the action is, if we have it in a --

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. For observation 

7 one, the DOE record for this case included a 

8 PER for the individual case Evaluation Report. 

9 This report indicates that the case may be 

10 affected by the PER related to OTIB-49 and 

11 exposure to highly-insoluble Super S 

12 plutonium. In the DR review, there's a 

13 statement that there's no substantial change 

14 in the previously reconstructed dose because 

15 the plutonium 239 intake method used for this 

16 case, i.e. your analysis, is not affected by 

17 the presence of highly-insoluble forms of 

18 plutonium. 

19 We reviewed the guidelines for OCAS 

20 PER 12 and revealed that the DR may not be 

21 affected by the presence of Super S, but not 

22 for the reasons given in the PER letter. In 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 this case, the cancer was cancer of the 

2 prostate, and the internal doses were 

3 determined using a hypothetical method, rather 

4 than the bioassay data. Therefore, this case 

5 is not affected by the guidelines concerning 

6 exposure to highly-insoluble plutonium. So it 

7 still was not affected, but it was not for the 

8 reasons that the letter that was in the case 

9 file said. 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Explain why you 

11 were using hypothetical rather than --

12 MR. FARVER: I wasn't using 

13 hypothetical. The dose reconstructor was.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Rather 

15 than --

16 MR. CALHOUN: I don't have a case 

17 number in front of me, so I don't know what 

18 kind of cancer it was. 

19 MR. FARVER: Prostate. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. 

21 MR. FARVER: But that's what that 

22 finding and observation involves, just that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 the letter that was in the file did not seem 

2 to be consistent with the OCAS, the PER 12 

3 criteria. Well, I'll go back and look at it. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I'm trying to 

5 write that on here but my Microsoft Word is 

6 not being very good to me right now. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the HP 

8 marked it wrong. I mean, the Evaluation 

9 Report gives several reasons why, several 

10 possible reasons why that PER wouldn't affect 

11 this case outcome. One of those is that it 

12 used a bioassay, urine bioassay, and since it 

13 would measure what's circulating in the blood 

14 stream, and this is an internal that was 

15 circulating there. So it wouldn't need to be 

16 changed. Presumably, it was diagnosed during 

17 his employment, you know. So that's one 

18 reason why you wouldn't, why it wouldn't 

19 change --

20 MR. FARVER: They would mark a box 

21 on the form, and then that would generate a 

22 letter or something like that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: Probably something like 

3 that, the wrong letter, got generated.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Another one is that 

5 we didn't use any bioassay. What we used was 

6 this hypothetical overestimating, or that was 

7 an early tool that we used for Savannah River 

8 when we were just trying to get some claims 

9 moving and we had this overestimating Savannah 

10 River intake that we don't use anymore but we 

11 used for a while. And that's what was used 

12 for this case is what I'm saying. So the 

13 documentation of the PER then is marked the 

14 wrong reason why it wasn't applicable. Okay. 

15 MR. FARVER: A long time ago, August 

16 2004. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know if 

18 we'll ever know why the HP --

19 MR. FARVER: Oh, you know, we can 

20 make that a finding. We just wanted to bring 

21 it to your attention that it just kind of 

22 looked a little odd to us. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So recommending 

2 to -- yes. Alright. 

3 MR. KATZ: Now we're on 302? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is just to be 

5 incorporated in the new revision. The 

6 guidance is, reference guidance in TIB-6. 

7 Provide anticipated revision date, December 

8 31st, 2013. I'm getting no response. 

9 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. All this to 

10 say is to, that the fractions that are in the 

11 Savannah River TBD were not the same fractions 

12 that they used. They used fractions from TIB13 6, energy fractions. And all we're saying is 

14 link those two together in your guidance so 

15 that you're consistent and don't have two 

16 separate distributions. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: Like I said, I know 

18 all of the SRS TBD sections are either very 

19 close to done or done, so I'd have to go back 

20 to look to see what they've done. I mean, I 

21 think we're going to have to, I can't say 

22 close or I can't tell you exactly what we've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 done on this one. And, unfortunately, that's 

2 going to be a lot of the answers on these, I 

3 think. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We're going to 

5 have, not only on this question but on the one 

6 we just talked about with the DCS for the 

7 less than 30 keV. That's another issue that 

8 should be clarified in the Site Profile, so we 

9 need to make sure that anything in here that 

10 speaks about ambiguity in Site Profile, we 

11 need to --

12 MR. FARVER: Needs to be 

13 incorporated.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in this round of 

15 revision for the Site Profile. 

16 MR. FARVER: But that's one and two 

17 are about here, just relating these energy 

18 fractions since they're consistent. And we're 

19 going to give that to NIOSH to look into? 

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: The 100 percent 

21 is for 30 to 250. I understand the 25/75 

22 split, but I don't see what the 100 percent is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 used for. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's see if I can 

3 cover this a little bit. The early badge had 

4 a filter over what we would consider the open 

5 window, right? Isn't this where this came 

6 from? So that if you had a low energy photon 

7 exposure, chances are the open window was 

8 actually shielded and it really wasn't open. 

9 So you don't really have a way to measure 

10 anything in that. I don't know how we arrived 

11 at 100. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: I don't think that, I 

13 don't think that, I don't know if that's a 

14 typo or not. That would be doubling the dose. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's why 

16 I was asking. I couldn't figure out what the 

17 100 percent --

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I don't get that 

19 right there. I think maybe that we used 100 

20 percent of the less than 30 for the beta dose. 

21 What we would typically call the open window 

22 dose, we just assume that it's 100 percent 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 less than 30 keV photons, but we wouldn't 

2 double it and assume twice. But, Scott, chime 

3 in here if you're smarter than me on this one. 

4 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

5 ORAU Team. This is a portion of non6 penetrating dose. In other words, open window 

7 minus shielded quantity. That quantity we're 

8 calling low-energy photons. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: But I don't know if 

10 you can see the response there. It looks like 

11 it says use 100 percent for less than 30 and 

12 30 to 250. 

13 MR. SMITH: I suppose the 

14 clarification could be 100 percent of the non15 penetrating quantity would be attributed to 

16 less than 30 keV photons.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Yes, that's 

18 what I thought.

19 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay.

20 MR. SMITH: And then the deep dose, 

21 in other words the shielded portion would be, 

22 again, 100 percent. That's where they did the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 30 to 250 keV.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Okay, got you, 

3 got you, got you. 

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. As opposed to 

5 what the TBD says is to take 25 percent --

6 MR. SMITH: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: -- deep dose --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Of your photon 

9 dose.

10 MR. SMITH: The TBD is saying, in 

11 general, you know, the criteria of what you 

12 would measure if you came in with a gamma 

13 spectrometer would be kind of a 25/75 split. 

14 But when it comes to using the dosimetry data, 

15 that OCAS-TIB-6 is what we follow. 

16 MR. FARVER: I just want it all to 

17 match up because just like you reading that 

18 there, 100 percent less than 30 and --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So --

20 MR. CALHOUN: Well, one and two are 

21 both definitely not --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 can we move to 302.3? 

2 MR. FARVER: 302.3. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess we can.

4 MR. FARVER: Fission products. Fail 

5 to assign this dose from all potential fission 

6 products. I believe we covered this several 

7 times before, and, in our response, I say I 

8 believe we have covered this several times 

9 before. No. SC&A recommends closing this 

10 finding, as it's previously been resolved. So 

11 it's one of these ongoing ones we've had for 

12 quite a while having to do with the 

13 radionuclide chooser and so forth. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

15 And what's the -- we've closed -- yes. 

16 MR. FARVER: We've closed it before, 

17 so we'll close it again.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll close it 

19 again. All right. 302, observation one.

20 MR. FARVER: Why does this look 

21 familiar? 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it says no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 action. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: These are SC&A's 

3 proposals, right? Is that that column? 

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's for our 

5 proposal. We like to say that for a lot of 

6 them. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the way we 

8 did this matrix. Remember? We asked the SC&A 

9 and NIOSH to get the other, make a 

10 recommendation to the Subcommittee. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: These are not records 

12 of our actions. Okay. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The final column 

14 would be records of NIOSH. So you're 

15 reviewing, Doug? 

16 MR. FARVER: I was trying to figure 

17 out what the observation was.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a good 

19 starting point.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Since it wasn't 

22 applied in this dose reconstruction, it should 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 have been removed from the draft to more 

2 accurately reflect what was done. 

3 MR. STIVER: It looks like 

4 observations one, two, and three are all 

5 related to these ongoing changes in the TBD. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: All related to 

7 incorporating TIB-6 into the TBD, except for 

8 number three. Number three says the finding 

9 was captured in the Site Profile review, and 

10 no response is necessary. So we can close 

11 that one. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's been 

13 moved to the TBD review or the Site Profile 

14 review. 

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, Site Profile 

16 review for three and four, observations three 

17 and four, so those two can be --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Observations 

19 three and four we can put referred to SRS Work 

20 Group, right? 

21 MR. STIVER: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 we've done before. And one and two, you're 

2 saying no action because NIOSH is doing an 

3 update, right? Within six months or eight 

4 months, six months? 

5 MEMBER MUNN: It says six.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Six months. 

7 Sorry. 

8 MR. CALHOUN: I'm going to check, 

9 I'm going to check our plan to find out where 

10 we actually stand on the external. But right 

11 now we're hinging a lot of this on the SEC 

12 that's been processed. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there are 

15 discussions coming on. 

16 MR. STIVER: So are we up to date on 

17 the --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm just 

19 trying to figure out, so what are we doing 

20 with observations one and two? Are we going 

21 to follow them on this Subcommittee? I mean, 

22 I think NIOSH is going to do the revisions. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 It's just a matter of timing, right? Yes. I 

2 just don't know where we should, where it's 

3 best to file it, with this case or with the --

4 I mean, it might be even better for SRS Work 

5 Group -- yes, because they're going to revise 

6 the profile, right? So, yes, I think it's 

7 easier to keep it all together. 

8 MR. STIVER: A place to track it. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And then we 

10 can ultimately close this case, right? So I 

11 say refer to SRS Work Group for one and two 

12 and three and four, right? 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, three and four 

14 is --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It might have 

16 already been referred to the Work Group, I 

17 think, right? It says finding is captured in 

18 the SC&A profile review. It's on the, it's 

19 still in the Site Profile review. 

20 MR. STIVER: So it would still be on 

21 the purview of the Work Group.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I don't think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 those were closed out yet because we're 

2 looking at SEC --

3 MR. STIVER: I don't believe they 

4 are.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, we 

6 can close it here but referral to the Work 

7 Group, right? That's all, yes. Okay --

8 MR. STIVER: I'm just frantically 

9 typing here.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- 303.1? 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I should 

12 probably mention that I don't know that we're 

13 going to have to be that --

14 MR. SIEBERT: But, Mark, this is 

15 Scott. For 303, I just want to point out, if 

16 you remember, we had a grouping A for the 10 

17 through 13 set --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I see that.

19 MR. SIEBERT: -- before we went to 

20 site specific. It was actually handled in 

21 that grouping A under that matrix, and it was 

22 all, I just checked to verify, all of them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 were marked as no further action, so 303 is 

2 actually complete. 

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, Scott is right. 

4 That was the one SRS case that was in the 

5 group A the first time we tried to look at 

6 them and the different types of groupings 

7 before we went to a site specific --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And the 

9 Subcommittee closed those out, too; is that 

10 what you're saying? 

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, we --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, alright. 

13 So maybe just refresh the thing to show that, 

14 right? 

15 MR. FARVER: Where are we at? 

16 MR. STIVER: 303. We're on page 18 

17 of 41, 12 set, 303. This was the only SRS 

18 case that was in the group A review.

19 MR. FARVER: What happened to 303 

20 one and 303 two? 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, he's saying 

22 that all of 303 was closed. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 MR. STIVER: Remember, we --

2 MR. FARVER: Oh, oh, okay. I see --

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, so those have all 

4 been closed out, all the findings in 303. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we should just 

6 update it to reflect that the Subcommittee 

7 closed them. Yes. 

8 MR. STIVER: Just make a note that 

9 all the findings and observations associated 

10 with 303 have been --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Taking Scott's 

12 word for that, yes. 

13 MR. STIVER: -- addressed. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Then we go 

15 up to 304.1? 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm sorry. This is 

17 Brad. I was having a hard time following 

18 everything. So what did we do with these? 

19 Are they closed or --

20 MR. KATZ: Closed. So, Brad, all of 

21 303 is closed. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 everybody was kind of talking over each other, 

2 and I heard closed, and I just wanted to make 

3 sure. Thanks.

4 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we're up to 

6 304.1 then. And SC&A's recommendation then is 

7 this is a Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

8 issue. You're deferring. 

9 MR. STIVER: These were the ones 

10 that we felt we could not address just by, you 

11 know, conversing one on one, but it really 

12 warranted discussion within the Subcommittee. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure, sure. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Cycle data. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you go 

16 through the explanation of the cycle data and 

17 --

18 MR. FARVER: I'm trying, but I'm 

19 trying to find 304. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I heard David is 

21 asking about it. 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 MR. FARVER: Yes. Okay. Over in 

2 the fifth column where it says from OCAS-TIB3 6, when cycle data which is like a dosimeter 

4 cycle, quarterly or --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: -- we'll put in as a 

7 zero -- or year information is missing from 

8 the SLHP3 form, the dose reconstructor should 

9 evaluate the following criteria, and that's 

10 taken from TIB-6. 

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

12 MR. FARVER: And then down there you 

13 can see in bold where it says discussion of 

14 the method used for the missed dose and the 

15 rationale for why it was included or excluded 

16 shall be included in the dose reconstruction 

17 in the report. So we believe the method used 

18 by NIOSH for this case was not claimant 

19 favorable and is not consistent with the 

20 method used to assign dose for unmonitored 

21 employment period. 

22 Okay. The assignment of missed dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 for unmonitored periods of employment, which 

2 include 1976 and 1983 to '85, is not claimant 

3 favorable and inconsistent with the method 

4 used to assign dose for other unmonitored 

5 employment periods. NIOSH assigned a coworker 

6 dose for '52 through '54 and '71 to '72 when 

7 the records indicate the employee was not 

8 monitored. Since the employee worked as an 

9 instrument mechanic from '55 until the end of 

10 his career, SC&A believes that the employee 

11 should have been assigned a coworker or 

12 unmonitored dose for '76 and '83 through '85. 

13 In other words, we're saying the job 

14 didn't change, so if you do it for one period 

15 you should do something similar for the other 

16 periods. This would have resulted of an 

17 additional dose of 186 millirem using the 50th 

18 percentile coworker model or a 1.358 rem using 

19 a more likely 95th percentile model, which we 

20 then discuss in the next finding, 304.2. 

21 So there's still issues. One, we 

22 think they should have assigned a coworker or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 a monitored dose for other periods than what 

2 they did. And, second, we believe it probably 

3 should have been a 95th percentile instead of 

4 a 50th percentile, and that goes into 304 that 

5 they did not know if they used the appropriate 

6 coworker model. 

7 MR. STIVER: Yes. So 304.1 and 

8 304.2 are related to each other, or should 

9 they have used a coworker model for missed 

10 dose and then one percentile for distribution 

11 to select. 

12 MR. FARVER: And the reason I kind 

13 of kicked it back to the Subcommittee was, you 

14 know, I'm not sure I'm going to get anywhere 

15 talking to Scott about this because, you know, 

16 it's pretty clear how they look at this, and I 

17 read TIB-6 that they should have, if you're 

18 going to do that then you better include your 

19 justification. Now, we just didn't understand 

20 why they treated the two instances separately, 

21 and, you know, they give an explanation. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, do you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 have anything to add in on this? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I will say the 

3 reason they were handled differently is 

4 because the records are different during those 

5 time frames. OCAS-TIB-6 was specifically 

6 written to deal with the time frame of '73 

7 through '88, knowing that their records, they 

8 did not record zeros, they just left them as 

9 blanks during that specific time frame. So 

10 when you look at this individual's records, 

11 there are years that show up in his annual 

12 dose report that clearly they show as blank 

13 instead of zeros during the '73 to '88 time 

14 frame. And then specifically '76, '83, '84, 

15 and '85, the years are there in the annual 

16 report. There's no numbers listed, no zero, 

17 no number, no nothing. The lines are there, 

18 but there's just not an entry. And based on 

19 the way that Savannah River was doing their 

20 records, they were not reporting those zeros. 

21 So OCAS-TIB-6 was written to cover that time 

22 frame that if you see that that likely the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 individual was being monitored, and there was 

2 nothing greater than detectable, so we fill 

3 that time frame as if they were fully 

4 monitored with dosimeters and give them missed 

5 dose for those missing time frames. That's 

6 the whole point of OCAS-TIB-6.

7 The reason different years, the 

8 years outside of that were handled differently

9 were because they're outside of that time 

10 frame, and OCAS-TIB-6 is written specifically 

11 for '73 through '88. So that's why they're 

12 handled differently. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So in other 

14 words, you know that you have documentation 

15 saying that the practice during that time 

16 period was to leave blank when they were were 

17 monitored and below detectable?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Scott, 

21 what other years, besides the years that you 

22 mentioned in the '73 to '88 period, were there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 other years when the individual's record did 

2 not include any zeros? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there were, '52 

4 through '54 and '71 through '72, there were no 

5 values listed for those years either. 

6 MR. FARVER: And those were treated 

7 as unmonitored. 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: So he was an 

9 instrument mechanic from '54 forward; is that 

10 what we said?

11 MR. FARVER: I believe so. His 

12 whole career. His job, I do not believe, 

13 changed. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So the 

15 thought process here is from '54 through '70 

16 he was an instrument mechanic and he was 

17 monitored because we got --

18 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let me back up a 

19 second. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the dose 

20 reconstruction report. And, actually, for '53 

21 and '54, he was working for a painting 

22 subcontractor. So we assigned coworker doses, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 along with the CTW construction worker values. 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then '55 

3 he became an instrument mechanic? 

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's what I see, 

5 yes.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And he was 

7 monitored? 

8 MR. STIVER: Presumably monitored. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, apparently he 

10 was. We've got a record, right? From '55 

11 forward? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Right. '54 through 

13 '70 we have values for every year. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So he was 

15 monitored during those years. '71 and '72, 

16 based on what we see here, he was not 

17 monitored because that's outside of the TIB-6 

18 period, so we don't have anything in this 

19 record.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

21 MR. FARVER: So we've got coworker 

22 dose. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So what we've 

2 established now is a pattern of an instrument 

3 mechanic who some years is monitored and then 

4 other times, because of assignment, is taken 

5 off the monitoring list. 

6 MR. FARVER: And you assign 

7 coworker.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: And you assign 

9 coworker. I know. I'm just trying to figure 

10 out how they --

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So now we 

13 enter the '73 through '88 period when, for 

14 most of those years, he's monitored because he 

15 have his records, but there are those handful 

16 of years when there is nothing in his record 

17 which can be interpreted as either he wasn't 

18 monitored or he had all zeros. 

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Now, am I 

22 interrupting? Sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So what I'm getting 

2 at, and I think this is probably where Doug is 

3 coming from, is that we have a pattern of an 

4 instrument mechanic who some years is 

5 monitored and some years is not. 

6 MR. FARVER: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And so when you go 

8 to the TIB-6 criteria of looking at this guy's

9 work history and decide what was, you know, 

10 what were the possible things that were going 

11 on during '73 to '88 when we don't know if he 

12 was monitored or had all zeros. We have 

13 already established that, at least for a few 

14 years before that, Savannah River would have 

15 instrument mechanics who were not monitored. 

16 So you would say that a coworker dose, if they 

17 were not monitored at all, then you would want 

18 to use a coworker dose, not a missed dose. 

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So that's 

21 where you're coming from.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 MR. HINNEFELD: So is there other 

2 information? I mean, does the external or 

3 does the bioassay record give indication of 

4 whether his work activity would allow you to 

5 determine, well, he probably was monitored and

6 had all zeros because he was leaving bioassay 

7 samples or he was leaving bioassay samples 

8 when we got records and then he was leaving 

9 bioassay samples when it's blank, so he 

10 probably wasn't monitored. Is there anything 

11 else to go with it, in addition to what OTIB-6 

12 -- see, OTIB-6 is a sort of permissive. You 

13 are permitted to interpret a blank dosimetry 

14 record as monitored with all zeros, but it's 

15 not instructive to say that that's definitely 

16 what it means. There's other things that 

17 you're supposed to consider. So, Scott, are 

18 there other things, other pieces of 

19 information that may prove to us the 

20 conclusion that he was monitored, he was 

21 likely monitored? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm flipping through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 his bioassay as we speak.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Well, they make 

4 reference to a relatively low dose, so without 

5 knowing the case number I can't look through 

6 it. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

8 MS. LIN: I think we're talking 

9 about this person's employment history --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm sorry. I'm 

11 normally better than that.

12 MS. LIN: I know you are. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: No, his bioassay 

15 monitoring ends in 1960. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So for many 

17 years when he was monitored, when he was 

18 externally monitored he didn't have bioassay 

19 data also. So that's not going to be helpful. 

20 MR. FARVER: It looks like tritium 

21 was assigned for quite a few years, from '54 

22 on it looks like. Well, it says he was not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 monitored for tritium. Oh, but based on 

2 maximum internal dose estimate for Savannah 

3 River, they count that in his tritium dose. 

4 Okay. That's not helpful either. 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Well, let's 

6 just go on to the second part of this question 

7 because I think it might be relevant to a 

8 resolution. The second part of your question 

9 was you suggested this person have a 95th 

10 percentile coworker dose, rather than the 50th 

11 percentile. 

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now, that one 

14 I don't follow because we have a person who's 

15 an instrument mechanic who is monitored for 

16 some years and not monitored for others. And, 

17 presumably, there was a decision made that, 

18 because of his assignment as instrument 

19 mechanic this year, we're not going to monitor 

20 him anymore. So why would he fit the 95th 

21 percentile profile of someone who works and is 

22 routinely exposed? It seems like that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 be an occasionally exposed person who'd be a 

2 50th percentile coworker type. 

3 See, in order for him to be an 

4 instrument mechanic, monitored some years, not 

5 monitored others, somebody at Savannah River 

6 decided we don't have to monitor this guy this 

7 year. Well, typically, you don't make that 

8 decision about the people who are most highly 

9 exposed. You make that decision about people 

10 who are not very highly exposed, and so they 

11 would be a 50 percenter, not a 95 percenter. 

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, I see where you're 

13 coming from, Stu. In our response here, it 

14 seems to be kind of predicated on the notion 

15 that in '53 and '54 he was a clerk and 

16 patrolman, which would probably have less 

17 exposure potential, and then went to an 

18 instrument mechanic slot or designation later. 

19 It's sort of an implied higher exposure 

20 potential going along with that secondary job 

21 position later on and that he might have, 

22 therefore, be given the higher, the 95th 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 percentile because he may have been in a more 

2 highly-exposed group. But what you're saying 

3 is that, based on the monitoring record, it 

4 would appear that the --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: I would assume that 

6 he would not be a highly-exposed person.

7 MEMBER MUNN: He's still in the 

8 lower exposed group. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I also 

10 looked at his actual monitoring records when 

11 he was being monitored, and they were low 

12 exposures, much more in line with the 50th 

13 percentile in the coworker study than if 

14 you're looking at the 95th percentile. It 

15 would have been much higher than anything he 

16 got while he was being monitored. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: So why would you put 

18 in there when he wasn't being monitored --

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I was wondering 

20 about what the dosimetry record was telling us 

21 about the period '73 through '82, except for 

22 '76. I mean, is there a consistency from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 before '71 on the exposure data, the dosimetry 

2 data, consistency from before '71 to the '70s 

3 and actually '85 to '89 because the person 

4 worked for 35 years, so he worked up through 

5 '89 or '90. Just to get an idea, even though 

6 what you've said about the bioassays also 

7 makes sense. It kind of goes off and on, and 

8 that's what, when he goes back on is he about 

9 the same as he was before, before '70 or '71? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. He would 

11 generally run zeros, except for he had a 

12 couple of years that were approximately 60 

13 millirem. Then we have a '71 - '72 time frame 

14 where we don't have anything. And then '73 he 

15 goes to 50. In '74, he jumps up to 300, but 

16 from that point on, when we have data, it's 

17 around 5, 10, 20 millirem or zeros. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Still talking about 

19 low exposure. 

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: We are talking 

21 about, except we're talking about low 

22 exposures in that period which suggests a job 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 change from instrument mechanic. A lesser --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: A lot of instruments 

3 you can repair without --

4 MR. SIEBERT: And to give an 

5 example, in '74, even when he was monitored 

6 and went up to 325 millirem, the 95th 

7 percentile for 1974 is almost one and a half 

8 rem, so it still does not, it does not line up 

9 with, even when he pops up. 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

11 helpful. So it does sound like there was 

12 change or low exposure in that period. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: A change, but still in 

14 a low-exposure range. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, which would 

16 lead to coworker model. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: At the 50th 

18 percentile.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. He didn't go 

20 into an operator's job or anything. 

21 MR. FARVER: The other thing I'll 

22 add to that is, if you want to do something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 like that, it says a discussion of a method 

2 used for missed dose and the rationale for why 

3 it was used, included or excluded, shall be 

4 included in a dose reconstruction report. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the dose 

6 reconstruction report does say in the missed

7 dose section, it gives the number of missed 

8 dose badges, and it says this number was based 

9 upon the reported badge exchanges with 

10 additional cycles assigned where it appeared 

11 that zero readings were not reported and is 

12 maximized to ensure all possible instances of 

13 zero badge readings were accounted for in this 

14 dose reconstruction. But they did call out 

15 what they were doing. They may not have 

16 clearly called out exactly why they were doing 

17 it, but they did call out what they were 

18 doing. 

19 MR. FARVER: They did call out what 

20 they were doing, yes. 

21 MR. STIVER: I'm willing to accept 

22 that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Could I ask the 

2 lawyer? I mean, there was a remark here that 

3 we're near HIPAA, and I don't understand. You 

4 can talk to me afterward or tell us all but --

5 MS. LIN: I can just put you in 

6 Privacy Act violation jail. 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? But 

8 what was it that we were moving toward that 

9 was personal and should have been protected? 

10 MS. LIN: So what we're talking 

11 about here -- maybe I should talk to you 

12 offline.

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Fine. That is 

14 fine. I didn't know how to handle it, but I 

15 want to understand.

16 MS. LIN: Yes. I mean, we have an 

17 obligation under the Privacy Act statute, so 

18 under the common law rubric where you protect

19 someone's privacy -- that's not specifically, 

20 you know, included in the Privacy Act. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And you'll talk 

22 to me afterward about it.--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 MR. SIEBERT: We can barely hear 

2 them on the phone. 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: It will be an 

4 offline conversation when it actually occurs.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

6 Thank you. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So are we closing 

8 this? 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 304.1 and 2. 

10 Alright. And then we have an observation for 

11 304. 

12 MR. FARVER: The case was reworked, 

13 and it looks like they added a year to the 

14 employment period and recalculated the PoC. 

15 And the PoC changed. The dose went from, it 

16 went up about a rem, and the PoC went from 42 

17 to 40 percent. The PoC went down. So the 

18 dose went up, and the PoC went down. That was 

19 the observation. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: You just need to know 

21 a lot more, like when the dose was assigned, 

22 was it changed from a later day, was it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 changed closer to the time that the diagnosis 

2 was made? 

3 MR. STIVER: You'd have to get into 

4 the innards of the IREP.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes. I mean, 

6 those kind of things are relatively easy to 

7 explain as far as where the dose falls 

8 relative to the time of diagnosis because if 

9 it's within five years it basically doesn't 

10 count towards the PoC to any significant 

11 amount. But without knowing the --

12 MR. STIVER: The only time it's for 

13 proportionality is we're looking at a dose in 

14 a particular period of time for the same 

15 organ. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, and what 

17 increased? Was it photon dose, beta dose, 

18 neutron dose? 

19 MR. FARVER: We just made it as an 

20 observation to make you aware that these 

21 things happen. 

22 MR. KATZ: Closed? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 MEMBER MUNN: Closed. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 329. Are we okay 

3 to move on? 329.1. So 329.1, are you 

4 looking through --

5 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to find it. 

6 MR. STIVER: While Doug is looking 

7 for the details, we can at least get into it a 

8 bit. This is that NIOSH failed to assign a 

9 monitored photon dose for the years 1962 to 

10 1966. And NIOSH responds it was a 

11 professional judgment based on the EE's 

12 occupation. It was assumed his risk for 

13 occupational exposure was likely limited to 

14 on-site ambient dose, as applied in the dose 

15 reconstruction. 

16 And we replied that the EE was 

17 monitored from '63 to '65 and we didn't find 

18 any evidence of a change in work assignment 

19 for the years on the outside of that range for 

20 '62 and '66, so it was reasonable to assume 

21 that the exposure potential was similar during 

22 working conditions and in the entire time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 period. And even if the EE would have been 

2 assigned a coworker dose, it would have 

3 resulted in, approximately, an additional 0.85 

4 rem to the thyroid. We believe that an 

5 ambient dose is not appropriate for those two 

6 years on either end of the monitored period, 

7 1962 and 1965. Take it from here, Doug? 

8 MR. FARVER: That's pretty much what 

9 the finding says. 

10 MR. STIVER: So it becomes a matter 

11 of judgment. There's no basis for assuming 

12 there was any difference in exposure 

13 potential. Why not just assign him the 

14 coworker dose? 

15 MR. FARVER: Instead of ambient 

16 dose. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: Scott, I'm going to 

18 have to rely on you on some of these because I 

19 haven't looked into them, so I don't know if 

20 you have anything else or not or if we need to 

21 go back and come back --

22 MR. SIEBERT: That's fine. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 digging as we speak here. In the dose 

2 reconstruction report, specifically in this 

3 one, we state that the EE's monitoring record 

4 -- let me make sure I'm talking toward the 

5 phone. Sorry. The EE's monitoring record 

6 reflects that they were only monitored 

7 continuously during the time frame in which 

8 she worked in the reactor facilities, 1963 

9 through 1965. That indicates, to me, that we 

10 have a reason to believe that that's the only 

11 time that she was working in the reactor 

12 facility. I'm digging on that as we speak. 

13 I believe it's based on the fact 

14 that those three years are the only years the 

15 individual was monitored and clearly working 

16 in the reactor areas. So the assumption made 

17 was when they were not monitored they were 

18 doing the rest of their duties, which were 

19 typist, paymaster, clerk, etcetera.

20 MR. STIVER: So is there any 

21 positive indication that they were not working 

22 in the reactor areas in those years or just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 there's no evidence that they were? I mean, 

2 it seems like, in this situation, you want to 

3 be claimant favorable and go ahead and give 

4 them the benefit of the doubt, the higher dose 

5 assignment. 

6 MR. FARVER: I mean, that's what I 

7 would think. If you don't have anything that 

8 says they weren't in the area, we go ahead and 

9 choose the higher of ambient or coworker. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: I think we're probably 

11 going to have to look back at this one. I 

12 don't think we're going to make a decision 

13 right now. We can look back at medical 

14 records or something. 

15 MR. FARVER: It's not going to swing 

16 the case one way or another for this, but it's 

17 just a matter of what do you do in situations 

18 like this? 

19 MR. KATZ: Scott, were you going to 

20 say something else? 

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I'm looking. 

22 This individual worked three separate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 employment periods: '55 through '59; well, mid 

2 '62 through mid '66; and then '80 through '95. 

3 Those middle three years are right in the 

4 center of that middle employment period. So, 

5 realistically, I can understand going either 

6 way for 1962 and 1966. The fact that there's 

7 no monitoring records, it appeared they had a 

8 reason to monitor her for those three years 

9 and did not have a reason to for the other 

10 years. I can understand that reasoning. I 

11 can also see the reasoning of saying, well, 

12 that middle period going through '62 and '66, 

13 doing coworker. I can see an argument for 

14 either one. 

15 MR. FARVER: And so can I, and 

16 that's why I would look at, you know, which 

17 was more claimant favorable and choose the 

18 higher of the doses. 

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But, Doug, in 

20 the SC&A response, I would prefer that you not 

21 discuss what the results would be that, well, 

22 it would add an additional 0.85 rems. That 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 shouldn't influence us. What should influence 

2 us is the decision that you're talking about 

3 about what we should do with those two years 

4 and that whatever happens happens. We 

5 shouldn't let ourselves be influenced by how 

6 much it will or will not be. Implicitly, the 

7 suggestion is it won't add much, and I don't 

8 want to have any implication that either it is 

9 what you say, that we should be claimant 

10 favorable and add them, or there's reason to 

11 believe that there were other job 

12 responsibilities in '62 and '66. I just, I'm 

13 urging not to put something like that in --

14 MR. FARVER: We have had Board 

15 Members request that we include something 

16 about how this would impact the case in our 

17 findings.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: One might argue 

19 a priori sometimes, that for certain 

20 instances, there's something that is trivial, 

21 whether you decide one way or the other, 

22 trivial. But 0.85 rems is not a trivial 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 number. I mean, I could see with medical 

2 doses or some kind --

3 MR. FARVER: So you would prefer if 

4 we didn't comment on how we believe it would 

5 impact --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I would prefer 

7 that, yes. 

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Let's just say 

10 that's one Board Member preferring it. Others 

11 have asked otherwise. I just feel like we're 

12 not trying to make a decision based on what 

13 the answer will be, however it will be. We're 

14 trying to make a decision on what is based on 

15 their employment, in this case on their 

16 employment record. 

17 MR. STIVER: And based on the 

18 process without being unduly influenced by the 

19 potential of the outcome on the probability --

20 MR. FARVER: My personal choice is 

21 we just write up the finding, and we tell you 

22 what we feel is wrong. We don't interpret. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 Like you say, we're not going to predict what 

2 could happen or things like that. That's my 

3 personal choice, and that's what we used to 

4 do. And we had input saying that they would 

5 like us to -- I mean, we want to go through 

6 these one-on-one questions and say, well, how 

7 is this going to affect the case? And Board 

8 Members want to know how is this going to 

9 impact the case? 

10 MEMBER MUNN: That's a very common 

11 question.

12 MR. FARVER: It is. And that's why 

13 we started putting something like this in 

14 here, and I'm not sure how to handle it. 

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay. 

16 Let's just say, in this case, I would, but I'm 

17 open to trying to understand why we should put 

18 something in, but, to the extent that this is 

19 a public record. Okay. Still, we don't want 

20 to -- this seems like it might influence a 

21 decision, and I don't want it to. The 

22 employment record should. But I can't give 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 you guidance because, obviously, other people 

2 have asked in other situations, so let's just, 

3 let's leave it. I would not have put it in and 

4 I'll learn and we'll talk more in other cases 

5 about --

6 MR. FARVER: And if this comes up in 

7 cases that we go over it in our one-on-ones on 

8 the phone, mention it. 

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, okay, 

10 fine. In general, I haven't found this to be 

11 a problem. But in this one, it looked to me 

12 like --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, I 

14 guess the other instance where it comes up is 

15 if it's close to where they should have used 

16 the best estimate technique or something like 

17 that, so people ask, you know --

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

19 That's correct. 

20 MR. STIVER: And in the context of 

21 the one-on-one discussions, it could very well 

22 come up. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So where are we? 

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, DCAS folks 

5 will look at it again with the employment 

6 record. So really we've decided it. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that was 

8 okay. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. 329.2 has to do 

10 with the medical doses. There were a couple 

11 of extra x-rays that were included in the 

12 file. And because they were outside of the 

13 covered employment period, they were not 

14 included as employment x-rays, even though the 

15 form that came along with the x-ray says that 

16 this includes a listing of all x-rays required 

17 as a condition of employment. So we kind of 

18 felt that they should have added those x-rays 

19 because their records state that they were 

20 completed as a condition of employment. 

21 I understand NIOSH's situation. It 

22 is outside their DOL employment period. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 employment period was --

2 MR. SIEBERT: '55 is when it 

3 started.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. I think it was 

5 '55 through '95. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Right. I mean, three 

7 periods, but yes. 

8 MR. FARVER: During three periods. 

9 And then you have these outside, which were, 

10 it looks like a year before and a year after, 

11 and I don't have the exact dates to know if it 

12 was, how late in the year or how early in the 

13 year. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they were done 

15 -- do we know why they were done? Were they 

16 closeout physicals on the one hand and, coming 

17 into the facility, they wanted to do them 

18 before? Were they working somewhere else 

19 where they might have preliminary scans? 

20 MR. FARVER: Let's see if I can find 

21 that real quick. I will try. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Seven months away or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 one year away? 

2 MR. FARVER: No, it doesn't say why. 

3 It says it was --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm curious if 

5 this is something that you guys run across a 

6 lot? I mean, I would imagine, you know --

7 MR. CALHOUN: I know that, in the 

8 past, we've had kind of a guideline that if 

9 it's more, if a pre-employment is more than a 

10 year away, a year from the --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes.

12 MR. CALHOUN: -- verified 

13 employment, it doesn't count because there's 

14 probably thousands and thousands of people who 

15 got pre-employment x-rays who were never 

16 employees. 

17 MR. FARVER: And is that in the 

18 guidance document somewhere? 

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

20 I'm not sure. 

21 MR. FARVER: Because that I don't 

22 remember reading. And if that's what you want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 to do, that's okay because that would probably 

2 explain these. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know about the 

4 past one, the one at the end of the employment 

5 period, though. I don't know that.

6 MR. FARVER: It looks like it was a 

7 year later. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: One was seven months. 

9 You can understand the seven days before 

10 employment. I can see that as being a 

11 condition of employment. But I can't imagine 

12 seven months beforehand having anything to do 

13 with the requirement. That seems really out 

14 of the --

15 MR. FARVER: I don't even understand 

16 why it would be done at all. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I mean, a 

18 general medical exam. I mean just an ordinary 

19 worker's medical exam would include an x-ray 

20 to make sure they --

21 MR. FARVER: A year before you 

22 employ them?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I was going to 

2 say in the seven-month period before, I wonder 

3 whether there were periods in which a person 

4 would apply and then there was no job opening, 

5 and they waited until there was a job opening. 

6 And then seven months later seems a perfectly 

7 reasonable amount of time. 

8 MR. STIVER: Conditional employment. 

9 MR. KATZ: Grady was nodding yes. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I think that 

11 that makes sense, that they may apply for a 

12 job and didn't get it. And then, you know, 

13 another job came open, and they got it. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Maybe they were 

15 waiting for their security clearance. But, 

16 you know, we don't know what their hiring 

17 process was. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: Outside of a verified 

19 employment by labor --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, it doesn't count. 

21 So if they applied for a job and they didn't 

22 get it, that would not be a covered exposure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 anyway because they would have never been a 

2 covered employee. 

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: If they applied 

4 for a job and they waited and the opening that 

5 they applied for was filled, and so they 

6 waited until the next employment, then that 

7 actually fits what you say. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But you didn't, 

9 it just said that --

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It's not covered 

11 employment. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You weren't sure 

13 if it was written policy, but you said that 

14 sometimes a year before --

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, yes --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Isn't that 

17 outside of the employment period? So you were 

18 violating -- what I mean, I think it's a 

19 policy call, right? And you're not going to 

20 know exactly, but if you said one year, that 

21 would seem reasonable, I think, to most 

22 people.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 MS. LIN: And isn't that the 

2 employment period determined by DOL? So if 

3 you know their starting dates or employment is 

4 this date, then that's when we start timing 

5 the exposure. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, but it 

7 sounds like --

8 MR. CALHOUN: But we have, in the 

9 past, included pre-employment --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

11 what -- if you're doing it by policy, and you 

12 have some cut off, I think that's reasonable 

13 to have in a document, you know. 

14 MR. FARVER: Just put it in a 

15 document somewhere that that's what you're 

16 going to do. 

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: The one a year 

18 after doesn't seem to me reasonable because 

19 the employment is over. 

20 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm not sure why 

21 they would take one a year later. 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Me neither, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 except a bad x-ray, if they can't read it or 

2 something. But it doesn't sound like it would 

3 relate to employment, whereas the first one 

4 does. And then claimant favorability. We've 

5 done it before and just make it a consistent 

6 policy. 

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. And dose-wise, 

8 it's pretty insignificant. 

9 MR. KATZ: So the resolution here is 

10 --

11 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. One 

12 additional point on that. Doug's comment in 

13 the resolution was pointing out that Savannah 

14 River, when they gave us the data, said these 

15 are the x-rays that are a condition of 

16 employment. Their definition may not be the 

17 same as ours, so just using anything that's on 

18 that sheet may not necessarily be appropriate. 

19 For example, they do put medical x-rays that 

20 were for injuries, and those are clearly not a 

21 condition of employment. So it can be 

22 slightly different, even though Savannah River 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 reports it. 

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Although the 

3 injuries would occur during the work periods, 

4 and we'd see extra x-rays. Rather than 

5 annual, we'd see a couple, you know, let's say 

6 in the summer months or something. 

7 MR. FARVER: They were still done 

8 under a condition of employment. It was just 

9 that is not the policy that you follow for 

10 dose reconstruction because of related 

11 injuries. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So is there any 

13 action on this item? That is the question. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It sounds like 

15 it.

16 MR. FARVER: I would just ask NIOSH 

17 to check and see if it's --

18 MR. CALHOUN: I'm checking it. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And consider 

20 whether they should codify the policy, if 

21 there is --

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Which is to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 that if you've given it sometimes for a year 

2 before, one should make this consistent. And 

3 I would argue that a year before is 

4 reasonable, not a year after. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: I can't even imagine a 

6 year before as being reasonable. 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It's unusual. I 

8 mean, I will not deny it. But it was a good 

9 job and well paying, and I could easily 

10 understand the person really wanted to get 

11 that job and, you know, applying and calling 

12 up every couple of weeks, anything open, 

13 anything open? 

14 MR. STIVER: Let's say a consistent 

15 policy on inclusion. 

16 MR. FARVER: NIOSH will consider

17 including a written policy on pre-employment 

18 exams. And then you can look into it and --

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

20 you'll make a policy.

21 MR. FARVER: And next meeting, 

22 you'll come back and we'll probably be able to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 close it. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds good. 

3 330.1. It's almost 3:30 on the clock. 330.1. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm 

5 sorry. I want to pop back to that x-ray one 

6 we were just talking about. After a little 

7 bit more digging, that one-year requirement 

8 information is in Procedure 60 for best 

9 estimates.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How does it read, 

11 Scott? I'm just curious.

12 MR. SIEBERT: In Procedure 60, 

13 Section 5.2, best estimates, the general 

14 philosophy for a best estimate approach is to 

15 assign dose from all eligible x-ray 

16 procedures. However, some x-rays should be 

17 excluded from a best estimate approach. For 

18 example, pre-hire and re-hire procedures more 

19 than one year before DOL verified employment 

20 should not be included. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: More than one 

22 year. Okay. So within one year is included. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 Okay, all right. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: So was that one more 

3 than one year outside of the employment, do 

4 you know? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: It was seven months.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: But I just wanted to 

8 point that out because I think that clears up 

9 that, I think that closes that one thing, and 

10 we probably should have done that first one 

11 and not the last one. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Perfect. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: That's Procedure 61. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You captured 

15 that, Doug, that --

16 MR. FARVER: Procedure 61. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You guys are both 

18 taking notes? I'm just pointing out. I used 

19 to do this all by myself. Doug, are you 

20 catching up?

21 MR. FARVER: I'm not sure.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thanks, Scott, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 for doing that research. 

2 MR. STIVER: I missed that exchange. 

3 It's codified in PROC-60? PROC-61. Okay. 

4 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, we do refer 

5 to it in the response. We just didn't clearly 

6 line out the, we didn't quote the section.

7 MR. CALHOUN: And it may be 

8 assigned, but if it's a best estimate it's got 

9 to be assigned within a year, correct? That's 

10 what it sounds like.

11 MR. SIEBERT: That's pretty much the 

12 way we read it, yes.

13 MR. CALHOUN: So that's a little bit 

14 different than how our response is written. 

15 The response almost sounds like we may do it 

16 if we want to but --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: The response makes 

18 it sound discretionary. 

19 MR. CALHOUN: And it may be 

20 discretionary, unless it's a best estimate or 

21 an overestimate.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. Okay. I'm at a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 loss for this first one. 

2 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Doug. This 

3 is Kathy Behling. 

4 MR. FARVER: Thank you, Kathy.

5 MS. BEHLING: I believe that this 

6 particular -- I assume we're on 330.1. 

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I believe this 

9 goes back to the discussion of the IG-1 and 

10 the exposure geometry table that has been 

11 added. And I know we talked about this 

12 earlier and that NIOSH was going to look into 

13 whether there should be a PER associated with 

14 that change. But I believe that that's 

15 perhaps the starting point of this particular 

16 finding. 

17 MR. FARVER: So this is the 

18 rotational geometry?

19 MS. BEHLING: Yes, and it's for a 

20 lung cancer.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, cancer and one is 

22 a lung. That makes sense. That probably is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 what it's for. Okay. Let me go back and look 

2 more on this. And NIOSH can do the same 

3 thing, but it has to do with the, similar to 

4 the other finding.

5 MS. BEHLING: I think it has to do 

6 with whether there should have been a 

7 correction factor applied to this particular 

8 case that's listed, I believe it's Table 4.1A 

9 in the latest version of IG-1.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. There is some 

11 discrepancy whether AP or maybe it's a mixture 

12 of AP and ISO or something like that. 

13 MR. STIVER: Okay. So now we're 

14 going to pin that and look into it in more 

15 detail at a future time? 

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

17 MR. KATZ: So this is SC&A is 

18 following up on this? 

19 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 330.2. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the question of 

22 whether or not there had been contact with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 coworker, that question we didn't discuss at 

2 all. I guess that would be a NIOSH --

3 MR. FARVER: From the previous 

4 response.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: It's just a question 

7 to be answered. It's either yes or no. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Is that a 

9 NIOSH part of the action; is that what we're 

10 saying?

11 MEMBER MUNN: It would appear so. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: It would seem to me 

13 there's some NIOSH --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: SC&A's response to 

16 it is written after the NIOSH. 

17 MR. FARVER: We're going to put that 

18 SC&A and NIOSH will follow up on this finding. 

19 How's that?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: That will cover it. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 330.2. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. It looks like 

2 NIOSH began assigning missed and measured dose 

3 in '65. We did not find anything, any change 

4 in the work location or job description prior 

5 to '65, so we contend that they should apply a 

6 coworker dose from the earlier time period of 

7 '53 through '65. So that was the beginning. 

8 Okay. And then you go through the 

9 NIOSH explanation, which we did. And SC&A 

10 agrees with NIOSH's response and recommends 

11 closing the finding because they give a better 

12 explanation. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

14 looks okay. Do others have any comments? It 

15 looks like an explanation is fine. 

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think we 

18 agree. Closed. Point three. 

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. On to neutron 

20 dose. It goes back to the wording in TIB-7. 

21 It's rather lengthy to go down and look at the 

22 attachment at the end. It has some sections 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 from TIB-7. 

2 MR. STIVER: It's down on page 

3 three.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does everybody 

6 follow that? Page 38 there's an attachment 

7 here, or there's a finding, 330.3. It's the 

8 back of the matrix. 

9 MR. FARVER: Section 2 talks about 

10 potential neutron exposure prior to '71 when 

11 the work area is known and also when the work 

12 area is unknown or not clear. 

13 MR. STIVER: It looks like Section 

14 2.2 is really what applies here. Work area is 

15 not known or is not clear, health physicist 

16 should use the criteria outlined below to 

17 determine whether neutron exposure should be 

18 included. No single definitive source 

19 document could be used to determine whether 

20 energy employees -- okay. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: What section was that? 

22 MR. STIVER: This is in Section 2.2 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 of the --

2 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, 2.2. All right. 

3 MR. STIVER: Page 38.

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

5 would submit that it's not an unknown 

6 location. We have the individual in the 300 

7 areas, based on the CATI and the records. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

9 MR. STIVER: Under Section 2.1, 

10 when the work area is known, it's pretty 

11 straightforward. The work history records are 

12 sufficient to indicate they worked in any of 

13 the following areas, neutron dose should be 

14 included in the reconstruction. That includes 

15 area 300 right there under Section 2.1. More 

16 detail in the reconstruction. 

17 MR. FARVER: An employee working 

18 321M, 300 area, so it's got potential for 

19 neutrons. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: It talks about the 

21 plutonium aluminum targets. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can someone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 summarize? I mean, the position is that, 

2 since there was no plutonium monitoring, they 

3 likely weren't working where the targets were 

4 and, therefore, no neutron doses, even though 

5 they were in these buildings or areas, right? 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Scott, is that the 

7 position here that --

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. We know the 

9 individual, we believe the individual was in 

10 the 300 areas. That does not tie them to 

11 321M. Our working is that if they were in 

12 321M and working with the plutonium, the 

13 targets, they would have been monitored for 

14 plutonium. There would have been bioassay. 

15 What was likely there would have been neutron 

16 monitoring, but there's neither one. So it 

17 did not seem indicative this person was 

18 working in that small area of 300 where 

19 neutron exposures would be likely. 

20 MR. FARVER: I thought it was 

21 mentioned in the initial claim and interview: 

22 building 321, which was reported by a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

1 survivor. So it would be in the CATI report. 

2

3 MR. STIVER: It's becoming a weight of 

4 evidence again. Presence of dosimetry data or 

5 monitoring data would indicate that this 

6 person was involved in fuel fabrication in 

7 321M because the information --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we know that 

9 the CATI said that the person --

10 MR. SIEBERT: The CATI does 

11 specifically state building 321, but it says 

12 he made rods for the reactor. It did not say 

13 anything about the target. So it's not 321M 

14 specific. The target work is being in 321. 

15 Once again, since there's no plutonium 

16 monitoring, it did not seem indicated that he 

17 was working on that specific type of work. 

18 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith of 

19 ORAU Team. The other indicator is that 17 keV 

20 calibration curve in the film era. That was 

21 used when somebody was in an environment that 

22 involved plutonium work, as well. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And those 

2 measurements were not --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Were not done. 

4 By job title, it wouldn't be obvious that the 

5 person was working on this kind of work. 

6 Probably not, I'm guessing. Right? 

7 MEMBER MUNN: This isn't very much 

8 in-depth information. 

9 MR. STIVER: And that prompted them 

10 to include the completeness and the adequacy 

11 of the bioassay monitoring program. It would 

12 always have captured it, should you err on the 

13 side of claimant favorability and 

14 conservatism. So it becomes a judgment call, 

15 and there has to be a weight of evidence 

16 argument in favor one way or the other, I 

17 would think. 

18 MR. FARVER: If you go down to page 

19 37, the bottom of 37, it talks about the non20 routine workers from '71 to '89. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: TIB-7?

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. And you would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

1 base it on work location, job description, 

2 CATI, and photon exposure history. And the 

3 very last statement, these estimates will tend 

4 to overestimate the neutron dose, especially 

5 considering the ratios based on routine 

6 workers that are considered reasonable but 

7 claimant favorable. Which way do you lean? 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, is this a 

9 best estimate case?

10 MR. FARVER: Oh, yes, this is your -

11 -

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Best estimate.

13 MR. FARVER: -- you're running 48 

14 percent or so. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

16 MR. FARVER: So something like this 

17 could make a difference.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's what 

19 I was trying to get at. Right. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: The rationale sounds 

21 reasonable. No, he wasn't routinely monitored 

22 for PU intakes, which the implication then was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

1 that the target period probably wasn't his cup 

2 of tea. 

3 MR. FARVER: You're reading under 

4 Section 2.2.2, right? 

5 MEMBER MUNN: No, no, I was back on 

6 the, I was back reading the original 

7 commentary --

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: -- on the matrix.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because part of 

11 that is the top half under Section 2 is for 

12 prior to '71, and then you go down to Section 

13 3 and that's for '71 to '89. So there's two 

14 different time periods that they have criteria 

15 for. 

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: The person 

17 didn't have photon monitoring, did they? For 

18 non-routine workers with photon monitoring. 

19 MR. FARVER: We'll find out. He did 

20 for some period. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: I don't know exact time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

1 period.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But no neutron 

3 monitoring. Evaluation of work location, if 

4 people have evaluated it. Job description, 

5 CATI. 

6 MR. FARVER: This goes back to what 

7 we talked about earlier, which was TIB-6. You 

8 have your time period of '70s through the '80s 

9 where you've got blanks and zeros, or blanks. 

10 In this case, they were interpreted as missed 

11 doses, missed photon doses. So now if we have 

12 missed photon doses, that would imply that 

13 there were photons.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

15 Okay. 

16 MR. FARVER: I mean, granted, this 

17 is a judgment call.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But that's, 

19 that's reasonable to say that they were missed 

20 doses. But there was no neutron monitoring, 

21 and the work location and job description do 

22 not fit.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

1 MR. FARVER: Well, the work location 

2 does. I mean, he is --

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Said they worked 

4 in the nearby building. They worked in that 

5 building. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The CATI says 

7 341M. 

8 MR. FARVER: It says 321. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, sorry, 321.

10 MR. STIVER: 321M was just a 

11 subsection. So it wasn't indicated that he 

12 did work there, but there's certainly no 

13 indication that he wasn't, other than the 

14 evidence of the lack of monitoring for 

15 neutrons or plutonium. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: That's where the 

17 target work was done, but it says the target 

18 work was carried out sporadically and not a 

19 continual thing. 

20 MR. FARVER: I mean, if you look 

21 under 3.1, bullet number one, work location. 

22 If the work location is any of the areas noted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

1 in Section 2.1, which it says A area, 300 and 

2 700 areas. And it says fuel fabrication 300 

3 area. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But NIOSH notes 

5 this, at the bottom of their response they say 

6 that SC&A finding paraphrases '71 through '89. 

7 Oh, this is pre '71, though, right?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Pre, prior to '71. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway, without 

10 the part that states that the work location 

11 limitation set forth in the earlier section 

12 must still be met. 

13 MR. FARVER: I just mentioned that. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: If you were 

15 going through work location one to job 

16 description, either the job description or the 

17 CATI indicate it could result in. Did the 

18 CATI -- what did you say about the CATI --

19 MR. FARVER: That's where we get to 

20 321, though. 

21 MR. STIVER: So you have, at least 

22 we've met criteria two, job description or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

1 CATI and neutron monitoring happened in the 

2 area, building 321. 

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And has a 

4 measured photon dose, not missed dose. Well, 

5 there were some missed doses, but they have 

6 measured photon doses for a number of --

7 MR. FARVER: And even the DR report 

8 specifies that, it says he worked in the 300M 

9 area. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, wait a minute. 

11 The criterion two, this section you're 

12 reading, 3.1, is for non-routine worker. I 

13 hate that because I don't know what that 

14 means. 

15 MR. FARVER: I don't either.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: So the first 

17 criterion is if they worked in the work 

18 location and the other criteria, the second 

19 one, has to do with the job description. If 

20 the job description describes someone who 

21 would be a non-routine worker, only 

22 intermittent exposure. So the CATI describes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

1 someone who manufactured fuel rods. That's 

2 not someone who's non-routine. That's someone 

3 whose routine job -- now, the CATI, on the 

4 other side of the coin, the CATI was completed 

5 by a survivor. And so, you know, how much do 

6 they know about the entirety of the person's 

7 employment or how much they remember about the 

8 entirety -- who knows? 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the probability 

10 of their being aware of the target campaign is 

11 fairly small. 

12 MR. FARVER: I mean, there are a lot 

13 of unknowns.

14 MEMBER MUNN: There are, as is often 

15 the case.

16 MR. FARVER: As is often the case. 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think, as a 

18 step to move this along, we're not going to --

19 MR. FARVER: No, no, no.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: As a step to move 

21 this along, why don't we, from our side, say, 

22 you know, based on, here are the TIB -- what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

1 TIB are we talking about here? Seven? Here 

2 are the TIB-7 criteria that we used to reach 

3 the decision we reached, and just lay that out 

4 carefully. And then we can see where are the 

5 issues with that decision process or, better 

6 yet, from this TIB-7 criteria, why did we feel 

7 like these things that we discussed here 

8 today, why do we feel like those possible 

9 avenues in don't apply in this case. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's better. 

11 Yes, yes.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, we've 

13 talked about some avenues along here. That 

14 would lead you to conclude that neutrons 

15 should be included. We should come back and 

16 say why do we think that those avenues don't 

17 get you to where neutrons should be --

18 MR. FARVER: And for future work, is 

19 there some way you could come up with like a 

20 checklist or, you know, that these are the 

21 items that were considered. I'm not sure 

22 where to put it --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Now that we have a 

2 couple of years' worth of or a few years' 

3 worth of experience with TIB-7, is there a way 

4 we can phrase it better? 

5 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: The only thing 

8 is, if I was being totally neutral about the 

9 decision, I mean, then I would ask for both 

10 sides. Implicit in that is that this 

11 committee is leaning toward saying, on 

12 claimant favorability, to including the data, 

13 right? And you're saying you're going to see, 

14 correctly, you're going to look to see what 

15 are the counter-arguments. When we next 

16 discuss it, we're going to discuss the 

17 negative, but we would have to recreate this 

18 discussion, or would there be a way that SC&A 

19 could present, could put together what we 

20 talked about here so that we could compare? 

21 MR. KATZ: We'll have the 

22 transcript, and you can synopsize what we said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

1 here. 

2 MR. FARVER: Do you guys want to put 

3 together something, and then, if you send it 

4 to us, we'll put together an exact same --

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But, in fact, 

6 somehow one has to come back to this 

7 conversation, or else we're just discussing 

8 the negative, which loads us in a certain 

9 direction. 

10 MR. STIVER: I certainly would like 

11 to see the decision process that Stu is going 

12 to provide. We can look at that. 

13 MR. FARVER: I think we can come up 

14 with a way to make the OTIB clearer and more 

15 straightforward. 

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Stu, would that 

17 be okay? You would prepare and that we would 

18 have the record of this with SC&A's comments 

19 summarized in the discussion. And then we'll

20 talk about it again. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So we were 

22 just discussing 330.3; is that correct? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm going to, 

3 I was trying to get through item 330 before a 

4 comfort break, but we didn't quite make it. 

5 So I'm going to ask for a comfort break now, 

6 maybe like ten minutes. And then we'll do 

7 another hour, I think, and then we'll, you 

8 know --

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I have to leave 

10 in 15 or 20 minutes. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

12 MR. KATZ: We need David and Brad to 

13 keep going. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We'll make 

15 sure they're on the line. But let's take ten 

16 minutes and come back and reassess. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 3:58 p.m. 

19 andresumed at 4:09 p.m.)

20 MR. KATZ: We're going to break 

21 right now from what we were doing and try to 

22 schedule the next meeting because we're about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

1 to lose Dave, who we need. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: David Richardson 

3 and Brad, are you on the line? 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I'm back on, 

5 even though Ted hung up on us. 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, just briefly. If 

7 you noticed, I reconnected in about a minute. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: David, are you 

9 there? 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Good. We just 

12 want to select a date for the next meeting.

13 MR. KATZ: And we're talking about, 

14 we're at the end of March, so we're talking 

15 about middle to late May. Is that sort of 

16 right --

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. And our 

18 next Board meeting?

19 MR. KATZ: But that's not until 

20 July. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not until July, 

22 yes. So any --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

1 MR. KATZ: There's plenty of work to 

2 do that's going to be left on our plate, so 

3 there's no question we could do it sort of, we 

4 should do it sooner than later. 

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Do people like 

6 Mondays or Fridays or --

7 MR. KATZ: Probably Mondays. If 

8 we're going to be in person, it means 

9 traveling on Sundays. I do it all the time, 

10 but I still resent it, losing my Sunday 

11 afternoon and evening. 

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So that's why I 

13 was asking. Maybe people want Tuesday and 

14 Thursday. What do people think? 

15 MR. KATZ: Tuesday through Friday, 

16 any of those days is fine with me. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: My preference would be 

18 very early May because I'm going to have to --

19 MR. KATZ: Well, it can't be very 

20 early. We need 30 days for a Federal Register 

21 notice, so we're at the end of March already. 

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: So Friday is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

1 good for you, as far as you're personally 

2 concerned? 

3 MR. KATZ: I'm fine any day, but I 

4 don't like Monday. 

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: But it seems to 

6 me Friday, for people like me, Monday or 

7 Friday doesn't matter. But the notion of our 

8 keeping Sundays for our families, given that 

9 probably many people are working six days a 

10 week in reality, is right? 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Tuesday the 7th would 

12 be too early? 

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: How about the 

14 10th, Friday the 10th? 

15 MR. KATZ: Plus Monday is a federal 

16 holiday, I think. Isn't that Memorial Day? 

17 Well, I can look. I have it highlighted for 

18 something. 

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm out the 

20 entire week of the 13th. 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: When is Memorial 

22 Day, the 27th? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How about the 

2 week of the 20th for people? 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm out on 

4 Wednesday, but I'm here the rest of the week. 

5 MR. KATZ: So the 21st? That 

6 Tuesday? 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

8 Let me get there, if I may. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Are we talking May? 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And we're 

11 talking about May, which date? The 21st is a 

12 Tuesday. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wanda can't make 

14 it. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: That's okay. I'll 

16 probably do it by phone. I'm going to try to 

17 schedule [identifying information redacted]. 

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, my goodness. 

19 Tuesday the 21st sounds good. 

20 MR. KATZ: Does that work for you? 

21 Does that work for you, David, on the phone, 

22 and Brad? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: The 21st of May? 

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, that would be 

4 okay.

5 MR. KATZ: How about you, David? 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that 

7 should be okay. 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Then that sounds 

9 like we have a date. 

10 MR. KATZ: And, Wanda, that works 

11 for you by phone, at least? 

12 MEMBER MUNN: By phone. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. May 21st. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we'll check 

15 with John, but I think we got a --

16 MR. KATZ: We need a quorum is the 

17 main thing. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: What time we're 

19 going to start if Wanda is going to be on by 

20 phone? 

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, that's an issue 

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

309

1 MEMBER MUNN: Still 9:00 because 

2 nobody is going to get here earlier than that 

3 if they're traveling --

4 MR. KATZ: No, but 9:00 here means 

5 it's 6 a.m. your time. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: I know.

7 MR. KATZ: You can do that? 

8 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know. It 

9 really will depend on my physical condition. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, 9 a.m., May 21st. 

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I remember my 

12 first phone call on this Board. I was 

13 [identifying information redacted]. That's 

14 why I didn't hardly say a word all day. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I thought you 

16 meant because of the --

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I didn't want to 

18 miss the first meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 

20 other item I thought we should take up before 

21 we start to lose any more people because we 

22 still have a quorum, I believe -- yes, we do, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

1 we do -- is the blind reviews and the case 

2 selection. And someone has got to refresh my 

3 memory of how we're going to go about this 

4 case selection process.

5 MR. KATZ: So what Stu has suggested 

6 at the last meeting was that we just select 

7 them out of already selected cases from set 

8 16. Now, SC&A has finished half of those. 

9 Well, not finished, but they've chewed 

10 through, at least partially, half of those 

11 cases. There are 22 cases, and 11 cases 

12 they've already been doing work on. So that 

13 almost, that disqualifies them by --

14 MR. STIVER: As I recall, we were 

15 going to try to pick some cases that were 

16 close to the actual PoC, 45 and 50, the 

17 adjudicated cases and also by trying to select 

18 them by the type of cancer. We've already got 

19 skin, and we're looking at some others. David 

20 brought this up. 

21 MR. KATZ: But they've got to be 

22 blind. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

1 MR. STIVER: It also can't be 

2 something that we have in the queue because 

3 we're going to know which ones are which.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right.

5 MR. STIVER: So set 16 might be off 

6 the table.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. You're saying 

8 that doesn't work. Okay, fine. So we need 

9 six cases. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: How would you like 

11 us to go about this? 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's what 

13 I'm asking. 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, we can 

15 generate a list for the Subcommittee to select 

16 from. We can generate the list however you 

17 would like. You said what kind of a range you 

18 want on PoC. We've only looked for 

19 adjudicated cases.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we should 

21 probably get a larger list than six. Maybe a 

22 dozen or so because there's only so many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

1 within the 45 to 50 range. Any other 

2 criteria, David? I mean, we -- or David on 

3 the phone. Ideally, within 45 to 50, or do we 

4 want to limit it to that? 

5 MR. FARVER: Well, what's your best 

6 estimate range? Is it 45 or --

7 MR. CALHOUN: Forty-five to fifty8 two. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Forty-five to fifty10 two is when we run the best estimate. 

11 MR. STIVER: It's only about three 

12 percent of the claims. It's going to be 

13 limited. 

14 MS. LIN: Maybe also look at claims 

15 earlier in time or later in time. 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Why would they want 

17 to do earlier in time? 

18 MR. KATZ: She meant the opposite. 

19 Yes, and I think that's a good idea. 

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So then if you 

21 have to loosen, I'd say go down to 40 percent 

22 if you need a larger group. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Let me get 

2 some notes here. I'll forget all this before 

3 I --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's --

5 David R., any other criteria that you can 

6 think of for these blind cases? 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It sounds fine. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Why are we eliminating 

10 the full scope of the best estimates that we 

11 did? Why aren't we looking at 45 to 52? 

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's what we 

13 are looking at. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I thought you said 

15 50. 

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, we said if 

17 you have to relax go to 40. It's 45 to 50. 

18 MR. KATZ: As long as they're best 

19 estimates, actually, right? Isn't it --

20 MR. FARVER: If you get down to 40, 

21 you're not going to have best estimates. 

22 You're going to have the hybrids and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's what 

2 I say. Extend it down to 40 only if you need 

3 more cases. You're looking at a limited pool, 

4 right? 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if you recall, 

6 when we generate these, normally we have the 

7 date of the DR completion as one of the pieces 

8 of data, and we have the PoC as one of the 

9 pieces of data. So we can provide a list down 

10 to 40, but we'll sort it. We'll give you like 

11 the ones at 45 and 52 at first, and then you 

12 can see how far back that goes. And if that 

13 goes back farther than you want, then you can 

14 look at the 40s, you know, 40s or something, 

15 40s to 50s. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was going to 

17 say how do we want to -- I mean, I think you 

18 should think about do we want to do this in 

19 two steps like we've done before where we get

20 a --

21 MR. HINNEFELD: They will be best 

22 estimates, and so all that additional 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315

1 information stuff is somewhat less relevant to 

2 the --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: -- selection. If 

5 we're 45 to 52, they'll be best estimates, so 

6 the additional information is not important. 

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good. Is there 

8 any issue about thinking about male and female 

9 breakup in that there may be organ issues or 

10 other that may be different for males and 

11 females? 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We can put that on 

13 the selection. That's --

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm not saying 

15 50/50 because that's not --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I think that's what 

17 it --

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- but there is 

19 a certain percentage of female cases we look 

20 at. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: But we've done that,

22 we've ignored that in the past. There's no, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316

1 you know --

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: In terms of the 

3 radiation --

4 MEMBER MUNN: -- cancer is an equal 

5 opportunity employer. So it's not, it doesn't 

6 seem pertinent. 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: There are gender8 specific models. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: But the whole point is 

10 we have such a small limited body to deal with 

11 to begin with. If we were dealing with 

12 hundreds of thousands, perhaps. But we're 

13 dealing with dozens here. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: What is implicit 

15 is that the percentage of females among those 

16 cases that we consider is fairly small. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Small. Very small. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think it 

19 costs us anything to put gender on the 

20 selection. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, you can add 

22 it on. Right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317

1 MR. STIVER: It depends on how deep 

2 the selection goes, and if you have that kind 

3 of leeway to pick within --

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, yes. 

5 MR. STIVER: -- pick a female type 

6 cancer.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Exactly. It's a 

8 type of cancer.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure. 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. What I'm 

11 envisioning is picking a date, a fairly recent 

12 date where we might, where we have some reason 

13 to believe it's adjudicated. So it won't be 

14 like claims that were done last week. The 

15 claims may be up two to three months ago, go 

16 back from then until we get, say, 20 in the 45 

17 to 52 range and get those cases. And there 

18 you are, and we'll give all the selection 

19 criteria, plus gender, that we normally give. 

20 And then we'll provide -- we don't need to 

21 wait for a meeting. When we have them, we'll 

22 make them available to everybody in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318

1 Subcommittee. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How do we pick 

3 the six? 

4 MR. KATZ: Well, if you want to 

5 select from these, you're going to have to 

6 meet. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or we could do it 

8 by phone.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. By phone. I'm 

10 saying you don't have to meet in person, well, 

11 except that, as a Subcommittee, we still have 

12 to do a Federal Register on this, so you're 

13 sort of stuck. 

14 MS. LIN: Well, I mean, for the case 

15 selection, we can call it administrative work 

16 in preparation for a meeting, and that would 

17 be very much within that --

18 MR. KATZ: That's true. Okay.

19 MS. LIN: -- and if you just want to 

20 do an email communication. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: If we're looking 

22 at types of cancer, then it would be valuable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319

1 if we choose to note the types of cancer that 

2 we're already looking at in the cases that 

3 you've done, the blind cases, right? 

4 MR. KATZ: Well, they've done so 

5 few, it doesn't really matter. So let's just 

6 do this. They'll select 20 or so, in that 

7 ballpark, whatever they can come up with in a 

8 reasonable time frame, in the next few weeks 

9 maybe. And then we'll send those around to 

10 the Members, and then we'll have a 

11 teleconference. It won't be a Subcommittee 

12 teleconference. It will be a technical call. 

13 And you guys can then make the cut as to what 

14 six go forward. We'll try to get this done, I 

15 would say, let's try to get this done within a 

16 month because they need all the time they can 

17 get to get it done by the end of the year. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

19 MR. FARVER: And then we just have 

20 to work out the logistics of going over to 

21 ORAU and getting a terminal set up.

22 MR. KATZ: It's all good, and we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

1 work that out. 

2 MR. FARVER: That way, I can bring 

3 all six cases and all the workbooks I need at 

4 one time and go back, figure out I forgot one, 

5 come back. 

6 MR. STIVER: Plan on at least two 

7 trips. 

8 MR. FARVER: It will probably be two 

9 trips because I probably will forget 

10 something. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. So do we 

12 go back to the matrices and plug away a little 

13 more? 

14 MR. KATZ: I encourage it. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: So does this take 

16 care of the upcoming dose reconstructions, or 

17 are we just --

18 MR. KATZ: So this takes care of the 

19 blinds.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: These are the blind 

21 reviews, but I thought at the last meeting 

22 that we got that, I just don't want us to lose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321

1 track that we still have, we still have to be 

2 getting ready to pick the next ones coming up, 

3 too. I thought SC&A was running out of --

4 MR. KATZ: Well, no, they have half 

5 of the 16th set. The last set took them more 

6 than a year to do. 

7 MR. STIVER: We've got about ten 

8 that aren't finished yet. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

10 MR. STIVER: My only concern is that 

11 it usually takes three or four months when we 

12 start to, where we actually have cases in 

13 hand.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, we'll have to talk 

15 about this. This is a difficult issue because 

16 this is the end of the year, and everything 

17 you need to get done needs to be done within 

18 the year. So it would have to be a very small 

19 set to get it done and delivered in time. So 

20 I'm going to talk to you folks offline, and we 

21 need to figure out what you can handle in 

22 reality, and then we'll handle it. We can do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322

1 it just like we did this, like we're going to 

2 do this. We'll do it that way. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So Doug was 

4 suggesting that we -- 330, the rest of the 

5 findings on 330. You want to have time to 

6 talk more with NIOSH, right? 

7 MR. FARVER: Well, we're going to be 

8 looking at the other three findings from that 

9 case, we might as well look at all five 

10 findings while we're looking at it. I mean, I 

11 think number four we can probably close. Yes, 

12 number four we could probably close, and 

13 number five looks pretty easy. It looks like 

14 a TBD revision or wording type issue. 

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Then let's just 

16 go through them then.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 330.4 you're 

19 saying you're recommending close.

20 MR. FARVER: Right. Which one are 

21 you looking at, Mark? 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 330.4. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that's, I 

3 see the explanation, and it looks like you're 

4 agreeing with NIOSH. 

5 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: That one is closed. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So, I mean, I'm 

9 comfortable with that explanation. 

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And, Brad 

12 or David, if you have comments on these, you 

13 know, please speak up. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, appreciate 

15 it. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

17 330.5, this is the TBD one that Wanda was 

18 saying. 

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, I think 

21 it's a pretty straightforward suggestion. 

22 Does NIOSH agree with that? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

1 MR. CALHOUN: We're in the process 

2 of doing it. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I guess 

4 you agree.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Sure, we'll do that. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. And 

7 then --

8 MEMBER MUNN: For our purposes, it 

9 should be closed. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think we 

11 can close it then. Yes, so 331. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: I think it's more of 

13 the same. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is a QA 

15 issue. I think it should be acknowledged that 

16 it's a QA issue, but I don't think there's any 

17 further action, right? And then we can close 

18 it? 

19 MEMBER MUNN: There doesn't appear 

20 to be.

21 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wasn't my phone. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325

1 Okay, 331.2. Another QA, yes. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, close.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it seems 

4 reasonable just to close that, but note that 

5 it's a QA finding. Everybody in agreement?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 331.3. Look how 

8 productive we are at the end of the day. So 

9 you're saying this is just a TBD revision 

10 really, right?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Since we were 

12 unsuccessful earlier in getting a date 

13 commitment, I doubt we can get that done.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I can tell you 

15 what's on our plan, if you'd like that. But 

16 it's a plan. You got to remember that. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: And we know what 

18 happens to plans, best laid plans. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Are we talking about 

20 331.3? 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Just one thing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326

1 that I will throw in while Dave is looking 

2 that up. The information is already updated 

3 in the Savannah River dose reconstructor 

4 guidance document, so we have that information 

5 already written and documented. Then it will 

6 go into the TBD. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, that's good to 

8 know. Thank you. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the guidance 

10 documents are added to the cases now, right? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. Those are 

12 automatically submitted along with the case.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I love that. 

14 That's one of the best things we ever 

15 recommended. 331.4. So I think we don't need 

16 that specific plan on the schedule.

17 MR. FARVER: So we're closing that 

18 one. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And going 

20 on to 331.4. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: QA issue. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I note your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327

1 second sentence, this is the third QA issue 

2 identified for this case. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's painful.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. Okay. 

5 I don't think there's anything more to say 

6 about it, right? So it's closed. We'll 

7 accept it as a QA finding. And then an 

8 observation, 331, observation one. Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Nothing can be done 

10 with that.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think there's 

12 no real action. It's just an observation, 

13 right? 

14 MR. FARVER: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So no action, 

16 closed, if we're closing observations. 

17 Alright. So we're on to 332.1. 

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, this speaks to two 

19 items that have been previously addressed in 

20 Savannah River, that do with the Savannah 

21 River case is what it looks like.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328

1 MR. FARVER: And the EDCW tool has 

2 been updated. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: And, Doug, I do have 

4 to point out since we're on the Savannah River 

5 grouping, yes, it's a Savannah River case. 

6 MR. FARVER: That's good. Thanks. 

7 Keep me on my toes. 

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A wise guy on the 

9 phone. And this is the idea of these 

10 clusters. I mean, these are repeating, so I 

11 think we discussed this already. We can close 

12 one and two, right? 

13 MR. FARVER: 332.3 is the standard 

14 Savannah River site LOD over two issues that 

15 have been corrected. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. So we can 

17 close one, two, and three, as before, right?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then we're on 

20 to 333.1.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

22 MR. FARVER: The recommendation is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329

1 that you include your rationale in the dose 

2 reconstruction report.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay. 

4 Another showing your work again, right? 

5 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we'll close 

7 it.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Close it. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

10 think, again, it's a QA, right?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can close it. 

13 333.3, another QA issue, right?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. FARVER: That's correct. 

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Incorrectly 

17 entered. Alright. And, again, just note it 

18 as a QA and closed. 333.4. So this is a 

19 matter of the DR report, the wording, right? 

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330

1 agree to close. Wow, this really is going 

2 quick, huh? 333, observation one, no SC&A 

3 response is necessary, has been updated to 

4 address the assignment of tritium doses with 

5 the latest information. So no action, right? 

6 Yes. Yes, to be incorporated in the TBD. 

7 Observation two. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Water under the 

9 bridge. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Tritiated water 

11 under the bridge. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, tritiated water.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I guess 

14 that's, yes, there's no further action, right? 

15 So I think we agree. Closed. 334.1. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: That needs to be 

17 addressed in the morning.

18 MR. KATZ: We're okay. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well, if the 

20 Subcommittee is actually going to talk about 

21 tools and verification tools.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's great. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331

1 a good afternoon topic. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I do want to just 

3 point out this is the EDCW tool, which we've 

4 already discussed from the QA point of view 

5 with that PER. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, it's the same --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: So we've actually 

9 covered this issue already.

10 MEMBER MUNN: I missed that. Okay. 

11 I see that now. Sorry. Thank you. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is the 

13 one where you looked at the 300 cases, right? 

14 And you --

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. In my mind, when 

17 I glanced through that earlier, I was 

18 envisioning --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Remind me where 

20 did we leave that one? Was there any action 

21 following that? Anybody? It's a test if we 

22 remember what we did this morning. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332

1 MR. STIVER: We came to the 

2 conclusion there really wasn't much we could 

3 do. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's what 

5 I --

6 MR. SIEBERT: For the individual 

7 case, that's how it was. NIOSH, we're going 

8 to be looking into the PER situation for that 

9 issue. 

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

11 Thank you, Scott. You win the prize. I'm not 

12 sure what that is but --

13 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sure I'll love it. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You get to hang 

15 up in 20 minutes. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks. 

17 MR. KATZ: So 334.1 is closed? 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, closed.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. And 

20 334.2 is the same, yes, so that's also closed. 

21 Okay. 334.3. Oh, this looks like a question 

22 of PER here, possible. Has NIOSH investigated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333

1 to identify other cases, that's the question 

2 hanging out there, I guess.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it looks like it.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That might 

5 be just a carry forward. Scott, do you have 

6 anything on this one? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: I'm just reading 

8 through it real quick.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay, yes. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: I recommend we look at 

11 this one next meeting because I think this is 

12 going to take a little bit more time.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I agree. 

15 MR. KATZ: DCAS response next 

16 meeting? 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 334.4. Is this 

18 the same tool? 

19 MEMBER MUNN: I believe so. This is 

20 another one of those Subcommittee review 

21 verification and validation process. It 

22 sounds like it was covered in the earlier 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334

1 finding. 

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, when we first got 

3 to 334.1, it gets back to the Crystal Ball 

4 issue. 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we've 

6 closed this one, and NIOSH has the other 

7 action on that. Okay. 334.5. So they give a 

8 better explanation of the internal dose 

9 methodology, I guess. So can you summarize on 

10 where that --

11 MR. FARVER: No. Not off the top of 

12 my head.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: I did look at it 

15 because I actually wrote that closing thing, 

16 so I knew it at one time. 

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I ask that 

18 we carry this one forward only because I don't 

19 want to skim over it. It looks like a pretty 

20 detailed --

21 MR. KATZ: SC&A will discuss this. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Discuss it at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335

1 next -- yes, yes. And if we have a lot more 

2 like this, then maybe we should close the 

3 meeting. No, we've got a couple more I think 

4 we can close out. 334.6. It looks like this 

5 was a pretty clear clarification of the dates, 

6 right? 

7 MR. STIVER: Yes, assignment of 

8 exposure period. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. There wasn't 

10 really any error there. What was appropriate 

11 given the policy and process. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You guys are 

13 comfortable with it, right? SC&A? Is that 

14 accurate? 

15 MS. BEHLING: It's just an 

16 indication of the CADW tool. That's all it 

17 is.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's an entire 

19 year instead of partials; is that what --

20 MR. STIVER: I believe so. 

21 MR. FARVER: Number six. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay? All right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336

1 Then 334 -- yes, close on six, seven. We've 

2 already seen this.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes, it's just a matter 

4 of making the two documents match up.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The tritium 

6 guidance, right? And I think we already had 

7 something on that. 

8 MR. FARVER: I don't know. Was 

9 there a --

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. This 

11 is a slightly different --

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: But, yes, it's being 

14 incorporated in the TBD. The TBD previously 

15 had been released with the environmental 

16 numbers, and it did not account for absorption 

17 through the skin of tritium, just for the 

18 intake through inhalation. So the correction 

19 that has been made is you add 50 percent, and 

20 that has been done and implemented in the 

21 tools for the environmental, and the TBD will 

22 catch up reflecting that when we have the new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337

1 TBD.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. 

3 MR. FARVER: So how do we want to 

4 write that? 

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm just 

6 saying correction has been incorporated in the 

7 tool, and TBD will be updated in the next 

8 revision cycle, right? 

9 MR. FARVER: It is currently in the 

10 tools?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what he's 

12 saying.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's closed, 

15 based on that. Okay. 

16 MR. FARVER: Oh, number eight. I 

17 couldn't find the file they referenced --

18 MR. CALHOUN: That's not in here? 

19 MR. FARVER: -- in the files that 

20 were sent to us. We found the file that I 

21 mentioned, the CATI summary draft. 

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. We're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

1 on to 334.8. 

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. Sorry.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry. I didn't 

4 know you were caught up. 

5 MR. FARVER: I've caught up.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

7 MR. FARVER: But we didn't find the 

8 one that they referenced, the V-1.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe 

10 NIOSH can just check on that.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that version, 

12 the CATI was conducted after the dose 

13 reconstruction was completed. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Really? How would 

15 that --

16 MR. CALHOUN: It might have been 

17 that the survivor decided to get involved 

18 afterwards because these are done by 

19 survivors. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's not unusual 

21 for us to get an additional CATI after the 

22 fact, and we review it for additional 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

1 information. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: So all we're saying, 

3 actually, is that there is no additional, 

4 well, nothing new about this incident, about 

5 this specific incident anyway. The one thing 

6 we're focused on wasn't further illuminated by 

7 the second CATI; is that correct? 

8 MR. CALHOUN: I can't find that in 

9 there, actually. It's not in NOCTS, Scott. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: The second CATI may 

11 have said something, but it wasn't about this 

12 incident. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, wait a second. 

14 Yes, it is. Here it is. 

15 MR. FARVER: What prompted it is 

16 that the DR states that the CATI interview 

17 identified an incident in '79, and we went 

18 back and reviewed the CATI and couldn't find 

19 it. So that was one thing that flagged it.

20 MEMBER MUNN: But the new CATI still 

21 doesn't tell you anything about --

22 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

1 their new CATI. I don't have it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: So it's the second one 

3 you don't have? 

4 MR. FARVER: Correct.

5 MEMBER MUNN: You had one, but not 

6 this one.

7 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But do you have 

10 it now, Grady; is that what you're saying? 

11 MR. CALHOUN: I'm looking.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I thought you 

13 said --

14 MR. CALHOUN: I thought I had it, 

15 but I don't see that --

16 MR. FARVER: He'll send it to me 

17 when he finds it.

18 MR. CALHOUN: I will.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Why don't 

20 we do it that way? Then we'll have all the 

21 facts and can discuss it more clearly, right? 

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I can put it in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341

1 the transcript folder once we find it. But I 

2 don't, I don't see it in here. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: See that? I lied.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a second here. 

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm going to give 

8 you an extra ten minutes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a second. I may 

10 be able to fill that ten minutes up now. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Scott, unless that 

13 thing is labeled incorrectly, it's not in 

14 NOCTS. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: No, give me a second 

16 here. I think, yes, I think -- no, I thought 

17 I had an answer quick. We're going to have to 

18 look at it. 

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Well, 

20 since we have an extra ten minutes, can you 

21 explain why Crystal Ball was making mistakes 

22 on different -- forget it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

1 MR. CALHOUN: Look into your crystal 

2 ball, Scott, and tell us. 

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, look into 

4 your crystal ball. Look at that. I'm glad we 

5 continued to plug away because it's good to 

6 get through this one batch anyway. I feel 

7 like we achieved something. I don't know. 

8 Can we cover the LANL matrix in ten minutes? 

9 We got until 8 p.m.

10 MR. KATZ: There's a Greyhound bus. 

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No. 

12 MR. KATZ: So are we adjourning? 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 

14 we're adjourning. Thanks on the phone. I 

15 think we're good, and that's the end of the 

16 meeting. Meeting adjourned. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter was concluded at 4:52 p.m.)

19