1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

MONDAY

JULY 7, 2014

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight 

Time, David Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, DCAS

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

GENE ROLLINS, ORAU Team

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

Welcome and roll-call ..................... 5

Case Reviews Issue Resolution

Sets 10-13, remaining cases (Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, Y-12, K-25, and other

DOE and Atomic Weapons Employer Sites)

NTS 266.1............................ 7

306.1............................... 11

290 and 290.1....................... 12

290.2............................... 28

290.3............................... 43

LBNL 228.1.......................... 56

228.2............................... 61

228.3............................... 76

Observations 1 and 2 .......... 70

Observation 3 ................. 76

Observation 4 ................. 85

Observations 5 and 6 .......... 87

291.1............................... 90

265 ................................ 95

Observation 1 ................ 101

290.1.............................. 106

Mound, 323.1....................... 106

223.2.............................. 114

223.3.............................. 128

Pinellas Observation, 233.1........ 143

Pinellas, 299.1.................... 145

299.2.............................. 146

299.4.............................. 154

Aliquippa 248...................... 160

West Valley, 234.1................. 161

Observation 2...................... 170

Observation 3...................... 190

Observation 4...................... 191
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

Simonds Saw & Steel, 240.1 ........ 184

240.2.............................. 197

240.3.............................. 217

240.4.............................. 223

240.5.............................. 223

240.6.............................. 227

240.7.............................. 228

240.8.............................. 229

240.9.............................. 230

240.10............................. 231

Plans for completing review of

Sets 10-13 .............................. 249

Summarizing review results for

Board report ............................ 251
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:34 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So for roll call, we have 

4 you all on line, but let me run through the Board 

5 Members’ conflicts because it's a little 

6 complicated otherwise to deal with that, given 

7 that we're doing individual cases for lots of 

8 sites.

9 So let me just run through those and 

10 I'll run through them for the two missing Board 

11 Members under the assumption that they will 

12 turn up in this meeting at some point. So I'm 

13 just going to do this alphabetically:

14 For Brad it's INL. He has a 

15 conflict for INL cases. For Mark, no cases. 

16 For Dr. Kotelchuck, none. For Wanda Munn, 

17 Hanford.

18 For Dr. Poston it's actually quite 

19 a list. It's Argonne National Lab, ORNL which 

20 is X-10, Sandia, LANL, Y-12, Lawrence Livermore 

21 National Lab, West Valley Demonstration 

22 Project and anything related to his son who has 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the past done dose reconstruction cases.

2 And Dr. Richardson has no conflicts 

3 for any sites.

4 (Roll call.)

5 MR. ROLLINS: I need to say Gene 

6 Rollins has conflicts at Hanford and SRS.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you, Gene. 

8 That takes care of that.

9 (Complete Roll call.)

10 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, we can get 

11 started. The agenda for the meeting is posted 

12 online. All of you should have it and I sent 

13 out a correction about the selection of set. I 

14 had the wrong set number. Thank you to 

15 somebody who corrected me, Beth I think. And, 

16 Dave, it's your meeting.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

18 Okay, I have on my screen now, as I guess all 

19 of us have, the DR Audit Finding Resolution from 

April 24th 20 , which indicates that there are 82, 

21 yes, 82 outstanding cases from 10 to 13, 

22 although I must say that when I go over the cases 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that Doug has sent us and Beth also, there are 

2 nowhere near 82 and I'm not quite sure whether 

3 the audit does not incorporate later changes or 

4 quite what.

5 However, maybe what we should do is 

6 just simply start with the matrices that were 

7 given to us by Doug, actually on the 2nd and then 

8 updated today. Let's go to Doug's 10 through 

9 13, the remaining sites, I believe.

10 And he had indicated and we had 

11 indicated at the end of the last meeting that 

12 we were going to start on, I believe, 266.1, 

13 NTS, which I believe is in there. There we go. 

14 So let us begin. 266.1 is up on the screen. 

15 Doug, do you want to start?

16 MR. FARVER: Sure. We discussed 

17 this one before, so this has to do with the 

18 differences in the summing of the doses and 

19 there was a missing 150 millirem.

20 When we last left this, NIOSH was 

21 going to look into the missing 150 millirem and 

22 they did provide their response, you see there 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the green.

2 And, you know, we don't really have 

3 anything to reply to that, other than it is 

4 obviously a QA concern when you have different 

5 doses and --

6 MR. STIVER: Hey, Doug, could you 

7 speak up a little bit? I can barely hear you.

8 MR. FARVER: Oh, I'm sorry. Other 

9 than this being a QA concern, I'm not sure that 

10 there's much else we can do on this.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and 

12 your suggestion is to close. So basically we 

13 have a response. We have a QA problem. I 

14 think we should close, correct?

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any 

17 comments from any Board Members, Subcommittee 

18 Members?

19 MEMBER MUNN: No.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that 

21 is closed. Let's go down to the next one.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question just for clarification? I'm sorry.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. John?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

4 Richardson.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, Dave 

6 Richardson. Okay.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There seem to 

8 be two things said in the green response. One 

9 is that there's no indication why the sum is 

10 different but all the other years match up.

11 And then the last part says, due to 

12 the practice of double badging, the individual 

13 dosimeter sums are reviewed for potential 

14 duplicates used.

15 Are they saying that this is an 

16 issue of -- I'm not clear what this is -- are 

17 we saying that somebody else should have been 

18 responsible for this? I'm not understanding. 

19 Is this a problem of abstraction by the ORAU 

20 contractor or are they saying that NTS or 

21 somebody should have checked these but they 

22 didn't?
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. What 

2 this comes down to is this is an unusual 

3 situation and that the handwritten sum is 

4 different.

5 So what we did is what we normally 

6 do. We walk through all the individual 

7 dosimeter sums and use those. I'm going to say 

8 we didn't notice that the handwritten sum is 

9 different.

10 And when we can't tell why 

11 something's different, normally what we would 

12 have done is use the higher of the two, so we 

13 would have included the extra 150 millirem in 

14 this because we couldn't tell why there was a 

15 difference between them.

16 But I just wanted to point out that 

17 since there is double badging at NTS, we do look 

18 at the individual dosimeters and walk through 

19 those and those are what we normally will use.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are we 

21 fading?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, I'm okay.
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, is 

2 that satisfactory?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The answer is 

4 the detailed records should have been used as 

5 they're typically used and it's not clear why 

6 the detail, why they were entered in sums the 

7 way they should have been.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

9 Okay, alright. I assume that this would not 

10 affect, of course, the PoC. It's a fairly 

11 small, it's an error but it's a small one or it's 

12 an uncertainty, really, not so much an error.

13 Okay, I've lost my page on the Live 

14 Meeting. How about others?

15 MEMBER MUNN: No, I'm still here 

16 miraculously after 15 minutes of trying.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Okay, I'll close this browser window.

19 MR. FARVER: The next one we'll go 

20 to is on Page 18, 306.1. It's already been 

21 closed but NIOSH has a little --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Alright, if you would go ahead. I'm having 

2 some trouble here but please go ahead.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. Basically as 

4 we left this at the last meeting we wanted 

5 clarification added to the DR guidance document 

6 for Ames Laboratory.

7 NIOSH said that's been done, so 

8 that's good. It's already been closed. The 

9 finding was closed at the last meeting. 

10 They're just updating us to say that the 

11 guidance has been added.

12 MEMBER MUNN: What was that number 

13 again, Doug?

14 MR. FARVER: 306.1. It's at the 

15 bottom of Page 18.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

18 just trying to get back on board. And for 307, 

19 if I'm not mistaken, [there] were only 

20 observations.

21 MR. FARVER: Right. Actually we 

22 jump down to Page 24 and it's Case 290. There's 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 290.1 and this is where we stopped at the last 

2 meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

4 That's right. Okay, good, and we have several 

5 now or several findings on 290. If you will, 

6 Doug.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. So this is for 

8 INEL and the finding has to do with the 

9 incorrect dosimetry correction factor used for 

10 measuring the photon bladder doses.

11 Response, INEL does not use 

12 dosimeter correction factors and it really 

13 wasn't a dosimeter correction factor we were 

14 talking about. It was uncertainty for the 

15 photon dosimetry and I believe it's written in 

16 the text about the plus or minus 35 percent.

17 The NIOSH response is it doesn't 

18 mean that you automatically increase by 35 

19 percent all the dosimeter results. So I went 

20 back and reviewed it and, you know, I understand 

21 what they're saying and they are correct. So we 

22 recommend closing this finding.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 Response from Subcommittee Members, questions?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So what is it 

4 about the INL dosimeter which suggests that 

5 there shouldn't be a correction factor for 

6 dosimeter response?

7 MR. FARVER: Scott, you want to 

8 handle that?

9 MR. SIEBERT: I'm not prepared to 

10 handle that because INEL was not my site. I 

11 can't tell you. I mean, I can just refer back 

12 to the TBD and say that there are no dosimeter 

13 correction factors for INL.

14 MR. FARVER: That's probably the 

15 same answer I could give you, David.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, I mean, 

18 presumably they were using a multi-element 

19 dosimeter at one point and then a TLD and the 

20 evaluations of the behavior I think, the 

21 characterization of all these U.S. dosimeters 

22 is that there's some dependence of response on 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 angles and energy of exposures. It seems, I 

2 mean, I guess I'm, that's a curiosity to me 

3 about what could be unique about that.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is a 

5 question. Now, Brad is conflicted on INL so I 

6 will not ask his comment but is there anyone 

7 else? Brad?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I understand 

9 fully about that so I just want you to know why 

10 I was not commenting.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

12 Okay, does anyone else have, I mean, it is a 

13 uniqueness about INL and I have no idea why and 

14 the people who are not conflicted aren't able 

15 to, have not answered as far as I can tell.

16 MR. KATZ: Oh, Dave, this is Ted. 

17 You know, I don't know if Grady wants to offer 

18 but if he would check with Tim Taulbee and Pete 

19 Darnell, who are the leads for INL, [they’ll] 

20 probably know the answer to this question.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could we get 

22 the answer during the course of the day and have 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 somebody bring us back that information?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, this is Grady. 

3 I'll try to get something and I don't know, 

4 Scott, if you want to have somebody on your end 

5 look at it too. I'll ask and we'll see what's 

6 happening.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, Brian with Moeller, 

8 he's the lead there. He would have the answer 

9 to that too probably. He wrote the TBD.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and 

11 I'll put a note to myself to return to this after 

12 lunch break.

13 MEMBER MUNN: We've had several 

14 discussions about the differences in the types 

15 of badges, the types of dosimeters that we've 

16 had in different places and we've also made note 

17 of the differences in various models that have 

18 occurred over the years.

19 It was my understanding that there 

20 are slightly different correction factors for 

21 a wide variety of types --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: -- and for a wide 

2 variety of operational activities depending 

3 upon the types of materials that were available 

4 at the given sites at the time of the 

5 distribution of those particular types of 

6 dosimeters.

7 I didn't think that there was 

8 anything uniquely unique about what was at 

9 INEL. It was my understanding that one has to 

10 take into consideration the uniqueness of each 

11 operation and the types of dosimeters that were 

12 being used at that particular time.

13 It would be unusual I think for 

14 anyone on the Board to have intimate knowledge 

15 of the types of dosimeters that were used at 

16 specific intervals at all of the sites because 

17 those did change fairly radically as I 

18 remember.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's put it 

20 this way, this is Dave, if there was a 

21 correction factor used, I would assume whenever 

22 we're using the dosimeters that there will be 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a correction factor.

2 I was not aware personally that 

3 there were sites where they simply are not 

4 needed, they are not appropriate.

5 And I guess that there's a range of 

6 correction factors as, of course, we have 

7 talked about often. I don't recall coming up 

8 with one where there was no correction factor 

9 at all. That's all.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes, it's 

11 correct. We usually did spend more time 

12 talking about the correction factors that were 

13 necessary rather than those that were not. 

14 That's true.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

16 right. Alright, well, let's hope that we can 

17 get some information about that and, if we 

18 cannot, we will consider it further after lunch 

19 break.

20 MR. SMITH: Before we move on, this 

21 is Matt Smith with ORAU Team.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SMITH: I've not immersed 

2 myself in this particular claim but as I read 

3 the response on it, I would agree there's not 

4 a specific correction factor, you know, and we 

5 say that in the response as noted in the 

6 external TBD.

7 There is, you know, a factor for 

8 uncertainty and it's a plus or minus 35 percent. 

9 And typically what we would do on a claim, 

10 especially when we're doing it as a best

11 estimate, we would estimate the dose as a normal 

12 distribution and apply the plus or minus 35 

13 percent criteria to it.

14 There are a few TBDs out there that 

15 sometimes recommend a correction factor, 

16 either because of dosimeter filtering or some 

17 other type of response issue.

18 But as we've looked at the larger 

19 sites, we've usually found that the larger 

20 sites were in pretty good shape as far as 

21 dosimeter response, you know, be it Idaho or 

22 Hanford or Oak Ridge or Savannah River.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In general, we don't have a systemic 

2 correction factor that we need to apply to the 

3 dosimetry results. Do we apply uncertainty? 

4 Certainly we do. I believe that is the case 

5 here.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, and this is John 

8 speaking and it's for generalities. We run 

9 into correction factors that were needed 

10 because of a number of conditions that might 

11 exist.

12 One is the way in which the TLD or 

13 the film badge was calibrated. The actual 

14 energy distribution it was experiencing on the 

15 worker might have been different than the 

16 energy distribution that was used for the 

17 calibration of that detector. That would be 

18 one reason why you might need to make an 

19 adjustment.

20 Another reason why you might need a 

21 correction is angle of incidence. If it turns 

22 out the person was exposed, the organ is, let's 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say, the stomach but the badge is worn on the 

2 lapel, you have different geometry that usually 

3 requires, like, a factor of two adjustment. So 

4 there are circumstances when we run across, and 

5 often, correction factors.

6 But, you know, I would say something 

7 maybe a little naive but if it's calibrated with 

8 the right energy distribution and you're not 

9 concerned too much about the angle of 

10 incidence, I would say you wouldn't need a 

11 correction factor. That might be 

12 over-simplification but that's the way I think 

13 about it. That's how we're --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

15 very helpful.

16 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith 

17 again. That's what we're facing here 

18 literally is we're assuming an AP geometry 

19 situation so we're straight on in terms of our 

20 exposure to the source.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seems to resolve it to me.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

3 Richardson. That doesn't resolve it for me. 

4 I'm sorry.

5 I mean, yes, if you want to assume 

6 its energy is within the range that the 

7 dosimeter responds appropriately to for 

8 historical multi-element dosimeters and 100 

9 percent AP exposure, then it's fine.

10 But typically we've assumed that 

11 people are exposed to a range of energy, we make 

12 some characterization of them, and a range of 

13 geometries.

14 And typically I would say that for 

15 historical dosimeters there was some 

16 consideration, not just about uncertainty in 

17 the response but potential bias in the response 

18 for estimating the monitored quantities of 

19 interest.

20 I mean, I could be wrong but I just 

21 sat through reviews of this for other 

22 organizations and that's been the practice and 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that was my understanding of the way that the 

2 work on bias and uncertainty in dosimeters had 

3 been applied within this program.

4 So, I mean, I guess I would not like 

5 to have it closed until there's an explanation 

6 about what the assumptions of exposure are at 

7 INL which would make it such that the dosimeters 

8 were perfect in the response with some 

9 uncertainty around the response.

10 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Are 

11 we potentially -- it sounds to me like this is 

12 one of those overarching issues and we're 

13 getting more into a procedures issue than we are 

14 the specific DR because I don't believe that 

15 we're discussing an issue where something in 

16 the TBD was not followed. Is that correct?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, that 

18 may be. If what you're saying is this was 

19 followed and that's the TBD, then it just needs 

20 to be punted to somebody else.

21 MR. SMITH: Grady, this is Matt.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But it's a 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mystery to me right now.

2 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith 

3 again. I guess I would tend to say that would 

4 be the case. This is an issue that would be 

5 brought up either in an overarching sense or in 

6 a TBD sense.

7 As a matter of course on this 

8 program for quite a while, we've gone with the 

9 approach of using AP geometry. That drives us 

10 to using the DCFs that are most 

11 claimant-favorable as we do the estimation on

12 these claims.

13 Certainly if we take into account 

14 other types of geometries, well, then the DCFs 

15 are going to be reduced. What effect that 

16 would be in terms of offset by corrections on 

17 the dosimetry, that would be a matter for study.

18 Certainly the DCFs would be lower, 

19 for instance if we were just to assume, you 

20 know, rotational, you know, 50-50 rotational 

21 and AP.

22 But, again, we're going off on a, 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably an issue that -- Grady's correct. 

2 This is more of an overarching issue.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, yes, and this is 

5 Ted. I mean, that issue of what geometry to use 

6 and so on has been, as I think John Mauro knows, 

7 extensively explored, discussed, debated and I 

8 think resolved in the Procedures Subcommittee.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, repeatedly.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John 

11 again. Maybe I could help out a little. What 

12 I'm hearing is that here we have a person who 

13 we took their results of their dosimetry on face 

14 value, the implication being there was reason 

15 to believe that the detector, film badge or TLD, 

16 was properly calibrated. That is, there's 

17 reason to believe that, yes, the radiation 

18 exposure -- I'm trying to turn it not to a 

19 generic issue but to turn it to a case issue 

20 which could be confirmed by the people who know 

21 INEL well and the dosimetry and this person's 

22 job category and that there was reason to 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe that, yes, there was no need for an 

2 adjustment or correction factor because of 

3 differences in energy distribution between 

4 what was experienced and what the calibration 

5 energy was. And there's reason to believe that 

6 -- and not so much geometry about AP versus ISO, 

7 not that geometry. But there was reason to 

8 believe that we're not talking about a worker 

9 who had, let's say, prostate cancer, I don't 

10 know the details here, and was working at a 

11 glove box where we know that he's wearing his 

12 film badge on his lapel.

13 But if you are and you're interested 

14 in calculating the dose to his prostate or his 

15 belly, then you would have a correction factor.

16 So it's really a matter of saying it 

17 seems that the generic assumptions were such 

18 that they worked for this worker. You know, it 

19 was an AP without a need, and there was no need 

20 because of energy differences and that would be 

21 specific to the worker or if you didn't know, 

22 you know, or there was no reason to believe 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, well, that the special correction would 

2 be needed.

3 It would be good to hear back from 

4 the folks who know this particular case and 

5 reviewed it and what job he had and know INEL 

6 and the kind of things they did and how they 

7 calibrated their dosimeters who could actually 

8 know there really is no need for a correction 

9 factor for at least those two parameters that 

10 I am familiar with.

11 Now, there may be other aspects to 

12 these dosimeters that require correction 

13 factors that I'm not familiar with but those are 

14 the two that I'm familiar with.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

16 mean, in that spirit of trying to see if we can 

17 resolve it as a case and Dave's concerns that 

18 he's expressed, let's try to get hold of 

19 somebody and talk about this after the break and 

20 then go on to other issues. I'd like to do that 

21 unless there is objection.

22 Hearing no objection and, folks, we 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are trying to finish up as best we can 10 through 

2 13. This has some real urgency. So let's go 

3 on to the next, 290.2.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay, 290.2. The 

5 finding is that the appropriate photon energy 

6 distribution for the bladder was not applied 

7 from '94 to 2000 and this was under missed dose.

8 Okay. If you look at the CATI 

9 report, he provides information of where he 

10 worked. Worked in the Test Reactor through 

11 '76, SMC facility from '86 through '93 and then 

12 at the Chemical Processing Plant from '94 

13 through '99.

14 They're going to have different 

15 photon energy distributions and what we saw was 

16 that the energy distributions that were used 

17 for the missed dose did not match what 

18 information the employee provided.

19 However, the information they used 

20 to calculate the ambient dose was correct, 

21 their energy distributions and time periods. 

22 So that was the basis for the finding that they 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did not use the same or correct photon energy 

2 distributions.

3 And then I can go through the NIOSH 

4 one or they can go through it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 

6 personally I do not quite follow you. Maybe --

7 MR. FARVER: Okay, well, for 

8 example, when the person worked at the SMC 

9 facility they should have a photon distribution 

10 of, energy split of 90 percent 30 to 250 keV and 

11 10 percent greater than 250 keV.

12 Then when they move to the Chemical 

13 Processing Plant, it changes from a 90/10 to a 

14 20/75 energy split. So those are supposed to, 

15 you know, coincide with the time periods that 

16 the employee worked for those facilities.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

18 MR. FARVER: Those values were not 

19 used for those time periods for the missed dose. 

20 They were used for the ambient dose.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, which 

22 was correct.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

3 not using them for the missed dose did not have 

4 an impact?

5 MR. FARVER: According to our 

6 finding, if they would have used them it would 

7 have raised it about three percent, the dose.

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

9 just want to point out, it may have raised the 

10 dose by three percent. However, the split that 

11 was used, that's SMC, was 90 percent 30 to 250 

12 keV. That is the claimant-favorable 

13 assumption.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Thirty to 250 keV 

16 will always give you the higher PoC than the 

17 other split.

18 So what appears to have happened 

19 here is the dose reconstructor looked at all the 

20 information, not just the CATI but also the 

21 information that was in the claim file, and 

22 picked what they believed was the most, the 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 majority of the time that they spent in any 

2 single year, where they thought that was.

3 And for '94 to '99 that was SMC as 

4 well as the other facility, but SMC does have 

5 that more claimant-favorable split so they went 

6 with that assumption for assigning the facility 

7 during that time.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, so 

9 there was an error but it was 

10 claimant-favorable?

11 MR. FARVER: Well, it may have been 

12 claimant-favorable, but there's not anything 

13 about that in the dose reconstruction.

14 The DR report gives specific time 

15 periods and locations and those time periods 

16 and locations were used for the ambient dose. 

17 Now --

18 MR. SIEBERT: And I agree that the 

19 dose reconstruction report should have stated 

20 that the facilities -- should have been stated 

21 more clearly and we state that in our response, 

22 the second to last paragraph. The DRR should 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have been more descriptive as to what was 

2 assigned, which --

3 MR. FARVER: In our opinion, the 

4 dose reconstructor screwed up and it's a QA 

5 concern because there's nothing in any of the 

6 files that says he was doing it to be 

7 claimant-favorable or that he recognized that 

8 he should have been doing it this other way but 

9 he was doing it because it was 

10 claimant-favorable this other way. So it just 

11 happens to be claimant-favorable so he must 

12 have been thinking that way but I don't --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That seems 

14 to me virtually an observation, that it wasn't 

15 written up properly.

16 On the other hand, the resolution of 

17 the case was claimant-favorable and, 

18 therefore, I mean, it seems to me that that is 

19 appropriate to close it, as you indicated.

20 MR. FARVER: Oh, I agree with 

21 closing it. I just don't want to, well, I 

22 believe it's the way it should been identified.
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

4 Richardson. It wasn't consistent is the other 

5 thing I'm hearing.

6 So for ambient dose, there was an 

7 assumption in the same period that the energy 

8 distribution was different than this dose, and 

9 for recorded dose is there an assumption made 

10 about the energy distribution as well?

11 MR. FARVER: You are correct. 

12 They were different. Different assumptions 

13 were used for the different calculations.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And for me the 

15 key difference would be between the recorded 

16 dose and the missed dose assumptions in the same 

17 periods and locations?

18 MR. FARVER: The measured and 

19 missed dose were the same assumptions. The 

20 ambient dose used the date and work locations 

21 that were stated in the dose reconstruction 

22 report.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So at minimum 

2 that would be confusing, I mean, for a claimant 

3 to understand what had happened.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 

6 yes. But --

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And is it 

8 claimant-favorable for the claimant if they're 

9 recorded on a missed dose? A 

10 claimant-favorable assumption was made for the 

11 recorded and missed dose but not for the ambient 

12 dose, is that, or was that the reply?

13 MR. FARVER: No, the --

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Vice versa?

15 MR. FARVER: NIOSH is claiming that 

16 the mistake or that the energy distributions 

17 that they used were claimant-favorable even 

18 though, that if they were to use the same energy 

19 distributions that were in the DR report it 

20 would have raised the missed dose by three 

21 percent.

22 They're saying it would have been a 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 higher dose but it would have been less 

2 claimant-favorable because the energy 

3 distribution was different.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess what 

6 I'm asking, if there were two sets of 

7 assumptions about the energy distribution and 

8 they were applied differently for the ambient 

9 you're saying from the missed dose and recorded 

10 dose and it would seem that the most 

11 claimant-favorable would be the most 

12 claimant-favorable energy distribution 

13 assumption applied to all three components of 

14 the dose.

15 MR. FARVER: I would think so. If 

16 you're going to claim that it's 

17 claimant-favorable, you would apply it to all 

18 of them.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I mean, I agree 

21 with David Richardson. This is Mark Griffon, 

22 by the way.
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hi, Mark. 

2 Welcome.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree with 

4 David's point on that and I wonder if NIOSH has 

5 a response to that.

6 I mean, either way, I think you 

7 close it but, you know, if what I'm thinking is 

8 true, I think I stand with Doug's finding, that 

9 it's a QA, likely a QA problem and still can be 

10 closed. But, you know, just wonder if NIOSH 

11 has a response to that, that last discussion.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

13 All I can say is I agree that it seems to make 

14 sense that they should have been consistent 

15 across the board.

16 So, I mean, that's all I can -- And 

17 more importantly, the dose reconstruction 

18 report should have reflected the facilities 

19 that were specifically broken out and used in 

20 each of the components if they were different.

21 So I can't really say why the 

22 ambient used a different energy split than the 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recorded and missed, and we've gone back and 

2 we've looked at the case and I can't tell you 

3 why.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But you can 

5 be confident that the resolution was a correct 

6 resolution on the case?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Well, changing the 

8 facilities on the ambient is going to have very, 

9 very little impact on the overall PoC.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MR. SIEBERT: As well as the fact 

12 that, as we point out at the end of this, this 

13 claim has been reworked due to additional 

14 cancers and it's already been compensated.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Then 

16 if it has already been compensated, I think we 

17 all understand where the errors are and that it 

18 was an error and since it has been compensated 

19 that, I think, should close it.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed, it should be 

21 closed. However, I think the issue begs one 

22 other observation and that is we want things to 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be favorable to the client and to the claimant 

2 in cases where we do not have information that 

3 would cause us to feel that there was more 

4 accurate assessment available.

5 In cases where you have information 

6 that leads you to believe that a figure is more 

7 accurate than what would be considered, quote, 

8 claimant-favorable, end quote, my 

9 understanding is that we are to err on the side 

10 of accuracy when at all possible. Is that not 

11 the case?

12 And I don't know about this case. 

13 One can't speak to that without having seen it 

14 and worked it but it would seem that, and 

15 especially in these larger sites, if we have 

16 real confidence in something like, perhaps, 

17 ambient exposures, then it would seem logical 

18 to use those without correction. I don't know 

19 that that's the case. Just pointing out that 

20 it might be.

21 DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

22 our dilemma is we're not sure if we have a 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quality assurance breakdown here or the actual 

2 dose reconstructor used an expediency method.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Let's get through this 

5 quickly, and didn't tell his story completely 

6 in his dose reconstruction but he knew exactly 

7 what he was doing and why he was doing it and 

8 he felt that his outcome is appropriate within 

9 the boundaries of the discretion he has under 

10 the regs.

11 So, I mean, really it's a matter of 

12 whether or not this was, in fact, an error that 

13 ended up being an error with no consequences or 

14 was it that the person just used an expediency 

15 to get through the process quickly but didn't 

16 document it accurately and that's where it 

17 really leaves us as far as, like, a bookkeeping 

18 issue.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, thank you, John. 

20 That's much better said. Thanks.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and we 

22 don't know. It's classified as Classification 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 E which, somebody, do remind me, I don't have 

2 it in front of me, what does that stand for, what 

3 kind of an error?

4 MEMBER MUNN: We need to go back to 

5 the beginning whenever that question is asked.

6 MR. STIVER: Type E is a QA issue.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Thank you, 

8 Matt.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 

10 you. I think we should, unless people, oh, 

11 other Subcommittee Members, unless you object, 

12 I think we should go on. Close this and go on.

13 I mean, we should be accurate and 

14 that's what we're going over it for. If it was 

15 a question that the case was already closed, we 

16 wouldn't even look at this, right?

17 We're looking at it because we want 

18 to be accurate but it's clear that we can't say 

19 why the dose reconstructor did what he or she 

20 did. And we hope that will be helpful to NIOSH 

21 as they go through other cases. Could we leave 

22 it at that and close?
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Fine with me.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Others? 

3 Mark? Dave, I know you're concerned. Mark?

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I guess, you 

5 know, not to dwell on this too much but I think 

6 if it, you know, it seems like maybe it was a 

7 claimant-favorable decision by a dose 

8 reconstructor but did they not sort of go 

9 against their own procedures and --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They did.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: And it should have 

12 probably been documented. I mean, I think 

13 it's, you know, I just --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There was no 

15 --

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: -- wonder about 

17 that. You wonder if it's a higher dose and they 

18 would stick strictly to these ratios and break 

19 out the dose that way. Maybe John's right. 

20 But, I mean, I think it's a question of we may 

21 not be able to determine this. That's the 

22 problem, right?
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

2 point. I feel we don't know and we can't know 

3 at this point.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it has 

6 been reviewed and nobody knows exactly why the 

7 person did it. It could be that it was a 

8 reasonable decision or it could be an error, you 

9 know, a quality assurance error. But I don't 

10 think the Subcommittee can do anything further 

11 about it and, therefore, there's reason to go 

12 on with a long agenda.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David?

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I mean, I 

16 feel it's an error that should be noted. It 

17 sounds like there's agreement on that.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is 

19 and it is so noted within E, so Category E, so 

20 an error. So this should be closed.

21 And I believe the next one is, Doug, 

22 is that not a Mound case? 323, is that the next 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one?

2 MR. FARVER: No, we --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We missed 

4 that.

5 MR. FARVER: 290.3.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, my 

7 goodness. Okay, yes, I'm sorry, the other 

8 findings on 290. I'm sorry. I forgot that 

9 there were several. In fact, there were seven 

10 or eight of them. No, a couple. Anyway, do go 

11 ahead.

12 MR. FARVER: This is a pretty -- one 

13 has to do with the whole body count and the use 

14 of a reporting level for MDA. In this case the 

15 whole body count was listed as less than one 

16 microcurie or --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Folks, I'm 

18 sorry. I gave an incorrect suggestion. We 

19 need to go back to 290.3.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or 290.2 

22 actually.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: 90.2. What do we want

2 to do with 290.2?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I believe it 

4 was the next one that we were to consider.

5 MR. KATZ: That's 290.3, Dave.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: That's what Doug's 

8 reporting on.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay, 290.3.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

12 MR. FARVER: No justification for 

13 the use of the MDA value when the intake was 

14 unknown. Okay, the whole body count results 

15 were reported as less than reporting of --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm so sorry. 

17 What page is that?

18 MR. FARVER: Bottom of Page 25.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thanks.

20 MR. FARVER: And it was just 

21 written up as less than 0.1 microcuries for 

22 whole body count, which was higher than the MDA 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of 12 nanocuries.

2 But in the calculations, the dose 

3 reconstructor used 12 nanocuries as the -- make 

4 sure I'm correct. I believe that's correct. 

5 Yes, they used 12 nanocuries instead of the 0.1 

6 microcuries which would have been the upper 

7 bound.

8 Dose-wise it really doesn't matter. 

9 It's a couple millirem. It was just, you know, 

10 typically they would use the reporting level 

11 and not the MDA. I believe that's correct. 

12 Isn't that correct, Scott?

13 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we'll agree that 

14 the MDA that's coming out of the TBD should not 

15 have been used. The reporting level that was 

16 on the actual record should have been used.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments by 

19 Subcommittee Members, concerns?

20 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Just 

22 straightforward, or nothing, again, we can do 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about it. Right, and the case was compensated, 

2 person was compensated. So we accept it as a 

3 Type D error and close unless I hear objection 

4 or a concern or question.

5 (No response.)

6 Okay, then let us close and go on.

7 Now, Doug, am I correct that we go 

8 to the --

9 MR. FARVER: Well, there's an 

10 observation we could talk about if you want.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: It's rather lengthy 

13 and what site were we talking about here? Oh, 

14 INEL, okay.

15 Prior to this person working at 

16 INEL, they worked at a non-DOE project, a 

17 shipyard. And during that time period at the 

18 shipyard, the employee made some note that he 

19 was involved in a radiation exposure event, a 

20 cobalt source.

21 And our observation simply refers 

22 to a statement in the dose reconstruction 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report. The statement reads, in interviews it 

2 was indicated that the EE [employee] worked at 

3 a non-DOE project just prior to employment and 

4 was involved in maintenance activities and an 

5 incident involving a cobalt-60 source. It is 

6 more likely that this intake was a result of 

7 work at a non-DOE activity. However, to be 

8 claimant-favorable, the internal dose was 

9 attributed to DOE work.

10 So basically it probably didn't 

11 happen at DOE but we're going to assign it just 

12 in case and this is the same one we were talking 

13 about where it was, you know, couple millirem.

14 Okay, our point is the employee

15 started work at INEL in 1969, September of '69. 

16 Whole body count that we're talking about was 

17 in May of 1970.

18 So it probably was a whole body 

19 count from INEL and not the shipyard. The 

20 shipyard work was most likely an external dose 

21 and that's what all that verbiage there in those 

22 two columns states.
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's another incident where the 

2 dates don't match up to where the employee 

3 started work and stopped work. It doesn't 

4 affect the dose reconstruction at all.

5 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I do 

6 want to point out, as Doug was saying, that 

7 although the off-site appears to be an external 

8 exposure, the whole body count was at INL. So 

9 to be claimant-favorable, we assumed an 

10 internal exposure which is what we were 

11 discussing just earlier with the cobalt-60. 

12 So the bottom line is to be claimant-favorable 

13 we assumed it occurred on the DOE facility and 

14 assigned it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And, again, that is 

17 simply an observation. It's not a finding.

18 MR. FARVER: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

20 Okay, fine. I just, for the folks who prepared 

21 this, there's the name of an individual in that 

22 observation that I believe should not be there.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: That will go away.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please make 

3 sure that that's done.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well those, 

6 since we're not called to act upon that, we are 

7 called to comment if we wish and do a, anyone 

8 wish to comment, any of the Subcommittee 

9 Members?

10 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay, next one is from 

14 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 228.1, 

15 incorrect use of the ICRP and uncertainty 

16 factors. Okay. Right there. Hang on. I 

17 want to --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

19 MR. FARVER: -- make sure I've got 

20 all my facts straight.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: Well, I can't find the 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 table I'm looking for so I'll go ahead and, 

2 okay, what it comes down to is if you go to the 

3 TBD Table 6.3 the final column is what is listed 

4 as just ICRP 60 correction factors and it really 

5 was an adjusted correction factor.

6 And what they did is they wrapped 

7 them all into one factor so it should not just 

8 be called an ICRP 60 correction factor. It 

9 should be named something different and that 

10 was kind of what we came up with after reading 

11 their reply.

12 So they did it correctly, okay? 

13 Their table had some confusion in it so that if 

14 you're looking back and trying to interpret 

15 what they did it may not be as easy to understand 

16 as it could be so we suggested they modify their 

17 table.

18 And the most recent response for 

19 Part A was, the suggested change has been noted 

20 by the TBD author and will occur at the next 

21 revision. It's a matter of --

22 MR. SIEBERT: Just letting you know 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I have discussed that with the TBD author and 

2 they have their notes for the next revision.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: For Part A, we suggest 

6 closing that. It's not that they did anything 

7 wrong. It's just their TBD had some confusion 

8 in it, you know, as we come across sometimes, 

9 and we like to point them out.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

11 MR. FARVER: Now, there's a Part B. 

12 Part B was that the dose reconstructor could 

13 have used a photon uncertainty of 1.2 but they 

14 didn't, so this was a conflict.

15 In our opinion it's a QA concern, 

16 and then NIOSH agrees that they should have used 

17 the 1.2 photon uncertainty when applying the 

18 N/P ratio for the measured photon dose.

19 Since there was no dedicated LBNL 

20 tool at the time of this assessment, the SM tool 

21 was adapted by the dose reconstructor for this 

22 case.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it was an individual DR error, 

2 dose reconstructor error. So we suggested 

3 closing this part off, which would close the 

4 whole finding.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments 

6 either on A or B? This Part B, Doug, this was 

7 an error, an individual dose reconstructor 

8 error, and you're suggesting it has no 

9 consequence?

10 MR. FARVER: Well, it's not a 

11 workbook error because they didn't have a 

12 workbook in place at the time.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. FARVER: They tried to use 

15 another workbook or they used another workbook. 

16 The dose reconstructor made a mistake while 

17 using that so it's a dose reconstruction error. 

18 So we look at --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What is the 

20 consequence of that error?

21 MR. FARVER: I don't believe it was 

22 a significant concern, I mean, you know, as for 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 changing the case.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

3 will point out that once we hit .2 we're going 

4 to have a discussion of neutron-to-photon ratio 

5 where we accidentally used a very 

6 claimant-favorable overestimating assumption 

7 so that would have overwhelmed any small 

8 increase that would come from .1, so there would 

9 be no change in compensability.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

11 Other concerns or questions? And we're still, 

12 we're dealing with the 290. We're dealing 

13 with, if you could scroll up, we're dealing with 

14 290.3.

15 MR. FARVER: 228.1.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 228.1. 

17 Okay. Sorry, excuse me, okay. Should we 

18 close, folks?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: I agree.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

22 Hearing no objections, it’s closed. 8.1. 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Sorry.

2 MR. FARVER: Now we're going to go 

3 to 228.2, incorrect use of the neutron-photon 

4 value and uncertainty factors. And he used 

5 2.47 as the N/P ratio instead of 0.73 and 

6 resulted in an overestimate of about 3.4 times 

7 too high.

8 That's Part A. Okay, so, you know, 

9 we're going to look at this and say, well, 

10 someone should have caught that if it's 3-1/2 

11 times too high.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Second Part B, is dose 

14 reconstructor should have used a photon 

15 uncertainty of 1.2 when applying the 

16 neutron-to-photon ratio but did not, which is 

17 the same as Part B from above --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: -- for the measured 

20 dose. And our point is that, you know, they 

21 probably should have caught this error.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 further, can we scroll down further? Okay. 

2 So, oh goodness. Alright, folks, what can we 

3 do?

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is really 

5 unfortunate. It's hard to imagine why the peer 

6 review didn't catch that but since it didn't, 

7 it didn't, and it's now for us to comment on. 

8 That's unfortunate but [can] be no other action 

9 other than closing it.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

11 Richardson. I have one question. The 

12 introduction of this use of --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why?

14 MEMBER MUNN: I'm not hearing you.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I didn't 

16 hear you, David.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Let me try 

18 again. Can you hear?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Right, I heard 

20 the first part but I don't know whether you 

21 continued talking or not. You seem to be 

22 cutting out for me.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The same for 

2 me.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can you hear 

4 me?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hear you 

7 now, sure.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, the 

9 introduction of this terminology of using Part 

10 A and Part B, these are parts of a response? Is 

11 that correct or where are the parts coming from?

12 MR. FARVER: The finding was two 

13 parts to a finding. In other words, it 

14 mentioned two different items. Well, I 

15 wouldn't say different. It had to do with the 

16 same calculation.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, and so 

18 when we open or close them, they are opened or 

19 closed together and if there are findings

20 regarding issues they're going to be documented 

21 and traced together as an ensemble now, is that 

22 right?
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes. And in this 

2 case, for 228.1 the finding had to do with the 

3 recorded neutron dose calculation. Now, in 

4 that calculation we found that there were two 

5 errors. So we wrote up one finding and we 

6 identified both the errors. And then the --

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm just, I 

8 guess what I'm wondering about is, so this is 

9 a claim and it seems to have a large number of 

10 errors, well, not large but it has a number of 

11 errors associated with it.

12 And some of them are counted as, 

13 there are multiple errors but they're listed 

14 now as a single finding and there's a finding 

15 number and some of them should have been caught 

16 in QA but weren't.

17 I guess I'm just trying to think 

18 about understanding the number of errors. 

19 When we summarize the findings and things are 

20 broken into parts, does this help us or not?

21 MR. FARVER: So, I mean, it was a 

22 little unusual in this case because we could 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have written it up as two separate findings. 

2 They probably would have had the same Table 2 

3 number, like E.1.1. They just would have had 

4 different finding numbers.

5 In other words, we could have broken 

6 228.1 into two findings, both with the E.1.1 

7 talking about the calculation of recorded 

8 neutron dose.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

10 Doug, I don't recall having seen Parts A and 

11 Part B in a finding before.

12 MR. FARVER: Well, normally we 

13 don't find two errors in the same calculation.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, two 

15 different errors. My feeling, if we're going 

16 to assess how we're doing is that they would be 

17 two different findings, that is .2 and .3.

18 Put it this way, I would prefer as 

19 much as possible using a different finding for 

20 each point. You're saying that these really 

21 are so intimately connected that they're really

22 one basic error.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: That's why we wrote it 

2 up as one finding, because --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, 

4 and I would just say that's --

5 MR. FARVER: If you would prefer, 

6 we will not do that in the future.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I certainly 

8 would prefer not to do that as much in the 

9 future, to minimize. Let's not say you can't 

10 do it or you shouldn't do it.

11 Let's just say these should be 

12 minimized unless you can really argue why these 

13 should not be separate findings because that 

14 will affect our assessment, our report to the 

15 Secretary as to how many and what kind of errors 

16 we found.

17 So I'm not going to, I do not know 

18 enough about this to be able to say to you this 

19 should have been broken up into two points but 

20 I would prefer if there is an option to break 

21 it up into a couple of points rather than having 

22 Part A, Part B, Part C, you know, in one finding.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: But this is kind of 

3 unusual, I think, Dave, in that the second, that 

4 is Part B, derives from the error in Part A. 

5 It's not two, if I am reading this, it appears 

6 that they're not two distinct errors.

7 Part A, the error in selection of 

8 the geometric mean resulted in a photon ratio 

9 problem which wouldn't have occurred if the 

10 first one had not occurred.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Am I reading that 

13 correctly, Doug?

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, and it's really a 

15 judgment call. I mean --

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Let 

17 me clarify that because, Wanda, yes, that's not 

18 quite incorrect.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not quite 

20 correct.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Correct, right. 

22 Okay, okay.
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry about that.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, what happened 

4 here, actually Part B in this one is actually 

5 just an extension of Part B of the previous 

6 finding, .1 as well.

7 The problem is the dose 

8 reconstructor did not use that photon 

9 uncertainty of 1.2 factor in the first finding,

10 which was the photon dosimeter.

11 And then when he applied, or she, I 

12 don't remember which, applied the 

13 neutron-to-photon ratio to that value, 

14 obviously that value, the photon value, didn't 

15 have that 1.2 factor in it because we had 

16 already talked about the fact that they didn't 

17 use it earlier.

18 So that Part B is just a repeat of 

19 the Part B earlier as well. Even though it's 

20 in the same overall calculation, this really 

21 goes back to the root of they did not use that 

22 factor correctly in the photon and then it 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 extended through the neutron as well.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. I almost get 

3 that, yes.

4 MR. FARVER: We will not write it up 

5 this way. We'll write it up as separate 

6 findings.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, if 

8 that seems appropriate or only one Part B or 

9 whatever. I'm just making a rather more 

10 general recommendation. I'm not saying that 

11 you put this in. It's in our records and it's 

12 in the matrix. And Scott's explanation was 

13 helpful.

14 MR. KATZ: Dave, I think it's 

15 important to actually get clear on this for Doug 

16 going forward because what I just heard was that 

17 one of the errors sort of cascades to the next 

18 one.

19 And it seems to me where you have a 

20 situation where you're the dose reconstruction 

21 review, you found an error and it cascades 

22 elsewhere, that's really all one.
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You know, if it's all the root of one 

2 problem, then that is one finding I think and 

3 you start it where it initiates the problem and 

4 you don't repeat it as a new finding each place 

5 it shows up in further calculations or 

6 whatever, right? You wouldn't want that 

7 because --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, 

9 certainly.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. So I'm just 

11 saying this out loud for Doug's sake because I 

12 think we do want our accounting to be correct 

13 and what I heard from Scott is at least in part 

14 the second error derived from the first.

15 MR. FARVER: Well, the only concern 

16 with that, Ted, is that it's going to be two 

17 different Table 2 codes because one was for 

18 neutron dose and the other was for beta dose, 

19 electron dose.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay but, I mean, I think 

21 nonetheless we need to figure out a way then to 

22 account for these where someone makes one error 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and it cascades through the dose reconstruction 

2 and it really only can be picked up where it 

3 initiates.

4 I mean, that's one error and I don't 

5 think you want to count it as five findings. I 

6 mean, so I think you want to somehow capture 

7 that, you know, as a whole rather than, you 

8 know, flogging NIOSH five times for a single 

9 error that cascaded like I said.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Surely we're not 

11 precluded from using more than one Table 2 

12 finding, are we?

13 MR. KATZ: Or code or whatever.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Or code. Seems we 

15 should be able to use more than one code.

16 MR. FARVER: We would and that's 

17 what we would use in this case because that 

18 certainty error happened for neutron and 

19 happened for electron so that's two different 

20 codes, so it would get written up separately in 

21 each case.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the last meeting that we had, we decided that 

2 we were not going to use two codes until we 

3 finish our report and then we would consider 

4 changing our system, our categorization of the 

5 errors, to possibly using two.

6 MR. FARVER: No, no, no, no. We're 

7 using the Table 2 codes but if you look in Table 

8 2 there's a section for photons, a section for 

9 neutrons, a section for electrons. Each one of 

10 those has a separate code associated.

11 So if the error is made in the 

12 neutron section, that is E something. If it's 

13 made in the electron section, it's going to be 

14 D something.

15 So in this case, that 1.2 error 

16 would get written up twice if we were writing 

17 these up separately because it's in two 

18 separate areas.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

20 Well, I'm --

21 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

22 I might be able to help out a little bit here.
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

2 MR. STIVER: I think we may be 

3 conflating the Table 2 codes with the general 

4 types of codes that we came up with.

5 A couple years ago the A through F, 

6 which are more generalized types of errors --

7 remember there was the worker placement, there 

8 was creating the exposure scenarios, whether 

9 the proper external dose and internal dose 

10 models were used and QA and then none of the 

11 above.

12 And those are kind of more general 

13 bins or general types of errors as opposed to 

14 these, what we had in Table 2 from pretty much 

15 the origin of the dose reconstruction process 

16 where we look at all the individual components 

17 of dose: photon, neutrons and so forth.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I want 

19 to come back to what Ted said. I mean, that's 

20 why I said I'm not mandating, no, go back and 

21 change 228.2 to two parts.

22 But just it seems to me we have to 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just say to use your judgment but, you know, to 

2 be frugal with the use of Part A/Part B unless 

3 there is a real justification.

4 And there is a real justification 

5 here which I've heard now so I'm comfortable 

6 with keeping it as C, but I think we do want to 

7 minimize the number of times that we do that and 

8 not cascade the errors.

9 MR. FARVER: I agree, David, and we 

10 don't usually do this. This was, like Steve 

11 said, it's unusual.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

13 Should we close, folks?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

16 Mark, David?

17 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'm okay with 

18 closing it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

22 We will close. By the way, it's 11:49. I'm 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 figuring on going till 12:30 on Eastern 

2 Daylight Time, which would then be 9:30 for 

3 folks out on the coast. Would that be okay? 

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's fine.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Works for me.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

7 Let's continue.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, 228.3, very 

9 similar. Instead of an N/P ratio we have an 

10 E/P, electron-to-photon ratio. Dose 

11 reconstructor used the incorrect value. Very 

12 similar to what we just talked about, the N/P 

13 values, but it's just another QA concern with 

14 this case.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is. 

16 Well, several errors. SC&A concurs. It's 

17 worrisome.

18 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and if 

19 I'm reading this right, and Scott can chime in, 

20 it looks to me like maybe there's a tool 

21 developed now that'll preclude this from 

22 happening in the future.
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. 

2 There was no tool at that time. He had to use 

3 the complex-wide, but there is now.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

5 good to know.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And is quite 

7 specific.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Then 

9 --

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you 

11 remind me what year this case was first started, 

12 I mean, when this occurred?

13 MR. CALHOUN: 2007.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: 2007?

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay and, Doug, you're 

17 capturing that there's a tool available, right, 

18 somewhere in the matrix?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Actually it says so 

20 in the matrix, yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, great.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Somebody got this 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from the DR for this --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 

3 yes, yes, at the time. Okay. Then I believe 

4 we can close and go on.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay? 

7 Without objection, let us go on to your 

8 observations.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, I was just 

10 adding up a little information about the LBNL.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure, 

12 surely.

13 MR. FARVER: I'm going to add it to 

14 all of these. Okay. Observation 1, NIOSH 

15 added an extra 25 millirem of recorded photon 

16 dose for 1978. And this is one of these we 

17 could have written up as a finding but it really 

18 didn't have a lot of impact on the case.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, it 

20 certainly would not have. Alright.

21 MR. FARVER: And NIOSH agrees and 

22 they should have, you know, the duplicate entry 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should have been removed by the dose 

2 reconstructor and we have several dose 

3 reconstructor errors here.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, second 

5 one, second observation.

6 MR. FARVER: Has to do with the 

7 counting of the number of zeroes for the missed 

8 dose and we came up with 267 compared to NIOSH's 

9 273. Looks like the 267 was the correct number 

10 so it's really just an overestimate, the more 

11 additional dose.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

14 Richardson. The explanation says 12 zeroes 

15 were left out by NIOSH in 1981 and yet they ended 

16 up with a number that's larger, the 273, so were 

17 there multiple miscountings there or what 

18 happened?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

20 There were duplicate zeroes in those additional 

21 year, '73, '75, '78, '79 and '80. So the 

22 additional 18 duplicates that were over, that 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 outweighs the 12 that were not.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Eighteen 

3 minus 12 is six. Two hundred sixty-seven plus 

4 6 is 273.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So on the one 

6 hand there was an error involving inclusion of 

7 18 duplicates and then there was a second error 

8 of omitting 12 in 1981 and it sort of, in the 

9 end, almost washed out.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: It's sort of a 

12 good news/bad news story.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is 

14 bothersome, the fact that it washes out to make 

15 it an observation. The fact is there were lots 

16 of errors. There were two sets of errors.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, David, the 

18 reason we made this an observation was because 

19 at that time we did not know that there were two 

20 errors. All we knew was our sum did not match 

21 their sum but it was not that big of a 

22 difference.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

2 right. Then when you went over it, you found 

3 that there were a couple of errors, two types 

4 of errors.

5 MR. FARVER: NIOSH responded back 

6 that there were errors.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. This is Ted. 

8 So, I mean, it just seems, quickly, it's no 

9 longer an observation. It really is a finding. 

10 You just didn't realize it was a finding at the 

11 time and I think it probably, right, is due 

12 change of categorization.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I would 

14 prefer that.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, so 

17 let's let you write that up and then let's go 

18 on. Are there any other observations on 228?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there are a 

20 bunch but all of those have been agreed to and, 

21 again, they are Observations 3, 4, 5 and 6, I 

22 believe, if I remember my reading correctly.
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We have agreement from the agency 

2 and the subcontractor and we have only 

3 observations, not findings involved in these. 

4 Seems reasonable to close them as a group unless 

5 someone really wants to go over them one at a 

6 time.

7 MR. FARVER: Just so the 

8 Subcommittee knows, what I'm going to do is I'll 

9 change that to a finding. I'll give it a number 

10 and a finding number and everything and we'll 

11 go back and make that modification to our DR 

12 report or review and probably reissue it.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like the 

14 legitimate thing to do.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda, I 

16 hate to spend time going one by one over a large 

17 number of observations. But if it is our 

18 responsibility to review the observations in 

19 case it has implications for other things, I 

20 don't think we can just simply wash it out. I 

21 think we have to go over them one by one despite 

22 my desire not to do so as an individual.
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we've just 

2 demonstrated that it's possible to upgrade them 

3 to findings and so it's your call.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, my 

5 call would be I think we need to go over them 

6 one by one. Let's just do what we can quickly 

7 and, Doug, if you would, go to Observation 3.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. 

10 Before you get to that, Doug, I just want 

11 clarification. You said you're going to 

12 reissue that as a finding. Are you going to 

13 reissue it as a closed finding?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Instead of a closed 

16 observation?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I believe 

18 we, absolutely and I would say --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, sure.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay? 

21 Unless I hear objection from the others. That 

22 would be a finding but a closed finding for 2.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

3 Let's go over 3. Let's try to go over them 

4 quickly, Doug, but I believe we must go over 

5 them individually. Number 3, Observation 3.

6 MR. FARVER: Observation 3, 

7 there's no obvious criterion used to define 

8 when no dosimetry information was available or 

9 months in which there was a gap or gaps in EE 

10 monitoring records. This has to do with 

11 ambient dose. It really wasn't clear what the 

12 strategy was for applying ambient dose.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Would the 

14 tool clarify that? Would the existing tool 

15 clarify that?

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

17 don't necessarily agree that there was no 

18 obvious criterion because the monthly exchange 

19 frequency as we state in our response was based 

20 on guidance in the TBD.

21 So we had a reason for assuming 

22 there would have been 12 badges if the person 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was fully badged and if there wasn't we filled 

2 with ambient dose so --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

4 accept that as okay. Anybody else want to say 

5 anything? Let's go on to 4.

6 MR. FARVER: Four, Technical Basis 

7 Document apparently contains a small error in 

8 Table 3.2 on Page 19. The Year column should 

9 read '70 to '75 instead of '71 to '75 because 

10 the first row reads pre-'70.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Dose was 

12 assigned correctly and I see rather than minor 

13 error and certainly deserves an observation and 

14 no more. If I can suggest, let's go on.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay, Observation 5, 

16 we ran the CADW program for Solubility Type S 

17 and M for thorium and found Type M thorium 

18 resulted in 2.9 E to the 3 rem. Type S resulted 

19 in a magnitude less. The NIOSH DR used the 

20 smaller value. Both cases the value is tiny 

21 but probably should have used Type M.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, but 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're talking about four millirems so that 

2 could not have had an impact unless we were 

3 absolutely on the border. In fact, it probably 

4 would have no impact. Let's go on.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay, during the CATI 

6 interview, the employee states he often could 

7 not wear a dosimeter badge into magnetic 

8 equipment areas because of the badge's metallic 

9 content.

10 Although NIOSH acknowledges this in 

11 the DR report, they don't account for any 

12 potential dose received during the period the 

13 metallic dosimeter was in use or wasn't used. 

14 I'm going through.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why is this 

16 an observation? You're saying that there's an 

17 exposure that's not recorded. They indicate 

18 why it wasn't recorded. I can understand that.

19 But then how do you deal with that? 

20 How did they deal with that or how should they 

21 have dealt with it? Okay, you're scrolling 

22 down to let us see.
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Yes. What you're saying, do I 

2 understand that they're working in one of the 

3 cyclotron or synchrotron facilities and that 

4 once the exposure has stopped there is no 

5 residual exposure? No, no, no, no.

6 MEMBER MUNN: No.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're not 

8 saying that. Let me finish reading. Sorry. 

9 I missed the corrections. Could you scroll up? 

10 Sorry, scroll up again just to the previous one. 

11 All the changes in this review. Okay, I see. 

12 Okay, and putting in, re-analyzing this they --

13 MR. SIEBERT: That portion of it 

14 just --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There was a 

16 decrease in the exposure?

17 MR. SIEBERT: That point just 

18 explains that for all the findings and 

19 observations we revised everything and looked 

20 at it the impact was that it's still less than 

21 50 percent. We just put in the last 

22 observation. It doesn't apply specifically to 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that observation.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay, 

3 because obviously there is exposure that you're 

4 considering now that you did not consider 

5 before, small possibly, but. Okay, then that 

6 was considered and I accept that as an 

7 observation. Others, any comment that you 

8 want to make? Okay, let's go on to the next 

9 one.

10 MR. FARVER: Next one, 291.1, has 

11 to do with the environmental intakes. The 

12 NIOSH-assigned environmental intakes were not 

13 consistent with the tabulated values and they 

14 underestimated the dose.

15 And this is taken from TKBS-0049, 

16 the technical basis for Lawrence Berkeley. 

17 Yes, okay. And this looks like it was a 

18 screw-up on our part.

19 Oh, oh, I'm familiar with this one 

20 now. Okay. Yes, when you look at the CADW 

21 tool that's used for this one and for 

22 environmental intake, it shows you the initial 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time period for intake. So as the intakes 

2 vary, you don't typically see that unless you 

3 go over to the yearly intake button.

4 So it was our misreading of the CADW 

5 file and, yes, this has come up before. Now we 

6 are aware of it so it won't come up again. When 

7 you look at it, it's not clear that the intake 

8 varies over time periods.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: When you say 

10 it's your error --

11 MR. FARVER: In other words the 

12 person reviewing this was not aware that the 

13 intake for this tool, that the intakes are 

14 varied within the tool.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. 

16 Okay.

17 MR. FARVER: We are now aware of 

18 this.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They are now 

20 aware of this.

21 MR. FARVER: I am now aware of this, 

22 yes.
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 Alright. So whose error is this now? Wait a 

3 minute.

4 MR. KATZ: It's an SC&A error, 

5 Dave.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and if 

7 it is, then --

8 MR. KATZ: No problem, the finding 

9 is resolved but --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is 

11 absolutely and that -- so, okay. We're not 

12 assessing, I don't believe, SC&A errors. 

13 We're assessing NIOSH errors.

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, no, no. It's 

15 just, it's a mistake in finding in other words 

16 so the finding gets withdrawn, in effect.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, so 

20 this should be withdrawn. So as far as the 

21 Subcommittee is concerned, this is closed. 

22 But I don't think it should be recorded as a 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH error, that's all, in the Category 2 

2 Table.

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, Doug, 

5 you will change this to an observation if you 

6 want to, or eliminate it entirely, either way, 

7 whatever the bookkeeping --

8 MR. KATZ: The bookkeeping is when 

9 a finding is incorrect, you withdraw it, right?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's correct.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: So is this another 

13 case where we'll go back and change our report

14 to remove the finding?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. And how do you 

17 want the matrix to read?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, it comes out. It 

19 comes out.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think the 

21 matrix, we've lost a case. We've lost a --

22 MR. KATZ: Right.
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We have 

2 nothing for that 291.

3 MR. FARVER: It just disappears? 

4 Is that what you want?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

6 right, yes.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. I will take 

8 those actions.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Not 

10 only did that disappear, my screen's 

11 disappeared too, but let me hope I can get it 

12 back.

13 DR. MAURO: It's nice when SC&A 

14 errors disappear.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we go.

16 DR. MAURO: Isn't that nice? Nice 

17 position to be in.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right.

19 MEMBER MUNN: It is.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

21 Okay, now we go on to Mound.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay, 265.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, the finding was 

3 that the ambient doses may not have been 

4 claimant-favorable. Follow up the case. 

5 Okay.

6 Our point is that by assigning 

7 ambient dose for the years when the employee was 

8 not monitored could underestimate the 

9 potential exposure.

10 The average dose for the 14 years 

11 that the employee was badged, including two 

12 years when it was zero, is 103 millirem per year 

13 which is over seven times the average 

14 environmental dose value.

15 Unfortunately there is presently 

16 not a coworker model or an OTIB that the dose 

17 reconstructor could have used for the case.

18 So what we're saying, it should have 

19 been assigned an unmonitored dose or a higher 

20 dose than just ambient or a coworker dose or 

21 something that was better reflective of his 

22 unmonitored years.
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, and 

2 what was --

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. The 

4 bottom line in the guidance is that Mound did 

5 do external monitoring when it was required.

6 So if there is a lack of dosimetry 

7 for years, it is reflective of the fact that the 

8 individual was not noted by the site as needing 

9 dosimetry for that specific time frame. So any 

10 time there is not dosimetry available, the 

11 ambient doses for the site are used.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Doug, 

13 others?

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, we still stick to 

15 our guns and we think that they should have, 

16 there were better ways to do this, more 

17 claimant-favorable ways than assigning the 

18 ambient dose so it was not reflective of the 

19 employee's average dose.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Well, this is moving 

21 into a TBD issue then, because it appears that 

22 this is our guidance that we currently have.
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Is there any coworker 

2 model being worked on?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda,

4 somebody?

5 MR. CALHOUN: For that at this 

6 time?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think that 

8 there's, I don't think it, well, it's a matter 

9 of perception. I think always and in cases like 

10 this I personally still feel that when you have 

11 reasonably accurate ambient data, and they 

12 certainly did have [it] if I recall in Mound, 

13 I haven't really looked at that for quite a 

14 while, but it seems to me they had pretty good 

15 monitoring of their environmental there.

16 And there is no question -- you 

17 can't have it both ways. You can't say on the 

18 one hand that the person is always being exposed 

19 and on the next case say that they changed jobs 

20 all the time. And the safety records of the 

21 companies and the sites indicate that these 

22 folks did quite often take jobs for a period of 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time that did not involve exposure.

2 Then, you know, it seems rational to 

3 me that you place some validity on the records 

4 that are available and that's what's been done 

5 in this case.

6 When you say it's seven times, that 

7 makes it sound spectacular but the truth is 1/7 

8 of 100-plus millirem is a pretty tiny number.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Other 

10 Subcommittee Members?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This paragraph 

12 is NIOSH's response which concerns the 

13 unmonitored period in 1965. They say the 

14 dosimetry file, the paragraph above that, the 

15 penultimate one says, show a minor line or a 

16 dash in 1965, which is interpreted here. I'm 

17 not quite sure. I've interpreted that way in 

18 the past, but this indicates the site did not 

19 appear to monitor in 1965.

20 But then it goes on to say the person 

21 did submit polonium urine samples and NIOSH 

22 seems to be computing here based on this. 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Assigning the average annual photon dose as the 

2 more claimant-favorable approach is 

3 reasonable.

4 So is the position that the guidance 

5 is clear or is this a statement that the 

6 guidance is clear but a more reasonable or 

7 favorable approach would be to use the average 

8 annual dose net year?

9 Is NIOSH in the response raising a 

10 question about the reasonableness of the 

11 guidance which they've been given?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Somebody 

13 from NIOSH.

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

15 can't specifically state that. I would assume 

16 and this is, well, considering I'm conflicted 

17 with Mound, all I do is give the responses that 

18 people who are not conflicted have given. I'm 

19 not going to speculate at all on the answer 

20 there. So I'm really not in position to go any 

21 further into anything on the polonium urine 

22 samples at Mound.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Oh, so who 

2 wrote this response?

3 MR. SIEBERT: It would be, let me 

4 check, I want to verify that I'm right but I 

5 believe it was a TBD author.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because it's 

7 --

8 MR. SIEBERT: No, I take that back. 

9 It was not the TBD authors. I'll go back and 

10 we'll look into this a little bit further.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we'll 

12 hold this open, correct? For a little while 

13 anyway.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and 

16 that was -- let me get the number again. I 

17 didn't put that down. 265.1. Okay, 265.1 is 

18 open. Alright. Doug, you'll record that.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, let's 

21 see, where are we? We have a few more from 

22 Mound, right? Well, we have some 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 observations, right?

2 MR. FARVER: You want to take care 

3 of them?

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, let's 

5 do that.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Observation 1, 

7 time period used for the badge exchanges are not 

8 always consistent in the Technical Basis for 

9 Mound. And in NIOSH's response they really 

10 kind of concede this. It's got multiple 

11 tables. It is confusing.

12 Actually in this case I think they 

13 used frequencies that were less than favorable 

14 for this case, not that it mattered that much 

15 in general. So they responded the TBD is being 

16 revised. They said that should help avoid some 

17 confusion.

18 And the latest response is Table 

19 6.1 lists exchange frequencies and Table 6.7 

20 lists exchange frequency for neutron 

21 dosimeters. Now we've kind of cleared things 

22 up a little bit in the new revision.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

2 it's not that anything is wrong. They're just 

3 simply.... it's confusing.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and 

6 that will be dealt with. So that's fine. 

7 What's the next observation?

8 MR. FARVER: One has to do with 

9 medical x-rays, and the Mound TBD somewhere 

10 states in it that you would multiply them by 

11 1.3, assignment in a normal distribution with 

12 an uncertainty of 30 percent.

13 And we've talked about this before 

14 and don't use both. You don't use both the 1.3 

15 and the 30 percent. So they have cleared this 

16 up in the TBD.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, 

18 that's cleared up. And then Mound 323.1 opens 

19 up.

20 MR. FARVER: You want to take that 

21 now or --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I think 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that really opens up a new case and a new issue 

2 and it's 25 after 12:00 here on the East Coast. 

3 So this may be a reasonable time to take a break, 

4 folks. And let's get back together at 1:25 or 

5 is that reasonable, 1:25?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Sure. See you in an 

7 hour.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, see 

9 you all in an hour.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 1:25. Have 

12 a good lunch, folks.

13 MEMBER MUNN: You too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Bye-bye.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

18 matter went off the record at 12:24 p.m. and 

19 resumed at 1:28 p.m.)

20

21

22
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

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

9 (1:28 p.m.)

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we 

11 can begin. And it is 1:28. And, Scott, you 

12 had a report on 290.1.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. We looked 

14 into it over lunch. Matt, can you handle that 

15 for us, please?

16 MR. SMITH: Sure. Again, with 

17 respect to a correction factor, looking back 

18 over things, one can note that there's a factor 

19 that is put forth in the Savannah River TBD. 

20 And that factor really is one that converts the 

21 dose into what we call would modern Hp(10) type 

22 of dose. And then we use the appropriate DCF 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from IG-001 --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If you 

3 wouldn't mind, for clarity -- by the way, your 

4 name for the record --

5 MR. SMITH: Sure, sorry. It's 

6 Matt Smith of ORAU Team.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great. 

8 And the Hp, if you'll start with the acronyms. 

9 Pardon.

10 MR. SMITH: Sure, Hp(10) dose, you 

11 know, which is the current dosimetry quantity 

12 that we would use off a modern dosimetry system.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 

14 you.

15 MR. SMITH: Basically, it's where 

16 the dosimeter has been calibrated on a phantom, 

17 and it's taking into account backscatter from 

18 that phantom acting as a surrogate for the human 

19 body.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

21 MR. SMITH: We had a set of dose 

22 conversion factors. And those are in 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Implementation Guide 001, published by DCAS. 

2 And those, when we are doing the estimate of 

3 external dose, those dose conversion factors 

4 are used to convert what's been measured by the 

5 dosimeter into the dose to the organ.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. SMITH: So depending on the 

8 nature of the dosimetry data that we have, we 

9 will use the appropriate dose conversion factor 

10 from IG-001.

11 If it's a modern dosimeter -- for 

12 the sake of the discussion here, we'll say that 

13 it's gone through the DOELAP accreditation 

14 process -- it's measuring what we call Hp(10).

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MR. SMITH: We would use that 

17 particular Hp(10) DCF.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. SMITH: For dosimeters that 

20 were calibrated without a phantom in place --

21 in other words, in free air -- we would use the 

22 exposure, or, in a sense, roentgen-to-dose DCF. 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When I say dose, I mean dose to the organ. 

2 You know, typically the TBDs will 

3 recommend to us what era to make those 

4 decisions. Some TBDs, like Savannah River, do 

5 provide a -- you know, we'll call it a 

6 correction factor.

7 In other words, it allows us to 

8 correct dose in the era where they did not use 

9 a phantom for calibration. It allows us to 

10 convert it to what we would call an Hp(10) 

11 quantity. And then we use the Hp(10) DCF.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. SMITH: The issue that Dr. 

14 Richardson brought up regarding angular 

15 response, again -- and as we did discuss before 

16 -- we've looked at the claimant-favorability of 

17 doing things and also the efficiency of doing 

18 things. And for the longest time on this 

19 program, we've gone with an AP assumption. 

20 Certainly, we do correct the dose 

21 for geometry considerations. A good example 

22 would be a glove box worker. That's been 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussed many times in many different groups.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. SMITH: When we have a worker 

4 where there is a geometric exposure situation 

5 with respect to the source term, we certainly 

6 do then apply a geometric correction factor to 

7 the dosimeter dose.

8 But typically, you know, we're 

9 running with 100 percent AP assumption with 

10 respect to geometry. In those kind of 

11 situations, we're not making any corrections 

12 for angular dependence.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

14 that was the case for INL?

15 MR. SMITH: INL, there is no 

16 correction factor for the dosimeter dose. And 

17 I think that's mentioned in the response.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. SMITH: There is, of course, an 

20 uncertainty factor associated with that dose.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. SMITH: That's applied, 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 typically, as I mentioned before, as a 

2 log-normal distribution as we process the dose 

3 for use in IREP.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And, Matt, this is 

6 Wanda. How large is the DCF from air 

7 measurement to Hp(10)?

8 MR. SMITH: How large is the -- I 

9 guess repeat the question one more time.

10 MEMBER MUNN: How large is the 

11 correction factor between air measurement and 

12 Hp(10)?

13 MR. SMITH: Oh. For Savannah 

14 River, it turned out to be a factor of 1.119.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, that gives us 

16 a feel.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That 

18 certainly does.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you much.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That 

21 certainly does. Are there any comments? That 

22 seems to answer, for me at least, what was going 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on. Are there any remaining concerns, David or 

2 Mark?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

4 Richardson. The statement was that for INL 

5 there's no correction factor. And I didn't 

6 hear the reason why that was. Are you saying, 

7 over the history of INL, it was always estimated 

8 -- the dosimetry system was always estimating 

9 Hp(10)?

10 MR. SMITH: Yeah, let me clarify 

11 with respect to INL. I don't have it directly 

12 open in front of me, but basically it gives 

13 recommendations of the particular era in which 

14 it's appropriate to use either the exposure DCF 

15 or the Hp(10) DCF.

16 And typically we see that 

17 changeover occur when the switch to TLD 

18 measurement came into play. Sometimes it's 

19 apparent from looking at the site factors that, 

20 even after switching the TLDs, the calibration 

21 might have still been done in free air. But let 

22 me crack open the INL TBD, if that will help.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I guess the 

3 question is, just more generally -- maybe I'm 

4 not following the language here. As I 

5 understood the statement, there's no bias 

6 correction applied to INL.

7 And we know that INL didn't use TLDs 

8 over its entire history. So regardless of when 

9 the changeover happened -- and this may be the 

10 issue of language I'm not understanding -- my 

11 interpretation was that the dosimeters were 

12 treated the same way in terms of bias in 

13 response over its entire history.

14 MR. SMITH: In terms of bias in 

15 response, the answer would be yes.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, well, I 

17 would separate the issue of uncertainty from 

18 bias and the correction factor in dealing with 

19 wanting to get to a common metric, let’s say 

20 Hp(10), and needing to apply a correction 

21 factor to the dosimetry results in order to get 

22 the measured values onto that scale.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the statement was that no 

2 correction -- there's no correction for bias 

3 for INL. And it wasn't during period of TLD or 

4 during period of multi-element dosimeter, but 

5 that there was no correction factor and they’re 

6 all treated the same way. Am I 

7 misunderstanding something still?

8 MR. SMITH: No. I think we're 

9 understanding the same thing. But in the Idaho 

10 TBD, I can reference you to Section 6.4.1. And 

11 the statement there is there are no adjustments 

12 to photon dose, okay? So in terms of any bias 

13 adjustment, none is recommended.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. And 

15 then my understanding is correct. And it's 

16 just remarkable to me. But I suppose we can 

17 leave it at that, or we can ask --

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So for 

20 example, we're talking about the situation at 

21 Savannah River and it's describing a 

22 period-specific correction. Then you have 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Idaho, [which] does not require those.

2 MR. SMITH: With respect to then 

3 converting the dosimeter dose to organ dose, 

4 the reference there would be Section 6.6.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I understand 

6 that. That's a different issue.

7 MR. SMITH: Okay. But to the 

8 question of there being a bias or an adjustment 

9 to photon dose for Idaho, the TBD states no.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: So this is Ted, Dave and 

12 David. I mean, I think this is a case then 

13 where, I mean, in effect it sounds like, David, 

14 you have a TBD comment. And I think that needs 

15 to be communicated. Independent of going 

16 forward with these cases, the Subcommittee 

17 needs to communicate that concern or issue for 

18 further explanation by the INL Work Group. 

19 Because they're the ones who are interacting 

20 with NIOSH on the TBDs.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right, thank 

22 you. I agree.
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree, 

2 right.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I do 

4 have one question. I'm just wondering if 

5 there's a clarification that we're missing 

6 here. Dr. Richardson, are you asking why 

7 Savannah River would have a correction factor 

8 during the film badge era and INEL does not?

9 I mean, is that the root of the question?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, it's not 

11 just specific to Savannah River, but yes. That 

12 would be among the list of questions.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Because the

14 reasoning for that is we have dose conversion 

15 factors that are for exposure. And there are 

16 dose conversion factors that are the Hp(10) 

17 dose conversion factors. They were created 

18 separately.

19 And the appropriate dose 

20 conversion factor is used based on the time 

21 frame of which dosimetry was being used at a 

22 site. Savannah River is the unusual site in 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that it was an early-on site when we created the 

2 process of doing that.

3 So we made these correction factors 

4 to use Hp(10) DCF across the board. All other 

5 sites will use the exposure DCFs during the time 

6 frame of film badges. And we use the Hp(10) 

7 DCFs for the time frame of TLDs. Does that make 

8 a little bit more sense?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You’ve 

10 embedded them into the organ dose coefficients 

11 for the other sites. Is that what you're 

12 saying?

13 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. So 

15 they're there. They’re simply buried. They're 

16 multiplied in. Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. SMITH: And let me just close 

19 the loop on it with respect to Idaho itself. 

20 Again, the section of interest would be Section 

21 6.6 of the external TBD. For the period of time 

22 before 1981, we would use the exposure DCF with 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the data. For the period starting with 1981 

2 and going forward, we would use the Hp(10) DCF.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. SMITH: And we would not do any 

5 correction to the older pre-81 data that Scott 

6 was describing for Savannah River. That does 

7 not occur here at Savannah River.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. SMITH: You just go ahead and 

10 use the appropriate DCF for the appropriate 

11 era.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

13 Then that, I think, closes it, right? The 

14 question's responded to well and in detail. 

15 Can we close that? Any objections?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Seems appropriate.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 290.1 is closed. 

19 Let's now go back to our first Mound

20 [case], which is 323.1. That is on our screen. 

21 Doug?

22 MR. FARVER: Okay, 323.1, 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incomplete assignment of missed photon dose. 

2 For 1978, NIOSH did not assign a missed photon 

3 dose for August 7th, '78, and October 16th, '78. 

4 The recorded value was less than the LRD over 

5 two, so it should have been a missed dose. 

6 That's the basis for the finding. It had been 

7 treated as a missed dose.

8 Okay. And when we looked at their 

9 first response and went back and tried to find 

10 the IREP input, and there were no IREP inputs 

11 after 1977 for measured photon dose. So then, 

12 NIOSH, you responded in June of 2014. 

13 Apparently there was a workbook error.

14 The workbook was not doing what it was supposed 

15 to. Or if it was, then the dose reconstructor 

16 was not. But anyway, there's an error 

17 associated with this. And I'll turn that over 

18 to Scott.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah. And, Doug, 

20 you're right. It was not a tool issue. The 

21 tool did exactly what the tool was asked to do. 

22 It’s the dose reconstructor who made an error. 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They entered -- and this is the complex-wide 

2 best estimate tool, because this claim was done 

3 back in 2009 -- they entered a zero error for 

4 the dosimeters. And the tool, when a zero 

5 error is entered, does not include that year. 

6 It doesn't look at it. It doesn't do the 

7 calculation for it.

8 So that was the actual issue, the 

9 dose reconstructor entered the wrong entry into 

10 the tool and then the tool did exactly what it 

11 was told to do.

12 MR. FARVER: Now, Scott, was that 

13 something you manually enter, the error?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Back at that time 

15 frame, before we had a site-specific tool for 

16 Mound, yes. Now we do have a site-specific 

17 tool that handles that, so that is not the case.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is to 

20 say that that's been resolved since.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 scroll up a little bit? Is this a -- right, 

2 this is a Category C error. Okay, so the 

3 recommendation -- the tool has been changed. 

4 And the recommendation is to close, right?

5 MEMBER MUNN: I wasn't sure that I 

6 heard they're getting a correction made. I 

7 thought I heard that the tool was okay. And --

8 MR. SIEBERT: No, they're -- let me 

9 clarify. I'm sorry, Wanda, I'm referring to a 

10 lot of different things.

11 The complex-wide best estimate 

12 tool that was used at the time this claim was 

13 done was because it had to be the generic tool. 

14 And there was no Mound best estimate tool at 

15 that time.

16 The dose reconstructor entered the 

17 information incorrectly. So there was nothing 

18 wrong with that tool itself. It was used 

19 incorrectly.

20 Now, since that time frame, we do 

21 have a best estimate tool for Mound. So the 

22 dose reconstructor can't even make that same 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 error.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Right. But I just 

3 wanted to make sure that the question that's 

4 being asked here on the hard copy of our matrix 

5 is in fact being answered and that what we used 

6 to close it out here will explain that.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes. I put down that 

8 the CWBE tool is no longer used for Mound. A 

9 site-specific Mound tool is now used, so the 

10 error cannot recur.

11 MEMBER MUNN: And so SC&A accepts 

12 that?

13 MR. FARVER: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: And Category C means 

15 what again, Doug?

16 MR. FARVER: Gosh, I'll have to go 

17 look that up.

18 MR. KATZ: Because this sounds 

19 like it's a QA issue, right? Because he 

20 entered the wrong -- he used the tool wrongly. 

21 The tool wasn't the problem.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Somebody is 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking up C.

2 MR. FARVER: C, was the correct 

3 external dose model and assumption used? 

4 Well, no. So it could be C or E.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And E is, 

6 we've said before --

7 MR. KATZ: E is QA.

8 MR. STIVER: E is a quality issue. 

9 And, you know, I think at the last meeting we 

10 came to conclusion that we could actually have 

11 kind of a hybrid type.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. STIVER: So it could possibly 

14 be C and related to the external model but also 

15 a quality issue in how it was implemented.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. I just thought I 

18 heard Scott say that the problem was he didn't 

19 understand his tool, not that he didn't know 

20 what he was doing otherwise.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

22 think we're ready to close. I would like to 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 propose that.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, hold on one 

5 second. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Brad, yes, 

7 hi. Good to hear you. You were not 

8 participating earlier with INL.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, it's been 

10 INL and I've been out chasing my dog around the 

11 yard. Because, you know, I can't talk anyway.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: But what I was 

14 going to ask Doug is, in this situation, this 

15 was just a finding, correct? This one that 

16 we're just closing right now. Because my issue 

17 is -- I look at this a little bit different 

18 maybe. We have a lot of QA issues coming up, 

19 and we've changed a lot of these. But if 

20 there's a significant effect to somebody, we're 

21 sampling a small amount of people here.

22 So my question is how many other 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 times has this been, and if it's a no never mind, 

2 it really didn't get up to that much, then we're 

3 not worried about it. But I want us to keep in 

4 mind that we are sampling a small, small amount 

5 when we start finding things like this.

6 And, yes, it has been corrected to 

7 where now the human involvement, but, you know, 

8 how many claims were in and how many different 

9 little things that we have go wrong to them, is 

10 my question. So to you, Doug, is there any 

11 significant impact to any claim because of 

12 this?

13 MR. FARVER: Well, it's hard to 

14 tell. I mean, it's human error. And it didn't 

15 get caught in your QA. So it's hard to tell 

16 what else isn't getting caught. That's all. 

17 I mean, I can't put a magnitude on it.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I 

19 just wanted us to think about that. Because, 

20 you know, it's real easy, yeah, it's just QA, 

21 we just jump on and keep on going. But here's 

22 the other part of the question. How many 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 others and how much did this affect?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Well 

3 taken.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well taken. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: We can close it.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

8 we're going to close unless I hear a further 

9 objection. Unless I hear objection, I should 

10 say. Alright. Let's go on.

11 MR. FARVER: Alright, 223.2 is the 

12 same finding for missed neutron dose.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. 

14 I'll save you some time. It's the identical 

15 answer. It would be error being entered as 

16 zero in the complex-wide best estimate tool.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. It 

18 is the same issue. Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: And can we assume 

20 that SC&A no longer needs the IREP entry number?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, you 

2 should change that. Any other additional 

3 concerns? Let's close that. 

4 And .3?

5 MR. FARVER: Okay, lack of 

6 investigation of unmonitored period from 1982 

7 to 1996. Let me get my dates right on this guy. 

8 This person worked at Mound from -- he started 

9 in 1965 and through -- the paperwork says 

10 through February 9th of 1996. That's both in 

11 the DOL paperwork and the DR report. That is 

12 his final date.

13 But there was no, what's ceded to 

14 us is there's no data after 1982. There's no 

15 data in the records. So that is what prompted 

16 the finding.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Can we assume this 

18 was a compensable claim?

19 MR. FARVER: No.

20 MEMBER MUNN: The real question 

21 here is if it was compensated.

22 MR. FARVER: No.
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: No, okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not 

3 quite -- the person terminated employment in 

4 '82 or '83. And what was the employee's 

5 employment from '82 to '96? You're saying that 

6 the person was still employed at Mound?

7 MR. FARVER: I'm saying that all 

8 the paperwork says he lasted -- the last day of 

9 employment February, whatever, 1996.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 

11 paperwork from the company?

12 MR. FARVER: No. The paperwork --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: From DOE?

14 MEMBER MUNN: The claimant.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

16 Alright.

17 MR. FARVER: And apparently it 

18 says -- I remember just reading it at lunchtime 

19 -- when the employments were verified. Now, I 

20 don't know. This is really strange. Because 

21 that final date is the employee's date of death.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Now, I don't think 

2 it's unusual to have employees retire and then 

3 come back.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MEMBER MUNN: But the record says 

6 that he terminated January 1, '82. And that's 

7 when the dosimetry records stop.

8 MR. FARVER: But the final 

9 employment date was 1996.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's what it 

11 says on the claimant's --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is it 

13 possible the employee could have been working 

14 for Mound in another capacity such that they 

15 would not be exposed at all? Well, there's 

16 ambient exposure.

17 MR. FARVER: That is possible. 

18 But it's also possible he was working there and 

19 the records were either filed under another 

20 employee number or something like that.

21 Because if -- and that's if the 1996 

22 date's correct. There's just that lapse from 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 '92 to '96 where there's just absolutely 

2 nothing in the records that were provided, any 

3 dosimetry data, or there's no indication that 

4 the job changed. He was still listed as a 

5 millwright mechanic during the entire 

6 employment period.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you 

8 scroll down a little bit more? No lack of 

9 investigation for the unmonitored period, so 

10 there was an investigation and nothing came up.

11 MR. FARVER: No, no. We felt that 

12 they should have investigated this time period 

13 to figure out, you know, what was going on.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

15 MEMBER MUNN: That's not what the 

16 words say.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

18 Since it was not compensated, I don't even see 

19 the rationale for saying close.

20 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm not sure 

21 what else you're going to do.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Well, you're looking 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into -- this is Grady. And I don't know, it 

2 seems like the crux of this is if we didn't 

3 re-request dosimetry data from Mound?

4 MR. FARVER: Well, there's nothing 

5 in the DR report about that period. I mean, if 

6 you're contending that he retired in '82, then 

7 why would you go ahead and give him -- I think 

8 we go on and we have some environmental dose or 

9 something later in the year or later in the time 

10 period.

11 There's just no information for 

12 that time period that was contained in the 

13 records or in the DR report. I mean, if he was 

14 employed and if his job didn't change, it might 

15 have been appropriate to give coworker-type 

16 dose or --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Conversely, the 

18 record says he was paid sick leave until he 

19 retired, effective January 1, '82. He was 

20 receiving sick leave. It doesn't seem likely 

21 that he would have eliminated his sick leave 

22 payments even if he were not reporting for work.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we're 

2 talking a 14 year period.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are. And he 

4 was employed from '60-when to --

5 MR. FARVER: '69, was it? '65? 

6 Something very early on.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: 1965.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: '65, wow.

10 MR. FARVER: You know, our point 

11 was there should have been some sort of 

12 investigation, some sort of rationale covering 

13 this time period. And it was not included in 

14 the DR report.

15 MEMBER MUNN: So what his claim 

16 says is he was employed for 16 years. And then 

17 for another 16 years there was more claim of 

18 employment but no record that was returned from 

19 the file.

20 MR. FARVER: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And was this 

22 case filed after the employee had died, after 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 '96?

2 MR. CALHOUN: It says so, yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So that the 

5 claim of his working from '82 to '96 was his 

6 family's claim or his survivor's claim.

7 MR. FARVER: I don't know.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not his.

9 MR. FARVER: They filled out the 

10 paperwork, yes. It all has to get verified by 

11 DOL.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And if he died in 

14 '96, then it's a lead-pipe cinch he was not 

15 filing the paper for this claim.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

17 point.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In which 

20 case the family could have been -- first, this 

21 is absolutely, this is speculative. I don't 

22 know and there's not evidence. But I'm 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wondering if the discrepancy in the records and 

2 in reports is the discrepancy between the 

3 family's report and the actual employment. I 

4 mean that the family may have said something in 

5 error.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Or simply entered a 

7 wrong date.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

9 MR. FARVER: The question is why 

10 the Department of Labor would verify a date when 

11 he didn't work that time period.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Should it be 

13 sent back to the Department of Labor?

14 MR. FARVER: Well, our point was 

15 somebody should have asked some questions at 

16 the time, you know? Are there records? And 

17 that just wasn't done. I mean, that's the 

18 basis for the finding. It's a mystery. I 

19 don't know what the answer is. But we felt that 

20 someone should have done some initiative and 

21 looked into it.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe we 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can return claims to DOL.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. It's 

3 not an issue of returning, it's an issue of 

4 perhaps they made a mistake in their 

5 verification process. It that possible?

6 MR. FARVER: It could.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: At the 

8 moment, it seems more of an observation than a 

9 finding. You're saying that the data that we 

10 were provided with was properly evaluated but 

11 that there is a conflict between the claim 

12 itself and the period, the time of the claim 

13 itself and the period investigated.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on a second. 

15 Let me read you a sentence here.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 Thank you.

18 MR. CALHOUN: It says, "Dosimetry 

19 records were not available for '82 through '95 

20 so only on-site ambient dose was assigned for 

21 this portion of the employment."

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: And I've got dose in 

2 his DR all the way up through '95.

3 MR. FARVER: I understand. Our 

4 point was --

5 MR. CALHOUN: I know you 

6 understand. I just didn't think that the other 

7 people on the line might have understood that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I did not 

9 understand that. So thank you.

10 MR. CALHOUN: So we did assign 

11 ambient. And the fact that we didn't go back, 

12 I don't know if that's an issue.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What do the 

14 other Committee Members think? Subcommittee 

15 Members?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is 

17 Brad. I'm sitting here, you know, I think it's 

18 kind of interesting that we have this kind of 

19 an error or mistake, whatever we want to call

20 it. But --

21 MR. CALHOUN: There's no mistake.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's not a 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mistake? You guys just gave him some dose?

2 MR. CALHOUN: That’s not what the 

3 mistake was.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: When did he leave 

5 employment at Mound?

6 MR. CALHOUN: '95. And we gave 

7 him the dose through '95.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

10 MR. CALHOUN: So where's the 

11 mistake?

12 MR. FARVER: The problem is 

13 there's no record of his employment after 1982.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Right. So we 

15 requested dosimetry information. We got 

16 dosimetry information. We used the 

17 information we had. Where we had holes, we 

18 added ambient dose like we always do, or 

19 something else. So I don't see a mistake here.

20 MEMBER MUNN: My question is, in 

21 the verbiage that we have, I did not see 

22 anything that gave me the information I just 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 heard, which was that he was employed through 

2 '95. I didn't see that in what I read.

3 What I read was the record shows he 

4 was discharged, that his employment was 

5 terminated January 1st, 1982. But I just heard 

6 that he actually was terminated in 1995. 

7 That's new information to me.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

9 The verification from DOL is through 1996. The 

10 date of his death is verified by DOL.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Now, that does not 

12 appear in anything that I just read, though, 

13 Scott. That's what I'm saying. This is new 

14 information to me.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. So that is the 

16 verified employment from DOL. And I would 

17 recommend remembering that the claim number for 

18 this is [identifying information redacted]. 

19 So it's a very early one, even for DOL, when they 

20 were in their process as well. So the DOL 

21 verified date is through '96. That doesn't --

22 MR. CALHOUN: It's actually just 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 two months into '96. Not even.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MEMBER MUNN: But that's okay. The 

4 fact that the DOL record shows anything is news 

5 to me. I just wasn't reading that.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And when we 

7 looked at the DOE response, it states that he 

8 retired and left and was also on sick leave at 

9 the end of the time frame. I think it was in 

10 1982.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah. He may have 

12 been on sick leave and not on-site the rest of 

13 those 15 years. Who knows?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Now, I'm looking at 

15 the request for information that was conducted 

16 early on. And the dates of employment of the 

17 request are -- it originally states -- and I'm 

18 looking at the original DOE response page -- I'm 

19 sorry, page 2 of the original DOE response, the 

20 dates of employment are typewritten through the 

21 date of death, which is 2/9/1996. But that is 

22 then lined out, and written over it is 1/1/82. 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it states that the 2/9/96 date is when he 

2 passed away.

3 So it looks as if Mound, when they 

4 responded or when we requested -- I can't tell 

5 the difference -- was stating that the 

6 employment ended in the beginning of '82.

7 However, when we assessed the claim, 

8 we just made the assumption that it was all the 

9 way through '96, because the DOL verified 

10 employment stated that, even though there may 

11 have been more indication saying he left in '82. 

12 And as a claimant-favorable assumption, 

13 thinking that he may not have even been on-site, 

14 that we don't have any monitoring, we don't have 

15 any indication of monitoring, it was assigned 

16 to ambient for the time frame from when he's 

17 listed in the DOE records as leaving the site 

18 until the date the DOL ended their verification 

19 of the employment.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah. My only 

21 puzzlement was I had seen nothing in the wording 

22 of the finding and subsequent comments that gave 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me the information about DOL saying he was 

2 employed until '95. That explains it 

3 completely, seems to me. And right there it 

4 says covered end date established by DOL as 

5 1996. Okay, got you.

6 MR. FARVER: The basis for the 

7 finding was that, if he was employed during that 

8 14 year period and if his job and occupation did 

9 not change, environmental dose was not 

10 claimant-favorable and he probably should have 

11 done something like coworker dose.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: That's the basis for 

14 the finding, because there was just no 

15 information for that period.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If folks will 

18 excuse me on the conference call, somebody 

19 knocked at [my] door. And I missed a little bit 

20 of the discussion. So please continue. 

21 So there seems to be, Wanda, you were 

22 saying basically that you agree with the 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finding.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And there is 

4 enough information on the record now that there 

5 should have been coworker data entered.

6 MEMBER MUNN: No. I don't feel 

7 that's the case. I think that what was done was 

8 done appropriately because there is no 

9 dosimeter record. There's an indication that 

10 the employee was sick at the time that the first 

11 dates that we talked about --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

13 '82, right.

14 MEMBER MUNN: The '82 dates, and 

15 they don't have dosimeter records after that 

16 time. Then that's been checked. I think they 

17 did the appropriate thing.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Other 

19 Subcommittee Members?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Where was he? 

21 What did he do?

22 MEMBER MUNN: He may have been home 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sick for 15 years, as I said.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Fifteen years?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: One year, long 

5 term disability, then you're kicked on Social 

6 Security. They don't hold you on. I think 

7 we're missing something here.

8 MR. KATZ: I think, Brad, what they 

9 were explaining was that they have -- all they 

10 have to say that he worked until '96 is the DOL 

11 verification. But all of their narrative in 

12 their records seems to suggest that he actually 

13 retired in '82 and that the date -- '96 is the 

14 date he died, not the date he left employment.

15 So that's what, I think, NIOSH is 

16 trying to say. I don't want to put words in 

17 their mouth, but that's more or less what they 

18 said.

19 MR. CALHOUN: But we're not 

20 ignoring that period either. We're trying --

21 MR. KATZ: So they credited the 

22 ambient dose just out of some uncertainty about 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that. Because they still have that DOL date. 

2 But all their records otherwise seem to indicate 

3 he retired in '82.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Exactly.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. So I'm just 

6 trying to synopsize all this so you understand 

7 why they did what they did.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand, and 

9 I appreciate it.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Other 

12 comments?

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: I just agree with 

14 the original finding. I wonder if this wasn't 

15 a borderline case. What would you have done if 

16 this was a best estimate case? I don't know if 

17 it was, even.

18 But what would you have done if it 

19 came up near the 50 percentile? Would you have 

20 assigned dose when the person wasn't even 

21 working at the site for 13 years? It was a bit 

22 -- you know, it seems like you would want to 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 check that.

2 MR. CALHOUN: We definitely would 

3 have assigned dose.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: This was 

5 convenient additional dose. You know, you can 

6 say claimant-favorable --

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. CALHOUN: -- at the site.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let me tell you, 

10 what we likely would have done at that time was, 

11 if it was in best estimate territory, we may have 

12 asked the question to DOL about the verification 

13 and/or asked additional questions of Mound.

14 However, it was not in best estimate 

15 territory. It was well less than 50 percent. 

16 It's 33 percent. So assigning ambient is 

17 reasonable and follows the dictates of what we 

18 assign when there is no monitoring at Mound.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. I like that 

20 explanation better actually, Scott. I mean, if 

21 it's that low, and I'm hoping that if it was 

22 approaching that you would have done more 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 investigation, you know, if you got to 45 

2 percent or whatever. Alright.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could I ask 

4 what would have happened had you made the 

5 extreme assumption that the dosimetry records 

6 were missing but that the person stayed on the 

7 same job from '82 to '96? I assume -- well, let 

8 me ask you. Do you think the PoC would have 

9 risen significantly?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Without running 

11 anything, I cannot begin to address the 

12 question.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

14 that is --

15 MR. SIEBERT: The fact that it's at 

16 33 percent indicates to me -- we also have to 

17 remember that PoC is not linear to dose.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, 

19 absolutely, absolutely.

20 MR. SIEBERT: As you get higher and 

21 higher and closer to 50 percent, it takes more 

22 and more dose. You know, you have to double the 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose. If I remember correctly, this is off the 

2 top of my head.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. SIEBERT: You have to pretty 

5 much double the dose to get from around 40 or 

6 42 percent to 50 percent. It takes a lot more 

7 to get there.

8 So if we're sitting at 33 percent, 

9 and we're talking about basically doubling this 

10 individual's dose if we assume he was working 

11 another 16, it still would not likely get you 

12 into that territory.

13 But that is just loose looking at the 

14 numbers. I can't say anything for sure without 

15 actually running anything.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And 

17 there is -- first, I have the problem of 

18 diversion in the middle of the conversation. 

19 So there are things I believe I missed or am 

20 unclear that you may have dealt with.

21 But I believe there's a good chance 

22 -- I think there's a very good chance that your 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assumption is correct, that the person died in 

2 '96.

3 But there is evidence that -- there 

4 is something on the record that says that the 

5 person worked through '96. Calling it ambient 

6 dose doesn't seem to me to be dealing with it.

7 I would be much more comfortable 

8 were this rerun with the person working at their 

9 same job that they worked at up to 1982. I just 

10 feel as if we're not being claimant-favorable. 

11 We're dealing with the data that we have. But 

12 the data that we have, there seems to me to be 

13 a deep conflict in there.

14 MR. CALHOUN: David, what we do is 

15 we have to use the weight of the evidence. And 

16 even if this guy hadn't passed away, we would 

17 try to go back and look to see if anything had 

18 changed. In this case, we found out that he was 

19 sick and he was likely not there. And because 

20 the lack of dosimetry comes at the end rather 

21 than at the beginning of his work era, it's much 

22 more reasonable to assign ambient dose. I'm 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 completely okay with that approach.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. If he 

3 were really working -- I don't think he was 

4 working, but that's thinking, not evidence.

5 MR. CALHOUN: You've got to look at 

6 the era too. This is 1982.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

8 MR. CALHOUN: And if he was working 

9 at that time, it's a very, very high likelihood 

10 that he would have been monitored.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Especially through 

13 1992 once 835 compliance has kicked in.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Well, 

15 that's true. That's true.

16 MR. CALHOUN: If this was a 1950s 

17 case, maybe we'd think about it a little 

18 differently.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. 

20 You're right that they would -- I would have 

21 confidence that he would have been monitored. 

22 While I'm pondering, other folks anything?
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I would imagine, 

2 after he had worked there for 15 years, if he 

3 was not being monitored he himself would raise 

4 an issue, I would think. I've never known 

5 anyone who worked at any of these sites who was 

6 not conscious of the fact that they needed to 

7 be monitored.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Not after 15 years of 

10 employment.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

12 absolutely reasonable.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yeah. But I think 

14 Doug raised this question. I mean, these are 

15 all -- we're all sort of speculating here. But, 

16 I mean, if he left and came back, it could have 

17 been that he was monitored, they just didn't put 

18 the records together. He might have been 

19 assigned a different employee number. I don't 

20 know exactly how Mound --

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

22 will look. I'm doing some additional looking 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through the records as we do this. In looking 

2 through the DOE records, I am finding 

3 assessments that were done by Mound in -- let 

4 me look at the date here -- in 1999 as part of 

5 the dose reconstruction project that was done. 

6 And this individual is clearly listed in those 

7 dose reconstruction reports as leaving in '82 

8 or '83.

9 Whereas, if the site was assessing 

10 things back in the late '90s time frame, they 

11 would have been aware of the fact that there were 

12 multiple ways to link to an individual. And 

13 they would have taken that into account.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: And, Scott, I 

16 think that if statements like that were included 

17 in the DR report it would have cleared a lot of 

18 this up.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yeah.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, our 

21 basis for assigning ambient and environmental 

22 is because our bioassay records show that he was 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not monitored and, you know, you have more 

2 justification for it. But that was just 

3 absent.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

5 MR. KATZ: So, Scott, I don't want 

6 to prolong this, but can I ask you just one 

7 question? Those records that you just looked 

8 for, are they part of his claims file? Or did 

9 you find that elsewhere?

10 MR. SIEBERT: No. That is part of 

11 his claims file. It is in the DOE record --

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, okay, okay. But 

13 so, Doug, I mean, in part answer to you, I mean, 

14 if it's in the claims file, that's part of what 

15 you review when you review these cases, no?

16 MR. FARVER: That is.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

18 MR. FARVER: But just because we're 

19 looking up, you know, it’s under bioassay 

20 records, doesn't mean he can't have some 

21 external records that are missing.

22 I can't really fault them too bad for 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what they did after we get the explanation. 

2 It's when you're looking at the data and looking 

3 at the DR report, and the DR report doesn't say 

4 something, then you kind of have to wonder, 

5 well, did they think of this? And the 14 years 

6 was a big gap.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm 

8 satisfied measurements were made in a later 

9 period. And if he doesn't have -- if they are 

10 not there for that person, then that suggests 

11 that that was not appropriate to monitor him for 

12 whatever reason. I could close on this. 

13 Others?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. We 

15 can close it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 David?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

20 we are going to close. 

21 The observation?

22 MR. FARVER: Observation: in 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 February 1972 plutonium bioassay result, 

2 there's a transcription error. The value used 

3 was 0.162. It should have been 0.135.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Which is 

6 claimant-favorable.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. It's 

8 claimant-favorable, and it's really minor.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we've 

11 observed. Let's go, folks, to Pinellas. 

12 There are some observations on 233.

13 MR. FARVER: Let me find that case.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

15 While he's looking, Ted or others, I'm just 

16 checking my own records of what we've talked 

17 about today. And it seems to me that we have 

18 -- am I correct that we have closed everything 

19 that we've looked at?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

22 we don't have anything open from today's 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussion. Okay. Good, Ted. Thank you.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I know you're 

4 keeping notes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: We did have one thing 

6 we were going to pursue, did we not?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 290.1 we 

8 closed.

9 MR. SIEBERT: No, actually --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, 265.1.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Yes, we are 

12 going to look further into that issue.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There is one 

15 open. Okay. Okay, Pinellas.

16 MR. FARVER: 233. I'm getting 

17 there.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. Observation 1, 

20 on Page 7 of the CATI report one question, when 

21 questioned, Are you aware of any records related 

22 to your information you provided that may help 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 us estimate your doses? The remark is yes, next 

2 to the incident reports. While the employee's 

3 file, DOE file, contains mostly medical 

4 records, the DR report should have at least 

5 acknowledged the CATI information. That was 

6 the basis for the observation.

7 MR. SIEBERT: And as to -- and this 

8 is Scott. We've had a long discussion as to why 

9 we did what we did. But I will agree with Doug 

10 that it would have been wise to have addressed 

11 that in the dose reconstruction report itself, 

12 at least mention that they said that in the CATI 

13 about the incident.

14 I'm looking back at the claim. And 

15 it was done in 2005, before we updated many of 

16 the things that we additionally document. So 

17 I want to bear that in mind.

18 MR. FARVER: Right. This is one of 

19 those pretty standard observations we were 

20 recording because we didn't feel they were 

21 making good use of the CATI information.

22 I'm sure you remember those 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussions. And really we just felt like if 

2 you put a statement in there saying that, you 

3 know, acknowledging what was in the report or 

4 the CATI report, that was all. That's why it 

5 was an observation, not a finding.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: And I think the 

8 explanation that the employee was assigned the 

9 99th percentile external and internal doses for 

10 all years more than adequately covers that in 

11 the absence of a spectacular event of some kind. 

12 Exposure to smoke stack, well, yeah, that's 

13 pretty well covered by 99 percentile.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 Further comments before we move on? 

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay, next one. This 

19 is another Pinellas case, 299.1, failure to 

20 assign external neutron dose.

21 Our reviewer felt that after 

22 reviewing the records supplied by DOE, the CATI 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report and site-specific information, that 

2 despite the fact there were no dosimeter results 

3 available, there was enough evidence to support 

4 assigning unmonitored external neutron dose.

5 Based on the work history and the 

6 CATI report, the employee most likely worked in 

7 the area from '60 to '65.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, the revision 

9 covers it. And, well, the contractor 

10 recommends the finding be closed. It certainly 

11 seems reasonable. Recommend closure.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

13 Comments? Scroll up so we can just look again 

14 at SC&A's response. Okay. Close?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's fine with 

17 me, Dave.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

19 it's closed.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next finding, 

21 299.2, X-ray frequency was not consistent with 

22 the interview information.
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this is some more CATI report 

2 information where the employee recalls X-rays 

3 were performed annually from '58 through '92.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could we 

5 scroll up to NIOSH's response in the green? 

6 Thank you.

7 MEMBER MUNN: TBD sounds pretty 

8 specific. The record sounds pretty specific. 

9 They're done on an annual basis, but they didn't 

10 always include X-rays. The record exists to 

11 support their position.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

13 sounds --

14 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds as though 

15 they did what the, well, what the documents tell 

16 them to do. And that's really what we're 

17 looking at here.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Did they follow their 

20 instructions? I'd recommend closure.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Seems to me 

22 they did.
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Is SC&A accepting 

2 that? Do you have any comments?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Recommend closure.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Agreed. 

9 Objection, concern? In this case, I think we 

10 have written evidence on the record that X-rays 

11 were not always taken.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's 

14 why it makes sense. Okay, I agree. Let's 

15 close. If I hear no objection --

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's fine. Go 

17 ahead.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead. 

19 .3?

20 MR. FARVER: .3, omission of a 1968 

21 X-ray exposure. Although there exists only a 

22 reference the June 1968 chest X-ray and no DOE 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records were provided, SC&A thought that it 

2 would be claimant-favorable to include this 

3 exposure, since you're including other actual 

4 records.

5 There wasn't any actual X-ray 

6 record, but there was a reference to a June '68 

7 chest X-ray.

8 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. I 

9 looked a little more deeply into this even than 

10 we'd explained here.

11 It really comes down to, as Doug was 

12 saying, there's a memo in the file of a DOE 

13 response where the doctor is talking about --

14 they're tracking the elevation of the 

15 diaphragm. And they're saying, in '70, it's 

16 very much the same as previous examinations of 

17 June '68, January of '64 and October of '69.

18 In that statement, the two later 

19 ones, the 1964 and the 1969 X-rays, are 

20 corroborated by the actual X-ray record. There 

21 is no record of a June 1968 X-ray. 

22 Now, there is, in the file, a June 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1958 X-ray in the file. And I look back at this, 

2 and there are clearly only three X-rays in the 

3 file before 1970. And the memo is responding 

4 and stating there are three X-rays they're 

5 referring to.

6 And it's very easy to make the 

7 assumption that they made a typographical error 

8 of 1958 -- they wrote it as 1968. The 

9 additional thing that makes me think that as 

10 well is the order they are written in the memo, 

11 as June '68, January '64 and October '69. 

12 They're out of order, out of date order. If you 

13 make the assumption it should have been '58, 

14 where we do have a record, it makes perfectly 

15 good sense, because they would have been in 

16 order.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good.

18 MEMBER MUNN: And speaking as a 

19 person who made their living typing during that 

20 particular period, that makes eminently good 

21 sense.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Recommend closure.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree. 

3 Doug, do you accept that?

4 MR. FARVER: Well, having gone and 

5 looked at that, I can see where you could go 

6 either way. I mean, you're looking at a piece 

7 of paper. And it's hard to tell.

8 I mean, a lot of these records that 

9 we look at, it can go either way. I mean, I 

10 can't fight too hard on it. My only defense is, 

11 if you decide you're going to use actual 

12 records, then you want to at least be 

13 claimant-favorable to include this.

14 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd like 

15 to jump in also, just a little bit. In the many 

16 cases -- now we're talking on the DOE side of 

17 the house as opposed to AWE -- the default has 

18 always been to assign annual chest X-rays unless 

19 there was some affirmative evidence to the 

20 contrary.

21 In this case, we have an interesting 

22 circumstance where it sounds like we have some 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 affirmative evidence that there were at least 

2 three, I guess, prior to 1970. That's the 

3 position that's being taken.

4 MR. SIEBERT: There were plenty 

5 after that we listed as well.

6 DR. MAURO: But they were after. 

7 Now, it just seems that we aren't in -- and 

8 you're right, we're in sort of gray territory.

9 The fact that you have affirmative evidence 

10 making reference to these three, in effect what 

11 we're saying is -- the fact that they do make 

12 reference to these three -- and we'll accept 

13 that 1958 for the purposes of this conversation. 

14 In effect what we're saying is the fact that, 

15 when they made past reference to pre-70, that 

16 is sort of affirmative evidence that these were 

17 in fact the only X-rays that were taken. And 

18 that's certainly a reasonable decision. But 

19 it's the first time we've -- at least the first 

20 time I've heard this.

21 So, in effect, the fact that they 

22 spoke about just those three, as long as 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everyone is comfortable, I think that puts you 

2 in a place where you're feeling confident. 

3 That means, in the other years, X-rays were not 

4 taken. And that's, in effect, what you're 

5 doing right now.

6 And, you know, it's a tough call 

7 which way you want to go on that. Because if 

8 it was silent regarding X-rays in the records 

9 for this worker and in the Site Profile, we would 

10 assign.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

12 MEMBER MUNN: But it is not silent.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But there is 

14 not silence.

15 MR. SIEBERT: The TBD is clear that 

16 if we have no information, we go with annuals. 

17 But we do have information in this case, 

18 correct.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. I just wanted to 

20 make sure it's clear that that's the path we're 

21 going on. And we'll keep that in mind in our 

22 future evaluations.
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

2 we will close this. Okay. Good. Let's go to 

3 the next.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay, 299.4, failure 

5 to include radiological incident in the DR. 

6 The DR report reads, in part, according to the 

7 telephone interview, the EE was involved in one 

8 radiological incident in 1975. The incident 

9 involved the vacuum shop where the EE was 

10 working at the time. Information in the 

11 interview indicated the vacuum shop was found 

12 to be contaminated while the EE was there.

13 Once contamination was discovered, 

14 the area was shut down. Given that the EE was 

15 periodically monitored for tritium throughout 

16 ’75 and assigned internal doses based on a 

17 reasonable evaluation of bioassay data, it is 

18 unlikely that this incident resulted in a 

19 tritium dose higher than the assigned dose.

20 Okay. So that's a tritium exposure 

21 in the vacuum shop in '75. The one we're 

22 referring to is where the employee mentions in 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the CATI report that he worked in maintenance 

2 from -- oh, having to work one weekend on top 

3 of a stack while it was blowing out, he put up 

4 an antenna. He worked in maintenance. So he 

5 was up on the stack while it was still blowing 

6 out. And he's putting up an antenna. 

7 During the time period from '67 

8 through '92, no urine bioassays were taken 

9 between '78 and '92. So there [we] were through 

10 the first part.

11 We believed it was reasonable to 

12 assume that the incident may have resulted in 

13 the inhalation of radioactive materials, and it 

14 should have been addressed somehow. That is 

15 the basis for that finding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And did he --

17 It's not clear, the basis for SC&A suggesting 

18 to close the findings.

19 MR. FARVER: Because, if I'm a dose 

20 reconstructor, I don't know what I'm going to 

21 do. You know, I don't know how you handle 

22 something like that, that could have happened.
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I thought at the very least they 

2 should put a statement in there acknowledging 

3 it. But I don't know how you would, you know, 

4 calculate a reasonable dose from that, or if you 

5 should. But I just thought they should have 

6 mentioned something.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

8 that was a finding?

9 MR. FARVER: It was. This goes 

10 back to where they were writing up information 

11 in the CATI report. It is not addressed in the 

12 DR report. You have to kind of remember the 

13 time period we're in at this time.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments 

15 from anyone?

16 MR. FARVER: And I'm not familiar 

17 with Pinellas, their stacks or anything like 

18 that.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I think the 

20 assumptions being made are reasonable. No 

21 reason to maintain it open. I don't know what 

22 you're going to do other than what's been done. 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it's easy to agree. It would have been a 

2 lot better if they'd mentioned it. But it 

3 wouldn't have affected the end result. That's 

4 really what we're looking at here, would this 

5 likely have affected the outcome of the claim? 

6 And it's unlikely.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

9 We've also got to look at the quality of what's 

10 going on. I understand what Doug's saying 

11 here, is that all this, this is something that 

12 may just -- it's an unusual thing to be able to 

13 do, especially if you look at Pinellas.

14 They had one of the main stacks that 

15 was blowing out. They had several other ones 

16 too. But it doesn't make me feel that good that 

17 something like this would be bypassed a little 

18 bit. But I'm with Doug. You know, what do we 

19 do on this?

20 MR. STIVER: This is John. As a 

21 contextual way to look at this, incidents are 

22 always a problem, whether you're doing the dose 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction or you're reviewing the Site 

2 Profile or an SEC.

3 And the general philosophy is that 

4 if there is, in fact, evidence of a 

5 comprehensive health physics oversight program 

6 where there's air sampling, there is ongoing 

7 bioassay, it's more of a more current, recent 

8 type of program underneath -- I guess it's part 

9 of the -- what's the DOE reg that came out, the 

10 Number 835, kind of post -- the DOE protocols 

11 that got much more formal. 

12 The idea being that if an incident 

13 occurred, it would have been recorded. If the 

14 person claims he might have been doing a job 

15 where you're concerned that he might have gotten 

16 exposure, you would expect the bioassay to 

17 follow such an exposure.

18 So you generally get a warm and fuzzy 

19 feeling that when you have that set of 

20 circumstances, that you feel there's a strong 

21 health physics oversight, this goes toward 

22 everything we do, even SECs, you come out at the 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other end saying, well, if this person was 

2 exposed from an incident, we would have his data 

3 reconstructed. There would be something in his 

4 record regarding it. And there's a way to 

5 manage that problem. 

6 But if you don't have that context, 

7 I don't know. What year are we talking about 

8 here for Pinellas? Do we have when this worker 

9 was involved in working, I guess, on the roof 

10 and perhaps being exposed to, I guess, tritium 

11 that might have been exhausted? Is that the 

12 issue here?

13 MR. FARVER: Yeah. It could have 

14 been like the ’80's.

15 MR. STIVER: Yeah. Well, I did 

16 look at Pinellas quite some time ago. And, 

17 again, it's a contextual issue. And, you know, 

18 feeling that you're comfortable with saying, 

19 no, if this person did get a snoot full because 

20 he was doing a certain kind of job, the nature 

21 of the health physics oversight at the time was 

22 such that he would have been put on the bioassay 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 program to watch for this.

2 Now, it's within the context of the 

3 Site Profile that really helps you make that 

4 judgment. And I'm not quite sure, you know, do 

5 we have that context?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thanks. 

7 Alright. Comments, further comments? I think 

8 there's not that much more we can do. I agree. 

9 Do we want to close it?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. The point's 

11 been made.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

13 MEMBER MUNN: It would have been 

14 wiser to have made some comment about it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

16 MEMBER MUNN: It wasn't done. But 

17 it wouldn't have changed anything.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

19 move to close it.

20 MEMBER MUNN: So moved.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

22 Aliquippa, 248, we can -- let's forge on, folks.
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Do you want to talk 

2 about the Aliquippa Forge?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. With 

4 only observations.

5 MR. FARVER: Observation 1, SC&A 

6 questions why the DR was performed using a --

7 (Telephonic interference.)

8 MEMBER MUNN: And the answer was 

9 it's an overestimate. And SC&A accepts that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

11 let's move on.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Closed.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Although NIOSH 

14 calculated exposure to residual contamination 

15 using Table 4 of OTIB-004, the thyroid dose was 

16 selected as a surrogate organ to the brain. 

17 However, Table 4 contains dose specific to the 

18 brain. It would have been more appropriate to 

19 use the actual organ instead of a surrogate.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The thyroid 

21 wasn't provided a higher dose than the brain?

22 MR. FARVER: It was used as an 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 overestimating method. I understand, it's 

2 just kind of strange if you already have the 

3 brain number there. You would just pull that 

4 one off. But that's okay. I mean, it's an 

5 overestimating table.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is an 

7 overestimate. Okay. Let's go on.

8 MR. FARVER: Very similar, the next 

9 one is why use OTIB-004 for your inhalation and 

10 ingestion when you have specific guidance in 

11 your TBD? Overestimate.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, 

13 understand. Okay, West Valley.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, West Valley, 

15 234.1. The DR does not account for all the 

16 recorded photon dose. Specifically, there are 

17 three time periods. One is for 70 millirem, one 

18 is for 206 millirem and one is for 67 millirem 

19 for a total of 343 millirem that is omitted. 

20 And that's the basis for the finding.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The total is 

22 dose is over 39 rems. Was this a compensated 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 case?

2 MR. FARVER: No, 48 [PoC].

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: SC&A concurs.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

6 MR. FARVER: It's a QA issue.

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's a serious 

8 mistake, actually.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Three 

10 instances, right?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Two pages of the file 

12 overlooked.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this 

14 error was made when?

15 MR. FARVER: What year?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 2-06 period, 

17 roughly. Well, okay. SC&A agrees.

18 MR. FARVER: Yeah, I'm not sure what 

19 you can do about it except write it up as a QA 

20 concern.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

22 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry, I didn't 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 follow the numbers exactly. This is John. Did 

2 you say that the PoC was 48 percent?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: And total dose was in 

5 the multiple high rems --

6 MR. FARVER: Thirty-nine.

7 DR. MAURO: Thirty-nine. And 

8 you're adding what, 150 -- 150, about, is 

9 missed?

10 MR. FARVER: Four hundred.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Four 

12 hundred.

13 DR. MAURO: Four hundred is missed. 

14 Yeah, you could see where that could create a 

15 little tension. I, for one, would say that I 

16 don't think 400 millirem is going to tip you --

17 MEMBER MUNN: I wouldn't expect 

18 that either.

19 DR. MAURO: Yeah. But still, this 

20 is a concern.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: It's a bad error.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Even though the dose 

4 itself is not going to make any effective 

5 change, likely would not make any effective 

6 change.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

8 right.

9 MEMBER MUNN: But still, it's a 

10 serious error and it's too bad.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: But NIOSH has done 

13 everything they could. They've --

14 MR. FARVER: Well, if you look at 

15 their response, you can see that there seems to 

16 be a problem with their QC file.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: It overlooked the last 

19 two pages when they were doing the transcription 

20 from the DOE file. So we have a little bit of 

21 issue with the data entry. That's how the QC 

22 file gets populated, I believe.
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, not good. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 

3 there's no reason for the Subcommittee to do 

4 anything but close it and record it.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

6 DR. MAURO: There's a question of 

7 process. When we all agree that, yes, there was 

8 some dose that was missed, or an error was made 

9 that resulted in an underestimate of the dose, 

10 and right now, I guess, we're all on the phone 

11 agreeing that, well, yes, it's an error. 

12 Here's the magnitude of the error. And that 

13 that error is not sufficient to bring you from 

14 uncompensated to compensated.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

16 DR. MAURO: And, of course, that is 

17 a judgment call that we're making through 

18 intuition.

19 I'm not quite sure what NIOSH does. 

20 When this happens, do you go back and confirm, 

21 check "Yes, we agree. We did miss that dose. 

22 And if we re-ran the case and here's how the PoC 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 changes." Or do we just stop at the place we're 

2 at right now?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, NIOSH has given 

4 us some words, John.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't say that 

7 they re-ran the data. But it does say they 

8 checked it, and it appears to have been a data 

9 entry error and that they'd had a lot more 

10 experience since then. And they feel okay that 

11 this probably won't happen again.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's a tacit 

14 admission it's pretty bad do-do there on this 

15 one.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. But it 

17 doesn't say that it's been re-run. Often when 

18 we have issues, they will say, look, we re-ran 

19 it, or we looked more carefully into the 

20 possibility of a re-run and recognized that it 

21 was not necessary.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay.
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. And 

2 yes, generally, for most of the time, we will 

3 do that to determine if there is an impact, 

4 especially something that's around 48 percent. 

5 I'm not going to argue with that.

6 We have not, however, discussed 

7 Observation Number 1, which also comes into it, 

8 where we over assign 470 millirems, which 

9 basically cancels out that same --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, more than--

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

13 MR. SIEBERT: So I believe -- we put 

14 these responses together a long time ago. But 

15 I believe, in my thought process, there's no 

16 reason to re-run it when those cancel each other 

17 out or over-cancel it out.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you already know 

19 it in advance.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're 

21 right, you're right. Okay. Then we should 

22 close that.
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is 

2 Brad. I think in, you know, serious QA issues 

3 like this we ought to punch the dose 

4 reconstructor and make them listen to these 

5 meetings, or at least --

6 (Laughter.)

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- that would 

8 teach them.

9 MEMBER MUNN: That's probably a 

10 good idea.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just kidding. 

12 Thanks, we can close it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. And 

14 with that, we've also discussed Observation 1?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: Well, Observation 1's 

17 a little different. It has to do with 

18 interpreting handwritten numbers on a dosimetry 

19 card. It was unclear if certain doses were 

20 included or excluded, from the information on 

21 that card, if it was included or excluded in the 

22 dose assessment. Well, it was more a question.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I guess the answer is they added 

2 a duplicate dose in there when they didn't have 

3 to. And that's where the extra 470 millirem 

4 comes from.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

6 MR. FARVER: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, this 

8 most assuredly balances out.

9 MR. FARVER: Well, it does, but it 

10 goes back to reading dosimeter cards and how 

11 they're interpreted and --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. No, 

13 it's proper that it be an observation. But in 

14 terms of our concern in the finding, I'm 

15 satisfied about that, our decision to close it 

16 and that we are not changing the compensation. 

17 So, let's go on. Observation 2.

18 MR. FARVER: Observation 2 is 

19 basically agreeing to disagree on the total full 

20 body exposure. SC&A comes up with one number, 

21 NIOSH comes up with one number, and both numbers 

22 are different from the DOE number that's in the 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DOE records.

2 The good news is the NIOSH and SC&A 

3 numbers are higher. And I think this just kind 

4 of indicates some of the difficulties 

5 interpreting some of these records.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

7 MR. FARVER: But it's just an 

8 observation to point out that our number, we 

9 couldn't match the DOE number, NIOSH didn't 

10 match it. We didn't match NIOSH. So we're 

11 just agreeing to disagree.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

13 Next observation?

14 MR. FARVER: Next observation is 

15 the dose reconstructor applied a 

16 claimant-favorable assumption that the 

17 uncertainty factor of 1.3 was to be used in this 

18 case for missed dose as well as for positive 

19 recorded dose.

20 This looks like a case where the dose 

21 reconstructor inserted the 1.3 using the DR tool 

22 and gave an incorrect answer.
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Favorable, but 

3 incorrect.

4 MR. FARVER: Yeah. It's another 

5 one of those where they're changing the numbers 

6 in the DR tool or entering information 

7 incorrectly.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: And it's from July 2007 

10 time period again.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. If 

12 it was an error, why was it an observation?

13 MR. FARVER: Probably because it 

14 didn't have a big impact on anything.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

16 MR. FARVER: I mean, I don't 

17 remember. But that's probably --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. In 

19 assessing how well we're doing, this really 

20 should be a finding.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, but the tool's 

22 been changed since.
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

2 MEMBER MUNN: And that's the real 

3 point, is to make sure it doesn't continue 

4 happening.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, next 

6 observation. There are a lot of observations 

7 on this one.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: And a lot of times 

10 we'll write up findings, and then during our 

11 one-on-one Board Member discussions, when we 

12 discuss the cases, sometimes findings are 

13 turned into observations, sometimes 

14 observations are turned into findings. So all 

15 of these have been discussed with Board Members 

16 prior to you seeing them here.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, good 

18 point. And that's important.

19 DR. MAURO: This is John again. 

20 Regarding the last one that we just moved away 

21 from, the fact that it was an observation. 

22 There is a good story there that, I think, needs 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to be part of the record. And I guess it is part 

2 of the record now from our, you know, 

3 transcript.

4 But what we have here is there's a 

5 workbook, I guess this goes back to 2007, that 

6 had an error in it that resulted in an 

7 overestimate. And in my mind -- and it was 

8 clearly an error -- that is a quality issue. 

9 That is a finding. The good news is there's a 

10 process at work where that's been corrected.

11 And it seems to me, by leaving it as 

12 an observation we do a disservice to the record. 

13 I think it is a finding. And there's a process 

14 at work where that --

15 MR. KATZ: I agree with John.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. Do we want 

17 Observation Number 3 changed to a finding?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. That 

19 was my feeling. And I agree with what's been 

20 said. Let's do that. You'll categorize it 

21 properly.

22 MR. FARVER: And it's going to be a 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 QA issue.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: And the action's going 

4 to be that the tool has been updated to prevent 

5 this error.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

7 MR. FARVER: So we're going to close 

8 this with no further action?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

10 Let me just get it for my record. 

11 That was Observation Number -- which one's being 

12 changed to a finding, three?

13 MR. FARVER: Observation Number 3.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

15 Okay, good. So we're on Four.

16 MR. FARVER: Four, the observation 

17 basically states that the TBD says workers had 

18 a yearly physical examination and a PA exam 

19 every two years, which is exactly what NIOSH 

20 did. And it was very reasonable. So, pointing 

21 out a good thing.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Somebody's 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the phone. If they could just shield it for 

2 a moment. Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: What we were pointing 

4 out was that they were following the guidance 

5 in the TBD.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Okay. 

7 Then if they were, and no response necessary, 

8 fine. Let's go Number 5.

9 MR. FARVER: Number 5.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, 

11 folks, in about 15 minutes or so we will take 

12 a short break, if that's agreeable.

13 MR. KATZ: I was going to suggest 

14 after we get through this case.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: After we get 

16 through this observation.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, whatever, these 

18 observations.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If they ever 

20 -- I do trust it will come to an end.

21 MR. FARVER: If they ever end, okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: It's the last one.
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Last one.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: The internal alpha 

4 dose was assigned during the full six years that 

5 the employee was monitored for external 

6 exposure. However, the tritium dose was 

7 assigned for only two years that the employee 

8 was actually bioassayed for tritium.

9 Because of the relatively short 

10 biological effective half-life of tritium, the 

11 results of the two bioassays for tritium being 

12 below MDA values, it is not possible to 

13 determine if the employee had a tritium intake 

14 during '70 to '73. These are years prior to him 

15 being bioassayed.

16 Therefore, to be consistent with the 

17 alpha internal dose assignment, NIOSH could 

18 have assigned the model coworker internal doses 

19 for tritium for those two years. It would have 

20 been a small dose and probably would have had 

21 no impact on the case.

22 DR. MAURO: You know, this is John, 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is an interesting question, you know, as 

2 I'm listening. This is a judgment call. You 

3 can't really call it a quality assurance issue. 

4 It is a judgment call. And different people 

5 could make different reasonable judgments.

6 I'm not quite sure how we categorize 

7 something like this even if we agree. Let's say 

8 right now we talk about we could have assigned 

9 a coworker dose to this person, or you couldn't 

10 have. And this is a judgment call. What do we 

11 do with things like this?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's always 

13 been a problem, what we do with things like this. 

14 Because so many of the things that one has to 

15 do when you're looking at this kind of program 

16 is rely upon the judgment of the professional 

17 people who are dealing with the information.

18 You know, we just simply have to do 

19 it. We don't have -- there's no mechanical way 

20 to do this and see that it magically happens. 

21 There are too many variables. And we just have 

22 to rely on the good will and the confidence of 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the people who are doing the work, in my view, 

2 at any rate.

3 And I have great empathy for the 

4 people who have to do this work.

5 DR. MAURO: And I think it's 

6 important that we're about to make a judgment 

7 on this. I mean, that's why I jumped in when 

8 I did. I wanted to raise the question. 

9 Because the way we deal with this sets a standard 

10 that, I think, has implications on how we deal 

11 with these kinds of issues in general.

12 And I'm sure there's plenty of 

13 history in the ten years we've been doing this 

14 where we did discuss these judgmental calls. 

15 But quite frankly, you know, I'm not quite sure 

16 how it all ends up.

17 To help ensure consistency, it's 

18 almost as if, when these kinds of judgments are 

19 made, the rationale for why, in this particular 

20 case, coworker dose was not provided -- Doug, 

21 do you know whether or not there's a discussion 

22 of why the dose reconstructor's judgment was not 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to assign coworker doses for tritium prior to 

2 that date?

3 MR. FARVER: I believe it's silent.

4 But this, you know, this I could look at and say, 

5 well, if the dose that we're missing out on is 

6 a rem-and-a-half, well, that could be 

7 significant.

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

9 MR. FARVER: You know, we're 

10 talking about a two-year tritium dose which 

11 might be a couple millirem.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, yeah.

14 MR. FARVER: And I have a feeling 

15 that's why it's an observation.

16 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

17 MR. FARVER: I could see this -- and 

18 I think we discussed it earlier today, where we 

19 would have done it differently. We would have 

20 assigned coworker dose for missing years.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, sure. If you're 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talking about cesium exposure, you know, any 

2 gamma, but for goodness' sake, when you know 

3 what the general limits are of the tritium 

4 protection on the site, and you recognize, as 

5 the verbiage points out, this doesn't cost a lot 

6 of money anymore either. There would have been 

7 no reason not to do it if it were an issue. 

8 This is what I meant when I said you 

9 have to rely on the experience and the judgment 

10 of the individuals who are handling this. 

11 There are just too many variables.

12 MR. FARVER: I understand, for this 

13 case, for this instance. But if we can go back 

14 to our conversation we had earlier in the day, 

15 when we were suggesting you add coworker data 

16 for the missing 14 years when you have no 

17 information, that would be similar but not 

18 really similar.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah. But --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we're 

21 -- folks, I think we're going over a case. We're 

22 not establishing general principles. I'm 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 willing to consider if we are violating general 

2 principles. But I'm not -- this is, in some 

3 sense, not, in my opinion, an appropriate 

4 discussion at this point.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It's philosophy and 

6 not enough concrete.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And I 

8 would like to move on.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. I just wanted 

10 to point out that we were, for this case, we are 

11 looking at it as an observation just because of 

12 the parameters involved.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. FARVER: In the other case, we 

15 looked at that as a finding because the 

16 parameters were different there.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: There are some 

20 questions, and we understand that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

22 Now, where are we at now? Was that the last 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 observation for this?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Where do we 

4 go next? What's our next case? Are we at the 

5 end? I'm going on the -- I'm on the live 

6 network, so I'm not --

7 MR. FARVER: Well, I thought --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah. But next we 

9 have the Simonds Steel.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Simonds 

11 Steel.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Simonds Saw.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, 240, 

14 okay. Well, then why don't we take a break now, 

15 as suggested. It's 3:14, 3:15. Let's take a 

16 15 minute break, and we'll be back at 3:30.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 3:15 p.m. and 

20 resumed at 3:32 p.m.)

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Doug?

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. There we are.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're 

3 reading the NIOSH response on Simonds Saw, 

4 240.1.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. Yes. I was 

6 talking earlier, but you couldn't hear me, 

7 because I had the mute button pushed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh. Is that 

9 it? Okay. That'll do it every time.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. FARVER: Fortunately, I pushed 

12 it again instead of the off button which I do 

13 sometimes. That never works.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Simonds Saw, 

16 240.1.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, this is 

18 from, well, let me let you present.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'm in Simonds 

20 Saw and Steel, method used for measuring 

21 external submersion surface contamination dose 

22 is not claimant-favorable.
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: And, Doug, this is 

2 Scott. I just want to point out, that first 

3 portion is not accurate. It was not updated in 

4 between. We agree with that.

5 That is entirely my fault when these 

6 first responses went in. I apologize to 

7 everybody. It's really the green response that 

8 we need to be looking at.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

10 Question is, is this a TBD issue? It is a TBD 

11 issue. And we're waiting for their results. 

12 In that sense, I don't see that we would take 

13 any action. That is, this should be 

14 transferred over to TBD. And our portion of the 

15 activity should be closed.

16 MR. KATZ: I don't think it needs 

17 transferring, because I think it's addressed 

18 by, it's being addressed by the Work Group. 

19 Isn't that correct, John?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But, I mean, 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is not for, this does not require further 

2 action on the part of the Subcommittee.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. The only problem 

4 is that you can't really close it with respect 

5 to whether the finding is correct or not.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. You can't close 

7 it at this time, until after the Work Group has 

8 responded to you on what the --

9 MR. KATZ: Well, the Work Group is 

10 about to meet. So --

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are.

12 MR. KATZ: -- it'll be, if I'm not 

13 mistaken, we'll be addressing this then.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I see 

15 what you're saying.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John. This is 

17 going to be the case in many, many of the AWE 

18 cases that are before you. I know I looked at 

19 about 50 findings that came in on Thursday.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 DR. MAURO: A very large number of 

22 them make reference to revised Site Profiles. 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because many depend entirely on the matrix 

2 that's in the Site Profile.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 DR. MAURO: So there'll be many of 

5 these in the same situation.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. FARVER: That's what I wanted to 

8 get straight on how we're going to handle these. 

9 A lot of these are TBD revisions that are in 

10 process.

11 Do you want me to put in that action 

12 section that it's open pending update to TBD or 

13 something like that, no action?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's 

16 appropriate, yes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That has to 

18 be done, I think.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because I was 

20 looking at a lot of these, and we're going to 

21 run into this quite a bit.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Unfortunately.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can someone 

3 clarify, what is the implication in terms of the 

4 category, I guess, of the finding? Why can't 

5 we close them?

6 MR. KATZ: Well, because, I mean, it 

7 depends on what the finding is we're talking 

8 about. But if it's a finding as an issue as to 

9 whether the current, whether the procedure used 

10 in the dose reconstruction is correct and the 

11 TBD 6000 Work Group is still resolving the 

12 finding, in effect, as to whether they agree or 

13 not with the SC&A finding, there's no way to 

14 close it.

15 Because you don't have an answer to 

16 that question. You don't know if the dose 

17 reconstruction is correct or not. 

18 MR. FARVER: Well, we often have 

19 this issue that they say the procedure that was 

20 in effect at the time the evaluation was or was 

21 not used or implemented correctly, if we say we 

22 have a procedure that was in effect at the time 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we disagree with, then I think we need to punt 

2 it back to Procedures, for example.

3 Then that, you know, it sort of does 

4 seem like we can close it or we can say we're 

5 making an evaluation all the time on these in 

6 terms of whether it was done with the procedures 

7 in effect at the time that the case was evaluated 

8 --

9 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, I don't 

10 know. I think those two situations are 

11 different.

12 I mean, where in the dose 

13 reconstruction case review you raise an issue 

14 about whether a methodology is correct or not 

15 and that methodology gets resolved elsewhere, 

16 I don't think we've, in the past, resolved the 

17 cases themselves until we have an answer to the 

18 question is the science right or not.

19 But it makes more sense, I mean, then 

20 when you have, when you're reviewing your dates, 

21 I mean, this is sort of the overlap between case 

22 review, and Site Profile review and SEC reviews.
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I think you want them to be, you 

2 know, that overlap is good at sort of reassuring 

3 that you have that overlap, that you're having 

4 a finding of a case and it relates to the issue 

5 they're wrestling with on the TBD level or SEC 

6 level.

7 But again, I don't know how you close 

8 it until you know whether it's right or wrong.

9 MEMBER MUNN: What we've done in 

10 other venues is we've made the notation in the 

11 matrix that this is transferred to whatever Work 

12 Group or Subcommittee is dealing with it.

13 And we do not deal with it ourselves 

14 until we hear back from that source what their 

15 determination was. At that time, it becomes a 

16 question of whether or not there's a change 

17 going to be made.

18 For example, will there be a change 

19 in the existing TBD? Will there be a new 

20 revision? In which case, it then becomes an 

21 in-abeyance activity until NIOSH has, in fact, 

22 issued that revision. That's what we've done 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in other cases.

2 MR. KATZ: Right, but in this case, 

3 in this situation, that works fine for the Site 

4 Profile, I mean, for the Procedures 

5 Subcommittee when it's doing its business and 

6 it refers something to a site-specific Work 

7 Group. That works fine.

8 Here we have cases where we have 

9 findings on cases. Until you have the outcome 

10 into the finding, you can't close the case, I 

11 think. Because you don't have an answer as to 

12 whether the finding is correct or not.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

14 Stiver. I think we had that same situation on 

15 the Set Nine case. I believe it's Huntington 

16 Pilot Plant. We had to wait until the TBD 

17 issues were resolved.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. And we did.

19 MR. STIVER: That's an outstanding 

20 case or two --

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. And I think it's 

22 desirable to get that result first.
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Just, can I clarify? 

2 The Huntington, it's a different situation, 

3 because it was a mini-TBD review that was done 

4 as part of the 9th set. It wasn't just the 

5 claims in the 9th set.

6 MR. STIVER: That's right. But 

7 there were a couple of claims that were still 

8 outstanding in addition to the mini-review, as 

9 I recall. Maybe I'm not recalling it 

10 correctly, but I'm pretty sure that's what it 

11 was.

12 DR. MAURO: To throw a monkey wrench 

13 into this a little bit, I do a lot of the TBD 

14 reviews and the case reviews for AWE sites.

15 And when we have a little bit of 

16 ambiguity here, when I'm reviewing an AWE case 

17 that depends entirely on an exposure matrix that 

18 was not reviewed, okay, what I do is I review 

19 the exposure matrix, and I will have findings 

20 based on my review of that exposure matrix.

21 Now, however, if a review has 

22 already been performed on an exposure matrix, 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and there are a number of findings, and it is 

2 before a Work Group, like the AWE Work Group, 

3 and that's in process, okay, and then I get a 

4 case that uses that exposure matrix.

5 I simply point out that there are 

6 issues that have, I will say in my write-up, 

7 there are issues that we express concern that 

8 could have a bearing on this case. But I am not 

9 going to score this case negatively because of 

10 that, you see.

11 And I have to say, it may not be the

12 best way to do things, but I feel as if, that 

13 if they performed their dose reconstructions in 

14 accordance with the procedure that they said 

15 they followed.

16 Even though I may not like the 

17 procedure they followed, I do not score them 

18 negatively if that procedure is currently in the 

19 mill. So it's kind of a very strange place to 

20 be. But that's how I do it.

21 MR. KATZ: But, John, let me feed in 

22 here now. Because this is, what you're saying 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is sort of inconsistent with the discussion we 

2 had now, I think, going on two years ago with 

3 Jim Melius where he joined the Subcommittee.

4 And we were talking about the fact 

5 that we wanted consistency, and we wanted sort 

6 of more unification between Site Profile, SEC 

7 and this. We wanted to know that the case 

8 reviews were, in effect, consistent with the 

9 findings elsewhere.

10 In other words, we should be 

11 finding, in a case review, an issue that ends 

12 up resulting in an SEC action or what have you. 

13 Where it's possible to find those, we should be 

14 finding those.

15 And it's not in our review 

16 procedures to say that if they followed their 

17 TBD, it's correct. That is not part of our dose 

18 reconstruction review procedure, to say that.

19 DR. MAURO: But that's what we do on 

20 DOE sites.

21 MR. KATZ: Not when we have an issue 

22 with the procedure, we don't. I mean, I do want 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to --

2 DR. MAURO: I think we have a 

3 problem here.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. KATZ: There are cases where 

6 we've raised, and we did this analysis, again, 

7 two years ago. We looked at a bunch of cases 

8 and found, aha, yes, it's true. In a number of 

9 these case reviews we did, we had findings that 

10 were consistent, then, with findings that arose 

11 in the TBD or SEC review.

12 And that was actually encouraging to 

13 us that we were, in fact, finding the same thing 

14 if the case review. So we were not ignoring 

15 matters that, even though the TBDs that do it 

16 this way, we're not ignoring them if we 

17 disagreed with them.

18 I mean, we did that. And John 

19 Stiver, if you're on the line now, you may recall 

20 that. Because we did it for a set number of 

21 cases just to get a sense of this when Jim Melius 

22 raised this issue.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yes. I do recall 

2 there was some, there was some type of issues 

3 that were raised in the dose reconstruction. I 

4 don't recall off the top of my head if those were 

5 captured in the section 1.3 which, you know, 

6 that previously identified how all those 

7 findings are listed.

8 But they're actually sort of 

9 independently derived from the dose 

10 reconstructor. I remember there was fraction 

11 of cases that followed either category.

12 MR. KATZ: Right. And to go 

13 further, I mean, we very specifically said going 

14 forward we want to capture these. We want to 

15 be identifying problems with science, do case 

16 review as well if they're apparent to us.

17 So anyway, if you think big-picture 

18 in terms of what the Secretary's report ought 

19 to be, the Secretary wants to hear from a sample 

20 of cases how the dose constructions are going 

21 and not just from the basis of whether they're 

22 following their procedures and QA issues.
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean, if there are scientist views 

2 that are identified through the case review 

3 process, the Secretary wants to know those. So 

4 in these cases where we may have issues raised 

5 about the science, and then those get resolved 

6 elsewhere, we want those results when there is 

7 resolution elsewhere as part of our report to 

8 the Secretary.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

10 for this particular case, open pending TBD 

11 updates. And let's go on.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay, 240.2. The 

13 method used for assessing the proton dose from 

14 uranium billets. Exposure is not 

15 claimant-favorable. Looks like another TBD 

16 issue.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And NIOSH 

18 says it uses a large GSD, log-normal GSD. Could 

19 I ask, I don't understand, Doug, from what you 

20 said, why the method is not claimant-favorable.

21 MR. FARVER: I'm going to refer to 

22 John Mauro.
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: You know, I wish I could 

2 help you, but I have to refer to Bob Barton. 

3 He's our guru on, he did the Site Profile review 

4 and, I believe, case reviews. So there's one 

5 special area. I'm at a loss.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. STIVER: Now sadly, Bob Barton, 

8 I believe, is away this week on vacation.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay. 

10 So 240.1 is open. I think we just have to leave 

11 240.2 open.

12 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I know you 

13 want to move this along. But, Ted --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, that's 

15 okay. I mean, we have a person that's not here. 

16 And it isn't like we're not coming back to this. 

17 So we'll just have to keep it open. 

18 DR. MAURO: And I also have a 

19 question for Ted. So, Ted, if there is an open 

20 issue on Hanford, and we're doing the dose 

21 reconstruction and we don't agree with the 

22 neutron-to-photon ratio, which is an issue, 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 let's say that's being researched, delta that's 

2 historic, are you saying that, and we don't like 

3 that neutron-to-photon ratio, we should have a 

4 finding and score negatively the case because 

5 SC&A believes that's a bad neutron-to-photon 

6 ratio?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. And we actually 

8 talk, I mean, we talked about this. We also 

9 talked about actually whether it needed, 

10 whether we needed some sort of category or 

11 something which I think we discounted, that we 

12 don't, but to indicate these cases where it's 

13 going to be resolved elsewhere, I think.

14 But any problem we have with a dose 

15 reconstruction case, whether it is something 

16 that has to be resolved elsewhere or within this 

17 Subcommittee, they should all be indicated, 

18 yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. And that's a 

20 finding. Alright. I just wanted to make sure 

21 we got that clear. Because --

22 MR. KATZ: That's a finding. I 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean, that's a finding. If we have a problem 

2 with the science, it's a finding.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, got it. Okay.

4 MR. STIVER: Although there's one 

5 little wrinkle there that we probably ought to 

6 be aware of. It's kind of blurring the process 

7 that's in place in a way, at least maybe in my 

8 mind, for the PER process where there's a change 

9 to the TBD. And then NIOSH is going to go back 

10 and look at the cases that were affected and then 

11 make changes to them if need be.

12 MR. KATZ: The PER process is 

13 something NIOSH does when it changes the TBD. 

14 But that doesn't affect our review of cases that 

15 have been completed.

16 MR. STIVER: There was just a little 

17 concern that there might be sort of a, as kind 

18 of doubling the work really, in that sense as 

19 opposed to --

20 MR. KATZ: Well, whose work are we 

21 doubling? I mean, NIOSH does its TBD updates 

22 based on whatever, their own insights into 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 things that need to be improved as well as SC&A 

2 reviews of all these different matters, whether 

3 it's cases, or SECs or TBD reviews.

4 But all we're doing here is a proper 

5 accounting of the findings we have for each case 

6 that we review.

7 MR. STIVER: But, I guess, maybe 

8 John maybe can help me out here. You seem to 

9 be a little concerned about the situations where 

10 there are findings that have, say, come out of 

11 the TBD review --

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: -- that now you have 

14 resolved or are still in play.

15 MR. KATZ: Right.

16 MR. STIVER: And so we capture that 

17 in our dose reconstruction. But we don't score 

18 it as a negative. Because it wasn't in play at 

19 the time that they did the dose reconstruction.

20 MR. KATZ: Exactly right.

21 MR. STIVER: It's a matter of 

22 whether it was fair or not to hit NIOSH on 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something that they weren't aware of at the 

2 time.

3 But, you know, since reviews have 

4 changed and improved, then it becomes a 

5 situation where it would go back and be captured 

6 again there in NIOSH's PER process as opposed 

7 to a situation where a dose reconstructor might 

8 actually find some new problem with a TBD, that 

9 to the extent of the finding, that hadn't 

10 previously been identified. And I could see 

11 where that would be a fair assessment.

12 MR. KATZ: So you're saying to score 

13 negatively if it's found in the case review 

14 originally, but where it's accounted for 

15 because you're aware of it because of TBD 

16 reviews going on or an SEC, then you don't score 

17 it. Is that what you're saying?

18 MR. STIVER: It's the way I 

19 understand it, yes.

20 DR. MAURO: You know, 

21 unfortunately, I know this is important because 

22 I've been operating on the premise that if it's 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 an exposure matrix and it is under review, it 

2 is really a Site Profile issue. And it would 

3 be inappropriate for me to judge, at that point 

4 in time, while I'm doing a case and say, no, the 

5 external dose is incorrect because we don't like 

6 the model you used generically in your Site 

7 Profile. You know, it's --

8 MR. KATZ: But, John, I guess the 

9 thing I'm confused about, you're saying it's 

10 inappropriate to judge. But it's just what 

11 you're doing with everything, you're making 

12 your judgments as to whether there's a QA error 

13 or what have you. I mean, it doesn't get 

14 resolved until it's resolved. But you're not 

15 the final --

16 DR. MAURO: We know it's there. 

17 Don't get me wrong. It's there that we have 

18 this concern. But we don't give it a negative 

19 score.

20 In other words, as I say, you're 

21 talking about external dose, whatever it is. 

22 And the way they did it, and I don't like the 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 way the matrix does the external dose, for 

2 whatever reason.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: And I know that this is 

5 an issue that we're talking about. And this 

6 might be a very perfect example for Simonds Saw. 

7 It's going on right now.

8 And the very first comment you just 

9 read, that's a Site Profile issue. The 

10 question becomes, in the case that we're looking 

11 before us, apparently it was given a negative 

12 score.

13 And I guess I was a little bit 

14 surprised to see that because I thought that 

15 would be something we would not give a negative 

16 score. And so there was some judgment made by 

17 the active AWE review of that particular case, 

18 of that particular Site Profile. A little 

19 embarrassing to say this, but I guess --

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, but --

21 DR. MAURO: -- I'm not quite sure 

22 what the ground rules are here --
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. But again, going 

2 back, I mean, this is exactly the issue we 

3 discussed two years ago with Melius. And it was 

4 exactly his concern. He wanted to be certain 

5 that we were, in fact, doing this because he 

6 didn't want a bunch of dose reconstruction cases 

7 coming out and saying everything's fine and 

8 dandy.

9 And on the other hand, right over 

10 here in Door Number 2, they're saying this TBD 

11 is a mess and needs improvements. And he didn't 

12 want that conflict and asked us to look into this 

13 very question.

14 Actually, how are we doing about 

15 capturing things here, not expecting that every 

16 time we do a case review we're necessarily going 

17 to capture the same thing?

18 Because we're not really expected in 

19 this situation to capture half as many 

20 situations as you would when you're doing the 

21 TBD review and digging into all the background 

22 documentation.
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Yes. I thought that 

2 was why we put in 1.3 in the dose reconstruction 

3 format. It's there, we point it out, alert 

4 everyone that in this case there are several 

5 active issues that are undergoing review that 

6 could impact this case.

7 But we don't actually negatively 

8 score it. This goes toward more of the DOE 

9 sites. It doesn't happen as much on AWEs, 

10 because, you know, AWE --

11 MR. KATZ: I know, right.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know, I 

13 think what we can do, given I was not there when 

14 Melius met with us, that was before my time. 

15 But --

16 MR. KATZ: Well, I think you were 

17 actually. But --

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. KATZ: -- the beginning of your 

20 time, though. So I'm not --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it may 

22 have been. It may have been while Mark was 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Chair and I was just starting. Anyway, be that 

2 as it may, you're looking at this as scoring.

3 We can explain in the results that 

4 we send to the Secretary, the report that we send 

5 to the Secretary, that not all of these cases 

6 were errors.

7 In many cases, we updated procedures 

8 to improve upon the dose reconstruction. And 

9 so not everything that's listed in one of the 

10 categories is an error.

11 And therefore, not everything that 

12 we're categorizing is a negative score in your 

13 way of saying it. Is that helpful?

14 (No response.)

15 So, I mean, I think we were given 

16 instructions essentially from Jim at that time 

17 to score more issues.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. He wasn't saying 

19 to score more. He was just checking on his 

20 concern as to whether we were capturing these 

21 things or not. He wasn't saying score more, he 

22 was expecting that we were capturing these 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 things when we could, when it would be obvious 

2 in a case review.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

4 means operationally that we're scoring more 

5 than we need to. And John is saying, you know, 

6 I'm giving them a negative score by even citing 

7 this in our matrix. And that's true.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. And I think 

9 we're correct at verifying. We're capturing, 

10 well, at least identifying in a case what 

11 ongoing issues are at play that may impact that 

12 case at a future time, even though we're 

13 capturing what's going on in the other groups 

14 and procedures or --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. STIVER: -- Site Profile 

17 reviews. If something wells up as a result of 

18 the dose reconstruction, then we can go find it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. STIVER: And so I think we're 

21 all on the same page here. We're just 

22 expressing slightly differently.
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, we 

2 are. And I would like to go on.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on. I got it, 

4 and I've got to at least say something here. 

5 This is Grady.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. CALHOUN: We've got the guys 

8 that are doing the reviews that are somewhat 

9 concerned that they haven't been writing stuff 

10 down, because they didn't know the rules.

11 And the reason I say that is, almost 

12 by definition, we're going to get more findings 

13 now. And so I just, you know, and who's going 

14 to close them out? Is it going to be the 

15 Procedures group, is it going to be our group? 

16 Are we just going to throw them all to the Board?

17 I'm just worried that that's 

18 muddling something up now that's going to get 

19 captured. I'd rather just, if you find them, 

20 great, but think of a mechanism to send them to 

21 somebody else or else, we're making great 

22 progress in this group now, and I don't see how 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's not going to throw a major wrench in 

2 things. Because now, if you say, well, you 

3 know, I really think that those could be higher, 

4 then we've got to somehow explain how. And who 

5 closes this out? It could be already being 

6 reviewed. I don't like it.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. STIVER: -- here, in that you 

9 might be doing things on a case by case basis 

10 and getting a lot of duplication which I think 

11 might have been one of the reasons we went to 

12 Work Groups in the first place, is to capture 

13 all the things that related to our TBD revision 

14 at one time as opposed --

15 MEMBER MUNN: If you can stand a 

16 sixth perspective on the issue, if, I believe 

17 that what the exercise we went through with Jim 

18 a couple of years ago did what it was intended 

19 to do, that is to say it reassured us that we 

20 were not dropping these things through the 

21 cracks and we were not exercising them unduly, 

22 I think John Mauro's case is well taken.
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We have taken the position from the 

2 outset, I believe, that we are doing two things 

3 here. One is we're checking to see whether or 

4 not the folks who did the dose reconstruction 

5 did them properly.

6 And the only way we can do that is 

7 to assess whether they followed the procedures 

8 that were in place at the time.

9 The key is, once we make that 

10 definition, if the end result is, yes, they were 

11 okay at the time, but there's an outstanding 

12 issue with respect to the science of some point, 

13 then we do not close it in our matrix.

14 That's just exactly what Dave asked 

15 to begin with. We don't close it. We indicate 

16 that this will be closed when the matter is 

17 addressed and revised in the TBD following the 

18 discussion in the Work Group.

19 And I think that is the reassurance 

20 that we've had after we looked at the process 

21 to make sure that we were, in fact, doing what 

22 we needed to do.
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But John Mauro is absolutely 

2 correct. From my memory, we have always worked 

3 on the assumption that if the folks did what they 

4 were instructed to do by the procedures, then 

5 they did it right.

6 However, we can't close the issue, 

7 because the science is under debate in some 

8 other forum. And until that revised issue is 

9 resolved, we can't close it. Does that make 

10 sense?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It does.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. Wanda, 

13 everything you said is absolutely the way I'm 

14 thinking about it. But where we run into 

15 trouble is the scorecard, you know, when we say 

16 we have a finding, okay.

17 I would say, and certainly I'll be 

18 corrected, if one of the items where you put a 

19 check mark in that Table 2 says yes or no or not 

20 applicable, now if it turns out there is an 

21 active issue related to one of those line items, 

22 the C.1.1, and it is an active issue in the Site 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Profile related to that particular subject and 

2 is yet to be resolved, but they did, in fact, 

3 do the dose calculation according to the 

4 procedures as they were currently in effect when 

5 they did it, I do not say no.

6 I say, I give it a yes. So right 

7 now, the record that we're creating, where we're 

8 going over each of the findings, those findings 

9 are not here. You see what I'm getting at?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I do.

11 DR. MAURO: The finding that we have 

12 an issue with regard to a particular item in the 

13 Site Profile is not captured in the record we're 

14 creating right now.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. STIVER: Well, remember we also 

17 have a category called under review.

18 DR. MAURO: I take it back. You're 

19 absolutely correct.

20 MR. KATZ: But that's a finding.

21 DR. MAURO: You're absolutely 

22 correct.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it's a 

2 finding.

3 DR. MAURO: So I am mistaken. 

4 You're right. We have been using the under 

5 review check mark to keep that active. And is 

6 that a finding? I mean, I'm asking a stupid 

7 question. But in the findings we're talking 

8 about, do they include the under-review ones 

9 also?

10 MR. STIVER: It means the impacts of 

11 the deficiency cannot be determined at this 

12 time.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Right, right. I mean 

15 you don't even know that it's a deficiency until 

16 it's resolved.

17 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

18 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

19 Behling. I just want to interject one other, 

20 or two other issues. As we mentioned, this is 

21 why I thought we had included, in our report, 

22 a Section 1.3 which is supposed to identify that 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is an ongoing Work Group that is 

2 discussing the Site Profile that is part of our 

3 dose reconstruction.

4 So because we're doing that, we're 

5 already stating up front that there are some 

6 issues, even if we have an issue, it's probably 

7 being discussed in another forum.

8 And John Mauro's comments are 

9 appropriate for a lot of the AWEs, because what 

10 has started to happen, under what we maybe would 

11 classify as an advanced review, is for the AWEs 

12 that don't have a Work Group or that SC&A is not 

13 going to look at an exposure matrix, we've been 

14 given, I felt that we'd been given a green light 

15 to look closer at that exposure matrix.

16 So nothing has fallen through the 

17 cracks because, while we do a dose 

18 reconstruction, we're also looking at technical 

19 issues associated with that exposure matrix. 

20 And then those become findings in that dose 

21 reconstruction audit.

22 DR. MAURO: True.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right. So there's 

2 nothing, I think then, I'm just trying to get 

3 back to Grady's concern about the whole process 

4 being somehow hogtied by having other groups 

5 that have to resolve their, Hanford or whoever 

6 it is, that has to resolve their TBD or SEC 

7 review findings.

8 So, I mean, you can go two paths with 

9 this. You can leave these then in terms of 

10 trying to go forward, I think, the Subcommittee 

11 could leave those just as, I think, whoever most 

12 recently characterized it, these things are 

13 under consideration. And you could report out 

14 iterating the number of findings that are under 

15 consideration and hence not resolved. Or you 

16 could report them out after you close it.

17 And I guess if we're trying to get 

18 a report to the Secretary, we may want to just 

19 go ahead with that path of leaving findings 

20 unresolved but to be resolved, you know, through 

21 this kind of science review process that's 

22 external from the case review process.
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. You may want to do 

3 that because you do want to get a report to the 

4 Secretary.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

6 that's the way to take it into account in the 

7 report.

8 MR. KATZ: Right. So you'll still 

9 have the findings; they'll be tabulated. But 

10 then you're going to have this category of 

11 findings that's, you know, the science is under 

12 review, in effect. And then we don't lose 

13 anything.

14 MR. STIVER: I have a little bit of 

15 deja vu going on here.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Deja vu's 

17 probably good in this case.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think so. It's 

19 definitely been done this way before.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

21 anyway, this 240.2 is under review or, as we said 

22 before, as we said up above, open, right?
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: I have a list --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Unless you 

3 want to call, you want to say under review or 

4 to go to the --

5 MR. FARVER: I have it currently 

6 listed as open pending updates to TBD.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, let's 

8 do that again here.

9 DR. MAURO: I think that's the way 

10 to do it, yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

12 we can now look at three, .3.

13 MR. FARVER: .3, it goes back to PFG 

14 X-rays at AWE sites. And we have resolved this 

15 where PFGs should not be used for AWEs. Now, 

16 there's a time period where they were saying 

17 they thought they should be. But this has been 

18 resolved for a while now.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The PFG is, 

20 please, remind me?

21 DR. MAURO: Photofluorographic 

22 X-rays as opposed to classical chest X-rays.
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

2 Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: And then the doses are 

4 much, much higher.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

6 Absolutely.

7 DR. MAURO: And as a result, and 

8 there was a time when the standard, when you're 

9 dealing with DOEs, this is a good thing for 

10 everybody to, again, deja vu. You know, after 

11 ten years it's important to refresh your memory 

12 on these things to make sure we're all on the 

13 same page.

14 DOE in OTIB-6, I believe it is, and 

15 60, there's a couple of them, takes the position 

16 that PFG should be assumed to be the case as 

17 something that they did routinely.

18 Even if the records aren't, there's 

19 no clear affirmative evidence of it prior to 

20 1970, assume PFG is used -- and that was very 

21 important, and that's at DOE sites -- unless 

22 there's affirmative evidence to the contrary.
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, for AWE sites, we don't do 

2 that. And there's a good reason for that. And 

3 this is something that was resolved quite some 

4 time ago. But it's good for you to be reminded 

5 of it.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Because the AWE sites 

8 are under contract with the Atomic Energy 

9 Commission or the MED at the time. And if the 

10 contract did not call for X-rays, or PFG or 

11 whatever, they would not be automatically 

12 assigned.

13 So that's where the contract itself 

14 has to be clear and unambiguous. Say yes, in 

15 fact, they did do X-rays, whether it's X-rays 

16 or PFG.

17 But the PFG issue is very important 

18 for DOE sites pre-1970 where, unless they 

19 revised the procedure, you automatically 

20 assumed that the person did get a PFG annually 

21 as part of his routine exposure examination. 

22 And that's quite a dose, three rem.
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

2 DR. MAURO: I think it was three rem 

3 per examination, on that order, as opposed to 

4 whatever, 10 millirem. But I'm not sure if I 

5 got the numbers right.

6 But is that everyone's, and folks 

7 there at, you know, DCAS and ORAU, am I telling 

8 the story in a correct way? Or am I just 

9 revealing that I've lost touch?

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. No, 

11 you're right on. I would clarify one thing, 

12 that PFGs are not always claimant-favorable. 

13 It's dependent on the organ and whether it's in 

14 the beam or not.

15 DR. MAURO: Okay.

16 MR. SIEBERT: But other than that, 

17 as to why PFGs are not assumed at AWE, yes, 

18 you're right on there.

19 DR. MAURO: Right.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 DR. MAURO: That's reassuring to 

22 me, believe me. Because I realize that I've 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been away from deep involvement the way I was 

2 originally. And it's very easy for me, and this 

3 program's very complex, and it's very easy to 

4 abstract.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. But those 

7 fluorographic examinations resulted in 

8 exposures in many cases, more than a magnitude 

9 above what the actual occupational and --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: -- and the 

12 operational that were very important.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

15 Alright, for basic, that also was a public 

16 health problem --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- outside of 

19 our worker population. Okay. Well, that 

20 should be closed now, right?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on.
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay, 240.4, method 

2 for reconstructing doses, inhalation of 

3 resuspended residual uranium contamination may 

4 not be claimant-favorable.

5 As noted in the SC&A response, there 

6 are additional issues being resolved for 

7 Simonds Saw and the impact of previous changes 

8 to the Site Profile. And upcoming changes will 

9 be examined when the update is completed.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

11 this is an open issue.

12 MR. FARVER: Looks like another 

13 open pending update.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pending TBD 

15 6000.

16 MR. FARVER: And 240.5 looks very --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Wait a second, wait a 

18 second. This is Scott. I think this is 

19 slightly different.

20 We have agreed that the method 

21 needed to be changed. And it already has been 

22 changed in the most recent TBD. All we're 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying is that additional determination of the 

2 impact will not be done as a PER until all issues 

3 in the TBD that are still out there are being 

4 resolved.

5 We've already agreed this issue has 

6 been resolved in the present TBD. So I think 

7 this is a different category --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see.

9 MR. SIEBERT: -- than we were just 

10 discussing.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. So 

12 this is resolved. But still, the results are 

13 pending, the review is pending.

14 MR. KATZ: No. This one you can 

15 just close. Because there's agreement on the 

16 science, and it's resolved.

17 MEMBER MUNN: And there is an 

18 automatic redo that falls on every revision to 

19 a TBD of this sort.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Every case that might 

22 be affected by that change is redone 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 automatically by NIOSH.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. How 

3 do we express this?

4 MR. FARVER: This is a TBD change 

5 that has been implemented.

6 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

9 Behling. While we're waiting for just one 

10 second, shouldn't there also be some numbering 

11 system under 240.2 and 240.3 that ties us back 

12 to the Table 2 findings. I don't see that in 

13 the matrix.

14 MR. FARVER: I inserted them, 

15 Kathy. I didn't see them in here, but I went 

16 back to the report, and I put them in. It's 

17 C.1.1 and C.1.3.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

19 Thank you.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Changes to TBD 

21 6000 have been implemented. There is no 

22 further action.
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, 0.5. It looks 

3 like that's similar.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it does.

5 MR. FARVER: And it looks like it 

6 should have a similar answer.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There is not 

8 the mention of TBD 6000 or --

9 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the reason we 

10 didn't mention that in every single one was the 

11 fact that all of these where we've already 

12 agreed, what we weren't going to do is determine 

13 the impact on it, because that is what's going 

14 to be done under the PER when everything is 

15 completed. So I just didn't put that comment 

16 in every single response where that --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Alright.

19 MR. FARVER: So is this the same 

20 issue as above, Scott?

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. It's a 

22 resuspension issue.
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: This is important. See, 

3 this is a good news story, you know. We looked 

4 at an issue that came up that we were concerned 

5 about, the resuspension factor, et cetera, et 

6 cetera. And we may have raised it.

7 But another part of the process, the 

8 issue has been resolved in the process. And it 

9 closes the loop for this case in a very 

10 satisfactory way.

11 But the actual doses have not been, 

12 see, interesting, have not been recalculated 

13 because the PER process hasn't begun yet. In 

14 a funny sort of way, this story is the entire 

15 story of this whole program.

16 MEMBER MUNN: It is. It's going to 

17 work.

18 DR. MAURO: It's working.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay, 240.6.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: These are questions 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whether the activity fractions for Pu-239 and 

2 neptunium-239 are appropriate and 

3 claimant-favorable. That should be 

4 neptunium-237, I believe.

5 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. And I guess the 

7 gist of this is the TBD has been revised, 

8 Revision 1. And Revision 1, the derived intake 

9 for plutonium and neptunium are higher than they 

10 were in Revision PC-1.

11 MEMBER MUNN: But then they will be 

12 covered in the PER.

13 MR. FARVER: I don't believe this is 

14 an issue anymore.

15 MEMBER MUNN: No.

16 MR. FARVER: Close?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: No further action. 

19 240.7, reviewer questions whether the 

20 assumptions used for calculating thorium 

21 inhalation are claimant-favorable.

22 It's been addressed in the Site 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Profile and an SEC. I guess, just according to 

2 the SEC, this is no longer an issue either. 

3 Because it's covered under the SEC.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: The ability to 

6 reconstruct thorium exposure.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. FARVER: So that'll be a closed, 

9 no further action.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MR. FARVER: And 240.8, the method 

12 for reconstruction thorium doses from the 

13 inhalation of resuspended residual 

14 contamination may not be claimant-favorable.

15 I believe Revision I of the TKBS-32 

16 does cover for an exposure during residual 

17 periods.

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is one of those 

19 that we have addressed the resuspension issue. 

20 However, there's additional open issues with 

21 residual internal doses with TBD 6000 with the 

22 Work Group.
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I think this is probably one of 

2 those that would still be open. The present TBD 

3 reflects it, however there are still upcoming 

4 ideas as to whether that's fully appropriate or 

5 not that the Working Group is looking at.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. FARVER: Well, just for my 

8 information, the resuspended issue has been 

9 addressed, but you're still working on some 

10 other internal dose issues.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. 240.9, methods 

15 for reconstructing doses from the ingestion of 

16 resuspended residual thorium contamination may 

17 not be claimant-favorable. Similar?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: This would be 

21 identical. It's just inhalation and 

22 ingestion.
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. Open pending 

2 update to TBD. 240.10, some of the interview 

3 information is not consistent with the data used 

4 in the dose reconstruction.

5 And this has to do with, in the CATI 

6 report, an employee recalled working up to 60 

7 hours per week including weekends. But the 

8 hours were not adjusted in the dose 

9 reconstruction to accommodate this or any 

10 mention made of it. So that was the basis for 

11 the finding.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

13 what SC&A understands and accepts, that the 

14 person did not work 60 hours or that he did?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, he did not appear 

16 to be, likely.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm going to have 

18 to, I can't tell you how to write this answer. 

19 So --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

21 MR. FARVER: That's not a good 

22 excuse, but I can look into it. We can keep it 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 open if you'd like. A lot of these I send off 

2 to people to get responses to, because I'm just 

3 not familiar with AWE sites.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it did 

5 not appear likely, yes.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. I did not, well,

7 this is John. I normally would have looked at, 

8 I looked at a real large number of issues that 

9 came in last week. And let me see if, is this 

10 one of those?

11 Because I went through all of those. 

12 And I have in front of me the, it's part of the 

13 General Steel. But it went down to a whole 

14 bunch of other cases, different AWE sites. Is 

15 this? I might have looked at this.

16 MR. FARVER: I believe you looked at 

17 it.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: This one refers you to 

20 the DOL file.

21 DR. MAURO: I'm just looking to see 

22 if Simonds Saw is among the cases that came in. 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Bethlehem Steel is here. But I'm looking, just 

2 bear with me.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's a 

4 different file, I believe.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, I know. No, see 

6 the package that I looked at, all the AWE, did 

7 not include Simonds Saw. Otherwise, I would 

8 have looked at this and been in a better position 

9 to help out here. But I have to apologize. 

10 This is not among the package of AWE issues --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 DR. MAURO: -- that came in last 

13 Wednesday or Thursday.

14 MR. FARVER: No. This came in a 

15 week before that or so that I sent you.

16 DR. MAURO: You know, and --

17 MR. FARVER: You emailed me back, 

18 and I --

19 DR. MAURO: It probably went, okay, 

20 go ahead, keep going.

21 MR. FARVER: And you emailed me 

22 back. You didn't update the matrix. You just 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had some responses to the text --

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: -- for certain ones. 

4 And if I could find the email, I would read it.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Just to point out, 

7 this SC&A response is back from February of this 

8 year.

9 MR. KATZ: Right, I was going to 

10 say.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay, this goes way back.

12 MR. KATZ: Way back. And, John, 

13 you didn't have any new information on it?

14 DR. MAURO: I don't. And I have to 

15 say, I'd have to refresh my memory, and I did 

16 not, for this. I probably could have helped out 

17 here, but I just did not have the presence of 

18 mind to go back and to look at these.

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We'll keep 

21 this open.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Well, what it really 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comes down to is there are additional, when you 

2 look in the DOL files, there are additional 

3 places where the individual was employed during 

4 the same time frames based on pay records from 

5 the Social Security Administration, it looks 

6 like.

7 So it seemed to make sense to us that 

8 maybe he did work a lot of hours, but not 

9 necessarily all of them were at Simonds Saw and 

10 Steel. That's the basis of the answer here.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's what it 

13 appears to be. If he's working somewhere else, 

14 then he's not putting in 60 hours a week at 

15 Simonds Saw.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. And I would 

17 assume, John, you may not remember, but back in 

18 February you reviewed this and accepted it. I 

19 would sort of take that on faith.

20 DR. MAURO: I believe you.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And again, I should have 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 refreshed my memory on this. And it may very 

2 well be that Bob too, because I know Bob and I 

3 worked very closely on -- there was actually a 

4 transition where I moved off Simonds Saw and Bob 

5 moved in. So I might not be as close to it as 

6 I should be.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So the 

8 claimant has approved the list of his employment 

9 records --

10 MEMBER MUNN: No. DOL does that. 

11 DOL tells us whether --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

13 Okay. So DOL has done that. And there are, 

14 okay, there are records of other places that he 

15 worked --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Where he worked.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- at that 

18 time. Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

21 so you went back and put it in at 40 hours at 

22 Simonds Saw.
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is what 

3 you will do.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Or did not cover the 

5 period from --

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. KATZ: Dose reconstruction was 

8 correct. And SC&A's in effect withdrawing, 

9 having looked at the records that Scott referred 

10 to, allows that he couldn't have worked 60 

11 hours.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: And you're saying that 

14 was previously discussed and closed?

15 MR. KATZ: No. It's being closed 

16 now. It has been discussed. It's been sitting 

17 on the, you know, on the back to be closed.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is, in a 

19 way, this is not a finding, is it?

20 MR. KATZ: Well, it would have been 

21 a finding if it was, I mean, it would have been 

22 a finding if it were correct that he worked 60 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hours and not been credited for it.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

3 Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: But that doesn't seem to 

5 be the case.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

7 then this is actually just to be closed.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: Yes. I think what was 

10 done, this is the CATI information thing again. 

11 You know, it was information in the CATI report 

12 that --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. FARVER: -- does not appear to 

15 be considered.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, no. I mean, but if 

17 they looked at the documentation, that's what 

18 they based it on, not the CATI which doesn't mean 

19 they didn't discuss it in the CATI in the dose 

20 reconstruction report. But it sounds like they 

21 used the correct basis for --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: -- adjustments.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And they 

3 followed-up on the CATI.

4 MR. KATZ: Right, yes.

5 MR. FARVER: All we're saying is the 

6 CATI information is not consistent with what we 

7 used in the DR. So it's --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: -- findings we used to 

10 make all the time about the information in the 

11 CATI report --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: -- and what this works 

14 out to be, you know. There's information in the 

15 CATI report that is not used, not acknowledged.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

17 they explain --

18 MEMBER MUNN: And that was because 

19 there's documentation that shows otherwise.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

21 And this has been examined. Closed.

22 MR. FARVER: Well, that's okay now. 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But it just wasn't in the DR report.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

3 Therefore it could be closed.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now, 

7 look. It is now 4:30. We need to close at 

8 5:00. And the question is how to proceed. We 

9 have a few more [cases] in this file.

10 As I understand, we have a couple of 

11 open ones in ORNL and, three, and we have two 

12 open findings in the Fernald/Hanford file. And 

13 we have several in this file, right? I looked 

14 before. Let me ask you, this would come to be 

15 about a dozen, roughly. Well, the observations 

16 will take us time. But clearly we need another 

17 meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. And don't you 

19 have, you have pictures from other sites too, 

20 right, like GSI and so on?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

22 that was this morning, right? That's your 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sense, a file?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: So definitely we need 

6 another meeting, right. So I guess I think it's 

7 a good idea, Dave, to sort of run through these 

8 other logistics first before we carry on. Do 

9 you want to schedule another meeting first 

10 before we do anything?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, what 

12 other logistics, I mean, we --

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, no. I mean, but we 

14 have these other items on the agenda that we 

15 might touch upon. But not all of them we need 

16 to touch upon. But at least one I want to talk 

17 to you about.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

19 I would just say for the moment, we're talking 

20 about this, let's simply set the most reasonable 

21 date that we can as quickly as we can, given the 

22 60 day notice.
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. It's always, it's 

2 a 30 --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thirty day 

4 notice, sorry.

5 MR. KATZ: Thirty day notice. And 

6 then there's about, I mean, another week on top 

7 of that to actually get it through our system.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. July 

9 9th, this is July 7th.

10 MR. KATZ: So I would say --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: September, 

12 early September?

13 MR. KATZ: Well, I would say we 

14 could do it in August. I don't see why, if you 

15 guys can make it in August, it would be better 

16 to meet in August.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It would be 

18 fine to meet in August. I'm anticipating that 

19 it would be very hard, given some people's 

20 vacation plans. But that's to be determined.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. Let's give it a 

22 shot. Because, I mean, the agenda's set. We 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have all this work sitting on the table.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We sure do.

3 MR. KATZ: So I mean, for example, 

4 I think, people, just speak up. From August 

5 16th, or 17th or 18th, as soon as that, I think, 

6 I could get, you know, Federal Register notice 

7 out and we'd be fine.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: How about the 20th?

10 MR. KATZ: Or that we --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm out that 

12 week entirely.

13 MR. KATZ: Which week, David?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The week of 

15 the 16th.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's fine.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For 

18 vacation.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. So how about the 

20 week of the 21st?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's see.

22 MEMBER MUNN: The 21st of August?
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: 21st of --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, 25th of 

3 August.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry, right, 

5 right, right, I'm on the wrong month here.

6 MEMBER MUNN: No. I was going to 

7 say, 21st is not a start. How about --

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 MEMBER MUNN: -- August 26th?

10 MR. SIEBERT: I believe there's a 

11 Procedures Subcommittee meeting on the 28th and 

12 --

13 MEMBER MUNN: On the 28th, that's 

14 correct.

15 MR. SIEBERT: On the 28th, right.

16 MEMBER MUNN: So the 26th would be 

17 good.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 26th works 

19 for me.

20 MR. KATZ: How about everyone else?

21 MR. CALHOUN: It works for me. 

22 This is Grady.
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: How about David 

2 Richardson and, did you say yes, that's okay?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'll be out on 

4 the 28th.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we're 

6 talking about Tuesday, the 26th.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

9 could do that one.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mark?

11 MR. KATZ: I didn't hear David 

12 Richardson. Was that okay, the 26th?

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, it's not.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, then that does it. 

15 Okay, well, anytime that week are you saying or 

16 --

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm going to be 

18 in Seattle that week. I have a conference 

19 there.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's fine.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

22 fine. If we could get, if Mark or John were 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 available that would be a fourth person.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. I need to get that 

3 before I can go forward.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm just 

5 saying--

6 MR. KATZ: And Mark, I've always --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mark, I don't 

8 hear.

9 MR. KATZ: [interruption] -- with 

10 Mark because it doesn't rule his life so much.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: So can we do this on 

13 the 14th then?

14 MR. KATZ: The 14th of what?

15 MEMBER MUNN: August. Is that 

16 pushing too close?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I cannot do 

18 the week of the 13th. I mean, that entire week 

19 I'm out.

20 MEMBER MUNN: So you're gone the two 

21 weeks.

22 MR. KATZ: Let's move to another 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 date. Because let's at least get a date when 

2 everyone on the phone can do it here.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

4 that's September.

5 MR. KATZ: It looks like it is. So 

6 September is getting pretty busy. So how about 

7 September, well, September 1st is Labor Day. 

8 That's not happening. September 2nd?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: I have to travel to 

10 get back to Cincinnati that day.

11 MEMBER MUNN: How about the 4th?

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, that's right, no. 

13 So that week's no good.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's Fernald and 

15 --

16 MR. KATZ: That's no good for that 

17 week. And the next week is no good because Brad 

18 is out for a chunk of the next, oh no, Brad's 

19 not.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm not.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I'm gone the whole 

22 week of the 8th.
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that's no good. 

2 Okay. So we're well into September now. The 

3 week of the 15th?

4 MEMBER MUNN: We have our ABRWH 

5 telecon on the 17th, right?

6 MR. KATZ: Right. That's on the 

7 17th --

8 MEMBER MUNN: 15th or 16th?

9 MR. KATZ: How about the 16th or the 

10 18th? Or the 15th, whatever.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 16th or 18th 

13 is okay for me, Tuesday or Thursday. We have 

14 a Board conference call on --

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, on Wednesday. So 

16 is the 16th or the 18th okay with you, David?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 18th works.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, 18th. And Wanda?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. And, Brad, 18th?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: September?
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let's go for 

3 the 18th. And then I'll make a note to {John} 

4 Poston and to Mark.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: September 18th.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 10:30?

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, same thing.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. The one other 

11 thing to check with you guys about is selecting 

12 Set 21.

13 Oh, first of all, just to remind 

14 those of you that have not sent me your picks 

15 for the blind cases, I need those. So please 

16 send them in to me. I just need you to identify 

17 the cases by the case numbers. That's all I 

18 need, in an email or what have you.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

20 I will get you that last one, sorry.

21 MR. KATZ: Right, right. And then 

22 I just need them from the other Board Members 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that I don't have them from. Some have already 

2 responded.

3 So selecting Set 21, I'm just 

4 assuming we're okay with sticking with our 

5 selection criteria that we used for the first 

6 30 cases that we selected for this year for SC&A 

7 to review. We'll use those same --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: -- criteria for the 

10 second set of 30.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Let's please do.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

13 good. So as soon as the blind cases, as soon 

14 as I have those selected, then I'll go forward 

15 with asking NIOSH to pull candidate cases for 

16 the second set of 30. But I've got to get the 

17 blind cases in first.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

20 MR. KATZ: So I just wanted to make 

21 sure that's okay with you. And that's it. 

22 Then we can, you know, that's it. That's all 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I needed to cover before we can carry on with 

2 cases or whatever for the last 15 minutes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is 

4 there anything we can do or should do about the 

5 Board report? Or are there any preliminary 

6 activities that should be carried on or could 

7 be carried on?

8 MR. KATZ: And I think, I thought we 

9 would be further along. But since we still have 

10 a significant chunk to finish, I don't think we 

11 can really get SC&A drafting up. Because what 

12 they would do, there're like data tables and so 

13 on to summarize --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

15 MR. KATZ: -- things. And we can't 

16 really get them doing that.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Could 

18 somebody resolve, I mean, the last full report 

19 I have from John Stiver was that there are a 

20 total, on April 29th you said there were a total 

21 of 82 that needed doing.

22 And we probably went over ten of them 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 today. By looking at the files that I've been 

2 presented with by Doug, it doesn't seem to me 

3 that we have anywhere near that number. And 

4 what's missing?

5 MR. STIVER: Those were 82 

6 findings. I don't know.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh --

8 MR. STIVER: Not cases.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

10 okay, 82 findings. Alright. Because like 

11 today we had one finding with ten, one case with 

12 ten findings. Fine. Because I do believe we 

13 can finish up if we push hard --

14 MR. KATZ: At the next meeting.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- at the 

16 next meeting.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I hope we 

19 can put a focus on getting that done.

20 MR. STIVER: I'd like to see them 

21 all done. I'm sure there has to be work to --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I hope we can force ourselves to focus tight on 

2 those.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: Dave, this is Doug. 

6 I'm going to go through each one of those and 

7 check it off to verify that number.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: You know, in the past 

10 when we did these sets by complete set, all the 

11 findings were in one matrix.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: But now, since we are 

14 jumping around by site, the bookkeeping's a 

15 little trickier. So I want to go through and 

16 just, you know, make sure I account for every 

17 finding. And then I can give you whether that 

18 number's good or not.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I appreciate 

20 that. I will admit that that has been a little 

21 crazy. And, in fact, if I were a little bit on 

22 top of it, I probably should have started with 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Oak Ridge today which we don't have too many 

2 findings on.

3 Two of the three files had not too 

4 many findings. And the one we covered today had 

5 lots of findings. So I'd appreciate if you were 

6 to do that and send it out.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then the 

8 other, just to keep things rolling with the rest 

9 too, I think NIOSH folks had gotten a start on 

10 Sets 14 through 18 with answers. But we want 

11 to just keep that process going.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: Even though the 

14 Subcommittee hasn't gotten to resolving any of 

15 them, if NIOSH will keep chewing away at 

16 answering the findings for those sets, that'd 

17 be great.

18 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. 

19 That's exactly what we're doing.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes, thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

22 Appreciate it.
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Good, that's great.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

3 is there anything more to say on blind reviews?

4 MR. KATZ: No. We just don't have 

5 time to mess with that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

7 Okay. Sounds good. Folks, thank you all very 

8 much. Have a very good rest of the summer, 

9 although we will be meeting before the end of 

10 the summer anyway. So I'll see or speak to many 

11 of you later.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you, 

14 everybody.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

16 matter went off the record 4:40 p.m.)

17

18

19

20

21

22
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9