1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via

teleconference at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, David 

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

CATHY BOOTH, ORAU Team

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

DAN SMITH, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

DENNIS STRENGE, ORAU Team
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

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

Review of PER 61 (Bridgeport Brass) ............................................................. 6

Review Set 23 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases .......................................... 75

Review outstanding Type 2 cases from Sets ................................................ 132

14-18 DOE Sites matrix ............................................................................... 132

Review Type 1 cases from Sets 19-21 ......................................................... 145

Review Type 2 Cases ................................................................................... 179

Adjourn ......................................................................................................... 199
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:39 a.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. This is 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health. 

6 This is the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

7 Review teleconference.

8 We have an agenda today and that's 

9 posted on the NIOSH website under the program, 

10 the Board schedule of meetings, today's date, and 

11 you can see the agenda if you need to although 

12 it's very simple and probably not that useful to 

13 you.

14 And there's one document that's also 

15 posted for this meeting. It is a review of what's 

16 called PER, P-E-R, Program Evaluation Report 61 

17 which deals with the site Bridgeport Brass. 

18 So if you're interested in that, that 

19 is posted on the NIOSH website. The rest of the 

20 materials are full of private information so 

21 they're not shared on the website.

22 So moving on from there, roll call. 

23 What I'm going to do is address conflicts of 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 interest for the Board members. That way they 

2 don't need to do that as we take roll. 

3 (Roll Call) 

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, we have a lot of 

5 people on the line so please everyone remember to 

6 mute your phone.

7 And for those of you that aren't 

8 familiar if you don't have a mute button press * 

9 and then 6. That'll mute your phone for this 

10 line. And then press * and 6 to come off of mute.

11 And please no one put this call on 

12 hold at any point because that causes problems 

13 for everyone. 

14 And with that, Dave, it's your 

15 meeting.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Hello folks. 

17 Good we got started. Sorry we're a bit late. 

18 And the first item on the agenda is 

19 the review of the Program Evaluation Report 61 

20 from Bridgeport Brass.

21 And who will lead off on that for the 

22 discussion? 

23 DR. MAURO: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 John Mauro. I was the lead on that. I'd be glad 

2 to take it from here.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Great. Thank you.

4 Review of PER 61 (Bridgeport Brass)

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good morning, 

6 everyone. 

7 You may be wondering why we're doing 

8 Bridgeport Brass as part of the DR Subcommittee, 

9 PER, and there's a little history here. I'll 

10 make it brief.

11 Mark Griffon many, many years ago when 

12 he was running the DR Work Group, one of the 

13 things that was going on at the time is I was 

14 very much involved in doing dose reconstructions 

15 for AWE facilities.

16 And one of the first AWE facilities I 

17 reviewed was -- of cases was Bridgeport Brass.

18 And during one of our issues 

19 resolution meetings Mark said you know, we really 

20 haven't done any reviews of the Site Profiles. 

21 You know, we're doing cases, but we really 

22 haven't --- and the reason was by and large a 

23 case review --- since there was in those days 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there was very little data for a particular case 

2 at a particular site. 

3 So in effect the case review actually 

4 was -- had to be also a Site Profile review.

5 But Mark indicated that you know, why 

6 don't you do a focused review as an attachment to 

7 a DR review. 

8 So in a funny way what happened was we 

9 ended up doing a Site Profile review in 

10 conjunction with a DR review. So it connected 

11 up.

12 And I believe that's the reason why 

13 we're doing this PER. Because normally my 

14 experience is Wanda runs it under Procedures, 

15 these PERs, but this one looks like an exception.

16 Wanda, do I have that story correct? 

17 Is that your recollection also?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Pretty much. It was so 

19 early in the game. We just simply did not have 

20 the reams of data that we now have.

21 And I think it bothered Mark a little 

22 bit. But yes, I cannot -- but thank you for 

23 reviewing that because when I saw this on our 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 list I was wondering myself.

2 I was trying to --- and frankly I had 

3 not remembered until you refreshed what remains 

4 of my memory. I think that that's it.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, we'll 

6 continue now. So this PER review --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: By the way for me, 

8 Dave Kotelchuck, this is the first PER we've 

9 reviewed since I've been on the Subcommittee.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I believe it is. 

11 But we have such fun with it in Procedures we 

12 just try to keep all the fun away from you.

13 MR. KATZ: Just for context, the PERs 

14 get reviewed whenever there's a Work Group that 

15 deals with the site the PER goes to that Work 

16 Group and not to Procedures.

17 And in this case dose reconstruction, 

18 as John just said, served as the Work Group for 

19 the Site Profile review. But anyway, carry on,

20 John.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay, very good.

22 MEMBER MUNN: An unusual history.

23 DR. MAURO: Yes. Bridgeport Brass 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually is two facilities. The Adrian Lab in 

2 Adrian, Michigan and the Havens Plant in 

3 Bridgeport, Connecticut.

4 They actually began under contract in 

5 the Atomic Energy Commission around 1950-52 time 

6 frame. 

7 And their primary mission was to do 

8 some machining work on uranium and thorium. 

9 There was about -- when you look at the records 

10 there was about, oh, the throughput of uranium 

11 was not -- relative to thorium, the thorium was 

12 maybe 5 percent of the throughput of uranium. 

13 And you want to keep that in mind because that's 

14 useful later when we talk about how they do the 

15 doses from thorium. Because thorium is not 

16 actually monitored while uranium was extensively 

17 monitored for the workers.

18 The facilities themselves did similar 

19 work, both Havens and Adrian Plant. And where 

20 they worked with uranium metal and uranium oxide. 

21 Did not do any conversions, so there 

22 was no conversions, it was just metal uranium 

23 handling operations.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it was natural uranium, 2 percent 

2 enriched uranium. And I raise that because that 

3 brings in issues related to possible neutronic 

4 exposures from spontaneous fission that we'll 

5 talk about.

6 They also worked with thorium. And in 

7 addition they had recycled uranium. So that sort 

8 of sets the table for the types of 

9 external/internal exposures that the Site Profile 

10 had to deal with.

11 The Havens Laboratory actually began 

12 work in 1952 while the Adrian Plant started in 

13 1954, the AWE activities.

14 Both ended their AWE activities in 

15 1962 when there was a D&D and survey. So that's 

16 going to be very helpful to us later when we talk 

17 about the residual period and how that's dealt 

18 with.

19 The types of operations was extrusion 

20 and lathe operations of the uranium and the 

21 thorium.

22 The Adrian Plant had a couple of other 

23 things going for it that we'll talk about a little 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bit. 

2 One it had a cobalt-60 source, and 

3 two, it did X-ray crystallography. And we'll 

4 talk a little bit about that also.

5 Now, historically the way this all 

6 worked out was SC&A did originally review as part 

7 of its focused review I mentioned earlier Rev 0 

8 of the TBD-0030 of the Site Profile.

9 But over the years it went through a 

10 number of revisions and in 2013 Revision 2 of the 

11 TBD was issued and that's what triggered the PER. 

12 So in effect what we're going to do here is we're 

13 going to -- and we never reviewed. We have zero. 

14 We never actually formally reviewed the Rev 2. 

15 So that means that this PER review is a 

16 combination PER review and Site Profile review 

17 for Rev 2. So that sort of sets the table for my 

18 comments.

19 I'm going to start with the internal 

20 dose and what was done originally in Rev 0, what 

21 some of our concerns were at that time, and the 

22 degree to which those concerns have been resolved 

23 in the latest Rev 2.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It turns out for internal dose there's 

2 lots of bioassay data. So this is one of those 

3 unusual AWE sites where we don't have to rely on 

4 TBD-6000, but we can actually take advantage of 

5 the large amount of bioassay data which consisted 

6 of urine samples where milligrams per liter 

7 measurements were made.

8 So therefore there was a need to 

9 convert that to picocuries per liter or 

10 picocuries per day intake.

11 Now, the way in which NIOSH did that 

12 originally was it said well, we know they handled 

13 some 2 percent enriched uranium so we're going to 

14 be claimant-favorable and treat the milligrams 

15 per liter as if it was enriched uranium which 

16 basically increases the intake and the dose 

17 associated with the intake of uranium by -- well, 

18 the difference in the specific activity is the 2 

19 percent enriched is 1,616 picocuries per 

20 milligram, while natural uranium is 683 

21 picocuries per milligram.

22 So as a result NIOSH was claimant23 favorable in assuming it was all 2 percent 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 enriched which basically increases the intake and 

2 associated doses by about a factor of 2.5, a ratio 

3 of 1,600 to 683.

4 And what they did -- now they had all 

5 this data on bioassay and they pooled the data. 

6 And what they did was they built a coworker model 

7 to reconstruct the doses where they used the 

8 upper 95th percentile of the data as the 

9 coworker. 

10 So they made two very conservative 

11 assumptions. One is that all the intake was 2 

12 percent enriched. And out of that they used the 

13 upper 95th percentile of the pooled data that was 

14 collected.

15 Now all of which is extremely 

16 claimant-favorable.

17 The one concern at the time we did our 

18 Rev 0 review was that most of the data that was 

19 bioassay data was really post 1960, 1960, in that 

20 time frame.

21 And much lesser amounts in the earlier 

22 years in the nineteen fifties.

23 But we discussed all that and it was 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agreed that very fact that NIOSH employed the 2 

2 percent enriched uranium and used the 95th 

3 percentile I think more than accounts for any 

4 possible concerns that the data set was heavily 

5 oriented more to the later years of AWE 

6 operation.

7 So that issue was resolved. And so 

8 therefore from an internal exposure point of view 

9 for uranium the approach taken is -- SC&A 

10 concluded everything is fine.

11 So from a review of the Site Profile 

12 we believe that this approach is fine.

13 Now, the other issue that was on the 

14 table is RU, recycled uranium. In the original 

15 Rev 0 there wasn't -- recycled uranium was not 

16 explicitly considered. But in the latest 

17 revision it is and they use the default values 

18 for recycled uranium that are in TBD-6000 which 

19 has been reviewed and approved and accepted. 

20 So therefore that issue has been 

21 resolved in the latest TBD. 

22 And finally, the question of thorium 

23 comes up. You know, how do you deal with thorium 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if you don't have any bioassay data. 

2 Well, what was done in Rev 2 and also 

3 in the original one was to say well we know the 

4 throughput in terms of mass, kilograms per year, 

5 or tons per year, or whatever going through the 

6 facilities, both facilities.

7 And it turns out -- we went into the 

8 data and looked at it. And it turns out the mass 

9 throughput, 5 percent was thorium.

10 So what NIOSH did is say okay, we're 

11 going to assume the intake of thorium, because 

12 they were doing basically the same kinds of 

13 things, machining, handling the thorium as they 

14 did with the uranium, except the amount was much 

15 less.

16 So the assumption was made that the 

17 intake of thorium was 10 percent of -- in terms 

18 of activity now, it was converted to activity, 

19 was -- well, the mass intake was 10 percent of 

20 the uranium intake as opposed to 5 percent. So 

21 there was a built in factor of 2 there because 

22 the actual number was 5 percent but they assumed 

23 10 percent.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And of course they needed to convert 

2 it to picocuries as opposed to mass which they 

3 did and they did it in a way that was claimant4 favorable. That is, the conversion, you could 

5 have either assumed a slightly enriched uranium 

6 or unenriched uranium.

7 It turns out when you make that 

8 conversion -- it's a little bit of a brain teaser, 

9 but it turns out that assuming that the uranium 

10 is natural uranium it ends up with higher thorium 

11 intakes, and we went through that and convinced 

12 ourselves that that was reasonable.

13 So the bottom line with regard to 

14 internal dose is our review of Rev 2, everything 

15 from internal dose reconstruction, all bases are 

16 covered and we find it's scientifically sound and 

17 claimant-favorable. 

18 I could stop at this point before we 

19 move on to external dose, but maybe I could give 

20 you folks a chance to -- any comments or thoughts 

21 regarding that little summary.

22 I'd like to hear whether NIOSH agrees 

23 that I correctly characterized it and whether or 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not there are any questions.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, first NIOSH 

3 folks is that -- did he properly characterize it?

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, this is Dave Allen. 

5 I believe it has been.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And are

7 there any comments, and in particular the 

8 decision -- I'm trying to see where you said this 

9 is the 2 percent enriched plus the 95th 

10 percentile of the data was a judgment and 

11 appropriate for the committee to discuss.

12 Does anybody have comments about 

13 whether that -- does anybody on the Subcommittee 

14 have comments on that? They certainly left it 

15 open for us to discuss and I guess that's on page 

16 12. I have none.

17 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I have 

18 always thought that the assumptions that were 

19 made and the calculations that were made are 

20 extremely claimant-favorable. 

21 And I have seen no reason in this 

22 report to change my personal position on that.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: It's certainly been well 

2 thought through.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Any further 

4 comments? Josie? 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Go ahead, Brad.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I was just going 

7 to say I didn't have any problems with it.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and I didn't 

9 either. I thought they did a good job with it.

10 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. I'm 

11 okay with it.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. And I also 

13 am. So we're really in agreement with that 

14 approach and that's important.

15 So any other comments about what we've 

16 done so far? So, we should continue then.

17 DR. MAURO: Very good. I will move 

18 onto the external dose protocol.

19 In our original review --- in the 

20 original TBD Rev 0 we reviewed that and I'll give 

21 you a little rundown of what we found and where 

22 some of our concerns were. And then we'll talk 

23 a little bit about Rev 2, the latest revision and 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 how those concerns have been resolved and the 

2 degree to which they were resolved though maybe 

3 there may still be some concerns.

4 What was done is there was lots of 

5 external dosimetry film badge data for both beta 

6 and gamma.

7 And the turnaround was a two-week 

8 period so they have all this two-week film badge 

9 data for many workers.

10 And they pooled the data and they 

11 plucked off the upper 95th percentile doses, 

12 annual doses associated with the pooled data.

13 I have to say I'm not quite sure now 

14 that we're talking about it whether what was done 

15 is you take these hundreds or maybe more two 

16 measurements expressed in millirem, open window 

17 and closed window, and you have individual 

18 numbers, maybe even hundreds of them.

19 The way I understood it is you ranked20 order those and you take the upper 95th 

21 percentile value in millirem per two weeks and 

22 use that as the annual dose.

23 That was my understanding at the time 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the review. And I just put that on the table 

2 as food for thought. If that was done that's 

3 certainly way up there in terms of being 

4 conservative. Or some other method used that may 

5 have been closer, still conservative but perhaps 

6 a little bit more realistic.

7 Think of it like this. You've got all 

8 these two-week readings, right. And you list 

9 them in order. You take the upper 95th percentile 

10 which is going to be a big number, and then you 

11 assume that everybody got that dose not only for 

12 2 weeks but all 50 weeks in the work year.

13 So I'm not sure the degree of 

14 conservatism, and I have to say I didn't go back 

15 and do enough homework in preparing for this 

16 meeting to go check exactly how the mechanics 

17 worked on that.

18 If Dave or folks there at NIOSH have 

19 some information. Or maybe not. We'll hear a 

20 little bit more about that.

21 But either way the fundamental 

22 approach was lots of data and claimant-favorable. 

23 And the fact that they went with the 95th 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentile sort of captures any limitations that 

2 might have been in the data where there was a 

3 degree of certainty that you certainly are being 

4 bounding.

5 One of the issues though that's sort 

6 of related to this question has to do with what's 

7 called correlation and non-correlation.

8 At the time we reviewed this, think of 

9 it like this. The reality is, the way you really 

10 should look at it is people. And one worker may 

11 have had a 26 two-week film badge change-outs. 

12 And you add them all up for that worker and you 

13 get an annual dose.

14 And then you get another worker, and 

15 another worker, and another worker.

16 In my mind the way to look at it is 

17 really the data, each two-week measurement is not 

18 independent of every other two-week measurement 

19 but they're correlated.

20 You have one worker who as an 

21 individual worked in a higher level exposure area 

22 and therefore he over the course of the year would 

23 have successively higher doses than let's say 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some other workers.

2 And so what we did is we said well --

3 and [identifying information redacted] did this, 

4 it goes way back. And he looked at the question 

5 of correlated versus uncorrelated.

6 Now in the writeup in Rev 0 it was 

7 stated that no, they did it correctly, they 

8 correlated the data. So we checked that. We 

9 said okay, let's see.

10 Well, when we did it ourselves using 

11 the original data we -- the results that came out 

12 at the time was it looked like they didn't 

13 correlate it, and as a result the 95th percentile 

14 dose that had been assigned to all the workers 

15 might be low by a factor of 2. 

16 And that was a comment we had. This 

17 applied to their protocol for doing the 

18 exposures. And that was like one issue that we 

19 raised at the time.

20 And the other issue we raised at the 

21 time had to do with data exposures. And John 

22 Poston may remember this. This goes way back to 

23 maybe 2005 and I was up there one of the first 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 times before the Board and I raised this issue 

2 and John mentioned -- I said listen, we're a 

3 little nervous about the beta dose. You're 

4 reading a film badge and the beta dose could very 

5 well be localized and the person could receive an 

6 exposure sort of anywhere on his body, skin dose.

7 And the film badge that you're reading 

8 may be indicative certainly of where the film 

9 badge is sitting, but is it really indicative of 

10 the rest of the body. 

11 So that was an issue that we raised 

12 and we discussed, and I remember John weighing in 

13 on this during that meeting. Goes way back.

14 Anyway, that was our review of Rev 0 

15 and some of the things that we expressed concern 

16 with.

17 Subsequently Rev 2 was issued and 

18 there was a substantial revision of the way in 

19 which these doses were derived.

20 And it turns out the outcome was the 

21 exposures were now approximately exactly the 

22 values that we came up with originally when we 

23 did our review very close to -- in a factor of 2 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that I mentioned earlier where we felt there 

2 might be a problem there. Well, that factor of 

3 2 went away and the numbers were right on.

4 So our takeaway is that the current 

5 method in Rev 2 is scientifically sound and 

6 claimant-favorable. 

7 But we did have one observation 

8 related to this and that is there was -- as part 

9 of this external dose that was being derived from 

10 photons I believe NIOSH defaulted to 30 to 250 

11 keV.

12 And in looking over the exposure data 

13 and where it's coming from, the radiation field 

14 coming off let's say uranium metal, the field --

15 - the flux of photons is hardened because it's 

16 coming through this dense uranium metal and it 

17 hardens the spectrum. What comes out is 

18 different than what actually is emitted by each 

19 individual uranium atom.

20 And so one of the things we came away 

21 with is that well, it's possible that a 

22 substantial portion of the spectrum was above 250 

23 keV. And this was one of our observations that 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we certainly could talk about a little bit right 

2 now.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, this is Bob. 

4 I'd like to make a clarification.

5 There were two different quantities 

6 involved. One is the photon fluence, number of 

7 photons per square centimeter, and the other is 

8 total energy deposited.

9 So NIOSH made the observation, made 

10 the assumption that most of the photons by number 

11 are in the 30 to 250 keV range.

12 But if you look at the photon energy 

13 most of the photon energy is the above 250 keV.

14 So since it's a dose that's being 

15 converted to organ dose, it's more claimant16 favorable to assume over 250 than 30 to 250 for 

17 most organs. 

18 There are a few exceptions where the 

19 other conversion will be more claimant-favorable.

20 DR. MAURO: Bob, thank you so much for 

21 helping me out there. 

22 So that was an observation as part of 

23 our PER review. And that was on the table as 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whether or not that's something that needs to be 

2 dealt with or not. So we could put that on.

3 We could talk about that now or I 

4 could finish up my external discussion. I don't 

5 know if NIOSH has any thoughts regarding that 

6 concern.

7 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. Yes, 

8 I'd like to respond to that if I could right now.

9 DR. MAURO: Sure.

10 MR. ALLEN: The idea that the 30 to 

11 250 keV photons are favorable doesn't have much 

12 to do with the dose conversion factor, it has to 

13 do with the radiation effectiveness factor in 

14 IREP.

15 The radiation effectiveness factor 

16 which is our distribution that replaces the 

17 quality factor is exactly one for greater than 

18 250 keV photons meaning there is no real 

19 distribution, it's just multiplied by one.

20 The 30 to 250 has a distribution that 

21 ranges -- the 95th percent confidence interval 

22 ranges from 1.1 to 4.7. The median is 2.4. So 

23 the median is actually 2.4 times -- the 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Probability of Causation will end up being 2.4 

2 times higher dose per dose if you assign it to 

3 that middle category.

4 So in the end if you have picked a 

5 same dose or same exposure you assign the DCF to 

6 it and then put it in the IREP as these two 

7 different things the 30 to 250 will be favorable.

8 DR. MAURO: You know what, I didn't 

9 know that. And so you're effectively saying 

10 notwithstanding the dose conversion factor 

11 question that Bob just pointed out, you're saying 

12 that's more than accounted for by the IREP 

13 conversion where it goes to risk or Probability 

14 of Causation.

15 MR. ALLEN: Right. It'll be at least 

16 2.4 times higher PoC.

17 DR. MAURO: I have to say I don't 

18 recall us -- have we talked about that before? 

19 I'd like to think that I remember all these 

20 things, but is this something that has come up 

21 before or is this the first time we're talking 

22 about this?

23 MR. ALLEN: It seems like it has but 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I couldn't swear to it.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay. Well, I mean, 

3 I certainly accept that argument. In other words 

4 I didn't think of it and I wasn't aware of it, 

5 but I understand what you're saying.

6 Bob, what do you --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, I'm not in a 

8 position to check it right this moment obviously 

9 but assuming, accepting what Dave is saying 

10 that's certainly acceptable.

11 We only talked about DRF with regard 

12 to neutron exposures once in connection with GSI. 

13 But yes, that's a very -- I accept that 

14 explanation.

15 DR. MAURO: Thank you. Very helpful. 

16 I don't know if the Board wants to weigh in at 

17 all on that?

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, let's see. 

19 Board folks?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Nope.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Make sense folks?

22 MEMBER BEACH: Makes sense to me.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. It's 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been such a riveting conversation, I -- as long 

2 as we feel good about it that's fine.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That would 

4 involve a slight revision of the PER, right? I 

5 mean, it makes sense what you're saying. And so 

6 that observation or this discussion needs to be 

7 embodied in the text form in these pages.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, Dave, what they're 

9 saying is the PER is fine as is.

10 What they're saying is the PER is fine 

11 as is.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, but 

13 something has to embody the discussion that we 

14 just had.

15 MR. KATZ: I think the transcript will 

16 embody that. But I mean ---

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's true, that's 

18 true. We do have a written transcript.

19 MR. KATZ: The Board reviews --- so 

20 observations, gets responses to them, and the 

21 response will be put in with the observation, and 

22 then everybody's fine with it, we'll indicate it 

23 in the Board Review System.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so that's how 

2 we handle it administratively. All right, I just 

3 want to make sure that it's -- okay. Good, good.

4 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

5 I could also add that we will introduce this into 

6 the BRS and we will -- at least I planned on 

7 incorporating this observation and also add a 

8 comment as to why this observation is not 

9 appropriate because of Dave Allen's explanation. 

10 So that will be incorporated into the BRS.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

12 Excellent. Okay. Good, good. So we're in 

13 agreement and we have --- administratively it's 

14 handled properly. 

15 Good, so I think we can go on.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'll pick it up. 

17 The next external dose issue point, it has to do 

18 with X-ray crystallography. This was going on at 

19 the Havens Lab.

20 And interestingly enough this was a 

21 topic of considerable discussion with Bob 

22 Anigstein on Carborundum relatively recently.

23 And the only commentary we have here 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is in the Rev 2 of the TBD that's the basis for 

2 the PER I believe that the assumption was made 

3 that X-ray crystallography delivered -- you may 

4 want to help me out a little bit on this, Dave -

5 - an assigned dose.

6 The estimate is that we're talking 

7 about doses that are less than 2 millirem -- I'm 

8 sorry, 10 millirem per every two-week period 

9 would be the kinds of doses that would be 

10 experienced and that in theory all that's covered 

11 because there was the external dosimetry TLDs or 

12 film badges.

13 And we have data, and they were from 

14 the upper 95th percentile. So in theory the 

15 actual measurements accounted for that.

16 Now, the only thing I could bring up 

17 that might still be something that's worth 

18 discussing is a matter that Bob Anigstein brought 

19 up on Carborundum regarding X-ray crystallography 

20 and the nature of its localized dose. 

21 That is, the film badge readings 

22 certainly would be indicative of exposures. 

23 Perhaps we'd say generally to the whole body.
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But it may not be indicative of some 

2 localized doses that might be associated uniquely 

3 with X-ray crystallography.

4 Bob, did I -- is that a fair 

5 characterization of the special challenges 

6 associated with reconstructing X-ray 

7 crystallography dose?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the problem is 

9 it's very difficult to do because unless you have 

10 local data like for Carborundum we happened to 

11 find --- I happened to uncover a worker who had 

12 actually done the X-ray crystallography. We 

13 interviewed him and then ORAU Team interviewed 

14 him. And we got a lot of detailed information 

15 for that particular apparatus, for that 

16 particular setup.

17 So we were able to -- and NIOSH came 

18 up with a methodology of assigning doses which 

19 has been accepted with some modification. 

20 Modified exposure time and also modified the 

21 energy.

22 However, here there's no information. 

23 And so each site is different. And it's 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 generally, particularly in those days it was 

2 generally recognized as a hazard. 

3 What was then the Bureau of Electronic 

4 Products I believe, handled X-rays in the 

5 sixties. And they had a conference in 

6 Philadelphia, a day-long symposium addressing the 

7 hazards. 

8 And it was generally recognized that 

9 the equipment was --- had potential hazards. The 

10 safety devices had not yet -- the ones that were 

11 just being built had interlock and safety 

12 devices, but the earlier ones didn't. 

13 And there were cases of severe burns 

14 and I think maybe even finger amputations as a 

15 result of those exposures.

16 So we don't really have an answer of 

17 how to handle it.

18 DR. MAURO: You know, I only bring it 

19 up because we did look at it at Carborundum. As 

20 Bob just summarized it was an interesting and 

21 unique circumstance.

22 And I think I just wanted to bring it 

23 up to the attention of the Work Group and NIOSH 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that this work has been done on Carborundum.

2 The degree to which it needs to be 

3 addressed explicitly as a special circumstance 

4 here at Bridgeport Brass I'm not sure. But I 

5 just wanted to alert everyone to that issue. I 

6 think we could leave it at that.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could I ask -- it's 

8 Dave. Is there any way that we can identify the 

9 workers or the department where this was done and 

10 exclude the other persons?

11 I mean, it was presumably done by a 

12 small number of people, the X-ray 

13 crystallography. It was I believe in the early 

14 years at that time of work.

15 MR. ALLEN: Were you asking me? This 

16 is Dave Allen.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm not quite sure 

18 who I'm asking, so anybody who responds is most 

19 welcome.

20 MR. ALLEN: Well, this is Dave and I'd 

21 just have to apologize. I didn't look very 

22 closely at this issue. Somehow I essentially 

23 missed this issue when I was reading through the 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report as a matter of fact. So I don't really 

2 have any kind of response right now for this.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. When I read 

4 through this and reviewed it it did seem to me 

5 that that was essentially an observation even 

6 though it was just written in the text as another 

7 line of text.

8 But they should attempt to identify -

9 - NIOSH should attempt to identify former workers 

10 which admittedly is going to be very difficult. 

11 We're talking about something that happened so 

12 many years ago.

13 Whether those workers are alive, or 

14 identifiable. 

15 I'm not quite sure what to do with it 

16 either.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I could -- this is 

18 Bob Anigstein. I mean, I can think of several 

19 circumstances. I don't know if it's my place to 

20 make a suggestion, part of the Work Group.

21 One is if the case is for -- first of 

22 all, it's only significant to skin cancers. Skin 

23 dose is about the only thing you get very much 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of.

2 So if there is a skin cancer, and if 

3 the site of the cancer makes it plausible that he 

4 could have been exposed to an XRD on the hands, 

5 on the front of the body.

6 And then finally, if the worker is 

7 still alive and can be -- is in a position to be 

8 interviewed then he could certainly be asked.

9 But if the worker is deceased and 

10 we're talking to survivors they may not know 30, 

11 40 years ago what did my father do, what did my 

12 grandfather do. I know he worked in that place 

13 but it would be very difficult to say.

14 So there may -- NIOSH could take a 

15 position that in plausible cases where it could 

16 have been due to X-ray exposure to the skin to 

17 grant -- there may not be very many, to grant 

18 those cases. This is just sort of an idea.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, the 

20 fact that you would say that from the X-ray 

21 crystallography it would really only be skin 

22 cancers that we would be dealing with.

23 DR. MAURO: And probably extremities. 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hands also I believe. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 DR. MAURO: It's a very focused issue.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: And of course then on that 

6 basis I know, Bob, is there a way to say okay, 

7 when reconstructing the doses to the hands on a 

8 person who may have had skin cancer on their 

9 forearms or their hands that you could assign 

10 some X-ray crystallography dose? Or is that --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, if there 

12 happened to be a shuttle left open by mistake he 

13 could be getting a direct beam. I can't come up 

14 with a number but it would be significant. 

15 I mean, it has been enough to cause 

16 non-stochastic effect, deterministic effects. It 

17 has been enough to cause severe burns. 

18 We're talking about -- John Mauro 

19 would probably have a better sense of it than I 

20 do, we're talking in the hundreds of rads. 

21 DR. MAURO: Sure. And that would be 

22 probably something that would go into a medical 

23 record.
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I think we're chipping away at this 

2 thing a little bit and we're making progress.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm saying if it's 

4 that bad. But others could have smaller doses 

5 that don't have any visible symptoms, any 

6 deterministic symptoms, and yet have a cancer 

7 causation.

8 So the doses could be anything from, 

9 I'll just pick a number, anything from zero to 

10 100 rads.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Dave, I'm concerned 

12 that this is a very difficult assignment to task 

13 NIOSH to do.

14 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Wouldn't it be as 

17 simple as just pulling skin cancers and seeing 

18 what was there and going from there?

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I would think 

20 that -- and skin cancers on the extremities if we 

21 can identify that would give us perhaps the 

22 population that might have been affected by this. 

23 I'm not sure what we could do afterward.
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I would certainly be interested in 

2 folks checking on that. That could be done fairly 

3 easily, right, folks? NIOSH folks?

4 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. Yes, 

5 I think I can come up with that, but I'm not sure 

6 what that's going to do for us.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, I agree. 

8 MR. ALLEN: Even if there is no cases 

9 but that doesn't mean it'll never be.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's true. Well, 

11 if they're not doing the crystallography anymore. 

12 That's all finished, right?

13 So if people were going to get cancer, 

14 I mean whatever the period is that it would take 

15 for the cancer to develop that's long gone.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, the period of AWE 

17 operations ended in '62.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. It would be 

19 interesting to find out but I would agree with 

20 you that I don't see what we could then do with 

21 it other than to say it could not affect -- or 

22 this would be the population that might be 

23 affected.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But going forward to new folks coming 

2 in there should be, well, we can certainly take 

3 a look at people who are filing claims and see 

4 whether the claims cover a period before '62. I 

5 mean there may be some older employees who will 

6 do something.

7 But then again I don't know how to do 

8 it. It just defines for me the upper limits of 

9 how far -- what group could be affected. And 

10 hopefully that would be a small group.

11 Nevertheless could we handle claims 

12 from that group. And I don't see how.

13 Other folks, anybody have further 

14 thoughts? I mean, we are understanding a little 

15 bit more about what we could do to move in, but 

16 I'm not sure if we could end up with a 

17 scientifically based dose reconstruction for this 

18 concern.

19 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and I kind 

20 of agree with you, Dave. I don't know what the 

21 end game here is with this.

22 It's a really big what if something 

23 might have sort of happened. I don't know. I 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean, we can take a look but unless something 

2 drastic comes up I don't know what we get from 

3 even coming up with a group of people that may 

4 have been involved with this.

5 I don't quite understand what the goal 

6 is.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, it would be 

8 -- however, we could get the population of --

9 that were exposed among people who have already 

10 been claimants. 

11 It is possible that that group will be 

12 zero. I think there's a possibility.

13 MR. CALHOUN: But then what do we do?

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Going forward we 

15 don't -- I don't see any way to handle this.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Exactly.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But on the other 

18 hand I would be -- frankly, it's a fair -- not 

19 frankly, I'm not telling you, but I think it's a 

20 fairly small task to find out about skin cancers 

21 that occurred on the extremities.

22 And it would make me more secure to 

23 know that it can't be very large.
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I'm not able to see how we can 

2 deal with it. Again, let me open up the 

3 discussion and other -- either to Subcommittee 

4 members or staff persons on the phone.

5 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. This 

6 question has been discussed as you might guess, 

7 on more than one occasion.

8 And the comment that was made earlier 

9 seems to be rock solid to me. That is to say if 

10 there had been any kind of off-normal incidents 

11 where there was one or more individuals who might 

12 have been exposed, over exposed to any 

13 significant extent it would be most assuredly in 

14 their record, if not their work record certainly 

15 their medical record.

16 Even -- let's not assume that everyone 

17 who was working in 1950 was an idiot, we did know 

18 a little bit about the effects of X-rays of all 

19 types. Crystallography was such a tiny, tiny 

20 subset. And the number of people who even knew 

21 how to operate the machinery was such a tiny, 

22 tiny subset of the individuals who had been 

23 involved and the area where they were working 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have been quite small.

2 And certainly we certainly knew, a 

3 great deal was known about the effects of over 

4 exposure. 

5 So, yes, I can't help but believe if 

6 there had been any significant amount of over 

7 exposure to any individual or any group of 

8 individuals there would be some record that would 

9 have been obvious given the amount of dose 

10 records and the amount of scrutiny that this 

11 particular groups received.

12 I'm comfortable with the scrutiny it 

13 has received which has been significant and I 

14 don't feel that there's any reason to pursue it 

15 further personally.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

18 I like hearing this because this all comes back 

19 to one thing. How good is the data, how good are 

20 the records that we actually get. Because there 

21 could have been a lot of records in there, there 

22 could have been exposures put in there, but there 

23 could be blanks throughout there.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's what we have found in every site 

2 that we have visited. I don't think that we can 

3 just cast off that way. Myself, I still believe 

4 that -- I agree wholeheartedly that this is a 

5 small group, but we're also tasked that we 

6 evaluate this as best that we can.

7 If there's nothing like Grady said, if 

8 there's nothing that we can really do with this.

9 I've looked at other sites when we're 

10 coming in here and they can take out a small 

11 section and regulate them out from all of the 

12 other people and tell us that only these people 

13 would have got this kind of X-ray, or this kind 

14 of exposure because it was such a small, minute 

15 people that would have come in and done this kind 

16 of stuff.

17 Now it's exactly opposite and now 

18 they're saying well, we can't. 

19 So my thing is basically what it comes 

20 down to with me, I do not know what we're going 

21 to come out with in the end. 

22 But we've also got the obligation to 

23 be able to look at it. If there's nothing that 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we can do with it and that we can't really come 

2 to grips with where it's at that's all you can 

3 do. 

4 But I just don't want to also cast it 

5 off either.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It comes 

7 down to if we ask NIOSH to look further at the 

8 cancers it will be informative but not really 

9 instructive as to how to move further.

10 But certainly we would not be tasking 

11 NIOSH with a major task to take a look at the 

12 folks who have submitted claims.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let me ask this part 

14 of it because Grady and John, this radiography, 

15 how much was really done at the site with it?

16 Was this just the lab part of it that 

17 was using this, or who -- do we even know which 

18 section was using this?

19 DR. MAURO: I think it was the Adrian 

20 plant. I'm looking at my notes right now to see 

21 if it was excluded to only one of the plants.

22 Right now I'm looking at my notes and 

23 I believe it was just one. It might have been 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Adrian plant.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It was Havens.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, Havens? Thank you, 

4 Rose. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Because one of my 

6 things is this is kind of a unique type of X-ray 

7 system. And for some reason they were using this 

8 preferably over the other. So there's got to be 

9 a reason why they were doing it. And maybe we 

10 may be able to send this group down.

11 MEMBER BEACH: It seems to me -- this 

12 is Josie -- there would be a way to identify 

13 individuals who worked on that piece of 

14 equipment, but I'm not sure at this time. It's 

15 been quite awhile ago.

16 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. To 

17 answer Josie and Dave I did a quick search in 

18 NOCTS there and for Havens Lab we have one case 

19 with skin cancer on the hands and another one 

20 that simply says melanoma, no identification. I 

21 don't have time to dig through the record at the 

22 meeting here.

23 But that particular job title for that 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was maintenance ---

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave Allen?

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Just be careful with 

5 the amount of information we're sharing.

6 MR. ALLEN: I understand that. I'm 

7 trying to answer the question. That one, by 

8 reading the job title you wouldn't think it would 

9 be a laboratory analysis like an XRF.

10 Whereas the other one very well could 

11 have. So essentially we have one skin cancer on 

12 the back of the hand that this conversation may 

13 be applicable to.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Out of how many? Out 

15 of how many claimants?

16 MR. ALLEN: Well --

17 MR. CALHOUN: Roughly.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't know the 

19 Bridgeport Brass, the dimensions.

20 MR. ALLEN: It's certainly not a huge 

21 set. Give me just a minute and I think I can.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

23 MR. ALLEN: This is just Havens Lab 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that I looked at.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Sixty-five total cases.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: According to the TBD,

6 the X-ray crystallography was only at the Havens 

7 Lab.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, that 

9 information is useful and frankly that will go 

10 into the record. That will go into the transcript 

11 of this meeting so that it will provide at least 

12 some vision for future claims about the claims 

13 that have come in so far.

14 And we're talking about less than 2 

15 percent of the claims coming in would have the 

16 possibility of perhaps being caused by some sort 

17 of exposure to the X-rays.

18 I think that's helpful and maybe 

19 that's all we can do. That will come as a result 

20 of this discussion and will be on the record. 

21 And maybe that's appropriate for this discussion.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad again. 

23 Maybe this is all that we can do with it, but I 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 also want to make sure that we've done due 

2 diligence on this.

3 You know, I agree and we're going back 

4 a lot of years and I understand that, but a lot 

5 of these things that come up we need to just run 

6 them to ground. And there's going to be a lot of 

7 them that that's all we can do.

8 I just want to feel comfortable with 

9 myself that we did everything that we could. And 

10 that's all we can do.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Let me ask 

12 you or anyone else to --- specifically what more 

13 can we do at this point. 

14 I mean, we have done -- from this 

15 discussion we have gotten a measure of the 

16 population that possibly could have been affected 

17 by this. An upper bound, perhaps.

18 I can't think of more. Or put it this 

19 way, I can't --

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let me ask this of 

21 John or any of the people. This crystal 

22 radiography. We know the site that it was used 

23 at. Do we know the area or for what it was 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specifically used for?

2 DR. MAURO: Just to kick off, my only 

3 knowledge is that you use this to understand the 

4 molecular structure of the metal. And how ---

5 the type of crystal that's formed so that you can 

6 have a better understanding. And I guess it has 

7 some relevance to the fuel. This is the extent 

8 of my knowledge of the subject.

9 And why you would do it, and the 

10 extent to which it might be done.

11 Just to get us started that's about 

12 all I could offer here.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: So this was for the 

14 cladding of the fuel.

15 DR. MAURO: It may have been the 

16 cladding or it may have been the fuel itself, I'm 

17 not sure.

18 See after you extrude the fuel and put 

19 it under these high temperatures. Unfortunately 

20 Bill Thurber's not on the line. He probably is 

21 the one person at SC&A that might be able to add 

22 a little more value as a metallurgist. He has a 

23 wealth of knowledge understanding the crystal 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 structure. Whether it's the cladding or the fuel 

2 itself I don't know. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. This would 

4 have been used in a laboratory type setting, 

5 correct? This is getting down to the brass tacks 

6 of where we've got it all pulled apart and we're 

7 looking at what type of --- after the 

8 temperatures, the high temperatures that we've 

9 had, and what type of crystallization we've got 

10 in the metal.

11 So I think the only thing, what I'm 

12 looking at is thinking back through my personal 

13 knowledge of the processes, of the fuel processes 

14 I've dealt with.

15 And to me it looks like this would 

16 only be a small lab section. And we already 

17 brought this up. One of the people that have 

18 this don't fall into that laboratory type 

19 position and the other one does.

20 Just if this would be able to be used 

21 in that type of a situation to be able to help 

22 that person out a little bit more on this skin 

23 cancer. I think that's all that we can do. I 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really do.

2 MEMBER MUNN: As far as I know, X-ray 

3 crystallography is used as an analysis tool, pre4 exposure, post exposure for metals and non5 organic systems. In organic systems there's an 

6 entirely different thing and I can see no reason 

7 in our context that it would ever be used.

8 So far as I know X-ray crystallography 

9 in itself is a very small segment of the entire 

10 profession. And there are very few people who 

11 are even qualified to do it, and very few machines 

12 that are capable of doing it. It's pretty 

13 esoteric. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, being an ex-X15 ray person I kind of dug into this a little bit 

16 because it was interesting to me, the process of 

17 it.

18 And actually we've got a few people 

19 out here at the INL that actually have performed 

20 this. And they've got some new processes now.

21 That's why it was just kind of 

22 interesting with me to see because I could not 

23 from the content understand at what point that 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they were using this. And that's just where I 

2 wanted to be able to -- because it's also a very, 

3 very unique process.

4 Through the years this has changed, 

5 the process has changed quite a bit. So have the 

6 machines.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Although 

8 whatever process was used at Bridgeport Brass was 

9 used in the sixties, forties, fifties. And ended 

10 in the sixties.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: And they were pretty 

12 crude, to tell you the truth.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I could 

14 believe that. 

15 But I would like to bring this part of 

16 the discussion to an end. And I'm looking for 

17 someone to decide or suggest what we should task 

18 NIOSH to do if anything beyond what we're ---

19 beyond this discussion. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I'll be 

21 glad to suggest a one word answer -- nothing.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'll 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give a couple of comments. I think we ought to 

2 be able to look at the facility that this was 

3 used in and just keep --- you know, I don't think 

4 there's any way that we can task NIOSH to be able 

5 to do a massive amount on this, but to be able to 

6 look at the people that are suffering and would 

7 have been possibly in this situation to be able 

8 to use the crystal radiography. 

9 And have the contents, because it'll 

10 mostly come down to skin cancer, just be able to 

11 play in -- just be able to allow in the added 

12 dose that they probably would have had from that.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could this be done 

14 reasonably either by NIOSH or by SC&A? Could, 

15 what Brad said. Does anyone from either of the 

16 groups think that that could be done?

17 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. What I 

18 believe would have to happen is we'd have to go 

19 through 65 cases and look at the actual record of 

20 the CATI to see what the individual said their 

21 exposure was.

22 If it wasn't an extremity dose or 

23 cancer it's not going to matter.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

2 MR. CALHOUN: We've only got one 

3 extremity dose. I may have missed the beginning 

4 of this discussion, but I don't know if we even 

5 have any indication that there was a problem with 

6 this unit if it was not operating as supposed or 

7 why we're here looking at it.

8 I also believe that these types of 

9 instruments are somewhat contained. They're not 

10 like an open radiography kind of operation. 

11 So the answer is yes, we could do it. 

12 We could look through every single case and look 

13 to see if anybody said yes, I worked with this.

14 But again, if it wasn't skin cancer -

15 -- or extremity cancer, I'm sorry, we're not 

16 going to do anything.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Really, the best thing 

19 to do I think is maybe we could keep it in the 

20 back of our head and go forward with this. But 

21 we'd have to know that it's really an issue too.

22 It's a whole lot of time into 

23 identifying these people and changing the 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, in fact if 

3 you're going to look at it it's really only the 

4 single person who has the extremity cancer. 

5 We don't know and it's not something 

6 for us to discuss here what department or 

7 division that person worked in.

8 However, you folks could take a look 

9 at it and see if it's in fact a division or 

10 department that might have been involved with the 

11 X-ray crystallography.

12 And then we would have on the record, 

13 and we have on the record now that you folks will 

14 keep an eye on that for the future.

15 So if we say nothing more than take a 

16 look at that one case. If you will send the 

17 Subcommittee a brief report, just an email about 

18 the department or division or occupation the 

19 person was in, whether that would seem to have 

20 any possible relationship to the X-ray 

21 crystallography. And then I think that would do 

22 it.

23 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. One more question 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though. And again, I apologize. I've had a crazy 

2 morning. If I missed something in the beginning 

3 of this discussion. 

4 Is --- was there a triggering event 

5 here that made us think that there was excessive 

6 exposures coming from this, or is this a well 

7 maybe it could have happened?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I believe it's the 

9 latter.

10 DR. MAURO: This is John. Nothing 

11 that we saw except that it was used, and also 

12 except that this issue had recently come up on 

13 Carborundum and that sort of triggered why I 

14 brought it up.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. But just for the 

16 record we have no indication that this machine 

17 was acting inappropriately and people were over18 exposed. It's just maybe.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But let me say at 

20 the beginning of the discussion which you 

21 indicated you missed there was from a number of 

22 different folks a feeling that this was early 

23 days of X-ray crystallography of this kind and 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that in fact there may well have not been the 

2 kind of safety protections, the kind of bounding 

3 of the instrument that you would find I hope 

4 today.

5 MR. CALHOUN: And would we just assume 

6 that it was operating inappropriately to try to 

7 come up with a dose approach?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Or --

9 MR. CALHOUN: No, you can't do that.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, not 

11 inappropriately, just that there were -- the 

12 instrumentation back in that period might have 

13 allowed stray exposure.

14 MR. CALHOUN: We can't assume that 

15 there were incidents with no indication that 

16 there were incidents. We can't do that. It 

17 doesn't make sense.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein. If I 

19 can quote from an excerpt from a report from 1971 

20 symposium, "a number of manufacturers have 

21 recently, in the last five years, marketed 

22 special shutter assemblies that include various 

23 fail-safe features. However, there are still 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very many older X-ray units in operation and 

2 these must be checked very carefully." This was 

3 in the 1970s, about 10 years after that period.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. But Grady, 

5 I think we are looking at something that we do 

6 not have an incident that occurred that's on the 

7 record. That is correct. 

8 And there's indication that there 

9 could be. 

10 And I would say we're certainly not -

11 -- we're certainly trying to be careful not to 

12 identify, and Wanda has suggested that we just 

13 simply go on with what we have on the record.

14 I'm trying to think of a way of doing 

15 something that's modest that might be helpful in 

16 giving us an idea as to what the upper bound is 

17 on folks that might have been affected.

18 And then --

19 MR. CALHOUN: We'll give you that, I'll 

20 commit to giving you the information on that 

21 individual and where they worked. That's really 

22 all I can do.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And that's fine. 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I don't think we can do more than that either.

2 So if you would agree to that then my 

3 feeling is that I for myself would say we should 

4 close it, close this part of the discussion at 

5 this point. We have a lot of work to do.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, is that okay, 

8 folks?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's fine. As long 

10 as it's being addressed. I really don't like to 

11 just yes, we've got a problem, we don't know what 

12 do with it and go on.

13 I think that's all you can do, Grady, 

14 and I have no problem with it.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. Then 

16 I think we're ready to move on. Grady, thank you 

17 for doing that and let's go on. Neutron exposure.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, we're in the home 

19 stretch. We're going to talk a little bit about 

20 neutrons and then a very little about the 

21 residual period.

22 Neutrons. The neutron -- NIOSH's 

23 position in their latest TBD is that we do have 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the potential for some neutron exposures. And 

2 there was neutron film badge dosimetry all of 

3 which came up with less than the lower limit of 

4 detection.

5 And under circumstances like that very 

6 often a dose would be assigned as one-half the 

7 MDL but that would not be appropriate because the 

8 only kind of neutron exposure you might have 

9 experienced --- and that would be unrealistically 

10 high.

11 The only type of neutron exposure that 

12 might have occurred is spontaneous fission from 

13 the slightly enriched uranium, 2 percent enriched 

14 uranium which NIOSH -- the potential for that 

15 kind of exposure is extremely small, and it's my 

16 understanding that -- so no neutron dose is 

17 assigned.

18 Bob Anigstein did a little homework on 

19 that and he said okay, well what kind of 

20 spontaneous fission neutron exposures might be 

21 experienced from 2 percent enriched uranium. And 

22 he can certainly give us more detail.

23 But the bottom line is that it would 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be about 1 percent of the dose from photon 

2 exposures which translates to about 12 millirem 

3 per year.

4 So that would be -- and that of 

5 course, that would be at a level that would not 

6 be detected.

7 So the fact that the dose is small. 

8 They're not less than 1 though. So I just want 

9 to bring the Work Group's attention that 

10 typically doses that are less than 1 millirem per 

11 year are just, you know, neglected and 

12 appropriately so when you run these PoCs.

13 In this case our calculations, Bob's 

14 calculations show that well, you might get as 

15 much as 12 millirem per year from spontaneous 

16 fission and we're just bringing this to the 

17 attention of the Work Group and NIOSH on that. 

18 So there might be something here. Nothing much, 

19 but something. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'd like to make one 

21 observation. Talking about the 2 percent 

22 enriched uranium.

23 Spontaneous fission is from U-238. U-
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 238 is four orders of magnitude higher rate than 

2 U-235. So it's less with this one and more 

3 spontaneous fission.

4 DR. MAURO: Well, how do you like 

5 that. Okay, thanks Bob.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, we've been 

7 seeing 2 percent enrichment throughout and that's 

8 what's consistent with our assumption. 

9 NIOSH folks and other folks and 

10 Subcommittee members, this is a finding they 

11 propose, SC&A proposes. What do folks think?

12 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. Can 

13 I say something on that real quick?

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, certainly.

15 MR. ALLEN: Honestly from some of the 

16 numbers I ran that percentage, that seems a 

17 little high to me but it could be right.

18 I think depending on some of the 

19 assumptions you put in there you could get a 

20 variety of numbers that would be a small 

21 percentage of the photon dose.

22 But regardless of that from the actual 

23 observation we discussed earlier where that same 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 model showed 90 percent of the photon dose being 

2 greater than 250, meanwhile we're assigning it 

3 the mid-range, 30 to 250 which actually 

4 overestimates the Probability of Causation 

5 because of the radiation effectiveness factor by 

6 at least a factor of 2 it seems like this 1 

7 percent dose is covered. 

8 It's pretty insignificant and pretty 

9 much irrelevant because if we use this model and 

10 then start using the 90 percent greater than 250 

11 on photons overall everything's going to go down 

12 quite a bit.

13 DR. MAURO: Dave, I agree. I think 

14 you're right. I agree with that as being a 

15 reasonable perspective. When you step out of the 

16 box a little bit that's a good way to look at it. 

17 Yes.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which would suggest 

19 that you're removing this as a finding.

20 DR. MAURO: You know, it's a 

21 legitimate finding. However, I think that Dave 

22 gave a legitimate reason why it could be 

23 overlooked.
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Based on 

2 the assumptions and calculations we've agreed to 

3 before.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. So, 

6 it's subsumed in other calculations for other 

7 aspects of the dose reconstruction.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Any other 

11 comments from Subcommittee members? Anything you 

12 want? I accept that.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. That's 

14 fine.

15 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I am 

16 also fine.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, good. 

18 All right. Well, now let's talk about the 

19 residual theory.

20 DR. MAURO: That's going to be easy. 

21 There was cleanup in 1962 and measurements made, 

22 and more measurements made after that, right up 

23 to the time of the FUSRAP cleanup which was much 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 later.

2 And there was some data available on 

3 what the level of residue was. A little spotty. 

4 Some places were a little bit elevated in '62. 

5 And some places had elevated photon. It was 

6 generally -- it was more due to the fact that the 

7 walls were made of brick, hence naturally8 occurring radioactivity, so it actually got a 

9 little higher as you got closer to the walls.

10 So the bottom line is that there was 

11 very little potential for exposure during the 

12 residual period.

13 And NIOSH concluded that the doses 

14 during the residual period were negligible which 

15 means less than 1 millirem per year and we agree 

16 with that. 

17 So as far as we're concerned the fact 

18 that no doses were assigned for the residual 

19 period seemed to be justified based on the data.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

21 DR. MAURO: If you want to talk a 

22 little bit about that I could quickly go through.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Unless there's --
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll hold for a moment in case there's a comment. 

2 Otherwise we'll go on. Any comments?

3 MEMBER MUNN: No comments here.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, I don't 

5 have any. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go on.

7 DR. MAURO: Medical dose. Classic 

8 OTIB-6 and everything is fine. That's how they 

9 did it in the revision and we concur.

10 And then finally the claims that were 

11 reviewed, their approach was anything that was 

12 less than 50 percent PoC was revisited.

13 Out of all of those cases I think 

14 there were a total -- we heard the number before, 

15 I think it was about 60.

16 There was one that looked like 

17 reversed. It went from non-compensable to 

18 compensable.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: And we are totally in 

21 support of the fact that they looked at all of 

22 the cases that were denied as being their 

23 criteria for what they're going to review. So 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's perfectly fine.

2 And finally we usually conclude here 

3 with SC&A's recommended criteria for looking at 

4 some claims. 

5 I had written at the time as I've done 

6 before perhaps inappropriately so, I usually 

7 recommend a minimum of three. But that's not 

8 necessarily --- it could certainly be one.

9 The criteria is that you certainly 

10 want to look at --- confirm that the external, 

11 internal and medical doses were performed in 

12 accordance with the protocol as outlined in TBD.

13 And the only other --- so that could 

14 be one case that could do all that.

15 But also I like the idea of looking at 

16 a skin cancer. And so therefore by doing external 

17 and internal medical as a case that could be for 

18 a person with an internal dose.

19 Usually the lung is a good one to pick 

20 when you're dealing with uranium and thorium. 

21 But also it's probably a good idea to look at 

22 skin dose.

23 And finally, the one reversal is 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 always an interesting one to look at when you 

2 actually have a reversal and see what was the 

3 reason that happened. That's always insightful.

4 So that's our perspective on a general 

5 way of how to go about selecting one, two, maybe 

6 three cases that would give insight into how this 

7 was actually implemented.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You're talking 

9 about -- because I was a little -- I mean based 

10 on this PER all 50 claims were looked at.

11 It makes sense to me to look at the 

12 one that was flipped. You're suggesting that two 

13 of the remaining 49 be looked at in detail with 

14 a report perhaps?

15 MR. KATZ: Let me just explain how 

16 this works with PERs. After SC&A reviews and the 

17 Subcommittee or Work Group whichever it is 

18 reviews all the methodology along with SC&A that 

19 was used for the PER. 

20 And so when all that's been done, 

21 reviewed, then the last step in a PER review is 

22 to pick one or more cases that will illustrate -

23 - that everything that was discussed in terms of 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 methodology in the PER was applied as specified 

2 in the PER, or any changes.

3 So at this point that's all we're 

4 doing is we asked DCAS to come up with cases, one 

5 or more, that will address all the different 

6 facets that the methodology shows that the 

7 methodology applies as indicated.

8 And so the committee or Work Group's 

9 job is just to be very clear about what those 

10 criteria are that the one or more cases should 

11 illustrate.

12 And then NIOSH pulls those cases, 

13 potential cases, and SC&A reviews them and 

14 reports back on the cases. And that closes out 

15 the PER review.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Okay, 

17 that's helpful. Thank you. 

18 MR. KATZ: Sure.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So is there any 

20 discussion about whether there should be one or 

21 three? Three are recommended.

22 MR. KATZ: So it's really, it's not 

23 the number, it's the criteria. In other words 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what aspects of the methodology do you want to 

2 see illustrated by cases.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. They're 

4 recommending three cases, any combination of 

5 three. Which he's outlined.

6 DR. MAURO: Let me apologize to the 

7 group. We had this discussion just the other 

8 day.

9 Going back in the early days I used to 

10 say well you know, if we're going to do a check 

11 to all the protocols you probably need about 

12 three.

13 And Ted corrected me then at the 

14 previous meeting we just had and I believe that's 

15 worth saying again.

16 That was, the number three is really 

17 not the right way to think about this. 

18 I think the right way to look at it 

19 is that we want to make sure we pick enough cases 

20 that we think of and make sure that they followed 

21 their protocol, implemented it for external, for 

22 internal, I always like to have skin separate 

23 because it's unique, and finally the other 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 category that is also of interest is you'd like 

2 to be able to look at the one that was reversed.

3 And that really is the criteria. Now 

4 that could turn out to be only two cases.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like 

6 it.

7 DR. MAURO: Right. And so you'll see 

8 it in a lot of my work. You'll see me 

9 recommending three. And I think that in 

10 retrospect that way of thinking about it is not 

11 the right way to think about it.

12 The right way to think about it is the 

13 way Ted just explained it.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: And as a matter of fact 

16 that was precisely what I was going to say, John. 

17 I thank you very much. 

18 I don't see any reason at all why, 

19 especially in a cohort of this size more than two 

20 are necessary. 

21 Certainly we can cover the aspects 

22 that are requesting in two if we select them 

23 carefully.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That makes sense to 

2 me. So I agree with that.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Well, maybe two with 

4 the addition of the skin, or however many skin -

5 -

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, the skin will 

7 be one of the cases. I mean one of the cases 

8 will be one with skin exposure. And we had I 

9 think -- I'm sure there are a number. 

10 So skin and examination of the one 

11 that flipped. Okay. 

12 So are we settled on two, folks? Is 

13 that agreed?

14 MEMBER MUNN: That would be my 

15 recommendation.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I support that. 

17 Okay. Hearing no further we'll suggest then the 

18 two.

19 And we therefore will await that 

20 result at the next meeting I hope, so that we can 

21 close this. Is that correct, that there's no 

22 action that we are supposed to take?

23 We will have one brief report about 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the person with skin cancer on the extremity, a 

2 note from Grady. Okay? 

3 So that seems to me to close it for 

4 the moment. Is that correct? 

5 (Simultaneous speaking)

6 DR. MAURO: I have nothing to add. 

7 This is John. 

8 MEMBER BEACH: So close the discussion 

9 until we come back to it.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Exactly, when we 

11 get the report. And then the next time we will, 

12 if things are as we -- if the review of the claims 

13 makes sense to us and we think things are going 

14 right then we will approve the PER and that will 

15 be it. Right.

16 Okay. Now, this is -- I've been 

17 looking at the clock. It's noontime on the east 

18 coast. We often stop. 

19 On the other hand, we have three Set 

20 23 blind dose cases that we want to look at today. 

21 I'll listen to a suggestion about 

22 whether we should start on one of them now, go 

23 until perhaps 12:30, whatever, and then take a 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 break. Or would people like to take a break now 

2 and just start the three blind dose 

3 reconstruction cases after break? Do I hear a 

4 recommendation?

5 Review Set 23 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let's go for it. 

7 It's still early out here.

8 MEMBER BEACH: I'm okay to go for it 

9 too.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'd like to go for 

11 it because it seems to me we've accomplished one 

12 important thing today but I'd like to feel like 

13 we did more than one thing before lunch. Or lunch 

14 for me.

15 Okay, Rose, do you -- which one would 

16 you like to take of the three? You know which one 

17 your judgment would be, that it would be ---

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can go in order but 

19 if you want a quicker case the Nevada Test Site 

20 case might be the shortest one, I would imagine. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That sounds 

22 like a good suggestion. Then Nevada Test Site it 

23 is. 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me one second. 

2 Since I'm going to be taking two of them I was 

3 actually hoping I could go through maybe just 

4 Sandia. I think I can get through that.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you want to do the 

6 Sandia, as long as the Board's fine with that, 

7 I'm ---

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We will happily 

9 listen to your recommendation. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. It just gives me 

11 a break in between the two. And I'll try to be 

12 --- not brief, but explain as thoroughly as I 

13 can. So if that's okay with everyone, Rose? That 

14 means that you don't have two.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that's fine.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And actually the 

18 agenda says that there are two Sandia cases and 

19 Nevada Test Site, and there's actually a Hanford, 

20 a Sandia National Lab, and Nevada Test Site. So 

21 I'll do the Hanford after lunch then. But I will 

22 start with the Sandia National Lab. 

23 And Rose can bring that up because I'm 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to try to be very cautious here in my 

2 discussion.

3 This individual did work at Sandia 

4 National Lab in Albuquerque, New Mexico for most 

5 of his employment period. He was also 

6 transferred to the Sandia National Lab in 

7 Livermore, California. And he visited the Nevada 

8 Test Site, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and 

9 the Kansas City Plant. So we will be talking 

10 about all of those facilities.

11 There were -- as shown in Table 1-1 

12 there were 11 skin cancers and one I'll say non13 skin cancer.

14 The employment period for this 

15 individual was over 30 years combined at all of 

16 these different facilities and sites that he 

17 visited.

18 Both NIOSH and SC&A's internal and 

19 external doses are shown in Table 1-2. That shows 

20 the comparison for all of the cancers.

21 And if you scroll down you can see 

22 that in most cases both NIOSH and SC&A calculated 

23 similar doses. 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And in both cases the PoCs were less 

2 than 50 percent and the PoCs were very close.

3 So we'll go into the details in 

4 section 2. We do a comparison of the parameters 

5 that were used and the various documents that 

6 were used to determine what the doses were going 

7 to be.

8 Here again this is a multi-page 

9 comparison report. And if you scroll down 

10 through there's really few differences. I will 

11 point out those differences as we go through this 

12 case.

13 As you can see because of the various 

14 places that the individual was monitored that 

15 made this comparison table quite lengthy.

16 So if we move onto page 14 we'll start 

17 with the occupational external doses. And the 

18 individual was monitored at the SNL Albuquerque 

19 site for various years of employment.

20 However, there were only positive, or 

21 greater than LOD over 2 results for two years. 

22 Both NIOSH and SC&A assumed 100 

23 percent AP geometry and energy fraction of 30 to 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 250. And applied the appropriate DCFs from the 

2 Implementation Guide, the External 

3 Implementation Guide.

4 One of the things you'll hear me state 

5 throughout is for all of the external doses or 

6 most of the external doses NIOSH applies, and we 

7 talk about this routinely and I'll just remind 

8 everyone they apply for these assessment cases a 

9 Monte Carlo approach to applying those DCF 

10 values.

11 In other words when you go into the 

12 Implementation Guide there is a minimum and a 

13 maximum DCF value and a mean DCF value. They use 

14 a Monte Carlo program, I think BOSS is what they 

15 were using, to sample, randomly sample those DCF 

16 values and apply that to the dose.

17 Where SC&A, when we go through these, 

18 we just use that mean value consistently. And so 

19 that's often what -- where you're going to see 

20 some minor differences in dose. And I'll be

21 mentioning that throughout.

22 So, let's go onto page 15. As I said 

23 there were similar assumptions made except for 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH using the Monte Carlo for applying the DCF 

2 values. And so there is where there was some 

3 slight difference in the doses that were 

4 calculated.

5 Now the individual also visited the 

6 Sandia National Labs in Livermore. There was 

7 only one year of monitoring, external monitoring 

8 that showed positive readings of greater than LOD 

9 over 2.

10 NIOSH used 100 percent 30 to 250. And 

11 in this particular case SC&A assumed that the 

12 individual worked in a building that did not 

13 specify that we use 100 percent 30 to 250 but 

14 instead used 5 percent less than 30 keV, 45 

15 percent of 30 to 250 keV energy --- photon energy, 

16 and 50 percent of greater than 250 keV energy.

17 Again, similar doses were calculated 

18 by both methods. The only difference again is 

19 that NIOSH used the Monte Carlo and that resulted 

20 in the doses being entered into IREP as a Weibull 

21 distribution versus SC&A entering the dose as a

22 constant.

23 Also, the visits to the Nevada Test 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Site. The individual was monitored. However, 

2 all of the monitoring indicated that the doses 

3 were less than the LOD over 2 and so these doses 

4 were treated as missed dose which we'll talk 

5 about next.

6 Under section 2.1.2 is the missed 

7 photon doses. And at the SNL site in Albuquerque 

8 NIOSH looked at the records and counted 53 badge 

9 exchanges that represented less than one-half the 

10 LOD value.

11 And they applied that LOD over 2 value 

12 as appropriate for the various time facilities -

13 -- or the various time intervals.

14 They also applied appropriate DCF 

15 values and again they applied those using the 

16 Monte Carlo methodology. 

17 SC&A counted 52 zeroes, used the same 

18 LOD and DCFs and applied these consistently using 

19 the mean value.

20 And even though SC&A counted one less 

21 zero, just the fact that we applied the DCFs 

22 differently our doses were slightly higher for 

23 the non-skin cancer. The skin cancer doses were 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all calculated the same. Or very close, I should 

2 say.

3 If we move on then to the Sandia 

4 National Lab Livermore period of time for 

5 employment NIOSH -- now in this case NIOSH 

6 indicated that they combined the missed doses 

7 from the three sites that the individual visited.

8 However, when we went into the records 

9 we actually realized that in the workbook they 

10 used eight zeroes, they calculated eight zeroes 

11 for calculating a missed dose.

12 And they assigned those doses for a 

13 two-year period and they again assumed 100 

14 percent of the 30 to 250 keV.

15 And consistent with what SC&A did with 

16 the recorded photon doses they used the energy 

17 fractions again of less than 30, 30 to 250, and 

18 greater than 250 as they did with the recorded.

19 And they counted -- SC&A counted nine 

20 zeroes and assigned dose for three years.

21 And again if you look at the doses 

22 that were calculated by both, very consistent.

23 We will move on then to NTS on page 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 17. Here again for the missed dose both SC&A and 

2 NIOSH counted 17 zero or less than LOD over 2 

3 badge exchanges.

4 They applied -- they both also applied 

5 a dosimeter correction factor of 1.25 to these 

6 values.

7 NIOSH used 100 percent 30 to 250 for 

8 all of cancers and the only difference was that 

9 SC&A again applied -- they assumed a 25 percent 

10 30 to 250 and 75 percent greater than 250 for the 

11 non-skin cancer.

12 And dose to skin were very similar. 

13 Only difference is because of the difference in 

14 assessing the CCF values in the Monte Carlo is 

15 really what created minor differences.

16 Going on to section 2.1.3 is 

17 unmonitored shallow dose or electron dose. For 

18 the employment at the Sandia National Lab 

19 Albuquerque, NIOSH assigned unmonitored electron 

20 dose to the skin for one year. And NIOSH --- I'm 

21 sorry, SC&A did not assign any unmonitored 

22 shallow dose. That resulted in one year 22 

23 millirem.
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For the Sandia National Labs Livermore 

2 employment and NTS visits neither SC&A nor NIOSH 

3 assigned any unmonitored shallow doses.

4 If we move on to missed shallow dose 

5 on page 18 for the Sandia National Labs 

6 Albuquerque site employment both NIOSH and SC&A 

7 assigned missed shallow dose based on guidance in 

8 OTIB-17 and used one-half of the LOD values and 

9 assigned that dose as greater than 15 keV energy.

10 Both entered those doses as a 

11 lognormal distribution with a GSD of 1.5 and they 

12 came up with identical dose.

13 There was no assignment of missed 

14 shallow doses for the Sandia National Labs 

15 Livermore or NTS.

16 Now if we move on to recorded neutron 

17 doses the EE was monitored for neutron exposure 

18 while employed at the SNL Albuquerque site. 

19 There was only one year that showed a 

20 positive result. Both NIOSH and SC&A used the 

21 neutron to photon ratio for calculating that 

22 dose, applied the ICRP-60 correction factors and 

23 assigned that dose as 100 percent 0.1 to 2 MeV 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 energy range.

2 A slight difference again in doses, 

3 but you can see there is just again due to 

4 applying the Monte Carlo technique.

5 At SNL Livermore, NTS and the Lawrence 

6 Livermore National Lab the individual was not 

7 monitored for neutrons at Sandia National Labs 

8 Livermore and NTS, and there was one record 

9 indicating that neutron monitoring was done at 

10 Lawrence Livermore. 

11 But that was less than the LOD over 2 

12 so it was treated again as missed dose.

13 And if we go on to section 2.1.6 the

14 missed neutron dose, again missed neutron was 

15 calculated for employment at Sandia National Labs 

16 Albuquerque.

17 Prior to 1972 neutron to photon ratio 

18 was used and thereafter the appropriate one-half 

19 NDA value was used.

20 The difference was NIOSH assumed 25 

21 zeroes, or 25 missed neutron doses, and SC&A 

22 assumed 24.

23 I believe NIOSH included -- the 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference in the one extra zero was that NIOSH 

2 included the missed dose from the Lawrence 

3 Livermore facility.

4 Both assumed 100 percent of 0.1 to 2 

5 MeV. But again NIOSH applied the Monte Carlo 

6 techniques.

7 If you look down at the second 

8 paragraph there you can see doses were similar. 

9 The difference is due to the difference in Monte 

10 Carlo and also that NIOSH included that one year 

11 of missed neutron from Lawrence Livermore.

12 Going down then to what is marked as 

13 Sandia National Labs Livermore when SC&A reviewed 

14 the records they -- they misinterpreted the 

15 Lawrence Livermore report, or they looked at the 

16 Lawrence Livermore report and actually assigned 

17 that one missed neutron dose to Sandia National 

18 Labs Livermore.

19 And so therefore they calculated the 

20 doses based on the Sandia National Lab Livermore 

21 TBD which specified 5 percent of 10 to 100 keV, 

22 70 percent of 0.1 to 2 MeV, and 25 percent from 

23 2 to 20 MeV.
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They also applied the ICRP-60 

2 correction factor which resulted in the modest 

3 dose of 4 millirem.

4 That was entered into IREP as a 

5 lognormal distribution with a GSD of 1.2.

6 If we go onto the onsite ambient dose 

7 both NIOSH and SC&A assigned onsite ambient dose 

8 for periods when the individual was not routinely 

9 monitored.

10 NIOSH assigned that dose for most --

11 what am I --- let me see here -- for some years, 

12 assuming that the individual was at the Sandia 

13 National Labs Albuquerque in technical area 1.

14 They also adjusted the dose for 

15 partial years of employment and adjusted for 

16 2,500 hours per work year rather than the --

17 assuming that he worked overtime, than the 2,000.

18 They applied an isotropic DSF value 

19 and the doses were modest.

20 There was a three-year period where 

21 they assumed that the individual worked -- or 

22 they assigned the onsite ambient using the Sandia 

23 National Labs Albuquerque TBD which included 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doses from photons and neutrons.

2 And so as you can see on page 20 about 

3 halfway down, okay, you have it up there. Again 

4 the doses were relatively modest but higher than 

5 what SC&A calculated.

6 SC&A assumed that the individual was 

7 in the technical area 1 and technical area 4 

8 throughout the employment and assigned that dose 

9 based on the TBD associated with Sandia National 

10 Labs Albuquerque.

11 SC&A did not adjust for partial year 

12 dose and our doses were -- SC&A's doses were 

13 somewhat lower just due to the fact that they 

14 based the entire onsite ambient dose on the 

15 Albuquerque TBD.

16 And going onto occupational medical 

17 doses. Both NIOSH and SC&A reviewed the records 

18 that indicated that the individual was given 

19 eight PA exams and two lumbar-spine exams.

20 NIOSH assigned dose -- the medical 

21 exposure for two years using Sandia National Labs 

22 Livermore TBD because it was more claimant23 favorable. 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then for the remainder of the 

2 medical doses they assigned it using the 

3 information and guidance from the Sandia National 

4 Labs Albuquerque TBD.

5 SC&A used the Albuquerque data TBD 37 

6 for all of the doses. And Table 2.2 a little 

7 further down on page 21 shows you the difference 

8 in the medical doses that were calculated by 

9 NIOSH and SC&A.

10 Both methodologies entered those 

11 doses into IREP as normal distribution with a 30 

12 percent uncertainty. 

13 And NIOSH's higher dose to the non14 skin cancer is due to using the Sandia National 

15 Labs Livermore more claimant-favorable medical 

16 doses for two of the years.

17 Internal doses. If we move on to page 

18 22 NIOSH assigned dose based on just an 

19 occupational environmental dose I should say, an 

20 environmental dose.

21 The individual wasn't monitored, 

22 didn't have any bioassay monitoring so the dose 

23 was based on environmental.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH methodically went through each 

2 of the locations and assigned dose based on 

3 location of the individual being employed at the 

4 Albuquerque site, NTS for the appropriate years, 

5 Sandia National Labs Livermore, and the Lawrence 

6 Livermore facility.

7 And at Table 2.3 you can see the doses 

8 that they calculated for each of the 11 skin 

9 cancers and the 1 non-skin cancer.

10 SC&A, they restricted their 

11 environmental internal doses and assumed that the 

12 individual was at the Sandia National Labs 

13 Albuquerque site and also -- throughout most of 

14 the employment and also included the NTS visits 

15 in calculating their doses.

16 And that resulted in less than 1 

17 millirem and so values were not even included in 

18 IREP.

19 That is the summary. I won't 

20 necessarily go back through the differences in 

21 doses because they were fairly modest. 

22 All of the total doses were relatively 

23 close. PoCs were close. But if anyone has any 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 questions or needs further explanation on any of 

2 the calculated doses I'm willing to answer them 

3 if I can.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Any questions? 

5 Comments? 

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I don't 

7 have any questions, but I do have a comment.

8 Whenever we go through a complicated 

9 case like this one where the individual has 

10 multiple sites involved and therefore multiple 

11 environments that must be taken into 

12 consideration, this process that we go through 

13 right here is the most revealing I think that we 

14 encountered in this entire program.

15 I'm continually amazed at how well 

16 both our NIOSH folks and our contractor people 

17 address things that are just one step beyond the 

18 common thinking of things like energy fractions.

19 I'm always a little puzzled about how 

20 I would go about approaching that.

21 Missed dose and unmonitored dose and 

22 methodologies that -- the decisions that are 

23 involved there. The type of distribution that's 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 chosen to analyze the data, it's just so well 

2 done by both groups that when we go through this 

3 it is an astonishment to me that within the range 

4 of scientific knowledge, the types of approaches 

5 that are taken are close enough but variable 

6 enough to give me an enormously large sense of 

7 satisfaction that every rock has been turned.

8 So I thank both the NIOSH folks and 

9 the SC&A folks who do this work because I 

10 personally think it's astonishing. And we on the 

11 Board don't really see it until we have cases of 

12 this type.

13 So I think the report was very well 

14 done as was the original case. And thank you 

15 all.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I second that. 

17 For multiple cancers at multiple sites over 

18 decades and you're able to come out with results 

19 that are really extraordinarily close on 

20 independent review.

21 It is impressive and it gives one much 

22 faith certainly in the precision with which the 

23 dose reconstruction process is carried out. 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A fine job and good result. I think 

2 the results speak for themselves. Further? Do 

3 we wish to --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. No 

5 comment. I echo what both of you just said. It's 

6 a great job. No comments.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good, good. So 

8 can we move that we accept this?

9 MEMBER MUNN: So moved.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. So all 

13 in favor, aye.

14 (Chorus of ayes)

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Negative or 

16 abstain?

17 (No response)

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, okay. Folks, 

19 wonderful job and we end before lunch on a high 

20 note.

21 It is now 12:35 Eastern Standard Time. 

22 So let's take a break and get back together at 

23 1:35. Okay?
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Thank you 

3 all.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

5 went off the record at 12:34 p.m. and resumed at 

6 1:37 p.m.)

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right, very 

8 good. We have a quorum so now let's see. Which 

9 one are we going to start --- which one of the 

10 two remaining lines are we starting with?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have NTS up on the 

12 screen so if you don't mind we'll start there.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is everyone ready to 

15 get started?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sure.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is an NTS 

18 employment case. You can see here from the screen 

19 the EE had a number of cancers, all fairly 

20 localized in one area of the body. And they were 

21 all diagnosed within the last 10 years or so.

22 NIOSH and SC&A both did their dose 

23 reconstructions and we both had a PoC of less 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than 50 percent. And so the case was not 

2 compensated.

3 From Table 1-2 here you'll see that 

4 for the most part our doses were very, very close. 

5 The only differences really are in missed photon 

6 dose, 3 millirem in medical dose and 13 to 14 

7 millirem in environmental dose.

8 Our PoCs are very close together. You 

9 see that there were several employment periods 

10 that lasted over 27 years but the EE worked on 

11 and off.

12 Their job title could be said to be 

13 non-rad worker.

14 They were monitored for external dose 

15 but only a single monitoring of the whole body 

16 count for internal dose. And that was a 

17 termination scan.

18 Table 2-1 shows what NIOSH did versus 

19 what SC&A did. Ultimately they're very, very 

20 close. There's a little bit of difference in the 

21 PoC values but nothing substantial. 

22 For reported photon dose NIOSH and 

23 SC&A defined exactly the same dose, we both used 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 25 percent 30 to 250 keV photon and 75 percent 

2 greater than 250 keV photon.

3 We both used the same dosimeter 

4 correction factor of 1.25 and the same organ dose 

5 correction factor of 1. 

6 And because we used the same values we 

7 came up with the same results. For missed photon 

8 dose there was a slight difference. We both came 

9 up with 291 exchanges for zero dose, which is 

10 pretty good.

11 The difference really comes in the 

12 year 1971 which was the year that the dosimeters 

13 changed and we just have a slight change in LOD 

14 from 40 millirem per year to 30 millirem per year. 

15 NIOSH assumed nine zeroes at the 40 

16 millirem and four zeroes at the 30. And SC&A 

17 assumed 2 at the 40 and 11 at the 30.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, I'm sorry. This 

19 is Scott. 

20 I just want to point out that's a 

21 misprint. We actually assigned 4 at the 40 

22 millirem and 9 at the 30.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, okay. Thank you.
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: That's okay. No 

2 problem.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then we also --

4 SC&A did not assigned a TLD correction factor of 

5 1.1 for the years 1987 and 1988. They basically 

6 cancel each other out, resulted in a difference 

7 of about 22 millirem between the two dose 

8 reconstructions.

9 For unmonitored shallow dose SC&A and 

10 NIOSH assigned basically the same dose again.

11 Onsite ambient dose, neither one of us 

12 assigned the ambient dose.

13 For medical dose really the 3 millirem 

14 difference on two of the cancers comes from the 

15 choice of which location on the body to assume 

16 that the X-ray occurred at.

17 With these particular cancers the 

18 slight difference in where you choose can be a 

19 slight difference in dose. Nothing substantial. 

20 You see it's a 3 millirem here.

21 For occupational internal dose we both 

22 assigned dose. The EE only had the one 

23 termination whole body count. 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH chose to use I believe the best 

2 estimate approach for assigning internal dose and 

3 SC&A used the maximizing approach that resulted 

4 in NIOSH assigning less than 1 millirem dose per 

5 year and SC&A assigning between 13 and 14 

6 millirem per year.

7 Overall we were very, very close in 

8 dose reconstruction. You'll see here again on 

9 summary Table 3-1 just a little bit of difference 

10 in external and internal dose, but overall 

11 nothing substantial.

12 Were there any questions? 

13 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Questions?

15 MEMBER BEACH: I don't have any.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Me neither.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Again, very fine, 

18 very good agreement. Any other? So folks, if 

19 there's no further questions. This seems fairly 

20 straightforward. Should we accept?

21 MEMBER MUNN: So moved.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Second.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Agreed. All right. So, all those in favor, aye.

2 (Chorus of ayes)

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Any opposed?

4 (No audible response)

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Abstain?

6 (No audible response)

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right. So, 

8 that's approved. My goodness, fairly quickly. 

9 And we have our last one now.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes, this is Kathy and 

11 the last one is the Hanford site. And while Rose

12 was bringing this up I wanted to just make a 

13 comment that adds onto something that Wanda had 

14 said earlier.

15 I hope you don't mind me adding this, 

16 but I have to say I also find the lines very 

17 revealing. And I enjoy doing them and really 

18 teasing out the differences.

19 And I think that one of the things 

20 that we find when we have a case like this line 

21 that Rose was just showing when you have a 

22 closeness like that it shows -- it really 

23 reflects to me the descriptiveness and the 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thoroughness that was put into the TBD itself.

2 And I hope I'm not opening up a can 

3 of worms here by asking this question, but when 

4 we do these slides, when we work with lines, 

5 sometimes it seems like some of the AWE sites, it 

6 might be appropriate to do those because we've 

7 found in the past that the guidance sometimes for 

8 some of these sites was not quite as descriptive.

9 Are we still assigning a blind circuit 

10 with AWEs or not?

11 MR. KATZ: We are. Actually I think 

12 in set 24 there are.

13 MS. BEHLING: There were one or two. 

14 Okay. Okay, I was just curious. I just thought 

15 I would throw that out there.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And we're also 

17 looking, are we not, at these today. We have 

18 partial -- these are partial dose 

19 reconstructions.

20 MS. BEHLING: They are considered 

21 partial in some cases because of SEC issues.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 MS. BEHLING: I'll be talking about 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that in this particular case.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So that 

3 also seems to me a step forward because we started 

4 out -- initially we started out with ones that we 

5 had done the full dose reconstruction. 

6 And then we're slowly broadening out. 

7 And this is all good.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you for 

9 letting me share.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure, absolutely.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay. If you're ready 

12 we'll move onto this last one from the 23rd set.

13 This individual worked at the Hanford 

14 site in Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and 

15 also the Iowa Ordnance Plant.

16 As you see in Table 1-1 there were a 

17 total of five cancers, four of which were skin

18 and one a non-skin.

19 And if we move on to Table 1-2 you'll 

20 see the employment history for the various sites. 

21 And this individual worked for a total of about 

22 40 years.

23 So NIOSH and SC&A doses are shown in 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the comparison table on page 9, Table 1-3. And 

2 again as you look down through the doses it shows 

3 that most doses are very similar. The largest 

4 difference is reflected in the first non-skin 

5 cancer under the internal dose. And we'll go 

6 into why that difference occurred.

7 Both NIOSH and SC&A calculated PoCs 

8 that were less than 50 percent.

9 So if we move on to section 2, Table 

10 2.1 shows comparison again of the data and the 

11 assumptions used by NIOSH and SC&A.

12 And once again I won't go into details 

13 but this table goes on and on for several pages 

14 because of all of the doses that were calculated 

15 and the fact that there were the Hanford, PNNL 

16 sites and also the IOP, the Iowa Ordnance Plant.

17 So we'll move ahead to section 2.1 and 

18 talk about the occupational external exposures. 

19 And the reported photon dose at the 

20 Iowa plant due to the SEC only those doses that 

21 were actually recorded in the individual's file 

22 are able to be used for reconstructing the doses.

23 In this particular case the EE was 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitored and had positive dosimetry readings 

2 throughout several years.

3 So NIOSH and SC&A assumed 100 percent 

4 30 to 250 energy range and applied applicable 

5 DCFs.

6 Again, NIOSH used Monte Carlo 

7 technique for applying those DCFs which resulted 

8 in the doses being entered into IREP using a 

9 Weibull dose distribution as opposed to SC&A 

10 entering those doses as a constant distribution.

11 We move on to the Hanford PNNL 

12 facility. At Hanford the individual worked 

13 primarily in the 200 and 300 areas and Table 2-2 

14 shows the time periods that both NIOSH and SC&A 

15 assumed that the individual worked in those areas 

16 and the dose distribution that was used and also 

17 the DCF values for the skin and non-skin cancers.

18 NIOSH assumed for a period of time 

19 that you can see on the table that the EE worked 

20 in a known neutron area. And that resulted in 

21 them using 100 percent 30 to 250 keV for that 

22 time period where SC&A assumed that the 

23 individual did work in an area with potential 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutron, and so therefore their dose distribution 

2 was 25 percent below 250 and 75 percent greater 

3 than 250.

4 Then if we move down to Table 2.3 you 

5 see the doses that were assigned by NIOSH and 

6 SC&A for each of the cancers.

7 The recorded doses. NIOSH's about 133 

8 millirem less than SC&A for the non-cancer is 

9 primarily because of the Monte Carlo issues of 

10 assigned DCFs.

11 And if you move on then to missed 

12 photon doses for the work at the Iowa plant both 

13 NIOSH and SC&A counted 61 missed badge exchanges 

14 and both assigned 100 percent 30 to 250 keV and 

15 applied DCFs differently as they did with the 

16 recorded doses.

17 At Hanford the missed photon dose, 

18 here again at least based on what I could 

19 understand -- what I could determine from the 

20 workbooks NIOSH indicated in the dose 

21 reconstruction report that they counted 59 zeroes 

22 total. When I went into the workbook it looked 

23 like they actually used 31 and I think that was 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just a typo.

2 SC&A also counted 31 missed badge 

3 exchanges. Both assumed LOD over 2 based on TBD 

4 data. And again NIOSH applied the Monte Carlo 

5 approach for the DCFs and therefore there was a 

6 slight difference in the dose to the cancer that 

7 was not the skin cancer.

8 If we go onto recorded shallow dose 

9 the EE was not monitored for shallow dose at the 

10 Iowa site and therefore none was calculated based 

11 on the SEC.

12 At Hanford the shallow dose for the 

13 first cancer was based on the Implementation 

14 Guide 1 and assumed less than 30 keV for work in 

15 plutonium areas.

16 And in this particular case they also 

17 selected the DCFs from a table in the 

18 Implementation Guide associated with special dose 

19 conversion factors for plutonium.

20 Both assigned shallow dose to the skin 

21 using OTIB-17 and a greater than 15 keV 

22 assignment was for when the individual worked in 

23 non-plutonium areas and less than 30 keV for when 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the individual worked in what were considered 

2 plutonium areas.

3 In addition, for one of the skin 

4 cancers NIOSH assumed that that area would be 

5 covered with clothing and applied a 60 percent 

6 clothing attenuation factor.

7 SC&A did not apply that clothing

8 attenuation factor and also assigned the dose as 

9 greater than 15 keV for the skin cancers and less 

10 than 30 keV for the additional cancer. Okay. 

11 Again doses were very similar.

12 If we go on to missed shallow dose for 

13 the Hanford facility both NIOSH and SC&A assumed 

14 -- counted 34 zeroes or less than LOD over 2.

15 Again, the differences were just NIOSH 

16 assuming --- or applying the Monte Carlo versus 

17 SC&A using a median DCF value.

18 And again, NIOSH did apply a clothing 

19 attenuation factor for one of the skin cancers 

20 and SC&A did not do that. Again, doses were very 

21 similar. 

22 We move on to recorded neutron doses. 

23 The individual was not monitored for neutron 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure at the Iowa site. For Hanford there was 

2 one positive neutron reading and NIOSH assumed 

3 that the EE worked in the 200 area and therefore 

4 divided the energy by 90 percent 0.1 to 2 MeV 

5 neutrons and 10 percent 2 to 20 MeV.

6 Once again NIOSH applied Monte Carlo 

7 with the DCFs. Also used an ICRP-60 correction 

8 factor and ended up with doses again that were 

9 similar to SC&A but they were entered into IREP 

10 as a Weibull distribution for the non-skin 

11 cancer.

12 SC&A assumed that the EE worked at the 

13 PNNL site in a specific building that would allow 

14 them to assume that the neutrons were 100 percent 

15 100 to 2 MeV -- 100 keV to 2 MeV, I'm sorry.

16 SC&A also applied the ICRP-60 

17 correction factor and again the doses were 

18 similar to those calculated by NIOSH.

19 If we go on to missed neutron doses in 

20 this particular case NIOSH counted 43 missed 

21 doses for neutron and SC&A counted 47.

22 The same energy fractions, DCFs and 

23 ICRP-60 correction factors were used. And both 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 applied dose correction factor of 1.35 for the 

2 years specified in the Technical Basis Document.

3 Doses were similar. SC&A's slightly 

4 higher dose was due to counting 47 versus 43 

5 zeroes.

6 If we go on to onsite ambient dose, 

7 onsite ambient is not available at the Iowa 

8 Ordnance Plant and therefore it was not 

9 calculated.

10 For Hanford both NIOSH and SC&A 

11 assumed that the individual was in the 200 area 

12 and used dose data from Table 4-8 of the Technical 

13 Basis Document.

14 NIOSH also used an isotropic DCF value 

15 and assumed a 2,600 hour work year. 

16 They also adjusted the employment for 

17 partial years of employment. SC&A did not do 

18 that adjustment, but again there were similar 

19 doses and the difference in doses was primarily 

20 due to the partial years of employment not being 

21 assumed by SC&A.

22 If we move on to the medical doses 

23 there were no medical records for the Iowa, but
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 both NIOSH and SC&A based the medical dose on 

2 guidance in the TBD and doses from OTIB-6. The 

3 individual was assigned an annual PA chest and 

4 lumbar spine for various years as specified in 

5 the TBD.

6 And Table 2-4 compares the medical 

7 doses calculated by NIOSH and SC&A. And as you 

8 can see they are very similar.

9 Going on to Hanford-PNNL medical 

10 records in this case both NIOSH and SC&A used the 

11 records to find medical doses.

12 The individual did receive X-ray exams 

13 for nine years. And both used the applicable 

14 tables from the TBD and calculated similar or 

15 nearly identical doses as you can see.

16 Okay. Now we're going to move into 

17 the internal which is where it gets a little bit 

18 more interesting.

19 For the occupational internal doses 

20 the individual was not monitored at Iowa and so 

21 there was no dose calculated based on the SEC.

22 For the Hanford the individual was 

23 monitored for plutonium and uranium by urinalyses 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and also fission products by whole body counts.

2 All of the plutonium bioassays were 

3 less than MDA. Now, NIOSH assumed -- in this 

4 particular case NIOSH's methodology used IMBA and 

5 one-half of the MDA value to calculate intakes.

6 They assumed 100 percent plutonium7 239. They compared solubility types M and S with 

8 type S being the most claimant-favorable. 

9 They started employment at the 

10 beginning -- the beginning of employment -- they 

11 calculated the intakes using the start of 

12 employment through 1978 which does not represent 

13 the termination data. The termination 

14 urinalysis. They decided that that was -- I 

15 assume was a low intake and they did not include 

16 that in their calculation, in their fitting 

17 calculation for determining the internal dose for 

18 plutonium.

19 Because type S was the highest intake 

20 they also considered type super S and all the 

21 doses were multiplied by a factor of 4.

22 With SC&A they also used IMBA. 

23 However, they ignored the first bioassay at the 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 beginning of employment and their fitting 

2 calculation started with the following bioassay, 

3 but they did include the urinalysis for the 

4 termination urinalysis results.

5 So, even though they used similar 

6 assumptions such as the 10-year aged fuel grade 

7 plutonium because of using different date ranges 

8 in their fitting calculation their alpha intake 

9 was a lot higher than what was calculated by 

10 NIOSH.

11 And Table 2.5 shows a comparison of 

12 the doses that were calculated using these two 

13 different fitting approaches.

14 And if we go on to the internal dose 

15 from uranium, section 2.2.2, all of the uranium 

16 bioassays were less than MDA.

17 Both NIOSH and SC&A compared chronic 

18 and acute intakes. And NIOSH compared types M 

19 and S solubility where SC&A compared intake rates 

20 for all three solubility types, F, M and S.

21 Everyone concluded that type S was the 

22 largest intake and they also considered recycled 

23 uranium in the calculation but that -- this 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculation resulted in doses of less than 1 

2 millirem. Because the non-skin cancers actually 

3 came out to 1 millirem so NIOSH did assign 1 

4 millirem for that non-skin cancer.

5 Now, with regard to the fission 

6 products there were whole body counts that showed 

7 greater than limits of detection for cesium-137, 

8 zinc-65, and sodium-25.

9 NIOSH followed guidance in accordance 

10 with the Hanford TBD which states that intakes 

11 should be -- mixed fission intakes should be 

12 based on guidance in OTIB-54 which is fission and 

13 activation product assignment for internal doses.

14 And their calculation based on that 

15 came up with a total fission product dose which 

16 is shown on page 24 of 180 millirem to the non17 skin cancer and 20 millirem to the four skin 

18 cancers. I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead here. That 

19 was coworker dose.

20 Let me see here. Okay, let me go back. 

21 I got ahead of myself.

22 For the other mixed fission doses 

23 NIOSH used the strontium-90 as the indicator 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radionuclide and data from Table 7.3 of OTIB-54 

2 and calculated -- I'm trying to see where I 

3 entered their dose. They assumed type S, 

4 strontium-90 and levels below LOD. And in 

5 addition they added the coworker dose for a 

6 period of '75 through '77 and that total dose 

7 then came to 180 for the total fission and 

8 activation product dose for the non-skin cancer 

9 and 20 for the four skin cancers.

10 When SC&A looked at the guidance in 

11 OTIB-54 they concluded that -- and if we scroll 

12 down to the bottom of page 24 they concluded that 

13 for other mixed fission products OTIB-54 did not 

14 apply.

15 And they base that on the statement 

16 that is shown at the bottom of page 24 which 

17 indicates that when assigning the radionuclide 

18 specific intakes for the mixed fission and 

19 activation products it's assigned when air 

20 sampling or urinalysis data associated with 

21 reactors or reactor fields are available only as 

22 gross or total beta activity, or gross or total 

23 gamma activity. 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And therefore since this fission 

2 product dose was based on whole body count SC&A 

3 concluded that it wasn't appropriate to use OTIB4 54.

5 They instead used, and this is on page 

6 25, they instead used the Hanford Radionuclide 

7 Chooser Workbook and assumed cerium-144 as the 

8 most claimant radionuclide type S. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Hi, could you speak 

10 just a little louder, please?

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I'm sorry. To go 

12 back SC&A decided that if they weren't able to 

13 use the OTIB-54 document they used the Hanford 

14 Radionuclide Chooser Workbook and that -- they 

15 then decided to use the cerium-144 type S for 

16 their default radionuclide.

17 And that resulted at least for the 

18 non-skin cancer in a very much higher dose, 33-

19 fold higher dose from NIOSH of 6.54 rem.

20 So, we included in this particular 

21 blind comparison an observation which we usually 

22 don't do, but because of SC&A's inability to 

23 determine how to interpret OTIB-54 we felt we 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should make mention that perhaps the guidance in 

2 OTIB-54 could be somewhat more definitive, or 

3 there could be some priority put in there so that 

4 we could understand how OTIB-54 could be used in 

5 this particular case.

6 And we can get back to this issue. 

7 I'll just finish this out.

8 Both NIOSH and SC&A also calculated 

9 environmental internal dose based on the Hanford 

10 Technical Basis Document Table A-12 and both 

11 resulted in doses of less than 1 millirem.

12 So, that -- section 3 then sums again 

13 all of the doses, external and internal. And 

14 really the primary difference obviously is the 

15 assignment of the mixed fission product dose 

16 where SC&A used a completely different approach 

17 than the OTIB-54 because they didn't think it was 

18 appropriate.

19 So I guess we need to have a 

20 discussion.

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

22 address that.

23 MS. BEHLING: Okay.
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: There's actually two 

2 pieces to that.

3 Number one, if you review OTIB-54, not 

4 just section 2.0, but section 3.0 and section 8.0 

5 it does specifically state that it can be 

6 applicable to in vivo results as well as long as 

7 it's discussed how they are appropriate.

8 That's kind of a side point because 

9 the main point is that in this case we did not 

10 apply OTIB-54 to whole body counts. We actually 

11 applied it to urine sampling results.

12 And let me kind of explain the process 

13 that went through that may have been missed while 

14 looking at the case.

15 The individual did have whole body 

16 counting during a significant time frame which we 

17 use as an indication that there is exposure 

18 potential through fission products.

19 As you all know we used the chooser 

20 for a long time but you remember the many 

21 discussions we had on that, that the cerium-144 

22 MDA is much, much larger than anything else and 

23 it always drives the chooser dose, and usually 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigning very large intakes that seemed 

2 unreasonable.

3 Once we started having coworker for 

4 Hanford we realized what we could do was instead 

5 of using the whole body count samples as an 

6 indicator radionuclide for intake, rather than 

7 use it as an indicator for exposure and realize 

8 that for strontium-90 an individual who is 

9 unmonitored during that time frame we can use the 

10 coworker unmonitored values which are based on 

11 urine. 

12 And we use the coworker intakes for 

13 strontium-90 and then we apply the OTIB-54 mixed 

14 fission products suite on top of the strontium15 90 results rather than the whole body counts.

16 MS. BEHLING: And what section of the 

17 OTIB-54 were you referring to that was not 

18 included in this comparison? Can you just tell 

19 me that? Was that section 5?

20 MR. SIEBERT: 3.0 and section 8.0 

21 discuss in vivo.

22 MR. STIVER: This is John. If you 

23 look at the bottom of page 24 of OTIB-54 it's 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 section 8 Scott's referring to. They don't 

2 provide any guidance for how to interpret whole 

3 body count.

4 As far as I remember the employee had 

5 whole body counts and not urinalyses.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Exactly, which is why 

7 he's unmonitored for strontium and we assign the 

8 strontium coworker unmonitored intakes and apply 

9 OTIB-54 to those intakes, strontium intakes that 

10 are based on urinalysis.

11 So the whole idea that OTIB-54 doesn't 

12 apply to in vivo kind of is an off to the side 

13 discussion in this because we didn't do that in 

14 this case to start with.

15 But I just point out that there is 

16 discussion in OTIB-54 that it can be applicable 

17 to in vivo.

18 Now, we agree that there have to be 

19 further discussions as to whether it's 

20 applicable, where it's applicable and things like 

21 that. But that's outside of the scope of this 

22 review because we didn't use it in this case for 

23 whole body counts.
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: John, do you have any 

2 more to add? Because it's confusing to me.

3 MR. STIVER: I guess it's confusing 

4 because the employee actually had whole body 

5 counts and not urinalysis.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. The whole body 

7 -- of exposure. However we don't have strontium8 90 urinalysis from the employee. So we're in a 

9 situation where they're unmonitored for 

10 strontium-90.

11 So what we do is we apply the 

12 strontium-90 unmonitored coworker doses to the 

13 employee. 

14 If you look at the OTIB-54 files that 

15 are in the case those are the strontium-90 

16 intakes that are applied during that whole time 

17 frame. It's not based on the whole body count in 

18 applying OTIB-54 to it.

19 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Scott, 

20 so you used OTIB-54 just Table 7-3 for the 

21 indicator radionuclide and activity fractions. 

22 Is that what you're saying? For the other mixed 

23 fission dose.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know, I'm not 

2 looking at the specific tables at the moment but 

3 that sounds correct. Go ahead.

4 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. So that's 

5 how you selected your indicator radionuclide from 

6 the guidance in OTIB-54. But then when you 

7 calculated the doses you actually used coworker 

8 dose for that time frame and assuming strontium9 90. Is that what I'm understanding?

10 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, I didn't 

11 understand what you were asking.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I believe what

13 you were saying is that you didn't actually use 

14 OTIB-54, but I thought what I was hearing is that 

15 you selected strontium-90 as your indicator 

16 radionuclide based on OTIB-54 but then to 

17 calculate the dose you used coworker dose, 50 

18 percent coworker dose for strontium-90.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the individual is 

20 not monitored for strontium. 

21 MS. BEHLING: Right.

22 MR. SIEBERT: So we assigned coworker 

23 strontium based on the fact that they are 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unmonitored at that time frame. 

2 Because we're assigning coworker 

3 strontium we also used that as the indicator for 

4 OTIB-54, all the rest of the mixed fission 

5 products that would come along with it.

6 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And correct me if 

7 I'm wrong, but our thought was fission products 

8 were -- the individual was monitored for fission 

9 products using the whole body count data. 

10 And therefore when we read the section 

11 of the OTIB-54, we assumed it didn't apply. That 

12 was your thinking?

13 MR. SIEBERT: I could see how you 

14 could read it that way, yes.

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, because all the 

16 employee had was whole body counts for fission 

17 products.

18 MS. BEHLING: For fission products, 

19 exactly. And I guess this points out that perhaps 

20 there should be some clarity added to OTIB-54. 

21 Maybe that's outside this discussion, but it just 

22 seemed to us that if we didn't feel it applied 

23 perhaps that OTIB needs to be clarified or more 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 details added to the guidance.

2 MR. SIEBERT: We're looking at it on 

3 our side and we agree that I could see how it is 

4 not necessarily crystal clear, since it's a very 

5 confusing issue.

6 So we're looking at perhaps making the 

7 guidance a little more clear. I think that's a 

8 reasonable assumption, yes.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's good. That 

10 makes sense to do. 

11 MS. BEHLING: Well, the good thing I 

12 guess is that even though we used -- we did use 

13 a conservative assumption by using -- and I agree 

14 with Scott, the Hanford radionuclide chooser and 

15 selecting cerium-144 is an overestimate.

16 But it did result in doses that were 

17 quite a bit higher. But those PoCs were still 

18 below the 50 percent.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Those PoCs were 

20 still similar. We have had PoCs that differ by 

21 a couple of percent in the past. 

22 But there has been clarity now about 

23 why SC&A's is larger. And presumably that NIOSH 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will continue using its procedures as it has. 

2 And perhaps write them up a little more, in a 

3 little more detail. That particular issue. Yes?

4 MS. BEHLING: That's what I'm hearing 

5 from Scott.

6 And John, did I miss anything that you 

7 want to add?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Do folks want to 

9 ask, do other members of the Subcommittee have 

10 questions or comments? 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just, I was 

12 struggling to follow the chain of thought that 

13 they were going through on this.

14 And I understand what we came down to, 

15 but I'm with Kathy, something has got to be a 

16 little bit more clear.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And the NIOSH 

18 people are committed to clarifying it a bit. 

19 Still, in my opinion there's basic 

20 agreement. And even with the difference as large 

21 as the one that we're looking at there isn't a 

22 change in decision. 

23 Although of course if this were to 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 occur with a PoC closer to 50 percent in the first 

2 place then it could result in a flip. But it did 

3 not in this case.

4 Folks, should we accept this? 

5 MR. KATZ: It's just you and Brad.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, indeed. You 

7 are right. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just you and me.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, I think 

10 we are in agreement. So if you'll move that we 

11 accept I will second.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I move.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and I will 

14 second. And so we agree --

15 MEMBER POSTON: Don't forget me.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

17 MEMBER POSTON: Don't forget me.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. Yes, 

19 indeed. Yes, indeed. All right. Do you have 

20 further comment?

21 MEMBER POSTON: No.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then thank 

23 you very much.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: He just wants to be 

2 a part of the conversation.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. You were 

4 quiet enough as you sometimes are but you're 

5 there and we are very happy you are.

6 MEMBER POSTON: It's an unusual role 

7 for me so I thought I'd be quiet.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. All right. 

9 Anyhow. So those in favor of accepting the 

10 report, aye?

11 (Chorus of ayes)

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Opposed?

13 (No audible response)

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And abstain?

15 (No audible response)

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So this is accepted 

17 and with that we have now completed the line for 

18 the 23rd. And it may be worth just going back 

19 for a moment and taking a look at the table that 

20 was provided to us by folks. Let's see. The 

21 comparison.

22 Do we have that table up? Yes.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have it up on my 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 screen. Can you see it?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we're fine. 

4 In general, in most cases, the NIOSH result is 

5 slightly higher than the SC&A result, which I 

6 find comforting because NIOSH is the one that is 

7 doing the dose reconstructions, of which we're 

8 only looking at a small percentage.

9 And it's good to see that NIOSH is 

10 consistently claimant-friendly. SC&A also tries 

11 to do it claimant-friendly, but SC&A is also 

12 trying to make sure it's scientifically valid and 

13 perhaps adheres somewhat more to scientific 

14 correctness, combining their original A and B 

15 perspectives. So I'm satisfied now that our 

16 results continue to be good.

17 Can I ask you Ted or folks, this is 

18 the 24th or --

19 MR. KATZ: The 23rd set. So there's 

20 a 24th set that was just delivered.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. No, I'm 

22 thinking about the previous sets that we've 

23 looked at, from the very first sets. We had a 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 few, what, three from the very first set and then 

2 sets of six? How many total have we gone over 

3 since we started doing the blind reconstructions?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe there are 32 

5 in total.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Six of those would 

8 have been from this blind.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct, correct. 

10 Okay, fine. So it is four different sets of six 

11 and then --

12 MR. KATZ: Rose, does that 32 include 

13 Set 24 or not?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe so. Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: It does include that 24. 

16 So it includes six that you haven't gone through 

17 yet, Dave.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

19 Good, that's good. So this is good. 

20 And, Ted, I don't know, maybe it's 

21 reasonable to ask you at this time, the only one 

22 that has not been resolved is the Allied Chemical 

23 & Dye blind case from an earlier set.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yeah, and that one, the 

2 only thing that hasn't been resolved is the 

3 surrogate data issue. And I know the SEC Issues 

4 Work Group was intending to address that at some 

5 point. I think they have been more wrapped up 

6 with the SRS coworker model issue and so they 

7 still have that on their place. They know it's 

8 there and I occasionally remind them that it's 

9 there.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's what I want 

11 to hear. That's what I want to hear. 

12 MR. KATZ: Certainly by the time you 

13 wrap up the other six, the last six, I think we 

14 should make sure that they've wrapped that one up 

15 because that would be a good time to report out 

16 on each set.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Okay. 

18 And, folks, in terms of the pace of going over 

19 the different cases versus -- and the blinds, I 

20 do find it useful that what we've done this year 

21 is every other meeting we go over three blinds. 

22 And that, by the end of the year, completes a 

23 set.
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I would propose that we do cases, 

2 case resolution, the next time, completely, and 

3 possibly there are other things that we'll see.

4 And then two meetings from now, the 

5 meeting after next, we'll come back to the next 

6 three blinds. How does that sound?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good, Dave.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In all honesty, I 

9 don't know that we have enough issue resolution 

10 to get through another full meeting. We only 

11 have today's matrix that we're going to cover and 

12 one more, and that's the entirety of the work 

13 that we have.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Wow. You mean 

15 we're up-to-date almost?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Almost.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm pleasantly 

18 surprised.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, we haven't done 

20 new dose reconstruction cases, non-blind cases in 

21 over three years, so.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Wow. Okay. 

23 Because I'm just -- ever since I started chairing 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Committee I've just felt that we've got this 

2 load of cases, this backload that we just have to 

3 get through. But I'm glad to hear that. And so 

4 we'll see, as folks prepare for the next meeting, 

5 whether we will in fact go over a few blinds. 

6 Thank you for updating me on that.

7 MS. BEHLING: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

8 Kathy Behling. One last question on the blind 

9 comparison table that we're looking at.

10 Is there any benefit to the 

11 Subcommittee to add a row to each of the blinds 

12 that have been done, as we've done in the past, 

13 just summarizing what the major differences were 

14 with each of those? I don't know. We've done 

15 that in the past and I didn't know if you wanted 

16 to continue that.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't recall 

18 right off that we've had that in the past.

19 MS. BEHLING: I know we did it on the 

20 17th set and I believe we had talked about doing 

21 it on the other set. And I'm not sure we've got 

22 to that yet, but --

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. What 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do other people think? I don't recall.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, it does, because 

3 it really helps that you look at this and then 

4 just at a glance be able to understand what the 

5 difference is and why. It makes it a lot clearer 

6 for somebody to just pick it up and be able to 

7 understand.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's a 

9 good, strong case for it and since I don't recall 

10 I'll go back and take a look at the old tables to 

11 see that. So we have a strong affirmation that 

12 that is worthwhile to do. Unless somebody from 

13 the Subcommittee opposes or wants to reconsider, 

14 let's just ask that you do add that column onto 

15 the table.

16 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I will ensure 

17 that that also happens with the previous blind 

18 set, the 22nd set, I believe, if we haven't 

19 already done that.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Good.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. 

23 Alright. 
132 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Probably a wonderful 

2 simplification and it was nice to have.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Somebody's got to 

4 mark that down that me and Wanda agree on 

5 something. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, very good. 

7 Well, I actually have a marker and you agreed 

8 once last time, last meeting. So it's getting to 

9 be a very long string at this point.

10 (Laughter)

11 Review outstanding Type 2 cases from Sets 

12 14-18 DOE Sites matrix 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. All 

14 right. Now we go to some toughies, some of our 

15 outstanding type 2 cases. And apparently from 

16 Sets 14-18, item 3 on the agenda.

17 And I note that there's some 

18 discussion ahead for Brookhaven National Lab. So 

19 let's make the changes on the screen.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Bob, are you on the 

21 phone?

22 MR. BARTON: Yes, I'm here, Rose.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I've got your 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response pulled up, the extended response, from 

2 the BRS.

3 MR. BARTON: Okay, great. I can see 

4 that and I can pick it up from here. If the 

5 proper folks at NIOSH are present and ready to 

6 go, I'll begin.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm 

9 going to tell you right now, I mean, we can go 

10 over it. However, this is a complicated issue 

11 and we will need to issue a written response. So 

12 there's really not going to be much discussion 

13 today, as far as I know.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. That is --

15 (Simultaneous speaking)

16 MR. KATZ: Bob, can you introduce the 

17 case properly though so that people on the front 

18 end know what we're talking about?

19 MR. BARTON: Sure. Without obviously 

20 trying to get into too much detail, this is a BNL 

21 case and the worker was employed there for a 

22 little under two years, and was in a position and 

23 has a particular illness in which non-penetrating 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or beta dose is of concern.

2 And unique to BNL, when we looked at 

3 this case, we looked at the dose record for this 

4 individual and we saw information about the gamma 

5 dose and about the neutron dose. And we saw 

6 nothing about non-penetrating or beta. So, we're 

7 kind of scratching our head. We didn't initially 

8 know even if the claimant was monitored for non9 penetrating radiation.

10 When we looked at the actual dose 

11 reconstruction, we did see that there was some 

12 limited missed shallow doses applied.

13 When I say limited, it was actually 

14 assumed to be one-half of one dosimetry badge 

15 cycle. So, essentially, that's one quarter of 

16 the MDA being assigned as beta. And so that got 

17 us, obviously, scratching our heads a little bit.

18 In one of its earliest responses, 

19 NIOSH clarified that at BNL it's kind of unique 

20 in that beta doses aren't listed in the record 

21 unless they are essentially positive.

22 And, Scott, please stop me if I'm 

23 getting any of these technical details wrong.
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, essentially what that means is, 

2 and as you can see for those of you who are on 

3 Skype, this individual has a table with their 

4 external doses and there are columns for gamma 

5 and the neutron, and then there's nothing after 

6 the table to indicate that a positive beta dose 

7 was accrued.

8 Now, this person, there's no reason to 

9 believe they weren't actually monitored via the 

10 standard beta gamma dosimeter. So what that 

11 leaves us with is they were monitored but there 

12 was no positive dose for beta recorded.

13 So, really, the only appropriate thing 

14 to do is then evaluate your missed dose, missed 

15 shallow dose. So we looked into that. And again, 

16 as I said, the original dose reconstruction had 

17 assigned one-half of one badging cycle for this 

18 individual. And we got into that calculation, 

19 and NIOSH provided Excel files and additional 

20 clarification via written response, which is in 

21 the BRS.

22 And what we found, or what we think we 

23 found, is that when they went in to calculate the 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 missed dose -- because, again, there was nothing 

2 measured so the only appropriate thing to do was 

3 assign missed dose -- it appeared when they were 

4 calculating the number of missed zeroes they were 

5 assuming that there actually was a positively 

6 accrued beta dose.

7 So, on one hand, we're not assigning 

8 any measured beta dose because it doesn't appear

9 in the record, which we feel is appropriate. But 

10 then it appears that, when calculating the missed 

11 dose, the assumption is made that there was 

12 positively accrued dose.

13 So that's it in a nutshell. What we 

14 did in our most recent response is we provided 

15 dose records just so you can see what we're 

16 talking about. And also we provided what we feel 

17 is a sample calculation on how that missed 

18 shallow dose should be calculated for this 

19 individual, assuming that there were no measured 

20 positive doses.

21 And, again, no positive measured doses 

22 were assigned, so if you're going to calculate 

23 the missed zeroes, the assumption that there was 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 no measured dose has to be consistent.

2 That's where we're at, and it sounds 

3 like NIOSH is still working on that.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. SIEBERT: I can tell you it 

6 appears that the issue is going to be in 

7 definitions rather than a "positive" shallow 

8 dose. It has more to do with a detectable and 

9 non-detectable open window dose. And missed dose 

10 is when you can't detect something, not when 

11 there's not something positive.

12 So, like I said, we'll write up what 

13 we've got and we'll get it over to you guys and 

14 we can continue the exciting discussion on this.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

16 Very good. So that's BNL 436.2, for those who 

17 are looking at the BRS. Good.

18 Now, do we have other ones of the 

19 toughies from 14 to 18 that SC&A and NIOSH would 

20 like to discuss or are ready to discuss?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, we left those 

22 off of the agenda because we thought that we 

23 wouldn't have time. We can certainly go back if 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's what you'd like to do, but I'm not sure 

2 that all the responses are --

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, they're all 

4 category 2 cases and difficult ones. So I don't 

5 want to -- I didn't realize you left -- you 

6 mentioned -- and we talked about the Brookhaven 

7 National Lab case. So, I'm not surprised, then. 

8 I don't want to rush things by going back.

9 So, we should -- that's the single one 

10 that we thought we might be able to deal with 

11 this time and we're just not ready to complete 

12 the discussion. So let's just go onto item 4.

13 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Can I 

14 interject something here real quick in between?

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Of course.

16 MR. CALHOUN: I should have done this 

17 a few minutes ago. But it would really be helpful 

18 for us, for the next set of blinds, that we get 

19 the supporting files, like the IREP sheets. That 

20 really helps us. So, the next time you submit 

21 those blinds, your next set, just make sure that 

22 we get those.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe they were 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provided. I think maybe Beth requested them.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, I don't know if we 

3 got them or not. If we did I didn't get them, 

4 but we'll check.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We definitely provided 

6 them. They're on the O: drive.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, great. Thank you.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

9 MR. KATZ: Before we move on, Dave, 

10 can I just get clarification. I'm not sure if 

11 I'm getting it from Grady or Rose, but for these 

12 difficult cases that we're just passing on now, 

13 most of them there's not a response ready so 

14 they're not ready to be discussed.

15 But will all of those be ready to 

16 discuss, that aren't in a Work Group outside of 

17 the Subcommittee, will they all be ready for the 

18 next meeting, say, a couple of months from now? 

19 Is that a good assumption?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't see any reason 

21 why not.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There are responses 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for some of them, but not all of them. And 

2 because it's not on the agenda I did not focus on 

3 them.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I must 

5 say, as the Subcommittee Chair and Member, I'm 

6 always happy to do the Type 1 cases. The type 2 

7 cases are tough, but that's what we're here for 

8 as well. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I actually did have a 

10 single one that I did want to go over if there 

11 was time.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Among the 14 

13 through 18 sets?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It was in the 19 to 

15 21st set, I believe.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And it was one we 

17 discussed last time? If folks are ready, I'm not 

18 sure which one that is.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe that was 

20 480. The response came in yesterday night and we 

21 were a little confused by it. And so I was hoping 

22 we could go back and discuss it briefly.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Although are 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you sure it is not a discussion that you just 

2 want to have with the NIOSH people? A 

3 clarification. 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can certainly hold 

5 it off. We were just a little confused. We got 

6 a response back and it didn't seem to line up 

7 with our expectations. 

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Subcommittee 

9 Members, should we go ahead with it?

10 MR. KATZ: Dave, I would just let them 

11 handle that offline and get that ready, because 

12 we have to address a whole bunch of other cases 

13 at the next meeting anyway.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That would be my 

15 thought as well. That's why I was thinking we 

16 wouldn't. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, absolutely.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So you'll 

19 talk offline.

20 By the way, in thinking about the 

21 blind cases, I'm going to take the liberty of the 

22 Chair to just go back for a comment about the 

23 blind cases that I meant to make.
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Generally, in the past, as we've gone 

2 through blinds, sometimes persons in the cases 

3 that we're looking at have most unusual cancers. 

4 And usually we try to avoid mentioning them 

5 because we don't violate a person's privacy. And 

6 if it's a rare cancer, by talking about the type 

7 of cancer, we in fact may reveal personal 

8 information, which we do not want to do.

9 My comment is, as we've gone through 

10 this set, we also are coming across cases where 

11 people work at many different sites. And when a 

12 person has worked at several sites, at a certain 

13 point, it seems to me, by mentioning the sites we 

14 implicitly may be revealing personal information 

15 that people can realize who that might be.

16 And I know we don't want to do it, nor 

17 am I criticizing. In fact, I didn't think about 

18 that until today's discussion. But if I may just 

19 put a word in for the future that as we discuss 

20 blinds we also look at not just the type of cancer 

21 but the work at different sites, different 

22 facilities. And if we have some that are unusual 

23 that may reveal personal things that we try to 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just say "this is a facility," or "the person 

2 worked at one facility for a short time here" and 

3 not mention the facility.

4 We can't be perfect and there's no 

5 absolute protection for privacy, but I just 

6 thought I'd mention it. It did come up as I was 

7 looking at some of the cases in this last set.

8 MR. KATZ: That's a good mention, 

9 Dave, because I had that exact same thought and 

10 it was too late, it already had been done. And 

11 it's nothing -- I don't think we have any public 

12 even on the line today. But it is a good idea to 

13 just, when we have a complex work history, let's 

14 not lay it all out in exact detail.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

16 Fine. Yeah, I did not think about that until 

17 today's discussion. But it's just a word of 

18 advice and caution and no criticism of anybody. 

19 We work collectively in trying to do the right 

20 thing.

21 MEMBER MUNN: There is another aspect 

22 to that, though, that is one has to not forget. 

23 And the other aspect is in an attempt to try to 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do the right thing we can do so many right things 

2 that we can't really and truly do the larger right 

3 thing.

4 That's a kind of situation that one 

5 runs into in safety considerations of all kinds, 

6 especially in the nuclear world. You can attempt 

7 to be so safe that you cannot operate anything.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And if we are going to 

10 be completely clear in our understanding of the 

11 exposures that people have, we need to have more 

12 than a passing understanding of the fact that 

13 they were just in a facility.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. But, Wanda, I 

15 totally agree, but, I mean, you're getting this 

16 material in writing and so the person leading the 

17 presentation can say "the first facility, the 

18 second facility," instead of saying Hanford and 

19 Iowa or whatever it is.

20 And that then still shields the public 

21 and you have all the information you need in the 

22 precise detail.

23 But, really, violating the Privacy Act 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is a most serious problem, and so that really 

2 takes precedence over the clarity of 

3 conversation, I would say, if you had to choose 

4 between the two.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, there's a 

6 balance to be had because complete personal 

7 protection is not available, but we'll do our 

8 best.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: How about whenever the 

10 person worked at two or more sites we'll say the 

11 main site and then the other site we'll just --

12 MR. KATZ: Yeah, yes, that's what I 

13 was saying. That works fine. You don't have to 

14 specify the rest of the sites, right. 

15 Review Type 1 cases from Sets 19-21

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. Now 

17 let's go on. It's 2:45. We could take a 15-

18 minute break now. Although, frankly, we've only 

19 been going for about an hour, so I would hold 

20 off. I'd start with the Type 1 cases and we'll 

21 go on until 3 o'clock, let's say, or a little 

22 after 3, and we'll take a short break.

23 MEMBER MUNN: Fine.
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

2 So, let's go to item 4, sets 19 through 21.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: These are just the 

4 Type 1s.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I have here pulled 

7 up our Type 1 spreadsheet, and I'll just go 

8 through it, if that's okay with everyone.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright. The first 

11 observation is 453, Observation 1. And this is 

12 an Iowa Ordnance Plant, Sandia, Albuquerque, 

13 Pacific Proving Grounds, and NTS case.

14 And our observation was simply that we 

15 thought the wrong revision of the TBD was cited. 

16 It appeared to us that they had used the correct 

17 version of the TBD because some of the things 

18 that were included in the dose reconstruction, 

19 but the wrong revision was cited.

20 And NIOSH does agree that the wrong 

21 revision was cited, but they used the correct 

22 revision when actually completing the dose 

23 reconstruction. 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, any 

2 comments? 

3 MEMBER MUNN: I like those.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I do too. 

5 Alright. Then that sounds good. Closed.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright, next is from 

7 the same case, Finding 1. And the finding states 

8 that NIOSH failed to properly account for the 

9 recorded dose to the prostate.

10 And this, I believe, was more of a 

11 misunderstanding. The dose reconstruction text 

12 said that they used a dose correction factor of 

13 greater than 1 for the prostate, which using a 

14 dose correction factor of 1 would be incorrect 

15 because the dose correction factor for the 

16 prostate is 1.244, I believe.

17 And NIOSH just provided us with 

18 additional clarification that maybe we were 

19 misinterpreting the text and the dose 

20 reconstruction. So I believe we can close that.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

22 MR. CALHOUN: Is that still a finding? 

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's a good
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 point.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Based on the 

3 clarification, and since I don't believe you 

4 actually did anything wrong other than the 

5 incorrect text, I would say that it's an 

6 observation.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think you're 

8 right. Okay. So, change that to an observation. 

9 453.2.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. This one stated 

11 that NIOSH failed to apply a dosimeter 

12 uncertainty factor. And NIOSH did agree with 

13 this finding. When they applied the factor it 

14 did decrease the PoC from around 40 to about 37

15 percent, and so that didn't impact compensation. 

16 So, based on that, I recommend closure.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that does 

18 sound like a finding. It happens to reduce the 

19 PoC but that's not of consequence. The 

20 consequence is that it changes the PoC. And NIOSH 

21 agrees. So I think we should move to close it.

22 Again, if any Subcommittee Member has 

23 concerns or comments or objections, of course.
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Done. 

3 Closed.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 

5 a Pantex plant case, and that is 461.2. And the 

6 finding states that NIOSH did not apply a 

7 clothing electron attenuation factor for the 

8 forearm and elbow. I believe there were two skin 

9 cancers in this particular case. Generally, when 

10 the skin is covered by clothing we would apply a 

11 correction factor for an electron dose.

12 NIOSH agrees that they probably should 

13 have assigned long sleeves for those particular 

14 cancers. In this case it actually did reduce the 

15 PoC and it would reduce it from just over 50 

16 percent to 49.8.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Was this 

18 compensated?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, as I thought. 

21 Alright. 

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we're not going to 

23 go back and take away compensation from --
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, no, absolutely, 

2 that's a standing rule. But nor is it obvious 

3 whether the person in a plant, in the American 

4 South, and I don't know which times of year, 

5 whether the person in fact wore clothing.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe this person 

7 wore coveralls as a part of their job, which in 

8 general would cover your arms.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. True. Well, 

10 that's good, then, that we know that. So probably 

11 it would have been 49.8. 

12 But, again, I think we should close it 

13 because this is a finding and we agree and the 

14 issue about whether it flips it or not is not, 

15 again, of consequence in this aspect of the 

16 examination. 

17 So, move that we close. Any comments 

18 or disagreements?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I cannot 

22 explain why that one was just randomly thrown in 

23 here, but the next one we're actually going to go 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back to the previous case.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I apologize. I don't 

4 know how that happened here. Which is Iowa 

5 Ordnance, Sandia, PPG, and NTS. And it's Finding 

6 3. And the finding states that there was 

7 potential improper accounting of recorded photon 

8 dose for the year 1972.

9 And what happened here, it was kind of 

10 unusual. In the dose reconstruction report there 

11 were several different computer-generated values 

12 reporting this EE's dose. One reported the 

13 higher dose than the other. And so our initial 

14 thought was always to go with the higher dose.

15 But this is actually an electronic 

16 reporting system and what they were doing is they 

17 were rounding the values prematurely before they 

18 were adding them together, which results in an 

19 inflated dose. And so NIOSH actually did use the 

20 correct value, it's just this reporting system, 

21 for whatever reason, rounded too early in the 

22 process.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Well, it 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 certainly is incorrect in procedure but how do 

2 you know that the result was higher rather than 

3 lower?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, in this 

5 particular case, because we had multiple results. 

6 And the lower results, when we went back and 

7 looked at them, we could see why they rounded up 

8 and how that --

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So you saw 

10 the exact as well --

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. That wasn't 

12 immediately apparent to us when we were doing our 

13 dose reconstruction. I'm not sure why they would 

14 have done that, but that's what happened.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. In a sense 

16 it's a kind of a QA, although it was not for an 

17 individual doing the dose -- it wasn't a 

18 reconstructor, it was some sort of electronic 

19 system. Nevertheless, it wasn't a question of 

20 NIOSH doing anything wrong.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, I don't believe 

22 that they did anything wrong. And they did follow 

23 the correct -- we had just simply never seen this. 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I believe there was another finding that's 

2 identical to this one further down that we'll run 

3 into, for the same reason.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. To my mind, 

5 this is an observation with a QA. Wouldn't that 

6 be --

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's an observation. 

8 The QA doesn't relate to the program. It's not 

9 QA in our context because it's not our folks 

10 making a QA error.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, from 

12 our point of view, it's just simply -- there was 

13 no error made by NIOSH. Therefore it's an 

14 observation. 

15 Okay, let's close this as an 

16 observation. Again, awaiting comments or 

17 concerns from our other Subcommittee Members. 

18 Okay. Let's go on.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. From the same 

20 case, Finding No. 4. And the finding states that 

21 uncertainty factor was not applied as stated in 

22 the dose reconstruction report. And here NIOSH 

23 agreed with us. It wasn't as stated. The DR 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report is correct. And 1.3 should have been 

2 applied.

3 However, in this case uncertainty was 

4 inadvertently not selected in the workbook and so 

5 it was not actually included in the dose 

6 reconstruction report.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm reading it 

8 again a little bit. I'm not quite sure. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So in the report they 

10 stated that they used the dose reconstruction 

11 uncertainty factor of 1.3 and it should have been 

12 applied.

13 However, when they went to actually 

14 apply it the checkbox didn't get selected in the 

15 workbook that calculates this.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

17 MR. KATZ: So that's a QA. 

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. Right, 

19 right. And that's an observation again.

20 MR. KATZ: Why is that an observation? 

21 That's a mistake. That's a finding. 

22 It's a finding because the factor 

23 wasn't applied and it should have been. Right? 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Did I misunderstand?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's correct. 

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. All right. 

5 I see. All right. Let's go on.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

7 finding number 5. And the finding states that 

8 NIOSH assigned a duplicate record for the year 

9 1976.

10 This was kind of one of those cases 

11 where the EE worked at a lot of different sites. 

12 And here the same results appeared in 

13 two site's records. They had the same dates.

14 And so when SC&A saw that we 

15 interpreted that to mean that they were the same 

16 record and the main site that the EE worked in 

17 was simply reporting the site from the off site 

18 that they had visited.

19 NIOSH in all likelihood agrees with us 

20 but they weren't 100 percent sure so they 

21 assigned it anyway which would be an additional 

22 approximately 30 millirem assigned to each of the 

23 doses.
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Not a big difference. Doesn't affect 

2 the PoC at all. It's a different interpretation 

3 of the duplicate record.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Just reading. I'm 

5 not sure what --

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a difference 

7 in judgment.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I guess you would say 

10 this is a difference in judgment.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Here it is Dave. Let 

12 me try to help.

13 Okay, yes, we've got two sets of 

14 dosimetry reports, one from Sandia and one from 

15 NTS.

16 Both of them had this dose recorded 

17 for this year, two separate dosimetry reports. 

18 Because the EE was probably sent to one facility 

19 from the other.

20 But there was no delineation as to 

21 where the dose came from. And it was on two 

22 separate reports.

23 So per our standard claimant-
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 favorable approach when we don't know we have to 

2 choose the approach that's claimant-favorable. 

3 Therefore we assumed it happened at 

4 both sites and not just one.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: I would also say that 

7 this probably goes down to an observation too.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sounds like 

9 it. And thank you for that. That is clarifying. 

10 Yes, makes sense.

11 Okay, that being the case we should 

12 close it as an observation. Unless, do hear any 

13 concerns? No? Okay, so it is closed. Let's go 

14 on.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 

16 453.7. Same case. The finding states that there 

17 was a potential improper accounting of recorded 

18 electron dose for the year 1972.

19 And this is going back to the same 

20 thing that we identified earlier with the 

21 electronic records that rounded prematurely.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. So 

23 again that's now again an observation. 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And we accept? Sounds like it. Okay. 

2 So we'll close it.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

4 finding number 8 states that there was a failure 

5 to account for missed -- I'm sorry, did someone 

6 say something? 

7 Okay. There was a failure to account 

8 for all missed photon dose cycles while employed 

9 at Sandia.

10 And NIOSH agrees here. The 1965 and 

11 '66 were not included in the IREP evaluations. 

12 They said it was just inadvertently left out by 

13 the dose reconstructor.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. So 

15 that would be a finding. And we should close it. 

16 You're in agreement? Okay, closed. Next.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one, same 

18 case again. It states that SC&A was unable to 

19 reproduce the assigned occupational medical 

20 doses.

21 And NIOSH agrees. They were also 

22 unable to account for the assigned dose of 5 

23 millirem X-ray dose.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 At the time I guess there was no site2 specific tool for SNL. It was likely a 

3 transcription error.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right. Another 

5 finding. And there is agreement with the two 

6 groups. So, shall we close it folks?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. If we don't 

9 -- I'm trying to remember. We don't have too 

10 many more at this point, do we?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There might be 15 to 

12 20 more.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would guess maybe 15 

15 to 20 more to go through.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Fine, okay. Well, 

17 in this case maybe we should take a break. It is 

18 3 o'clock. I suggest we take a rest break. It's 

19 3, 3:02, so let's get back together at 3:15, 3:17 

20 if you want to be precise, 3:17.

21 And we'll go on and finish up and then 

22 we'll be finished for the day I believe.

23 MR. KATZ: Sounds good.
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. See you all 

2 in 15 minutes. Bye bye.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

4 went off the record at 3:03 p.m. and resumed at 

5 3:19 p.m.)

6 MR. KATZ: You have a quorum.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Let us 

8 proceed.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Where we left 

10 off here, this is a Los Alamos case, tab 454, 

11 finding number 1.

12 And the finding states that NIOSH did 

13 not assign unmonitored LANL neutron dose for the 

14 year 1946. And NIOSH agrees that that should 

15 have been assigned.

16 When they did go through and assign it 

17 the combined PoC went up approximately 4 percent. 

18 But not enough to affect compensation.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. All right. 

20 That's a clear finding. And we will close that 

21 unless I hear objections. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'd say go ahead.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Is that Brad?
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I'm here.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, okay.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I was talking on mute 

4 for a little while.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You sound funny. I 

6 can't hear quite why, but others can. Anyhow 

7 let's go on to the next observation.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is also a 

9 LANL case. This is 486, observation 1.

10 And this observation stated that the 

11 IMBA file was missing from the DR report. SC&A 

12 was still able to go through and confirm the dose 

13 reconstruction on this file. We decided to 

14 recreate it but typically it would be a file 

15 included with the DR files.

16 NIOSH agreed with us. The file was 

17 missing. We did confirm that.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

19 right, observation, okay. All right. We step 

20 back. We don't close it. We accept and let's go 

21 on.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

23 486.1. The finding states that three additional 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scans were not assigned in the medical dose.

2 NIOSH agreed with this finding. There 

3 was a PSG scan that should have been included for 

4 54, 55 and 56 based on X-ray records.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. Clear 

6 finding. Okay, so that should be closed.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. It didn't have 

8 a strong impact on PoC.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 

11 --

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sandia.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sandia, Albuquerque 

14 and also LANL. This is tab 464, observation 1.

15 And the observation states that the DR 

16 report incorrectly states that each X-ray 

17 examination was assigned a PA and a lat view when 

18 in reality only a PA was assigned. Only a PA 

19 would be the correct thing to do but the text was 

20 not in the actual DR report.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, absolutely. 

22 Clear observation. Accepted. Again always 

23 pending concerns which I hear none. Let's go on.
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 

2 an NTS, Amchitka Island, Rocky Flats and Pantex. 

3 And this is tab 489, observation 1.

4 And this observation had to do with 

5 the reported site visits in the EE's CATI. They 

6 were very, very adamant that they had visited a 

7 number of sites that were not included in the DR 

8 report.

9 They said that they worked for a 

10 different contractor that wasn't included. But 

11 NIOSH didn't really have enough evidence or the 

12 files weren't available at the time. And so those 

13 were not included in the report.

14 But we thought that a mention of them 

15 would have been the appropriate thing, that the 

16 EE said that in the CATI report and they couldn't 

17 include them for documentation reasons.

18 And NIOSH agreed with that.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And I guess 

20 that would be an observation. Right. NIOSH did 

21 not get a report that would have allowed them to 

22 put it in, right? Okay. Accepted.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the same case, finding number 1.

2 Failure to assign missed dose. And 

3 NIOSH agreed with this finding also. 

4 When we reevaluated the dose the PoC 

5 actually went down from 40 to 38. And they 

6 attributed the decrease to fluctuations in Monte 

7 Carlo.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. Okay. 

9 That sounds okay. So, that's an observation. 

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, that's a finding.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I mean a finding. 

12 I meant a finding and I said observation.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's all right.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. This is 

15 a finding and we accept.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one is 

17 from Pantex and it is tab 461, observation 1.

18 And the observation states that there 

19 may have been additional X-ray exams performed 

20 during the second employment period.

21 With this particular individual there 

22 was a termination scan and then they started 

23 employment again and there were no X-rays 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 included in that record for the second employment 

2 period.

3 NIOSH states in looking back and said 

4 that they did have several results that were not 

5 eligible to be included. Injury-related X-rays 

6 are not included in dose reconstructions.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And they believed that 

9 they had all the records. 

10 We weren't entirely convinced with 

11 that argument because after the dose 

12 reconstruction was completed at least five more 

13 records of X-rays were added to the EE's files.

14 And so we don't really agree with the 

15 argument that they were all available in the EE 

16 files and we think that the default frequency 

17 would have been appropriate for this particular 

18 individual. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Let me 

20 address that one. 

21 The five additional records are film 

22 and TLD badge information. They don't have 

23 anything to do with medical records if I recall 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correctly. 

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't remember the 

3 exact -- what records were added. However, I 

4 think that it speaks to the fact that the EE's 

5 files were not complete.

6 But in this case it was compensated so 

7 it's not really an issue.

8 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and I just 

9 wanted to throw in it should be noted that anytime 

10 we get any documents that are associated with a 

11 claimant file from any source after the DR is 

12 done we review those files and we determine if 

13 they were present before the dose reconstruction 

14 or after the dose reconstruction was completed.

15 If they are important and are new 

16 documents we will revise the dose reconstruction. 

17 We'll actually redo the calculations and if a 

18 compensation decision changes we'll actually 

19 recall and reopen the case from the Department of 

20 Labor and revise the dose reconstruction and send 

21 it on.

22 Just so you know there is a system in 

23 place to deal with additional data that's found 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 after a dose reconstruction is completed.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely, and I know 

3 that that has happened.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In this case just the 

6 EE reported having annual scans. They were 

7 employed for a very long period of time. I feel 

8 like you would remember getting an annual scan 

9 but that was not taken into account for the second 

10 employment period.

11 It didn't impact anything in this 

12 particular case, but it's an observation. We 

13 brought it up.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It was an 

15 observation because it was something incorrect 

16 that was done. New records came in later.

17 Okay. Move to close this one. We 

18 don't have to close it. We recognize it, right? 

19 You don't close an observation. Or do we?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Typically we close 

21 observations.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then we so 

23 close it. All right. And the next observation?
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is a 

2 Pantex from the same case, observation 2.

3 It states that Table 5-6 of the TBD-6 

4 does not state the units of intake. SC&A assumed 

5 one and we picked the correct one. The setting 

6 was wrong. It's being updated in the new 

7 revision.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. Okay. 

9 And we should accept this and close it. All 

10 right. 

11 Let's go on now to the first finding.

12 Pantex.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 469 number 1, 

15 right?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. States that 

17 NIOSH incorrectly interpreted the application as 

18 skin dose from TBD-6.

19 NIOSH said that basically they updated 

20 the TBD since OTIB-6 and the DR guidance to 

21 clarify how a monitored electron dose should have 

22 been assigned. And the dose that was assigned in 

23 this case was claimant-favorable.
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The guidance has been 

3 updated. What they did was claimant-favorable.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But they updated it 

5 to correct -- to make a corrected assessment. So 

6 it would be an observation. Excuse me, a finding. 

7 It was a finding. 

8 Since I haven't called upon the other 

9 Subcommittee Members you're all there and in 

10 agreement I hope that we close this?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Dave.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. All right. 

13 Didn't want you to think this was a one-person 

14 show, that's all. Okay.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Like the little boy 

16 said that never spoke till he was seven years old 

17 he said up till now everything has been okay.

18 (Laughter)

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

20 All right. Let's go on to finding 3.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this states that 

22 NIOSH used the incorrect MDL value for the years 

23 1973 and '74. 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I believe this is a TBD table issue. 

2 The TBD has since been revised and then modified 

3 the guidance so this issue kind of went away.

4 If they followed the current guidance 

5 it would reduce missed dose substantially. 

6 Therefore we recommend this issue.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But was anything 

8 done incorrectly initially? It doesn't seem that 

9 way.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think that there was 

11 a discrepancy in the TBD as to what should have 

12 been done. And one table said one thing, and 

13 another table said something different. 

14 I could go back to the actual BRS if 

15 you wanted the more complete answer.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, the question is 

17 what do the NIOSH colleagues say.

18 MR. SIEBERT: We do maintain that we 

19 did it correctly. 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I thought you 

21 might.

22 MR. SIEBERT: But I agree there was an 

23 inconsistency in the TBD and we did rectify that. 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But we did the claim correctly.

2 So I would have the tendency to say 

3 it's an observation, but that's just me.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And that 

5 partially is why I'm asking because in fact there 

6 were different interpretations available to you 

7 from the TBDs that existed, from the tables that 

8 existed, right?

9 I don't know quite what to say. Other 

10 folks? Here's a case where it was interpreted -

11 - there were contradictions within the materials 

12 from which they were drawing. And they drew one 

13 and it curved on the other. And it's been taken 

14 care of.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Let me just clarify one 

16 thing. Part of our response is yes, the two 

17 tables were in disagreement, but there's a 

18 section of the TBD that very clearly states which 

19 table to use for the calculation of missed dose 

20 and that is what we followed.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha. SC&A that 

22 makes a case.

23 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. There 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was still a discrepancy and an error in the TBD. 

2 So shouldn't that have been pointed out.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, it should be pointed 

4 out, Kathy, it's just a question of whether this 

5 is an observation. If the case is done correctly 

6 then it's an observation. 

7 And it is a useful correction or 

8 finding in terms of the document, that we record 

9 the observations when they don't affect the case.

10 MEMBER MUNN: This is a case where the 

11 fault is in the stars and not in the individual. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Nice. Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: If that's the case then 

14 this should be an observation. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think that's --

16 the stars would be an observation. And I would 

17 agree. So let's close this as an observation. 

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, but just to 

19 clarify, this is something that you were happy 

20 that we made this --

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Let me say 

22 this. Let it be clear that when you folks observe 

23 and something is accepted as an observation it is 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appreciated at least by this Subcommittee member 

2 and I suspect by others as well.

3 Just because it's an observation and 

4 not a finding, all of them are welcome and all of 

5 them play a role, seriously. I mean, I'm not 

6 trying to be nice. It is useful as an observation 

7 and it is appreciated that you found it.

8 MEMBER MUNN: It's also especially 

9 useful because it pointed out an error, not an 

10 error the way that the calculation was made. 

11 That's the whole point. We got to the error 

12 through this observation and that's helpful.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's right. 

14 Our procedures were improved as a result of this 

15 observation. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's the bottom 

17 line is it's correcting our process. Beyond 

18 popular belief we don't like findings and 

19 observations, are wonderful because bottom line 

20 they're just to make the process better and more 

21 clear.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Agreed. All right. 

23 Closed and we move on.
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great. And the 

2 next one here is going to be from the same case.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Finding 4.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this one states 

5 that NIOSH assigned neutron dose for the years 

6 1962 to '64. 

7 NIOSH agrees with us that the TBD was 

8 unclear and that the neutron dose has been 

9 favorable in this particular case.

10 The latest revision is revised to 

11 include neutron dose starting in 1960 for 

12 unmonitored workers. So apparently the older 

13 revision did not allow that.

14 In this case the PoC is also over 50 

15 percent.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But that I think 

17 identifies an observation. It was unclear, 

18 revisions were made as a result to clarify, but 

19 it was not --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: What was done was 

21 claimant-favorable. In the current sense this 

22 case probably would not have been compensated 

23 based on where the PoC is if it was done today.
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So anyway, 

2 let's close it as an observation.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, while we're 

4 speaking about observations, Dave, I'd like to 

5 make the comment that I've never heard so many 

6 fire engines or ambulances in my life than when 

7 you're on the phone.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: By the way, I --

9 this was terrible. You folks don't know, but I 

10 had some persons going out with a jackhammer in 

11 the middle of the afternoon. I closed the window. 

12 I'm hot. Not bothered. But that is the way of 

13 life and I always wonder how much you folks hear 

14 through our windows.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Everything. 

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good, 

17 very good. Did you notice that my wife walked in 

18 in the middle of this? No.

19 (Laughter)

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I can't do 

21 much about that.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just teasing you.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I know, I know. 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Anyhow, let's go on.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

4 MEMBER MUNN: I said you live in 

5 Manhattan and that's why Brad doesn't.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right, 

7 that's right.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, that's a good 

9 point.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right. 

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

12 also a Pantex case, tab 462, observation 1.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: My goodness, 

14 Weibull again.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The Weibull 

16 distribution. With this particular case we 

17 assigned it for every single one based on Dr. 

18 Melius's recommendation. So here's Weibull 

19 again.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

21 agreed that it's an observation.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. We 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 close.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next one here, 

3 462.1 from the same case. It states that NIOSH 

4 did not factor in the fraction of the year that 

5 was unmonitored during 1982.

6 NIOSH agrees. For the year '82 

7 unmonitored external dose was applied for the 

8 full year for skin even though the claimant was 

9 monitored only for eight months out of the year.

10 The unmonitored dose was prorated in 

11 the year '82. All other years the partial 

12 monitoring was properly prorated for both organs. 

13 So in this case one organ was not 

14 prorated and the other one was. It resulted in 

15 slightly excess dose to both cancers. It didn't 

16 affect compensation.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

18 Well, that's a clear case of an error. So that's 

19 finding 462.1 and we should close that unless I 

20 hear objections. And what seems to be the last 

21 one on our last. Weldon Spring.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Weldon Spring. Tab 

23 469.1. And this shows that there was 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inconsistency in missed and unmonitored dose 

2 assignments.

3 And NIOSH did provide us with an 

4 explanation for how they assigned dose for the 

5 three years in question. 

6 We agree that a finding of full year 

7 of ambient dose was claimant-favorable. However, 

8 we question it because it was assigned during the 

9 start of employment which was 1959 and you're not 

10 technically supposed to apply dose prior to 

11 employment. And finding a year of ambient dose 

12 would do that.

13 But ultimately it doesn't impact 

14 compensation.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, but it went 

16 in with the spirit of claimant favorability. In 

17 that sense it was not -- it was not missed. It's 

18 simply for a case that we were looking for --

19 we're looking at the maximum PoC that might be 

20 assigned.

21 So I would tend to feel that this was 

22 an observation. I don't know how others feel.

23 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I agree 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with that because if it was a comp case we 

2 wouldn't have done that.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. CALHOUN: This must be an older 

5 case. It's probably not a best estimate at only 

6 40 percent.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes, I agree. 

8 So I'd like to close this as an observation.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And there we are.

11 Review Type 2 Cases

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So that was all the 

13 type 1 findings in this matrix. There are a 

14 handful of type 2 findings that we could go 

15 through if you wanted to.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There are a handful of 

18 type 2 findings. I'm not sure that we'll get any 

19 resolution on those today though.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I would say 

21 at 3:40 I would be open to discussing a couple of 

22 these type 2 cases and get the discussion going 

23 and getting us thinking about it.
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 No more than half an hour to an hour. 

2 What do my colleagues, particularly my 

3 Subcommittee colleagues think? Although in this 

4 case staff as well.

5 Would folks be willing to go ahead 

6 with a couple of type 2?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

8 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Then let's do it. 

10 All right, excellent.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, we're going to 

12 go back to 453.6 which was the Iowa Ordnance 

13 Plant, Sandia, PPG, and NTS. 

14 And this finding had to do with 

15 improper method used for calculating shallow 

16 dose. 

17 And here there appears to be some kind 

18 of disagreement. Actually I should switch to the 

19 BRS. I'm sorry. One second. Let me just get 

20 that pulled up.

21 I summarized them in there. NIOSH 

22 probably wants to use their real text.

23 MEMBER BEACH: -- are you going to go 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to?

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

3 MEMBER BEACH: I was asking what 

4 number that we're going to. In the BRS.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 453.6.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next one will 

9 be 462.2. Okay, so again the finding stated that 

10 there was an improper method used for calculating 

11 shallow dose.

12 And here Scott responded back that 

13 NIOSH followed the guidance in the TBD and the 

14 approved NTS document states that the beta to 

15 gamma ratio 1.04 was applied.

16 This ratio was based on empirical 

17 measurements. But NIOSH is going to review the 

18 guidance as it applies to this particular dose.

19 I'm sorry, not this particular one. 

20 And they're going to review the guidance while 

21 they're going to the next revision of the TBD. 

22 So we recommend that we hold off on 

23 resolving this finding until that has occurred.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So this 

2 actually would be referred. Well, would it be 

3 referred to the PPG Working Group? 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm not sure they're 

5 going to need to refer to them.

6 MR. KATZ: There's no Working Group 

7 here.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

9 MR. KATZ: There's no Work Group here 

10 for this one.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We don't have a 

12 Pacific Proving Grounds Work Group?

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, I thought you said IOP.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, Pacific 

15 Proving Grounds.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we do now.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So it's in progress 

18 awaiting their response but since the person, the 

19 case involves several different facilities can we 

20 -- we can't -- well, we have to wait for PPG to 

21 come back. So it has to be in progress and 

22 referred, right?

23 MR. KATZ: Wait, what's going on with 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PPG? You said they're changing their guidance? 

2 It doesn't necessarily need to go to the Work 

3 Group at all if this is something NIOSH is 

4 changing the guidance and then it'll be able to 

5 be resolved.

6 I'm unclear on what the Work Group 

7 would be doing.

8 MR. CALHOUN: I think once the Work 

9 Group has a discussion and the outcome of that 

10 discussion, if it affects what we've done here 

11 we'll change the TBD based on that.

12 I think what we're saying is we're not 

13 going to change the TBD until the discussion in 

14 that Work Group is completed.

15 But I kind of agree with Ted. I don't 

16 think there's a reason to refer it to the Work 

17 Group. 

18 MR. KATZ: Moreover I think the Work 

19 Group, I mean unless I'm mistaken the Work Group 

20 reported out on the Site Profile review at the 

21 last Board meeting.

22 And there's one little nitty matter to 

23 resolve, but I'm sure it's not this matter. So 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I don't think the Work Group has more work to do 

2 on the Site Profile. 

3 I think this is in NIOSH's hands, DCAS 

4 hands to say when they're ready to respond to 

5 this.

6 MS. BEHLING: Ted, you're correct. 

7 And that beta to gamma ratio did change. And the 

8 new TBD is out for PPG and we like you said closed 

9 out all items but one I think NIOSH has to report 

10 back.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. So this can 

12 go to the next meeting.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Then the next 

15 one is 462.2. And this is the Pantex case.

16 NIOSH used the NT value for 

17 unmonitored workers instead of monitored workers 

18 for assigned neutron dose.

19 And Scott, if you just want to 

20 respond. Otherwise I could read your response.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry, I'm looking at it 

22 here. You're skipping around so I have to jump 

23 around. 462.2, right?
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. What is the 

2 issue because it's now no longer on the screen.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is the discussion 

4 of whether a clothing electron attenuation factor 

5 to the forearm and the elbow is appropriate or 

6 not.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, no, this is 

8 unmonitored worker.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, let me flip again. 

10 As I said I have to jump around here.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sure.

12 MR. SIEBERT: 462.2. Okay, I'm sorry.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The NT value.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, are you going to 

15 cover the first part of it?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can certainly read 

17 the rest of the finding. We don't normally 

18 include the full finding text in the heading just 

19 because it interferes with printing and whatnot.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The TBD recommends 

22 that use of an NT value of 1.7 for monitored 

23 workers and an NT value of 0.8 for unmonitored 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 workers.

2 In this case the EE was monitored 

3 during this period of dose assessment. Therefore 

4 we interpret the TBD to recommend a 1.7 should 

5 have been used. This would result in an 

6 additional 0.291 rem of dose for one organ and 

7 0.567 for the skin cancers.

8 It would also have a small impact on 

9 the PoC value. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is an extensive 

11 result. I have to read over it because we were 

12 doing the type 1s today and I didn't prep this 

13 one.

14 Okay. What it basically comes down to 

15 is about halfway down in the response that we put 

16 in on I believe 6/26. Table 6-19 does give 

17 clearer guidance. It shows that a factor of 1.7 

18 is to be used in maximizing cases only. 

19 And that table says when a best 

20 estimate was required as it was in this claim the 

21 table directs the DR to use Monte Carlo analysis.

22 When you're doing Monte Carlo analysis 

23 you use the full distribution which is the mean 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 value plus the distribution. So we were 

2 following the Table 6-19.

3 I agree there's some inconsistency in 

4 the TBD as to what it says and how that's applied.

5 However, in best estimate cases this 

6 is the norm that we use the actual GM with the 

7 full actual distribution in Monte Carlo 

8 calculations.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I think that 

10 I'm going to have to review this offline. I 

11 didn't see this one posted. 

12 MR. KATZ: That's fine, Rose. We can 

13 get this at the next meeting.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Where are we in the

15 discussion?

16 MR. KATZ: So, Rose is going to review 

17 this for the next meeting, the response. Because 

18 NIOSH has a response but it's recent.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that'll 

20 be in the next meeting. Okay. Well then we have 

21 two reports that we'll have next meeting for type 

22 2. 

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, we have lots more 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 type 2.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It looks like 

4 altogether here there's maybe about 20 type 2s 

5 that are remaining from past sets. And then we'll 

6 have all of the AWE cases next time.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We are talking 

8 about in sets 19-21 are we not?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have been up until 

10 --

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sure. We had 

12 type 1 and then we're going through type 2 in 

13 those. Okay, just want to clarify.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, we have done some 

15 of those type 2s but we haven't finished those up 

16 yet.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, I'm fine, 

18 I'm fine. I just want to make sure that I'm 

19 understanding. The next one we want to discuss 

20 in sets 19-21 the type 2s in which file?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: For sets 19-21 we'll 

22 have to do the type 2s that are remaining from 

23 the SRS and the Oak Ridge site.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then we also have the AWE matrix 

2 that we haven't started yet. So we need type 1s 

3 and type 2s from that matrix.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: All right. Good. 

5 So should we continue on?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Those were all of the 

7 type 2 findings in that matrix, but I did pull up 

8 here 482 observation 1 which we got a response 

9 back from yesterday afternoon.

10 But I just want to ask NIOSH, we're 

11 going to need some more guidance on this one. 

12 This is the Hanford case. It has to do with the 

13 glove boxes adjustment factor.

14 And they used a factor of 2.19 as the 

15 determining and whether or not to assign glove 

16 box dose.

17 And we were trying to track down where 

18 this number came from. It just kind of popped up 

19 in one of the guidance documents. We've never 

20 seen it before. 

21 It didn't make sense to us. NIOSH 

22 provided us with several templates and we're 

23 still trying to track down where this number came 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from.

2 And we got a response yesterday that 

3 basically says that it came from a Savannah River 

4 neutron exposure. And again this is a Hanford 

5 case.

6 The text says essentially someone 

7 worked on the SC or AC lines at SRS. The shallow 

8 to deep dose ratio was greater than 2.

9 And it seems like you guys are hanging 

10 your hat on that.

11 MR. SMITH: This is Matthew Smith with 

12 ORAU team. As mentioned at the previous meetings 

13 that particular OCAS at the time was early on in 

14 the project.

15 And certainly the guidance there, 

16 although the TIB is aimed at neutron exposure, 

17 that guidance was in the document as helpful for 

18 identifying when people are working in a glove 

19 box environment.

20 So yes, I mean that very early 

21 guidance is in something that's been used ever 

22 since.

23 In Savannah River and it's written --
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the topic of the TIB is neutron exposure. But 

2 the subtopic in there that's called out is a 

3 portion of SRS.

4 And certainly other things other than 

5 the shallow to deep dose are discussed even in 

6 that TIB such as taking a look at what the 

7 bioassay situation is for the energy employee.

8 Obviously the DR is going to take a 

9 look at what the CATI discussion entails.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think the big 

11 question is where did 2.19 come from. Because 

12 that document only says greater than two.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Is this an internal 

14 discussion between you?

15 MR. SMITH: Not necessarily. I 

16 discussed that in the last meeting. It's in the 

17 transcript.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The 2.19?

19 MR. SMITH: Yes. It's discussed. I 

20 mentioned in the transcript in the last meeting. 

21 Well, I talked about it. It is captured in the 

22 transcript of the last.

23 The 2.19 factor is something that 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comes out of DCAS-TIB-10. In a sense speculating 

2 to a degree, but my guess is that a factor was 

3 put in there with the glove box factor TIB in 

4 mind.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think I'm going to 

6 have to review the transcript again and we'll 

7 post a follow-up response here.

8 You directed us here to TIB-7.

9 MR. SMITH: Right, and I did so last 

10 time as well. That's also in the transcript. 

11 I'm basically saying the same thing I said last 

12 time.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein. 

15 I just rejoined the call. This is for part of 

16 the discussion if I can shed a little light on 

17 this issue.

18 The 2.19 factor comes from the fact 

19 that the dosimeter which is likely worn in the 

20 upper part of the body, typically on the lapel, 

21 is further away from the source than some of the 

22 lower organs and usually the prostate in this 

23 instance that was in question.
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It has nothing to do with the shallow 

2 to deep dose ratio. It's primarily a result from 

3 geometry, from the distance.

4 MR. SMITH: That's correct and I 

5 acknowledged that in the discussion on the last 

6 meeting. It's in the transcript.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I wasn't part 

8 of the last meeting.

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. It just sounds 

10 like this is something that would be helpful once 

11 Rose has a chance to read the transcript from the 

12 last meeting and she can confer with Bob and get 

13 clarification before we try to hammer this out.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think we've come 

16 to a time to set a date for the next meeting.

17 MR. KATZ: Let me pull up the calendar 

18 so I can see where we are.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The question is 

20 whether we might be able to meet in early December 

21 or we'll have to postpone it until early January, 

22 till January.

23 MR. KATZ: Well, it cannot happen 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 before early December.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

3 MR. KATZ: Because of the way things 

4 work now in the department.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Understood.

6 MR. KATZ: So December is in the 

7 scheme right now, we have a Board meeting on the 

8 13th and the 14th. It may only be the 13th but 

9 that's the Board meeting.

10 And if this meeting is typical we 

11 usually have a lot of Work Group meetings swing 

12 in in the couple of weeks before the Board 

13 meeting.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

15 MR. KATZ: It's not the best time to 

16 have a dose reconstruction meeting for that 

17 reason because you want to leave it as flexible 

18 as possible for necessary meetings until the 

19 Board meeting.

20 It really probably is better to 

21 actually wait till January for the next meeting 

22 if that's okay with the Board Members.

23 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Second week 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in January? Often a slightly quieter week.

2 MR. KATZ: So, January, the week of 

3 the eighth. That -- I don't know when the 

4 holidays are but I don't think there's any that 

5 week.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No. The 15th is 

7 Martin Luther King's birthday.

8 MR. KATZ: I think that week's 

9 probably good.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, the 10th is not good, 

12 but 8th, 9th, 11th.

13 MEMBER BEACH: The 11th doesn't work 

14 for me.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You say 11th does 

16 or does not work?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Does not.

18 MR. KATZ: So how about the 9th? 

19 That's a Tuesday. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: That's good.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good for me. 

22 Pardon?

23 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Wanda, we 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 couldn't hear you.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That entire week is 

3 problematic for me.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, then let's do --

5 MEMBER BEACH: The next week I'm not 

6 available. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, so in a case like 

8 that I'll probably be in a spot -- I'll be 

9 traveling, but I'll probably be in a spot for 

10 example on the 9th I could probably do that even 

11 though I'll be away.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, if you could, 

13 could the 9th work for most of the rest of us?

14 MR. KATZ: It just needs to be fairly 

15 reliable, Wanda, because these days we're cutting 

16 close with our quorum.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I realize that and 

18 that's why one never knows in these vacation 

19 situations whether the facility where you are is 

20 going to truly have reliable wifi or not. That's 

21 what it really comes down to.

22 I will have my cell phone with me and 

23 if worse comes to worst I can do that, but it's 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really bad if I don't have the screen. 

2 Let's go ahead and do it if that's 

3 what fits for everybody else. Because the next 

4 week is not going to work and the week after that 

5 is getting two months away from where we are 

6 today.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. I 

8 agree. Let's try to find, however, one backup 

9 date.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes, I need a backup date 

11 anyway.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: In case David 

13 Richardson --

14 MR. KATZ: Right.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: John, by the way, 

16 is the 9th okay for you? John Poston?

17 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. Can you hear me?

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, there we are. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Now we can.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Dave and I were talking 

21 at the same time. So I think that's okay with me. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

23 MR. KATZ: So the 9th is first choice 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and then let's just choose a date on the week of 

2 the 22nd as a backup.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct. I'm free.

4 MEMBER BEACH: I'm clear on all of 

5 them.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I am as well.

7 MR. KATZ: How about -- well, they're 

8 all fine. How about Wednesday the 24th?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. It's just a backup.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just realized that 

13 Mondays and Wednesdays I will have to leave 

14 earlier than that so I may not be able to be a 

15 part of it the last hour or so.

16 MR. KATZ: You have to leave by what 

17 time, Brad?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I have meetings on 

19 Mondays that would be 3 o'clock your time and on 

20 Wednesdays I have them at 4 o'clock.

21 MR. KATZ: That'll be okay anyway.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 4 p.m. 

23 that's fine. We're normally pretty close.
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: So we're doing the 23rd 

2 as backup?

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The 24th.

4 MR. KATZ: The 24th is backup. That's 

5 a Wednesday. And we'll scheduled for the 9th. 

6 I'm just going to send both of these dates to 

7 David Richardson.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds good.

9 Adjourn

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Folks, thank 

11 you all very much. Productive meeting. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. Have a 

13 wonderful day.

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

15 went off the record at 4:05 p.m.)