1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

APRIL 28, 2016

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via

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

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, ORAU Team

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT 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 www.nealrgross.com

Contents

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL ............................ 4

CASE REVIEW ISSUE RESOLUTION FOR SETS 10-13 ...... 4

CASE REVIEWS ISSUE RESOLUTION FOR SETS 14-18 ... 178

OAK RIDGE ....................................... 19

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE.............................. 26

HANFORD ........................................ 125

FERNALD, MOUND AND RFP ........................ 1819
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:33 a.m.)

3 WELCOME AND ROLL CALL

4 MR. KATZ: We'll begin with roll call, 

5 but let me just note for anyone in the public that 

6 the agenda is on the NIOSH website under the EEOICPA 

7 section, the OCAS section for scheduled meetings, 

8 today's date.

9 But there are really no substantial 

10 materials available for the public, because we're 

11 talking about cases here. Let me do conflict of 

12 interest. And I'll just run through those.

13 (Roll call.)

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, Dave. It's your 

15 meeting.

16 CASE REVIEW ISSUE RESOLUTION FOR SETS 10-13

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

18 You all have the agenda. And first item on the 

19 agenda is one of the two remaining unreviewed cases 

20 from Sets 10 through 13. Folks probably remember 

21 that Sets 6 through 13 were Cases 101 to 334, 234 

22 cases. Two were not reviewed, and this is one of 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 them, because they were awaiting further action.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correction. We did 

3 review it. We didn't review two cases, but this 

4 is the case we reviewed. We just haven't finished 

5 the resolution yet.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The question is 

7 whether this --- I thought this was one that was 

8 not included in our report to the Secretary.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, it is included.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is included, 

11 alright. Well, maybe you should present, and I'll 

12 check my notes, or whomever is to be presenting on 

13 this.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Is John Mauro 

15 still online?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'm online. And if 

17 you folks are ready to go with Coppers, Tab 282, 

18 I'd be glad to go through that quickly.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. Coppers is an AWE 

21 facility. And it basically did uranium 

22 conversion. There was a DR review done by NIOSH 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in 2007. SC&A reviewed it and prepared its report 

2 in February 2011. And it was discussed at a 

3 September 24th, 2015 Subcommittee meeting.

4 The essence of the Subcommittee meeting 

5 was that our concerns were that, at the time that 

6 NIOSH performed the DR, it relied heavily on 

7 TBD6001. This is a generic TBD that applies to all 

8 uranium conversion facilities.

9 It turned out, in the interim, between 

10 the time when NIOSH performed its DR and when we 

11 reviewed it and then met, TBD6001 was withdrawn.

12 So it left us in a position where we 

13 really couldn't -- because the dose reconstruction 

14 itself, you know, presented its doses and said it 

15 was based on TBD6001, our position was, well, you 

16 know, it's hard for us to say anything about it, 

17 because now that TBD6001 no longer exists we 

18 basically need to go back to first principles,

19 which is the source document for TBD6001, 

20 Christofano and Harris.

21 And this was discussed during the 

22 September 24th, 2015 meeting. The Subcommittee 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 asked SC&A to go ahead and write it up, you know, 

2 write up its, what you would call first principle 

3 evaluation going back to the source document, 

4 Christofano and Harris.

5 And we did that. And we submitted our 

6 report to the Subcommittee on October 6th, 2015. 

7 And we explained that we had two issues. I 

8 wouldn't call them findings. We just had two 

9 things that we thought it was important that we 

10 discuss. And we wrote that up. And you have the 

11 report. It's been there.

12 And then on April 26th, the day before 

13 yesterday, David Allen prepared a response to the 

14 two issues. And I did have a chance to review it 

15 carefully. And thank you, David, for sending it. 

16 It does, bottom line, it does address our two 

17 concerns. And for the reasons I will briefly 

18 describe, we are recommending closing those two 

19 items in favor of NIOSH.

20 Let me briefly explain what they are, 

21 so we can get that on the record.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: The external dose 

2 basically, in our view, consisted of two elements. 

3 One was the worker might stand close to a 55 gallon 

4 drum containing various types of uranium, uranium 

5 oxide, yellowcake, UF4, and as a result, experience 

6 some external exposure.

7 We went ahead and calculated the doses 

8 that a person might experience by spending some 

9 time next to the container. The doses we came up 

10 with were not unlike the numbers reported 

11 originally by NIOSH. Three hundred and 

12 seventy-one millirem was the external dose.

13 By the way, the worker was not --- he 

14 had a -- the point, you know, [was] that the worker 

15 himself did a lot of types of jobs. He was not 

16 necessarily a radiation worker. But he had jobs 

17 which may very well have brought him into areas 

18 where there was the potential for exposure.

19 So, you know, there's a lot of ambiguity 

20 about, well, how much time would he have spent next 

21 to a drum, et cetera, et cetera. Bottom line is 

22 that the number that we found is compatible, when 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we did our calculations, with regard to standing 

2 next to or close to storage drums.

3 And we came up with numbers that were 

4 comparable to NIOSH's, which was 371 millirem. 

5 And that was explained nicely, and we agree with 

6 that. But we had a separate issue that we brought 

7 up that had uniquely to do with the conversion of 

8 UF4 to UF6.

9 When you read Christofano and Harris, 

10 the way you do that is you pass anhydrous fluoride 

11 as a gas over UF4. And it converts it to UF6 which 

12 is a gas that then leaves, the UF6 leaves. And what 

13 it does it leaves behind an ash which contains 

14 thorium-234, concentrated.

15 And under that process, the external 

16 exposures could be substantially higher, very 

17 high. And we basically raised the question in our 

18 report: has NIOSH addressed this issue or looked 

19 into it?

20 And in David's report that we reviewed 

21 the other day, he explained that it turns out that 

22 the type of process that was used to generate UF6 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did not use the anhydrous fluoride approach. It 

2 used a different approach which did not generate 

3 this ash and therefore the ash issue goes away. 

4 And we accept that.

5 The only thing we would suggest is, for 

6 the purpose of the record, David, the source of the 

7 information regarding this technique that was used 

8 at Coppers, one that I was not at all familiar with, 

9 you know, when I reviewed Christofano and Harris, 

10 the basis for that, it would be helpful to have had 

11 a reference. So we sort of closed the loop on that 

12 one.

13 But we accept that. I believe that 

14 that very well was the case, especially since this 

15 was a pilot plant doing experimental work. So I 

16 leave that just as an offering. But I still 

17 recommend that this item be closed. Because there 

18 seems to be a reasonable explanation. And so 

19 therefore, our external exposure issue goes away.

20 Before I move on to internal, is there 

21 anything about that, David, you'd like to add, or 

22 if anyone has any questions?
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: I think the only thing I 

2 wanted to add is I'm sorry about not including that 

3 reference. But I will point out the very last 

4 thing in the email is an SRDB number. And that is 

5 the reference where I got the ---

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I appreciate 

7 that. Thank you. On internal, one of the --- bear 

8 in mind, you know, at the time the DR was prepared, 

9 the reference was simply to TBD6001. And there 

10 really wasn't very much detail on, you know, how 

11 NIOSH, actually what numbers were used and what 

12 assumptions were made, that type of thing.

13 So what we did is we went back and said, 

14 okay, if we were going to be doing the dose 

15 reconstruction, internal, for this worker, we'd go 

16 look at the data in Christofano and Harris. And 

17 when you look at Christofano and Harris, it says 

18 that, well, typically at a uranium conversion 

19 facility that does a wide range of conversions, a 

20 median value of the air dust loading would be 100 

21 dpm per cubic meter.

22 But if you're working with uranium 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 conversion, it could be much higher than that, at 

2 least 1000 dpm per cubic meter. And we simply 

3 pointed out in our report that, you know, to what 

4 degree did NIOSH, you know, take that into

5 consideration in doing the internal exposure.

6 And David got back to us. And he says, 

7 John, you're right, in fact, we did do that. We 

8 did take into consideration that. And they used 

9 an airborne dust loading at an associated intake 

10 rate that was at the high end of -- well, let me 

11 put it this way, it was at the high end of a typical 

12 uranium conversion facility, sort of at the low end 

13 of the UF6 conversion aspect of a uranium 

14 conversion facility, but within the range.

15 And, you know, one could argue that, 

16 well, you know, you sort of used a value that was 

17 closer to the lower end of the airborne dust loading 

18 range for UF6. But I'm okay with that. Because 

19 first of all, remember, this worker was not a 

20 uranium worker. He may not have even been in the 

21 area where there was UF6 conversion going on for 

22 extended periods of time.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But nevertheless, they assume that he 

2 was in the area for 44 hours per week. So when you 

3 put all that together, I consider the approach that 

4 NIOSH used to reconstruct internal exposures, when 

5 explained, to be reasonable, appropriate, and 

6 claimant-favorable. So on that basis, I'm 

7 recommending that we also close that second issue 

8 dealing with internal exposures.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Any 

10 comments, David, or anybody, David Allen or anybody 

11 else? Or questions from members of the 

12 Subcommittee?

13 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: None from me.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

16 MR. ALLEN: This is David Allen. We 

17 agree with John that it was reasonable and 

18 appropriate.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

20 DR. MAURO: And, David, thank you so 

21 much for sending that over. It really did the 

22 trick.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it was very 

2 helpful. Alright. Well, then it seems to me that 

3 I also agree that this appears to be appropriate 

4 to close now. So let's say that I think the 

5 consensus of the group is to close this, right?

6 [PAUSE]

7 Okay. That takes care of this item. 

8 There is, I believe, still one more case 

9 outstanding that we haven't dealt with. I'm 

10 trying to remember, besides the Coppers’, there was 

11 one other, yes, there was one other.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is one other. 

13 That case is waiting on an action by the AWE Work 

14 Group. And that Work Group has not met in some 

15 time.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. What 

17 case number is that or what company?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I can pull it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't have it 

20 in front of me.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 308, which is 

22 Bridgeport Brass.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good,

2 good.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Rose, thanks for 

4 mentioning that. Because Bridgeport Brass, I do 

5 not recollect that there's an agenda item for the 

6 Work Group on Bridgeport Brass. So let's, why 

7 don't I follow-up with you after this meeting next 

8 week on that case, so I can make sure the Work Group 

9 addresses whatever it is that's outstanding on 

10 Bridgeport Brass.

11 It won't be meeting until this summer, 

12 but it has quite a bit of other business. And then 

13 we'll make sure that's covered, too.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. 

15 Actually, that was the wrong case. That's the 

16 Hooker case.

17 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Thank you. That 

18 makes sense. Because I wasn't even sure that 

19 Bridgeport Brass was covered by them. But, 

20 Hooker, yes. Okay. So that should get addressed 

21 this summer.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good. And that will be the last one from Sets 10 

2 through 13. And that will completely finish the 

3 work there.

4 The second item is really getting back 

5 to our main area of business, which is going to the 

6 next sets, 14 through 18. We've started on 14. We 

7 started with Oak Ridge and completed that last 

8 time.

9 And before we get back to that main 

10 business, I just wanted to report to members of the 

11 Subcommittee that, after our last board meeting, 

12 I completed all the changes in the Secretary's 

13 report that were recommended by the Board and 

14 forwarded those to Jim and cc'd Ted.

15 And it seems to me now, I consider that 

16 now this leaves our Subcommittee and goes on to the 

17 --- it's a larger Board function. Our 

18 Subcommittee work is finished. I didn't cc 

19 everybody in our Subcommittee with that last 

20 report. But I just wanted you to know that it went 

21 in as directed by the Board meeting, to the best 

22 of my understanding.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that's --- we will hear from Jim at 

2 some later point on that as far as where we go next, 

3 whether we have a Methods Subcommittee meeting or 

4 whatever.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. And then, this is Ted, 

6 I'm pretty sure that's what the next step would be. 

7 Jim was going to do some drafting related to this 

8 material that's really more the Method's turf 

9 rather than the Subcommittee's turf. And then we 

10 will need a Methods Work Group meeting. So I'm 

11 sure it'll get discussed there.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

13 Okay. So I just wanted to bring people up to date. 

14 Because I think, if I may say, our Subcommittee did 

15 a good job. We put out a report from our end that 

16 was accepted by the Board. And we have done our 

17 job.

18 CASE REVIEWS ISSUE RESOLUTION FOR SETS 14-18

19 Now, let's get back to our second item 

20 which is Sets 14 to 18. And according to my notes 

21 we finished on, and I have it, we finished on 402.1.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Dr. Kotelchuck?
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert. 

3 I apologize. I don't believe we actually --- I 

4 still had an action item from the Oak Ridge sites.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that's correct. 

6 There's two still outstanding in that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, there is. 

8 Okay. I thought we had finished that. But then 

9 let's go back to those. And who should be leading 

10 off on that? And if you'll give us the case 

11 numbers?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We do have Observation 

13 1 from Tab 438.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this one just 

16 slipped through the cracks at the last meeting. 

17 And the observation was that SC&A found that the 

18 X-10 and Y-12 Site Profile Review findings ---

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not able to 

20 get onto the Live Meeting. So I'm looking in the 

21 materials that you sent, Rose. Where do I --- I 

22 have to go back to Oak Ridge, 14 to 18 sets, Oak 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Ridge?

2 OAK RIDGE

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And the 

5 number again, that we're talking about now?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is 438, Observation 1.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Which is on Page 23.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. 

10 Okay.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And with this 

12 observation, NIOSH came back and said that if Site 

13 Profile changes do result in a potential increase 

14 in dose, the claim would be reviewed under PER. 

15 And so we essentially agreed with that. Then we 

16 recommended that we could close out this 

17 observation.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

19 sounds good, 420, Page 20 ---

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 438.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 438.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 438. I haven't 

2 quite gotten there yet.

3 MEMBER BEACH: It's on Page 23 ---

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. No, I'm 

5 getting there. There we go. Yes, right. So the 

6 recommendation is to close. And are there any ---

7 this was an observation?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are there any 

10 comments by any Board Members or anyone else?

11 MEMBER MUNN: No. Except this is 

12 Wanda. And my Live Meeting screen has ---

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. It 

14 must have cancelled out. Let me fix it.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, okay. I was going to 

16 say, it was up and now it's gone.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I wonder if I lost my 

18 ---

19 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, ma'am.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we're 

21 in agreement on that. And this observation should 

22 be closed now.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, okay. 

3 Let me just --- observation. Good. And then what 

4 was the other item that was --?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The other one is 355.2. 

6 And that is on Page 24.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Oh, yes, 

8 here it is. Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this finding was 

10 that NIOSH used an incorrect dose correction factor 

11 for the years 1980 through 1982 for missed photon 

12 doses.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we did discuss this 

15 at the last meeting. And NIOSH was going to 

16 investigate it further.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh. And what 

18 did NIOSH -- where is that now?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we are continuing 

20 to research the issue itself. There are some very 

21 specific DOELAP documents that we have to find to 

22 make that determination, which we just haven't 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gotten. We haven't tracked down the specific 

2 documents we're looking at.

3 However, as I mentioned at the last 

4 meeting, to be claimant-favorable, since the TBD 

5 has somewhat conflicting information in it, we've 

6 changed our tools and our dose reconstruction 

7 guidance document to reflect taking the exposure 

8 TLD DCF all the way through 1986, which is what the 

9 second part of the TBD seems to indicate, since the 

10 larger DCFs are claimant-favorable, rather than 

11 switching over in 1980.

12 So we've made the change while we're 

13 researching the issue. And when it comes to this 

14 claim, I've actually looked at it. And even if we 

15 apply those DCFs to this claim, there's no change 

16 in compensability.

17 It goes from slightly under 30 percent 

18 to 30.45 percent. So there's no impact on [the 

19 compensability of] this claim. So I would guess 

20 we could probably close out this specific one. And 

21 we've already turned it over to the TBD owner to 

22 continue researching that issue and make a TBD 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 change if it's determined to be applicable.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Even 

3 though I recognize that we could close it, that it 

4 will not affect compensability, and that's good to 

5 hear, my instinct is that we should have this down 

6 for the record and have the NIOSH response written 

7 down and not close it right now but keep it in 

8 abeyance.

9 MR. KATZ: Well, actually, Dave, and I 

10 think it's in progress, not in abeyance. Because 

11 until NIOSH resolves what should be there, you'll 

12 know what's correct. So I think it's actually not 

13 even in abeyance until -- right? Until Scott's 

14 person does his research.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Can we 

16 question these folks for the Subcommittee members,

17 do we want to keep it under in progress until 

18 everything is finally settled? Or should we close 

19 it now? Because it's clear already that this will 

20 not change compensability.

21 MR. KATZ: Dave, let me just say, I 

22 mean, I don't think you should close the case just 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because of its impact on this case. Because you 

2 need to know whether the method is correct or not. 

3 And until we get an answer on that, you don't know 

4 whether the finding is correct or not.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I'll agree with 

6 Ted, that we ought to keep it open.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

9 sorry.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, no. 

11 That's fine.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Rose? Also too, 

13 Rose, when you talk -- I'm sorry, maybe it's just 

14 me, but I'm having a hard time hearing you. If you 

15 could just maybe speak up a little bit.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. I will try 

17 to speak a little louder.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's a lot better, 

19 thanks.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

21 So we will keep it open. And that finishes, then, 

22 what we want to do with this, for the moment. 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Should we go on now to the SRS, to the Savannah River 

2 Site and 402.1? Are we ready to do that?

3 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sure.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Who will 

6 be reporting on that? Rose?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That would be me.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 402.1, when we left 

10 this, or this is the case that we left off on ---

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- and we did start 

13 discussing it. The finding was that no photon dose 

14 was assigned to the years 1952 through 1954.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH came back 

17 here and responded.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we are.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And actually, this was 

20 the case that Grady had pointed out in his email 

21 to us earlier. Somehow in the process of assigning 

22 cases, SC&A was assigned the same case to review 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 twice in different sets. And so this is actually 

2 a repetitive finding.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And when was 

4 this, when was this done previously?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe in the tenth 

6 set. Grady's not on the line, but we did actually 

7 have identical findings between the two cases, 

8 which is a good control, I guess.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. ALLEN: The original SC&A number 

11 was 330. It's the same case as SC&A 402.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. But I'm a 

13 little confused. So this is literally the same 

14 person --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- listed twice. 

17 Their case comes up twice. But why would that be? 

18 Or how could that happen? How did that happen?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The Subcommittee 

20 assigned the same case to SC&A twice. And through 

21 whatever the process, that was not caught.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. So NIOSH included 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this in the pool for the next set, I guess.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. KATZ: And we collected it, and 

4 that's how it happened.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. That's what 

6 happened. And it wasn't removed from the 

7 selection pool when the pool was gathered for this 

8 402 it came from.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, then bravo to SC&A for 

11 their consistency.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: We can move on.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. We 

15 certainly can. So this has been closed before.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. This is Scott. 

17 There's two questions. Number one is should we 

18 just withdraw all the findings, because they are 

19 identical to what we've already addressed in the 

20 13th set.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Entirely up to you.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I mean the whole case is 

2 withdrawn, because we're not re-reviewing a case 

3 we've reviewed.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: To go along with that, I 

7 did some more investigation. There is another 

8 case in the identical situation.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So the 

10 issue is that when we select something, NIOSH has 

11 to remove it from the pool --

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. You know, NIOSH comes 

13 up with a sort of nomination pool of potential 

14 cases. And these cases somehow slipped by you and 

15 ended up in the pool for the later set. So they 

16 shouldn't have been in there, but they somehow got 

17 in there. And then we actually selected them.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So I 

19 guess I'm sensitive to the fact that the 

20 Subcommittee assigned them again. Well, we did 

21 assign them again. The Subcommittee members would 

22 have no way of knowing this.
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Of course. No, it's no 

2 fault of the Subcommittee members. There's no way 

3 to keep that in your head.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I'm 

5 not criticizing NIOSH, just simply that I hear what 

6 has to be done. And in this case, it wasn't, by 

7 accident.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. It's just an 

9 unfortunate mistake, it sounds like.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, correct.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. And then both these 

12 cases, we don't need to go through them again, for 

13 sure.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. So 

15 this case is withdrawn, right?

16 MR. KATZ: Right. Just take it out of 

17 the pool.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

19 Then this is withdrawn, and let's go on to the next 

20 ---

21 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

22 Just for my clarification, Scott, you said there 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was another case in this situation?

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Do you have the SC&A 

4 numbers for that case?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And it's in 

6 this set as well. It's SC&A-405.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. It was also 

8 what?

9 MR. SIEBERT: It was also in the 13th 

10 set as 329. And once again, kudos to the reviewer 

11 that the findings are the same.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that 

14 will be removed now before we get to it, or when 

15 we get to it we'll remove it, or whatever. We can 

16 remove it now. There's no issue.

17 So, Rose, our next one is ---

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is also an SRS case. 

19 It's Tab 403. And that's Finding Number 1.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What I have ---

21 oh, right. Wait a minute. I had 402.2, but that's 

22 now withdrawn. I see, right. So we have to go ---
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pardon me. I'm just scanning. Yes, 403.1, thank 

2 you.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And this 

4 finding states that incorrect facility and energy 

5 distribution was used to calculate photon doses. 

6 And NIOSH came back and agreed that, in fact, the 

7 incorrect distribution was used and the workbook 

8 error, copy and paste error, that it did not change 

9 the PoC significantly in this case, not enough to 

10 flip the case above compensability.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Which is essentially a 

13 Q&A error. And NIOSH and SC&A are in agreement.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we do recommend 

16 closing this case.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

18 Actually, although the number was very close to 50 

19 percent it actually lowered it [PoC], did it not?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: At the PoC. 

22 Okay. Well, folks from the, should we close this? 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Are there any comments from the Subcommittee 

2 members?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Close it.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Others?

5 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, close it.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: And just to note for the 

8 record, John Poston just sent an email saying he's 

9 on now. So, John, welcome.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, very glad 

12 to have you, as always.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know what, go 

14 ahead and close it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I agree. 

16 This will be closed now.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Next?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Next finding is 403.2.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this finding 

22 states that incorrect dose correction factor was 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 applied to shallow dose for the lip. And NIOSH 

2 responded that they did, in fact, apply the wrong 

3 correction factor. They applied a 1.5 correction 

4 factor instead of a 1.2.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's 

7 claimant-favorable, but it is an error 

8 nonetheless. And since we are agreement, again, 

9 we do recommend closing this issue.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Seems 

11 straightforward. Looks like we can close it. 

12 Maybe I'll ask, are there any objections to closing 

13 or further questions?

14 MEMBER MUNN: No.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine, 

16 that's good. We can close that. Alright.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next finding is 

18 403.3.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that finding 

21 states that: missed an environmental dose, was not 

22 carried through the year of cancer diagnosis.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Questions?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And here, NIOSH 

3 responded and said that the annual dose was not 

4 carried through because the dose was less than one 

5 millirem. And that's not included for a 

6 requirement --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- in IREP. And while 

9 we do agree that one millirem doses are not required 

10 to be included, we did make this a finding, because 

11 we found it quite unusual that all of the yearly 

12 environmental doses were less than a millirem. 

13 And they were still assigned. But this does not 

14 have a significant impact on the case as it is less 

15 than one millirem.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But I'm not sure 

17 why -- the fact that doses less than a millirem were 

18 included in later years ---

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In earlier years.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In earlier years. So 

22 they assigned dose all the way to the year of 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 diagnosis but did not include the year of 

2 diagnosis.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

4 question in my mind is why is this a finding as 

5 opposed to an observation?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, at the time we 

7 were making findings for when there was an error. 

8 And we do make findings even when we know that it 

9 won't impact the outcome of the case.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, but it 

11 wasn't an error. I mean, we've traditionally --

12 or was this a policy that changed? Ever since 

13 I've been here, whenever we've had a dose less than 

14 a millirem, we ignore it. Because it will have no 

15 impact, that small a dose.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. I 

17 can probably explain this a little clearer.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Normally, what we will do 

20 is we will keep all doses in a claim even if they're 

21 less than one millirem unless we're running [out] 

22 of IREP room. It only takes 1,000 lines. And if 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're going over that, we may start removing less 

2 than one millirem. Generally we keep all the 

3 doses.

4 In this case, we've already spoken 

5 about this. It was in the best estimate territory 

6 very close to 50 percent. So when we were doing 

7 the best estimate, we ran the environmental doses 

8 through the CAD tools, which only give annual 

9 doses.

10 So in the final year of diagnosis, it's 

11 really only a partial year of dose that is received 

12 rather than the full year. The tool just gives you 

13 the full year.

14 What the dose reconstructor did was 

15 look at that last year and remove it, because it 

16 was less than a millirem, rather than having it be 

17 a slight overestimate. And I'm talking very 

18 slight overestimate.

19 For instance, we're in the 45 to 52 

20 percent range, we take those into account. So 

21 that's the thought process that was used by the dose 

22 reconstructor as to why that single year was 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 removed. But all the other years that are less 

2 than one millirem were not pulled out.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm still up in 

4 the air about findings and observations. I see the 

5 reasoning. What do other Subcommittee members 

6 think? What's your --- maybe because I was 

7 involved so much in writing the report to the 

8 Secretary, I started to take much more careful 

9 notice of whether we do a finding or an observation. 

10 Do other folks ---?

11 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. And I 

12 think we've muddied the water with this as time goes 

13 on. Whether it's an improvement or not, I don't 

14 know. But we had a fairly reasonable, I thought, 

15 criterion originally for what constituted an 

16 observation and what should be a finding.

17 Essentially, I think our original 

18 understanding was that an observation was simply 

19 a comment from the observers calling the attention 

20 of the reader to some facet which did not, in fact, 

21 change --- it was not likely to change the outcome 

22 --
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: PoC, yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: -- in any way, and 

3 therefore did not need further pursuit or 

4 observation, I mean, or actual action from anyone.

5 But I think we have, somewhere along the 

6 way, I don't know, three or four years ago -- no, 

7 it's actually a little longer than that, I suppose 

8 -- there was a great discussion about certain 

9 observations perhaps needing to be pursued in some 

10 way. And that's when we started muddying the 

11 water, as I recollect it.

12 So now we have a situation where it 

13 appears that if anyone feels that some aspect of 

14 the comment needs to be followed-up, we change it 

15 to a finding. At least that's my ---

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: -- the way it appears to 

18 me. But the original purpose of an observation is 

19 just to call the reader's attention to the fact that 

20 something slightly off key was noted by the 

21 reviewer and was called to our attention.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. So 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this would, in some very, very slight way, affect 

2 the PoC. I suppose that would be the argument for 

3 the observation.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I would point out 

5 that it was not done incorrectly. Because it is 

6 a dose less than one millirem which --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: -- is a normal way that 

9 we can remove it. It just seemed unusual to the 

10 reviewer that it was done differently, which I 

11 understand, but I just explained.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: From my perspective, it 

14 was an observation. But I guess it's in the eye 

15 of the beholder.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it is. It 

17 still seems to me an observation. Because it was 

18 not incorrect.

19 MR. KATZ: Dave --

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 MR. KATZ: I think SC&A was reasonable 

22 at the time they reviewed it in thinking this was 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a finding. And I think it's also fine for the 

2 Subcommittee to convert this to an observation.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean, 

4 we're ---

5 MR. STIVER: If I can just jump in for 

6 one thing ---?

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 MR. STIVER: Yes. I think there was 

9 really a question regarding process, regardless of 

10 it was one millirem, or two, or three, or four. And 

11 it was really why, in this final year, was a dose 

12 not included when it was in the previous years.

13 And, you know, Scott's explanation is 

14 perfectly fine in that there's that. But, yes, I 

15 think it could be an observation that, you know, 

16 from a process standpoint, I think, if it kind of 

17 raised to the level of a finding. And again, it's 

18 kind of subjective, in a sense.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. We so 

20 often use, in current practice, we so often use the 

21 fact that something's less than a millirem. 

22 Therefore it can be ignored and is ignored. 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Sometimes, obviously, it is carried. But speaking 

2 to that, I would go for an observation. And I feel 

3 -- Wanda, what do other Board Members think?

4 It's a call. But the question is, we are 

5 starting a new set, or we're almost, we're at the 

6 beginning of a new set, and a new Secretary's 

7 Report.

8 And so it's a reasonable time to make 

9 changes in procedure, it seems to me. Because we 

10 tried to be consistent with six through 13. But 

11 we're really -- we're in a new, I wouldn't say a 

12 new era, but a new report, certainly, the beginning 

13 of a new report.

14 Well, let's put it this way. There are 

15 two votes for changing it to an observation. Do 

16 I hear anyone saying let's keep it as a finding?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, no. As Wanda 

18 said, through the years we've muddied everything 

19 else. By the way, this is Brad.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: The thing is, it's 

22 also what we heard from SC&A is that per their 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 requirements, they're classifying it as a finding. 

2 I guess I understand, and I don't see much added 

3 but, you know, I guess I want to ask John, you know, 

4 under your criteria you mentioned that this is 

5 still a finding.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: And so, you know, I 

8 agree that I don't see it as a big issue because 

9 of the one millirem or whatever. But even throwing 

10 that out, coming back to what the criteria that 

11 we've given our contractor, wouldn't spell 

12 finding.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, Brad, as I said, I 

14 think it was reasonable for SC&A to think this is 

15 a finding on the front end. I think the discussion 

16 clarified that it really isn't. It's an 

17 observation. If it's a finding, it's incorrect. 

18 Because --

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

20 MR. KATZ: -- there's no problem in the 

21 procedure. So I just think it makes sense for the 

22 Subcommittee to treat this as an observation.
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, there's no 

2 problem with us doing that, right? We can change 

3 a finding into an observation.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. You've done that 

5 before, right?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

7 MR. STIVER: This is John. I'd be 

8 willing to just have us change it into an 

9 observation. Maybe on the front end it did appear 

10 to be a finding. But, you know, on closer scrutiny 

11 it's not.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I don't 

13 have a problem. We can vote me in for the 

14 observation.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

16 Although, really this is a small matter,but we'll 

17 try to be consistent as we move ahead. So unless 

18 I hear otherwise, let's change it to an 

19 observation. A last call for comments on this.

20 [PAUSE]

21 Then it becomes an observation.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We will update 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that in our records.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next finding is Tab 

4 403, Finding Number 4.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Rose, 

7 where are we looking at on this. I've got this on 

8 a computer disk. And I'm having a hard time 

9 finding 403. But what's it under?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you are looking in 

11 the files that I sent out, it should be in the Issues 

12 Resolution folder. And then

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: What?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then there is a BRS 

15 printout folder.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. That's what I 

17 needed to know. Thank you.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And, 

19 Rose, this is the first time we're using this rather 

20 than the old matrix. We've changed over from the 

21 old matrix system --

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- to go 

2 directly to BRS. And you'll forgive any one of us 

3 on the Subcommittee. It takes a little while to 

4 get used to the new system and checking things over. 

5 So it may take us a few moments more until we get 

6 used where's the key place to look to see what's 

7 going on.

8 On the other hand, you did send it to 

9 us at least about a week ago, which was very nice 

10 and did give us an opportunity to look at it in its 

11 most basic form rather than you taking it out and 

12 putting it in a matrix.

13 That is to say putting it in the BRS form 

14 is an advance, but for those of us who are not used 

15 to it, it slows us down a little in responding to 

16 the discussion. And I just note that, if you will, 

17 for the record.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: And thank you. I was 

19 just having a hard time. I was trying to look at 

20 it in the matrix part of this. And I wasn't finding 

21 it.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've got a disk. I 

2 don't have Live Meeting, but there's more on that. 

3 Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. And, 

5 Brad, I did the same thing when I got it and started 

6 looking it over. And then I realized what was 

7 happening. And it's a step forward, truly.

8 Okay. Rose, if you will, go ahead with 

9 403.4.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And if you guys, if 

11 anyone needs me to resend out instructions on how 

12 to use the BRS, I can certainly do that.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you? I 

14 would appreciate it.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have a really 

16 straightforward tutorial on how to use it. So ---

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- if that will help 

19 you.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I was going to 

21 ask you to do that. And would other Subcommittee 

22 members like to get it?
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

2 would. I'm just trying to figure this out a little 

3 bit. Usually I'll have Live Meeting. And that's 

4 not a problem. But ---

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- a lot of the times 

7 I won't be able to.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Same 

9 with me. Rose, why don't you send it out to all 

10 of our Subcommittee members.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Rose, this is Josie. 

12 I'm good. I don't need it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

14 Good, good. Alright.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright. Not a 

16 problem, easy enough.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thanks a lot.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And it is a little bit 

19 more challenging to follow in the BRS printout than 

20 it is directly accessing the BRS, but when you don't 

21 have access to the BRS that's been existing. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, we can 

2 move on then. The next finding is 403.4.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which may be 

4 403.3. By the way, just to understand 

5 bookkeeping, since we just did 403.3, which is now 

6 an observation, do you change this? Or given that 

7 it's the designation, you still leave it at 403.4.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I will leave it at 

9 403.4. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to track 

10 findings.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, okay. 

12 I just was curious about the bookkeeping, record 

13 keeping. Okay.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we had already 

15 agreed that we won't be modifying the dose 

16 reconstruction cases to reflect this. It's just 

17 simply documented in the transcript and in the BRS 

18 --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- for an observation.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next finding is 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 403.4, failure to assign unmonitored tritium dose 

2 to the year 1994. And NIOSH responded and said 

3 that unmonitored tritium dose was not assigned for 

4 1994, because internal monitoring was performed 

5 that year.

6 And the process of SRS did not assign 

7 tritium. And there was no monitoring. Sampling 

8 was inexpensive and easy at the site for workers 

9 to conduct. So they don't believe that the EE was 

10 exposed to tritium without tritium monitoring.

11 And we do disagree with the dose 

12 reconstructor's judgement in this particular 

13 instance. But the difference between the two 

14 methods only results in a difference of 

15 approximately a millirem for each cancer site. 

16 And that's far too insignificant to impact the PoC. 

17 So we do recommend closing this issue.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

19 And did it happen to be a compensated? It was not 

20 a compensated case, was it?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. This is the 

22 case where the PoC was ---
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that's 

2 right. We saw it before.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. It, 

5 actually, for all the PoC was lowered, I believe.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

8 Anyhow, and that certainly is a finding. Because 

9 there's disagreement with the judgment in this 

10 case. But it does not affect the outcome, and 

11 therefore closure is recommended. And that, to 

12 me, makes sense. And then this would remain a 

13 finding.

14 MR. KATZ: Except the Subcommittee 

15 needs to decide what it feels about the finding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

17 there is a disagreement of procedure. But we don't 

18 have to resolve that. Because it would not impact 

19 the decision.

20 What do other Subcommittee members 

21 think? Is this something we should set up and 

22 establish a --- is there some reason to establish, 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to try to decide on this issue? That is, is there 

2 something in the procedure that we want to 

3 establish for this case and future cases?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. I 

5 just want to clarify. I don't necessarily see this 

6 as a professional judgment issue. This is the 

7 standard way we deal with tritium at the Savannah 

8 River Site. So if the person was not monitored for 

9 tritium ---

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe they were 

11 monitored for tritium. It was just the single year 

12 that they were not monitored.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Exactly. There was a 

14 year they were not being monitored. And Savannah 

15 River, I mean, especially in the '90s, tritium was 

16 easy and inexpensive to monitor for. So if there 

17 was no monitoring, the thought process is there was 

18 no reason to monitor, there was no exposure 

19 potential. And we assign ambient doses as opposed 

20 to an additional tritium dose.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Was the ambient dose 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigned in this case for that?

2 MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you off the 

3 top of my head. But I'd say that's the normal way 

4 we would deal with it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I guess the SC&A 

7 argument would be that the EE has the same job, the 

8 same job title, the same work locations. And so 

9 we believe that it could just as easily been lost 

10 in the records and over the difference of one 

11 millirem.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it's a bigger 

13 question to me. Because it's not just a question 

14 of, you know, we're not believing we're losing 

15 records at Savannah River. It's a question of do 

16 we believe that they were monitored or were they 

17 not monitored?

18 And our standard process has been that 

19 if they're not monitored for tritium, there's a 

20 reason for it. Because Savannah River monitored 

21 for tritium when needed.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And the key phrase there 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is when needed.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MEMBER MUNN: The only question is 

4 whether there is some post facto judgment that 

5 needs to made about whether or not they should have 

6 monitored that year. And I don't see the ---

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, I would 

8 think that the, I mean, it seems quite credible to 

9 me that a person could be assigned different tasks 

10 for a year and therefore got reassigned somewhere 

11 for any one of a number of reasons.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. This 

13 is Brad.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Being on the Savannah 

16 River work site, this is one of our questions that 

17 comes up is the monitoring of the people, and were 

18 the right people monitored, and continued. And we 

19 have seen through the process that sometimes they 

20 do, sometimes they don't.

21 So in claimant-favorability -- and 

22 their jobs haven't changed, so this has been part 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of our problem. And this is an issue in the Work 

2 Group that we're trying to ---

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Brad, I'm having 

4 trouble hearing you. Am I the only one?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, can you hear me 

6 any better now?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A little bit, 

8 not much. Are other people having trouble?

9 MEMBER MUNN: No.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'll 

11 take care of it. It may be on my end on the phone. 

12 Go ahead, Brad. I hear you. It's faint, but I 

13 hear you.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: No problem, I'm 

15 sorry. The thing is is we're still trying to 

16 figure out, because we see people that have been 

17 monitored for tritium. They are in the process of 

18 it. And then we don't have data. And then they're 

19 back.

20 And our opinion is is that basically 

21 there's -- we're trying to figure out that loop 

22 right there. So this is a prime example of that, 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where there's no data for them. And, you know, 

2 we're trying -- they're trying to deal with this 

3 issue themselves. And I don't think that we can 

4 just walk past it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. Brad, I 

6 don't remember, are you on that Subcommittee or 

7 Working Group?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. I'm chairing 

9 it.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

11 fine. We have so many working groups. I really 

12 don't remember who's on which group. So this 

13 really an issue that not only we can't resolve, but 

14 the Working Group is working on it.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just spent almost 

16 six or seven hours last week going through tritium 

17 samples, and people, and looking at the breaks in 

18 a lot of this, and not really understanding.

19 And this is one of my questions that I 

20 had was how come --- and they're in the same 

21 position or whatever --- on one side, you know, I 

22 understand what Scott is saying. You know, they 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could have been transferred or whatever. But it 

2 doesn't make sense to me that they're not.

3 And so then to just give them ambient 

4 dose, is that correct? I think that they've done 

5 a good job from that standpoint, but it's just 

6 interesting to me that we don't continue to ---

7 something's wrong there. That's just the bottom 

8 line. And we need to get to the bottom of it and 

9 figure it out. Because there is gaps in a lot of 

10 this sampling, there's gaps.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

12 I would suggest maybe the path forward here that 

13 this be sort of transferred to the Savannah River 

14 Work Group, since this is a question that is being 

15 addressed there.

16 I mean, the current guidance that we use 

17 in dose reconstruction is that Savannah River 

18 monitored people generously for tritium. And if 

19 there's a year that's missed, that's because that 

20 person was probably reassigned that year and not 

21 in a tritium area.

22 And that is a question then that Work 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group for Savannah River is considering during 

2 their debate. And I don't think the DR 

3 Subcommittee is going to resolve it. That'll be 

4 up to the Work Group.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I agree with 

6 Stu. Because this is one that we've been dealing 

7 with at almost all these different sites when it 

8 comes to different monitoring. But the tritium is 

9 the interesting one, especially at Savannah River.

10 I would still find it as a finding, my 

11 personal feeling. And we're not going to be able 

12 to do it here. We've been trying to be able to do 

13 this for years at the Subcommittee group. And I 

14 think we ought to just put it to us.

15 MR. KATZ: So I would suggest then, 

16 Dave ---

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

18 MR. KATZ: -- that here we just leave 

19 it in progress. Because if the Work Group is 

20 wrestling or will be wrestling with this, then it 

21 is potentially a consequential matter. And we 

22 don't want to close it until you know what the 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 outcome of that discussion is.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, but I have 

3 to say, whichever way the Working Group decides, 

4 this result will not change compensability.

5 MR. KATZ: That's true. But we're not 

6 just looking at what the impact is on this case. 

7 We're also concerned about the impact of a 

8 procedural error, if it were an error, on cases that 

9 were like it that we didn't review.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, absolutely. 

11 And we, from this discussion, we are left with the 

12 understanding that the, if you will, some aspect 

13 of the scientific validity has not been decided.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. And so all I'm 

15 saying is instead of closing it, if you leave it 

16 in progress, then once it gets closed at the Work 

17 Group we can get that result and close this 

18 correctly as either affirming the finding or, you 

19 know, negating it. But you can't really do that 

20 at this point, because ---

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: -- that Work Group will be 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 making that decision.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Yes, I 

3 agree with you on that. And so there's nothing 

4 lost in a review like this in leaving it open --

5 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- and then 

7 closing it later once a decision has been made.

8 And for the individual, this individual 

9 case, it will be closed when the scientific 

10 judgments that are important to us are resolved, 

11 and important to the case. So I'm, okay, I'm 

12 persuaded that we leave it open.

13 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I mean, 

14 this is entirely your thing. I'm just asking. Is 

15 there no longer the option of transferring it to 

16 the Working Group?

17 MR. KATZ: Well, we don't really 

18 transfer cases to Working Groups, Scott. We just 

19 ---

20 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. That's fine. 

21 \That's all I need to know.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's all.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: But the issue we're going to 

3 send to them, and I will send that Work Group an 

4 email just to make sure that when they do meet they 

5 have this on their agenda to try to close this 

6 matter out.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Not particular to the case, 

9 but particular to the issue.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

11 it's clear that the Working Group is working 

12 actively to try to resolve it. And I don't envy 

13 their -- I don't envy the task before them. So we 

14 will leave it open.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Just one last 

16 point.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

18 MR. SIEBERT: I just wanted to keep it 

19 in. I did go back and check, and the environmental 

20 was applied in 1994, as I stated.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that 

22 answers Rose's question. Alright. Then I think 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're ready to go on. Rose, the next?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next is an 

3 observation from Tab 404, Observation 1. And this 

4 was an interesting case for us. In the CATI 

5 report, the EE mentions receiving the chelation. 

6 And there is some documentation of this. But we 

7 believe that there wasn't enough documentation of 

8 this.

9 In 1998, or 1988, excuse me, the SRS 

10 Medical Department would have handled this. And 

11 we're curious if all of the records that were 

12 generated at that time were actually received by 

13 NIOSH. Because there are not enough records in the 

14 EE's files.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Response?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH did respond, 

17 saying that they followed their procedures, 

18 essentially, and that any additional information 

19 would not change the dose that was assigned.

20 And we believe it's kind of impossible 

21 to know what information would be in the DOE files 

22 or in the chelation files without having them. So 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we don't necessarily know what those records would 

2 contain. And so we just question if the additional 

3 records were requested from SRS Medical.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Once again, from our 

5 point of view, we knew the date of the incident, 

6 and there's not going to be additional information

7 from the chelation that is going to impact how we 

8 assessed the claim. So there would be no further 

9 requirement of records.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do you believe 

11 that you have the exposure records that would have 

12 resulted in the chelation, I mean, that there may 

13 have been an incident or a series of incidents? Do 

14 you have the exposure information on the incident 

15 or incidents?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have some 

17 information on the chelation that was performed 

18 after the incident.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: And we assigned it as an 

21 incident.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: So there would be no 

2 further information that would change how we would 

3 assess it.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I see. 

5 Because the medical verification, right. If you 

6 have the exposure data for the incident, then you 

7 have it. The chelation is not going to tell you 

8 anything about the exposure, I suppose. No.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, it tells you 

10 about how the radionuclides were discharged from 

11 the body after the incident.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because the 

13 medical people would monitor that.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's true.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, so, Rose, this 

17 is Brad. Help me and, Scott, you too, help me 

18 understand this. So we have the record of the 

19 incident that happened. And going into the 

20 medical part of this, they would have the 

21 organ-specific, how it lays out. Is that what the 

22 issue is, is you don't have that medical part of 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We don't have the level 

3 of records that should have been generated. I 

4 think actually Doug may have worked at SRS at this 

5 time.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: And, Scott, you're 

7 looking at it that you've got the dose that they 

8 were given from the incident. And so we don't need 

9 these records, correct?

10 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. And 

11 from a chelation point of view, that's going to 

12 impact how much material is coming out when you're 

13 doing a chelation.

14 And what we do for chelation is we look 

15 at the data after chelation effect has been 

16 impacted. We don't use the data for the first 100 

17 days. So the impact of chelation has already been 

18 removed from the body by the time we're looking at 

19 the data that we're using.

20 So the amount that's removed from the 

21 chelation is already taken into account by us using 

22 the later data. I mean, if Liz Brackett wants to 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 elaborate on that, I'd be happy to -- because she 

2 knows -- I know quite a bit about it, but by all 

3 means, Liz knows more.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think the question is 

5 not that we're concerned in this particular 

6 instance, but we're just concerned that the SRS 

7 medical records, whether or not they're actually 

8 being received in instances where there is a 

9 chelation.

10 MS. BRACKETT: Well, I would like to 

11 jump in here. This is Liz Brackett.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

13 MS. BRACKETT: There is nothing that 

14 I'm aware of that would be in a medical record for 

15 chelation that would impact how we did our dose 

16 assessment, other than the specific dates of 

17 chelation. Medical does not collect any 

18 information that's of use to us in an internal dose 

19 assessment.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There are no, I 

21 mean, what about the urinalyses up to --- before 

22 the chelation is started?
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRACKETT: That wouldn't be the 

2 medical department. I mean, that would be 

3 something that would be in the individual's records 

4 --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. BRACKETT: -- the analyses. That 

7 would not be the medical department.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How long, I mean 

9 --- yes, go ahead.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: My question then is 

11 if, and I understand what you're saying, Liz, the 

12 medical information is not, the dose estimates are 

13 not in the medical records. They would be over in 

14 the -- the people that are taking care of that, your 

15 bioassay and urinalysis personnel, correct?

16 MS. BRACKETT: Right. Medical 

17 administers the chelation. They make the decision 

18 on whether to chelate or not. And they administer 

19 the chelates. But they don't do any follow-up as 

20 far as assessing dose, or tracking where the 

21 material is, or anything. That is all health 

22 physics. That would be that aspect of it.
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Now with this 

3 person, do we do we see that information in their 

4 file from the health physics part of it or ---

5 MS. BRACKETT: I have to field this 

6 back to Scott. Because I'm not familiar with this 

7 specific case.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe there are 

9 just bioassays after the fact.

10 MS. BRACKETT: And so that's what would 

11 be used to do an assessment.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Would we have a 

13 bioassay before the fact so that we know what we 

14 were, not what we ended up with but what they came 

15 in with.

16 MS. BRACKETT: Well, that is not, 

17 that's not used. That's not relevant to doing a 

18 chelation assessment. We specifically don't use 

19 that, because it's not going to be representative 

20 of their final dose.

21 Because after the chelation, material 

22 would be removed. It would not contribute to the 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose. So it's not necessary to have --- and in 

2 fact, because you want to chelate quickly, you have 

3 a sample, because you have to wait for the urine 

4 to accumulate and then collect the sample. And 

5 normally you would want to chelate before you had 

6 time to do that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MS. BRACKETT: So those samples aren't 

9 used to assess a chelation, the intake.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. But the 

11 record is substantial or full to the extent that 

12 you believe is needed before the chelation was 

13 performed?

14 This person had the bioassays and 

15 urinalyses up through the time of chelation during 

16 their regular work period, during and after, maybe, 

17 but not after the incident? Is that what you're 

18 saying?

19 MS. BRACKETT: I'm saying that was 

20 common. As I said, I'm not familiar with the 

21 details of this specific case. But you usually do 

22 not have a sample that's collected between the time 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of intake and the chelation, because you want to 

2 do the chelation as quickly as possible.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I 

5 understand that. I guess it's, I guess usually, 

6 and please forgive me, but whenever we have, we 

7 usually have a sample that was taken so that they 

8 always had a before and after to make sure that our 

9 chelation has been --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Effective.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- effective.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MS. BRACKETT: Well, and that's 

14 something that the site might be interested in. 

15 But from a dose assessment standpoint that is not 

16 necessary. We would do nothing from the 

17 standpoint of this program in assigning a dose.

18 You don't need that sample, because we 

19 don't -- the dose that was saved, so to speak, is 

20 not relevant to what the final dose was. Our 

21 interest here is what the dose was that was 

22 delivered to the organ of interest.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so a sample collected right away ---

2 and again, that would mean postponing chelation. 

3 You know, if you collected a sample two hours, for 

4 example, after an intake, well, there's a few 

5 things that would be diluted unless you had them 

6 void their bladder as soon as they had the intake. 

7 There would be uncontaminated urine in the bladder 

8 at the time of the incident.

9 And so then it would be diluted. And 

10 then only so much is going to come out within two 

11 or three hours. And again, that's when we'd want 

12 to be doing the chelation.

13 So, you know, a sample collected two or 

14 three hours after an intake only causes so much 

15 anyway. That's not usually used for assessing an 

16 intake. Because there's so much variability, so 

17 much uncertainty as to how much actually made it 

18 to the urine in that small time.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MS. BRACKETT: But the bottom line ---

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. And I 

22 understand what you're saying. I'm just looking 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at how we went through the process. Because 

2 there's almost --- they don't take chelation very 

3 --- they take it very serious. I'm just going from 

4 my standpoint.

5 They evaluate everything. Is this 

6 going to be beneficial, kind of like a last-ditch 

7 effort to us to be able to get rid of this stuff. 

8 And that's why I was just wondering.

9 What I've seen, it's been they make 

10 their determination on what's in their body. And 

11 are we going to chelate or are we not? Because my 

12 understanding is chelation is not a wonderful thing 

13 to do.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: So we were under the 

16 thing --- I'm just trying to figure out, and I 

17 understand what the SC&A's issue is. Medical 

18 would have kind of been assisting with this, but 

19 basically it comes back to the bioassay and these 

20 people.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. By the 

22 way, Brad, I do think that, from things that I've 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talked with medical people, there's a fair amount 

2 of variability within the medical profession 

3 itself as to when you want to do chelation because 

4 of its long-term negative effects.

5 And some folks will hold out quite a 

6 while before they'll do chelation, you know, and 

7 do it only in, you know, crises. But others will 

8 do chelation a lot earlier, because they don't take 

9 the long-term effects, they don't consider the 

10 long-term effects terribly serious.

11 MS. BRACKETT: Well, there is, you 

12 know, disagreement over effects. In fact, I've 

13 seen papers recently that say that chelation is not 

14 bad, that it has a bad reputation, but there aren't 

15 these serious side effects that people often --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. BRACKETT: I'm not familiar with 

18 all of that. I haven't been involved, involved 

19 with chelation. Like, I'm not sure, but I have 

20 seen that.

21 But you're right. The different sites 

22 certainly have --- there's a large variability 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 among them as to at what level they will chelate. 

2 And I believe Savannah River is one where they were 

3 more likely to chelate than not. It's something 

4 ---

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. BRACKETT: -- that they would do 

7 much quicker than ---

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MS. BRACKETT: -- than some other 

10 sites. Whereas Brad said that, you know, there 

11 would be a lot more thought put into it and a lot 

12 more investigation before chelation. But 

13 Savannah River, you know, was more likely to 

14 chelate, I believe, than ---

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This the first 

17 chelation case we've ever seen at SRS. And that's 

18 why we brought this up.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is the first 

21 chelation case we've seen. But we assumed that, 

22 since they are so uncommon, SRS Medical likely 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have done a full dose reconstruction 

2 following the incident.

3 MS. BRACKETT: No. That's not --- I 

4 think you should talk to Doug about that. Because 

5 I would be very, very surprised if Medical had 

6 anything to do with any kind of dose assessment. 

7 That would be very unusual.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Medical would just, 

9 this is Brad again, medical would just administer 

10 that chelation, correct? That's kind of what I've 

11 seen. They ---

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- tell them what to 

14 do. And they're the ones that kind of do it. But 

15 it falls back to the other people to monitor for 

16 it.

17 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: This is Doug Farver.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, Doug. Hi.

20 MR. FARVER: Hi. I believe the basis 

21 for this observation is that, when we were 

22 reviewing this case, we read the CATI report. And 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the employee mentions receiving a chelation, you 

2 know, for an incident. So we go and we look at the 

3 DOE files, and we do not find any information about 

4 that.

5 So in my experience, when there's a 

6 chelation performed, there's usually information 

7 generated about what the incident was, where it 

8 happened, when it occurred, and so forth, because 

9 of issues like Brad pointed out. They're very 

10 concerned. So we just didn't find any of that 

11 information when we looked in the DOE files. So 

12 that prompted us to say, you know, gee, are there 

13 more records out there? Because, you know, this 

14 must have been a fairly important field to do a 

15 chelation. So that was it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: We thought there should be 

18 more information than was contained in the DOE 

19 files.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, Scott, in 

21 your response, it's not clear whether you sought 

22 to find out if there was more information in the 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 medical, from the Medical Department or not.

2 MR. SIEBERT: No.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because it was 

4 not necessary.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. We did not, 

6 because there was no reason. We did not need any 

7 additional information to assess it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And I 

9 understand from Ms. Brackett that what's happening 

10 is that, once the chelation begins, whatever

11 urinalyses are done afterward, they will go to the 

12 lab, right? And the lab will have records of it, 

13 whatever the Medical Department did. Once they 

14 chelate, the assessment of what's coming out in the 

15 urine is going to be looked at by the biolab in the 

16 facility, right? Ms. Brackett, is that what 

17 you're saying?

18 MS. BRACKETT: I'm sorry. I was 

19 typing something to someone, and I didn't hear all 

20 of that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I said that when 

22 you're -- you're saying that whatever information 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is, once chelation has begun, I see the 

2 argument why you want to start chelation as quickly 

3 as you can. And you're not going to spend time 

4 doing a sample, getting a urine sample before.

5 But once the chelation has begun, the 

6 urine sample is sent -- the urine sample for what 

7 is coming out from the chelation in the urine, is 

8 going to go to a lab onsite. And there will be 

9 records there.

10 MS. BRACKETT: Yes. Well ---

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And yet that's 

12 not a record of the exposure, that's a record of 

13 what's coming out.

14 MS. BRACKETT: Correct.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Based 

16 on the chelation plus the exposure.

17 MS. BRACKETT: Right. And that's what 

18 would be used to do the assessments.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

20 Well, I'm reasonably convinced that there's not 

21 useful information about exposure from that. And 

22 I think it's an appropriate observation. And this 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussion is a good one and one that's useful to 

2 bring to the Subcommittee. But I don't see that 

3 we're lacking exposure information that we could 

4 otherwise have.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, Dave, let's ---

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- ask the other 

8 question here then.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: What did we find, not 

11 in the medical records, but did we find evidence 

12 of this in their file? Did we find anything like 

13 this? I guess there's --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- for whoever. 

16 There's nothing in this file about, you know, this 

17 is the thing. And I understand, you know, what 

18 Doug is saying in this. But the thing is, is if 

19 they did chelate this person, and there are the 

20 significant information in their bioassay or their 

21 records from that standpoint, did we find any?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not to the level you'd 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 expect. There is clear evidence that the 

2 chelation occurred. But there's no reports 

3 documenting the chelation, things that you would

4 expect to find in the records.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But there are 

6 arguments that have now been given to suggest that 

7 whatever was --- that there was no information 

8 post-chelation, during and after chelation, that 

9 would be useful in assessing the exposure of the 

10 individual and, therefore, their Probability of 

11 Causation.

12 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. I don't 

13 believe there was any information in the DOE files 

14 about the incident or even the word chelation. So 

15 when we reviewed the CATI report, and we see, oh, 

16 the employee mentions chelation, we're trying to 

17 correlate that with what's in the DOE files.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: And we didn't find it. So 

20 all we said was, gee, the employee says this, we 

21 didn't find it in the files, maybe there's more 

22 information out there.
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

2 that's appropriate. It was reported. It sounds 

3 to me as if the Medical Department did not keep the 

4 kind of records that they should have kept. But 

5 our assignment is to figure out what exposures the 

6 people had that might result in a cancer.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes but, Dave, this is 

8 Brad. This is one of the issues that we've got, 

9 is there's gaps in the data. And this is what 

10 Doug's trying to say. If there was a chelation, 

11 be it the Medical Department, be it whoever, there 

12 still should have been more information in there, 

13 especially chelation. After chelating somebody, 

14 they usually have an awful lot of follow-up 

15 bioassay for a while.

16 MR. SIEBERT: But, Brad, I was thinking 

17 your question was, was there evidence of a 

18 substantial intake, I mean, prior to the chelation?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes and ---

20 MR. SIEBERT: What I was taking from 

21 Doug's statement is that there, I mean, setting the 

22 medical records aside, the dosimetry records, the 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal bioassay records, there should be a whole, 

2 there should be clear evidence of an intake.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

5 MR. SIEBERT: There is.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: And what we're saying 

7 is that they're lacking. And I understand that.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

9 I have to step in here. What is lacking? We have 

10 frequent and significant bioassay records. What 

11 would we learn? You know, I don't understand 

12 what's the benefit of knowing anything else?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think we don't know 

14 what we don't know at this point.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, but we know the 

16 bioassay records.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MR. HINNEFELD: But we know the 

19 bioassay record. What else do we need to do the 

20 dose assessment?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I have to agree with 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Stu's question.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We have the records that 

4 we need.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we do.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: So here's a question. 

7 And this is, I think, what they're getting down to 

8 is, so if you just have one bioassay, and that is 

9 substantial, that's plenty for the --

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But that's what they 

11 said, Brad. They said they had a substantial 

12 bioassay record. There are bioassays there, 

13 right?

14 MR. SIEBERT: There are multiple 

15 bioassays the day after the incident, the day after 

16 that, and daily bioassay pretty much for the next 

17 few months.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MR. SIEBERT: We're very clear on the 

20 record.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

22 good. That's excellent. And I'm convinced that 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the argument has been made that, once the chelation 

2 process starts, we're no longer assessing, or we're 

3 assessing exposure plus the effects of chelation.

4 But if there's substantial data, and 

5 people are saying there are, there's substantial 

6 data actually after the incident, right, for the 

7 next few days, then I think this is an observation, 

8 a useful one.

9 We don't usually spend quite as much 

10 time on observations. But I think it remains an 

11 observation and a good point, but we're not lacking 

12 what we need to make an assessment of the 

13 Probability of Causation.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

15 guess I'm misunderstanding. And I understand what 

16 Stu is saying. So you're telling --- and I just 

17 want to make sure, because I haven't been able to 

18 look at all this data and stuff like that. And, 

19 Doug, you've looked at this, you've looked at this 

20 case.

21 My question is, is I was under an 

22 impression that we do not have enough data. You 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 felt that there should be more. That was my 

2 understanding on this. And if we've got plenty, 

3 I understand what you're saying, Stu. That's 

4 great.

5 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. And it's 

6 not that they don't have the bioassay data, okay. 

7 There's dozens of follow-up bioassays. That's 

8 why this is only an observation and not a finding.

9 The observation was that all we found 

10 was a little indication in the record that says 

11 nasal and saliva contamination with chelation. 

12 That's it, one little piece of information.

13 But there should have been more 

14 information in the file describing what the 

15 incident was, what the levels of contamination 

16 were, and so forth. And that's why we made it an 

17 observation. Because there should have been, we 

18 felt there should have been more information in the 

19 records.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand now 

21 better, and forgive me. And I agree with Stu. If 

22 you've got that in there, this is just, there's just 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not enough information with it. I agree with the 

2 observation.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. I do, 

4 too. And I think this has been useful discussion. 

5 But I think we could move on now.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: If I just might make 

7 one point, we don't ask --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we don't ask the DOE 

10 for the medical records of every claimant. We ask 

11 them for the X-ray exposure information for the 

12 claimant.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: So we don't ask for the 

15 entire medical record for the claimant, because we 

16 don't ask for things we don't need to do the dose 

17 reconstruction. In this case, we had the bioassay 

18 records. We didn't need anything from a medical 

19 record to do the dose reconstruction.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. I 

21 propose we go on. It's a little after 12:00. 

22 Normally we break around 12:30. And so if folks 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 who are on the line are open, let's do -- are there, 

2 how many more observations are there? There's 

3 another one at least. Are there more, and can we 

4 resolve them?

5 In other words, let's work for another 

6 20, 25 minutes. If that's okay with people, if 

7 they want to take a break now and go to lunch?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let's keep working; 

9 it's still early.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, I'm 

11 sorry. I again said lunch. And you guys, it would 

12 be breakfast if it's anything. Okay. If I don't 

13 hear any call for a break, let's go on to the next 

14 observation. And we'll go on until about 12:30 

15 here on East Coast time. Okay, Observation 2, 404.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Observation 2 

17 is again related to the chelation. And this 

18 observation states that we were unable to locate 

19 any guidance regarding how you should model a 

20 chelation, other than what's in OTIB-22.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And OTIB-22 is 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exclusively used for wound intake which would not 

2 be applicable to this case.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH responded 

5 that general guidance is provided to dose 

6 reconstructors for training and on a case by case 

7 basis. But there is some guidance in OTIB-22, and 

8 there's also guidance in the Rocky Flats TBD which 

9 is the largest site for the number of chelations. 

10 And NIOSH says that they intend to include more 

11 guidance in OTIB-60.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But I 

13 think, yes, I think we've had a good, robust 

14 discussion on chelation. I'm not sure we need --

15 I do recommend closure. And, well, since this is 

16 an observation, it's not so much closure as we ---

17 do we need any further --- maybe I'll ask. Do we 

18 need any further discussion on this?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Not for me.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Anyone?

21 Then let's --- that's interesting. 

22 And let's go on, if we may.
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 404.1.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the finding said 

4 that NIOSH failed to consider finger ring 

5 monitoring. And NIOSH responded that they agreed 

6 that a finger ring monitoring should have been used 

7 and included.

8 And when they included this 

9 information, it did not change the final 

10 compensation decision. The original PoC was 49.07 

11 percent. And the updated was 49.76, so very close 

12 to the threshold but not quite there.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

14 Let me understand. There was finger ring 

15 monitoring, and it was not considered?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe this person 

19 had a skin cancer on the hand.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

21 That's certainly -- if there was monitoring and it 

22 was not considered, then this is appropriately a 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finding. It edges up very much closer to that 

2 50-percent level, but it does not reach it. And 

3 so this did not impact. The final decision remains 

4 the same.

5 And I'm supposed to say we do enough 

6 blinds and things like that to say that we're not 

7 uncertain about our process in getting to 49.76. 

8 So sounds like this should be closed as a finding. 

9 What do other people think on the -- first, 

10 Subcommittee members.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is Brad. 

12 So it is a finding. I guess in the future they're 

13 going to be taking this information into account.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Brad, this is Scott. 

15 The information wasn't taken into account in the 

16 first place. We're saying it's an error that it 

17 wasn't. It's not that we normally do not take it 

18 into account. It's an error that the dose 

19 reconstructor should have and did not.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, okay. That's all 

22 I wanted to make sure, that it was. I'm good with 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. Let's --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Same, yes.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- move on.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It was a simple, 

5 it was a mistake and didn't follow procedures.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I'm sorry. I was 

7 under the impression that this was one that wasn't 

8 in the process. Thank you, Scott.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good. 

10 Okay. So this will be closed unless I hear any 

11 objection or question.

12 MEMBER BEACH: No objection here, 

13 Dave.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So be it. So be 

17 it, closed.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 404.2 is the next 

19 finding.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this finding is 

22 about a failure to apply risk correction factors 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to missed neutron dose. And NIOSH response says 

2 that they agree the correction factor should be 

3 applied to missed neutron dose since it was applied 

4 to all other radiation types.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I'm not 

6 sure what you mean by risk correction factor. Is 

7 this somebody working in a containment box or 

8 something?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I am not sure off the 

10 top of my head. I would have to look into the case 

11 file.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, I just 

13 don't know. I don't know why there was a risk 

14 correction factor in there that should have been 

15 applied.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's because 

17 it's a geometry factor due to the fact that the 

18 hands are further out than where the neutron 

19 dosimeter would lay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. Okay, 

21 that's fine. No, clear, clear. Thank you. 

22 Makes complete sense. And they're working in a 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 glove box. So, right. Then NIOSH agrees. This 

2 is a quality-assurance issue.

3 MR. KATZ: Right, just like the last 

4 one.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

6 Okay. And it did not impact the final outcome, 

7 sounds like it is appropriate to close it. It is 

8 a finding, an important one. And I think it should 

9 be closed now. Are there questions about it or 

10 objections?

11 MEMBER MUNN: No.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

13 Folks, good. Then I think it is closed. Then it 

14 is closed.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Let's 

17 go on --

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next finding is 

19 404.3.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that is a failure 

22 to apply attenuation factors. NIOSH's response 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was that it agreed that an attenuation factor could 

2 have been applied to the hand and forearm for 

3 periods when the shallow dose was assigned as 

4 electrons. So essentially, NIOSH and SC&A are in 

5 agreement.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the use of an 

8 attenuation factor doesn't impact the outcome of 

9 the case. So we recommend closure.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Now, 

11 right. Okay, that's another aspect of, that's 

12 another reflection of the hand and forearms being 

13 closer to the site of the radiation than the badge. 

14 Okay, seems like this should be closed unless there 

15 are objections.

16 MEMBER MUNN: None.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So be it. 

18 It will be closed. This is a different kind of 

19 issue, I believe.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. The next finding 

21 is 404.4. And the finding related to the omission 

22 of argon-41 dose.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is something 

3 that I'm not sure if it's an artifact in the TBD, 

4 but the TBD does recommend assigning argon dose. 

5 NIOSH came back and said that the energy 

6 distribution noted for argon is part of the ambient 

7 dose and shouldn't be included in the dose 

8 reconstruction, according to OTIB-17.

9 And our comment was just that the TBD 

10 does specifically discuss noble gases separately 

11 from the ambient radiation exposure. And so we 

12 interpreted this to mean that argon exposure should 

13 be treated differently than the exposure 

14 traditionally considered ambient exposure.

15 And we would suggest adding some 

16 clarifying text in the TBD to prevent 

17 misinterpretation, if that is the correct 

18 interpretation of what they mean to be applied 

19 here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But the reason we did 

22 this as a finding, and we've never seen argon dose 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually applied, was simply because the PoC in 

2 this particular case was so close to that 50 

3 percent.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And if they did include 

6 it though, it would only increase the dose, the 

7 yearly dose of about zero to four millirem which 

8 is likely too small to impact the PoC of this case, 

9 still.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Was I correct in that 

12 that was the correct interpretation of the TBD?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Scott?

14 MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking here real 

15 quick. My understanding, and I'll jump back to 

16 Matt Smith if I need specific clarification on 

17 this, but that the argon should be rolled into the 

18 ambient doses.

19 But in this case, specifically, you do 

20 not assign ambient dose after 1980 because the 

21 person was badged. So their badge would actually 

22 catch the component as coming from argon.
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt Smith 

2 with the ORAU team. And this is a case, and it's 

3 there in the response, in the BRS. Procedure 60 

4 covers this issue in more detail. It came out 

5 after the SRS TBD which, if you look on the date 

6 on it it's, you know, one of the earliest TBDs 

7 that's out there.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

9 And this is, excuse me just a second, just reading 

10 over, trying to absorb the --- so the argon-41 

11 certainly would have be included on any effect of 

12 any of the radioactive materials to be noted on the 

13 badge.

14 What is argon-41, what kinds of 

15 particles does it emit, or what kind radiation does 

16 it emit? I mean, I just don't know. I have not 

17 come into contact with argon-41, or I've not 

18 thought about it.

19 MR. SMITH: I'd have to crack open 

20 another resource to quote you the exact radiation 

21 types and emissions. But it's hovering, in that 

22 era certainly, anything that's electron or photon.
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

2 MR. SMITH: There's probably a little 

3 bit of both in emissions.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. SMITH: We're definitely capturing 

6 things both ---

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a beta emission.

8 MR. SMITH: It's like an open window 

9 and shielding parts of the dose ---

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. I'm 

11 slightly worried about the comment, Rose's comment 

12 that four millirems per year is too small to impact 

13 the PoC when the PoC was very close to 50 percent. 

14 And she said it's likely to be too small. And my 

15 feeling is, well, if it's close, then our general 

16 rule of thumb has been less than a millirem, it need 

17 not be considered. On the other hand, suppose it's 

18 four millirem?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, under this 

20 argument, then NIOSH is saying that this counts as 

21 ambient dose even though it's described separately 

22 in the TBD. And so it doesn't need to be assigned 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 after 1980, if I'm understanding them correctly.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That's 

3 right. You're clarifying it for me too. That is 

4 correct. So it doesn't matter if it goes to four. 

5 If it were four millirems per year, you would be 

6 picking it up in the radiation measurement, in the 

7 radiation assessment. And that's correct. 

8 You're right.

9 So therefore, this will not affect. 

10 It's close, but this will not affect, because it's 

11 been taken into account. And therefore, to me, 

12 that would suggest closing it. What do other 

13 people think and, again, Subcommittee members? 

14 Any concerns about this one?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. This is Brad.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

17 Alright. I don't hear --- Pardon?

18 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. It's 

19 fine with me.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I'm fine too.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine, very good. 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it's closed. 404.5, we're moving along, and 

2 appropriately.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 404.5 speaks that 

4 there was a failure to assign a pre-employment 

5 medical dose, so a medical X-ray. And NIOSH agreed 

6 that a pre-employment X-ray for the year 1984 

7 should have been applied for the dose 

8 reconstruction.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And again, this is a 

11 quality issue. And we did not find that it 

12 impacted, it wouldn't the impact outcome of the 

13 case. So we recommend closure.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That is, 

15 you checked that, and it did not.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Earlier in this, when 

17 NIOSH, the 404.1 ---

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- NIOSH provided the 

20 PoC estimate. And that included the impacts of all 

21 of these findings.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good. So this is not just, I think, this has been 

2 checked. And it does not affect the final outcome, 

3 which to me means that closure is appropriate. 

4 Again, do I have --- why don't I ask are there 

5 objections to closing it?

6 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

8 Hearing none, it is closed. Are we getting --- 

9 and there are no observations on this one.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The observations were 

11 actually covered first. So there were 

12 observations.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, of 

14 course there were. Yes, yes. So we're up to 405. 

15 It is 20 after 12:00 East Coast time. I think this 

16 may be a reasonable time to stop for a longer break, 

17 a breakfast or lunch break, or for some of us a work 

18 break until we come back. Why don't we come back 

19 at 1:30 East Coast time, that is give ourselves an 

20 hour and ten minutes?

21 MEMBER MUNN: That sounds fine to me.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: And, Dave, just for your 

2 information, I finally got my chart of the nuclides 

3 off my shelf.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Argon-41 is beta and 

6 gamma, no surprise.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

8 Alright, good, good. You learn something every 

9 Subcommittee session, or remind yourself. Okay. 

10 Thank you, all. And we will see you then at 1:30 

11 East Coast time.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Bye-bye.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

16 went off the record at 12:21 p.m. and resumed at 

17 1:32 p.m.)

18
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:32 p.m.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

4 Well, as I see it, we were getting ready to do 405, 

5 but I remember that 405 is one of the duplicate 

6 cases, right?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we don't have 

9 many more for SRS. We go now to what, 416 or 

10 something? Anyway, let's go, folks, we were at 

11 405. We'll go down. There's a couple of 

12 observations, and three observations and two 

13 findings. And we are down to 416.1, correct?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is right.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, this is actually 

17 an observation so it's just 416 Observation 1.

18 MR. KATZ: Are we still on SRS?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes we're on it. 

21 Yes, finishing up SRS. You say you've changed it 

22 to an observation?
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, it was always an 

2 observation.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

4 Okay, very good. Fine.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So the observation 

6 states that we believe the case is eligible for the 

7 SRS SEC and it wasn't flagged as such. And NIOSH 

8 responded basically saying that when they 

9 processed the claim, it was not eligible to be 

10 included in the SRS SEC.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now that 

13 is not written down here, right? Oh, this is your 

14 old write-up before you folks realized that the 

15 person should be in the SEC?

16 MEMBER MUNN: That was last year.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 4/9.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The case was processed 

19 quite some time ago now, probably several years 

20 ago.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

22 So how do we classify it? I mean, it's not, let 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me understand, it was not eligible for the SEC when 

2 you first analyzed it, is that it? And we've since 

3 --

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: When NIOSH analyzed 

5 the case it was not eligible for --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- there wasn't an SRS 

8 SEC at the time. But since then, when we reviewed 

9 the case there was in fact an SRS SEC.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. In a way 

11 we should not, I guess we should not say that we're 

12 analyzing this because there is no need to do it. 

13 Right? So this is neither an observation nor a 

14 finding. It's --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I mean, we're simply 

16 observing that the case then has fallen into the 

17 SEC?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

19 Is that, where is that so written? Is it in there?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, it is written in 

21 the finding text or the observation text in the dose 

22 reconstruction report.
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, alright. 

2 Okay. I'm just scrolling through. Okay, I'm 

3 just, it's just an issue of how does it get 

4 recorded. You did do work on it and it was work 

5 that, you know, SC&A should be compensated for. 

6 But do we record it as a finding for future --

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's not a finding; 

8 it's an observation. We were simply giving this 

9 attention --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, yes, yes. 

12 That's good. Okay, and all of those are 

13 observations. Okay. And so do we go on to SRS 

14 440?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, we have to cover 

16 416 Observation 2.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's see 

18 that.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that observation 

20 states that the incorrect organ dose correction 

21 factor was stated in the dose reconstruction 

22 report. And NIOSH agreed that while they did state 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the incorrect dose correction factor, they did in

2 fact use the correct one. This was simply a QA 

3 error. It doesn't impact the actual dose 

4 reconstruction, it impacts the quality of the dose 

5 reconstruction report.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, alright. 

7 Yes. Alright, then we don't -- is there any 

8 comment by anybody? I don't think there need be.

9 MEMBER BEACH: No problem.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

11 on.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Observation 3 states 

13 that NIOSH does not consider all the x-ray 

14 examination records that were found in the DOE 

15 files. And NIOSH responded that standard practice 

16 has been omitting medical x-ray claims, or only 

17 including those that occurred during the 

18 claimant's employment.

19 This particular EE had reported x-rays 

20 that were done after their employment, which is 

21 somewhat unusual. And since they were outside of 

22 the covered employment, they're not required to be 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 covered.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not finding 

3 the write-up that you're talking about. I'm so 

4 sorry.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Did you click on the 

6 plus sign next to 416? It's a blue plus sign?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I didn't. 

8 That's it. I haven't found it yet.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So if you search for 

10 416 and then scroll down to Observation 3. And 

11 then the little blue plus sign.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hold on a 

13 minute. Okay. Maybe I'm the only one having 

14 this, I don't know. 416 Observation 3. I don't 

15 see any sign, any 416 Observation 3. Okay, 

16 finally, I've got the x-ray exam records. Sure, 

17 sure.

18 Okay, thank you. I've located it and 

19 I hope everybody else has 416 Observation 3. Do 

20 go ahead. Or you just finished actually while I 

21 was searching. Maybe I'll take a read and others 

22 can go on.
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is only an 

2 observation again. We understand that it's 

3 outside the covered employment.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But we've pointed it 

6 out because we believe that the dose reconstruction 

7 report would have benefitted from including 

8 discussion.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

10 Right. It was not eligible to be included. Okay, 

11 that sounds fine. What should we go on to?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next finding is 

15 from Tab 416 Finding 1. And the finding states 

16 that there was incomplete accounting of fitted 

17 neutron dose. NIOSH agreed.

18 They said that they incorrectly 

19 selected the reactor ops SD versus the reactor ops 

20 in their workbook tool for several years, and that 

21 resulted in the omission of neutron dose for those 

22 years.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

2 How does SD differ from plain old reactor ops?

3 MR. SIEBERT: The difference is SD 

4 stands for shutdown, it's when the reactors are 

5 shut down versus operating, so there's no neutron 

6 component.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: And this was Scott, by the way.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, thank you

10 for clarifying that. Okay. PoC changed to 46 

11 percent. Again, not compensated but that's okay. 

12 Then this should be, seems like it should be closed. 

13 Are there any concerns or objections?

14 MEMBER BEACH: No.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is just an error 

16 that the dose reconstructor reflected in the 

17 workbook. This is not an automated feature of the 

18 workbook. Is that correct, Scott?

19 MR. SIEBERT: That --

20 MEMBER MUNN: To me that's just another 

21 QA error.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Sounds 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 like we should close it. Okay. That will be 

2 closed.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 

4 finding is 416.2. And the finding is about 

5 incomplete accounting of missed neutron dose. And 

6 this is essentially the same as 416.1.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But because of the 

9 finding coding, we have to have a separate finding 

10 for missed and measured.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I see. 

12 Correct. So that is the same issue and should be 

13 closed unless I hear objections. I do not. So 

14 closed.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, 416.3 is the next 

16 finding. It has to do with TBD guidance not being 

17 followed from the years 1953 through 1963. This 

18 was kind of an interesting -- we were under the 

19 impression that NIOSH was attempting to assign 

20 unmonitored fission product dose when in fact they 

21 were not trying to do that.

22 And the recommendations are very much 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 similar except for there's one deviation and so we 

2 thought that they were not following that when they 

3 were actually following guidance for measured 

4 dose.

5 And they were modeling it after the 

6 measured tritium dose, which I did confirm is 

7 consistent with what is in the TBD. We were just 

8 not understanding what was done.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right. 

10 Right? The use of this should be, hold it just a 

11 minute. This is a finding? So basically SC&A 

12 agrees with what NIOSH has done?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Let me clarify 

14 what they actually were intending of doing and it 

15 does make sense with the guidance.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott then. The 

18 question is should it be withdrawn since we did it 

19 correctly?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. This 

22 should be an observation.
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: I was asking if it 

2 actually, the finding itself should be just 

3 removed, withdrawn in toto, I mean, because it's 

4 not an observation. It's nothing wrong, there's 

5 no corrective action, there's nothing. It's just 

6 --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it was a 

8 comment by, it was a misunderstanding on SC&A's 

9 part. But it was a comment to see if, you know, 

10 if there was a problem. There was no problem. 

11 You're right, you're absolutely right. There was 

12 no error on NIOSH's part so there can be no finding.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But was it 

15 reasonable, I mean, there will be many times, there 

16 have been in the past and there will be in the future 

17 where SC&A will analyze something and then not 

18 realize certain facts on the ground that were 

19 there. And they will be informed of it and they 

20 will, it will be closed.

21 It seems to me it's a recent, it's an 

22 observation and a reasonable one given that they 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did not know that when you explained it. They know 

2 it now in that sense. And I don't think, if you 

3 will, a finding is in any way, excuse me, an 

4 observation is in any way a negative, it's not a 

5 negative mark against anybody. Right? It's just 

6 clarification.

7 So I would actually opt it to be 

8 considered, moved to be an observation. And I 

9 wondered what do other Board Members think?

10 MEMBER BEACH: No.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's certainly 

12 not a finding.

13 MEMBER BEACH: No, no.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Matter of fact, 

15 it cannot be.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's not a finding. It 

17 would be an observation.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, I agree.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

21 observation it is.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'll move that to an 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 observation.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 416.4.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. GREENBERG: It has to do with an 

6 inconsistent method used to assign unmonitored 

7 fission product dose. And here NIOSH agrees that 

8 in order to be consistent, they should have applied 

9 it, so we are in agreement.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right, 

11 okay. This claim, yes, of course, this qualifies 

12 through the SEC inclusion, sure. Good. And so 

13 the fact is I was just getting ready to ask a 

14 question. Well, are you sure it will not have a 

15 significant impact on the dose?

16 And of course you reminded me then on 

17 the next line that it's part of the SEC. So 

18 obviously it does not matter what the dose is that 

19 you've calculated.

20 Alright. Then I believe this should be 

21 closed, again. I will ask if there are any 

22 objections.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: No.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Simple case, I 

3 think. Good. So be it, it's closed. And is that 

4 the last one? Not quite.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have one other SRS 

6 observation and then that will close that out.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This comes from Tab 440 

9 and this is Observation 1.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Here we had kind of an 

12 unusual circumstance. The EE was diagnosed with 

13 [identifying information redacted].

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, ah. 

15 Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH selected the 

17 bone risk model. And we had some questions on what 

18 was done because this is a leukemia rather than a 

19 bone cancer.

20 And when we investigated this further 

21 we came across the ICD-9 code, which is a code 

22 assigned by DOL as [identifying information 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redacted], which is kind of the opposite of 

2 [identifying information redacted], which 

3 involves an [identifying information redacted] of 

4 red blood cells.

5 So when I looked into past claims that 

6 we've evaluated with the same cancer, a different 

7 ICD-9 code was selected. And that code triggers 

8 how IREP is run or which model is selected for IREP.

9 And so we were curious if the correct 

10 code was selected. And NIOSH came back and said 

11 that this code is in fact assigned by DOL so it's 

12 not technically under their purview. But the 

13 other ICD-9 code could have been selected.

14 When they select that code, it prompts 

15 you to run both a bone and a multiple myeloma IREP 

16 run. And in this case, the bone was in fact the 

17 most claimant-favorable and therefore it doesn't 

18 impact the PoC of this claim. Selecting a 

19 different IREP model didn't impact this case.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I read this

21 and I was not aware of this, the IREP code, the code, 

22 the ICD code is determined by Department of Labor, 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by their staff.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Right.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, usually.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean, 

5 what would be, it clearly will not affect, change 

6 the final outcome, but how would you deal with the 

7 problem of believing that the ICD code is not the 

8 best one, a better one or a proper one should be 

9 used? How would one deal with that?

10 MR. KATZ: So in these situations, 

11 since it's not under NIOSH purview, I mean, the most 

12 that can be done is a memo can go to DOL saying for 

13 this case we believe, if that's what NIOSH 

14 believes, the code may be in error and you may want 

15 to check this.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: And explain why in the memo. 

18 And then DOL can consider that. But that's what 

19 we would do normally.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we've done that in 

22 a couple cases but tried to avoid it if we possibly 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of course, and I 

3 understand.

4 MR. KATZ: There's absolutely nothing 

5 wrong with sending a memo over if it makes sense 

6 to do so, if it helps.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I mean, in 

8 this case, it doesn't.

9 MR. KATZ: In this case, it doesn't 

10 sound like it has any impact anyway.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, but that's 

12 irrelevant.

13 MR. KATZ: It sounds like they've been, 

14 from what Rose was saying, they've been coding 

15 these a different way. They coded this one this 

16 way. So it doesn't sound like it's a systemic 

17 error on the part of DOL for this case.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well --

19 MR. KATZ: I don't know what the 

20 benefit is of sending a memo over.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, does that 

22 mean that we have had other cases of the 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 [identifying information redacted]? I mean, this 

2 is not the first case.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm not positive. I 

4 may have looked in the actual NIOSH database.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean, 

6 I'm concerned that this may be the first case or 

7 one of the very few and that there wouldn't seem 

8 to be a precedent.

9 And it sounds to me as if there would 

10 be some value in looking and suggesting that things 

11 that fall into this general category under ICD-9 

12 should be looked at a little differently or they 

13 should consider in future runs.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, it sounds like what 

15 Rose is saying that in our claimant database, a lot 

16 of other cases, and they were all done, in Rose's 

17 perspective, correctly. This is an outlier, it 

18 was done differently and that's why they were 

19 questioning it in the first place. It has no 

20 impact on this case.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly 

22 doesn't.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: But it looks like this case 

2 may have been in error. It may have been that we 

3 don't know something that DOL does know about this 

4 case. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't know.

6 MR. KATZ: So anyway, it maybe is an 

7 outlier. If you want, you know, Rose can write up 

8 a little memo about the circumstances here and we 

9 can, you know, send that over to DOL and they can 

10 have a look at it to check to see for this case. 

11 It's not going to impact this case.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, that's 

13 right.

14 MR. KATZ: So I don't know what they 

15 would do with this anyway unless they found that 

16 there's some greater problem with other cases.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I mean, 

18 that's the issue. The issue that other cases --

19 well, so we know that previous cases have been 

20 handled, from SC&A's perspective, properly. To me 

21 it's such a rare event that I would tend to, I 

22 actually lean towards sending a note.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I wondered again what other Board 

2 Members think. Should we send a note on this? I 

3 think it's so rare that from one staff member to 

4 another, there may be --

5 MR. KATZ: There's no harm in it, Dave. 

6 So, Rose, just write this up in just a little 

7 narrative with the case information so it's easy 

8 to identify. You know, just a little short note 

9 from SC&A to me.

10 I will forward that through to NIOSH who 

11 can send it on to a contact at DOL and they can do 

12 what they want with the note but then we'll have 

13 at least informed them that we found this and there 

14 may be a problem somewhere.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can certainly do 

16 that.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think I would 

18 like that. I would like that to be done.

19 MR. KATZ: Fine, let's do that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great. Well, 

21 that brings us to the end of the SRS cases here.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Scott. I hate to keep doing this to you, but I 

2 think there's still an additional finding that we 

3 had to look at from the last meeting for the 

4 Savannah River case.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is there? 

6 Okay, I did not remember that, but good.

7 MR. SIEBERT: And Rose can correct me, 

8 but I think it's 356.6.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let me get 

10 my notes out here. I not only don't mind you 

11 reminding me, I thank you for reminding me. It's 

12 easy for us to overlook things as we go from meeting 

13 to meeting. And let me just see in my notes. One 

14 second. Pardon me. Okay, good. That would be, 

15 you say 356?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, point six, correct.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 356.6. That, I 

18 believe we have that in something, in the 14 through 

19 18? Let's see, did you send that to us, Rose?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is still in the 

21 BRS.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So if you just simply 

2 --

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it is okay. 

5 Fine, alright. One minute. Try and find it 

6 there. 359. What page is it on?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, the BRS doesn't 

8 have pages.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right, it 

10 doesn't. Right. I'm just scanning down. I'm on 

11 359. Do I have the right one, or is it going up?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you just [hit] 

13 Control F and then type 356.6, it will pull it right 

14 up for you.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Control F, okay. 

16 Thank you. Well, very good, 356.6. Thank you. 

17 Not all of us know this so it'll be another thing 

18 we put in. Very good. And fine.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I spend a little 

20 bit more time in the BRS than most people.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Alright.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This finding is --
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Where it says, 

2 to me it says, I'm sorry, this is new for me. So 

3 find, next or open? Open full search, right?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is in progress.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, it 

6 did not give me -- I have 356.6, pardon me. Enter, 

7 should I hit enter?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It should pull up 356 

11 for you. It's about a quarter of the way down the 

12 page.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Hold it. 

14 I'm sorry to waste the other Members' time as I 

15 search around. Why don't you begin?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This finding 

17 says there was an inconsistent assignment of 

18 unmonitored, slash, environmental tritium dose. 

19 And we did begin this at the last meeting.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH has since 

22 responded. There's a White Paper here that I did 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not see. Oh, updated last week, that's why. Let 

2 me download this White Paper. It doesn't seem to 

3 be downloading. So perhaps we can start with the 

4 Hanford ones and when we come back to it, we can 

5 have it pulled up for you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So you 

7 say there's something that you had not, you haven't 

8 had a chance to look it over?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have not seen this 

10 response.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Let me --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, and that 

15 -- okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Nicole, are you still 

17 on the line?

18 MS. BRIGGS: Yes.

19 HANFORD

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Do you want to start 

21 with your first Hanford case? I'm having some 

22 trouble pulling it up here.
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Sure.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that would 

3 be good.

4 MS. BRIGGS: Do you want to put up the 

5 Hanford BRS?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's what I'm 

7 working on right now.

8 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now that was --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This was the same, just 

11 at the very top of this BRS entry. Go all the way 

12 up. It doesn't always cooperate with us here.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MS. BRIGGS: Do you want me to start or 

15 do you want to wait until you can get the file up?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There we go.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Go ahead.

19 MS. BRIGGS: Alright. Okay, so this 

20 is the first Hanford finding of the set. It's 

21 number 343.1.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, this is a minor issue 

2 that I don't know if it's come up in the past but 

3 I know we'll see it again a couple of times maybe 

4 even in this finding set. It has to do with the 

5 recorded photon doses that are calculated using 

6 dose conversion factors with AP geometry.

7 There are procedures in the external 

8 dose implementation guide that recommend that for 

9 cases involving the lung along with a few other 

10 organs, when the dosimeter is worn on the chest, 

11 then the rotational dose conversion factor should 

12 be applied along with some correction factors that 

13 are published in that section of the guidance.

14 And let's see, I guess NIOSH did agree 

15 that the rotational geometry would be 

16 claimant-favorable for this case. But the change 

17 has a very, very small effect on the assigned dose 

18 and the PoC.

19 In our BRS exchange, we did ask if the 

20 Hanford workbook tool had been changed to include 

21 that protocol. And NIOSH did provide us with a 

22 list of the updated tools. And we reviewed the 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 updated Hanford tool for the changes and everything 

2 was there. So we recommend closing this finding.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

4 And SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement. The PoCs have 

5 been calculated, recalculated and they're nowhere

6 near compensability.

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I am so 

8 sorry. The SC&A person who's handling these, I 

9 just didn't recognize your name. I'm sorry, could 

10 I get that again?

11 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, sure. I'm Nicole 

12 Briggs.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Hi, Nicole. I'm sorry, 

14 I just want to make sure I was talking to the right 

15 person.

16 MS. BRIGGS: That's okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's 

18 clear-cut and seems like it should be closed. 

19 Again, any objection from our -- and this is 

20 corrected for the future.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. All of our 

22 tools have been updated to reflect this option.
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

2 unless I hear objections, we will close.

3 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling, 

4 can I just make a comment?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

6 MS. BEHLING: Or ask a question? Is 

7 there any need to go back between the time that this 

8 workbook was updated? Is there any need for a PER 

9 or to go back to other cases? I think we may have 

10 talked about this but, Scott, refresh my memory.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, you're right. We 

12 have discussed it. We're basically, and I'm 

13 speaking for NIOSH -- Stu, feel free to correct me 

14 if I'm wrong -- but my understanding is we'll be 

15 rolling this into the PER that updates to ICRP-116 

16 where all the DCs change anyway. And the whole 

17 process will be different. So it will be a subset 

18 of the large PER that's covered under that.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and 

20 that's a Hanford PER?

21 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that's a PER for 

22 all of the assessments we've done because the ICRP 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has changed how they calculate the DCs. And it 

2 will have an impact on the whole program from 

3 ICRP-116.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. So 

5 it will be done in answer to your question, right?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

8 thank you for the question. I was beginning to 

9 think about that as we came to the end. So we have 

10 closed 343.1. 343.2?

11 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this is 

12 a finding regarding some unmonitored internal 

13 intakes. In our original finding, SC&A found that 

14 the unmonitored internal intakes for zinc, iodine 

15 and tritium were not from a reference quoted in the 

16 DR report.

17 And let's see, I guess the report 

18 referenced the Hanford coworker model which at the 

19 time was OTIB-39. I think since then those 

20 unmonitored doses have been rolled up into the TBD 

21 instead of in a separate OTIB.

22 So NIOSH responded that the correct 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 values were used from the TBD but the reference 

2 should probably have been included for clarity. 

3 But the document was referenced in other parts of 

4 the report, just not pertaining to these particular 

5 intakes.

6 So I guess, let's see. Yes. So yes, 

7 we went back and checked and saw that the original 

8 document was referenced, just not in regards to 

9 these particular intakes. So we suggest closing.

10 MR. KATZ: So that sounds like an 

11 observation now.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It does. So can 

13 we change it to an observation?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. I'll note that 

15 in the record.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Okay. 

17 343.3?

18 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this 

19 finding has to do with some information that was 

20 discussed in the CATI report. So in the report, 

21 this EE mentions that he was involved in an incident 

22 and following the incident, there was a fecal test 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 performed.

2 And we noted that the results of that 

3 test were not in the record. This individual was 

4 monitored for internal exposure and missed 

5 internal exposure. And that was all included in 

6 the dose reconstruction.

7 So it was probably unlikely that he 

8 received some exposure that was not captured by the 

9 monitoring. But we just wanted to mention that we 

10 thought that the incident itself and the fact that 

11 this test occurred should have been described, at 

12 least in the incident section.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why -- I missed, 

14 could you repeat again? -- why you thought that this 

15 did not have any bearing?

16 MS. BRIGGS: Well, there were 

17 monitoring records, internal monitoring records in 

18 the case file. There wasn't, the only thing is 

19 there wasn't mention of this specific --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fecal.

21 MS. BRIGGS: -- fecal test and also 

22 there was no mention of the incident that this 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 worker indicates occurred. So we just thought, in 

2 fact he went on to say that, you know, he was sent 

3 home and that he was advised to separate himself 

4 from the family.

5 So it was enough of an incident for this 

6 individual that he was concerned. And I guess it 

7 just goes back to the idea that the incidents that 

8 are mentioned should be mentioned in some of the 

9 radiological incident sections of the DR reports.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, yes. I 

11 guess as always, if we don't have information about 

12 exposure, about a particular exposure, we can't do 

13 anything with it. I'm not clear.

14 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, I guess, well, the 

15 NIOSH response in our BRS was that they understand 

16 that they can't really address an incident that 

17 hasn't been documented, and they certainly can't 

18 account for tests that they don't have records for.

19 And they also said that the current 

20 guidance would address to all this information in 

21 that CATI section of the report with more detail. 

22 But we agree, you know, the potential dose in this 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incident really can't be assigned.

2 So we did, you know, recommend closing 

3 simply because there was internal monitoring data 

4 which you could argue could possibly could have 

5 picked up on an exposure. So it's just more about 

6 the details of describing a detail that the 

7 individual was involved in an incident that was of 

8 some significance to him.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

10 There is a -- to the extent that he remembers being 

11 sent home, being separated from the family -- it's 

12 troubling, I must say.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Well, just one 

14 clarification.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 MR. SIEBERT: [The CATI] was with the 

18 survivor, not the actual EE. So I understand that 

19 they would remember the separation thing. But 

20 whether there really was fecal sampling or not, 

21 that may be more in question.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Or the 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 date at which something happened, if it happened 

2 a while ago. One remembers this happened in the 

3 past, but one may not remember what year it 

4 happened, and so it may even be in the data.

5 That is of some relevance that the CATI 

6 report is not with the individual who's the 

7 claimant. Yes, okay. We're recommending 

8 closure. That has to be. But the question is, is 

9 this a finding or an observation?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

11 would say this is just an observation.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Looks to me that 

13 way, because the NIOSH didn't do anything wrong. 

14 Data weren't lacking. And it was absolutely 

15 proper and good that SC&A pointed out that there 

16 was some concern about this. I'm glad they did. 

17 But in the end, we have to go with what NIOSH did, 

18 and what NIOSH did was correct with the data they 

19 had. So I think it's an observation. And I agree 

20 with you, Brad.

21 Do others have any feeling that we 

22 should change it to an observation? Or maybe 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 objections to changing it to an observation? 

2 No objection. So this will be an 

3 observation. Okay? But thanks, SC&A, for 

4 pointing this out and for allowing this discussion 

5 by the Subcommittee.

6 Okay, 344.1.

7 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this 

8 also has to do with assignments of some unmonitored 

9 external dose. Let's see, so this individual's 

10 dosimeter was deactivated at the end of 1976, so 

11 he was not assigned dose for that last quarter.

12 And in our original finding we said we 

13 weren't sure why the dosimeter was deactivated and 

14 what the individual's duties were at the time. And 

15 interestingly, NIOSH actually did include 

16 unmonitored internal dose for that last quarter of 

17 1976. And we were just questioning if the external 

18 dose should have also been included there as well. 

19 And then NIOSH did clarify that the DOE 

20 employment records and the CATI indicated that 

21 actually he wasn't working during that time.

22 And they said, even though it appears a little 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inconsistent, the internal dose was actually 

2 included not because of a possibility of exposure, 

3 but because of just sort of the nature of the 

4 workbook tool that they were using where it would 

5 only calculate on an annual basis and not on a 

6 quarterly basis. 

7 So that's why there was some kind of 

8 perceived inconsistency that there was internal 

9 dose assigned at one time but not external.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MS. BRIGGS: And we agreed with their 

12 decision not to include that for that last quarter 

13 of '76, and that the assignment of internal dose 

14 is really a part of a workbook function and not 

15 because of a possibility of an exposure.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MS. BRIGGS: So we suggest closing it.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it resulted 

19 in an overestimate of the dose.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is 

22 claimant-favorable, for sure. Okay.
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I think this is another 

2 observation then, right?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. This is Brad. I 

4 would say it is. I was interested to learn [it], 

5 too.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is. 

7 Now, are the procedures such that this can be 

8 collected? Or will it simply continue to do the 

9 whole year, in which case it always will give an 

10 overestimate.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I can address that. The 

12 tool itself gives an annual dose. We can prorate 

13 that, if we so desire, for a better estimate. 

14 However, there is no reason to do that in this case 

15 because the PoC was low enough that an overestimate 

16 was acceptable.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, it 

18 certainly is. And, in fact, if we know that it will 

19 always give an overestimate, probably not a very 

20 large one, but who knows in any given case.

21 So it sounds as if there's not an urgent 

22 need to prorate it. And if it were close [to PoC 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 = 50%], than one might. Okay. Close, folks?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go on to 

4 344.2.

5 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, yes. Let's see. 

6 This finding involves the assigned minimal 

7 detectable level for an americium-241 chest count. 

8 So, in the DR report it stated that 

9 they used the MDA value for the year 1999, which 

10 was listed in the TBD as 280 picocuries. But the 

11 value used in the calculation, was 240 which was 

12 actually the MDA for a different year, for 1986. 

13 And obviously this would only result in a very small 

14 change in the assigned dose.

15 NIOSH did respond that although the 

16 published MDA for the 1998 MDA for americium was 

17 about 280, when you go into the actual dose records 

18 there is an MDA listed there, which is a very low 

19 number of 86 picocuries.

20 So, actually, in that instance, using 

21 that 86 picocuries would have been probably the 

22 most appropriate thing to do, even though the 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assignment was slightly overestimated.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

3 MS. BRIGGS: And so we agree that 

4 although the published MDA is 280, since the actual 

5 dose records list the MDA as 86 -- in the actual 

6 dosimetry records as opposed to in the TBD -- the 

7 assumptions are still claimant-favorable. So we 

8 suggest closing.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Sounds 

10 appropriate. Objections, anyone? Comments? 

11 Okay, we'll close, then.

12 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Alright, let's 

13 see. I'll move on to 344.3. Okay, right. This 

14 is -- yeah, this one is a little confusing but I'm 

15 going to keep it really brief.

16 It involved assignment of a missed dose 

17 from exposure to recycled uranium in all of its 

18 components. When we were going through the IMBA 

19 files and the workbooks, we really just had trouble 

20 tracing the intake and the dose calculations 

21 through all the files. It was kind of a strange 

22 thing. 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we saw that the bioassay values that 

2 were sitting in the IMBA input, but then they 

3 weren't used to calculate the intakes and the doses 

4 for all of the recycled uranium components.

5 And NIOSH did clarify that some of those 

6 inputs were sort of left over from a previous 

7 calculation where I guess the bioassay data was 

8 used to then calculate the intake. But then the 

9 intake from the recycled uranium components were 

10 calculated later using a different tool, not that 

11 same IMBA file.

12 So it led to some confusion in what they 

13 referred to as an artifact of the IMBA program. 

14 And that led to the confusion. And NIOSH did say 

15 that -- so the correct intakes were in fact applied, 

16 and they explained how to follow all the rest of 

17 the calculations.

18 I should say that, as it turns out, all 

19 the doses ended up being one millirem per year or 

20 less, the annual doses, so they weren't included 

21 in the dose reconstruction.

22 So we agree that the correct intakes 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were used to assess dose from the recycled uranium. 

2 But there just was a couple of -- another layer of 

3 confusion was that ordinarily we've seen that the 

4 recycled uranium components are calculated using 

5 a workbook called the Hanford Plutonium and 

6 Recycled Uranium Mixed Rate Workbook. But it 

7 turns out there was a different workbook used, 

8 called DR Notes. 

9 So I think, adding all those two things 

10 together, we just had a tough time following all 

11 of the calculations through the files.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MS. BRIGGS: They were in fact correct, 

14 but we just honestly couldn't follow them through 

15 all the files and this workbook that we didn't know 

16 was in use. So we're going to suggest closing for 

17 that.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And it 

19 sounds like an awful lot of work for what I think 

20 is correctly an observation now. Right? The 

21 method was used. But I appreciate your going 

22 through this with that care.
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

3 MS. BEHLING: Can I also ask Scott a 

4 question? What is a DR Notes workbook? And to me, 

5 this all still seems like a finding. But I'm not 

6 sure what a DR Notes workbook is.

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is a -- it's just a 

8 workbook that the dose reconstructor used to keep 

9 track of the notes on how they were doing the case 

10 so that the peer reviewer and further reviewers 

11 could follow their thought process, if need be.

12 It's not a controlled document, it's 

13 just additional documentation that they can have 

14 in the file to explain their thought process and 

15 to show comparisons and things like that.

16 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I have seen DR 

17 Notes before, not necessarily what I would consider 

18 a workbook, but just notes indicating what they 

19 did. However, you know, from our perspective, 

20 this would still be something that we would 

21 definitely want to question. And so, but whether 

22 it's a finding or an observation, I think it was 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a legitimate question to be asked.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it was most 

3 certainly legitimate. But it is an observation. 

4 And I'm going to ask that it be listed as an 

5 observation, unless I hear Subcommittee Members 

6 object. [PAUSE] Okay, so be it.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, this is Brad. 

8 I'm not objecting in any way. I wanted to get --

9 well, I've got a question for Scott to follow on 

10 to what Kathy was talking about.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: The DR notebook, does 

13 this continue on with this case? Or I was just 

14 wondering if when you guys get done with this if 

15 this kind of disappears. Because I think this is 

16 kind of something that we've been looking for, you 

17 know, for when people look at these cases down the 

18 road they'd understand their thought process on it.

19 MR. SIEBERT: This actually did go with 

20 the case and was a file in for review.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: It was something that 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 went along.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, because I 

3 believe, Scott, that we've been talking quite a bit 

4 about this through the years. You know, better 

5 documentation of the thought process and what we 

6 were doing. I just want to make sure this 

7 continued on with the case.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

9 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. I guess I can 

10 continue?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, close it, 

12 an observation. And we continue with 376.1.

13 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this 

14 one has to do with assignment of unmonitored 

15 intakes for plutonium and its associated 

16 radionuclides. 

17 When we were going through the values 

18 we noticed that the plutonium-239 value was 

19 slightly lower than the published intake value. And 

20 at the time, we thought that NIOSH may have actually 

21 separated the plutonium-240 from the -239. But 

22 the coworker intake values of the TBD are labeled 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as -239 plus -240 rather than plutonium-alpha.

2 So NIOSH then did state that they 

3 incorrectly assumed that the values were total 

4 plutonium-alpha instead of -239 plus -240. So 

5 they sort of extracted it out of -- pulled out the 

6 -239 thinking it was plutonium-alpha as opposed to 

7 it actually was -239 plus -240.

8 And so, you know, when we went back and 

9 checked, and we agreed and checked that the head 

10 files were corrected and just suggest closing.

11 As it turns out, for this one, NIOSH 

12 themselves found a typo in the CAD workbook that 

13 the year 1949 was used as the first year of intake 

14 instead of the correct value of 1961. And they 

15 made those corrections as well.

16 I think, when we went back to see that 

17 correction, the files must have already been 

18 corrected because we didn't see the mistake. But 

19 either way, we suggest closing.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So a lot 

21 of years off.

22 MS. BRIGGS: Right.
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that didn't 

2 change the PoC much?

3 MS. BRIGGS: No.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

5 So this is certainly a finding, and recommend 

6 closure. Sounds fairly straightforward to me as 

7 a case to be closed and a finding to be closed. Any 

8 thoughts, questions, from the Subcommittee 

9 Members?

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm 

11 sorry, I just want to clarify for you since you were 

12 asking why it didn't have much impact. It's a 

13 prostate cancer, so that's why.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, okay. 

15 Right, thanks.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Sure.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Which is 

18 not one of our 22 -- well, that's another matter. 

19 The 22 that would go into an SEC, right?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, it is not.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

22 Okay. Anyhow, so I think it stands closed. I did 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not hear any objections or concerns. Good. 

2 Close. And 376.2.

3 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, yeah, buzzing 

4 along. Let's see. Oh, for this finding the EE had 

5 positive whole body count results for sodium-24 and 

6 zinc-65, but the doses weren't included in the dose 

7 reconstruction.

8 But NIOSH clarified and said that the 

9 calculations were done for these exposures and they 

10 were all less than 1 millirem per year. So they 

11 weren't included, but that they should have 

12 included the IMBA files in the file just to show 

13 that the calculations were performed and that the 

14 exposures were addressed. And so we suggest 

15 closing.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I do 

17 believe that would be an observation if those were 

18 used. And I can understand why it was not clear 

19 that they had been used. Alright?

20 MS. BRIGGS: Mm-hm.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it's 

22 an observation, recommend closure. Thoughts?
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry, but in the 

2 dose reconstruction report they didn't mention it, 

3 and they didn't include the IMBA files. So, from 

4 our perspective, we don't know that it was 

5 considered until they told us that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that's 

7 correct. That's correct. But in the end, it was 

8 done, and because it was less than 1 millirem it 

9 was not included, as was customary. But that's the 

10 calculation itself, not the recording of it. The 

11 recording was not complete as it should have been. 

12 But that, to me, would still make it an observation.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. Right, that's 

14 consistent with other, many other cases.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. So it 

16 will be closed as a -- and will be an observation. 

17 But the fact that we maybe are having less findings 

18 than we might have thought at first, I'm very happy 

19 that SC&A and NIOSH are agreeing and suggests a 

20 maturity of approach such that fewer errors are 

21 found that will result in findings.

22 On the other hand, all of these 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 observations are important and the work that goes 

2 into them are worthy of the attention of the 

3 Committee, of the Subcommittee.

4 And so please keep on giving these 

5 observations. That's an important part of your 

6 work [SC&A], and appreciated, at least by this 

7 Board Member. Okay, closed.

8

9 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Alright, so I'll 

10 move along to -- now we're into Tab 378. And let 

11 me see. You'll have to excuse me.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

13 MS. BRIGGS: My computer timed out so 

14 I have to get back in. I just want to see, does 

15 it start with Observation 1?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

17 MS. BRIGGS: It does? Okay. Let's 

18 see. Oh yes, so this is an observation -- I guess 

19 it's something that's been discussed before and 

20 just required a little presentation. So we'll go 

21 over it quickly. It has to do with just the 

22 language involved in some of the reports regarding 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if the EE is qualified for the SEC. 

2 So the DR report says that the 

3 individual did not qualify for the SEC, but he did 

4 appear to meet the criteria for the SEC. And later 

5 NIOSH clarified that although it's only one of this 

6 individuals cancers that met the criteria, two of 

7 them did not. So the DR was performed to determine 

8 if the individual will qualify for medical benefits 

9 for those other cancers that are outside of the SEC.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MS. BRIGGS: So there was just some 

12 confusion in the language. And I know that, 

13 obviously this Tab 378 was done many years ago --

14 not many, a few years ago. So I know that those 

15 -- I think that the DR reports have changed their 

16 language.

17 I think at the time it was confusing 

18 because it makes it seem like the individual 

19 wouldn't qualify. But they do qualify for at least 

20 one of their cancers.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And if 

22 they qualify for one, then they qualify for an SEC.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Right, right.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

3 sounds like proper procedures were followed.

4 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. Yeah, we just kept 

5 that as an observation at the time.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

7 Okay, does anybody have comment or have anything 

8 that they wish to say about this? 

9 I know we are moving along very rapidly, 

10 but as long as we are spending the time and the 

11 attention that each case deserves -- and we are --

12 then I'm very happy to see us settling all these 

13 issues as quickly as we have. Okay.

14 MS. BRIGGS: Alright, I'll keep moving 

15 along.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Let's see, this is 378.1. 

18 Yes, this is also an interesting one involving 

19 information that the individual provided in a CATI 

20 interview. 

21 In the interview he said that, I guess 

22 he testified the year, 1954, he got a rash all over 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 his exposed skin while he was in the PUREX facility. 

2 And he was actually taken to the hospital for 

3 observation and was there for five days. And he 

4 did have a urinalysis test that was performed 

5 following the incident.

6 Now, there is no documentation of this 

7 incident in the records. And there was one 

8 urinalysis record in the file, from 1957, but that 

9 was three years after the actual incident.

10 We just, you know, at the time we put 

11 this in as a finding because we weren't sure if the 

12 assigned doses were enough to account for that 

13 potential exposure from that incident.

14 Let's see. And NIOSH did agree, in our 

15 BRS exchange, that some of the wording in the DR

16 report may have been misleading since it says that 

17 the assigned internal doses would account for any 

18 possible uptake from the incident. But since 

19 there are no records of the incident, and, you know, 

20 he wasn't tested until three years later, it's 

21 really not possible to give an assessment of what 

22 potentially could have happened.
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This is similar to, I think, a finding 

2 we had talked about before. There were no records 

3 of an incident, so how are we supposed to 

4 reconstruct it?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MS. BRIGGS: As it turns out, right 

7 now, this EE now qualifies for the SEC. And more 

8 so in some of the records, it seems that they 

9 weren't really certain if that rash was a result 

10 of a radiological exposure. I guess it could have 

11 potentially been a chemical exposure.

12 But this individual did say that, at the 

13 time, he contacted the hospital to see if he could 

14 obtain the records. I'm sure that's not a problem 

15 anymore since he qualifies for the SEC.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MS. BRIGGS: But SC&A does agree that 

18 the dose from this incident really couldn't be 

19 assessed because there are no records. And we 

20 suggest closing.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And yes

22 -- now let me get it right -- we can't tell that 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was radiation-related. So what is this? Maybe 

2 I'm slowing down. What is this? Is this not an 

3 observation?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. This 

5 would just be an observation, in my eyes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And I 

7 understand, from the earlier discussion, that 

8 NIOSH is not going to go looking for hospital 

9 records. And it's not appropriate that they do so, 

10 even in this case, because -- I guess it might have 

11 -- if there was a question as to whether the 

12 hospital could be able to diagnose the rash as 

13 radiation-related, the records would be of some 

14 importance.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: The thing is, Dave, if 

16 this is a rash, we don't even know what kind of a 

17 rash it was. We don't know where it was at. And 

18 I guarantee, looking at Hanford, if somebody left 

19 that site there with a rash going to the hospital, 

20 and even if they weren't home from that and they 

21 were figuring that it was work-related, there would 

22 be some documentation on it probably.
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Especially if it was 

3 five days.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good point.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

6 Just to be clear, there is documentation. There 

7 are hospital records in the DOL file, which is what 

8 was reviewed. There's just no indication it has 

9 anything to do with radioactive materials.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MS. BRIGGS: Right.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: So you have pulled the 

13 string on it. You've done what we've asked by 

14 looking at the CATI report closer. And we have 

15 found that there's nothing to tie it back, so I 

16 still think it's just an observation, nothing else.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I agree. 

18 Although let's not say just an observation. It is 

19 an observation.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sorry, my terminology 

21 --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that's okay.
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm not criticizing you at all. I'm just -- I want 

2 to stimulate SC&A to continue making observations 

3 and following through because --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I give credit to 

5 both sides on this, because we have been on NIOSH 

6 and Scott and all these guys about following up on 

7 the CATI reviews and everything.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it's -- I'm 

10 very pleased with what I'm seeing from both sides.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am, too. I 

12 am, too. So we have an observation. Unless I hear 

13 any comments or other objections, we will close it. 

14 Hearing none, we'll go on. 379. Are 

15 there some observations?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 379 does not have any 

17 observations.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, and has no 

19 findings. Okay, fine. Full agreement. 380.1.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this 

21 finding involves the assignment of missed photon 

22 dose. So we saw that only one zero reading was 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigned for each year, but some of the guidance 

2 in the TBD suggest that monitoring occurred either 

3 monthly or quarterly.

4 I remember at the time, this is, you 

5 know, a few years ago, we started seeing that some 

6 individuals were actually monitored, you know, 

7 wore a daily badge, but they didn't have their badge 

8 exchange until only once a year.

9 So that became sort of an option. So 

10 NIOSH responded by saying that since this claimant 

11 was not a radiological worker, and in some cases 

12 was assigned visitor badges, a lot of the non-rad 

13 workers were often on an annual badge exchange.

14 So, like I said, since this individual 

15 did wear a badge daily, he could have been on an 

16 annual exchange schedule and not necessarily a 

17 monthly or a quarterly. So we suggested closing.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Okay. 

19 Again, observation, is it not?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yeah, it says it right 

21 there, Observation 1.

22 MS. BRIGGS: Now, is this the -- oh, I'm 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sorry. No, this one --

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This one was 

3 designated as --

4 MS. BRIGGS: This one is a finding. 

5 Yes, this was a finding.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is, 380.1. 

8 But we will change it to an observation, unless 

9 there's concern or issue, and then close it. 

10 Closure with a change to an observation. Okay.

11 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Alright, so we'll 

12 get to move on to Tab 381. And I think that the 

13 first one is an observation. Again, here's that 

14 same issue again regarding SEC eligibility.

15 So, you know, in a small period of time 

16 we had noticed the same kinds of things, but they 

17 could be resolved. So I guess this is very similar 

18 to the previous observation we discussed.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is.

20 MS. BRIGGS: So I guess, you know, we 

21 can --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I think we 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can dispense with it quickly and appropriately 

2 because it's the same issue.

3 MS. BRIGGS: Mm-hm.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it's an 

5 observation as you said. Okay. So unless I hear 

6 further, this is an observation and our 

7 discussion's finished with closure on it. [PAUSE]

8 Alright, 381.1.

9 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, okay. Let's see. 

10 This is involving Hanford's assignment of skin 

11 doses and OTIB-17. So I'm not sure if this issue 

12 was raised before.

13 So this case involves a skin cancer, so 

14 external dose was applied here using OTIB-17. 

15 Now, in the early years at Hanford, the 

16 documentation says that the dosimeter 

17 over-responded to low energy photons.

18 So in order to correct for this, the 

19 procedures recommend applying a correction factor 

20 of 0.6 for doses that were measured before 1957. 

21 And we found that the Hanford workbook actually 

22 applies that correction factor through 1972, which 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually results in a decrease to the assigned 

2 dose.

3 Now, it won't necessarily affect this 

4 case, let's see, because this individual was 

5 compensated. But it's extended through the 

6 workbook. And NIOSH said that they agreed and 

7 corrected the workbook.

8 And we just went ahead and checked the 

9 revised workbook and saw that the dosimeter 

10 over-response factors for low energy photons were 

11 included only to 1957. So we suggest closing.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

13 good. This is an observation.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I mean, it did 

15 require a correction to the work --

16 MR. KATZ: No, that's a finding.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's a 

19 finding, yes. Did I say observation? I'm sorry, 

20 I meant finding. Okay. Fine. Any concerns or 

21 objections? We'll go on, close.

22 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Oh, and the 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 second, that second finding in that list, 381.2, 

2 this is because, you know, in our DR reports, we 

3 separate the recorded doses from the missed doses.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MS. BRIGGS: And so the same issue 

6 would apply to missed photon dose. So it's the 

7 exact same finding.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and we've 

9 done this before earlier. Right. Good, okay. 

10 So this should be closed. Again, unless I hear 

11 word. [PAUSE]

12 Okay, closed.

13 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, let's see. Moving 

14 along.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We are moving 

16 along rapidly, yes.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Right? Yeah.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it's 

19 unusual, but we're starting following the old 

20 report and I've heard something about a long 

21 journey begins with a single step. So we've got 

22 a long journey ahead of us, folks. There are a lot 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of cases that we have to cover in our reviews.

2 MS. BRIGGS: Right.

3 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. To 

4 tell you the truth, a lot of this helps us on our 

5 side, because this is one of the ones where SC&A 

6 had put out the trial balloon on the new way to do 

7 things where they look at the two different levels 

8 of whether they're relatively straight-forward 

9 findings or more in-depth findings.

10 And that really helped us get into 

11 which ones, on our side, really needed a lot more 

12 of our attention on answering the question. So I 

13 just wanted to put that in your ear, that it was 

14 very helpful to us.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, very 

16 good. And --

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we would love to 

18 continue doing that if the Board will approve us 

19 going forward with that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

21 You know, I wondered, I do not remember precisely 

22 how the Board disposed of it. Certainly, the issue 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got mentioned.

2 And I looked up last night to see if the 

3 transcript was out, to see if I might look over the 

4 transcript for today's meeting, because, I mean, 

5 I think we're in the process of accepting it.

6 MR. KATZ: Dave, this is Ted. The Board 

7 did not accept it. The Board did not sort of 

8 conclude on that. So I think that's still at the 

9 Methods. But there's nothing to say that for --

10 which is very interesting and great to hear -- from 

11 sort of ORAU's perspective, if this is useful to 

12 ORAU, irrespective of whether the Subcommittee 

13 actually acts differently at this point, there's 

14 no reason why ORAU can't -- if SC&A is willing to 

15 do this categorization and it's helpful for 

16 speeding things along and DCAS's sort of response, 

17 then that seems great.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay, I'll 

19 be a little more conservative and just say that the 

20 Board hasn't approved it. So, I'm not monitoring 

21 internal communications. I encourage them.

22 (Laughter.)
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That's not a problem. I 

2 mean, absolutely it can make these notations or 

3 categorizations.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I believe 

5 the Board will in the end accept this modification, 

6 as our Subcommittee did. And the process is going 

7 on. So I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad to hear 

8 that this procedure is helpful.

9 Let's go on to 382.1.

10 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, sure. Yes, and I 

11 agree. Well, the BRS is just so helpful. You 

12 know, we're sort of having a constant exchange that 

13 we can follow along as we're generating, you know, 

14 findings and what not.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MS. BRIGGS: And then it's all laid 

17 out. So I think the exchange makes this process 

18 a lot easier.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, it does. 

20 Good. 382.1, and we're not terribly -- well, we're 

21 half an hour away from a break, folks. But let's 

22 do 382.1.
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Yeah, if I can keep 

2 moving along, I may be able to be finished by then. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay, 

4 fine.

5 MS. BRIGGS: Now, this one, let's see, 

6 382.1. I've got to say, this is that SEC 

7 eligibility issue. And I'll say right now, I think 

8 this was originally listed as a finding, but the 

9 other issues that were similar to this were listed 

10 as observations. You know, this is that wording 

11 regarding the SEC.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

13 MS. BRIGGS: So I think we can just 

14 close it and drop it, right?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MS. BRIGGS: And then just drop it into 

17 an observation?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

19 MS. BRIGGS: That's fair?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that is 

21 fair. And it is the same issue, so we can close 

22 it.
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Correct. Okay. Let me 

2 see what this one is. Alright. I guess this is 

3 another similar issue regarding monitoring 

4 schedules, 382.2.

5 Okay, so let's see. So this individual 

6 had a varying dosimeter exchange schedule 

7 throughout the employment. So for several years 

8 the record showed -- oh, I remember -- an external 

9 monitoring sheet, but there was no indication of 

10 the exchange schedule. So NIOSH assigned missed 

11 dose assuming an annual dosimeter exchange, you 

12 know, one zero per year.

13 Let's see, but we put this in as a 

14 finding. I think at the time it wasn't clear if 

15 the badge cycle was always recorded. And we 

16 thought it would be claimant-favorable to assume 

17 a quarterly or a monthly exchange.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MS. BRIGGS: This is one NIOSH provided 

20 a very helpful expanded response to the finding. 

21 So since this EE generally worked in administrative 

22 offices and not in a radiation area, this 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 individual may not have been continuously 

2 monitored. And in this case, an annual dosimeter 

3 exchange would be appropriate. 

4 And NIOSH also explained that, by the 

5 1950s, the dosimeter program at Hanford was 

6 well-established and it was unlikely that the EE 

7 would have been in a radiation control area without 

8 being monitored.

9 But we said that -- we agreed that the 

10 EE was not always in a rad area and then would not 

11 have required continuous monitoring. But since the 

12 records were blank, we said it was kind of a call 

13 as to how to assign the missed dose.

14 In fact, we shuffled this case around 

15 a little bit. And some of our members said, well, 

16 if it was our team we would have assigned. Let's 

17 say we did what we're doing blind: we probably would 

18 have assigned that that additional dose.

19 Now, it wouldn't have had a big impact 

20 on the case, but it was one of those situations 

21 where you say, well, we know we've got these blank 

22 records, but maybe it would be claimant-favorable 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do maybe a slight overestimate or assume that 

2 maybe there was a monitoring period where maybe 

3 they weren't monitored. 

4 So, given that, there was a little bit 

5 of back and forth, and we suggested the closing.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And so the 

7 calculation was done. So it should have been 

8 annual but the calculation was done quarterly or 

9 monthly?

10 MS. BRIGGS: Well, for some of the 

11 records that were blank, they assigned an annual 

12 exchange as opposed to another kind, say, a 

13 quarterly or a monthly.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

15 And then that was appropriate for --

16 MS. BRIGGS: Right. We had said, 

17 well, it certainly was -- yeah, it certainly wasn't 

18 incorrect.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

20 And the person was not a radiation worker.

21 MS. BRIGGS: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or was not an 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 operator. I mean, I guess a secretary in a 

2 facility, or an administrative person in a 

3 facility, let's not say they were not a radiation 

4 worker. They were exposed to radiation while 

5 doing work that was not central to the radiation 

6 processes.

7 MS. BRIGGS: Right. We try not to go 

8 by the job title, per se, because you may end up 

9 in a situation where an individual was labeled, 

10 say, as a secretary. But they were working in the 

11 possibility of having radiological areas.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

13 They're out on the floor often. 

14 So, what do folks recommend calling 

15 this? We certainly are ready to close it. And I 

16 think this may be considered an observation, since 

17 that -- other folks, help me. What would you like 

18 -- what do you think we should call it?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

20 think this is just an observation.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm. Others? 

22 It does seem to me this is -- we could move either 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 way. By the way, the fourth line from the bottom, 

2 Rose, there's a typo. "SC&A sees this as a as 

3 judgment."

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can get that 

5 corrected.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, I'm 

7 sure you will. Thanks, just pointing it out. But 

8 anyway, observation, folks?

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I just think, 

10 I think that is -- it's either an observation or 

11 -- there's no defect in the dose reconstruction, 

12 so it's either a finding that's not right or it's 

13 an observation.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, which 

15 suggests observation. Others? 

16 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I just 

17 remind you, you're not getting any information from 

18 Josie or from me because we're not allowed to 

19 comment on this.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, thank you. 

21 You know, thank you for reminding me.

22 MEMBER MUNN: If you thought perhaps we 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were absent --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, as a 

3 matter of fact, it reminds me that, when we're 

4 sitting in a meeting, it's clear when someone is 

5 not participating. Yes. So thank you for 

6 reminding me of that, because actually I did forget 

7 it. We're going through lots. And so it will be 

8 an observation, folks.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Scott, I also 

10 noticed here that it says there's an attachment 

11 that isn't actually attached. And I believe we've 

12 seen that at one point in time. But if staff could 

13 just go in and attach that for a complete record, 

14 that would be great.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, I'll look at that. 

16 I'm shocked that it's not in the BRS, but I'll take 

17 care of that for you.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 417.1.

19 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see, this has 

20 to do with an internal dose workbook. And for this 

21 case, the internal dose was calculated using 

22 hypothetical intakes that were derived from air 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concentrations from OTIB-18. And so there's the 

2 -- I think it's the OTIB-18 workbook.

3 And in that workbook, it listed the air 

4 concentration values in units of microcuries per 

5 milliliter under the column for daily intakes in 

6 units of picocuries. So we were just concerned 

7 about that.

8 But NIOSH explained that the doses were 

9 actually calculated correctly. It's not that they 

10 were using the air concentrations as intakes. 

11 It's just that, behind the workbook, the workbook 

12 itself converts the air concentrations to daily 

13 intakes. So it's really essentially a column 

14 that's been mislabeled.

15 So the output results are correct, but 

16 it's very confusing to look at. So that was the 

17 crux of that. So we suggest closing.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

19 think that's fairly clearly an observation. And 

20 it should be closed. Again, I will wait one 

21 second, and if I hear anything. David, you're on 

22 the line too but you're --
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good with this. 

2 This is Brad.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay. 

4 Let's close it as an observation. 

5 427.1.

6 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Yeah, I've only 

7 got about two left. Let's see, again, we can get 

8 through this one quickly. This is that same issue, 

9 I think it was the very first one I discussed, was 

10 that --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, the ROT 

12 geometry.

13 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. And the other one. 

14 So in this case the workbook had been corrected, 

15 so we can close it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So be it. 

17 And stay with me one sec. This was closed as an 

18 observation, was it not? No, it would have been 

19 --

20 MR. KATZ: No, that would have been a

21 finding if it affected the workbook.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Mm-hm. So we're saying this is -- I'm slowing 

2 down. This is an -- the ROT geometry that we used 

3 before, that was a finding?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

6 Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: That's right.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

9 Okay. I think I need a break soon, too. So let's 

10 keep going.

11 MR. KATZ: Well, it sounds like we only 

12 have one more case --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right, 

14 and then maybe we'll take a break.

15 MS. BRIGGS: Right. It's also -- and 

16 I thought this was actually the most interesting 

17 one. So this has to do with the assignment of 

18 occupational medical dose.

19 So, let's see. So NIOSH didn't assign 

20 any occupational medical dose for this case because 

21 they did not find any X-ray exams that were 

22 appropriate for consideration.
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, we did find one pre-employment PFG 

2 exam that was taken in 1948 that may have been 

3 included. But this is a -- I think it's an example 

4 of a bigger issue, even though it was only one exam.

5 So the X-ray document was stamped 

6 "Hanford work." That's all it said on the 

7 document. And with no indication that the exam was 

8 performed offsite.

9 Now, I know that's been sort of a topic 

10 of discussion, and I know it's been determined also 

11 at the level of the statute that offsite exams are 

12 not included in the dose reconstructions. 

13 But two things. One, this one seemed 

14 to be, at the time where we looked at it, seemed 

15 very straightforward, where it was stamped 

16 "Hanford work" and seemed that that would have 

17 qualified.

18 But there did result in a very 

19 interesting discussion, I thought, with ORAU 

20 people on the BRS. So NIOSH did say, well, all 

21 X-ray exams that were taken at Hanford in the early 

22 years, from 1944 to 1956, were performed offsite 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 at this Kadlec Hospital in Richland.

2 And the OTIB-79 describes which 

3 occupational medical exams were performed onsite 

4 or offsite, and therefore which exams should be 

5 included as part of the occupational medical dose 

6 assigns in the dose reconstruction.

7 What I thought was interesting is NIOSH 

8 said they went through the records, and it does 

9 appear that the records could have been labeled 

10 Hanford Works but those exams were actually 

11 performed at the hospital. And this I would like 

12 to hear a little more about.

13 Then later on in our exchange, NIOSH 

14 said that they actually have undergone some 

15 discussions with DOE to actually include Kadlec 

16 Hospital as a covered facility for these medical 

17 exams.

18 I guess the idea is that this is the only 

19 place that those occupational exposures that were 

20 a requirement for employment were being performed 

21 at a hospital, then you could argue that should be 

22 included.
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Again, we understand that this was a 

2 decision made on the level of statute. But I'm 

3 just interested to hear more about this discussion. 

4 And I guess in the DR exchange, NIOSH indicated that 

5 if any of those changes do occur, about whether or 

6 not this hospital will be considered an onsite 

7 facility, then OTIB-79 will be updated.

8 So because of that, we recommended 

9 closing, but honestly I just wanted to hear more 

10 about the discussion because we had been, you know, 

11 talking about this similar issue about what x-ray 

12 exams are covered and offsite even though they were 

13 still requirements for employment. So yes, that 

14 --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Maybe 

16 someone on the line can tell us a little more about 

17 --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I can 

19 offer some things on it. I can't offer much on this

20 but I can offer some things on this.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, thank you.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we received some 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fairly definitive information from the Department 

2 of Energy that Kadlec Hospital is actually owned 

3 by the Department of Energy until September of 

4 1956. They transferred the ownership to the City 

5 of Richland or some other entity in September of 

6 1956. And so as a point, as a matter of fact, it 

7 turns out that x-rays taken at Kadlec Hospital up 

8 until September of 1956 were taken at a DOE 

9 facility.

10 So we have recently amended our OTIB-79 

11 to reflect that. And we will, but that was just 

12 done so we will be engaging in a PER to evaluate 

13 the impact of that change on claims.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

15 That's good, hard information. And I'm glad to 

16 hear it. So there will be a PER coming?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Actually there 

18 were a couple of other sites where it changed as 

19 well. I don't remember which ones those are. But 

20 it will be essentially an OTIB-79 PER where we'll 

21 look at the impact of that OTIB-79 change.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well, 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 okay. That truly settles the matter. I don't 

2 think this is a finding. I think this is an 

3 observation. Right, okay.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But this x-ray is now 

5 going to be included, it sounds like.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, it is, but it's because 

8 a facility is being added, not because anything was 

9 done incorrectly.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, that's 

11 correct. The rule was clear that they should not 

12 include those until -- and it's now changed, the 

13 rule. The facility is now part of our covered 

14 facility.

15 Where are we? I'm not sure. The next 

16 one, Hanford SRS RFP?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That one is actually 

18 closed. We have gotten back to the SRS ones.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Kathy, I know I 

21 recently sent you that email. Did you have a 

22 chance to look at that?
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRIGGS: Excuse me, yes I did. I 

2 sent it to your CDC email.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

4 So we have finished Hanford, yes?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Do you want to take a comfort 

7 break, perhaps?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

9 MR. KATZ: Do you want to take a comfort 

10 break, perhaps?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I think 

12 this is a nice time to do it. That's my feeling. 

13 So folks, it's a little after 3:00. Let's get 

14 together at 3:15. And where will we be going? 

15 Which facility will be --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, we'll just move 

17 right along here in the matrix if it's okay with 

18 everyone.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

20 FERNALD, MOUND AND RFP

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe the next one 

22 is Fernald and Mound and RFP.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. Very 

2 good, thank you. See you at 3:15, folks. Thank 

3 you.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

5 went off the record at 3:04 p.m. and resumed at 3:16 

6 p.m.)

7 MR. KATZ: So I think we can roll, Dave.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we can. 

9 Did we have one of the, what was it? Did we have 

10 one that we had left over this morning that we were 

11 going to go back to? It was --

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is one SRS 

13 finding. I wasn't aware that NIOSH responded to 

14 it, because it came late last week.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we didn't have a 

17 chance to look at it. I pulled up the response, 

18 and it's fairly lengthy. So, if it's alright with 

19 you, I think we would prefer to wait to address 

20 that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

22 So, we're waiting on SRS 356?
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The number is --

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, 356.6, correct.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, yes. Oh, 

4 sure. That's fine. We're going to meet again and 

5 hold them --

6 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. And just to 

7 let you know, since we're still talking about the 

8 Savannah River --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

10 MR. SIEBERT: I did get that attachment 

11 for 382.2. It's uploaded in the BRS for Rose and 

12 Nicole. So that's all done.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good. 

14 Okay, folks. So, where do we go now?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We're going to move on 

16 to the next matrix --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- if that's alright 

19 with everyone.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of course.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. I don't 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand, there's a few that say Hanford SRS RFP.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We did already cover 

3 those cases. Those particular cases just had 

4 multiple employment sites. So we have to pick a 

5 single --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. I see. 

7 Okay. Yes, okay. That's -- and we've taken care 

8 of those. So, we begin on now SRS 356.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We actually have 

10 completed the SRS, except for that one that we just 

11 discussed, that we're going to come back to at the 

12 next meeting.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

14 I thought, I must have, my notes were off. I'm 

15 sorry.

16 MR. KATZ: So 373, pull that.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Fernald, 

18 right?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay, this is Doug. Are 

22 we ready?
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. To start 373, 

3 Observation 1, there was a date for one of the 

4 cancers that was different between two different 

5 DOL documents. So we wrote it up as an observation 

6 saying, gee, we're looking at this document, but 

7 this date doesn't match the dates that are in the 

8 DR report.

9 And, oh, okay. We have NIOSH's 

10 response down there. And it seems that there were 

11 a couple of different DOL reports that were 

12 updated, but that NOCTS did not update correctly. 

13 So, it did not update the, it did not include the 

14 correct dates for a couple of the cancers. It did 

15 not update them.

16 But as it turns out, it's not going to 

17 have a big impact on anything, because it's only 

18 going to be off by probably a couple of months. So 

19 there's no impact, no overall impact on the case. 

20 But it was just a problem where NOCTS did not update 

21 the dates correctly. So we wrote it up as an 

22 observation.
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is it, this is 

3 David Richardson. Is it an observation? I guess 

4 if it had been a couple of years instead of a couple 

5 of months, what would the consequences have been?

6 MR. FARVER: I don't know. But I would 

7 say if it would have had a significant impact on 

8 the case it would have been a finding.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I mean, I 

10 thought of, I don't know. It seems to me like QA 

11 issues like that are better recorded as findings. 

12 Like, I'd like to understand the, you know, the 

13 etiology of that problem.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this Brad. 

15 This was with DOL, wasn't it? So NIOSH doesn't 

16 have any control over that or what? This is --

17 MR. FARVER: I don't completely 

18 understand who updates NOCTS, but when NOCTS was 

19 updated it did not include the correct dates.

20 MR. KATZ: I think we need to hear from 

21 Scott.

22 MR. SIEBERT: I can't answer to NOCTS 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 updates.

2 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Stu.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, Stu. Stu, 

6 are you on the line? We're getting some background 

7 here.

8 MR. KATZ: It sounds like someone's on 

9 the line that isn't needed, but should be. But, 

10 I gather we don't have Stu on the line, it seems 

11 like we need some follow-up to understand this.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well --

13 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. I just 

14 called in. Am I the one you're looking for?

15 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, 

17 indeed, it is. I was wondering, who updates NOCTS? 

18 Who handles it?

19 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be our 

20 communications folks downstairs, or what we call 

21 the claimant information communication team.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha.
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: What's the -- I'm just 

2 now catching --

3 MR. KATZ: So, there's a case, 373. 

4 It's the first observation. And the question is 

5 apparently NOCTS didn't update correctly. So the 

6 dates for a couple of the cancers of the claimant 

7 were off by a few months from what they should have 

8 been.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I'll transfer 

10 this down there, and see what, see if we can figure 

11 out what happened.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: The question is whether this 

14 is a problem that could occur elsewhere, and 

15 understanding better how this occurred.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to find out.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, Ted, can I --

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, David.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- ask for a, maybe 

21 it's a misimpression of mine. I thought that the 

22 dates were close because the diagnoses for multiple 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cases were close in time. It wasn't that there was 

2 a typo. Is that correct?

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, I -- Doug.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. It looks like the 

5 new August 2003 cancer replaced the June cancer, 

6 rather than the November cancers.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. But the, 

8 just the timing of the dates, the problem of 

9 transposition of dates is because there are 

10 multiple claims, there are multiple cancers going 

11 through.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. There have been --

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That was my 

14 perception. So, you know, here it happens to be 

15 that somebody's cancer diagnoses were close in 

16 time. And you would have another case where they 

17 could have been further in time.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it would be 

20 especially the kind of a problem where you have 

21 non-fatal cancers. So, yes, I guess, I mean, just 

22 that there's a difference between a problem of a 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 typo, and there's one type of QA. But then if 

2 there's something happening with transpositions of 

3 dates for multiple diagnoses, then that's a 

4 different type of problem. And I don't think, I 

5 would really feel like that's a finding.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. And so, all I was 

7 saying, David, is I thought it would be helpful to 

8 hear from DCAS once they figure out what exactly 

9 happened in this case.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

11 MR. KATZ: Because I don't think Doug 

12 knows why the error was made.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, yes. Okay. 

14 I just was wondering about the rationale of it, you 

15 know, of being a couple of days or a couple of months 

16 off --

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- versus there 

19 being a couple --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- of diagnoses, 

22 where the dates of diagnoses have been transposed.
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why don't we 

2 just consider this in progress until we can get some 

3 clarification? I think it's probably a finding. 

4 But that's, but we, I mean, Stu will try to get it 

5 clarified.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, can someone tell 

7 me which set this case is from, so it will help me 

8 track down the tracking number that I'm going to 

9 need.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Stu, I sent that 

11 information to you in an email. You have it.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got the tracking 

13 number?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, thanks.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Sure thing.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

18 So --

19 MR. FARVER: Observation 2. When 

20 we're looking over the spreadsheet for the recycled 

21 uranium dose comparisons, we saw where the total 

22 from the scan in the adrenals totaled greater than 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one millirem, [i.e.] two millirem each. And the 

2 DR states that they were omitted, since they 

3 contributed less than a millirem per year, in any 

4 year.

5 As it turns out, that is correct. It 

6 was, although the total dose was two millirem, the 

7 dose for a year was less than a millirem. So, in 

8 other words, the total dose was over multiple 

9 years.

10 So they've got a dose, the DR report was 

11 correct. It was just a little confusing, because 

12 when we reviewed the spreadsheet we saw the two 

13 millirem, and --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. FARVER: -- got confused. But we 

16 wrote it up as an observation, just because we 

17 didn't understand.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

19 it's clear now, and that's reasonable. So, it 

20 seems to me where the observation is, so we can 

21 close. Okay?

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, folks, 

2 let's go on, 373.1.

3 MR. FARVER: 373.1, let's see. The 

4 finding was that the incorrect energy 

5 distributions were applied. Incorrect meaning --

6 I thought I knew that one. Okay. This is where 

7 the DR report lists energy distributions were split 

8 into two different energy groups.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: Like, I think the 60/40. 

11 Forty percent starting at 250 keV, and 60 percent 

12 greater than 250 keV. Now, those are what's 

13 written up in the DR report. However, according 

14 to OTIB 17, when you do the -- follow OTIB 17, you 

15 apply the missed dose to the skin as 100 percent 

16 starting at 250 keV.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. FARVER: So it appeared that they 

19 did not use the correct energy distributions, 

20 because they didn't use the ones that were in the 

21 DR report. They followed OTIB 17, which was 

22 correct. So you could say it was a little bit --
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they probably should have put something in the DR 

2 report, stating what they were doing. But --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: Overall the calculations 

5 were correct.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They were, 

7 right. So, this is an observation that we should 

8 close, right?

9 MR. FARVER: Well, this was written up 

10 as a finding, because it's different than what was 

11 written in the DR report.

12 MR. KATZ: Alright. That's understood, 

13 Doug. But it's still -- there's no consequence. 

14 It's an observation. There's no error in the dose 

15 reconstruction.

16 MR. FARVER: No, that's correct.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. KATZ: That's good.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

21 close, we'll close on the observation.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Point 2.

2 MR. FARVER: Finding number 2. 

3 Incorrect dose conversion factors were applied to 

4 cancers number nine, ten and 15. This goes back 

5 to a difference between what is written in the DR 

6 report, and what was actually done.

7 So the, it is correct that they did not 

8 use the dose conversion factors written in the DR 

9 report for those cancers. That is because what 

10 they did, NIOSH did, they used the Monte Carlo 

11 analysis. And when they used the Monte Carlo 

12 analysis, instead of using the, I think it's the 

13 mean values, they used a distribution, and did the 

14 Monte Carlo calculations. So, what they did was 

15 correct. But what was in the dose -- DR report --

16 was not what they did.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And why do you 

18 suppose it was not what they did?

19 MR. FARVER: Well, because they put the 

20 dose conversion factors that were just done like 

21 a point calculation. But they did the Monte Carlo 

22 calculation, which uses a distribution.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: Which is going to give you 

3 a different dose conversion factor.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, right. And 

5 they didn't write up that it was Monte Carlo.

6 MR. FARVER: And they -- it's different 

7 than what they put in their ---

8 (Telephonic interference)

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: It's kind of a subtlety.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And it's 

12 an observation too.

13 MR. FARVER: What's written up as a 

14 finding, we can change it to an observation.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. It should 

16 be.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, folks, I 

19 think we should close this. Alright. [PAUSE]

20 Closed. And 373.3.

21 MR. FARVER: 373.3. An incorrect 

22 table is used for the 1993 X-ray dose. NIOSH 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agrees with this finding --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hello. Doug?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go 

5 ahead.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Incorrect X-ray 

7 dose for 1993. And it has to do with the dates. 

8 The dose was applicable through April. But the 

9 dose changed and then from May through December 

10 there was a different dose value used.

11 What the DR should, the dose 

12 reconstructor should have used the lower dose in 

13 this case, instead of using the higher dose. So, 

14 it was an error on the part of the dose 

15 reconstructor. Very small dose error.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Handed over a 

17 high -- claimant-favorable higher dose?

18 MR. FARVER: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

20 Well, this is okay, clear cut. And this is an 

21 observation. Excuse me, pardon me. This is a 

22 finding. Because there was an error, a procedural 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 error. Although I can understand that the person 

2 would do this, saying, well, why bother? I'll just 

3 take the larger of the two.

4 It's a reasonable -- they did it in a 

5 reasonable, claimant-favorable way. But 

6 technically speaking, they did not do it correctly. 

7 They could have done it more accurately, which 

8 would have -- so I would say that we can close it. 

9 And we would close it as a finding. Would others 

10 agree?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'd 

13 agree.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I do too.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright, 

17 then, we're agreed. Closed.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. And then we move on 

19 to Tab 374, Observation 1. The observation is that 

20 it's not clear from the DR report why NIOSH did not 

21 extend the uranium chronic intake regime through 

22 the end of 1963. Instead they ended it in 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 September of 1963, I believe, which was based on 

2 the submittal of the last urine sample.

3 NIOSH's response is, the intake regime 

4 was based on the submittal of the last urine sample. 

5 And this is the final sample during the uranium 

6 period. The TB states to assume uranium, natural 

7 uranium prior to 1964.

8 We wrote it up as an observation, just 

9 because we did not really understand. It really 

10 does not have an impact on the dose.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, when did 

12 the person stop work? It wasn't clear on the --

13 MR. FARVER: Well, you're only going to 

14 do this regime through the end of 1964 -- I mean, 

15 through the end of 1963. So instead of carrying 

16 it to 12/31/1963, I believe NIOSH carried it just 

17 to the last sample date.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: The intake ending on the 

20 sample date of 9/6/1963.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

22 looks more like a finding. Again, I can see a 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 person may have just estimated that if it was --

2 that it was non-compensable. But on the other 

3 hand, it is -- I mean, they should have completed 

4 it until 12/31.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

6 Let me make a clarification here.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

8 MR. SIEBERT: That's the first intake 

9 regime. There are additional intake regimes that 

10 are signed after that. There's another one from 

11 9/7/63 through 1976.

12 It's not that we didn't assign uranium 

13 after that. It's just that each regime was handled 

14 separately. So we didn't take the regime that was 

15 just a little bit at the end of 1963 and call that 

16 natural uranium, and then call the rest recycled 

17 uranium.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. SIEBERT: We called it all the way 

20 recycled uranium for those extra three months to 

21 be claimant-favorable.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And you 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had, this is 374. I thought the person may have 

2 ended employment at the end of '64. You're saying 

3 the employment went on?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, through '76. 

5 Correct.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

7 then, in which case what you say is correct, and 

8 this just becomes an observation.

9 MR. FARVER: Right. That's why we 

10 wrote it up that way.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

12 Okay, folks, we'll close it. Good. Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: Let's see. First 

14 finding, 374.1, failure to address missed thorium 

15 intakes. The employee had some test count results 

16 in the DOE record.

17 NIOSH agreed that they should have 

18 assigned a missed thorium intake. The thorium 

19 results were not included in the bioassay 

20 spreadsheet, which is the primary source employed 

21 by the dose reconstructor.

22 The dose reconstructor should have 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviewed the duplicate pages to ensure no 

2 additional information. So it's on the dose 

3 reconstructor's part. And it's resulting in about 

4 76 millirems, which has no overall impact on the 

5 claim.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

7 NIOSH acknowledged that that was just an error?

8 MR. FARVER: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

10 that's clear cut to be closed, and as a finding. 

11 Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, 374. 2. There's a 

15 failure to sufficiently address incidents.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Misspelled, by 

17 the way.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, it is.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It will 

20 be corrected, I'm sure. Please. Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. In the CATI report 

22 the claimants indicate that they have copies of 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 urine bioassay results, in vivo monitoring, X-ray 

2 exams, and so forth. And that this documentation 

3 --

4 SC&A reviewed the files and found no 

5 record of the documentation being provided to 

6 NIOSH. Even though for most years the records 

7 appear to be complete, SC&A finds it relevant that 

8 all files be included.

9 It looks like the employee was involved 

10 in about four different incidents. And, even if 

11 the employee did have the information, and didn't 

12 provide it to NIOSH, the records were complete 

13 enough that it would not have impacted the overall 

14 dose assessment.

15 Although NIOSH agrees that the DR 

16 report is lacking details concerning the 

17 incidents, it's not going to change it, or have an 

18 overall impact on it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MR. FARVER: So, this is just another 

21 case where they, you know, they could have more 

22 information from the CATI report and the DR report.
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So this 

2 becomes an observation, does it not? And we lack 

3 -- well, we lack the information. So we can't go 

4 beyond it. So it seems to me it should be closed, 

5 but closed as an observation, should it not? Board 

6 Members?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, closed, yes.

8 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

9 Again, can I just have a question? Did I 

10 understand the CATI report to say that they, that 

11 the individual actually had records? When that's 

12 the case, how much does NIOSH pursue, how far do 

13 you go to pursue getting those records? Or am I 

14 misunderstanding what the CATI stated?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we always ask them 

16 to send in any records that they may have. What 

17 was interesting on this one is, if you look further 

18 in the CATI, they also stated they didn't know. It 

19 shows the option of don't know when they were 

20 talking about post-incident monitoring.

21 As well as they said, biological 

22 monitoring after an incident was the normal 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 procedure. However, they do not know if the EE 

2 participated in biological monitoring after the 

3 incident he was involved in. I'll have to look 

4 back. Give me a second here real quick. I'm 

5 thinking this is with a survivor.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. SIEBERT: So they're really, as I 

8 said, if they say they have records, we ask them 

9 to go ahead and send anything that they have. But 

10 that's about as far as we can go.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: While you're 

12 looking at that. You know, I would find in all CATI 

13 reports, to my mind it would be much clearer if 

14 every report was CATI (claimant) or CATI 

15 (survivor). That plays a very important role in 

16 my mind.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Well, when I say, when 

18 SC&A has an observation or a finding related to a 

19 CATI, that would be easy for them to --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. SIEBERT: -- notate that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. You know, 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 folks, why don't you, I would think that would be 

2 useful to me, and maybe to other Board Members as 

3 well. Because the quality of information is 

4 really very different.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the CATI itself, 

6 you can tell when you look at the CATI whether it's 

7 a survivor or the EE. I just had to look at the 

8 CATI.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, right. No, 

10 Scott, you do. You have that, of course. The 

11 problem is, those of us on the Subcommittee don't 

12 have it. So I would not know reading this --

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did not know.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Got you. That is, I 

16 didn't understand what you were saying.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. That's what I was 

18 saying. SC&A can just note it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you do 

20 that, SC&A folks?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely. We don't 

22 have any current dose reconstructions in the 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 blinds. But whenever we get our next batch we'll 

2 implement that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

4 good. Right. Good.

5 MR. SIEBERT: And for clarification, 

6 it definitely was a survivor.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A survivor?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, for my 

11 clarification though, I'm getting the impression 

12 that now the Board would not like us to indicate 

13 this is a finding when an incident is mentioned, 

14 but not mentioned in the actual report. Because 

15 it can't be reconstructed. Is that --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- consistent with 

18 what you're feeling?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I feel that way. 

20 How about others?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I agree that seems 

22 like it should be a -- not a finding.
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Because this is 

2 different than what, past instructions we've 

3 received. So I just want to clarify that going 

4 forward.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I will say 

6 that at least for me, it wasn't until I began 

7 participating in the writing of the Secretary's 

8 report that I realized the importance of this. And 

9 so, I, as Chair I was not paying attention. I was 

10 not paying attention to this, because I didn't 

11 understand the importance of it. And now I do.

12 And that's why you'll notice I'm 

13 fussing around a lot about findings and 

14 observations. Whereas before I rarely 

15 participated in any conversations about that. 

16 Usually other Board Members, Subcommittee Members,

17 made suggestions. And, you know, I listened, and 

18 went along, or didn't go along.

19 So, yes, I think that's, you're right. 

20 This may be effectively a different practice. And 

21 that significantly comes, at least from me, from 

22 the report that we're doing.
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So from now on 

2 anything where we find we don't believe that the 

3 dose reconstruction report itself did adequately 

4 address something, but the actual dose 

5 reconstruction was appropriate, from now on that 

6 will be an observation?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And keep in mind that 

9 that won't affect everything that's already done. 

10 It will start from --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, you know, 

14 but in fact, many other things, including the 

15 things that we're going to come into, the 

16 suggestions that are going to made on Methods, 

17 suggestions that are going to be made on how we 

18 might approach more expedited dose reconstruction, 

19 these will all be in the [Secretary’s] Report. And 

20 it will be soon.

21 So, we're, you know, we're turning --

22 It's an appropriate time to turn new leaves, if new 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 leaves are worthy of turning. Okay. Let us go on.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next one will be 

3 Tab 375, Observation 1. SC&A found conflicting 

4 information for a photon dosimeter, limit of 

5 detection values between two tables. In the TBD 

6 Table 6.3 and Table 6.13, one listed as 30 millirem, 

7 one listed as 20 millirem for the same period, which 

8 can get confusing.

9 So the NIOSH response is, the LOD value 

10 of 20 is built into the Fernald workbook. And 

11 NIOSH agrees there is conflicting information. 

12 NIOSH determined that 20 was the more appropriate 

13 value between the two, and used that in the Fernald 

14 assessments.

15 The bottom line is the TBD has been 

16 revised to correct the conflict. And in this case 

17 those tables do not conflict anymore.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it's 

19 an appropriate observation. And I think we can 

20 close it.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 375.1.
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: 375.1. There's an 

2 inconsistency in the distributions and doses in the 

3 electronic IREP table and the IREP table that's 

4 attached to the DR report.

5 Just to clarify this, every DR report, 

6 at the very end has an IREP table printed with it. 

7 Along with that there's an electronic spreadsheet 

8 of an IREP table that goes along with the file. In 

9 this case those two files -- or the numbers in those 

10 two files did not match up. And that's the basis 

11 for the finding.

12 And the NIOSH response is, the original 

13 IREP sheet was not the final IREP sheet used for 

14 the PoC determination. And if you would look at 

15 the DR report, the IREP tables in there, they were 

16 not done using a Vose or Monte Carlo-type 

17 calculation. They were done using just a single 

18 point calculation.

19 And since this claim was over 45 

20 percent, they should have used a Monte Carlo one. 

21 So it was reworked. However, the new file did not 

22 replace the attachment to the dose reconstruction 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report. Somehow this step was overlooked in the 

2 process. And it was kind of like a NIOSH process 

3 error.

4 The doses are correct. There's a 

5 difference in what was in the dose reconstruction 

6 report to what was finally the final doses.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, it's a 

8 reporting, it's a -- is it a process error?

9 MR. FARVER: I believe it was an error 

10 in the way NIOSH handled the process of updating 

11 their file.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: I mean, I guess you might 

14 want to ask, were the doses sent to DOL correct?

15 MR. SIEBERT: They were. I would 

16 agree. What happened is, as you well know, the 

17 DCAS reviews the ORAU Team's dose reconstruction 

18 reports. In this case the DCAS reviewer had a 

19 comment, and wanted something else changed in it.

20 Our normal process is for it to come 

21 back, and we resubmit it. And when we do the 

22 re-submittal is when the IREP sheet gets merged 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into the report. However, in this case the DCAS 

2 reviewer obtained the files directly, instead of 

3 returning it. And just missed the step of 

4 re-merging that into the DR process.

5 So, it's an unusual process that the 

6 reviewer used. And we normally don't do it that 

7 way. So, our normal process catches it all. It's 

8 fine. It's just this walked out slightly outside 

9 the process.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But there was no 

11 error. I mean, I don't see that there was an error 

12 in what NIOSH did.

13 MR. FARVER: Right. The actual 

14 calculations were all correct. It's just the 

15 wrong copy of the IREP sheet was appended to the 

16 dose reconstruction --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: -- report for the claim.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Sounds 

20 like a closure and observation. If we close it, 

21 it's an observation, is it not? Board Members?

22 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see why not.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? 

2 Pardon? I missed --

3 MEMBER MUNN: Sorry about that. I 

4 don't see why not.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I agree with 

7 that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

9 Let's close it with, as an observation. The other 

10 one, go to 375.2.

11 MR. FARVER: 375.2. NIOSH may have 

12 used an LOD value instead of an LOD over two for 

13 the missed 30 to 250 keV photons. This is the same 

14 as we've talked about before, that the attachment 

15 to the dose reconstruction report is not the final 

16 run. So it was confusing for us to determine how 

17 they came up with the values for their doses when 

18 the files didn't match.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So they should 

20 have used the LOD over two, right?

21 MR. FARVER: Well, I believe they did 

22 it correctly. The problem was, when we're 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviewing it, it's confusing because the files, 

2 what they say they do, and then what the final file 

3 is, are different.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: So that's why we have it 

6 stated this way, may have used an LOD value instead. 

7 It's because we really can't tell what they did, 

8 because the files don't match.

9 MR. KATZ: So, Doug, this is wrapped up 

10 in that other business, in effect?

11 MR. FARVER: Yes. And I believe a lot 

12 of these are all wrapped up together.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, it's an 

15 observation, yes?

16 MR. FARVER: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's --

19 this is an observation. We can close it now. And 

20 that's good.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. Moving on to 

22 number 3.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Point 3, right.

2 MR. FARVER: The neutron doses appear 

3 incorrect. As with 375.2, the values hand entered 

4 by the DR into the Vose simulation tool were 

5 incorrect for an N/P ratio. That's been corrected 

6 in the tool.

7 So in the previous one there was an 

8 error, but it was corrected in the revision to the 

9 workbook.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And for this 

11 one?

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let me clarify. 

13 This is Scott. The difference is, when this claim 

14 was assessed, the Vose runs were actually done 

15 outside the normal tool. They had to be done 

16 separately. And additional information had to be 

17 entered into is on a site by site basis by the DR.

18 They made the mistake on how they did 

19 that in this case. The correction to the tool is 

20 that the Vose calculations are now rolled into the 

21 main tool. So the DR doesn't have to make this, 

22 the entry of the N/P ratio or other parameters like 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that anymore. So the process has been fixed. The 

2 dose reconstructor made an error in this case.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

4 So this is a finding. And it is now corrected. 

5 The process has been corrected.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

8 that's good. That's a finding. And I move for 

9 closure. Any concerns?

10 MEMBER MUNN: No.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 375.4.

14 MR. FARVER: -- is 375.4. This 

15 concerns the ambient dose. NIOSH failed to 

16 multiply the ambient dose by 2,500 hours per year. 

17 This is just to compensate for the doses that are 

18 listed in the TBD. Then we do this calculation. 

19 NIOSH agrees that they did not multiply their 

20 ambient dose by the 2,500 hours per year.

21 It's a DR, dose reconstructor error. 

22 And it decreased the dose. SC&A questions if the 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR was reworked with the new values. But I'm 

2 thinking this was a compensated case. So I'm not 

3 sure you would rework it.

4 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct, Doug.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So the 

7 resolution here is that, I mean, this was an error. 

8 So it is a finding.

9 MR. FARVER: Yes. It just, it was a 

10 compensated case, so there's no need to rework it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

12 But in terms of our review, it's a finding, and 

13 should be closed, folks, right? Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, 375.5. There's 

15 duplicate ambient doses for 1985 through 1997. 

16 They're in there twice. NIOSH says there appears 

17 to be a cut and paste error and it's been corrected, 

18 because the ambient doses no longer require the use 

19 of a separate spreadsheet. An error within the 

20 external dosimetry tool. So it was, you know, 

21 another dose reconstructor error. Once again, the 

22 case is already compensated.
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

2 Okay. So we'll --

3 MR. KATZ: Also, another error that is 

4 fixed for other cases. Because the tool's 

5 corrected, right?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So let's 

9 close that as a finding. Good.

10 MR. FARVER: Next one's easy, 412. No 

11 findings.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

13 Any observations?

14 MR. FARVER: No. Then we'll move on to 

15 413.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. FARVER: Observation 1. SC&A 

18 found that NIOSH assigned a missed photon and 

19 missed neutron [dose], as if the EE was monitored 

20 on a monthly basis in '84, and quarterly during '85 

21 to '94, for a total of 52 zeros. Assigning missed 

22 dose when the EE was not badged is technically 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incorrectbecause the employee was not wearing a 

2 badge to register a dose.

3 NIOSH's response was, the site did not 

4 provide any dosimeter records for '84 through '90. 

5 And there's no indication that the employee should 

6 have been monitored during the time.

7 Oh, okay, I remember this one. This, 

8 it was a [identifying information redacted]. And 

9 he was there over a period of, I think then, years 

10 intermittently, you know, repairing machines. 

11 Therefore, NIOSH agrees that only unmonitored dose 

12 would have been more appropriate.

13 And the assessment that was submitted 

14 by NIOSH included a missed dose and onsite ambient 

15 dose. And the total of those two doses was an 

16 overestimate in the EE's dose.

17 Now, we looked at that. And we agreed 

18 that while they used the missed and ambient doses 

19 as an overestimate, it was just, it is not 

20 technically correct to assign a missed dose.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: But, you know, it's not 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to have any impact on it [PoC].

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So this 

3 is an observation, as you say. Sure. Okay. 

4 Let's close it, folks.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 413.1

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Pre-employment 

8 X-ray exam was not assigned. Once again, this is 

9 the [identifying information redacted] guy over a 

10 period of ten years. And what NIOSH did is, they 

11 did assign an X-ray exam dose every year for that 

12 ten years. But they just did not assign a 

13 pre-employment exam, as is stated in the Technical 

14 Basis Document.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But they need 

16 not have, need they, for a person who comes in 

17 sporadically?

18 MR. FARVER: Well, it depends. I 

19 don't believe that's clear in the Technical Basis 

20 Document. Okay. This is a special case, you 

21 know, he's a [identifying information redacted] 

22 guy. I understand what they did. But according 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the technical basis they probably should have.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But if he --

3 MR. FARVER: But there were no records. 

4 I mean, there were no diagnostic records for this 

5 employee, as would be expected. And in the CATI 

6 report the employee indicated that medical X-rays 

7 were not required as a condition of employment. So 

8 in my opinion, it's kind of a judgment call. And 

9 you're talking about one X-ray exam.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, we are. 

11 But there's perfectly good reason to think that 

12 they may never have given him a pre-employment 

13 X-ray exam.

14 MR. FARVER: They may not have given 

15 him any X-ray exams. There were no records.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

17 I thought you said that they --

18 MR. FARVER: No. I said NIOSH assumed 

19 that they did -- and they assigned a dose every year 

20 for the ten years.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I see what 

22 you're saying. Well, that's reasonable.
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: That's reasonable and 

2 claimant --

3 CHAIRMANKOTELCHUCK: 

4 Claimant-favorable.

5 MR. FARVER: -- favorable.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

7 There may not have been any.

8 MR. SIEBERT: But just --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But then --

10 MR. SIEBERT: Just for clarification

11 there, the site did mark the DOE response as saying 

12 there were no X-ray records for this employee.

13 MR. FARVER: Right.

14 MR. SIEBERT: So, realistically, I 

15 believe the DR was trying to do just an 

16 overestimate, save some time, and put an X-ray 

17 every year rather than looking through the records.

18 But when you look at the specific 

19 records, there were no X-rays at the site. So the 

20 best way to do this actually is not to assign any 

21 X-rays. So we definitely did an overestimate in 

22 this case.
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. This 

2 appears to be an observation. Nothing was done 

3 wrong.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No. It's an 

5 overestimate in the best estimate case. But we 

6 could argue either way for that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

8 Let's close this as an observation.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Just a clarification. 

10 It's not a best estimate case.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The PoC is 43 percent.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. That's not a best 

13 estimate. Forty-five to 52 percent is a best 

14 estimate case.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Ah, got you.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Closed?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next one is 420, I 

20 believe.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 420.1, yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. Fernald. Yes. 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The 1994 assigned dose does not appear to be 

2 technically reasonable. And let me try and give 

3 you some more information on that.

4 Okay. The reason for this, and if you 

5 look at the doses for previous years in 1992, they 

6 were running about 160 millirem. And then in 1994 

7 it turned out to be 15 millirem.

8 And we kind of looked at that and said, 

9 gee, that just doesn't look right. And when NIOSH 

10 looked at it they, NIOSH, agrees that the '94 doses 

11 are incorrect. They say they're too high.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

13 The 15 is too high? Or the 400?

14 MR. FARVER: And it looks like they say 

15 the 15 is too high.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

17 That's what I thought I heard you say. 1992 was, 

18 what did you say? Not 400, 100?

19 MR. FARVER: 160.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 160. And then 

21 it went down to 15?

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And they're 

2 saying 15 is too high?

3 MR. FARVER: Well, let's read their 

4 response. Further investigation of the claim 

5 filed determined that the measured doses for '92 

6 and '94 for the lung cancer runs for this claim were 

7 incorrect.

8 The lung doses were run through a Vose 

9 assessment tool. But it appears a cut and paste 

10 error occurred with the measured dose. The dose 

11 values are correct in the Vose tool output, but not 

12 in the IREP sheet.

13 So it looks like we had a little bit of 

14 an error when we went from the workbook and then 

15 pasted it into the IREP sheet. The original dose

16 reconstructor is no longer available. And NIOSH 

17 is unable to replicate the error.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And the continuation of 

19 that is that the present tool now has Vose in it. 

20 And there's no reason for the dose reconstructor 

21 to cut and paste anymore.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this was an error in the first place.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Agreed.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. So 

4 it's a finding. And it should be closed.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We will 

7 go on then.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fernald and 

10 Mound.

11 MR. FARVER: Tab number 425. Okay. 

12 It looks like there's no observations. So we jump 

13 into the findings, 425.1. The Mound records for 

14 the employee show a gap in the badge exchange during 

15 1984, February to March, and also during July 

16 through August of '94.

17 NIOSH did not assign gap, missed, or 

18 environmental dose for these periods. NIOSH 

19 agrees that the gaps were not addressed. To 

20 address the deficiency the short term gaps were 

21 filled by the adjacent dosimetry averages, in 

22 accordance with IG-001.
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 As a result, a number of zero dosimeter

2 [doses] increased by one for both photons and 

3 neutrons. An additional 20 millirem of photon

4 dose and 41 millirem of neutron dose was assigned 

5 for each dose.

6 Well, this change, and that in the 

7 findings of two, three and four, the combined PoC 

8 remained below 45 percent.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, let me ask 

10 you, there are badge exchanges from February 8th 

11 to March 11th? What were they doing on a weekly 

12 basis? That's a one month period.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes. Well, there were --

14 I don't have that in front of me. Let me see if 

15 I can find it real quick.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It 

17 almost has to be. Exchange periods had to be less 

18 than a month.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, but those periods 

20 are approximately a month. I believe it was 

21 monthly --

22 MR. FARVER: Yes.
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: -- monitoring.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But it's a gap? 

5 I don't understand. It's a gap between two monthly 

6 readings.

7 MR. SIEBERT: We didn't have a 

8 dosimeter for that time, for those gaps. But it 

9 appears that it would be a timeframe that would be 

10 covered by one dosimeter. We just do not have any 

11 record of a dosimeter being issued during that 

12 timeframe.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So maybe it's 

14 that the badge exchanges are not available. The 

15 badge measurements are not available for February 

16 8th and for March 11th. For two months.

17 MR. SIEBERT: No. For the period 

18 between February 8th and March 11th, that month. 

19 There is no badge for this individual during that 

20 timeframe.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: As you look at the next 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gap, that one is a two week gap, it appears. So 

2 --

3 MR. FARVER: So the question becomes, 

4 how do you handle this gap?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I see what it 

7 is. There was a declaration that the person [was] 

8 badged up to February 8th. And they changed, 

9 perhaps they changed companies? Or did they just 

10 --

11 MR. FARVER: Well, the thing is, how do 

12 you handle this gap? Do you do a missed dose, do 

13 you do --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: -- unmonitored dose? And 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. I see 

18 --

19 MR. FARVER: I believe we have seen 

20 this done different ways. And I think a lot of it 

21 depends on the size of the gap. If I'm --

22 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct, Doug. 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If it's a short term gap what we'll do is, we'll 

2 fill it with adjacent dosimetry. Say an average 

3 of the two dosimeters on either side.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. SIEBERT: And we consider a short 

6 term gap approximately a quarter. Once you're 

7 beyond that we'll be looking at co-worker dose if 

8 it's available for the site.

9 MR. FARVER: There is a provision in 

10 IG-001 that allows you to fill in a gap using 

11 adjacent dosimetry results.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. This type of 

14 finding we have, we'll see probably again. 

15 Because a lot of it is a judgment call on the part 

16 of the dose reconstructor and the size of the gap.

17 Now this is a relatively small gap in 

18 these two periods. But I know we have questioned 

19 this before where, well, "Why did you do 

20 unmonitored dose, or co-worker dose, or something, 

21 when there's larger gaps?" Just keep this in mind. 

22 This does come up from time to time, this issue of 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the gap.

2 MEMBER MUNN: In early days we 

3 discussed this interminably. For weeks this was 

4 kicked around, and discussed over, and over, and 

5 over again. And I think, as has been stated here, 

6 the approaches that we're going to be taking are 

7 pretty well solidified.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. But it 

9 looks like, let's see now, NIOSH did not assign the 

10 gap.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. That's the --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

13 nothing was assigned. The argument was nothing 

14 was assigned in that period. And there are 

15 standard protocols for that.

16 MR. SIEBERT: We agree that there was 

17 an error, because we did not assign something.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right. 

19 Alright. Understood. That's good. Okay. So 

20 we certainly will move to close it. And it is 

21 certainly a finding. Okay. Thanks, folks.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next one is 425.2. 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH used the incorrect surrogate organ for the 

2 lung. They used a female lung instead of a male 

3 lung, or a male lung instead of a female lung. 

4 That's what it was, wrong gender.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: They've revised their 

7 Fernald tool. And it assigns the higher value, a 

8 female lung, for all.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Now, 

10 was there any reason to go back to other previous 

11 females? Or, someone check, but in general have

12 we been doing this correctly and then this was just 

13 an isolated error?

14 MR. SIEBERT: I can't speak to that at 

15 the moment. I'm digging into the case. Sorry 

16 about that.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

18 that's good. No, no, that's fine.

19 MEMBER MUNN: It is hard to believe 

20 that a difference of four millirem is of any 

21 consequence, even though --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of course. 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That I grant you. But mis-assigning the organ, 

2 which is really mis-assigning the gender --

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- is, that's a 

5 serious mistake.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It is. It might 

7 possibly be in the case of other organs too.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Particular case.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it, what it looks 

12 like in this case is, it's not a lung cancer. It's 

13 a different type of [identifying information 

14 redacted] cancer where we're using lung as the 

15 surrogate.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah-ha.

17 MR. SIEBERT: And when the dose 

18 reconstructor used the surrogate value, they 

19 pulled the male as opposed to the female value off 

20 of there. I'm guessing they didn't choose male on 

21 purpose. They just picked the wrong one, which is 

22 why our tool now defaults to the higher of the two 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

3 MR. SIEBERT: -- for a surrogate organ.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

5 good.

6 MEMBER MUNN: In which case you would, 

7 could still, and probably would have the kind of 

8 error we're looking at right here, as a blessed 

9 event.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It's the higher of the 

12 two.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

14 MEMBER MUNN: And that's something, 

15 gender appropriate or notwithstanding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So this 

17 does not appear to be an error. This appears to 

18 be -- because this was not the organ in question, 

19 but was a surrogate organ, I would see this as an 

20 observation.

21 MR. FARVER: Well, no. It was 

22 incorrect. The dose reconstructor chose the wrong 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But you were, 

3 somebody was arguing that the higher number was 

4 chosen in order to be claimant-favorable.

5 MR. SIEBERT: No, I'm sorry, maybe I've 

6 mis-stated that. Let me clarify. It is an error. 

7 The female would have been a larger value. And the 

8 DR accidentally picked the male. So I agree, it 

9 is an error.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, oh, alright. 

11 Yes. Yes.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is a finding.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It is. 

14 Alright.

15 MEMBER MUNN: If the other error had 

16 been made, if the error had been made the other way 

17 you could argue that it was favorable to the 

18 claimant.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

20 Good. Okay. So, I propose we close this, and as 

21 a finding.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Moving 

2 along.

3 MR. FARVER: Moving along. Next one 

4 is Finding 3, the results for Pu-239 were 

5 discounted, or not considered. The employee met 

6 the following criteria listed in the DR guidelines, 

7 which indicated that for this EE a presumption of 

8 Pu-239 was not appropriate. And therefore, no 

9 Pu-239 was assigned.

10 The criteria were: all plutonium 

11 bioassays were negative, the employee was not 

12 assigned to the R building, and the overall 

13 presumed exposure for the general area worker will 

14 be assumed to be composed of more than 50 percent 

15 238. So TIB-49 will not be applied.

16 However NIOSH agrees that because the 

17 CATI indicates that the individual responded to 

18 leaks, spills, decommission, taking material out 

19 of buildings, and that Pu-238 and 239 were 

20 potentially included in these situations, a 

21 claimant-favorable assumption could have been that 

22 exposure to Pu-239 was possible.
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 To correct this, missed dose was 

2 calculated for Pu-239 for a total of 25 millirem 

3 to the stomach, after accounting for OTIB-49 

4 adjustment.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now, 

6 this was an error for one single worker, or one type 

7 of worker. But a small -- presumably a small 

8 number of folks were employed in that?

9 MR. FARVER: I'd say this is 

10 case-specific.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

12 And it looks like it to me also. So this is an 

13 error. It's a finding. And it happened. Okay. 

14 I think we would just close it as a finding. Okay, 

15 folks?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds like NIOSH 

17 corrected the error. And I agree, it should be 

18 closed.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

20 Okay. Let's do that. 425.4.

21 MR. FARVER: 425.4. NIOSH summed 

22 doses from all three solubility types, instead of 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only Type S. So apparently when we were reviewing 

2 the CADW report it looked like they just summed up 

3 all the doses, instead of assigning for just Type 

4 S.

5 Let me explain a little bit. I know 

6 when I run the CADW report I'll include the 

7 different solubility types, just so I have them all 

8 in one run. I don't have to run it three separate 

9 times.

10 And then you can select where you want 

11 to have that included in the final assessment or 

12 not. It's a little toggle you click on, and it 

13 includes it in the final numbers.

14 I believe what happened is, NIOSH just 

15 summed all these values up by mistake, instead of 

16 including just the Type S values. It resulted in 

17 an overestimate.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

19 NIOSH has corrected the error. Is this a 

20 case-specific error?

21 MR. FARVER: I believe this is a 

22 case-specific. This was a dose reconstructor 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 error.

2 MR. SIEBERT: I would agree with that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fair 

4 enough. Okay. Then let's close it and -- as a 

5 finding.

6 MR. FARVER: And that concludes 

7 Fernald.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

9 concludes Fernald. Then I was figuring maybe we 

10 just go until 4:30 p.m. It's 4:23 p.m., 4:25 p.m. 

11 It's, maybe folks would like to -- we've covered 

12 a lot of ground.

13 MR. KATZ: Do you want to schedule, 

14 Dave?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. We do need 

16 to schedule. Let's schedule. Thank you very 

17 much. So, yes. And may you lead us in this 

18 discussion, Ted?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, let me just pull 

20 up a calendar so I can do that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Good. 

22 That will make good use of our remaining time.
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: About what timeframe do 

2 you think we're looking at, Dave?

3 MR. KATZ: So it would have to be, I 

4 think Rose and Scott, I mean, correct me if I'm 

5 wrong. But I'm assuming there are plenty of other 

6 cases that are ready already, and then that would 

7 be ready in a couple of months. Is that correct?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. So then, I think we 

10 can shoot for, you know, we're at the very end of 

11 April, May, you know, we could shoot for any, from 

12 sort of mid-June on I think we're good. So for 

13 example, the week of June 13th. How does that look 

14 for people?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me look. 

16 Let me see. It doesn't look right off, let me just 

17 see. Somehow I -- no, that would be okay.

18 MR. KATZ: So for example, somewhere in 

19 the middle of the week probably is good for, better 

20 for people in general. But, so let's say June

21 14th, 15th?

22 MEMBER MUNN: The 15th would be better 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for me. Either that or the last week of June.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, let's start with this 

3 date first. But --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: June 15 then, does that work 

6 for everyone on the line?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Works for 

9 me.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'd have to be able to 

11 leave an hour early, because I've got a meeting on 

12 that day.

13 MR. KATZ: An hour early is okay. I 

14 mean, I think that would still be worth -- that's 

15 most of the day.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just wanted 

17 you to know. I didn't want to blindside you.

18 MR. KATZ: I just want to make sure. 

19 But let's see about everybody else. So, David, how 

20 about June, we're talking about June 15th.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Sounds 

22 good for Dave Kotelchuck.
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And Dave 

3 Richardson?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have a meeting 

5 that day.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, okay.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well then, let's 

8 not. Because we really, we need to --

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 14th is 

12 possible.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. The 14th 

14 is good for me, better for me.

15 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can you deal with the 

16 14th?

17 MEMBER MUNN: I'll arrange it, yes. I 

18 can --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If that could be 

20 done, it would be appreciated.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: Brad?
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'll make that day 

2 work.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then I also, that's 

5 already -- can we have -- and Josie?

6 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine for me.

7 MR. KATZ: So that's a good time or a 

8 bad time?

9 MEMBER BEACH: That's a good time.

10 MR. KATZ: Oh, good time. So then we, 

11 I mean, that's a sure quorum then. So let's, why 

12 don't we just take that, whether John Poston can 

13 make it or not.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Tuesday, 

15 6/14. Hopefully he can.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, hopefully he can. 

17 June 14th.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: That's not a problem for any 

20 of the sort of key staff?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not here.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we can probably 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make it work at NIOSH.

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Stu. Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds very 

4 good.

5 MR. KATZ: That's great. That's 

6 great.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

8 then, folks, we have a date. And we accomplished 

9 a lot today. So let me thank you all for --

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've got one 

11 question, just for Ted.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: For our Board 

14 meeting, what date was that on? I've misplaced 

15 that.

16 MR. KATZ: The teleconference is in 

17 May. It's May 25th.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: But then the next Board 

20 meeting is August 8th to 9th, I think.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. In Idaho 

22 Falls.
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. In your hometown, 

2 sort of.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Good, I may be able to 

4 make that, yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

6 MR. KATZ: You better.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If he could. 

8 Okay, folks, so we're closing now. June 14th. 

9 And 10:30 a.m. again, 10:30 a.m. to --

10 MR. KATZ: Oh. And we're just 

11 continuing on, right?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: You could also pick up a 

14 couple of the blinds if you want to do that. Or 

15 you could just continue on like this. What do, 

16 what's --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I --

18 MR. KATZ: You're breaking up.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

20 ask other Members of the Committee. I would say 

21 we do one more meeting, and then address the blinds. 

22 Let's really get some --
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- a lot of cases 

3 under our belts.

4 MR. KATZ: As long as you have a full 

5 plate, I don't see why not. That makes sense.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. So 

7 we'll just continue on cases. So we're going to 

8 have a very, we're going to have a brief agenda, 

9 which is one item, case review issues, 

10 reconstructions, sets 14 through 18. Other things 

11 will come up, I'm sure.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, possibly. But thanks 

13 so much, everybody. This was great.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Thank you 

15 all. Have a good tomorrow and weekend. Bye-bye.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Likewise.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

19 went off the record at 4:28 p.m.)

20

21

22
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1