NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012

+ + + + +

The meeting came to order at 

9:00 a.m., in the Zurich Room of the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron, 

Kentucky, Mark Griffon, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID RICHARDSON, Member*
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

BETH ROLFES, ORAU

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

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

Roll Call 4

OCAS blind DR quality control

evaluations 8

NIOSH 10-year review 28

Claimant-favorability 39

Accelerating DR issue resolution

process 55

Issues matrix 10th to 13th set,

Grouping A 90

Preparing DR Case Set 16 for

Preliminary Selection 279

Accelerating DR Issue 292

Resolution Process

Preparing Second Board Report to

the Secretary on Dose

Reconstruction Reviews 296

Continuation of Issue Resolution

For Set 8 304

General Discussion 363
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1

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

3 (8:35 a.m.)

4 MR. KATZ: So this is Advisory 

5 Board of Radiation Worker Health, Subcommittee 

6 on Dose Reconstruction Reviews. And with roll 

7 call, because this is a Subcommittee, as we 

8 did last time, we have to address Board 

9 Members' conflict of interests as well.

10 So I'm make things easy, I'm just 

11 going to run through those in advance as we do 

12 roll call. So Mark Griffon is here, present. 

13 And he has conflicts with certain 

14 circumstances related to Paducah, K-25, INEL, 

15 Mound and Portsmouth; certain cases related to 

16 Fernald, certain cases related to Nevada Test 

17 Site, that's it.

18 Then we have Brad Clawson, who is 

19 present, and he has a conflict related to INL 

20 and otherwise, related to his employers. And 

21 I won't run through that list but enough said 

22 there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 Dr. Poston is present and he has 

2 conflicts related to BWXT, ORNL which is X-10, 

3 Sandia, LANL, Y-12, Lawrence Livermore 

4 National Lab at West Valley, Pantex, and also 

5 related to his children's employment related 

6 to this program.

7 And then we have Wanda Munn and I 

8 believe Wanda's conflicts are limited to 

9 Hanford.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, correct.

11 MR. KATZ: And then Dr. Richardson, 

12 you're still with us on the phone, correct?

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: And Dr. Richardson has 

15 conflicts only related to UNC Chapel Hill. 

16 And that covers conflicts for Board Members. 

17 Are there any other Board Members that happen 

18 to be on the line? Okay, then let's go 

19 through roll call for NIOSH ORAU team.

20 MS. ROLFES: Present, Beth.

21 MR. KATZ: Beth, yes -

22 MS. ROLFES: Beth Rolfes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 MR. KATZ: Thank you. And we're 

2 expecting Grady Calhoun shortly. Do we have 

3 any other NIOSH ORAU team on the line?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we have any 

5 conflicts on -

6 MR. KATZ: They don't have to, it's 

7 for Board Members.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, got you.

9 MR. KATZ: NIOSH ORAU on the line? 

10 Do we have any Members on the line yet? Scott 

11 Siebert. Beth, can you send Scott -

12 MS. ROLFES: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: -- are you hooked up? 

14 Can you send him an email? Grady Calhoun is 

15 present. The agenda is wrong. We were going 

16 to start at 8:30.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Ah, perfect.

18 MR. KATZ: You're just in time. 

19 It's alright. We're just going through roll 

20 call.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, good.

22 MR. KATZ: Grady Calhoun present. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 So we're just trying to get a hold of Scott 

2 Siebert. Let's go through SC&A team in the 

3 room.

4 MR. STIVER: SC&A, John Stiver and 

5 also, Doug Farver is on the way. He didn't 

6 realize it was an early start.

7 MR. KATZ: Have you sent him an 

8 email?

9 MR. STIVER: I have not tried that 

10 yet. I will. He should be here pretty soon. 

11 He was expecting a 9 o'clock meeting. I'll 

12 just give him a call.

13 MR. KATZ: He's in the hotel, you 

14 said?

15 MR. STIVER: He's in the Hampton, 

16 yes, right next door.

17 MR. KATZ: Are there any SC&A 

18 members on the line? Okay, federal officials, 

19 there's Ted Katz, the federal official for the 

20 Advisory Board. I have no conflicts. Jenny 

21 Lin, you've got your mouth full. No 

22 conflicts.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 Any other federal officials on the 

2 line? Contractors to the feds? Okay, any 

3 members of the public on the line? Alright. 

4 I think we can proceed even though we don't 

5 have Doug yet.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, let's 

7 just wait until John comes back.

8 MR. KATZ: Wait for John to come 

9 back.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is Mark 

11 Griffon, chair of the Committee. David, I 

12 think, I'm not sure there are many people on 

13 the line but I know David is there. So let us 

14 know if we're not speaking loudly enough.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I will.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And on 

17 the agenda, the first thing is an update on 

18 DCAS blind DR quality control evaluations. 

19 And I'm not sure if Beth or -

20 MR. CALHOUN: I'll jump into this 

21 one. This is Grady. By the way, just to 

22 start out, this is our first time here so be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 gentle. We've kind of gotten thrown into this 

2 one. But we will do our best to get through 

3 this.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Looks like some 

5 major policy changes today.

6 MR. CALHOUN: That's what I'm 

7 hoping for. Anyway, basically I was here last 

8 month so I got to at least experience a little 

9 bit of the meeting and how it goes.

10 But we did talk to you. We had an 

11 assessment that we put out last month. I 

12 think we only had eight, ten, something like 

13 that, blind DRs that have been completed.

14 Since then we've selected 50 cases. 

15 So we've got an automated system and it's kind 

16 of linked into our NOCTS suite of 

17 applications, I'll say.

18 We've got 50 cases that have been 

19 selected. Twenty of those have been completed 

20 to this point. We've got another 15 assigned 

21 to an HP reviewer to look at those.

22 As you know, we kind of have to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 wait once we pick them, and re-review them; we 

2 have to wait for ORAU to complete those cases 

3 after we've selected them. Because they have 

4 no idea that we've picked them. So that 

5 causes a bit of lag sometimes.

6 We also made some recommendations 

7 in that last assessment and we're continuing

8 to try to evaluate those. I think one of the 

9 bigger ones was that, it wasn't really clear 

10 in our evaluation as to why we thought things, 

11 or different decisions, points were made, it 

12 was really going to involve just beefing up 

13 and clarifying the text in our assessment 

14 form.

15 So that's where we are at this 

16 point. We have come out with another 

17 copulation of assessments for the additional 

18 cases that have been completed.

19 But it's an ongoing program. We 

20 automatically select cases every week to be 

21 added to the log of cases to be reviewed. So 

22 that's where we are with that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now is there 

2 some sort of tracking? You said there's stuff 

3 like a tracking system -

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, oh, yes. And I 

5 don't know if you guys have access to it or 

6 not.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. CALHOUN: But basically what 

9 you can do is, at least how we see it, is 

10 there's a blind DR button. You can click on 

11 that and then there's multiple pages and you 

12 can see where the status of each one is.

13 So we know that it's been selected. 

14 We know that an HP has been assigned. We know 

15 that it's been completed. Then you can click 

16 on any of those and you can drill down to what 

17 the actual findings were and how all of those 

18 are -

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And do we have, 

20 maybe we could get the path to access that?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'll see if you 

22 have access. I don't know if you do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know 

2 either.

3 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know.

4 MR. KATZ: I think probably not.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, probably 

6 not.

7 MR. STIVER: Would that be off the 

8 NOCTS?

9 MR. CALHOUN: It's in that suite. 

10 It's not in NOCTS. But when we hit staff 

11 tools, is the button I get.

12 MR. KATZ: It probably needs to be 

13 added. And if you could then have them add it 

14 both for the Board Members who have access and 

15 also for the SC&A staff, that would great.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. I'll check 

17 into that.

18 MR. KATZ: Because then that will, 

19 then for those folks at least, we'll still 

20 need I think to package these together and 

21 intermittently you'll need to send a packet to 

22 them for those.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

2 MR. KATZ: Because there are 

3 several Board Members that don't go into the 

4 intranet.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

6 MR. KATZ: But otherwise, for the 

7 rest of them, they can just go in, in real 

8 time, and see them as they're done.

9 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure. I hope 

10 that we don't get into doubling the amount of 

11 DRs that are reviewed by this Committee 

12 because of that. That's my hope.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MR. CALHOUN: That this is just 

15 really a tool that we're using to kind of show 

16 that we're doing something additional. We're 

17 already having a bit of a difficulty keeping 

18 up with our backlog. But I'll check into that 

19 and I'll talk to Stewart.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: When you said 

21 you're tracking the findings too, what does 

22 that mean? You're doing the DR. And then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 once the ORAU finishes this -

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- there is -

4 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes, yes, yes. 

5 And there's a table, that table comparison. 

6 And we say okay, this is different than this 

7 one. Why?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. I think 

9 we're interested more in the aggregate.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Once you find 

12 out an aggregate, I don't think we're going to 

13 take each case and ask all of them or

14 whatever. No, because we're doing that here?

15 MR. CALHOUN: Exactly. I agree.

16 MR. STIVER: Grady, you also 

17 mentioned about including the PoC on these, 

18 just kind of get an idea where the case fell 

19 out.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

21 MR. STIVER: That's going to be in 

22 there too?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, oh, yes.

2 MR. STIVER: Alright.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Well, then based on 

4 what you just said, Mark, do you want to set 

5 it up, so that at each subsequent Subcommittee 

6 meeting you get a little report of their 

7 latest findings? Or how do you want to handle 

8 that?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If you have like 

10 a snapshot of the table, in time, you know, at 

11 the current meeting time --

12 MR. KATZ: So then we could just 

13 make that --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

15 would be useful, yes.

16 MR. KATZ: So we can just make than 

17 a standing agenda item, that you cover, sort 

18 of what you've learned --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: -- from the last batch. 

21 Alright.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And any actions, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 if any, that are being taken to correct the 

2 problem, you know, if you see --

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- general 

5 overall problem or something, where you're 

6 changing a TBD or --

7 MR. STIVER: Corrective action.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, 

9 corrective action.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Maybe this is 

11 inappropriate but I'm a little confused. Are 

12 we still going to do the individual reviews 

13 that we've been doing?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is 

17 separate. This is not, it's internal -

18 MR. KATZ: - for their internal QA 

19 process.

20 MR. CALHOUN: A different tool that 

21 we started.

22 MEMBER POSTON: Because I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 that's very important.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we raised 

3 this as a question that, what are they doing 

4 going forward internally. And this is one of 

5 the responses to that.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MS. LIN: Grady?

9 MEMBER POSTON: Sort of jumped in 

10 and I --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, sorry.

12 MS. LIN: This is also an extension 

13 of the 10-year Review.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I'm sorry.

15 MS. LIN: This is also an extension 

16 of the 10-year Program Review -

17 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, okay.

18 MS. LIN: -- that we started last 

19 year.

20 MEMBER MUNN: What did you say your 

21 button was on the NOCTS screen?

22 MR. CALHOUN: I think it's called 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 blind DRs. It's not in NOCTS actually. It's 

2 in staff tools.

3 MS. ROLFES: It's found on the 

4 right, and I don't know if you have it.

5 MEMBER MUNN: No.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, it will need to be 

7 added. The Board has its own --

8 MS. ROLFES: It's right here.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, okay. It's in 

10 the bottom right hand side of applications on 

11 staff tools.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, we don't have it. 

13 Of course, we only have four NOCTS tools on 

14 there. And three --

15 MR. SIEBERT: Hey Mark, this is 

16 Scott Siebert. I just wanted to let you know 

17 I am on from the ORAU team. Sorry about that. 

18 I was going by the agenda.

19 MR. KATZ: No. And the agenda is 

20 my fault, Scott, so thank you. I'm glad you 

21 could join. And Doug also has come in since 

22 we spoke to that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's right on 

2 the website so that's my fault, sorry about 

3 that.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

5 Thanks, Scott, for letting us know. Let me 

6 also remind, we have a bigger group today too 

7 and these meetings tend to drift from this. 

8 But we should speak one at a time so we can 

9 get a good transcript, right.

10 MR. KATZ: While we're just on this 

11 too. Mike Gibson, are you on the line? Okay. 

12 I sent him an email but he may be joining at 

13 9:00.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so I'm 

15 just going to put that as a status that you'll 

16 check.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm going to 

18 check for access for Board Members. And then 

19 we're going to prepare a summary for each 

20 meeting of the Subcommittee.

21 MR. KATZ: And SC&A.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, okay, I got it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 MEMBER MUNN: And I'm assuming Ted 

2 will --

3 MR. CALHOUN: And I think 

4 specifically John Stiver and Doug --

5 MR. KATZ: Especially yes, as long 

6 as we have access.

7 MR. CALHOUN: And Doug Farver, 

8 those two, don't need to add it to everybody.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And I am assuming Ted 

10 will notify us when that's out for the Board.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, Grady will notify 

12 me or all of us, you can just send an email 

13 and mail it out to the group together.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, looks like I'm 

15 the next one too. Are you ready, Mark?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, go ahead.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, looks like I'm 

18 the next one too. And what I believe that 

19 this item was, is that we were looking into, 

20 this is beyond the blind DRs, that's gone now. 

21 This is the next step.

22 And we were looking at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 different dose reconstructions, and what 

2 errors were found, and what things were listed 

3 as errors. We've put together a list of what 

4 we believe were the errors.

5 ORAU has put together a list of 

6 what they believe were the errors. And right

7 now, actual errors is our term. And what 

8 we're doing is we're comparing those and 

9 trying to figure out what, on those, that we 

10 agree are errors, what could of, should of 

11 been done to prevent those and the dose 

12 reconstruction process.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this is 

14 your, you're still on item one?

15 MR. CALHOUN: No. This was 

16 overview of ORAU quality management system.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh. We were 

18 asking more for a presentation of the ORAU 

19 quality control, quality assurance program.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How are you 

22 doing? What's on the --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, well, you know 

2 what, I don't have that.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and that 

4 was more something that, I think Stu, it's 

5 unfair that --

6 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- when you're 

8 jumping into this because I think --

9 MR. CALHOUN: Well, you know what -

10 -

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. CALHOUN: -- and to be totally 

13 honest with you, that's exactly what I thought 

14 it was.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

16 MR. CALHOUN: And I asked them 

17 questions and they said no, that's not what it 

18 was. So I will prepare that for next time. 

19 It shouldn't be too difficult. I apologize 

20 for that. Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so we can 

22 get that next time?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, sir. You will 

2 get that next time.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I don't know 

4 if you need someone from ORAU to work with you 

5 on that.

6 MR. CALHOUN: They are at my 

7 disposal. And Scott is right there busily 

8 taking notes as we speak, I'm sure.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: ORAU would be 

10 happy to support.

11 MR. CALHOUN: See.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It seems like it 

13 might be, you know, because second hand -

14 MR. CALHOUN: We have that already.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. CALHOUN: We've got that 

17 documentation all together and I could've done 

18 it relatively easily.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we just 

20 want to know what it is, the specifics of it, 

21 I think.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, oh, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think when 

2 we went to ORAU, the overview was very, it was 

3 a very generic kind of --

4 MR. CALHOUN: Right and we've 

5 presented that at the Board from time to time 

6 and I actually have got several documents, 

7 it's an abridged copy. I've got a big copy. 

8 It's just something I have.

9 MR. KATZ: This is not something 

10 that really has ever been covered at the Board 

11 level either.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: So really, I think, and 

14 Dr. Richardson can chime in on this because 

15 we've talked about this for a number of 

16 meetings here at the Subcommittee.

17 And the Subcommittee is wanting to 

18 understand what error rates are being tracked 

19 and how those are being, the whole true 

20 quality management system, as you would set 

21 one up under ANSI or what have you.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Not this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 personnel -

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, so if you 

3 have that and you say you have it in hand, if 

4 you would circulate it --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- before the 

7 meeting. Because this is something that's 

8 going back now, I think, we've sort of opped

9 for this for, I'm looking back, a series of 

10 notes that I've got over these meetings. And 

11 this has been a recurrent question.

12 And we have been provided with some 

13 information. But it's mostly pertained to 

14 human resources issues, not the types of kind 

15 of quality assurance --

16 MR. CALHOUN: I understand 

17 completely, so I got it.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the 

20 other thing Dave is requesting is if, before 

21 the next meeting if you can distribute these 

22 materials that you're talking about.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 MR. CALHOUN: I will because it's 

2 going --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That way we can 

4 read them.

5 MR. CALHOUN: It's several pages of 

6 descriptions.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

8 MR. CALHOUN: It's step-by-step 

9 throughout the whole process, what's done each 

10 step.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

12 MR. CALHOUN: What procedures we 

13 have in place.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can prepare 

15 questions but also, maybe reply to you like --

16 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- this isn't 

18 what we're looking for. So we don't have this

19 same problem next meeting.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Do you 

21 understand that, Scott? Do you kind of got a 

22 grip on that? Because I'll just be making a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 request to Michelle or Mary Jo, but just so 

2 you've got that in your head too.

3 MR. SIEBERT: I've got a note for 

4 it. But yes, we can talk offline.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so this is 

7 sort of pushed forward.

8 MR. KATZ: So maybe if we can get 

9 those written materials at least a month in 

10 advance of the next meeting, then the Members 

11 would have plenty of time to give you feedback 

12 if we're missing the mark.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just sort of 

14 taking minutes on this, right on the agenda 

15 just so we have these for next time. Okay, so 

16 I think we can move onto this next item, which 

17 is items related to NIOSH 10-year Review.

18 And these were two of, just as a 

19 reminder, these are two items that were in the 

20 10-year Review that, if you remember that one 

21 of our Board Members, I know we went through 

22 all these and we had a discussion of which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 ones made sense for the entire Board to 

2 discuss, which ones made sense for various 

3 committees to sort of take a closer look at.

4 And these are two that Melius so 

5 generously sent our way. So anyway, and we've 

6 begun our discussion of these last time but 

7 this is an update from DCAS.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Right. That one also 

9 is a little bit confusing to me because I 

10 thought that somebody covered this. And 

11 basically what we had was we had an evaluation 

12 of the resources that it would take to do best 

13 estimates.

14 For all cases we had a review of 

15 what would be required to do best estimates 

16 for skin cancer cases only. Because a lot of 

17 times skin cancer cases will come back as 

18 repeats because we have additional cancers 

19 frequently.

20 And all of those will take a 

21 tremendous amount of work as far as resources 

22 go, trying to get those reconstructions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 complete.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think part of, 

3 and I haven't checked the transcript and I 

4 have to check a few, just to remind me I have 

5 to review several of these past transcripts.

6 But I think what we had asked for, 

7 in addition, because Stu did discuss some of 

8 these items. But we asked, do you have a 

9 written sort of response to this? Is there 

10 something in writing that you did the 

11 analysis?

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we do. We do 

13 have that.

14 MS. LIN: I thought that was shared 

15 with them, Subcommittee CF memorandum from 

16 Kate Kimpan.

17 MR. KATZ: Can you keep your voice 

18 up, please?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, from 

20 Kate Kimpan?

21 MS. LIN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I haven't seen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 anything from Kate Kimpan.

2 MEMBER MUNN: She's not here.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would remember 

4 that because I don't see much from Kate. Of 

5 course, unless it went to my CDC account which 

6 I don't check as much.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, there was a big 

8 write-up about all of that, and what the 

9 details of it, and what we thought the costs 

10 would be as far as FTEs. I'll get that 

11 distributed if that hasn't been --

12 Yes, that was months and months --

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, from Kate.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I'll follow up on 

15 that though and see.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I may be 

17 wrong but I don't know, asking my other 

18 Subcommittees if anybody has seen that. I 

19 don't recall seeing that.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Hello?

21 MR. KATZ: Hello.

22 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Hi, Dave 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 Kotelchuck calling here from New York.

2 MR. KATZ: Oh welcome, David.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Hi.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hi Dave.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Hi.

6 MR. KATZ: David's joining us. 

7 He's not yet a Member of the Subcommittee, but 

8 he's going to be joining the Subcommittee 

9 after this meeting. So I invited him to come 

10 listen in.

11 MEMBER MUNN: That's nice.

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great, 

13 great.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hopefully we 

15 don't confuse you too much, Dave. Yes.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'm going 

17 to learn what I can learn.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's fine. 

19 This is Mark Griffon by the way.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Hey, Mark, how 

21 are you? Regards from your friend 

22 [Identifying information redacted] who I saw 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 yesterday.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, great, 

3 great. We'll try to make sure we say our 

4 names when we speak so that you can get used 

5 to the --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

7 appreciated.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, thanks, 

9 glad you could join.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, me too.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So on this item 

12 --

13 MR. CALHOUN: So I've got written 

14 down, I'm going to follow up on the written 

15 evaluation of the process and make sure 

16 everybody has got it. I'll check to see if it 

17 was distributed. But even if it wasn't, I 

18 will make sure that it is.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think you're 

20 right. I think it has been distributed.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I think so too. But 

22 that's okay, we can redistribute. That 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 doesn't seem like a difficult thing.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But -- Mark 

3 Griffon -- just the bottom line on this was 

4 that you've sort of done these different 

5 assessments and you've determined that really 

6 there's no good way to triage --

7 MR. CALHOUN: Well, there a couple 

8 things that we can do that we're looking at. 

9 And it's like there's, for example one of the 

10 ideas that, it shouldn't take a whole lot of 

11 time, is to actually use actual zeros for 

12 missed dose for example, instead of just 

13 assume that there were 12 TLD exchanges or 

14 whatever the frequency was.

15 Same thing goes with medical X16 rays. If we're getting good records from the 

17 site, instead of just assuming a certain 

18 number of medical X-rays, we can use the 

19 actual ones. Those are a couple of the 

20 changes that we can make that are not so 

21 painful.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 MR. STIVER: Great, this is John 

2 Stiver. I was looking through the transcripts 

3 and there's hardly a discussion about Stu 

4 looking up the cost and things.

5 And it seemed to me that if the 

6 decision that he had made, of the point was 

7 just to not try to eliminate the over8 estimates, but to include a communications 

9 piece in the follow-up reconstruction for the 

10 best estimate.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Or to beef up what 

12 we've got?

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, to explain what 

14 was done and why, and was wondering if there 

15 had been any follow-up on that, if you guys 

16 are indeed already doing that?

17 MR. CALHOUN: We are, but evidently 

18 it's not either being communicated well enough 

19 or it's not meeting some people's needs.

20 But if you look at any re-work, or 

21 every dose reconstruction actually has a few 

22 sentences in it that say any subsequent 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 revision of this case may result in a 

2 reduction of the dose assigned because this 

3 was an over-estimate.

4 MR. STIVER: Right.

5 MR. CALHOUN: And then, when we do 

6 an over-estimate, there's an explanation, or 

7 when we do a revised, there is an explanation 

8 as to what the previous dose was, the new dose 

9 was, and why it changed.

10 So it's fairly clear to me but it's 

11 probably not as clear to a claimant. So we 

12 have to look at that and see if there is some 

13 communications improvement to make on that.

14 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think this was 

15 something Brant was going to take up before he 

16 left. So it might've gotten lost.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I like throwing 

18 Brant under the bus while he's not here. So 

19 yes, because that was his task.

20 MR. STIVER: See what happens when 

21 you leave.

22 MR. CALHOUN: But no, we'll check 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 on that too. So that's where that is but you 

2 know you can always do better.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is Mark 

4 Griffon again. I'm curious, in looking at the 

5 write-up for another reason, wondering if in 

6 any way you consider the costs on the other 

7 side, the cost of not doing the full, and that 

8 some of that is a little bit difficult to 

9 calculate.

10 But I think there would be 

11 resources, implications for correspondence. 

12 In other words, if a person gets another 

13 cancer, you reassess their case, the dose goes 

14 down. You get communications from this person 

15 saying, what the heck? And this goes back and 

16 forth --

17 MR. CALHOUN: I am not sure it goes 

18 much more than a COI, the current out 

19 interview that we have to do every time but we 

20 could check for that.

21 My gut tells me that there's not 

22 significant increase in that. But it's more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 on the lines; we get a lot more of the 

2 questions at the Outreach meetings and things 

3 like that about those kinds of issues.

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert 

5 from ORAU. I've talked to our claimant 

6 communication folks and yes, we had this issue 

7 a lot quite awhile ago.

8 And I know the Subcommittee talked 

9 about it and that is why we added a section 

10 that Grady is discussing right here, quite a 

11 few years ago, and actually since that time 

12 the incidents of people asking that question 

13 has reduced significantly.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have any 

15 explanation of why that would be, Scott?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, there could be

17 --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because of 

19 better communications?

20 MR. SIEBERT: They're getting the 

21 information in the Dose Reconstruction Report. 

22 When we do the revision, we lay out what all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 the revision portions are and then also, can 

2 discuss that specifically and to close that 

3 interview. So that has been reduced 

4 significantly.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes, 

6 that's good. Alright, and what about the 

7 second item there, Grady?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. I actually got 

9 this from Dr. Neton here. And he actually 

10 just gave me some words and I'm just going to 

11 read them to you.

12 The recommendation was that DCAS 

13 should consider future research to better 

14 characterize the degree of claimant15 favorability that is afforded by current 

16 methods for adjusting doses for measured 

17 biases, including the bias from exposures 

18 below detection. That was the recommendation.

19 Jim's report on status is, "DCAS is 

20 developing a list of practices to contribute 

21 to claimant-favorability, which will use the 

22 article published in the special edition of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 the Health Physics Journal as a starting 

2 point.

3 Subsequent to this, dose 

4 reconstructions will be selected for re-work, 

5 substituting best estimate parameters for 

6 those that are claimant-favorable.

7 It's expected that one area where 

8 this can be readily demonstrated is in the 

9 area of missed dose assignment. If maximum 

10 likelihood estimates are substituted for our 

11 current practice, it is expected that doses 

12 will go down dramatically. This item is in 

13 progress." So that's what Jim reported.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you remind 

15 us which Health Physics issue that was? It 

16 was awhile ago. Do you know?

17 MR. CALHOUN: I can not. This is 

18 from the 10-year Review.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MR. CALHOUN: And the actual 

21 recommendation was that DCAS should consider 

22 future research to better characterize the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 degree of claimant-favorability that is 

2 supported by current methods for adjusting 

3 doses for measurement biases.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Jim references 

5 in that response in the Health Physics special 

6 issue.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes, that's a 

8 journal. I don't know what that is. I'll ask 

9 him.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The special 

11 issue, I remember getting it.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

13 Siebert. It's the summer issue, special issue 

14 of 2008.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Good job, Scott. 

17 You're allowed to come back next meeting.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes he is.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you very --

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I -- this 

21 is David Richardson.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: When DCAS works 

2 on that report, could I make a suggestion? 

3 There's something I've been struggling with 

4 and I would appreciate some clarification on 

5 how DCAS is thinking about this.

6 Is to start with the term claimant7 favorability, and to offer an explicit 

8 definition of what that means. And whether 

9 something is claimant-favorable on average, or 

10 whether it's claimant-favorable on a claimant11 by-claimant basis.

12 Some of the lines of discussion, if 

13 we're talking about missed dose and a 

14 distinction between it, imputing the expected 

15 dose versus imputing a over-estimate, not an 

16 over-estimate, imputing a value which is based 

17 on something more of the tail of the 

18 distribution.

19 I understand the contention that on 

20 average it's claimant-favorable. But imputing 

21 the 95th percentile still means that there's 

22 five percent of the population that you've not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 been favorable to, and 95 percent to which you 

2 have been favorable to.

3 So I think what needs to be worked 

4 out, for me to understand, or evaluate, what 

5 your contention of how you're viewing 

6 claimant-favorability needs to clarify whether 

7 you're talking about that tail.

8 Are you favorable to that tail? Or 

9 what percentage of the population do you want 

10 to be favorable to versus not favorable to? 

11 That's never been clear to me.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, I'm busily 

13 writing.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. And how 

15 would you work on being favorable to all 

16 claimants? Or are you just concerned with 

17 being favorable to the average claimant?

18 MR. KATZ: Or to 95 percent?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. You can 

20 draw the line, but right now it's just being 

21 used as though it's self-evident, what we're 

22 talking about, and it's not evident to me at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 all.

2 MEMBER MUNN: David, this is Wanda. 

3 I'm probably speaking out of turn because I 

4 certainly am not an expert in statistical 

5 probability.

6 But my understanding of, and I 

7 think probably a common understanding of, the 

8 probabilities does not necessarily mean that, 

9 if you say with a 95 percent certainty, it 

10 doesn't necessarily mean that you've been 

11 favorable to 95 percent of the people, and 

12 unfavorable to others.

13 It means that you are that 

14 confident of the accuracy of the assessment 

15 you're making. No? Is that an error?

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Here it would 

17 be an error, yes. Because we're talking about 

18 a kind of a, what I would call an empirical 

19 distribution of a set of values.

20 There's no randomization which has 

21 been invoked to randomly assign people doses. 

22 We're imagining that there's a distribution of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 people who received different values of doses 

2 in a given year.

3 And you could characterize that 

4 distribution by the average value, and the 

5 median value, and you could say 90 percent of 

6 the people had doses above something or below 

7 something.

8 But you would still say empirically 

9 there were people who had values substantially 

10 greater than the mean, the median, or any 

11 percentile.

12 I think that's the model that you 

13 would have to work on here. Not that we 

14 randomize people to doses, and then we could 

15 talk about our confidence in the assigned 

16 value of a probability --

17 MEMBER MUNN: I see what you're 

18 saying, but --

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: These aren't 

20 like stochastic models or models that follow 

21 from randomization. These are empirical 

22 distributions. And we believe that some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 people have higher exposures than others. And 

2 we want to assign a value.

3 And what we say is favorable is 

4 only favorable to everybody if we peg that 

5 upper bound at the 100th percentile.

6 MEMBER MUNN: But it seems to me 

7 that it would require, I understand why you 

8 say. But it seems to me that it would require 

9 very careful evaluation of what that range of 

10 doses actually was. It's one thing --

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, 

12 absolutely.

13 MEMBER MUNN: -- if the range of 

14 dose is only a few millirem outside of your 95 

15 percentile figure but it's another thing if 

16 you have major outliers.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right.

18 MEMBER MUNN: So it would seem to 

19 be difficult to respond to the request, as to 

20 how accurate you want to be in all cases 

21 without, it seems to me you'd have to do a 

22 case by case evaluation of what the range of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 values actually was in order to make a very 

2 strong statement one way or the other.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. I 

4 absolutely agree with you and I think you're 

5 right on the point, that I've been struggling 

6 with, is starting by understanding, what's 

7 their goal in terms of claimant-favorability.

8 Is it to be favorable to everybody, 

9 to be favorable on average, to be favorable to 

10 some proportion that's greater or less than 50 

11 percent?

12 Once you would define that, then 

13 you could understand what would the conditions 

14 be under which you could be favorable to that 

15 group of the population.

16 But that's not been defined for me. 

17 And I think your other point of it's easier to 

18 do that when the variation and the exposure is 

19 narrow, and when the variation is large.

20 So what I'm talking about, kind of 

21 the idea that true distribution of doses, when 

22 it has long tails, it gets increasingly hard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 to make a convincing argument that you're 

2 being claimant-favorable if by that you mean 

3 favorable to everybody.

4 Like for the medical doses or 

5 something, I think you can be generally 

6 confident that the variation around the mean 

7 and median is not very high, at least in 

8 contemporary situations.

9 If I'm taking that as an imagined 

10 scenario, you could do that. But in 

11 situations where there's a lot of variability, 

12 I really struggle to think about to who we're 

13 being claimant-favorable to and to who's being 

14 omitted by that.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I understand what 

16 you're saying. One other question that, 

17 perhaps Jenny is more familiar with the Act 

18 itself than I. Is this language not in the 

19 Act?

20 MR. KATZ: No.

21 MS. LIN: No.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Is it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 something that we --

2 MR. KATZ: This is regulatory 

3 language, or not even regulatory language, 

4 this is --

5 MS. LIN: It's not even regulatory 

6 guys because --

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MS. LIN: It is not even 

9 specifically in preamble. But we're talked 

10 about giving the claimants the benefit of the 

11 doubt.

12 MR. KATZ: Benefit of the doubt is 

13 the term we --

14 MS. LIN: Right. And so that boils 

15 down to claimant-favorability. So really it's 

16 ungrounded in a statute or the regulations.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's what I 

18 wanted to be very sure of.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I think the 

20 fundamental request David asked is a good one.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Is a good one.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, it's just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 the thought but define it. How are you 

2 defining claimant-favorability?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we've all 

4 struggled with that.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and it's 

6 come up many, many times.

7 MR. KATZ: I don't think anyone's 

8 every picked out the nuance that David just 

9 picked out, which I think is an important one.

10 But I would just also note, I think 

11 I'm familiar with a lot of different kinds of 

12 claimant-favorability sort of approaches that 

13 are used in this program. And they don't all 

14 fit that basket whatsoever.

15 Some of the assumptions are broad 

16 sweeping assumptions that are very favorable, 

17 but there is also, even sort of related to 

18 what David is saying, there, for example I 

19 believe, sometimes you take 95th percentile by 

20 year for a certain scenario and you apply 

21 those all.

22 So even though, for a given year, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 what David is saying is correct, five percent 

2 would be above. When you compound that by 

3 going over multiple years and you're taking 

4 the 95th percentile value, the chances of an 

5 individual having, for each year, been in the 

6 top five percent becomes diminishingly small, 

7 right, David?

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Again, it 

9 matters if there is correlation in people. 

10 And I would, in some occupational settings it 

11 would be very plausible that the people who 

12 are outliers in a year become outliers --

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- repeatedly 

15 because of some characteristic of their jobs.

16 MR. STIVER: Right. This is John 

17 Stiver. I've seen that happen on occasions.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, and we 

19 actually have discussed this particular thing 

20 at length with several scenarios. I can 

21 remember the AEC cases, where we often don't 

22 have individual data.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 And we've had this discussion of 

2 well, what about the maintenance guy that's 

3 working in the furnace area where they're 

4 likely to get the highest exposures all the 

5 time. They're above the 95th. So this is the 

6 same kind of scenario. We just did it in a 

7 more sort of pragmatic cases.

8 MR. KATZ: Sure.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I guess the 

10 bottom line is, we had asked for, how is NIOSH 

11 defining claimant-favorability and then what, 

12 depending on how you define that, are you 

13 trying to be claimant-favorable to all.

14 If that's the goal, then what 

15 pieces, or what things, are in place to assure 

16 that. And some of the discussions that you 

17 just laid out, Ted, might be appropriate in 

18 there, that here's our argument for why 

19 coworker models can be used in the fashion, 

20 you know, something like that.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and the best 

22 available science issue comes to play at some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 juncture when you're assigning favorability.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, anyway my point was 

3 just; I think it's sort of a complex answer -

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: -- because there are all 

6 sorts of assumptions that get used even for a 

7 given reconstruction scenario.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: And sort of, you'd have 

10 multiple answers, even for a given scenario in 

11 some cases.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Parts of it would be 

14 claimant-favorable to everyone; parts of it 

15 would claimant-favorable --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It gets very 

17 complicated very quickly, right.

18 MR. KATZ: -- to a majority of the 

19 population part might be, yes.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right, because 

21 generally speaking we assign the 95th 

22 percentile, or any kind of coworker, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 whatever, to people without monitoring data.

2 And generally speaking, the people 

3 with that monitoring data are not as highly 

4 exposed as the people that we based that 

5 distribution on.

6 And, of course, there's going to be 

7 people that were more highly exposed without 

8 monitoring data but generally speaking, that's 

9 how things work out. And then we also, 

10 remember we can never, ever, ever forget the 

11 99th percentile that we use for Probability of 

12 Causation.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm going to 

15 check on that. We're going to get that in our 

16 to-do list, David.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Okay, 

18 anything else on that topic, David? I think 

19 that's a good clarification.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, that was 

21 it.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 so we'll be looking forward to more statements 

2 from Jim Neton.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. He's getting 

4 this right now, as we speak.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, let's 

6 see. I'm going to skip over the next two 

7 items and go to the accelerating DR issue 

8 resolution process. Because then the other 

9 ones get more into the experiment filings and 

10 stuff.

11 But I think we want to discuss 

12 this, I guess possible ways that we can 

13 accelerate the DR issue resolution process. 

14 The process we go through here in the 

15 Subcommittee.

16 And we've had some discussions 

17 offline outside the Subcommittee. SC&A has 

18 been thinking about this because a lot of the 

19 matrices are backlogged at SC&A. And they 

20 also want to continue the work with their dose 

21 reconstructors or reviewers.

22 So I guess the best way to start 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 this would be to have John introduce, John's 

2 put forward some proposals or proposal. And 

3 maybe we can just put that on the table and 

4 have a discussion on that, yes.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John 

6 Stiver. At the present time, we've kind of 

7 been the overall historical figure here.

8 We've been tasked to perform a 

9 little over 400 dose reconstruction audits. 

10 Of that 400, we have discovered approximately 

11 10,063 total findings. And of those, about 65 

12 percent have been resolved in the Subcommittee 

13 setting.

14 We have completed up through 13 

15 sets of these, a total of 15. Thirteen have 

16 been delivered. The 14th is undergoing the 

17 one-on-one discussions, the resolution, not 

18 really resolution but just an explanations 

19 with Subcommittee Members. And the 15th is 

20 nearing completion at this point.

21 So we have basically a backlog of 

22 about 375 findings. So we're looking at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 different ways that we might tackle this 

2 backlog and get it reduced within a reasonable 

3 period of time, so that it doesn't impact via 

4 the dose reconstruction audit process or the 

5 flow.

6 And it's not a real technically 

7 difficult problem. Basically what we need to 

8 do is, is just devote more time, more meetings 

9 to defining resolution process. And also, 

10 we've thought of different ways of looking at 

11 and grouping the different types of cases.

12 And in regards to the first aspect, 

13 what we thought was, at the last meeting we 

14 come up with the idea of basically just going 

15 back to more of a bimonthly schedule of these 

16 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee meetings, to 

17 where a good portion of that period would be 

18 spent in findings resolution.

19 But also, we've considered, at the 

20 last meeting as well, if you recall, 

21 authorizing the SC&A subject matter experts to 

22 speak directly with their DCAS counterparts.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 And the reason being is that it's 

2 become fairly obvious that a lot of these 

3 issues are the result of miscommunication. We 

4 don't really know what DCAS had in mind when 

5 they did a certain thing on the dose 

6 reconstruction so we do our best estimate of 

7 what we believe happened.

8 And often times there's just a 

9 miscommunication. And this is the type of 

10 thing that could be resolved between the 

11 subject matter experts in the informal 

12 setting.

13 Of course, the rub becomes well, 

14 how are we going to record what happened and 

15 when? We don't want to just come to a meeting 

16 and have them say Doug, oh yes, I've talked to 

17 Scott.

18 And those first 20 findings, we 

19 decided that there's no problem and we'll just 

20 let it go. And just take our word for it. So 

21 there has to be some rigor maintained in this 

22 process. And how are we going to keep the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 auditor, obviously tension, if you will, 

2 alive.

3 And also, there is the issue of how 

4 do we take concise minutes of these different 

5 types of interactions. And so, what we 

6 thought might be a good way to do this is to 

7 have these, what we call findings discussion 

8 meetings.

9 Because they're not really 

10 resolving anything, but we're maybe going to 

11 calculate a conditional resolution or 

12 conditional understanding.

13 And so these would take place 

14 between, either on a teleconference or 

15 possibly in a face-to-face setting where Doug 

16 or I, or both of us, or whoever the particular 

17 subject matter expert has to be, would get in 

18 touch with our counterpart, probably Scott 

19 Siebert or Mutty Sharfi, or whoever else might 

20 be the person of interest.

21 And go through a series of email 

22 exchanges, which probably get a lot of this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 stuff resolved before doing a face-to-face, 

2 you know, just capture this in the matrix.

3 And those things that really are 

4 kind of a real loggerheads, there's some real 

5 tension then, we can either come out here, 

6 just the manager, or have a teleconference, 

7 where we would have a neutral ombudsman, 

8 thirty party person, who doesn't have a stake 

9 in any of these findings or the originators, 

10 who could take the minutes and provide kind of 

11 an impartial evaluation of what took place 

12 during that meeting.

13 Of course, there would be a record 

14 in the matrix, either in Excel or Access 

15 format, it doesn't really matter what form you 

16 use just as long as concise record is 

17 maintained.

18 Those issues, or actually all of 

19 it, would be brought before the whole 

20 Subcommittee meeting at the bimonthly 

21 meetings.

22 And basically we would present what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 has taken place at the actual meetings. And 

2 the Board then, or the Subcommittee, would 

3 decide on the resolution of those issues.

4 And also, there are going to be 

5 some that are going to be kind of 

6 programmatic-wide or maybe a quality type 

7 thing. And those would be kind of a subject 

8 that could be discussed, rather than every 

9 single type, which is often the case.

10 We also thought what would be the 

11 best way to allocate or to reorganize the 

12 cases. Now we've been doing it by sets. 

13 Often you have a whole mixture of different 

14 types of sites, depending on what the Board 

15 felt was the best thing to look at for, find 

16 issues.

17 MR. KATZ: Could we, John, I just 

18 want to --

19 MR. STIVER: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Could I suggest we just 

21 address one approach at a time?

22 MR. STIVER: Okay, alright.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 MR. KATZ: As opposed to launching 

2 into the second.

3 MR. STIVER: Okay. In a few 

4 reports we thought of looking at the cases by 

5 site would allow us to really optimize the 

6 process. Because then we could have our 

7 subject matter expert, DCAS get together and 

8 look at them by site.

9 And about two-thirds of the 

10 findings could be readily handled that way. 

11 The other third are basically on an individual 

12 site. So we could be back to the old way. 

13 But there's a lot of findings that can be 

14 knocked out pretty quickly, we believe, by 

15 grouping them that way.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And just for the 

17 Subcommittee's purposes, there is a paper, I 

18 think you all got this paper from John, DR 

19 Backlog Reduction Plan.

20 MR. KATZ: No.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, that didn't 

22 get circulated?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 MR. KATZ: That hasn't been 

2 circulated.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, alright.

4 MR. STIVER: So we can certainly do 

5 that. I know DCAS hasn't gotten it.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. I 

7 didn't know if that was forwarded to all right 

8 before the meeting.

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, that really lays 

10 out the detail.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

12 that, is there a --

13 MR. KATZ: No, that was a problem. 

14 But circulating it before, we had a call.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Ted, I'm sorry, 

17 this is Scott and I hate to interrupt. But 

18 I'm hearing some typing on the line, just a 

19 reminder for people to mute their phones, 

20 sorry about that.

21 MR. KATZ: No, it's not from the 

22 room. It didn't come from in the room, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 don't think. It's someone else on the line 

2 who types.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: It stopped.

5 MR. STIVER: They're listening.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, maybe we 

7 can, I think it would be worthwhile forwarding 

8 --

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- Committee 

11 Members, yes, yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. So just to be 

13 clear about John's, because there's one thing 

14 that John said that concerns me a little bit.

15 But the idea is to, in between 

16 Subcommittee meetings which would be 

17 accelerated to some extent, we would have 

18 these joint staff-to-staff meetings.

19 There would be an open line, at 

20 minimum, so that a Board Member who wanted to 

21 listen in could listen in. As long as we 

22 don't have a quorum, we're fine with that in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 terms of the Subcommittee.

2 So it will be an open line to 

3 listen in. The one thing that just concerned 

4 me about what you said, John, is the exchange 

5 of emails. It's going to get very 

6 disorganized if there's a sort of pell-mell 

7 exchanging on particular cases, of emails as 

8 well, going on staff to staff.

9 So I would just suggest, if you're 

10 going to have written exchanges, they just be 

11 done in one ballast that goes back and forth 

12 in a very organized fashion, but not willy13 nilly if you have questions about cases and so 

14 on.

15 Or it will be impossible, really, 

16 for the Subcommittee to keep a good sense of 

17 what's going on in terms of staff-staff 

18 communication.

19 MR. STIVER: Right. So I probably 

20 didn't keep that tight, state that as clearly 

21 as I should've. It would be basically 

22 entering values or statements into the matrix. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 It would be like an exchange, not a series of 

2 emails going back and forth.

3 MR. KATZ: No, I mean the matrix 

4 but the matrix is to record progress. But if 

5 you're going to have exchanges, I have nothing 

6 against having written exchanges and email.

7 But then let's do it on a set basis 

8 or whatever, in a compiled fashion that gets a 

9 compiled response, not individually. That's 

10 my only point --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, anyways, 

12 the type because if you start to --

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- too much 

16 commingling of staff, yes. You want to keep 

17 your roles separate.

18 MR. STIVER: Okay. At this point, 

19 we're trying to be flexible and put ideas out 

20 there to see what you guys think. And this is 

21 really --

22 MR. FARVER: The way I see it, it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 just not much different than what we're doing, 

2 other than it should be quicker.

3 MR. KATZ: No --

4 MR. FARVER: They're still going to 

5 have their findings. They're going to 

6 respond, like they did to the Category A. 

7 We're going to look at their responses and 

8 we're either going to have questions or --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, let me just 

10 do an overview from my perspective. I think, 

11 having done this -- how many years have we 

12 done this Wanda, ten years or so the 

13 Subcommittee has been in effect.

14 A lot of times there is confusion 

15 on a response. So we wait three months. We 

16 have a meeting. There's confusion. Then 

17 NIOSH has to go back and clarify something and

18 then come to the next meeting with some 

19 clarification.

20 Then there's still confusion. So 

21 one finding will carry out over six, nine, 12 

22 months. We're hoping that some of that work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 can be dealt with on the staff-to-staff 

2 technical calls.

3 And we just ask that it be clearly 

4 documented so that the Subcommittee can see 

5 what's happened in those staff-to-staff 

6 technical calls, that we don't get this sort 

7 of like oh yes, yes, yes, I see what you've 

8 done now. And we're all happy with this then.

9 NIOSH agrees, SC&A agrees, and then 

10 that's the report we get back. And we're like 

11 wait a second, then we're back to the 

12 beginning. So we really need it to be 

13 documented.

14 I don't know, ombudsman, I think is 

15 strong term. All we were asking for is that 

16 someone that's not involved in the other side 

17 or the PR side, so specifically sort of record 

18 the notes.

19 That way a person that's not in the 

20 loop as much will get the full context of what 

21 happened. I think someone that's taking 

22 notes, if it's just, Doug's all it is, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 Scott's the one reviewing on the overall side.

2 You may have a very minimalist sort 

3 of set of notes because you're both engaged in 

4 the case. And we want somebody that's not, 

5 maybe, as engaged to take the notes so that it 

6 gives a more description to the Subcommittee 

7 Members.

8 We can look at it before we convene 

9 and have a good sense of what happened, and 

10 why you sort of got where you got.

11 And then again, just to reinforce 

12 this for the record, the Subcommittee is 

13 resolving these findings. And so any of this 

14 technical work between staffs is just to 

15 expedite and make the process more efficient.

16 But, you know, we're not going to 

17 have SC&A saying this case is closed, this 

18 finding is closed. They're just going to 

19 bring back more substance to the Subcommittee, 

20 so we can proceed in a more efficient fashion.

21 And I think this model has merit 

22 and we have a large backlog that we want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 move along. So I think it has merit. And I 

2 thought it is worth at least trying, putting 

3 forward and trying and you know how it goes. 

4 So I don't know if other Members have thoughts 

5 on this.

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda and I 

7 certainly have plenty of thoughts on that. 

8 Early on we did have technical phone calls 

9 between folks and that kind of fell out of 

10 favor, somewhere along the way, which I think 

11 is unfortunate. Because it seems like a very 

12 logical thing to do.

13 And Mark is certainly correct;

14 we've struggled with this for far too long, 

15 and had too many cases where we go back and 

16 forth, and back and forth.

17 I however, am still-- my brain 

18 stopped when Ted said ballast and I'm still 

19 trying to identify what the ballast is that 

20 moves back and forth in a discreet-type 

21 fashion. I can't quite envision exactly how 

22 that written communication needs to take 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 place.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would yes, I'd 

3 taken a second to respond. But I was thinking 

4 if you have the work, if they do it on sort of 

5 a site grouping, which I do think has a lot of 

6 merit.

7 But say you have a Savannah River 

8 technical call that you're planning, and I 

9 think they could look at all the Savannah 

10 River cases in a certain grouping.

11 And then email a correspondence of 

12 all their sort of comments and back and forth, 

13 rather than Doug getting on the line, hey I 

14 looked at this case. Scott, what were you 

15 doing here? That gets too fragmented.

16 MR. FARVER: See I would prefer to 

17 have everything in writing, you know, all 

18 responses. It might be something that looks 

19 very similar to a matrix where there's NIOSH 

20 responses, SC&A response, another NIOSH. And 

21 I think you either are going to agree or --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 MR. FARVER: -- and I think at the 

2 point, the ones that you disagree on, you meet 

3 face-to-face, lock everyone in a room, and 

4 everyone brings their data. And you come up 

5 with, either you can come up to some agreement 

6 on something or you don't agree. And in any 

7 case, it comes back to you.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I heartily approve of 

9 the locked in room, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: So we talked to other 

11 Subcommittee Members might mention something. 

12 John?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We did talk to 

14 Stu -

15 MR. KATZ: Yesterday.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- yesterday 

17 morning and I think he, in principle, agreed 

18 with this.

19 MR. KATZ: Alright, someone on the 

20 line is close to their microphone, I think, so 

21 we can hear your breathing. So if you could 

22 either mute your phone or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 MR. CALHOUN: Stop breathing.

2 MR. KATZ: -- stop breathing, says 

3 Grady.

4 MR. CALHOUN: It's a practical 

5 solution.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks. Grady, Stu 

7 thought that we can go down that path, see 

8 how, so it would involve, for DCAS it would 

9 involve, of course, staff being involved for 

10 both site-specific, perhaps, as well as your 

11 usual Scott or whoever.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I think that's a 

13 great idea. I would caution that I would like 

14 to put this kind of a process in place to 

15 reduce the backlog.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Once we get caught up 

18 we can go back to more reasonable meetings, I 

19 would think. I would hope that just because 

20 we increase our availability, we don't 

21 increase the number of findings that come out 

22 every month.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 I know that that's something that 

2 we don't know anything about because it's 

3 subjective. But I would really think that 

4 that's a great idea to reduce the backlog. 

5 And I certainly support that.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And my caution 

7 was on the other side of it, which I've 

8 cautioned Doug of this before, several years 

9 ago. But the idea that if SC&A has a finding, 

10 as Doug has pointed out, well, we've had this 

11 many times before. It's almost not worth 

12 tracking.

13 And I disagree with that. And 

14 we've talked about this. But I disagree with 

15 that because I think our overall goal is to 

16 look at, we're looking at a small percentage 

17 of the overall cases.

18 So if this is a recurring finding, 

19 we need to, not that we have to deliberate 

20 long about it because we've seen it, we know 

21 what it is. And maybe NIOSH has even dealt 

22 with because it's no longer the case. But we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 are looking, statistically, at this too. We 

2 want to see how often will you sort have this 

3 quality assurance --

4 MR. CALHOUN: I agree on some of 

5 them like that. For example, one of my pet 

6 peeves is too high of an over-estimate on a 

7 non-comp case, I think we should just let 

8 those go.

9 We shouldn't bring those up over, 

10 and over, and over because we know why we do 

11 that. And unless it was an error with us not 

12 following the TBD, I think that just things 

13 like that would help streamline our process.

14 But if we give a very high over15 estimate to a non-comp case, how much time 

16 should we spend on sending that?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Are we talking about 

18 a --

19 MR. CALHOUN: That's just one 

20 example. If we're looking at an overall way 

21 to reduce backlog and streamline the process, 

22 that's just one of Grady's.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 MR. STIVER: And I would kind of 

2 second that. We definitely try to limit our 

3 findings to those substantive findings, and 

4 those are going to actually have some kind of 

5 an impact. There are also observations.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I hesitate on 

7 that only because I, and this sort of creeps 

8 into the SEC stuff. But I can see an argument 

9 that challenges --

10 (Telephonic interference.)

11 MR. KATZ: Let me just check, do we 

12 still have David? David are you online?

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm fine. 

14 Dave, I'm on the line.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, and David 

16 Richardson, do we still have you on the 

17 international line?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Uh oh. The 

19 link-up might have --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I just got a 

21 message --

22 MR. KATZ: No, no, David --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- that 

2 something was happening and I got myself put 

3 back on the line. It said there were less 

4 than three people on the line and they were 

5 terminating it.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'll try to check 

7 with David Richardson though, do we still have 

8 you?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I'm still 

10 on the line.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, good.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, good.

13 MR. KATZ: Alright.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So let's 

15 continue. I was just saying that on the over16 estimating for non-comp, a lot of times that 

17 bridges into the question on, more on the 

18 SEC's question, which is are these 

19 sufficiently accurate, you know, models that 

20 NIOSH is using.

21 So that's why, I think they've been 

22 raised, especially on small AECs, if we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 only looking at one case, so sometimes do 

2 bring that up, right?

3 MR. FARVER: That would be right. 

4 The only case -

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I understand 

6 you're --

7 MR. FARVER: -- of AWEs, I think.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- understand 

9 your comment but yes.

10 MR. FARVER: Because I can't 

11 remember bringing something like that up on a 

12 DOE case.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I would just 

14 say, don't dismiss those completely, but I 

15 understand. I appreciate.

16 MR. FARVER: Right, file them a 

17 little bit different.

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Scott 

19 Siebert, are you trying to say something?

20 MR. CALHOUN: We need Scott.

21 MR. KATZ: Scott Siebert, are you 

22 on the line?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Somehow they 

2 dropped off.

3 MR. CALHOUN: We'll get him.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, wait. Dr. 

5 Kotelchuck, you're still with us, David? Who 

6 do we have on the line?

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi, this is 

8 David Richardson. I'm still on.

9 MR. KATZ: So we have you still. 

10 Do we have anyone other than --

11 MS. ROLFES: Scott said he can't 

12 anything.

13 MR. KATZ: Is he still on the line?

14 MR. ROLFES: No. He said he can't 

15 hear anything.

16 MR. CALHOUN: The call just dropped 

17 off.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I'm going to 

19 reconnect the other, the domestic line. That 

20 should work. Let's see.

21 Okay, that's not even, I'm going to 

22 have to reestablish the lines, it looks like.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we want to --

2 MR. KATZ: David, if you're still 

3 on, I'm hanging up. I'm going to have to 

4 reestablish the lines.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do we want to 

6 take a ten minute break right now? Would that 

7 be or you want to --

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, we might as well 

9 take a break. But I'm not even sure David's 

10 on the line anymore. Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If anybody hears 

12 us out there, let's take a break, ten minutes.

13 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

14 above-entitled matter went off the record at 

15 9:42 a.m. and resumed at 10:01 a.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, Mark?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, so 

18 we're picking up again on the agenda. We were 

19 just talking about the item involving 

20 accelerating DR issue resolution process.

21 And I think, I'm taking it by the 

22 comments from the other Board Members, that I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 think we agree with this. And NIOSH is in 

2 agreement with it, and SC&A is putting it 

3 forward.

4 So I think we would like to 

5 initiate this process, at least on a trial 

6 basis, see how this goes. And maybe, as Grady 

7 said, after the backlog is gone, do we 

8 continue? I don't know. We may not see a 

9 need. But I think it's worth, at least doing 

10 --

11 MR. STIVER: At least trying it.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- now. Right. 

13 Doug was mentioning in the hallway that he 

14 feels like a lot of the technical calls might 

15 be actually very short.

16 Because just sending back and forth 

17 the ballast, as Ted was saying, the chunk of 

18 cases and going back and forth with some of 

19 the written responses, documenting them, of 

20 course, that part of it could save a lot of 

21 time and gain efficiencies right there. You 

22 may not need long technical calls.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 MR. STIVER: That's true.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But at least 

3 we're approving that you can do both. So I 

4 think we should start that soon.

5 On the second part of it, I was 

6 going to propose that, you know, we have these 

7 classes of cases that we identified, I forget 

8 how. We had a discussion on this. And today 

9 we're going to have the first A grouping, 

10 right?

11 MR. STIVER: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So whether we go 

13 forward with the different groupings or 

14 whether we try the site idea, which seems to 

15 have a lot of merit. I propose, let's wait to 

16 discuss that after we to through this A 

17 grouping and make a decision toward the end of 

18 this meeting. And then we can talk.

19 I think it might be also 

20 worthwhile, like a tentative, just so the 

21 Subcommittee know what's happening, a 

22 tentative sort of schedule. And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 you've put that in --

2 MR. STIVER: Yes, we have a 

3 hypothetical --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, right. 

5 At least for the next --

6 MR. STIVER: Basically been weighed 

7 between the other meetings.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, the next 

9 technical meeting might be, and say we decide 

10 that you're going to take them by sites. So 

11 you say Savannah River, and we're going to do 

12 it --

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, that's --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- over this 

15 time frame, right, something like that. Well, 

16 we can make that call at the end of the 

17 meeting today, if that's okay.

18 MR. FARVER: But one thing I do 

19 think was helpful was that we were addressing 

20 all the findings and the kinks. In other 

21 words, so there were 34 findings that were 

22 looked at --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: -- there were only 

3 eight cases you had to look at, which was a 

4 whole lot easier than having to go through 30 

5 cases for say 30 findings or something.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: It made it much 

8 easier.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For this 

10 grouping here, that we did for that?

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, that -

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. So 

13 maybe let's go through these and then we can 

14 talk about that best path forward afterwards. 

15 Is that Alright for you?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that's great.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Anything 

18 else on that? So I'm just going to make a 

19 note that we're going to adopt this process.

20 And I think it's useful because you 

21 have some of those statistics in there, which 

22 are very useful, on the sites and stuff moving 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 forward there --

2 MR. CALHOUN: I'll circulate it.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

4 MR. STIVER: I can go ahead and 

5 send out --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Forward it to 

7 the Subcommittee --

8 MR. STIVER: -- a mailing to the 

9 Subcommittee and the DCAS.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because you did 

11 a nice table of a breakdown of the number of 

12 cases by sites and stuff, and just useful 

13 statistics to look at, yes.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

16 Okay, let's move on to the next 

17 item then, which is start to get into the 

18 cases, I guess, which should be -- I'm still 

19 typing -- issue resolution for the cases with 

20 Category A findings. Does it make sense to 

21 start there or do we want to do the 8th set 

22 first, Doug?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 MR. FARVER: No, we can start with 

2 these. You can kind of get a feel for how it 

3 goes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

5 MR. STIVER: Should be able to 

6 knock these down today. Do you want to lead 

7 out on this one?

8 MR. FARVER: Sure, I'll start off.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hold on, let's 

10 make sure everybody has that document first.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. That got 

13 forwarded to everyone, I assume?

14 MR. KATZ: David Kotelchuck, you 

15 won't have this because you don't have a CDC 

16 email address and this has Privacy Act 

17 information.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's alright.

19 MR. KATZ: But everyone else should 

20 have it.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 called issues matrix 10th to 13th set, 

2 Grouping A, June 2012, SC&A.doc, is that 

3 correct?

4 MR. FARVER: That includes our 

5 responses also, yes.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: So Doug, before you 

8 launch, you know what, maybe for David 

9 Kotelchuck's benefit, you could just explain 

10 what this Category A is so that he can follow 

11 along with --

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it would 

13 be appreciated.

14 MR. FARVER: Category A, as we 

15 defined it, has to do with, did we have the 

16 person assigned to the proper location, work 

17 location?

18 So we grouped findings by, do we 

19 have the proper location. And then we look at 

20 all the findings in that case, that had one of 

21 those findings. So as we start off here, 

22 you'll see that there are other findings that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 don't relate to work location --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me just step 

3 back a little for David's sake. David, we 

4 have a large backlog of, SC&A is reviewing 

5 these dose reconstructions.

6 And they bring the findings to our 

7 Subcommittee. And we go through each finding 

8 one by one. And over the course of many 

9 years, SC&A has got quite a bit ahead of us.

10 So we have a large backlog of 

11 cases. So what we try to do is come up with 

12 different ways to group them that might make 

13 this resolution process, that we're doing here 

14 today, a little more efficient.

15 And one was to sort of define some 

16 categories. Basically these categories were 

17 based on findings we've seen many times. 

18 We've seen these commonly.

19 And one that comes up a lot was 

20 location. A lot of times, for example, 

21 neutron doses, if a person wasn't identified 

22 as working in a certain area, there would not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 be assigned neutron doses.

2 But they might have something in 

3 their questionnaire that suggest they work 

4 there. And that might be different than the 

5 dosimetry records, so it's not always 

6 straightforward.

7 So location comes up quite a bit 

8 as, you know, why did NIOSH assign neutron 

9 doses when the person says they worked in 

10 building X. So that's the first category.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great, 

12 thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so that's 

14 what we're going into today.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And Doug, I'll 

17 turn it back to you.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. The first case 

19 has to do with Grand Junction's operations' 

20 office. The person was an electrician, worked 

21 there for, looks like to me from '51 to '89. 

22 So, many years.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 And we can look at a matrix and we 

2 can see in the first findings we identified 

3 has to do with inappropriate procedure, method 

4 used to model photon doses.

5 And really what this comes down to 

6 is there was no data for Grand Junction, no 

7 worker data, no work site date. So NIOSH 

8 applied coworker data from other sites.

9 And correct me if I'm wrong, Grady 

10 and Beth, but I believe what you did is you 

11 took is either the lowest doses from multiple 

12 sites. It wasn't like you just used coworker 

13 data from a single site and applied it. You 

14 took doses from multiple sites and applied it 

15 to this case.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, it says complex17 wide, coworker data set, yes. And I'm going 

18 to count on Scott to jump in here too.

19 MR. FARVER: And then the basis 

20 for, gosh most of the findings for this case 

21 is, is it appropriate to use that coworker 

22 data for this site. Because it's really not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 how we feel coworker data was meant to be 

2 applied.

3 We feel it was meant to be applied 

4 to people who worked at a site; they should 

5 have data from their coworkers, not from 

6 coworkers at other sites. Which brings up the 

7 point then, what do you do if you have no data 

8 for the site or the worker?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is an issue 

10 that's also been on one of other Work Groups, 

11 isn't it? I think this piece of coworker 

12 data.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is under --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sounds very 

15 familiar, yes.

16 MR. STIVER: -- whether this should 

17 be evaluated under the OCAS IG-004 guidance 

18 and the Board's criteria for surrogate data. 

19 Because this is certainly an example of 

20 surrogate data, yes, not necessarily coworker 

21 data.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that's more of a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 TBD policy-type discussion, whether or not we 

2 followed the TBD. We do do that in some 

3 cases. And we have done that for quite some 

4 time.

5 And I know that it's been under 

6 evaluation and we've got ways to look at that. 

7 But this was a comp case too, by the way. But 

8 we do assign coworker data from other sites if 

9 we feel that the processes and the exposures 

10 were similar.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which site is 

12 this?

13 MR. FARVER: This is Grand 

14 Junction.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: But Grand Junction 

16 is unique to itself. So I look at it a little 

17 bit different standpoint.

18 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, that was my 

19 concern. It's somewhat unique. And what does 

20 complex-wide mean?

21 MR. CALHOUN: I'd have to look at 

22 the TBD to find how many data sets we pulled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 from. But I don't know that off the top of my 

2 head.

3 MR. FARVER: You chose doses from 

4 different sites.

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. We have X-10, K6 25, Hanford, Paducah, and Portsmouth.

7 MEMBER POSTON: None of those so 

8 far fit the --

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

10 Siebert. I can shed some light on this. What 

11 was done is the OTIBs that we had for coworker 

12 doses, external coworker doses, that were 

13 published at the time of the dose 

14 reconstruction, which was in 2006.

15 We looked at the six other sites 

16 that had coworker available, that also worked 

17 with Uranium. It was Rocky Flats, X-10, K-25, 

18 Hanford, Paducah, Savannah River, and 

19 Portsmouth. I apologize, that's seven, those 

20 seven sites.

21 And since this claim had multiple 

22 BCCs and was likely going to be driven by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 external dosimetry, we selected the minimum 

2 from any of those sites, for any given year, 

3 during his operational period at Grand 

4 Junction.

5 That's where those doses came from. 

6 It was a minimizing methodology using the data 

7 that was available in coworker, from other 

8 sites that used Uranium. And as I say, using 

9 only some of the cancer sites, the claim was 

10 compensable and paid under the de11 minimization.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

13 the reason -

14 MR. FARVER: The reason we wrote up 

15 this finding was not that we necessarily 

16 disagree, but does that meet the intent of 

17 OTIB-20? Is coworker data from other sites 

18 applicable to --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, and it 

20 becomes more important on this because, 

21 correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we 

22 have any cases from Grand Junction.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 MR. FARVER: And if this is the --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we treat 

3 this like a mini AEC, right. So we're 

4 reviewing how applicable it is to this whole 

5 site, not just the case.

6 MR. FARVER: And if this is a 

7 method that they want to use, put the wording 

8 in OTIB-20, that says this is what you do.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let me also 

10 point out -- this is Scott -- let me also 

11 point out this was done in 2006. There is a 

12 methodology. First of all, Grand Junction has 

13 become an SEC through 1975.

14 We do have a methodology for 

15 assessing claims since that SEC. And we are 

16 in the middle of updating it for the changes 

17 to OTIB-70, I believe.

18 And once all that work is 

19 completed, once again, this will be brought up 

20 through DCAS, for whether a PER is appropriate 

21 and the claims that have been previously 

22 completed for Grand Junction's will fall under 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 that PER.

2 MR. FARVER: Well, this goes beyond 

3 Grand Junction. This is in general, what do 

4 you do for a site that you have no date and 

5 you have no worker data? What is the method 

6 for assessing that person's dose?

7 MR. CALHOUN: We'll start out with 

8 a coworker approach if we don't have any other 

9 data. And then ultimately, we get into the 

10 whole SEC world and we can do an 83.14, if 

11 that becomes the way of getting things done, 

12 if we don't think --

13 MR. FARVER: And if that's your 

14 method, then that needs to be documented that 

15 that's what you do. Because the method that 

16 you used here was not documented. It's not 

17 found in OTIB-20, that this is how you handled 

18 cases like this.

19 MR. SMITH: This is Matthew Smith 

20 with ORAU team, just another item to add. And 

21 that's an IG that came out two years after 

22 this claim was done and that's IG-004. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 that's the IG that covers using surrogate data 

2 in the manner that we're talking about here.

3 MR. STIVER: Thanks Matt.

4 MR. SMITH: That topic is addressed 

5 in that IG.

6 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John 

7 Stiver. I was just going to bring that up, 

8 that there needs to be some linkage between 

9 IG-004 and OTIB-20 then, to at least 

10 acknowledge that the methodologies that are 

11 going to be in place, that use surrogate data, 

12 are in accordance with IG-004.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does NIOSH agree 

14 with that?

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I think that we 

16 should have, we'll have someone looking to 

17 make sure that there is a link there. But 

18 this is one of those cases that's so old, that 

19 the way we would do that now, I think, is 

20 fairly well documented.

21 MR. FARVER: Where?

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is OTIB-20 still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 in use?

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes it is.

3 MR. STIVER: Yes, this kind of 

4 transcends the particular case. I think that 

5 somebody with OTIB-20 being used in a way that 

6 maybe it wasn't originally intended for.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MEMBER POSTON: So Doug, let me 

9 understand, if I can. The issue is not what 

10 they did, but the fact that there's no 

11 documentation. Well, it was what's the 

12 procedure.

13 MR. FARVER: Well, the first 

14 question is, is it appropriate what they did?

15 MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

16 MR. FARVER: I don't know that 

17 that's an adequate method to apply to Grand 

18 Junction.

19 MEMBER POSTON: I think Brad and I 

20 would probably agree with you.

21 MR. FARVER: Now whatever method it 

22 is, you need to come up with a method on how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 to handle sites where there's no worker data, 

2 and no individual data. And whatever it is, 

3 document it.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you have the 

5 one specific issue, and then the one more 

6 general issue?

7 MR. FARVER: Is it applicable just 

8 to pick and choose data to use at a different 

9 site?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, and I 

11 think the Surrogate Work Group is reviewing 

12 this OTIB, or IG-004, right. Is the Surrogate 

13 Work Group closed? Or are they --

14 MR. KATZ: Well, the Work Group's 

15 not closed but they've already addressed their 

16 criteria for use of surrogate data.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And IG-004 meets 

18 that criteria?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes.

21 MR. KATZ: But I thought Grady was 

22 saying normally this would be an 83.14 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 process.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it could be. 

3 It depends on, we've got so many sites out 

4 there that we get to those, when we get to 

5 those. And there's a lot of sites out there 

6 that could be a group review or 83.14.

7 But given everything else we've 

8 got, they will be eventually. We don't have a 

9 list of saying here's what we're going to do. 

10 But that certainly is, this one, did that 

11 happen? An 83.14?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Actually I thought 

13 it did come out as 83.14.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I just don't --

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I think part 

16 of the issue is just being the earlier years, 

17 on the processes, I think in my personal 

18 opinion this was used in the wrong way. I 

19 have to agree with that.

20 But I think we can look back over 

21 the last ten years and at the very beginning 

22 we had very few 83.14s. And all of sudden 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 we're starting to look at it in a little bit 

2 different aspect.

3 But still to Doug's question, was 

4 it properly used? I don't think so. It's 

5 gone in the SEC era, but how many more out 

6 there are there like this? I see what your 

7 issue is there. But I don't know --

8 MR. FARVER: And if the method is 

9 documented, then you can review the method and 

10 say oh okay, we don't agree with this step in 

11 the method, right. In other words, for, I 

12 don't know, there must be similarity between 

13 the sites or something. And there may not be 

14 --

15 MR. STIVER: Well, that's already 

16 said, they used Uranium and they had coworker 

17 data.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: And if that's the

20 method that gets agreed upon, all I'm saying 

21 is it needs to be documented. And if it is in 

22 004, then there does need to be some linkage 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 with the OTIB-20.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right. I'll have to 

3 check and see because I just don't know off 

4 the top of my head if it's in that document, 

5 if there's a specific link to Grand Junction.

6 So I agree that there should be 

7 something there. It shouldn't just be hanging 

8 out, kind of something, that what sites are 

9 applicable to what Steven needs to -

10 MR. FARVER: Because from our point 

11 of view, when we look over this and it talks 

12 about the coworker data and OTIB-20, we're 

13 going to go to OTIB-20 and try to find the 

14 data that was used.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, right.

16 MR. FARVER: And we couldn't find 

17 it because it was chosen from certain years 

18 for different sites, which is what prompted 

19 all the findings.

20 MR. CALHOUN: It shouldn't be 

21 terribly difficult to find.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: And as me and John 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 have pointed out, Grand Junction is a player 

2 all unto itself. And I don't see any 

3 similarities whatsoever.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the specific 

5 issue of referencing, I agree with. The more 

6 general question of, is it appropriate to use 

7 this coworker data for Grand Junction --

8 MR. FARVER: Right. Or how do you 

9 determine if it's appropriate to use data for 

10 a different site? In other words, how do you 

11 know --

12 MR. STIVER: Well, that is what I -

13 -

14 DR FARVER: How do you determine 

15 what's similar to Grand Junction in this case?

16 MR. STIVER: Well, that's what 

17 really prompted IG-004 to begin with, was to 

18 lay out some criteria for doing the process --

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, and if it's 

20 contained in there, then it just needs to be 

21 linked to the coworkers.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I mean is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 this still the process at Grand Junction for, 

2 this was an older case. Is this still used?

3 MR. STIVER: It's SEC after '75 

4 now, so that would kind of lead me to believe 

5 that maybe that method was deemed 

6 inappropriate.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, how do we do 

8 them outside of that time experience, Scott, 

9 do you know off the top of your head?

10 MR. SIEBERT: There is a residual 

11 process. It's only the residual period and 

12 it's based on the residual measurements.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you're using 

15 data from the site now though?

16 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that is 

17 correct. I'm not positive off the top of my 

18 head but I believe so.

19 MR. CALHOUN: So that covers most 

20 of the operations, the AEC-related operations 

21 that the SEC does, sounds like it?

22 MR. SIEBERT: Also, the SEC is for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 the operational period, that's correct.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Scott, this is 

4 Brad. Didn't NIOSH put this forth as an

5 83.14? I just want to make sure.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: It was, right?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and it was 

9 passed, it exists now at the SEC.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I put the two 

12 actions, one that NIOSH will check on the 

13 cross-referencing with TIB-20. And two, that 

14 NIOSH will check to verify the current method 

15 that's being used for external doses post16 1975.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, post-1975?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, because as 

19 SEC has been established pre-. Although, you 

20 have the non-SEC cancers --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, but chances are 

22 that we won't apply coworker doses. I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 know that off the top of my head. But that's 

2 one of the downfalls of an SEC. Unless we've 

3 got actual dosimetry, we typically don't use 

4 coworker data, especially from another site if 

5 its SEC has been staffed.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

7 maybe you can report on that too, just so we 

8 know what's been, yes.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

10 looked it up while we were talking. I stand 

11 corrected; it's not the full operational 

12 period. It's through '75. The operational 

13 goes through 2001, but the monitoring after 

14 '75 was deemed appropriate for dose 

15 reconstruction.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, so there's now a 

17 site-specific TBD covering the operational 

18 period after '75?

19 MR. SIEBERT: There is not a TBD 

20 for Grand Junction because there are not 

21 enough claims to have justified the resources 

22 on a TBD.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 There is a methodology that has 

2 been completed and DCAS has approved that 

3 methodology. And that is what we used. The 

4 methodology is listed in each claim. It's 

5 part of the write-up of each claim.

6 MR. KATZ: I see, okay.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hey, I asked for 

8 that five years ago. It's working. Good. It 

9 wouldn't be in this one because it's an older 

10 one, right?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, so it's looking 

14 at historical.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Right, since this is 

16 an older one, the documentation in this 

17 explains what was done in the dose 

18 reconstruction. However, obviously, that 

19 methodology didn't exist at the time.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you also 

21 provide the method, because I think in this 

22 case, that like this is one of the ones that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 we picked because we're not going to do many 

2 Grand Junction cases. So can you provide that 

3 methodology? Even though it didn't apply to 

4 this case.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I got that 

6 written down here.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: And I just want to 

9 point out, just a heads up on that, that it is 

10 being updated as we speak. So the methodology 

11 that is presently in place is being updated.

12 MR. KATZ: But so, Scott, because 

13 this is sort of novel even to me with all I've 

14 heard. So this methodology doesn't get posted 

15 anywhere or documented anywhere except in the 

16 actual cases?

17 MR. SIEBERT: In the Dose 

18 Reconstruction Report itself, correct.

19 MR. CALHOUN: We don't have an 

20 approved document that says that, that we

21 regurgitate the methodology so then --

22 MR. KATZ: So where do you store 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 that methodology until it goes into a case?

2 MR. CALHOUN: In a super secret 

3 spot.

4 MR. KATZ: In a super secret spot, 

5 okay. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's sort of 

7 like the old dose reconstruction --

8 MR. SIEBERT: We keep the 

9 methodology. It's in the template for the 

10 site itself. And we also keep it separate, 

11 that DCAS has a copy as well that we're 

12 working from. It's just not a tracked TBD 

13 document as such.

14 But we do keep it up-to-date. And 

15 as I said, we're watching for PERs as changes 

16 occur as well. And that's tracked through 

17 DCAS.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Then how will Doug 

19 know, or do you have access to that?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

21 they're going to provide the most current 

22 version, even though it's being reviewed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 MR. FARVER: If it's in the case 

2 for dose reports then we should see it.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes you will. And 

4 generally, those DRs are much longer than the 

5 other one because they have to lay out all the 

6 methodology inside those reconstructions. So 

7 you can either find one. Or I can pull a 

8 blank one out that can give a template of 

9 what's done.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think we 

11 just want the template, yes, that's fine.

12 MR. STIVER: I had a question for 

13 Mark. I missed one of the actions. One was 

14 to verify IG-004 linkage, identify the current 

15 process, but there was a third one.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean verified 

17 linkage to TIB-20.

18 MR. STIVER: Yes, I got that one.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 

20 second one, I'm not sure about a third one, 

21 was to check the current methodology --

22 MR. STIVER: Okay, got those. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 thought there was a third one though.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And now there's 

3 a third one on the methodology, provide the 

4 methodology, right. And I'm recording these 

5 in this version of the matrix.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'll get it 

8 sent out and get a copy.

9 MEMBER MUNN: That would be nice.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, and just 

11 for those on the phone, this is usually about 

12 how long it takes us to go through one 

13 finding. So we're moving on to finding two.

14 MR. FARVER: Well, actually it 

15 takes care of five findings.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, that's 

17 right.

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Because all those 

20 findings have to do with the coworker data.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the next one, 

22 tell me which ones are --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 MR. STIVER: Takes care of the 

2 entire case, doesn't it?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes, all the one 

4 through five. The second one is lack of 

5 accounting for photon dose, assignment values 

6 --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So all of 226, 

8 you're saying?

9 MR. STIVER: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 MR. STIVER: It's all related to 

12 that same issue.

13 MR. FARVER: And even up to number 

14 five, where we had wrote it up that it was 

15 inadequate data available to determine a PoC.

16 That was based on; there was no 

17 site data, no worker data. But, you know, 

18 because it deemed appropriate to apply the 

19 coworker data, the surrogate data, then that 

20 takes care of that finding also. It all 

21 hinged upon the use of the coworker data.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Doug?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 MR. SIEBERT: I wanted to let you 

4 know, and Mark, I have a suggestion, .2 and 

5 .4, actually the finding has to do with the 

6 fact that it was not clearly defined as to 

7 exactly which OTIBs the dose reconstruction 

8 value, the coworker values came from.

9 The write-up did state that it used 

10 the minimum from a cross-section of sites. 

11 However, it did not include the specific sites 

12 that were used and where the numbers came 

13 from.

14 So I would think, since I also did 

15 send along with this response, there's an 

16 Excel spreadsheet that lists what the values 

17 are and the sites.

18 I would think that we agreed that 

19 that should have been documented better, the

20 Dose Reconstruction Report. So I would think 

21 .2 and .4 could both be considered to be 

22 closed if you guys wanted to go that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 direction.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. That's fine. We 

4 just had those couple outstanding actions, 

5 really, about the coworker data. So yes, we 

6 could, .2 and .4 could be closed.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Closed is always 

8 nice, even if it's only a part of the --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So .2 and .4, 

10 are you saying they provided the spreadsheet -

11 -

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Listing the 

14 sites that they used. They did give us the 

15 documentation.

16 MR. FARVER: They did explain where 

17 the values came from.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Okay. 

19 And the other, okay. It's really a 

20 housekeeping thing but I'll do that, yes. 

21 We'll close that.

22 MR. FARVER: That's fine.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 MEMBER MUNN: Photon doses and 

2 electrons.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. You can 

4 go ahead on that.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay, 230.1, personnel 

6 monitoring information in CATI not addressed 

7 in a DR report. A brief explanation of this 

8 case, person worked at ORISE from '48 through 

9 '73, and we'll discuss that a little bit 

10 later, as purchasing clerk and as a 

11 storekeeper.

12 In the CATI reports, which were 

13 done by the claimants, reported that the 

14 employee wore a badge for dosimetry. NIOSH's 

15 reply is, you know, it could've been referring 

16 for security badge and so forth.

17 But basically they agree that they 

18 should've mentioned something in there about 

19 the CATI information reporting that the person 

20 mentioned that they wore dosimetry.

21 So with that finding, we agree that 

22 they should've put something in there, include 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 the basis for that finding. We just think 

2 they should, under their Section 4 of their 

3 Dose Report, they should've added something 

4 about the CATI report information. So we 

5 recommend closing that item.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you don't 

7 think it would've changed the values in dose 

8 reconstruction; you're just saying they 

9 should've mentioned it.

10 MR. FARVER: They should've 

11 mentioned it, correct.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

13 We've had this with numerous ones. And Stu 

14 has already said that they're trying to 

15 implement --

16 MR. FARVER: And they are, we've --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

18 I just want to point out once again; this is 

19 from January of 2006. So well before this 

20 Subcommittee discussed this issue.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, right. So we are 

22 seeing cases now where it's putting in much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 more information in that section about the 

2 CATI report. Okay, move on to --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that's 

4 closed, right?

5 MR. FARVER: -- 230.2. This is the 

6 one that has to do with the employee's work 

7 location and potential radiological sources 

8 were not documented.

9 This is where it gets a little 

10 tricky. The EE's employer was actually Oak 

11 Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, not 

12 ORISE.

13 ORAU was established in '46 to 

14 manage ORIN. AU's name changed to ORISE in 

15 the '90s. The activities of ORINS personnel 

16 during the time of the employment period are 

17 not well documented in the employee's 

18 correspondence file -- states the employee 

19 worked at a facility hospital doing cancer 

20 studies in the early years.

21 So there's some question about what 

22 the employee did and where the employee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 worked, which goes back to the work location 

2 and potential radiological sources.

3 I don't know if you can research 

4 any early information on ORINS, than what they 

5 did. But that would be the suggestion; you go 

6 back and look at what was done in the earlier 

7 years.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I see NIOSH 

9 has a lengthy response there. Can you 

10 summarize what you are reading as well, Grady?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I was actually 

12 looking back at some of the other documents --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. CALHOUN: -- that the EE 

15 actually did.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, it looks like the 

17 work location information was provided after 

18 the dose reconstruction was completed.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's correct.

20 MR. CALHOUN: What's correct, 

21 Scott? Sorry.

22 MR. SIEBERT: The case was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 completed in January of 2006. And in our 

2 response, telephone conversation occurred in 

3 July of that year, you know, six months later, 

4 or was documented in July, it was conducted in 

5 May of 2006, still after the dose 

6 reconstruction was completed.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you're saying 

8 that even though it was after, it didn't cause 

9 you to go back and reassess the case?

10 MR. SIEBERT: It did not at the 

11 time.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Should it have?

13 MR. FARVER: Which brings up the 

14 question, what prompts you to go back and look 

15 at a case when you get additional information?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Well, that's a good 

17 question. We've actually started doing 

18 something now. And I'm not going to give you 

19 access to it.

20 We document every time we receive 

21 any information, whether it be from an 

22 individual or from the site after a Dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 Reconstruction Report has been completed.

2 We are in the process now of going 

3 through every case for which -- every non-comp 

4 case for which we have received data and the 

5 DR has already been completed.

6 We've gone through approximately, I 

7 want to say 800 of these already. And we 

8 review the case to see if that data would 

9 cause an increase in the Probability of 

10 Causation.

11 Now let me keep in mind, that the 

12 majority of these, the data we received is the 

13 same data that we've already got. But since 

14 we've gotten it after the dose reconstruction 

15 has been completed, we review the case.

16 It's documented. And we look to 

17 see if the dose reconstruction has been 

18 completed. The only one that I'm aware of, 

19 where the Probability of Causation went from 

20 non-comp to comp, and was paid through an SEC.

21 So anytime we do have additional 

22 data that would cause the Probability of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 Causation to go up -- actually there were two.

2 The other case where the 

3 Probability of Causation was likely to go up 

4 over 50 percent, we requested a re-work from 

5 Department of Labor. They sent the case to 

6 us. And we're re-working the case to add the 

7 new data.

8 MR. FARVER: So you generated a 

9 PER?

10 MR. CALHOUN: No, this is called a 

11 PAD.

12 MR. FARVER: PAD.

13 MR. CALHOUN: This is a post14 approval document.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. And so what we 

17 do is, because a PER is more driven by a site 

18 or by a procedure. This is driven by a piece 

19 of information that was acquired either 

20 through data capture, information received 

21 from the site in bulk, or from an employee, or 

22 claimant.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's very good 

2 to know. It actually seems like a quality 

3 control tool.

4 MR. CALHOUN: It is, it is.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's like your 

6 other --

7 MR. CALHOUN: As a matter of fact 

8 we're going to try to tout that a little bit 

9 in the next Board meeting because it's 

10 something that we really have only been doing 

11 for three months, probably.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let me ask a 

13 question, which I'm assuming you can't answer 

14 today.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But does this 

17 case -- but I'll document it -- does this case 

18 fall into the 800 that you mentioned? Was 

19 this one captured?

20 MR. CALHOUN: You know, if you give 

21 me a little bit of time and continue, I might 

22 be able to figure that out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe a little -

2 -

3 MR. CALHOUN: Because I've got a 

4 spreadsheet.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You have the 

6 case numbers.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I do, I do.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because that 

9 would be interesting to know because --

10 MR. CALHOUN: Do you know if that 

11 was the case, Scott, off the top of your head?

12 MR. SIEBERT: I am looking as we 

13 speak.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Maybe you 

16 can answer it, okay.

17 MS. ROLFES: I was going to say 

18 also, when an EE dies and there's new 

19 survivor, I always get an email through the 

20 PHA, uplink health advisor asking if their 

21 CATI will impact the DR? I get one of those a 

22 week.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 MR. CALHOUN: If there is --

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Could the last 

3 speaker speak a little louder? I couldn't 

4 hear her.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe say your 

6 name, yes.

7 MS. ROLFES: This is Beth. Each 

8 time something happens with the CATI, like 

9 there's a new one and there's a new survivor, 

10 or the EE dies, I get an email from the PHA 

11 asking to make sure there's no impact. Or if 

12 there are new DOE records that come over, it's 

13 always relayed to the HP.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Right. What happens 

15 is, just an example, is sometimes we'll have 

16 either, let's just say a child decides that 

17 now they want to provide a CATI and they 

18 didn't in the past. Or the Energy employee 

19 dies. And it's somewhere in the process where 

20 the case has not been fully adjudicated.

21 So what will happen is we offer 

22 them an opportunity to do the computer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 assisted (simultaneous speaking) view. We 

2 will get the HP doing that dose 

3 reconstruction; we'll get a copy of that CATI.

4 And let's just say, for example, 

5 they list an incident that we knew nothing 

6 about in the EE's CATI, we'll re-work a time. 

7 We'll make a request from the Department of 

8 Labor to open up that claim and redo it.

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thanks.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thanks and yes, 

11 and thank you for defining CATI. I think I 

12 almost want to institute something that Tara 

13 O'Toole did at some old meetings with the 

14 Department of Energy, DOE, when we had these 

15 advisory board meetings.

16 She put a jar on the table and said 

17 anytime we use an acronym without defining, 

18 you had to put like ten cents in or something.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Because you don't 

20 want to use a TIB or TBD to determine the PoC.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Or the SEC.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Exactly.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Since we have 

3 Dave Kotelchuck joining our Subcommittee, I 

4 think we should make sure we define these 

5 acronyms as we go through.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Great, yes, 

7 appreciate it.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we apologize 

9 for all the ones we've used to this point.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MEMBER MUNN: After 12 years TBD 

12 still means “to be determined.” I have to 

13 think the wrong setting for “to be 

14 determined.”

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

16 have an answer on the PAD question, which 

17 stands for “post-approval dosimetry”. This 

18 claim is not a part of that because the 

19 additional information did not come in as a 

20 response from DOE or DOL.

21 This information was relayed by the 

22 claimant during the close-out interview 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 process, discussed during the close-out 

2 interview. And the claimant was satisfied 

3 with the answer and the claim was moved 

4 forward.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so this 

6 came through a different process. So it 

7 wasn't captured in --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. And 

10 would that information be in the case file, 

11 that Doug would've looked at in the review?

12 MR. CALHOUN: It would certainly be 

13 documented in the phone log.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That the 

15 claimant was satisfied?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so it 

18 would've been the phone log.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's May 19th, 

20 2006. I'm looking at it in the phone log 

21 right now.

22 MR. FARVER: So if the claimant is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 satisfied, it's okay?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's the 

3 question I have, yes. You get an agreement 

4 from a, theoretically, a non-technical person. 

5 You've convinced them that it's okay, but 

6 there's no further action on NIOSH's part when 

7 you get --

8 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we certainly 

9 look at that. We look at it and make an 

10 evaluation of it and that's why we either do, 

11 or redo, or do not revise the dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

14 MR. CALHOUN: And then we explain 

15 to them what we did or didn't do.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I appreciate, 

17 that other review is very, that seems very 

18 appropriate. But this case doesn't meet that 

19 criteria.

20 MR. FARVER: No, I would think that 

21 this would prompt some action --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this triggers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 some other action? Right, that's what I'm 

2 asking.

3 MR. FARVER: -- even if it's 

4 looking at and saying we looked at it, you 

5 know, a memo to file. We looked at it. It 

6 doesn't impact the case, boom and move on. 

7 But that didn't happen and there doesn't 

8 appear to be a mechanism for that to happen.

9 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know what 

10 detail is in the phone log about that. I can 

11 look that up. Is there anything in there, 

12 Scott, that goes into much detail about that?

13 MR. SIEBERT: It's specifically 

14 discussing his lack of a dosimeter and 

15 discussion with the claimant. And they agree 

16 that maybe it was an identification badge as 

17 opposed to a dosimeter, since there is no 

18 records whatsoever. There is mention, the 

19 facility cancer studies.

20 MR. CALHOUN: And you got to take 

21 into account, I guess his description is 

22 purchasing/storekeeper/accounting clerk and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 property supply clerk.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, highly unlikely.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. CALHOUN: The likelihood of 

5 exposure is probably pretty low too, based on 

6 that.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Very low.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I wouldn't agree 

9 with that because I watched a lot of our 

10 purchasing agents and everybody has to bring 

11 all the product and go through them, plus hold 

12 them up for QA. And they end up getting, in 

13 the earlier years, they ended up getting quite 

14 a dose because they didn't have everything set 

15 up to be able to shield them from a lot of 

16 product.

17 MR. CALHOUN: And that's variable 

18 from site to site.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And that's 

20 absolutely true.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there any 

22 further action here? I'm just --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see how.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Part of me is 

3 thinking is there a mechanism to capture, you 

4 know, in this case yes, I can see a maybe, it 

5 didn't raise as big a red flag.

6 But is there any mechanism to 

7 capture these, similar to the method you 

8 described for this other one, where you get 

9 information from DOE?

10 MR. CALHOUN: I think that --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just because 

12 you're getting new information from the 

13 claimant, does it prompt --

14 MR. CALHOUN: It certainly would 

15 have, if we would've gotten something that was 

16 maybe a little bit more concrete. If we got 

17 some kind of documentation of a dosimeter, or 

18 an accident that they were actually involved 

19 in, or medical X-rays for that matter.

20 Then that certainly would have 

21 prompted a revision of the dose 

22 reconstruction. But this is one of those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 things where you just kind of, there's really 

2 not much of a choice, other than to weigh the 

3 information that you've received from 

4 somebody.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: And try to make a 

7 call.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is there 

9 something that describes that that way? Not 

10 really?

11 MR. CALHOUN: I doubt it.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's a judgment 

13 call.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I doubt it, yes. 

15 That's one of those things can't cover 

16 everything.

17 MEMBER MUNN: How detailed can you 

18 get?

19 MR. KATZ: It seems like 

20 documenting in the log, when you take the 

21 information --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 MR. KATZ: -- is an adequate 

2 approach to --

3 MR. CALHOUN: We're always 

4 documenting it in kind.

5 MR. KATZ: -- that last information 

6 that comes in.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Take away from it.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I thought we 

10 had -- this is Brad again -- I thought we had 

11 discussed about this. When anything comes in 

12 later that it kind of went under the report. 

13 I thought that NIOSH was trying to do that.

14 I know that they have with CATI 

15 reports, any updates but I thought well, this 

16 kind of fell under that too. Any new 

17 information that the claimant had provided 

18 would go under --

19 MR. KATZ: But it can't go in the 

20 Dose Reconstruction Report, that's already 

21 produced and out the door. So it sort of 

22 makes sense that it would end up in the log.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 It would go to the Dose 

2 Reconstruction Report if there was something 

3 to change. Because then you would have a new 

4 Dose Reconstruction Report. But you wouldn't 

5 really go back and amend the old Dose 

6 Reconstruction Report to say we got this 

7 information after we finished this case.

8 MR. FARVER: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: You need to keep that 

10 file, preserve that file, because that's the 

11 administrative record for the case as it was 

12 handled.

13 MR. FARVER: You receive new 

14 information from a survivor, someone saying 

15 that well, we think the person worked at a 

16 facility hospital during cancer studies.

17 Now this is different than the job 

18 description that you previously have. You 

19 have someone you list as a purchasing clerk 

20 and a storekeeper.

21 So if you get something that 

22 different, doesn't that cause you to want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 even look at it and say well gee, this is 

2 different than what we have? Should we look 

3 at this?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, I thought 

5 the new information was purchasing clerk. I 

6 misunderstood that.

7 MR. FARVER: No. The new 

8 information was that they worked in a facility 

9 hospital. And then when you go back and look 

10 at it, previous to ORISE it was called ORINS.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Institute of Nuclear 

13 Studies.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Except it was a 

15 different worker placement --

16 MR. FARVER: Which is different

17 work. So shouldn't that prompt you to go back 

18 and look and say --

19 MR. CALHOUN: I'd have to go back 

20 and look at what the, like maybe the DOL 

21 initial case file.

22 MR. FARVER: Which goes back to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 original question, what's the mechanism?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Scott is ready to 

3 tell us on that.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

5 I just want to read to you from the telephone 

6 log. "The survivor states he spent a great 

7 deal of time at the hospital. And while it 

8 was true he worked in administration, he was 

9 also in contact with patients to gather 

10 information."

11 I would assume still did not rise 

12 to the level of likely exposure beyond 

13 ambient. But that's the information that's in 

14 there.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Spends time there, 

16 there's a difference in working there.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I understand. 

18 Now when you receive information, what level 

19 of information prompts you do something? And 

20 what's the mechanism to make that happen?

21 In other words, let's say you 

22 talked to the claimant and the claimant said, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 they worked in a hospital on nuclear medicine 

2 lab. Is that enough information to prompt you 

3 to go back and look?

4 MR. CALHOUN: I think it's enough 

5 information to go back and look at, maybe like 

6 the DOL initial case file, where DOL verified 

7 his employment, to see if there's something 

8 that they could've missed that led to that.

9 MR. FARVER: And is there a 

10 mechanism that says, when you receive new 

11 information, other than your PAD process, you 

12 go back and look at it?

13 MR. CALHOUN: We document every 

14 single phone call.

15 MR. FARVER: I understand that.

16 MR. CALHOUN: And so if there's 

17 something that's brought up, it's up to us to 

18 document a response to that phone call.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. So the 

20 interviewer could've documented it and let's 

21 say it said nuclear medicine, okay. What 

22 action is going to happen next?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 MR. CALHOUN: They'll go back and 

2 look at, maybe the DOL. Like I said, the DOL 

3 initial case file because the DOE response has 

4 given me nothing.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: But if I was to go 

7 back at the DOL initial case file, which will 

8 usually, or sometimes, will give you a more 

9 detailed description of where they worked and 

10 what they did. And then if I can get there 

11 from there and say well, maybe he was. Then 

12 that could prompt a --

13 MR. FARVER: Who's going to look? 

14 And what's going to prompt them to look?

15 MR. CALHOUN: It would go back to 

16 the, I hate to speak out of turn here, Scott, 

17 tell me what would happen there? Who would 

18 look at that? Would the CATI person give that 

19 to the HP or what? Scott?

20 MR. SIEBERT: I'm typing a message 

21 to the person who actually does this work --

22 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. Real time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 MR. STIVER: A minute ago Grady 

2 said that this would be a judgment call --

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

4 MR. STIVER: -- to determine 

5 whether it's substantive. That would probably 

6 indicate to me that there isn't really a 

7 mechanism, it's just kind of a professional 

8 judgment.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the path 

10 Doug is going down is --

11 MR. CALHOUN: If we decided it was, 

12 how would --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But who's making 

14 this judgment?

15 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The people doing 

17 these phone conversations, they're never --

18 MR. CALHOUN: They're not qualified 

19 to do that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Well, sometimes they 

22 are.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sometimes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: The close-out 

3 interview guys usually is.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, okay.

5 MR. CALHOUN: The CATI person is 

6 less technical.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again 

9 we're talking about two different things. 

10 We're talking about historical in this claim, 

11 which was done in 2006.

12 And we're talking about the present 

13 day procedures that would require this 

14 because, as we've all stated, this process has 

15 gotten better over time.

16 I'm right now looking for the COI 

17 procedure; let me give you the number. 

18 Procedure 92. It's called Close-out Interview 

19 Process.

20 MR. FARVER: And how do I get a 

21 copy of that, Scott?

22 MR. SIEBERT: All you have to do is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 ask, Doug.

2 MR. FARVER: May I have a copy of 

3 that, Scott?

4 MR. SIEBERT: So let it be written, 

5 so let it be done. We had a Revision 0, which 

6 was issued in 2005. And Rev 1 has been 

7 updated in April of this year to document all 

8 the different changes that we have put in 

9 place over the last X number of years. I will 

10 track down to see if you can get a copy of the 

11 historical and the present one.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay, thank you.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it would be 

14 nice if that document actually describes what 

15 to do in these cases.

16 MR. KATZ: I thought this was 

17 information that came in after the case was 

18 closed out.

19 MR. FARVER: It is.

20 MR. KATZ: So it's not a close-out 

21 interview.

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. This 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 is the close-out interview. The process, and 

2 this is especially good for David, the process 

3 is we complete doing the claim, DCAS, and when 

4 I say we I mean the ORAU team, we submit it to 

5 DCAS. And they conduct their review and 

6 approve the claim.

7 At that point it comes back to ORAU 

8 to conduct a close-out interview, which is 

9 when we send a copy out to the claimants and 

10 they have a chance to review it.

11 And then we call them up and walk 

12 through it as a closed-out process to get 

13 additional information and to determine the 

14 relevancy of that additional information.

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

16 MR. SIEBERT: And present day, 

17 there is a feedback loop. and I believe that 

18 even the 2005 version does mention having a 

19 feedback loop to the dose reconstruction. But 

20 I'm not looking at it as we speak.

21 As we need to, we answer the 

22 questions. And if there are additional 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 questions that need to be resolved, that gets 

2 documented and then the claim can move forward 

3 when the claimant turns in the OCAS-1 form, 

4 which is stating that they have no additional 

5 information beyond what they have already 

6 given us.

7 At that point, they would get 

8 finalized and submitted to the Department of 

9 Labor.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Sure thing.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay, so we'll take a 

13 look at those procedures.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, SC&A will 

15 look at those, and more for the broad issue 

16 than this case specific. But it's good to 

17 know the process, yes. Okay.

18 MR. CALHOUN: I don't even know if 

19 I should bring this up or not, but if the 

20 claimant is adamant about something in the DR 

21 like that, we'll change it. If they say we 

22 want you to list that they worked in such and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 such a spot, we'll change it. And we'll put 

2 it back out to them.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But it may not 

4 change the numbers --

5 MR. CALHOUN: It may, it may not.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

7 MR. CALHOUN: But there's times 

8 where I'm sure it has. It would be impossible 

9 for me to get an example.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. CALHOUN: It's not infrequent 

12 that we will change, at least, verbiage in a 

13 DR based on a close-out interview.

14 MEMBER MUNN: People are likely to 

15 have strong feelings about whether or not --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they just 

17 want to --

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- written records 

19 accurately reflects their memory.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What they did, 

21 right, yes. Alright.

22 MR. FARVER: The next two are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 observations.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: NIOSH provided a 

4 response that I won't, I thought we had 

5 discussed we really don't have to respond to 

6 observations.

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, not really.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: But it completes the 

10 record more --

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, that should be 

12 fine.

13 MEMBER MUNN: -- so thank you 

14 NIOSH.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've done it in 

16 the past.

17 MR. FARVER: We don't really have 

18 any comments on there. Observations are 

19 pretty much not the level of findings, but 

20 it's something we found --

21 MEMBER MUNN: Worthy of comment?

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. I know there's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 one in here, I think that has it, that they've 

2 got two tables with the same number on it in 

3 the document. So it could be something like 

4 that.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Not terribly salient 

6 to --

7 MR. FARVER: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- dose 

9 reconstruction.

10 MR. STIVER: Although, sometimes 

11 they can be.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MR. STIVER: You have a situation 

14 where there may be an issue with the TBD.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Now you're just 

16 arguing with me.

17 MR. STIVER: The only reason I 

18 bring that up though, not that I'm contending 

19 an argument. He had talked with Dr. Melius 

20 about possibly considering incorporating some 

21 findings related to procedure deficiencies in 

22 the DRs. And this is something that's down 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 the road, something to be thinking about.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That is 

3 interesting because I was actually, that's one 

4 of my concerns as we've been going through 

5 this is that, is there a gap?

6 I know that the Procedures 

7 Subcommittee is looking at the procedures, but 

8 then I'm not sure whether we're missing 

9 something between the DR reviews and the 

10 procedures.

11 MR. STIVER: That's something 

12 that's always bothered me.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. STIVER: Is determining a 

15 mechanism in the DR process to trigger a 

16 review, through the Site Profile or the 

17 procedure review process.

18 So when you find something that 

19 seems to be, going in and getting an error on 

20 the procedure would be. Basically the only 

21 portion of the DR audit that addresses that is 

22 that Section 1.3, the previous findings, come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 out of the Site Profile Reviews.

2 But there doesn't seem to be a 

3 mechanism for identifying deficiencies through 

4 this process, that then feeds back into --

5 MR. FARVER: No, because that 

6 should've gone through the Procedure 

7 Committee, and they all should be correct.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Of course they are.

9 MR. FARVER: See.

10 MR. STIVER: There you go.

11 MR. FARVER: They just suggest 

12 changes to procedures, like adding wording, or 

13 something like that. They don't typically 

14 deal with technical changes to procedures.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, in reality, the 

16 way it often works is that John Mauro and 

17 others, who are involved in dose 

18 reconstruction case reviews, are also involved 

19 in procedure reviews.

20 And as far as what tips them off as 

21 to where there's an issue with the procedure 

22 when they're reviewing, is their experience 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 from dose reconstruction cases.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And we have made 

3 referrals to the Procedure Subcommittee.

4 MR. KATZ: Same with the Board 

5 Members. So there is actually a connection, 

6 it's soft but --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, it's 

8 soft.

9 MR. KATZ: -- it operates.

10 MR. FARVER: And that was a lot of 

11 AWE cases are like that, where they're also 

12 reviewing a Site Profile at the time.

13 MR. STIVER: Simultaneous.

14 MR. FARVER: Yes. And so they will 

15 get technical comments, like we'll see in the 

16 next findings.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But more, it's 

18 sometimes I think, it's some of the concerns 

19 that I've got on the procedures, where you saw 

20 it and connecting to a site, like it was a 

21 site-specific procedure, often times we'll 

22 discuss the merit of the procedure, absent the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 discussion of, is the data sufficient to be 

2 used in this method.

3 You know what I'm saying? Yes, 

4 there's part of it that's a Site Profile issue 

5 more than a procedure issue. Sometimes I feel 

6 like we're missing or we never get to complete 

7 those.

8 MR. STIVER: Yes, there maybe 

9 should be a strong link between the Work 

10 Groups, the site Work Groups and the DR.

11 MR. KATZ: Well, one of the things 

12 we discussed is the advantage of doing site --

13 bunching cases by sites, is exactly this; that 

14 it would help us with moving forward issues 

15 that are really site-specific TBD issues, 

16 getting those addressed.

17 Because we would be sort of 

18 concentrating on that site with a bunch of 

19 cases and hence, might have a group of 

20 findings that relate to a potential issue with 

21 the TBD.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because quite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 frankly --

2 MR. KATZ: That should work.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Quite frankly 

4 the Technical Basis Document, the TBD, Site 

5 Profile review, I mean the Work Groups, for 

6 the most part, have not done much on Site 

7 Profile issues.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They're involved 

10 in SEC issues, right?

11 MR. KATZ: Of course.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And often 

13 we, I know from my personal experience, we 

14 rarely have the bandwidth to get back to the 

15 Site Profile issues.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, we're trying to --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least 

18 currently.

19 MR. KATZ: We're trying to improve 

20 on that these days.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: But yes, that's true.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 MR. STIVER: Very substantial 

2 backlog of those too.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, anyway, a 

4 little bit tangent comment, but yes, something 

5 we should be aware of.

6 MEMBER MUNN: But originally, I 

7 believe the unofficial thinking was that we 

8 have a couple of Members on each of the two 

9 Subcommittees. So that issues that clearly 

10 carried over from one to the other would be 

11 transmitted in an easy and direct manner.

12 And it seems to have, though we 

13 haven't done anything officially with logging 

14 that kind of exchange, it seems to have worked 

15 basically well.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think --

17 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Like Ted said, 

19 it's soft. But I don't think we've, yes, I 

20 think we have the connection.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think we're 

22 talking any major issues.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're the main 

2 overlap right now, I think.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this is -

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, anyway. 

5 Okay. Shall we move on to -- or do we want 

6 to, let's take five because we still got 

7 another hour before our lunch time.

8 I think people might need a little 

9 comfort break. Let's take a short five minute 

10 break. I call it five; we'll be back in ten.

11 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

12 above-entitled matter went off the record at 

13 11:04 a.m. and resumed at 11:16 a.m.)

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, 259, do 

15 you want pick up there, Doug?

16 MR. FARVER: Okay, 259, Blockson. 

17 Basis of the finding is the external dose 

18 rates estimated in the Site Profile for 

19 Building 55 scenario or an error. And that's 

20 too simplified of an explanation.

21 But this is one of these where we 

22 reviewed the Site Profile also, at the time of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 this. So we had some comments about the Site 

2 Profile. And essentially what it turns out to 

3 is, if you assumed that the person works in 

4 Building 55, then the NIOSH values are not 

5 correct.

6 But, as in their explanation, they 

7 used the claiming scenario because it resolved 

8 it in, not necessarily because it was the most 

9 accurate, but because it resolved it using a 

10 higher PoC, by using the calcining scenario.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It resulted in a 

12 higher PoC.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes. So then if you 

14 go back and read all of --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Higher doses, I 

16 mean you'd say it's claimant-favored more?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes. And you can go 

18 back and read our report. Basically, what the 

19 bottom line of it says however, if you tend to 

20 the Site Profiles to correct the dose 

21 reconstructor to the more -- oh, no it says --

22 basically it says if you're using the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 calcining scenario, if that was the intent, 

2 then it's correct.

3 So we don't really disagree. We 

4 just disagree that maybe this person should've 

5 been using the Building 55 scenario.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, so they had 

7 a choice of two scenarios?

8 MR. FARVER: Yes. But the intent 

9 was to do a more claimant-favorable approach 

10 because --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But is that a 

12 post-explanation or was that really, how do we 

13 know that they just didn't pick the wrong one?

14 MR. FARVER: Well, if they picked 

15 the wrong one, they picked the higher one.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: I guess you won't 

18 know.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But it 

20 seems a reasonable debate.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It's what they're 

22 instructed to do.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, according to the 

2 Site Profile.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Are they 

4 instructed to pick the higher --

5 MR. STIVER: It says right here on 

6 Page 4, according to the Site Profile, the 

7 Technical Basis Documents through Section 6 

8 and Table 14, the dose reconstructor should 

9 use the scenario that results in the highest 

10 dose --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

12 Alright.

13 MR. KATZ: So what's the finding 

14 then?

15 MR. FARVER: Well, the finding was 

16 that it would've been more appropriate 

17 basically, if you were supposed to use the 55 

18 scenario, we had some disagreements with the 

19 numbers.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But they weren't 

21 -

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, so it's a mistake 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 in finding, in effect?

2 MR. FARVER: Well, their intent was 

3 not to use the 55 scenario. Their intent was 

4 to use the higher scenario.

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, so ten --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, the guidance 

7 said to use the highest -

8 MR. KATZ: That's the guidance, to 

9 use the, so they did it correctly. And there 

10 really shouldn't be a finding.

11 MR. FARVER: Correct.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: The finding is -

14 MR. KATZ: So that's closed.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. And then 259.2 

16 has to do with our photofluorographic medical 

17 exposures for AWE sites and we've discussed 

18 before. And we had this addition made to 

19 OTIB-6, it directs the dose reconstructor not 

20 to assume PFGs for AWE sites.

21 Anyhow, we've talked about that 

22 before here and closed that finding on other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 sets. So we would suggest closing that one 

2 also.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait, what was 

4 the reason for closing it?

5 MR. FARVER: It's been addressed 

6 before. And OTIB-6 has been changed to 

7 address the finding.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: And then 259.3 goes 

10 back to the, if the Building 55 scenario 

11 situation. But it's not the case, the 

12 calcining scenario was the one that was 

13 selected because it resulted in a higher PoC. 

14 It's more claimant-favorable.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: So that one can be 

17 closed also, the association with the .1 

18 finding.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now we're racing 

20 through them.

21 MR. FARVER: 259.4 has to do with 

22 the radon exposure model that's been discussed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 for quite awhile.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Endlessly.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I can't remember 

4 that discussion, can you -- just kidding.

5 MR. FARVER: And I believe this 

6 issue has been resolved, the radon exposure 

7 model.

8 MR. STIVER: It was rejected, 

9 wasn't it?

10 MR. KATZ: It was not used, yes. 

11 The SEC, because of the SEC.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because of the 

13 SEC.

14 MR. FARVER: So that issue has been 

15 resolved.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I don't 

17 know how the issue's been resolved, it's a 

18 SEC.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So do they --

21 MR. KATZ: So you can't use the 

22 model.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You don't assign 

2 radon doses at all?

3 MR. KATZ: There's no doses, right.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This was 

6 probably done before?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's pre-day, 

8 whatever that is.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, so that one can 

10 be closed also then.

11 MR. STIVER: Putting ourselves out 

12 of job here pretty soon.

13 MR. FARVER: No, we'll slow down, 

14 don't worry. Let's make it with my next case, 

15 283. Okay, 283.1, external dose from 

16 penetrating radiation underestimated. This is 

17 a U.S. Steel case.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, thank you.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes, it's U.S. Steel.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: And this has to do 

22 with which numbers you select out of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 table, in the Technical Basis Document, is it 

2 high plant floor doses, is it low plant floor, 

3 and so forth. And we've talked about this in 

4 other --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Excuse me, high 

6 plant floor?

7 MR. FARVER: Plant floor, high, 

8 worker places, this is a worker placement 

9 issue. And NIOSH's response was, we ran it 

10 using the higher values and it still had a PoC 

11 less than 50 percent.

12 MR. CALHOUN: The problem is, 

13 basically we used the wrong one.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 MR. CALHOUN: So I'm not even going 

16 to try to go anywhere with that. And we'll 

17 just have to, the only thing I can think of 

18 other than, we have it in our methodology.

19 I think basically we'll just bring 

20 it up to the HPs and say hey, this was 

21 something that was an error and you need to be 

22 a little bit more careful.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 MR. KATZ: Basically it's a QC 

2 issue, in effect?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. And how do you 

4 prevent this from happening again?

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 MR. CALHOUN: And it's basically, 

7 it's just going to have to be an awareness 

8 thing. I don't know how else we can do it.

9 MR. FARVER: Because part of the 

10 concern is --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we ran the 

12 model and it didn't change the decision?

13 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. But still 

14 it's not okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, no, it's 

16 not okay.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: Because I'm not sure 

19 how it makes through a couple reviews and no 

20 one catches this? And how are they going to 

21 catch it in the future?

22 MR. CALHOUN: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. FARVER: So I don't know what 

3 the mechanism is to prevent that.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Like I said, I think 

5 this would be natural, call this one out 

6 specifically and say here's the situation, you 

7 need to do better, you know.

8 MR. FARVER: So is this still open?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know 

10 that we -

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- can do much 

13 more with it.

14 MR. CALHOUN: One thing I am 

15 checking, to see if the categories were or 

16 were not defined. And if that's been revised 

17 since then, I don't know that off the top of 

18 my head.

19 MS. ROLFES: Under the old Battelle 

20 because this was done --

21 MR. CALHOUN: In '07, I think. But 

22 still it's something. If we've revised the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 document, that's great. But we can still 

2 bring it up. If we haven't, we certainly need 

3 to bring it up to the guys/girls, try to fix 

4 it.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: 283.2 --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I'm just 

8 wondering if there's any action on this.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. 283.2 is going 

10 to be the same issue.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Same thing.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, only it has to 

13 deal with non-penetrating radiations.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, what action can 

15 we take? From what Grady says, none.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I know, that's 

17 what I'm wondering.

18 MEMBER MUNN: One and 2, both need 

19 to be closed. We've identified it as QA 

20 acute?

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Excuse me 

22 folks, Dave Kotelchuck.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 MR. KATZ: Yes?

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I am not clear 

3 where we are on our agenda.

4 MR. KATZ: We're still going 

5 through the Category A dose reconstruction 

6 cases.

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

8 because I see sets 10th of 13.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, so that's Category 

10 A, from sets 10 to 13.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: And I think each --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Each set has 

14 like 20 cases in it.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, but this is -

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I see. 

17 Alright, I was thinking you were --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So we're going 

19 through a bunch of individual cases.

20 MR. KATZ: So this is eight cases. 

21 Category A, I think, covers eight cases out of 

22 those four sets.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

3 Fine, fine, thank you. Okay, do go back.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry on that. 

5 You don't have the matrix so it's hard to --

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

7 MR. KATZ: I was going to say to 

8 you, it's going to much easier for you once 

9 you get these matrices because then you'll be 

10 able to follow along exactly.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Actually, the 

12 most of the day, David, it's all going to be 

13 these kind of matrices that we're looking at.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it may not 

16 be, any time you want to bail out, you know, 

17 it may not be as useful --

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Or it might be 

20 more difficult to follow.

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, let 

22 me hang in there -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 MR. KATZ: Oh yes, sure.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- for a while 

3 now.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, you can listen as 

5 long as you'd like, yes.

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, sure, 

7 sure.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sorry about the 

9 --

10 MEMBER MUNN: We know how you're 

11 enjoying that and so --

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right, 

13 okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: At least you get a 

15 good idea of what goes on.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's exactly 

17 right. And that is what's most useful, and as 

18 terms come up and I, you know, what's COI? I 

19 hear that. So this is all very helpful even 

20 if I can't follow it completely.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Just tell us you 

22 don't want to deal with the TLAs and FLAs. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 Three letter acronyms and four letter 

2 acronyms.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

4 you.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So I 

6 tend to agree, identifying it as a quality 

7 control question. And then I think in our 

8 broader discussion of the overall quality 

9 control program, maybe we can get a sense of 

10 how --

11 MR. CALHOUN: This one was strictly 

12 in-house. This was an in-house case.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MR. CALHOUN: It wasn't ORAU.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 

16 Alright. Well, we need to talk about ORAU, 

17 yes. So it still the question, I appreciate 

18 that we-got-to-do-better response. But what -

19 -

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm checking the 

21 documents too.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 MR. CALHOUN: To find out if 

2 anything has been changed since '07 relative 

3 to this case, or this type of case.

4 MR. FARVER: We'll see when we get 

5 down to the fifth finding, really what --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Right now 

7 I'm listing it as no further action.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But we do 

10 identify it as QA item.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, go 

13 ahead. So the next one is the same, right, 

14 Doug?

15 MR. FARVER: 283.2 is the same.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, I'm 

17 just going to copy and paste my --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: 283.3 has to do with 

20 the photofluorographic exams for medical 

21 exposures, which we discussed previously and 

22 has been resolved in revision to OTIB-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

169

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because let me 

2 just catch up. So based on previous finding, 

3 NIOSH had revised OTIB-6.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 (Telephonic interference.)

6 MR. KATZ: Now if I press *1, it's 

7 going to give me all that other rigmarole. 

8 David, are you back on the line? David, he 

9 sent me an email saying that he was traveling 

10 from one place to an office, his first home, 

11 and was going to call back in. But I don't 

12 know if he has.

13 David, are you on the line? Let me 

14 try the *1, see if that makes a mess of 

15 everything. So David is not on. He sent me 

16 an email saying he was traveling from his 

17 office to his -

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He can travel 

19 until lunch.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's plunge 

22 forward.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, go ahead, carry 

2 on.

3 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: 283.4, internal dose 

5 due to inhalation and ingestion 

6 underestimated. This goes back to the plant 

7 floor high issue that we talked about 

8 previously. So that's still a QA issue.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's the 

10 same, NIOSH agrees --

11 MR. FARVER: Saying --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, okay. 

13 That's a quality assurance, Alright.

14 MR. FARVER: 283.5 is the one that 

15 prompted all this because that has to do with 

16 the worker location.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

18 MR. FARVER: NIOSH did not properly 

19 address all work history reported by the 

20 claimant in the CATI report. The CATI report 

21 has titles of crane operator and electrician, 

22 which should have put him in the exposure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 category 1, the plant floor high dose 

2 parameters.

3 So this is what prompted it all, 

4 which goes back to now, how do we prevent this 

5 from happening again, verifying that the 

6 proper job title is with the proper exposure 

7 categories. It's QA.

8 MR. STIVER: Another QA.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: Next we have two 

11 observations. And apparently this is --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 283, yes, just 

13 describe your observation comments with me.

14 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

15 various in Appendix C-O, may not be claimant16 favorable. Apparently, this is being taken up 

17 with the Working Group for TBD-6000. And when 

18 they resolve this, they will fix the Appendix.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So really this 

20 is a referral to TBD-6000?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 MR. FARVER: Looks like the same 

2 yes, all three observations deal with the same 

3 issue.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All three 

5 observations are for the same issue, TBD?

6 MR. FARVER: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, 284.1 is a 

9 United Nuclear case. And our finding was the 

10 dosimetry data used by NIOSH are inadequate to 

11 make a determination of PoC. This has to do 

12 with dosimetry data coming in after the DR is 

13 completed.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. I think this 

15 is the one where we actually have done, or 

16 it's on the --

17 MS. ROLFES: Post-approval --

18 MR. CALHOUN: -- post-approval 

19 dosimetry list, and will be reviewed for 

20 impact and new monitoring information, yes.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this has been 

22 identified by NIOSH in the -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was it PAD? Was 

4 it post --

5 MR. CALHOUN: Post-approval 

6 dosimetry.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, this is one of 

8 those, and at the time the DR was done there 

9 was no data. After the DR was completed data 

10 came in and nothing happened.

11 MR. CALHOUN: What will happen is 

12 if the new data causes the dose to go up 

13 significantly we will request a re-work from 

14 DOL. If it does not, we'll just have a 

15 document that says that we got the 

16 information, and we reviewed it, and here's 

17 the findings.

18 MR. FARVER: So this would not have 

19 occurred if it happened today, correct? This 

20 would be caught?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Well, no, if the dose 

22 reconstruction was done and we got the data 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 later.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 MR. CALHOUN: We wouldn't know it 

4 until we got the new data.

5 MR. FARVER: Right, but then --

6 MR. CALHOUN: Again, there's an 

7 ongoing program now --

8 MR. FARVER: So this is not going 

9 to be something --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, going 

11 forward all these kind of issues are captured.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. Sorry.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So there's 

14 really no further action on that, right?

15 MR. FARVER: Correct.

16 MR. STIVER: They have a process in 

17 place for that.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Close that 

19 one out?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. And it looks 

21 like this carries through the first four.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so 284.5, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 you're up, is that right?

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. Consideration 

3 should be given to assigning non-penetrating 

4 dose to the skin from direct deposition of 

5 particles on the skin.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've been 

7 through this before.

8 MR. FARVER: Yes, we went through 

9 this before. You know, part of the problem is 

10 for this case, there's no real indication that 

11 there were particles on the skin.

12 So I'm not sure that there's 

13 anything that can be done. This isn't our 

14 typical skin dose finding that we have. This 

15 is more, for this case anyway, I don't think 

16 this is, probably inapplicable to this case as 

17 much.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you didn't 

19 have any indication by the type of worker --

20 MR. FARVER: Just that they worked 

21 with Uranium and it might have fallen onto the

22 worker's shoulder.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But there's no 

2 accident report?

3 MR. FARVER: No.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: There's no 

5 contamination reports, nothing like that?

6 MR. FARVER: No.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

8 MR. FARVER: No. And I think it 

9 was mainly written up because this was a skin 

10 cancer.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

12 MR. STIVER: It's just a potential 

13 source of exposure -

14 MR. FARVER: Yes.

15 MR. STIVER: -- it wasn't 

16 considered, it's not required to be 

17 considered.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Where do we 

19 stand with that general question on that?

20 MR. STIVER: Hot particles issue?

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, hot 

22 particles kind of issue?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 MR. CALHOUN: There's some sites 

2 where we know that there's been, I want to say 

3 it's Hanford, where we had some significant 

4 rain-down of hot particles, where we pretty 

5 much automatically assumed that people were 

6 exposed to hot particles.

7 I want to say it's Hanford. It 

8 might've been Idaho. I not sure up on that. 

9 But otherwise, unless we've got documentation 

10 of a contamination incident, we don't assume 

11 that the person was locally contaminated, over 

12 the spot of the cancer development.

13 MR. STIVER: You just don't assume 

14 direct deposition as part of your --

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: But you take it into 

17 account when you have it through an OCAS 

18 interview, right?

19 MR. CALHOUN: We take it and we 

20 will consider it.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MR. CALHOUN: We don't just assume 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 that it happened --

2 MR. KATZ: Right.

3 MR. CALHOUN: -- unless there's 

4 some kind of quantity.

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Typically the dose 

7 won't be assessed unless we've got a 

8 contamination report that indicates what kind 

9 of levels we were contaminated, correct?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Grady, if it was 

11 in the site like that, and I believe that it's 

12 Idaho that it's in, because of the calciner, 

13 is that taken into effect?

14 MR. CALHOUN: If it's Idaho. I 

15 just don't recall which site it was. But we 

16 assume it automatically, everybody. There was 

17 an event that happened over, I'll call it an 

18 event, but it happened over a couple, three, 

19 four years.

20 And so if the individual worked 

21 over that period and has got skin 

22 contamination, we assume that there was hot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 particle deposition.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Of a certain 

3 activity, you have some information about 

4 that.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, most BCCs -

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Particles and 

7 activity.

8 MR. CALHOUN: -- most BCCs, at 

9 least on exposed skin, are going to be paid 

10 through that.

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is United 

12 Nuclear.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

14 MR. STIVER: The manufacturer, 

15 metal and -

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. STIVER: -- nuclear fuel 

18 components.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so.

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

21 what action, did you write anything down for 

22 that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Well, the one thing 

3 that we can say is that this really is not 

4 going to change our lack of assessment of a 

5 direct deposition, is if the document was 

6 changed so this is going to be reevaluated 

7 under a PER.

8 MR. FARVER: Well, it's also going 

9 to be reevaluated because there's now data.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Right. But there's 

11 two different things now.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes.

13 MR. CALHOUN: We've got additional 

14 data and we've got a new TBD.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, trigger it on 

16 that?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, absolutely.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, there 

19 seems no indication of direct deposition.

20 MR. FARVER: I didn't find any in 

21 this case. And maybe we'll be able to see 

22 what the worker was but I don't even think the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 job description was --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is their 

3 indication of just site of direct deposition 

4 kind of thing --

5 MR. STIVER: Through manufacturing 

6 and if you're doing some milling work.

7 MR. FARVER: -- just that they 

8 manufactured Uranium metal, Uranium compounds.

9 MR. STIVER: Small, or larger 

10 particles, it would definitely direct deposit.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: He was an operator. I 

13 do not see any evidence of skin contamination.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Does this go on 

15 to a, oh yes, these set of TBDs came back.

16 MR. FARVER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Got it.

18 MR. FARVER: The whole thing will 

19 be reworked.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: I'm not sure there's 

22 much that we can actually -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 MR. CALHOUN: They processed 

2 Uranium materials.

3 MEMBER MUNN: So it would be 

4 unlikely that --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: -- that the operator 

7 wouldn't be aware of any event that would have 

8 --

9 MR. STIVER: Not like fuel 

10 particles.

11 MEMBER MUNN: -- resulted in --

12 MR. CALHOUN: Were you ever 

13 involved in an accident involving radiation 

14 exposure, contamination? He said no.

15 MEMBER MUNN: No.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: I mean there's 

18 sometimes I'll push this one a little harder 

19 than others. But I'm not, this isn't one of 

20 them.

21 MR. STIVER: If it was metals 

22 production or something so that you --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't like --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, well, they 

3 wouldn't be saying it in those early days. So 

4 I don't think they would consider 

5 contamination, even though, you know --

6 MR. STIVER: Yes.

7 MR. FARVER: One case that comes to 

8 mind was a roofer working on replacing 

9 contaminated roofs at like Portsmouth or 

10 somewhere. Now I could see some potential 

11 there. But this one is little more sketchy.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, it's a little 

13 more -

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we'll 

16 close it then.

17 MR. FARVER: Let's move onto 303.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Scott, you awake out 

19 there?

20 MR. SIEBERT: I'm always ready to 

21 assist.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 MEMBER MUNN: Listen to that guy, 

2 on his toes.

3 MR. SIEBERT: I'm here.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

5 MR. FARVER: Tab 303 was a Savannah 

6 River case, worked there for 30 years, '53 

7 from '82. Clark Laboratory tech, nuclear 

8 materials analyst, computer assistance 

9 analyst, PoC of 44 2 percent. And it has to 

10 deal with the incorrect photon ratio assigned.

11 MEMBER MUNN: And NIOSH says no. 

12 It was assigned in a repeated area, 773A.

13 MR. FARVER: And it gets confusing 

14 if you look at the tables that are in the 

15 Technical Basis. We understand what they did 

16 and that's okay. But the tables in the 

17 Technical Basis are not consistent with TIB-6.

18 So just making everything 

19 consistent is the whole idea. They have 

20 different ratios.

21 MEMBER MUNN: How far is it --

22 MR. SIEBERT: Scott here, and that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 is correct, and OCAS TIB-6 was actually 

2 written specifically for that purpose. That 

3 information is in there and that information 

4 will be rolled into the next version of the 

5 Savannah River TBD.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So 

7 TIB-6 is the more correct version and you're 

8 going to update the TBD?

9 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I heard.

13 MR. FARVER: But that's not one of 

14 those cases where we go to look at the TBD and 

15 we get values from there --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: -- that are different.

18 MR. KATZ: So is that one closed?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay, 303.2, 

21 improperly converted or recorded photon doses 

22 to organ dose. This has been discussed many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 times and he revised a tool, the external dose 

2 calculation workbook, I guess, has been 

3 revised.

4 So we talked about this before. 

5 It's been resolved. So we can close this one. 

6 And same for the next one, which talks about 

7 missed photon doses. So we're actually 

8 closing things today.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: This is something new 

11 for us.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's to be 

13 applauded.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we have 

15 a 90 percent close rate at these meetings. 

16 Maybe must be because these are off --

17 MR. FARVER: All left --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Did I say, 99, I 

19 meant.

20 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay.

21 MR. STIVER: You've got to be 

22 favorable there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. Alright.

2 MR. FARVER: And we move on to 

3 303.4, which is the standard Savannah River 

4 one about the fail to properly account for all 

5 missed photon doses, having to do with the LOD 

6 over 2 calculations. The workbook has been 

7 modified. It got changed through the revision 

8 of OCAS IG-001. So we talked about this 

9 before.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

11 just wanted to point out that all of the 

12 documentation that was in place at the time 

13 was followed. But all these resolutions 

14 occurred after the dose reconstruction was 

15 completed.

16 MR. FARVER: Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I got it.

18 MR. FARVER: Now for future 

19 reviews, do you want us to keep making these 

20 findings or just to mention that it has been 

21 resolved?

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I think we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 could make them findings. And then we'll just 

2 close them out quickly -

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- because we 

5 get them resolved.

6 MR. FARVER: We could do it either 

7 way but that's fine.

8 MR. STIVER: Just for the record 

9 when there was an issue.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I also 

11 think, hopefully we won't get as many because 

12 we're moving onto new cases --

13 MR. FARVER: Newer cases.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

15 MR. FARVER: And 303.5 is the one 

16 that triggered this. It has to do with the 

17 worker's location. Reviewer questions, work 

18 location assigned by NIOSH. Okay, let's see 

19 if I can, I'm going back to our report to see 

20 if they ask more details in it.

21 MEMBER MUNN: What site was this?

22 MR. FARVER: Savannah River.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 MR. STIVER: It's based on an 

2 assumption; it doesn't seem to have any 

3 documentation or basis in the record.

4 MR. FARVER: Oh, what it comes down 

5 to is, why did you select 221 FB line and 221 

6 HB line, when there really wasn't anything to 

7 justify that. We couldn't find anything in 

8 the records that supported those two 

9 locations.

10 MR. STIVER: It's just a maximizing 

11 assumption?

12 MR. CALHOUN: It was, I believe.

13 MR. FARVER: But there's no way to 

14 really tell if that was a maximizing, or why 

15 it was done.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Boy I don't know what 

17 else, besides those lines, that are any higher 

18 than that at Savannah River. But I'm sure 

19 Scott's got a fine explanation for that.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I would agree 

21 that it was done as a maximizing assumption 

22 and the Dose Reconstruction Report could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 mentioned that specific information. However, 

2 it didn't. This was done in 2004.

3 MR. STIVER: Oh, it's an old one.

4 MEMBER MUNN: A really old one.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: And we probably just 

7 should've said, as a maximizing assumption we 

8 assumed that the worker was --

9 MR. STIVER: Yes, there you go.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

11 MR. CALHOUN: And I would imagine 

12 if we do that now -- John was actually here in 

13 2004.

14 MR. STIVER: I was.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes you were.

16 MR. STIVER: For four years.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: More 

18 importantly, I want to know what you did to 

19 the format of the table on this side, I can't 

20 write my responses.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, you can't.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Anyway.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 MR. STIVER: I just put it under 

2 the NIOSH.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I'm assuming, 

4 since then they have a different DR procedure, 

5 right?

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, is there --

7 MR. CALHOUN: It's just a new 

8 practice of incorporating our assumptions, 

9 including our assumptions more in the dose 

10 reconstruction.

11 MR. KATZ: Showing your work, so to 

12 speak.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: If I don't find

15 this one, it would be in 2004.

16 MR. FARVER: No. 303.6, improperly 

17 converted recorded neutron doses to organ 

18 dose. This goes back to 303.2, that's been 

19 talked about and resolved with the 

20 modifications to IG-001.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 303.7?

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we 

2 might, we're going to do a new one after this, 

3 right? So this might be our last one, then we 

4 break for lunch.

5 MR. FARVER: Unless you just want 

6 to wrap it all up.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, because 

8 there's two more after this. I've got a phone 

9 call to make --

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- between 12:00 

12 and 12:30.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. 303.7, still a 

14 Savannah River case, underestimate of assigned 

15 internal tritium dose. According to the 

16 Savannah River Technical Basis, and Table 13 

17 of Tab 001, that's for the time period of '53 

18 to '83, a dose of 355 millirem should be 

19 assigned.

20 And then from '84 to '91, you would 

21 assign a dose of 71 millirem. But they 

22 didn't, they assigned a dose of 71 millirem 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 for all years. So that's what prompted the 

2 finding.

3 We looked at the documents and did 

4 not find anything that matched what they did. 

5 And so the question was, why did you use 71 

6 millirem for all years, instead of the higher 

7 dose for the earlier years, okay?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Scott has a fine 

9 response for that.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Alright. And the 

11 portion I, honestly I forgot to put on the end 

12 of the response is, we should've documented in 

13 the dose reconstruction, the assumption that 

14 went into this. So I'll agree to that.

15 The thing is, this goes back, as I 

16 said it's in 2004. And as the information 

17 about the Savannah River site unfolded, and we 

18 saw more and more information, we learned 

19 things that were not yet in the TBD, just as 

20 we learned with the OCAS TIB-6 that we 

21 discussed earlier, about less than 30 keV 

22 photons.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 In tritium, what we had learned is 

2 the assumed MDAs that are in the TBD, which 

3 those values are based upon, as well as those 

4 in OTIB-1, which is a maximizing methodology 

5 for Savannah River.

6 Those were based on a thought 

7 process of what Savannah River was using as a 

8 limit for calculating dose, not for actually 

9 being able to detect tritium in urine.

10 When we looked at the actual 

11 samples, actually the results from the actual 

12 samples, I should clarify, we had determined, 

13 and we have actually gone in the site research 

14 database and documented this in the present 

15 Savannah River TBD, not just our TBD, but the 

16 site's actual TBD itself.

17 The value of one micro curie per 

18 liter is a valid MDA, back to the beginning of 

19 them assessing tritium in bioassay in urine, 

20 to the beginning of the site.

21 So the assumption of using five, 

22 which is what the 355 millirem is based on, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 that's based on a five micro curie per liter 

2 detection value.

3 That thought process was the fact 

4 that Savannah River didn't calculate doses 

5 over five, but they actually did record doses 

6 less than five, anything that was above one 

7 micro curie per liter.

8 So the actual detection limit, as I 

9 said, is one micro curie per liter. This was 

10 information that we had learned and 

11 documentation is presently in the Savannah 

12 River DR Guidance document.

13 And that information will be rolled 

14 into the present incarnation in the Savannah 

15 River Technical Basis document.

16 Now the other thing for this 

17 specific claim, as I said, we should have 

18 probably stated it in the Dose Reconstruction 

19 Report, but this individual did have a single 

20 tritium sample.

21 He was not totally not sampled or 

22 not monitored for tritium. He did have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 single sample in 1957. And the results for 

2 the 1957 tritium sample was clearly marked as 

3 less than one micro curie per liter.

4 So for that year specifically, it 

5 was a clear basis for it, in addition to 

6 knowing the additional information. So this 

7 is another one of those situations where we

8 learned more as we went along and the 

9 documentation is catching up.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

11 MR. SIEBERT: And that's probably 

12 way more information than anybody wanted. But 

13 I'd be happy to answer questions.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm just a bit 

15 confused. Are you then going back to the 71, 

16 or whatever it is, 71 millirem assumption?

17 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. The 

18 assumption will be 71 -

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this middle 

20 one --

21 MR. SIEBERT: Right, one micro 

22 curie per liter over the entire year, of urine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 bioassay results, at one micro curie per liter 

2 over the year. The top end of that dose 

3 estimate is 71 millirem, which is what was 

4 assigned.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But then 

6 somewhere in the middle you decided to go with 

7 a more conservative 355 if someone wasn't 

8 monitored, right?

9 MR. FARVER: Well, apparently that 

10 was some time before 2004.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Right, that was in 

13 the original Savannah River TBD.

14 MR. FARVER: And I believe it's 

15 still in the Savannah River TBD.

16 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. It 

17 is still in the version that came out in 2005. 

18 I can't speak to why that information didn't 

19 get into the last version update. But I know 

20 it's on the TBD's author's desk as we speak. 

21 Because I ensure that he has that information.

22 MR. FARVER: So you knew this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 information back in 2004, because you were 

2 apparently doing dose reconstructions that 

3 way, it's 2012 and it's still not in the TBD.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Well, the TBD hasn't 

5 been revised since 2005. And it should've 

6 been, but as you know Savannah River is one of 

7 those sites where we've been going back and 

8 forth, and back and forth with the Board on 

9 TBD issues.

10 And so until we get some 

11 understanding of where we're going to go with 

12 that, we don't change it. Whether that's a 

13 good excuse or not, that's why we haven't 

14 changed it.

15 MR. FARVER: But supposedly the 

16 information is in a DR guide?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was the DR guide 

20 --

21 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- in with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 case?

2 MR. SIEBERT: There was no DR 

3 guidance like that, remember we --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Back in 2004, 

5 yes, got you.

6 MR. FARVER: So now if this happens 

7 again on a Savannah River case, there should 

8 be a DR guide there and it should explain it?

9 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay, because I know 

11 this finding comes up over and over.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that should, 

13 once we hit the more recent claims, that will 

14 go away.

15 MR. FARVER: I don't know the years 

16 of the cases. But I remember this multiple 

17 times, this finding. Because we just had no 

18 idea why you kept assigning 71 millirem all 

19 the time. So now we'll look for the DR guide 

20 to be in with --

21 MR. KATZ: And if we go ahead with 

22 the, which we will be doing, going ahead with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 site-specific bunching, then you're going to 

2 have a bunch of more recent SRS cases where 

3 hopefully you'll see a difference.

4 MR. FARVER: Hopefully.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because at Ted's 

6 to default, 13 sets.

7 MR. STIVER: Now which set was this 

8 one from?

9 MR. FARVER: Oh, you ask tough 

10 questions.

11 MR. KATZ: It doesn't really 

12 matter, it's 2004.

13 MR. STIVER: Yes, but it's still a 

14 set 10 to 13.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is in the 12th 

16 set.

17 MR. KATZ: This is in the 12th set. 

18 Oh, wait, so, oh, okay. And it's that old, 

19 both sets?

20 MR. SIEBERT: It's just a very old 

21 claim in the 12th set because it had a, I 

22 believe it was placed in there because it had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 44.43 percent PoC. And at that time we were, 

2 you guys were scrambling to find basically 45 

3 to 52 percent claimed.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay, Mark wanted to 

5 stop.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. He's not the 

7 only one.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, it's noon anyway.

9 MEMBER MUNN: It is.

10 MR. KATZ: So we'll try to get 

11 started fairly promptly at 1:00.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Very good.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks everyone on the 

14 line. And we'll reconnect at 1:00.

15 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

16 above-entitled matter went off the record at 

17 12:00 p.m. and resumed at 1:03 p.m.)

18

19

20

21

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

202

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

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

15 1:03 p.m.

16 MR. KATZ: Alright, we are 

17 reconvening after lunch break, the Dose 

18 Reconstruction Subcommittee Advisory Board on 

19 Radiation and Worker Health. And let me just 

20 check on the line and see if we have Dave 

21 Richardson.

22 Do we have you back? David 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 Richardson?

2 (No response.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, I've got 

4 that line up, I believe. If he sent me an 

5 email. I actually told him that if the line 

6 wasn't working to email you because I don't 

7 track my BlackBerry, my emails. I think I 

8 gave him you and John or you and Doug's, 

9 Stiver.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave Kotelchuck 

11 here.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, welcome back.

13 So anyway, do you want to start?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, let's 

15 proceed. We left off on, just going to finish 

16 this attempt at 13th set Grouping A, and I

17 think we have two cases left. We're on 309.1, 

18 and I'll turn it over to Doug.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, 309.1. It's a 

20 General Atomics case and a lengthy response, 

21 and I'll try and make it a little briefer. 

22 The employee worked at General Atomics. DOL 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 did their confirmation of employment and 

2 received a letter back from General Atomics 

3 saying, yes, the individual worked here on 

4 such-and-such a date. The dose reconstruction 

5 was performed. Well, let's check on that and 

6 find out what date it was performed.

7 MR. SIEBERT: In mid-2009.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, so it was done 

9 in 2009. Part of the concern is that it was a 

10 cancer that should have fell under the SEC for 

11 General Atomics. It was pancreatic cancer. 

12 The employee did work there during that time 

13 period.

14 There was a memo from the DOL 

15 claims examiner that said, because the 

16 employee does not have qualifying employment 

17 at General Atomics, that is, we did not 

18 receive evidence to show that the employee was 

19 employed at the requisite work locations at 

20 General Atomics to satisfy the SEC 

21 eligibility. So it wasn't whether the 

22 employee worked at General Atomics, it was did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 they work at a specific location that was 

2 denied, apparently.

3 The problem is, DOL never asked 

4 what location the employee worked at. All 

5 they asked for are for dates. They didn't ask 

6 for a specific location. So what they 

7 received back was a memo from the people at 

8 General Atomics with the date. And the person 

9 also, the Human Resources person also says if 

10 you have any further questions, please contact 

11 me at, and gives a email, fax, everything.

12 Okay, if you have a question about 

13 a location and you have a person's name and 

14 number, why don't you just contact them? And 

15 apparently that was never done, and they 

16 denied the person's SEC claim because of they 

17 never received the information, the work 

18 location. So that's the basis of the finding.

19 And also that in reviewing the 

20 records someone, while doing their dose 

21 reconstruction, should have come across this 

22 and at least said, hey, something's wrong 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 here.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I think 

3 you're right that you wrote a DOL NIOSH, I 

4 mean this is --

5 MR. KATZ: It's a DOL --

6 MR. CALHOUN: It's a DOL 

7 completely.

8 MR. FARVER: Well, not completely, 

9 because the dose reconstructor should be 

10 reviewing these records. And if they come 

11 across something that is wrong they have an 

12 obligation to bring it to someone's attention. 

13 You can't just put your head in the ground and 

14 say it's not --

15 MR. CALHOUN: It's got to be 

16 absolutely clear. Like if I get an ICD-9 code 

17 that's 172 and it's described as prostate 

18 cancer, I'll call them. In this case they may 

19 have another reason for it.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay, they might. But 

21 if you're doing a person's dose reconstruction 

22 you have an obligation to say, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 something's wrong, and you ask a question. 

2 You can't just stick your head in the --

3 MR. CALHOUN: You know, I hate to 

4 start now but, the second part this way --

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: -- but that's just 

7 not our issue. It's not.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Doesn't the CATI ask 

9 that specific question?

10 MR. CALHOUN: We ask those 

11 questions but when Labor makes the 

12 determination they may have a reason that we 

13 don't even know about.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I know. You 

15 can't do anything when the DOL says something. 

16 But my question was whether or not this 

17 employee didn't give the information that 

18 should have been.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I don't know 

20 that apparently.

21 MR. FARVER: Let's see if it was 

22 the employee or if it was survivors.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean if they 

2 didn't have the information, wouldn't DOL 

3 conclude that they didn't have --

4 MR. SIEBERT: The CATI is conducted 

5 by a survivor.

6 MR. KATZ: It's not an employee.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean wouldn't 

8 they conclude that they didn't have enough 

9 information to implement the Class, the Class 

10 Definition? I mean if there wasn't 

11 information about where the person worked and 

12 yet the definition requires knowing something 

13 about work location, how could DOL make a 

14 decision? I know this is not a NIOSH issue.

15 MR. KATZ: I don't even know what 

16 the Class Definition is for General Atomics.

17 MR. CALHOUN: I'll find it out.

18 MR. FARVER: I think it refers to 

19 specific locations at the --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, this is Scott. 

21 If you want me to read the whole thing I will, 

22 but it's basically a listing of facilities on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 the General Atomic facilities that qualify 

2 them for covered employment and, I'm sorry, 

3 for the SEC.

4 MR. KATZ: Anyway, if DOL has had 

5 correspondence with the claimant on the issue 

6 and they still refer it to us, it's our job to 

7 do the dose reconstruction, and it's not our 

8 job to interrogate them about why they 

9 determined that it's still a dose 

10 reconstruction case and not an SEC case. 

11 Really, I mean if we receive some 

12 correspondence as part of the case file, 

13 that's fine, but --

14 MR. FARVER: Well, we did.

15 MR. KATZ: -- it's DOL's. I 

16 understand, but it's DOL's. We don't know 

17 what kind of phone conversations or what-have18 you they had as well with the survivor, but 

19 they've made this determination assumedly.

20 MR. FARVER: It really has nothing 

21 to do with the survivor. It has to do with 

22 determining the work location.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 MR. KATZ: I understand.

2 MR. FARVER: The survivor may not 

3 know what building or anything the employee 

4 worked at.

5 MR. KATZ: I understand, but that 

6 is a DOL process of making determinations as 

7 to whether they have adequate records to put a 

8 person in a Class. It's not a DCAS process 

9 and we're not privy to their whole interaction 

10 with the claimant, who is a survivor in this 

11 case, so that's not a DCAS.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the 

13 definition that NIOSH developed, right?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: And if you look in 

16 the DOL file you'll see, and actually there is 

17 an email where somebody made a request about 

18 this in 2007. And Labor reiterates, "The case 

19 was identified by NIOSH as being a General 

20 Atomics case with a specified cancer." So we 

21 asked the question. "And it was therefore 

22 returned to the district office to determine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 if the case qualified as an SEC case."

2 Okay, we asked the question, and 

3 they said no again.

4 MR. STIVER: So you did pose the 

5 question?

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

7 MR. FARVER: Looking forward, I 

8 mean it's wrong and doesn't make sense but --

9 MR. KATZ: You can take it up with 

10 DOL as to whether it's --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can't really 

12 take it up with DOL.

13 MR. KATZ: No, I know. I'm saying 

14 rhetorically. You don't know the facts about 

15 what kind of interactions DOL had with this 

16 claimant.

17 MR. FARVER: I know there is 

18 nothing in the case file to support their 

19 decision.

20 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. And I 

21 agree it doesn't specifically state that. 

22 However, there is something in the case file 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 saying that we did try to get them to look at 

2 it more closely, and we got the answer back.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. They sent us the 

4 case in '04. In '07 we asked them say, hey, 

5 this is a specified cancer. Does it qualify 

6 as an SEC? And they said no.

7 MR. STIVER: On what basis was it?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Not my problem.

9 MR. FARVER: But they didn't say 

10 it's not an SEC because it's not an 

11 unspecified cancer. They denied the SEC 

12 because they said the employee didn't work at 

13 a work location that they never asked for.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Right. But obviously 

15 --

16 MR. STIVER: Does DOL have all the 

17 case information that you guys would have that 

18 would indicate work location at that sort of 

19 thing?

20 MR. CALHOUN: They actually forward 

21 us information. What they don't receive is 

22 the DOE response for dosimetry and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 MR. STIVER: They have all the 

2 other information about --

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

4 MR. STIVER: -- work history and 

5 that sort of thing?

6 MR. CALHOUN: Well, that's how they 

7 develop the case.

8 MR. SIEBERT: And Grady, one thing 

9 I would add on that is, if we as dose 

10 reconstructors when we went through the claim 

11 and found anything in the DOE files that gave 

12 us an indication they were in any of those 

13 locations, we would have asked the question 

14 yet again.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And the DOE 

16 file provided is one page, and it has --

17 MR. SIEBERT: There's no 

18 information.

19 MR. CALHOUN: -- one, yes. Yes, it 

20 looks like lifetime exposure is 0.000, one 

21 entry from --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So where did the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 guy work?

2 MR. FARVER: He worked at General 

3 Atomics --

4 MR. CALHOUN: General Atomics 

5 master personnel listing.

6 MR. FARVER: -- Facility. He 

7 worked at the right facility, but the SEC has 

8 to have a specified building.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And I'm 

10 asking what building he worked at.

11 MR. STIVER: The building was a 

12 thorium production of the thorium operations, 

13 correct, for General Atomics? I believe 

14 that's the basis for the SEC?

15 MR. FARVER: There are several 

16 facilities listed on the SEC.

17 MR. CALHOUN: And you remember, we 

18 end up going through Labor and say, hey, can 

19 you implement this Class? And evidently they 

20 thought they could.

21 MR. STIVER: You have an issue like 

22 this, this is maybe kind of getting off track, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 but you have an issue where you have some 

2 serious questions for Labor and they're 

3 nonresponsive, what's the next step? I mean 

4 is there any way to resolve that?

5 MR. CALHOUN: There is, and what 

6 has happened in the past is -- and this, I 

7 think, is way beyond that. I don't know this 

8 case inside and out. But let's say, for 

9 example, we have somebody who, we get 

10 something and the claims examiner, one of our 

11 people say, hey, this is really -- let's say 

12 the ICD-9 code because that's fairly obvious. 

13 And I say, I think it's wrong, would you 

14 please recheck? And then the claims examiner, 

15 DOL claims examiner, comes back and says, no, 

16 we're standing by it.

17 And if I really still think that 

18 I'm right I'll call Jeff Kotsch, and he's got 

19 a little bit more oomph, it seems, and then he 

20 can take care of it. And there has been times 

21 when I've won out in those instances and 

22 there's times when I haven't, you know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: On a case-by2 case basis.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I mean the 

5 reason I asked the question the way I did is, 

6 what made NIOSH think that that Class was 

7 implementable? I mean did you have any 

8 knowledge -

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. KATZ: That's a DOL judgment 

11 not a NIOSH judgment.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think it's on 

13 both sides. We dealt with this on the Board 

14 with our definitions. We've gone back and 

15 forth saying, I don't know if you should write 

16 it that way because DOL is not likely going to 

17 be able to implement it.

18 MR. KATZ: At the end of the day 

19 DOL opines on that, on that specifically. 

20 They get their draft definition, they consider 

21 it and they tell us. Most of the time they 

22 tell us we cannot implement it. But, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 know, the DOL makes that determination based 

2 on their access to records.

3 MR. STIVER: And based on this, 

4 we've only got a couple of General Atomics 

5 cases. We just started looking at the Site 

6 Profile. It's kind of interesting because 

7 they claim they can reconstruct doses without 

8 external emitters except for thorium, and all 

9 external devices, yet there's a very complex 

10 set of instructions.

11 So it might be worth to start 

12 looking in the 16th set. I'm probably jumping 

13 ahead here, but to consider to look at some 

14 more of these General Atomics.

15 MEMBER MUNN: You're speaking very 

16 softly over there.

17 MR. STIVER: That's because my 

18 throat, I'm having a hard time breathing here. 

19 Asthma.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, that's a good 

21 excuse. I'll accept that.

22 MR. STIVER: Grady might just tell 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 me to stop breathing, you know.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Stop doing that.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is a finding. 

5 I realize we can't, you know, we can talk to 

6 Jeff Kotsch and so forth like that, but when 

7 we finally collect this what should we do 

8 about it?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think, 

10 I'm not sure what you do, but I think NIOSH 

11 did ask the right question.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think NIOSH did. 

13 I'm not questioning that. I'm not questioning 

14 NIOSH's ability to be able to do that, but 

15 like DOL doesn't answer to us, so what do we 

16 do? Do we bring it up in the middle of the 

17 meeting and flog them?

18 MR. KATZ: No. I mean so DOL has 

19 its standards for what it requires in terms of 

20 evidence to place someone in a Class given 

21 whatever the definition is. They have their 

22 standards of evidence for that. I mean we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 didn't interrogate them as to what standards 

2 they applied here or what more information 

3 they received than what we saw. We didn't 

4 interrogate them, but we did draw their 

5 attention. They reviewed the case and they 

6 still stuck with their determination.

7 Now I can't speak to what I don't 

8 know.

9 I don't know what sort of 

10 communications there were between the claimant 

11 and DOL, but it's really, at some point it 

12 goes beyond, I mean what does happen in some 

13 cases where claimants are unhappy with their 

14 cases is they go to, for example, Denise, our 

15 Ombudsman. And Denise is very good at 

16 pursuing issues with, she knows people in the 

17 different districts and the claims examiners 

18 as well, and their supervision, and she 

19 explores these, and sometimes she finds that 

20 they do make mistakes. There's no question 

21 about that. But this is a case that didn't 

22 slip through unnoticed. It was brought to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 their attention again.

2 I mean I think at some point, the 

3 program at least has to assume they're doing 

4 their job. It's not for the program to second 

5 guess information they don't have. It's not 

6 as if we can even stand in judgment when we 

7 don't have DOL's information.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess I'm 

9 assuming that the DOL has no more information 

10 than NIOSH does with regards to our case, with 

11 regards to our work history or anything?

12 MR. KATZ: I don't know that.

13 MR. CALHOUN: I'm under the 

14 impression that they pretty much send us most 

15 or everything that they've got in the DOL 

16 initial case file.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. So I'm 

18 supposed to assume that for the people that 

19 were in these thorium’s, the thorium areas, 

20 mainly these buildings, the people that were 

21 in these thorium buildings, in their work 

22 history they have building information but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 MR. CALHOUN: Keep in mind this 

2 guy, he was a draftsman too.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But other people 

4 like this case, I mean they may not. But I 

5 mean I guess the question is, if not as far as 

6 a Class Definition, I would think that you 

7 would at least consider whether it was 

8 implementable. I'm sure you did, you know.

9 MR. CALHOUN: We, in combination 

10 with DOL.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: It's not that the 

13 building location might not have been 

14 available, you said that was not asked for 

15 from General Atomics.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we don't know 

17 that it wasn't asked for. NIOSH asked Labor 

18 about it.

19 MR. FARVER: No, they asked for a 

20 different question. They asked if the cancer 

21 fell under the SEC.

22 MR. CALHOUN: No, we did not. We 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 said, if cancer does fall under the SEC, then 

2 why wasn't it included as part of the SEC?

3 MR. KATZ: So they asked the 

4 question they should have asked.

5 MR. FARVER: Right, which would be 

6 the work location.

7 MR. CALHOUN: We know the cancer is 

8 included. That's black and white. It's 

9 either an SEC cancer or it's not.

10 MR. KATZ: So you have to go to the 

11 --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And DOL, they 

13 have asked General Atomics but it may not be 

14 included in the information we have.

15 MR. KATZ: For example, I mean DOL 

16 for each of these sites they have a bulletin 

17 that gives them guidelines for how they put 

18 people in Classes. Someone can go look at the 

19 bulletin. The bulletin may say, for example, 

20 this is out of whole cloth, they could say 

21 that certain occupations are not in those 

22 buildings like draftsman, who knows? I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 know what their criteria are.

2 But again, this sort of goes beyond 

3 DCAS's job. You know, their diligence is 

4 bringing these cases back to their attention, 

5 but not interrogating them then on their 

6 determinations after the fact.

7 MR. FARVER: It is not a matter of 

8 interrogating them, but it's asking a simple 

9 question.

10 MR. KATZ: The question was asked.

11 MR. FARVER: I mean it's not 

12 interrogating them. You're not grilling them 

13 under hot lights or anything.

14 MEMBER POSTON: I agree with Brad 

15 and with Doug. I mean the question is how far 

16 does due diligence take you and how much is 

17 due diligence? And I'm sitting here thinking 

18 this is exactly the kind of case where the 

19 person would come during the public comment 

20 period and complain about the length of time, 

21 blah, blah, blah, and all those kinds of 

22 things over which we don't necessarily have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 any control.

2 But there's no reason that you 

3 can't do the best you can, and to say, well, 

4 it's not our responsibility, I'm afraid that 

5 just drives me up the wall. I've told people 

6 when I was a supervisor, if you want to get 

7 fired what you tell me is, that's not my job.

8 Well, and I'm not saying that. But 

9 there's due diligence that needs to be done 

10 and this is a simple thing. If it means going 

11 to Jeff, by god let's do it.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Let's go through this 

13 one more time. When the SEC was established, 

14 Class was established, we have records of 

15 every case that's been provided to us, okay? 

16 We send back to Labor all of the cases with 

17 specified cancer that worked during that 

18 period. This case was identified by NIOSH as 

19 being a General Atomics case with a specified 

20 cancer, okay. We told them it's a specified 

21 cancer, this is from Labor, and therefore was 

22 returned to the district office to determine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 if the case qualifies as an SEC case.

2 Based on our development, DOL, we 

3 have determined that NIOSH should proceed with 

4 the dose reconstruction because the employee 

5 did not have the qualifying employment at 

6 General Atomics. That is, we did not receive 

7 evidence to show that the employee was 

8 employed at the requisite work site at General 

9 Atomics to satisfy SEC eligibility. We can't 

10 do anymore.

11 MEMBER POSTON: I'm not asking you 

12 to do anymore.

13 MR. CALHOUN: I know. But I'm just 

14 saying.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. One 

16 other little wrinkle, it may have no effect 

17 whatsoever, but I'm looking at the 

18 classification and there's one last statement 

19 in it that says, this Class does not include 

20 the following buildings at that location, and 

21 it lists three places. Technical Office 

22 Building 13, Technical Office East Building 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 14, and Technical East Office Building Number 

2 15. I don't know if DOL had information that 

3 they were in those locations or not. But the 

4 Class does specifically state places where 

5 they do not qualify. All I can say is I don't 

6 know if they had the information, but that's a 

7 little bit more for the Class that we didn't 

8 state here.

9 MR. FARVER: There was no building 

10 location in any of the files. The initial, 

11 was it EE-5 form, was filled out by a 

12 survivor. They didn't know. They just knew 

13 approximate dates from where their, you know, 

14 relative worked and so forth.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It really is a 

16 DOL question.

17 MR. FARVER: It is, okay. I mean 

18 that's fine, but how do you handle that?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: A little bit of 

20 faith that they're doing their job correctly, 

21 that's all. I can't say much about that, you 

22 know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 MR. STIVER: In this case, DCAS has 

2 done their due diligence as far as I'm 

3 concerned. I mean this is kind of outside our 

4 purview and if Labor made a mistake it's been 

5 very well admitted, or they have a judgment 

6 that's all been made without sufficient, what 

7 we would consider decent sufficient 

8 information; I don't know that we can really 

9 do anything about that.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Our job here and your 

11 job as our subcontractor is to make sure that 

12 NIOSH is following the processes that we 

13 believe are correct. And I think we've 

14 established here NIOSH has followed the 

15 correct process in this instance. We have 

16 done all that is within our power to do given 

17 the power that's been given to us.

18 MR. STIVER: I don't think there's 

19 much else to be said about it.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Actually I beg to 

21 differ. I think let's turn blind to 

22 everything, this is our line of sight, then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 here's what we do and I'll tell you right out 

2 front. We have an opportunity to be able to 

3 talk with Labor in front of the world and say, 

4 you know, as we were going through this we 

5 found this out. We don't understand how this 

6 goes. Or --

7 MR. STIVER: We already did that.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I'll 

9 tell you what --

10 MR. KATZ: This is an individual 

11 case, first of all, which we don't --

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. STIVER: They basically asked 

14 twice about this particular case and --

15 MR. CALHOUN: It's in the file.

16 MR. STIVER: -- Labor had made 

17 their judgment on that. I don't know if it's 

18 really up to the, you know, this Subcommittee 

19 really doesn't have any authority beyond that. 

20 I mean you can certainly take it up a notch 

21 and ask them, hey, what's the basis on this? 

22 You don't have any placement information. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 Could you just kind of clarify --

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's what I 

3 would suggest.

4 MR. STIVER: -- why the decision?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: What I'm hearing 

6 as well, we wash our hands and walk away from 

7 it. I guess my whole thing is I'm not going 

8 to, up to people, myself, my suggestion would 

9 be just to bring it up and just hope that 

10 they, you know, we don't understand this and I 

11 know we have no rights or anything else like 

12 that but, you know, this came out in the DR 

13 review.

14 MR. STIVER: And it might be 

15 closing upon due diligence to do that.

16 MEMBER POSTON: Brad, would your 

17 wife know what buildings you worked in?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: She knows the area 

19 I work and that's it.

20 MEMBER POSTON: I guarantee you 

21 none of my family would know what buildings I 

22 worked in now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 MR. KATZ: John, DOL has its own 

2 standards for evidence too, and its own 

3 standards with respect to benefit of the doubt 

4 or not benefit of the doubt with respect to 

5 evidence too. So I mean those are really also 

6 outside of our jurisdiction.

7 MEMBER POSTON: I understand all 

8 that. I understand all those legal things, 

9 but basically what we're talking about in 

10 here, what Brad and I are talking about is 

11 doing what's right.

12 MR. KATZ: And you're implying that 

13 DCAS hasn't done --

14 MEMBER POSTON: No, I'm not talking 

15 about that. I said I'm not asking them to do 

16 anything.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Matter of fact, I 

18 was going to applaud DCAS for what they did do 

19 on that because I was going to compliment them 

20 of what they did as that goes to show me that 

21 the processes in place are starting, you know, 

22 are working better than in the beginning.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. You know, here's 

2 how we'll handle this, because I don't think 

3 this is a good use of the Subcommittee's time,

4 frankly. Denise works for me. I will get the 

5 case number from Grady, and Denise can look 

6 into this. She's very good at working with 

7 DOL on these sorts of special cases. And 

8 that's what her job is anyway is to help 

9 people with these special cases. I'll get in 

10 touch with Denise. Denise knows how to work 

11 things with DOL, and we'll get to the bottom 

12 of this.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The broader 

14 question, really, the broader question in this 

15 is that we've had a history of things, of 

16 Classes not being implementable where we 

17 designated buildings or certain work areas. 

18 And I guess my question is a 

19 broader one which is, for General Atomics how 

20 exactly are you making this work? You know, 

21 we ran across a case in our review process 

22 where no building or anything is identified. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 How did you exclude this person? So we want 

2 to know, you know, how you go about this for 

3 General Atomics.

4 MR. KATZ: You can ask that 

5 question.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just asked.

7 MR. KATZ: No, I mean you can ask, 

8 that's a question for DOL, right?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean can 

10 we just refer that question to Labor through 

11 you or through, do we have to ask it a meeting 

12 or --

13 MR. KATZ: I'm going to follow this 

14 up with Denise. So she's going to follow up 

15 on the specific case, but we'll follow up on 

16 the general issue depending on what she learns 

17 from the specific case, because she may learn 

18 all you need to know when she looks into the 

19 specific case.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. From our 

21 advisory role to NIOSH on this one, I think 

22 that we have nothing to say.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 MR. KATZ: I owe you a response on 

2 this, and I'll follow up with the action. 

3 Yes, absolutely.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, moving on.

5 MR. FARVER: Moving on, Finding 

6 309.2, NIOSH failed to adequately address the 

7 incident identified in the CATI report. The 

8 CATI report, which I believe is filled out by 

9 a survivor, talks about the claimant or the 

10 employee describing a fire. Okay, so that's 

11 the gist of it, and this information is in the 

12 CATI report.

13 We feel NIOSH should have addressed 

14 it, and NIOSH says it was addressed in the DRR 

15 but could have been addressed a little bit 

16 more thoroughly. That's true. It probably 

17 would not have affected the case, so basically 

18 we just feel they should have mentioned it 

19 better.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was this an 

21 older case or --

22 MR. CALHOUN: '09.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 MR. FARVER: It's a newer case.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So this is after 

3 your process was in place, kind of, right?

4 MR. FARVER: Well, yes. But it was 

5 mentioned. I mean, it just wasn't --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

7 MR. FARVER: But then you have to 

8 kind of have to look at it, well, it wasn't 

9 the employee that was making the CATI report, 

10 it was the survivor, and I would suggest 

11 closing it.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Because the expansion 

14 wouldn't have changed anything.

15 MR. FARVER: Correct. And then 

16 there are three observations. First one is 

17 kind of nit-picky. It says that, you know, 

18 the DR's test -- the IMBA was used to 

19 calculate the doses, but it wasn't, they used 

20 the CAD tool, which technically still uses 

21 IMBA. So that was Scott's kind of -- but 

22 that's why it was an observation too. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 nit-picky.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, no 

3 action.

4 MR. FARVER: No action. The second 

5 one talks about the -- just brings to 

6 attention that the recycled uranium values 

7 used were what they were and that they differ 

8 from Fernald, and then NIOSH gives a good 

9 response saying that those were the --

10 MR. STIVER: Yes, but they're 

11 correct.

12 MR. FARVER: Right. They're the 

13 Hanford ones, which is the correct ones.

14 MR. STIVER: Right. These higher 

15 ones would be based on the TBD.

16 MR. FARVER: Now a third one --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they used 

18 what you would consider the correct ones?

19 MR. STIVER: They used the correct 

20 ones. The reason at Fernald they were higher 

21 is because of the material accumulated at 

22 gaseous diffusion plants --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

2 MR. STIVER: -- which resulted in 

3 those --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this site is 

5 from --

6 MR. STIVER: This is from Hanford.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is a 

8 Hanford case.

9 MR. STIVER: No, the site only 

10 received material from Hanford.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so it made 

12 sense more at Hanford, okay. So SC&A accepts 

13 NIOSH's explanation.

14 MR. STIVER: Correct.

15 MR. FARVER: The third one says 

16 that the TBD states that there's insufficient 

17 information to fully characterize plutonium 

18 intakes during the operational period. And 

19 then it points out that the SEC petition does 

20 not impose limits on plutonium dose 

21 determinations during that period, and that 

22 you could bound it. You could presumably do a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 maximum plutonium concentration and bound it 

2 at the hot dose cell facility. It's just kind 

3 of more of an observation.

4 MEMBER MUNN: As a matter of fact 

5 it is an observation?

6 MR. FARVER: Observation 3.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Is it acceptable? You 

8 accept that?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean their 

10 response is adequate.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Response accepted. 

12 I'll write it up under 319.1.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This is the last 

14 case in the set, right?

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, we'll try to drag 

16 this out for a long time. Just kidding.

17 MR. KATZ: And so there's basically 

18 eight and nine to deal with, still.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, 319.1. This is 

20 a Hanford case. The DR record says he was a 

21 millwright and worked there from '50 through 

22 '62, and it was a lung cancer and a pancreatic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 cancer, and PoC was 44 percent. So that's 

2 319.1. NIOSH did not use the proper lung dose 

3 conversion factor and correction factor.

4 This goes back to the rotational 

5 and isotropic geometries in -- let me make 

6 sure I get the right number -- IG-001, Section 

7 4.4 of the most recent IG-001. Pretty much as 

8 the statement says, the AP dose correction 

9 factor values are not the most claimant10 favorable for certain cancers, of which lung 

11 is one, and that values of rotational and so

12 should be used.

13 There is a caveat in there that 

14 says, it pretty much implies that unless you 

15 have additional information. In other words, 

16 if you can show that the AP was the proper 

17 geometry, but in general you shouldn't use 

18 that because the other ones are more claimant19 favorable. So we wrote a finding that they 

20 used AP and did not use the other geometry.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What is the 

22 timing on this case? What year?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 MR. CALHOUN: '06. That's when the 

2 DR was completed.

3 MR. FARVER: DR was completed in 

4 '06.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And NIOSH 

6 response on this was?

7 MR. FARVER: Now, it's not so much 

8 I disagree with they wrote, it's that what 

9 they wrote probably should have been in the 

10 DR. In other words, that would be the 

11 justification for doing what she did, instead 

12 of coming up with the justification 

13 afterwards. Really that's the big concern is 

14 it's --

15 MR. STIVER: Documenting your work.

16 MR. FARVER: How do you show that 

17 you looked at it, but you chose something else 

18 and then here are your reasons? So, you know, 

19 for cases that are affected by this statement 

20 in IG-001, they may want to consider putting 

21 some more details in the DR report of why they 

22 chose what geometry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doesn't this kind 

2 of fall under our "show your work" --

3 MR. FARVER: It does.

4 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

5 the ORAU team. I'm not precisely sure when 

6 the IG revision occurred with respect to the 

7 initial write-up on this DR, but that might be 

8 one reason why the specification wasn't in 

9 there.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay, but what about 

11 today? What would happen today if there's a 

12 lung cancer case that comes across? I mean, 

13 would you add additional information in your 

14 DR saying that you looked at these different 

15 geometries?

16 MR. SMITH: I think Scott would 

17 agree that yes, the DR is typically describing 

18 what geometry made sense for the claim.

19 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know if it 

20 would specifically call out this issue or not, 

21 and I agree, it's something that we can look 

22 at.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What's the site 

3 and where?

4 MR. FARVER: Well, this is Hanford.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What's the PoC?

6 MR. FARVER: Forty-four percent. 

7 But I would suggest that, you know, from cases 

8 from now on that ones that fall under this 

9 little caveat that they add additional wording 

10 in their DR report that addresses the other 

11 types of --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, like what 

13 types of work would fall into that caveat, 

14 right, like is it a -- you know.

15 MR. STIVER: Basically what they 

16 wrote in the response --

17 MR. FARVER: Yes, exactly.

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because it seems 

20 to me a millwright and would predominately be 

21 facing their work, but it's so many number of 

22 other jobs and which ones do you use that are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 more kind of favorable, you know.

2 MR. FARVER: I mean, there must be 

3 a reason it was added to the IG-001, this 

4 statement.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay, now how's it 

7 being implemented?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: And this will come up 

10 again on this finding. I've seen this several 

11 times. We've written this up, this same 

12 finding.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I mean, the 

14 explanation that this reconstruction has to 

15 pick the geometry that made the most sense 

16 doesn't jibe with the IG-001, right?

17 MR. FARVER: I don't know the 

18 background of the IG-001 or that statement.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure 

20 where to go with this, but --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I think at 

22 least what I've got here is just, what I've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 got written down is: should we be looking at 

2 adding a description as to why we chose this 

3 specific geometry?

4 MR. FARVER: Or how are you going 

5 to implement, you know, the Section 4 of IG6 001? When would you use rotational or 

7 isotropic?

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. It 

9 does, as you said, it does already state, 

10 however, that the correction factor need not 

11 be applied if it's determined that the most 

12 representative geometry is 100 percent AP. So 

13 that information is there, just maybe 

14 clarification as to what that means in actual 

15 practice.

16 MR. FARVER: Yes, right.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Why don't I just 

18 put it that NIOSH will look at that Section 4 

19 limitations for IG-001, and get back to the 

20 Subcommittee for now, because --

21 MR. FARVER: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: And in general, just for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 recordkeeping here, if it's an item that, 

2 we'll just assume that it's something that can 

3 be addressed in the next meeting unless -- and 

4 just let us know if this is sort of something 

5 more complicated that's not going to be 

6 followed up on within the next meeting, just 

7 to make --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'll send 

9 this matrix shortly after, because if I don't 

10 do it in the next two days, as Ted knows, I 

11 won't do it until the next Subcommittee 

12 meeting. So I'm doing it live here, and 

13 actually I've got to go back and -- I'm out of 

14 practice at highlighting. Don't want to have 

15 outstanding action, so it's easy to find, yes, 

16 in the matrix.

17 Alright, 319.2.

18 MR. FARVER: 319.2, inappropriate 

19 intakes assigned for unmonitored fission 

20 products, specifically ruthenium-106 and 

21 iodine-131, are the ones that we had questions 

22 about. And NIOSH gives a good explanation of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 the ruthenium, which is good because we didn't 

2 realize it was a combination of two different 

3 OTIBs. So I understand what they did now, 

4 which is good. We just didn't understand that 

5 was how they did it to begin with. So that 

6 one's okay.

7 Now the second one, the iodine-131 

8 intake, that's a typo. I mean that's just 

9 wrong. They're off by three orders of 

10 magnitude. I believe I got that right. 

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, 2620 dpm per day.

12 MR. FARVER: Let me get the right 

13 matrix.

14 MR. STIVER: Small doses would 

15 still throw it two orders of magnitude off.

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

17 go ahead and address that. The short answer 

18 is: we agree that that typographical error 

19 should not have occurred and should not have 

20 propagated. The answer to the rest of the 

21 question is: what steps are taken to prevent 

22 this error again? There is presently a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 specific tool that has the coworker intakes in 

2 it, and the dose reconstructor can select the 

3 dates and the location, and the tool will 

4 enter those verified intakes so there will not 

5 be data entry errors of this sort anymore.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: And that's a QA. When 

8 we had that meeting with ORAU, that was one of 

9 the basic solutions that we talked about is 

10 that these workbooks solve some of these input 

11 data entry problems, right.

12 MR. FARVER: And along with that, 

13 I'm assuming that the person can't just 

14 override it and insert any number they want. 

15 It's just going to --

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, I'm 

19 just updating. But there's no further action, 

20 I think, right?

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MR. FARVER: 319.3. Okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 apparently the individual may have been 

2 involved in a 1955 incident according to a 

3 CATI report and the DOE records. There are

4 some nasal smears, smears of the mouth and the 

5 teeth. There's information in there that 

6 something happened. There's also a bioassay 

7 report from the same time period.

8 NIOSH assigned one rem of dose from 

9 the incident, and I couldn't find any basis 

10 for that. They assigned a rem to the pancreas 

11 and a rem to the lung. I just don't know how 

12 you would come up with that number. It's not 

13 like you look at all the Hanford intakes in 

14 '55 and you said, well, we took the mean value 

15 or we took the highest value. It was: we just 

16 gave them a rem.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the short 

19 answer, which it says right at the beginning 

20 is: I agree that the assignment is unsupported 

21 and there's no definable thought process 

22 behind it, other than a number that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 selected to overestimate an incident. It is 

2 not something we would commonly do.

3 MR. FARVER: See, I don't know how 

4 you can say that it overestimates it. It 

5 estimates it. I mean, you can't say it's an 

6 overestimate until -- you have to at least put 

7 the bioassay result in IMBA and do something 

8 and come up with a number. You can't just 

9 assign a rem and say, oh, that's an 

10 overestimate.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I agree 

12 wholeheartedly. Now the rest of the story is 

13 that going back and looking into the DOE 

14 records, it seems very clear to us that the EE 

15 themselves was not the person who was involved 

16 in this incident. It was in his DOE file, but 

17 he was not the one in the incident.

18 And if you read our response, it 

19 really gets into the fact that it was clear 

20 the person in the incident was a pipefitter. 

21 This person is a millwright. It was clear 

22 from the incident report that there were nose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 swipes taken. There's no indication of nose 

2 swipes in this individual's file. There were 

3 also follow-up bioassays taken and clearly 

4 defined that they came back negative. There's 

5 no follow-up bioassay for this guy, but he 

6 does have consistent two or five-month 

7 frequency of bioassay for plutonium that was 

8 not interrupted or changed in any way.

9 So when you go through the totality 

10 of the incident, it seems clear that he was 

11 not the person who was involved in the 

12 incident, and there's also reference to two 

13 other people who were close by that had 

14 additional follow-up sampling. Once again, it 

15 does not appear to be this individual.

16 In the depths of the incident 

17 report it does state that there was a whole 

18 group of, the work package that were involved 

19 in this in the general area, however, not 

20 necessarily directly involved. And the 

21 assumption really comes from this that he was 

22 one of those people who was involved in a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 peripheral point of view.

2 Once again, I'm not defending 

3 anything on that one rem thing, but I'm giving 

4 you the rest of the background on the 

5 incident. So looking at, and this is 

6 information that we've done since then. 

7 Looking at if follow-up bioassay was gotten 

8 from the person involved in the incident that 

9 showed no activity, then it seems reasonable 

10 that someone who was peripherally involved, 

11 who also showed no activity in their later 

12 bioassay, there's no reason to believe that 

13 there was any dose from that incident.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, this is 

15 one that we might have to consider for our 

16 definition of claimant-favorable.

17 MR. FARVER: See, I'm more 

18 concerned about the big picture. I've got a 

19 dose reconstructor who writes up a report and 

20 arbitrarily assigns a rem, okay, of internal 

21 dose. This isn't an external dose, and it's 

22 not even properly distributed among the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 organs. It's not like they determined -- in 

2 other words, they gave a rem to the lung and a 

3 rem to the pancreas and that vision is not 

4 correct. You know, if they would have said, 

5 well, we thought he had a couple nanocuries 

6 intake, and then calculate a dose and 

7 whatever, but there was nothing.

8 He just arbitrarily assigns this 

9 value, passes it along, someone reviews it, 

10 signs off on it. He goes to another person, 

11 they sign off on it, and all is well. So I've 

12 got three signatures on this page that says, 

13 this is okay. That's what bothers me.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that's a 44 

15 or something PoC, right?

16 MR. FARVER: Forty-four percent 

17 PoC. So that kind of bothers me that how do 

18 you come up with that and how do people 

19 approve that? That's a big mistake.

20 (Telephonic interference.)

21 MR. KATZ: Does someone have an ice 

22 machine out there?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 (Laughter.)

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And now, to me, 

3 the other thing about this case that's 

4 starting to come up for me is that the last 

5 thing you said even though, you know, the 

6 magnitude of the difference of the inputs for 

7 the iodine even though they're small doses, 

8 but then you have the geometry question in the 

9 first one that didn't seem to be claimant10 favorable. And then this one, there's some 

11 big question marks. So when you add all this 

12 up, you wonder if you're approaching closer to 

13 a 50 percentile.

14 MR. STIVER: The combination, in the 

15 right circumstances, could be close to 50 

16 percent.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

19 believe we already agreed that the DCF was 

20 applied correctly, not explained appropriately 

21 due to the person's employment. The iodine 

22 adds 5, 2 millirem in the lung and it's less 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 than 1 millirem to the pancreas.

2 And in my personal opinion, if this 

3 claim was to be reworked right now, we would 

4 assign nothing to the incident because there's 

5 no indication of any exposure on that. So I 

6 don't see a PoC impact when I look at this 

7 claim.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm not sure if 

9 I agree with the first statement on the dose 

10 conversion factor. I mean, I still am waiting 

11 to see what the policy for implementation is 

12 on that.

13 MR. FARVER: Actually, if you were 

14 to assign nothing for the incident, there 

15 probably wouldn't have been a finding because 

16 there was no specific information.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I agree 

18 wholeheartedly. That's --

19 MR. FARVER: The point is: someone 

20 determined that they were going to give them a 

21 rem and two other people agreed to it. That's 

22 the part that bothers me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's a quality 

2 issue, and then is that a, you know, was that 

3 somehow calculated as a conservative claimant4 favorable value? We don't know.

5 MR. KATZ: It just seems like it --

6 what year was this done?

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 2006.

8 MR. CALHOUN: And it is listed as 

9 an overestimate, so we did do some 

10 overestimating techniques here. Just to put 

11 this thing a little bit in perspective, we 

12 assigned 131 rem to the lung and 25.8 rem to 

13 the pancreas.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's pretty 

15 substantial.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

17 MR. STIVER: It'd have to be a 

18 forty-five percent.

19 MR. FARVER: I guess what bothers 

20 me is --

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's a quality 

22 control question, certainly.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 MR. FARVER: -- if someone turns in 

2 a report like that to me and all of a sudden I 

3 see, well, we gave him a rem, my first 

4 question is: how did you come up with that 

5 number?

6 MR. STIVER: And then only two 

7 areas.

8 MR. FARVER: It doesn't look like 

9 anybody asked that question.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm not sure 

11 that would fly these days.

12 MR. FARVER: And that's all that 

13 bothers me is: how did that get reviewed twice 

14 and no one asked that question? Now is this 

15 the only case that that happened in?

16 MR. CALHOUN: I'm sure there's, you 

17 know, at 35,000 cases.

18 MR. FARVER: I'm not that lucky.

19 MEMBER MUNN: We have been generous 

20 in the past with respect to overestimates. If 

21 you're dealing with an overestimating case, 

22 and you're giving people more than the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 evidence would support, then our question that 

2 we're raising now is actually, was our 

3 thinking process during that period of time 

4 inconsistent? Was it inaccurate? And I think 

5 we've pretty much discussed earlier the fact 

6 that, yes, we've made some corrections to that 

7 and don't anticipate that to be the case in 

8 the future.

9 MR. FARVER: Well, I guess it's not 

10 that it's just an overestimate or -- it was 

11 that there's no basis for applying an estimate 

12 that way, just arbitrarily assigning --

13 MR. KATZ: It's understood --

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they got a 135 

17 rem to the lung overall, Grady, you said?

18 MR. CALHOUN: I just knocked that 

19 down. I think I said 131.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And this is one 

21 rem of it, I think. So this was just from the 

22 incident? They were assigning one rem?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So they just 

3 threw in a rem.

4 MR. CALHOUN: I mean, we had some 

5 confirmed plutonium dose that we assigned.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Grady, was this a 

7 complete overestimate or just a partial?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Basically, what -- I 

9 can't give you all the details of it but what 

10 it says is -- hold on, I'm scrolling down. 

11 Internal doses, actual internal doses, it just 

12 basically says we overestimated internal 

13 doses, X-ray procedures and X-ray doses.

14 MR. KATZ: So it's an 

15 overestimating case.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Nowadays, see, 

17 I don't have as good of a breakdown by 

18 specific type of radiation as I do in current 

19 DRs. Like now there's a table that shows how 

20 much internal dose, how much external dose, 

21 and I don't have that here in 2006. So I 

22 can't see exactly how much dose we assigned 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 for each, but yes, it was a big amount. He 

2 may have had a whole lot of recorded dose. I 

3 measured again.

4 MR. KATZ: So I guess the question 

5 is, is there more follow-up that DCAS can do 

6 to determine just what the thought process was 

7 in throwing the rem on this one and --

8 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I know the 

9 thought process was, we don't have any 

10 information, one rem seems pretty high given 

11 what this guy's got assigned him, as sloppy as 

12 that sounds. And nowadays that wouldn't fly, 

13 especially since we've got internal dosimetry 

14 that would likely disprove that there was any 

15 episodic intake like that.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Right.

17 MR. STIVER: And the question in my 

18 mind is: the assurance was that this wouldn't 

19 be a continuing problem.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Apparently this 

21 was a documented incident, though, and there 

22 were others. Scott mentioned other people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 that were involved, right?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

3 MEMBER MUNN: But it wasn't this 

4 worker.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Although this 

6 guy was never -- I don't know how this, it got 

7 in his file somehow. I mean, they made a 

8 mistake there. But they didn't make any other 

9 mistake; they just made a mistake of putting 

10 this incident record in his file. So I'm sure 

11 that's, you know. My question is: what did 

12 the other workers get as far as doses? And 

13 then maybe that was the rationale.

14 MR. SIEBERT: I can tell you that 

15 the individual who was actually involved with 

16 the incident was assigned no dose because the 

17 immediate follow-up bioassay was negative. 

18 And I would assume the reason this was in this 

19 individual's file is that they were part of 

20 the work package that was working in the 

21 general area, not specifically involved in the 

22 incident, and just to be safe they put a copy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 in all the people who were in the work 

2 package. That's entirely my conjecture, but 

3 knowing how, you know, we've dealt with 

4 records in the past at various places, that 

5 seems likely.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And now it's 

7 even harder to explain. I was hoping maybe 

8 they had a dose assignment of one rem and they 

9 said, well, we don't even think the guy was in 

10 there but we're going to assign him the same 

11 thing.

12 MR. KATZ: So was this case done 

13 before the case of the person who was actually 

14 involved in the incident? Was this DR case 

15 done prior?

16 MR. SIEBERT: The person who is 

17 involved in the incident, I have no idea if 

18 they're even a claimant.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see. Okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, I should 

21 be clear. The stuff we're talking about, the 

22 incident report, is everything that Hanford 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 did on their end during that time frame.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the way I 

4 took it.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry about that.

6 MR. STIVER: And I don't think we'd 

7 be dealing with Type S from Hanford; you'd be 

8 looking at a Type M exposure.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, Type S, and 

10 they probably used --

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MR. STIVER: Type S you wouldn't see 

13 anything in a follow-up bioassay. You wouldn't 

14 expect to.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, so it's 

16 clearly a QA issue. I'm not sure if we can 

17 answer anything else, like what percentages 

18 are in place now to -- right.

19 MR. FARVER: Because there are 

20 mechanisms in place to do that, like OTIB-0018 

21 and OTIB-0033, and use them in a combination 

22 like we've seen done before when you have no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 data.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And those were 

3 all certainly available in 2006, right, or 

4 were they?

5 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know 

7 either.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, they were 

9 available at that time.

10 MR. FARVER: So there were 

11 mechanisms in place to do overestimates. This 

12 is an overestimate.

13 MR. STIVER: I mean, the only thing 

14 you can really do with it is track the 

15 occurrence.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: Why wasn't it caught?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, we have a 

19 number of those recurring.

20 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Once 

21 again, OTIB-0018 and 0033 would not be 

22 appropriate overestimating for this case, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 because we based his internal on his actual 

2 bioassay. Overestimated, granted, but it's 

3 based on his own bioassay. So we wouldn't 

4 have been dealing with OTIB-0018 or 0033.

5 MR. CALHOUN: The bottom line is it 

6 shouldn't have ever been added. And we just 

7 said, well, it's an overestimate, let it go. 

8 You know, one rem out of 130. He had ten rem 

9 deep recorded, by the way.

10 MR. KATZ: So I don't know if maybe 

11 the Subcommittee just keeps this case in mind 

12 in terms of the QA, as you're looking at the 

13 QA system as a whole. Keep this scenario in 

14 mind.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In the review 

16 process. But I don't think there's any more 

17 action on this one.

18 MR. FARVER: I saved the best for 

19 last, 319.4. Let's see the real write-up 

20 here. Okay, the claimant indicated that the 

21 employee worked at INL from October of '52 

22 through July of '53. Apparently he was laid 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 off from Hanford and he took a job at INEL. 

2 There is some, and I guess this falls back to 

3 DOE or DOL, they could not verify that the 

4 employee worked at Idaho. The contractor out 

5 there had no records, so therefore that time 

6 was not considered.

7 Really, the finding is just that 

8 NIOSH should have put something like that in 

9 their DR report. And the wording that, you 

10 know, something, they used some good wording 

11 in their -- oh, the DOL used it. NIOSH could 

12 have put something in like: "Information 

13 provided by the Department of Labor indicates 

14 the EE worked at the Hanford site, blah, blah, 

15 blah. Although the claimant may have worked at 

16 Idaho for a few months that could not be 

17 verified." You know, they could have put a 

18 statement in the DR report like that that 

19 would address that time period. So that's the 

20 basis for the finding is that it just wasn't 

21 mentioned in the DR report.

22 Now the larger issue is, could have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 someone worked at Idaho for a few months back 

2 in the '50s, maybe for a subcontractor, and 

3 there be no records? I don't know. That's a 

4 different question.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This was 

6 mentioned in the CATI or what?

7 MR. FARVER: I believe this was in 

8 the employment information, you know, the EE-5 

9 Form. I think it was in there.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. That 

11 is correct, and that's also where DOL made 

12 that statement that they could not verify 

13 employment.

14 MR. FARVER: Right. It wasn't that 

15 he was not monitored; it was that they could 

16 not verify.

17 MR. CALHOUN: That he was employed.

18 MR. FARVER: That he was employed. 

19 Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And somehow you 

21 determined the couple months this was, or --

22 MR. FARVER: A certain time period 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 from October, and I'm not sure where those 

2 dates come from, but they're somewhere in the 

3 documentation. October '53 through --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Remind me, the 

5 EE-5 is not generated by the claimant, it's --

6 MR. FARVER: It's by the claimant.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It is by the 

8 claimant?

9 MR. KATZ: It is.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

11 thought, okay.

12 MR. FARVER: So they had a time 

13 period. I guess it might have been, worked at 

14 Hanford, worked at Hanford, got laid off for 

15 this time period, and then worked at INL.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sorry, I 

17 mean I don't do a lot of the former employees, 

18 but I think they would remember if they went 

19 to Idaho.

20 MR. FARVER: Well, it wasn't an 

21 employee.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It wasn't an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 employee?

2 MR. FARVER: It was a survivor.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But still, if 

4 they went to Idaho National Labs. My husband, 

5 you know, left for three months and worked in 

6 Idaho.

7 MR. FARVER: I don't know if it was 

8 a spouse or a --

9 MR. KATZ: Could be a child.

10 MR. CALHOUN: It was a son, looks 

11 like.

12 MR. FARVER: It looks like it was a 

13 son, so I don't know if a son would know that 

14 or not.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, Alright.

16 MR. FARVER: But, anyway, the big 

17 thing was, you know, you could have added some 

18 warning in there just to address it, like DOL 

19 did in their final decision letter or one of 

20 their letters.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Some explanatory 

22 narrative.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 MR. FARVER: Saying it could have 

2 been, but we couldn't verify it.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Worked in Idaho, 

4 possibly for INEL, for a few months.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And it's a 

6 survivor, so --

7 MR. CALHOUN: In my opinion, it's 

8 speculation.

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. FARVER: I'm not defending that 

11 he worked there; I'm just saying that you 

12 might add some wording in there just to 

13 address it, that's all.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Although I think 

15 it's possible a person could have worked there 

16 in the '50s and there not be records.

17 MR. FARVER: Sure.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

19 Richardson. I would think the other thing is, 

20 there were a lot of Hanford workers who would 

21 have had a period of time at Idaho, and I 

22 don't know that if you searched the Idaho 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 employment records you would find any 

2 indication that there were Idaho workers. 

3 They would still be Hanford employees. Isn't 

4 that correct?

5 MEMBER MUNN: That would show in 

6 the Idaho records, though.

7 MR. CALHOUN: They usually search 

8 based on Social Security number.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, but I 

10 think you would have to look at Hanford to see 

11 that they were. I know we have similar cases 

12 with Oak Ridge, with Savannah River, with 

13 workers who do training or who are stationed 

14 other places, and it's not, the recordkeeping 

15 is not always necessarily --

16 MR. CALHOUN: So when did Idaho 

17 start operations? Because he said, went to 

18 Idaho then to Hanford, but he was in Hanford 

19 in 1950.

20 MR. KATZ: You can answer that 

21 question, when Idaho started operations.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, okay, Idaho 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 was going back in the '40s. Actually IFSF was 

2 built in 1957, but also in this time period is 

3 when SL-1 went south.

4 MEMBER MUNN: That's `51.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: SL-1?

6 MEMBER MUNN: I believe so.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Was it `51 or `57?

8 MR. STIVER: SL-1 was January 3rd, 

9 1961.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: `61.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I'm sorry.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, so we had a 

13 lot of different -- yes. Great stuff. To 

14 tell you the truth, my personal findings, they 

15 never kept track very well. Remember that 

16 this first started out as a naval testing 

17 station too, from a gunnery range, then turned 

18 over to the Department of, I guess it was the 

19 Nuclear Energy Commission. It wouldn't be 

20 hard to go out there and go to work without 

21 having --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 difficult with a survivor making the claim 

2 too.

3 MR. SIEBERT: I agree with the 

4 general suggestion of just not discounting it 

5 right off the bat, and just acknowledging that 

6 it's --

7 MR. KATZ: So the Hanford records 

8 wouldn't, though, if someone were assigned to 

9 INEL, a Hanford employee, would Hanford not 

10 record that they had assigned this person to 

11 go --

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that's what I'm 

13 saying. I think you would have to look at the 

14 Hanford records.

15 MR. KATZ: I mean, they have the 

16 Hanford records.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they have 

18 the Hanford records.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Hanford responded, 

20 and I would assume that Labor would have had 

21 to have asked the question at Idaho just to 

22 count his employment, so somebody checked.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Part of the thing 

2 like these sites though is if somebody was 

3 laid off at Hanford, then you've got a 

4 clearance and so forth like that, they're 

5 basically drawn to one of these other sites. 

6 You really are, because that's a valuable 

7 resource.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Unfortunately, 

9 with the survivor doing the form, I'm not sure 

10 what more we can expect NIOSH to do on this 

11 one.

12 MR. STIVER: I don't know if we can 

13 get any more detailed information.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, I think 

15 I'm satisfied that it's closed, right? Are 

16 you, Doug?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes. You just might 

18 want to keep in mind that, you know, you might 

19 want to mention something like that in the 

20 future and just put it in the DR. Acknowledge 

21 it.

22 MR. KATZ: Does that close out Case 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 319?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, we've got 

3 one observation, right?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: That's the look at 

6 numbering the tables, yes.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, okay, so 

8 it's NIOSH, okay. And I think we have that 

9 finding in a couple of reports coming up, but 

10 as long as they're aware of it, that's fine.

11 MR. STIVER: Alright. We've 

12 officially tackled four percent of the backlog

13 today.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we didn't 

15 close them all out, so --

16 MR. KATZ: But most of them.

17 MR. FARVER: That's kind of what I 

18 was getting at. If we have findings, 

19 response, response, we close a lot and you can 

20 recommend for closing --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 MR. KATZ: This has been good. Good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 process here.

2 MR. FARVER: So in the accelerated 

3 world, we would come to you with our 

4 recommendations saying, we recommend to close, 

5 you know, however many we closed today, 15 of 

6 them or so. That's how we would come to you 

7 and say, this is what we looked at. This is 

8 our responses. We put it to you that we 

9 suggest closing these. These other ones, we 

10 need some issues on. I mean, that's how it 

11 could speed things up a little.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I like the 

13 process, I'm not sure about suggesting 

14 closure. But you can have that in your mind.

15 MR. STIVER: Conditional consensus, 

16 right.

17 MR. FARVER: However you would like 

18 us to word it that we are okay with closing 

19 it.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. But I do, 

21 like some of these it would be even nice for 

22 you to -- yes, I can see the merits of that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 Because for some, like, you know, this has 

2 come up in previous findings. NIOSH modified 

3 this. We think we should close this --

4 MR. FARVER: The repetitive nature -

5 -

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That would be 

7 quicker so I don't have to retype it, too.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it would 

9 give us a better picture too of the site. 

10 When we're looking at it, we're seeing 

11 numerous --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, the site --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- give us a 

15 better idea if maybe this is a site issue a 

16 little bit or --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, here's 

18 what I suggest is, take a break and then we'll 

19 come back. And I want to tackle two things, 

20 the 16th set case selection question and the -

21 -

22 MR. KATZ: We're going to do Sets 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

276

1 and --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I want to 

3 do these two broader things first and then get 

4 into Set 8. The question of a report from the 

5 Subcommittee, and then my question of 

6 selecting the cases for SC&A. Let's discuss 

7 those after the break, then we'll go into the 

8 8 stuff and finish the day.

9 MR. KATZ: Could you hear that, 

10 David? Could you hear Mark's plan?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, when do 

12 you return back from the break?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Ten minutes.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, be right 

15 back.

16 MR. KATZ: I'll put the phone on 

17 mute.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We plan on 

19 closing probably right around 4:00, I think, 

20 because people are going to, you know, it's 

21 hard to stay focused on this stuff for too 

22 long.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

2 matter went off the record at 2:16 p.m. and 

3 resumed at 2:33 p.m.)

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so I just 

5 wanted to move up on the agenda just a couple 

6 of the general discussions and then go into 

7 the 8th set of cases. One issue is the 

8 selection, preparing DR Case Set 16, cases for 

9 preliminary selection. So this has, I think, 

10 mainly been requested by SC&A that they, you 

11 know, they want to keep the pipeline filled 

12 with cases for the people that are working on 

13 cases. Even though we're trying to clear the 

14 backlog I think we might, you know, this is a 

15 process for us.

16 So I'm not sure how, they've asked 

17 me if we can have cases selected in Santa Fe 

18 at our meeting, but I don't know that, because 

19 we have this two-step process that we've gone 

20 through usually so I don't know how we could 

21 achieve that. I usually talk with Stu about 

22 this, but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 MR. KATZ: Nothing can happen for 

2 the June meeting. That's not even close.

3 MR. STIVER: How long does it 

4 typically take?

5 MR. KATZ: It takes quite a while. 

6 It takes weeks.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We can do it on 

8 the Board phone call. I think that's the best 

9 we're going to do is, you know, the Santa Fe 

10 meeting, and then we'll have a Board phone 

11 call meeting.

12 MR. KATZ: Well, what we'll need to 

13 do is we'll need to ask for whatever we want 

14 to ask for here, and then they'll get it 

15 together for the next Dose Reconstruction 

16 Subcommittee meeting, and then after the Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee has done its pre18 selection we can deal with it at the next 

19 Board meeting.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Which would be 

21 September 4th, right?

22 MR. KATZ: Or the teleconference, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 although it's sort of hard to deal with these 

2 on a teleconference.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is.

4 MR. STIVER: I guess our only 

5 concern there is we're kind of winding down 

6 Set 15 then.

7 MR. KATZ: But this is the best we 

8 can do. There's no way to --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No way to extend 

10 that. I mean, the only way would be if we 

11 asked for our criteria and the list that comes 

12 back to us is, because usually what we do is 

13 we ask, I mean, if we want cases that are near 

14 the compensation level. So if we say all 

15 cases from a certain year forward and a 

16 certain percentage higher, like 40 to 50 or 

17 whatever, then if what comes back to us is 

18 only 30 cases we might just say we don't need 

19 the more detailed data. Because then we 

20 usually do our pre-selection process where we 

21 say, okay, let's get more information, like is 

22 it overestimating, is it, you know, whatever, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 external or internal dose, they try to break 

2 out more information for us. And then NIOSH 

3 has to go to the individual cases, open the 

4 cases to find that information.

5 I'm just saying this for David's 

6 purposes too. Yes, so if they don't have a 

7 lot of cases come back in that first triage 

8 step, we may be able to say, you know, it's a 

9 small enough list, let's just make a judgment 

10 that we can stop most of these or something.

11 MR. KATZ: But you also make 

12 judgments as to whether -- you don't want a 

13 bunch of duplicative cases from one site, for 

14 example, and what have you, too.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Correct. We 

16 have the site information on that first count, 

17 so we have quite a bit of information, we just 

18 don't have the detailed information. So I 

19 mean I'm trying to remember what criteria 

20 we've used before. I know we want more 

21 current cases, and I know we generally like 

22 the ones near --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 MR. STIVER: The last couple years 

2 or --

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

4 MR. STIVER: Close to the 50 

5 percent, I'll say 40 of --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I think 45 

7 was too limiting always, so we usually say 40 

8 to 50.

9 MR. KATZ: Or you go a little bit 

10 above, too. You don't want to just --

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 40 to 50.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 40 to 55 or 

14 whatever.

15 MR. FARVER: If you want to 

16 eliminate the overestimated or underestimated, 

17 then you would get 45 to 52 percent.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

19 MR. STIVER: Stick within that 

20 range.

21 MR. FARVER: Therefore they would 

22 all be best estimates.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 MR. KATZ: That would be too 

2 limiting. We had issues with that before, when 

3 we tried to limit it too much.

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. STIVER: There's only about 1.9 

6 percent, I think, or --

7 MR. FARVER: That was just if you 

8 wanted to eliminate the over and under.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe 40 to 52, 

10 we could eliminate at least the 

11 underestimating, right, because you wouldn't 

12 underestimate anything close to 52, right?

13 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean you could 

14 just specify, you know, 40 to 55 or 40 to 60, 

15 but leave out the simple overestimating and 

16 underestimating. You could just specify that.

17 MR. CALHOUN: That's not quite as 

18 simple as you might think.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They'd have to 

20 look at the case to find out --

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, no. They would 

22 have to look at the case, I understand. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 they still would have done that as opposed to 

2 you having to do that at the Subcommittee 

3 level.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But the idea of 

5 the triage stuff is that, so you don't have to 

6 do that for 100 cases.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I would say that 90 

8 percent of the cases that are less than 45 

9 percent are going to be overestimated. So you 

10 would have to go through an awful lot.

11 MR. KATZ: I see.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I would say 

13 we do 40 to 52.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Well, how does this 

15 work, just since I'm a newbie? Do you tell me 

16 what you want and then I bring this back to 

17 Stu, or what's the mechanics of this now?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, Stu 

19 usually generates a list or he has you 

20 generate --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, so you're 

22 coming up with what you want and I'm going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 --

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You go out there 

3 and you pull the cases.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. So right 

5 now you don't know yet, but 40 to 52 maybe?

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, 40 to 52 

7 sounds like a good spread.

8 And then as far as the years, I 

9 mean we like to do the more recent dose 

10 reconstruction in years but we have to have 

11 only fully adjudicated cases.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Right, okay.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I don't know 

14 if you have a sense of what a good cutoff is 

15 there.

16 MR. CALHOUN: No, but I think that 

17 we could probably --

18 MR. STIVER: Just go to a pool of 

19 adjudicated cases to begin with and --

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

21 MR. KATZ: The last three years 

22 maybe, within the pool of adjudicated cases or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 something.

2 MR. FARVER: How many cases would 

3 you like in your initial list? Because then 

4 he can go, if he goes back to 2010 and doesn't 

5 come up with enough he can always go back to 

6 2009 and pick up a few more.

7 MR. KATZ: And I think you want at 

8 least 40 cases so that, because you're going 

9 to cut some out.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. We want at 

11 least 40.

12 MR. CALHOUN: I will give you a 

13 list of 40 and then pare them down?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Usually it's 

15 broader than that. Usually we have about 100 

16 in the first cut.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Because we cut out a 

18 lot.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: At least 40 or 

20 50, then.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, should we go --

22 MR. KATZ: A normal set is around 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 30.

2 MR. STIVER: Typically they've ran 

3 about 30 then.

4 MR. KATZ: Twenty to thirty is the 

5 normal --

6 MR. STIVER: The last one was 

7 pretty big.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, that was a special 

9 case.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I recall 

11 now. So I would say we want 50.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: And then we'll see what 

14 we get.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Bare minimum.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We'll see what we 

17 get. And I guess work from the most --

18 MR. CALHOUN: And this is 16?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I would say 

21 Doug's idea is a good one. Work backwards from 

22 the years, so if you do the most recent year 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 that has been adjudicated, that may be 2012, I 

2 don't know, you would have finished cases that 

3 had been adjudicated in 2012, you might not 

4 get 50 out of that, so then go back to 2011 

5 and --

6 MR. CALHOUN: Not many.

7 MR. KATZ: Keep working back until 

8 you've got --

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. CALHOUN: I think that makes a 

11 best of all list and we don't have to worry 

12 about old documents and what's --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what 

14 we're trying to do. Sometimes there's just 

15 not a lot of cases there.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Sure.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, and then you know 

18 what categories of information are provided 

19 with these stats because --

20 MR. CALHOUN: We will know.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: He's got a 

22 spreadsheet with all this. So you're doing the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 first triage and then we'll ask maybe for 

2 expanded information depending on the size of 

3 the list. Alright, that sounds good.

4 MR. KATZ: I think you're 

5 remembering the last set which was a double 

6 set, Wanda, because the last set we did was a 

7 double set. We doubled the number. But 

8 previously, we shot for 20 to 30 cases at the 

9 end of the day. And so you would need to --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, but it's 

11 rare that we take more than one or two off --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's true, 

13 yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, if you want to up 

15 the number, let him know now.

16 MEMBER MUNN: If there's an 

17 adequate supply to work on at the time, I have 

18 the sense that the number --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, I agree. 

20 Usually we do this in steps, right, so in the 

21 first list we might want more like 70 and then 

22 we go through and say, and then we pick about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 40 for Stu to get more information on, and 

2 then after the 40 we get around 30 or 

3 whatever.

4 MR. KATZ: So we're up to 70. That's 

5 good to sort that out now.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Now are we going to 

7 be, I guess, I don't know if it's kind of a 

8 similar issue but did we talk about the 

9 grouping already and how we're going to, are 

10 we going to deal with grouping by site or is 

11 that important at this point or --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that's for 

13 the --

14 MR. KATZ: That's for the review --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 COURT REPORTER: Your transcript is 

17 going to be a little messy. You have to have 

18 one person talking at a time.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. So yes, 

20 let's talk about that question now that you 

21 raised it. For the resolution process going 

22 forward, the idea of these technical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 correspondence between SC&A and NIOSH, we're 

2 going to move forward with this and I think 

3 the sense was that you might want to start 

4 with a site. I don't know. Savannah River 

5 was your highest number, I think.

6 MR. STIVER: Let's start with 

7 Savannah River. That's got the most promising 

8 number of --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, let's also 

10 ask. I don't know if you have enough 

11 information right now, Grady, to answer that 

12 but are your people that would likely work on 

13 -- Scott might be able to help with this. 

14 Maybe Scott is the person, but are your people 

15 that would likely be involved with that 

16 available in the next couple months or --

17 MR. CALHOUN: SRS?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I think so. Do 

20 you see any issues with that, Scott?

21 MR. SIEBERT: The only issue is 

22 switching gears to the different groupings so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

1 that we don't lose the work that we've already 

2 done on the present groupings. But changing 

3 that over, I see no problem with having that 

4 happen.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Is there something 

6 else we could do to deal with the ones you've 

7 already worked on that might make it a little 

8 more efficient?

9 MR. SIEBERT: I think just the best 

10 thing is, I've got those in hand and as we run 

11 into them in the new groupings, I'll just plug 

12 them right in and we'll be able to move along. 

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You'll just have 

14 to reorder the matrix.

15 MR. KATZ: So basically you'll just 

16 --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Organizing it and 

18 getting the new list out.

19 MR. KATZ: So what you'll end up 

20 having is you'll have Set 8 still to finish, 

21 Set 9 to finish in the traditional way. 

22 You'll have then the Set of Class A cases to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

1 finish, which you've almost finished anyway, 

2 and then the rest will move to this new 

3 system, right?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, and I see no 

5 problems with that.

6 MR. KATZ: That'll work.

7 MR. SIEBERT: The only question I 

8 have, which is the obvious question, is who is 

9 going to do the making of the list?

10 MR. STIVER: Actually, Doug and I 

11 will provide that to you. We have the summary 

12 statistics already pulled together by finding 

13 and case.

14 MR. SIEBERT: That's the right 

15 answer. I like that one, thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. And then 

17 as far as the schedule, you're going to have 

18 your first sort of technical correspondence on 

19 these SRS cases before the next DR 

20 Subcommittee meeting, right?

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, I kind of look at 

22 it about halfway between, so maybe mid-July or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

1 maybe that time frame.

2 MR. KATZ: And you'll have to pick 

3 your site or whatever that you're going to 

4 focus on.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, they just 

6 said SRS.

7 MR. KATZ: SRS, I'm sorry. I missed 

8 that.

9 MR. STIVER: They're just going down 

10 the list with the most findings, just working 

11 their way through.

12 MEMBER MUNN: The most intransigent 

13 cases.

14 MR. STIVER: The most intransigent 

15 cases.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, so at the end of 

17 this meeting, when we schedule the next 

18 Subcommittee meeting we can also sort of pick 

19 a date, a rough date. I mean, that doesn't 

20 need such a hard date because we don't have to 

21 set up a meeting for it. I mean, there will 

22 be a meeting, a teleconference or whatever, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

1 but --

2 MR. STIVER: We don't have to have 

3 the whole contingent of --

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, right. But we'll 

5 pick a rough date for that, so that DCAS knows 

6 what to aim for in terms of getting responses 

7 to issues.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And when you say 

9 as far as cases, are you saying from the 10th 

10 to the 13th?

11 MR. STIVER: Yes, the 10th to the 

12 13th, starting from the Table 2.

13 MR. CALHOUN: And just to clarify, 

14 these are going to be SRS cases from already 

15 selected DRs previous to 15, roughly?

16 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is Sets 10 

17 to 13.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: That's not very many.

20 MR. STIVER: Well, there's 116 

21 cases, 275 findings.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: How many SRS 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

1 cases?

2 MR. STIVER: SRS, there are 17 

3 cases with 57 findings. So that's the most 

4 number of cases and findings for a site, is 

5 Savannah River. Kind of see that by looking 

6 at this.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we have 22, 

8 maybe. Yes, okay.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so that's 

10 the process forward and we'll set a DR 

11 Subcommittee meeting later, after we finish 

12 here, but that will be the technical working 

13 meeting between NIOSH and focused on Savannah 

14 River Set 10 through 13.

15 Alright, and the last thing before 

16 we go into the 8th Set, the last thing I 

17 wanted to cover was preparing a second Board 

18 report to the Secretary on dose reconstruction 

19 reviews. I know this has been brought up on 

20 the Board, I know Paul has mentioned it, 

21 others may have as well. Just talking during 

22 the break, I'm just wondering if we're at a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

1 good point in our process to actually have 

2 something to report out to the Secretary.

3 We had finished the 6th and we gave 

4 our report on the 1st through the 5th sets. 

5 That was a while ago but we did submit a 

6 report on that. We've done the 6th and 7th 

7 sets. We're almost done with the 8th. I'm 

8 not sure we're at a good stopping point, and I 

9 also have a feeling that a lot of what we've 

10 found was very similar to the findings in the 

11 1st through 5th set, so I don't know that we 

12 could do much more than an update and I don't 

13 think we need to necessarily do an update to 

14 the Secretary.

15 My feeling is that we're not quite 

16 at a point where we can say much. I would 

17 rather be, you know, look further at, find out 

18 more about NIOSH's QA program and roll that 

19 into any report that we develop along with our 

20 findings on the QA stuff. I think that might 

21 be more meaningful, but we're not ready to do 

22 that certainly now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

1 So my feeling is, if anything we 

2 might want to provide a more in-depth report 

3 back to the full Board on the details of what 

4 we've done, what we're doing and our sort of 

5 path forward for dealing with our backlog and, 

6 you know -- but I'm not sure that I would 

7 recommend a report to the Secretary at this 

8 point.

9 Any Board Members have thoughts on 

10 that?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I would agree. It 

12 would seem to me, given what we've discussed 

13 today with respect to where we're going in the 

14 next couple of meetings, it might be wise for 

15 us to sort of informally establish something 

16 like along about the end of the year as a goal 

17 for taking on the responsibility of making a 

18 report to the Secretary, depending upon how 

19 successful we are in the next two meetings.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I mean, we 

21 might be at a better point given our schedules 

22 to try to work through the 10th through 13th 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

1 sets, you know, we might be at a better point. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: I think so. We 

3 should have something more substantial to 

4 report after the next two meetings, I would 

5 think.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think we also 

7 want to get a much better handle on the 

8 quality control issues. This is something 

9 we've, as David noted before, something we've 

10 discussed for awhile but we still haven't got 

11 the nuts and bolts of what happens internally 

12 from a QA standpoint. If we have a recurring 

13 finding, that's certainly a category that 

14 comes up a lot.

15 So I think, you know, we need to 

16 wait a little more on, so we can better define 

17 that and put it into context. You know, how 

18 significant is the problem or is it, you know, 

19 can it be classified as a problem? And if so, 

20 how significant, yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: The first question 

22 is: is there a problem?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. David, 

2 do you have any thoughts on this?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Either David?

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I agree 

5 with your suggestions. And also I think it 

6 would be helpful to let NIOSH have a little 

7 bit more time with their blind reviews also. 

8 I don't know if we want to, I mean, I think we 

9 could think about how we might want to draw on 

10 that information for some report coming from 

11 the DR Subcommittee. At least I'm thinking it 

12 would be useful for thinking again about some 

13 of the quality control issues.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. That's 

15 true. And at this point they've got about 20 

16 that have been worked through, right, Grady? 

17 So yes, maybe let's let that process run a 

18 little longer. That might be helpful to look 

19 at in aggregate, yes. Okay, so we'll just 

20 hold it out right now and I'll report that out 

21 at the Board meeting and see if Paul accepts 

22 that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

1 The other thing, I'm just not 

2 really ready to discuss this today, but going 

3 forward I want us to consider sort of all, and 

4 it actually is a good time because we've got 

5 David and David sort of fairly new on the 

6 Subcommittee. I think it would be good to 

7 reflect back on our procedures for our reviews 

8 and sort of look at them in context of the 

9 statutory mandate. You know, what are we 

10 trying to do here?

11 And we've got a fair amount of 

12 reviews that we've looked at, you know, how 

13 does this fit in with the overall question of 

14 scientific validity and, you know, so let's 

15 reflect back on the steps through our mandate, 

16 look at our procedures on how we're doing our 

17 reviews. I really want to think further on 

18 the Procedures Subcommittee, the DR 

19 Subcommittee and are we missing something? Is 

20 there something lost that could be fairly 

21 significant? So --

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

1 helpful.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, just to 

3 reexamine. I mean, the procedures that we 

4 developed for the reviews, along with the 

5 selection of cases, was really done over ten 

6 years ago and that was the original, I think 

7 we were originally a Work Group and we sort of 

8 developed those procedures. So I think it 

9 would be good to look back at those and this 

10 is a good time because as we add new Members. 

11 So I'll try to put that on the 

12 agenda for our next meeting, and we'll make 

13 sure David, well, I'm not sure either David 

14 has a copy of the original procedures for DR 

15 reviews.

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, I don't. 

17 I'm Dave K., I don't.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I can dig those 

19 up. I don't know if we ever posted those on 

20 the web in any way.

21 MR. KATZ: I don't think they are 

22 posted on the web because I think --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Because they're 

2 sort of internal Board decisions. But I'll dig 

3 those up. I have Revision 1 through 10 of 

4 those somewhere.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

6 MR. KATZ: So you'll circulate 

7 those?

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll circulate 

9 them.

10 MR. KATZ: Or send them to me, I'll 

11 circulate them, whatever.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'll find them 

13 first, then circulate them, yes. Alright, so 

14 I'll put that on the agenda for the next 

15 meeting.

16 I think we're ready to go into the 

17 8th set of cases. I know Doug is. He's fired 

18 up. Hold him back.

19 First of all, does everybody have a 

20 copy of the -- I'm going to try to find it 

21 right now. I think it's called 8th 30 Case 

22 Matrix Working Draft.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

1 MR. KATZ: So I forwarded, Beth 

2 sent us files just yesterday or the day 

3 before, day before yesterday maybe, 8th, and 

4 then she sent yesterday the 9th file for the 

5 9th set. So we have both of those in the last 

6 couple days, and I forwarded them to your CSB 

7 email.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just now?

9 MR. KATZ: No, no, but in the last 

10 two days.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. And 

12 these are zip files?

13 MR. KATZ: I have no idea if 

14 they're zipped or not.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it's the 

16 8th set of dose reconstruction, 149 through 

17 178?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's the first, 

19 and that was a couple days ago we got it from 

20 DCAS, and then the 9th set we got yesterday, I 

21 think.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I got two of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

1 them yesterday.

2 MR. KATZ: So you have those under 

3 your CSB?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: They're both 

5 Word files 8th and 9th matrix, but then you 

6 also sent a zip file with --

7 MS. ROLFES: I didn't know if that 

8 was going to go through or not. I asked 

9 somebody. Can you open it?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I already 

11 tried. It says something about the life cycle 

12 or something like that?

13 MS. ROLFES: Yes, because it goes 

14 back to our K: drive and then --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I didn't try to 

16 unzip it yet but, Alright, so we'll just work 

17 from the matrix then.

18 MS. ROLFES: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So anyway, the 

20 first one is the 8th set, 8th 30 Matrix 

21 Working Draft December 19, 2011-June 2012 (3), 

22 dot doc. That's the one I'm working from? I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

1 hate to read the whole thing out but we have 

2 so many versions of this that --

3 MEMBER MUNN: I'm working from the 

4 one that was sent day before yesterday.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Isn't that the 

6 one that was sent? That's why I read it out, 

7 okay. So the first case should be 149.1.

8 MR. KATZ: Trying to remember where 

9 we left off last time.

10 MR. FARVER: 173.2 is where we left 

11 off last time.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait, why are 

13 there no yellow highlights in this?

14 MR. FARVER: Because that's not 

15 your file.

16 MS. ROLFES: I took them out. I 

17 couldn't send them.

18 MR. KATZ: She had to.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're going to 

20 make me merge files now. Alright.

21 MS. ROLFES: I don't think I made 

22 many changes to it. I just did like a spell 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

1 check. I can send it with the yellow.

2 MEMBER MUNN: You may have to put 35 

3 pages in --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Can you resend 

5 it with the -- I'm not on the internet though. 

6 I don't know. I just don't want to have to 

7 retype twice. Can you resend it now with the 

8 yellow? Spell check, she did on mine.

9 MS. ROLFES: It's opening, hang on.

10 MR. FARVER: Did you send out an 

11 updated matrix from last June?

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: This should be 

13 in the QC group, you know.

14 So does this have additional 

15 responses in that were not in the yellow 

16 version?

17 MS. ROLFES: Scott, you added a lot 

18 to the 8th.

19 MR. STIVER: Yes, there's some 8th 

20 30, 12 responses from NIOSH from as far as we 

21 got in the last meeting.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, so I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

1 should probably work from this one if it has 

2 newer information in it?

3 MR. STIVER: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

5 MR. STIVER: On Page 21, it's 

6 173.2. It's like where we left off.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: What number was 

8 it?

9 MR. STIVER: This is Finding 173.2.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So are we on 

11 Finding 173? I couldn't hear you.

12 MR. STIVER: Yes, 173.2 on the 

13 bottom of Page 21 of 34. That's as far as we 

14 got.

15 MR. FARVER: It's pretty far, 

16 actually.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, we made a lot of 

18 progress.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I don't know 

20 that we closed out all the ones before this.

21 MR. STIVER: We can go through the 

22 list of what else Scott put in there.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I guess only 

2 this 3 through 30 entries would be pertinent, 

3 right? So I see 3-30 entries going back --

4 MR. STIVER: From 149 up through --

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But even when I 

6 closed them I would put it to a 3-30 entry.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Right, you did. And 

8 so --

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: See, it's no 

10 further action at this time. Alright, are we 

11 starting on 173.2 with new responses, is that 

12 what you're saying?

13 MR. STIVER: That would be where we 

14 had left off. We had not addressed any of 

15 those beyond.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, hadn't 

17 even got through one time, right?

18 MR. STIVER: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, why don't 

20 we start there, and then in the meantime I'm 

21 going to pull up my other matrix and look at 

22 the yellow ones and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309

1 MS. ROLFES: Grady just sent it.

2 MR. CALHOUN: I just sent you one.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which is the 

4 last one from the last meeting?

5 MR. CALHOUN: Scott's added stuff 

6 in it, to it too.

7 MR. KATZ: This still has your 

8 yellow, so it's updated with the yellow.

9 MR. CALHOUN: And green. And some 

10 green added to it, yes.

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. The 

12 one that Grady just forwarded is based upon --

13 Mark, you sent me the truncated one of the 

14 things that we had worked on at the last 

15 meeting --

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

17 MR. SIEBERT: -- about three weeks 

18 ago. That is where I entered all that 

19 information and that's what this version is 

20 based upon.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, Alright. 

22 So we can work from that one, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

1 MR. SIEBERT: That's the one that 

2 starts at 149 and goes through 173 covering 

3 the things that we covered at the last meeting 

4 with additional information.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And the first one 

6 that I see just scrolling down, is Item 165.3 

7 on Page 15, and that has a 3-30 response that 

8 NIOSH and SC&A will coordinate reviewing the 

9 clean tool and the tool used in this case, 

10 which is still an open action item.

11 MS. ROLFES: So are you continuing 

12 where you dropped off last time?

13 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know. I'm 

14 just pointing out, the first open item I see 

15 just scrolling down is that one. On page 15.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I am not even on 

17 Wi-Fi here so, are we on? I wasn't connected 

18 before.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. Oh yes, here's an 

20 internet code. It's behind you right there.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I just got 

22 it. Alright.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

1 Okay. So Scott, this is called --

2 MEMBER MUNN: 8th 30 Case Matrix3 Working Draft December 19, 2011-June 2012 (3).

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Now Scott, this 

5 is called, it's got the MTG Updated. Is that 

6 in the name of yours?

7 MR. SIEBERT: MTG Updated.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. NIOSH 

9 for March 2012, MTG Updated at 3-30 Meeting. 

10 It's that one?

11 MR. SIEBERT: That 3-30 meeting12 NIOSH June 2012, is what I have.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, yes. This 

14 is a different one of these.

15 MR. SIEBERT: And that's the one 

16 that it's based on what you sent.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That I sent, 

18 right, and it's got my yellow in there. Nice, 

19 okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: I believe the first 

21 thing that's in there that changed from the 

22 March meeting is in 165.3.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so those 

2 other ones that are yellowed before that, you 

3 just didn't address them yet, right?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. They're 

5 additional things that NIOSH is still 

6 reviewing.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: In progress, 

8 okay.

9 Alright, sorry about that.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So the first one I 

11 see just scrolling through is Page 16, as he 

12 said, 165.3.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I just 

14 wanted to be updating the one that had the 

15 yellow in it so I didn't have to re-update. 

16 Okay, so --

17 MEMBER MUNN: 165.3.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, 165.3.

19 MEMBER MUNN: On Page 16 is a NIOSH 

20 response.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we can 

22 start from there. So this is a NIOSH 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313

1 response, right, so --

2 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- do you want 

4 to take that, Scott, or --

5 MR. SIEBERT: I would be happy to.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright.

7 MR. SIEBERT: A little bit of 

8 background, because it's only been a couple 

9 months. This is an INEL claim where we 

10 determine for 165.3, this claim used a neutron 

11 -- wait a minute, let me make sure, using a 

12 bias factor of --

13 (Telephonic interference.)

14 MEMBER MUNN: Hold on, try that 

15 again.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Really, I didn't hold 

17 it out the window or anything.

18 MEMBER MUNN: A bias factor of --

19 MR. SIEBERT: It used a bias factor, 

20 and we all agreed that using a bias factor of 

21 1.6 and dividing by that was inappropriate and

22 would have resulted in a smaller dose. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314

1 question that came up last month after we 

2 responded to this that Doug asked, was: since 

3 the bias factor comes up in a pop-up in the 

4 dose reconstruction tool, he wasn't sure that 

5 it was a specific issue where there was any --

6 I'm going to try that again. The dose 

7 reconstructor entered the information 

8 incorrectly. He was checking to ensure it 

9 wasn't a tool issue that already had the bias 

10 consistently placed in it incorrectly, which 

11 is a valid question.

12 We discussed and we looked at the 

13 pop-up. The pop-up is actually a generic 

14 term. It doesn't have the factor of 1.6 in 

15 it, it just has the term "division," there's a 

16 formula that it divides by the bias factor and 

17 then the actual formula gets its information 

18 from another portion of the spreadsheet. That 

19 specific portion is where the dose 

20 reconstructor can enter that bias information, 

21 which is exactly what happened in this claim. 

22 But the bottom line is: the tool behaved as it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315

1 is supposed to. The dose reconstructor made a 

2 mistake, putting the bias factor into the tool 

3 and having it apply.

4 And in addition to tracking that 

5 down on the tool, I went back and looked at 

6 all the other claims that used this tool at 

7 INEL and it is the only claim that applies 

8 this bias factor. So it was not a systematic 

9 error. It was a specific dose reconstruction 

10 error on this claim alone, which we agree is a 

11 problem.

12 MR. FARVER: Do I agree that it's a 

13 single-claim error? Probably. It still just 

14 begs the question: how does this get through 

15 and why isn't it caught? On these worksheets, 

16 are the calculations locked so that people 

17 can't change them?

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's what I 

19 was going to ask.

20 MR. SIEBERT: In the version that 

21 was used back at that point, probably not.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay, I didn't think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316

1 they were. That's why I asked.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But is it 

3 currently? That's the --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again, 

5 remember we're talking about a complex-wide 

6 workbook that needs to be applied, all the 

7 parameters need to be applied differently 

8 depending on the site of interest, so locking 

9 it down did not make sense.

10 MR. FARVER: Are there sites that 

11 you apply a bias factor to?

12 MR. SIEBERT: That I can't answer 

13 off the top of my head. Matt Smith, do you 

14 happen to still be on the call and can you 

15 answer that? I don't believe there are.

16 MR. SMITH: The quick answer would 

17 be no. No yes answers come to the top of my 

18 mind.

19 MR. FARVER: This is just an 

20 ongoing issue with some of the workbooks where 

21 we come along when we find out that the 

22 calculation in the workbook is an error. And, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317

1 you know, is that a dose reconstructor going 

2 in and making changes, which maybe they 

3 shouldn't be allowed to, or is this a change 

4 that was made and distributed and was just not 

5 thoroughly checked to begin with?

6 MR. SIEBERT: In this case, it is 

7 clearly a dose reconstruction error, because 

8 there is a place you enter the bias factor, 

9 and in every other single instance that I 

10 checked, the bias factor in that cell was 1.0. 

11 In other words, no bias factor.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay, which brings up 

13 the next question of: how do we prevent this 

14 from happening again?

15 MR. SIEBERT: As I said, this was 

16 the complex-wide best estimate tool because 

17 there was no best estimate tool for INEL. 

18 That is being rectified as we update the tools 

19 to incorporate the new Vose Monte Carlo 

20 system. It's presently in testing for INEL. 

21 There will shortly be an INEL-specific best 

22 estimate tool that does the Monte Carlo 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318

1 calculations, in which case -- I can't tell 

2 you off the top of my head, but I would assume 

3 that if we do not use bias that stuff is 

4 locked out.

5 MR. FARVER: So this isn't going to 

6 happen again?

7 MR. SIEBERT: I would assume not.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess, from 

9 the QA standpoint, this brings to mind, you 

10 know, whether there are certain flags in the 

11 system overall that trigger like, you know, in 

12 these like you said, it gets signed off on. 

13 In the review process, if it's a general 

14 complex-wide type workbook, maybe that should 

15 create some kind of flag so reviewers know, 

16 oh, this is not just, you know, this is a 

17 workbook that can be changed by the dose 

18 reconstructors so I should pay a little 

19 closer, you know, finer, sharpen my pencil 

20 when I'm reviewing this, because they can make 

21 modifications. Or something gets flagged 

22 that, you know, the DR, dose reconstructor, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319

1 modified a workbook. You know, that 

2 automatically flags something so that when the 

3 review cycle is happening, a person knows, I 

4 better check. You know, because if it's a 

5 standard workbook and nobody has modified 

6 anything, maybe it needs a lesser review. You 

7 know, you don't need to focus as much but it, 

8 you know, it's just something I'm questioning 

9 in the overall system of quality assurance.

10 MR. KATZ: This is another category 

11 of QA problem where, I guess; when we get the 

12 presentation on the QA system you could also 

13 just address some specifics. So this kind of 

14 situation, how does that get addressed by this 

15 QA system, or doesn't it?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Like in the 

17 presentation we had, you know, we heard that a 

18 lot of things had been implemented to avoid 

19 data entry. But in these kinds of instances, 

20 obviously, you need to be able to switch 

21 parameters, maybe, and therefore -- although 

22 I'm not convinced of that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

1 But, you know, assuming in some 

2 cases for site-wide forms, you do have to be 

3 able to make modifications, but does that do 

4 something to the case that makes for a 

5 stronger review or a more rigorous review or 

6 whatever? That's my question. I'm not saying 

7 we have to do anything with it. I think 

8 there's not much further to do on this case, 

9 but when we're thinking about the overall I 

10 think we should think about that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. We can try to --

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hey, Mark?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

15 Richardson. I agree with all those points. 

16 It's very hard to find what has changed in a 

17 spreadsheet unless it's, as you were 

18 suggesting when there's a list of changes that 

19 have been made or they're flagged in some way 

20 to highlight what has been touched.

21 The other issue that was raised, 

22 I'd like to just go back to for a second, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321

1 which had to do with the pedigree of a 

2 workbook. When we've got a workbook for a 

3 case how do we know that there haven't been 

4 errors that are propagated that move on to 

5 another case that has used that workbook?

6 And we've raised this question a 

7 couple times but I want to go back. Because 

8 my recollection of this workbook was that when 

9 we looked at that pop-up, the reason we had a 

10 question about the pop-up wasn't that it said 

11 in general there's a factor that's applied. 

12 My recollection was that the pop-up stayed at 

13 that, the value of 1.6 was used. That it was 

14 written in what appeared to be a text form of 

15 a description of an equation which was a 

16 function or within a cell of the spreadsheet. 

17 And that led to the discussion about, was 

18 this, had this workbook been -- not just 

19 somebody mistyped a number but somebody had 

20 really kind of gone out there and made that 

21 change and led us to think, well, was there a 

22 problem with the workbook in general, not a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322

1 problem of typing in a cell? And now the 

2 description that we heard was that wasn't what 

3 was in that pop-up window. And so I'm 

4 struggling with that because that's really how 

5 I remember that pop-up window looking.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

7 Siebert. And you remember the conversation 

8 correctly, that was what was discussed. 

9 However, it was not correct. The pop-up never 

10 has the 1.6 factor in it. I mean I agree we 

11 discussed that as I was opening up the tool 

12 and that was some conjecture that was going on 

13 as I opened up the tool. And once I opened up 

14 the tool and looked at it during the meeting, 

15 and we may be able to go back to the 

16 transcript and look at this, the pop-up does 

17 not have the 1.6 value in it. Only the 

18 formula itself has the value in it. The pop19 up has a generic form of the formula which has 

20 the division of the bias, but only as a 

21 specific term that says bias. It did not have 

22 a factor in it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: WE can work hard to 

3 try to diminish the effect of human error, but 

4 unless we can eliminate humans from our 

5 calculations, and I don't see quite how we can 

6 do that, then we cannot completely eliminate 

7 this kind of outright human error. It will 

8 occur from time to time.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I agree with 

10 that, Wanda. But, you know, there are issues 

11 and we've had those issues before, and I'm 

12 convinced that things are changing and I would 

13 like to see the documentation of those changes 

14 which describes things like the process by 

15 which a dose reconstructor starts with a 

16 fresh, and we believe, accurate workbook each 

17 time. And so this was a question where when 

18 there's uncertainty about what that process is 

19 because we don't have documentation of it. 

20 It's a reasonable question to ask. Had 

21 somebody introduced an error and then does it 

22 propagate forward?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so there 

3 are, I feel like there are places for either 

4 clarity or improvement in all those sorts of 

5 steps to avoid data entry error. And catching 

6 it, understanding the nature of it and then 

7 avoiding it in the future.

8 MEMBER MUNN: That's appropriate.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so for 

10 this specific item, though, I think we have 

11 our response and I don't think there's any 

12 further action on this.

13 MEMBER MUNN: No, we verified it 

14 isn't propagated.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, go ahead 

16 and --

17 MEMBER MUNN: The next item is the 

18 very next one on Page 18, the June response 

19 from NIOSH.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, do you 

21 want to pick up on that?

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, I couldn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325

1 hear that.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I said the next 

3 item is a continuation.

4 MR. SIEBERT: 165.4.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This finding once 

7 again, background, same general type issue, 

8 the fact that the complex-wide best estimate 

9 tool needed to be used for this INEL plane. 

10 In this case the tool is not designed to apply 

11 a neutron dosimeter correction factor to 

12 missed dose for neutrons. Most sites do not 

13 have that applicable and the complex-wide tool 

14 does not have that capability built into it 

15 because it was built for handling a most 

16 cases.

17 Based on that INEL, however, is a 

18 special case that does apply that correction 

19 factor to neutron missed dose. The correct 

20 method of dealing with that is for the dose 

21 reconstructor to run the tool and then apply 

22 that additional correction factor. In this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326

1 case, that did not occur.

2 Once again this is all stuff we 

3 discussed at the last meeting and agreed that 

4 it should have been and was not. The 

5 continuation that came out of this was that 

6 Stu asked us to look into other claims around 

7 that time frame, INEL claims that used the 

8 same tool to once again determine if, even 

9 though the tool was acting as designed, did 

10 the dose reconstructor use the work-around as 

11 they should have.

12 Based on that direction, I have 

13 gone through all of the INEL claims that used 

14 this best estimate tool, a complex-wide best 

15 estimate tool, and removed the ones that were 

16 done correctly and left with a list of nine 

17 claims that appears this was not done by the 

18 dose reconstructor. And we did not; I will 

19 admit we did not have specific documentation 

20 in place to clarify to the dose reconstructor 

21 that that would need to occur. The use as a 

22 correction factor is in the TBD, but the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327

1 application in this specific tool was not 

2 documented as such. That has been updated.

3 The INEL guidance calls out this 

4 information and we are presently going through 

5 the claims where this did not get applied and 

6 determining the impact on the PoC and we'll be 

7 turning over that information to DCAS, 

8 hopefully in the next couple weeks.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So you found 

10 nine claims that you're now going to reassess, 

11 right?

12 MR. SIEBERT: We will review them 

13 to determine if the application of that has 

14 any impact on the, well, obviously it will 

15 have impact on the PoC, but if the PoC has a 

16 change in compensation is really what we're 

17 looking for. But we will define for DCAS what 

18 the changes in PoC are if the dose 

19 reconstructor has applied the dose correction 

20 factor appropriately in each one of those 

21 claims.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And just one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328

1 question. You might have said this already, 

2 Scott, but nine out of how many approximately? 

3 It was a lot, right?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Just a second, let me 

5 look at the spreadsheet. Started off with a 

6 list of approximately 30 claims that did use 

7 that tool at the INEL site, and nine were 

8 found that did not have that applied, 

9 including the present case.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And again, the 

11 other action with the tool. We might have 

12 went over this before. So that going forward 

13 this can't happen, there were changes made?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Due to the fact that 

15 as I said, we are updating the INEL tool to 

16 have a specific tool for that. That's using 

17 the Vose Monte Carlo calculation set, that 

18 will not happen because it's specifically 

19 geared for INEL and will apply them 

20 appropriately.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And that's 

22 available currently or still being finalized?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329

1 MR. SIEBERT: It is in testing at 

2 the moment. At present, if we have to do 

3 another one, until that happens we still have 

4 the complex-wide best estimate tool and the 

5 documentation is in the INEL DR guidance 

6 document to handle the situation.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David 

9 Richardson. Could you please tell me what 

10 INEL stands for? Sorry.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Idaho National 

12 Engineering Laboratories.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Oh, I heard 

14 National. Okay, great. Thank you.

15 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know. These 

16 seem to be dynamic in their meanings. 

17 Sometimes it's Environmental --

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay, thank 

19 you.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MEMBER MUNN: Environment starts 

22 with an E.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- Engineering 

2 Laboratory. Now it's just Idaho National Lab.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so I don't 

4 think there's any further action on this then. 

5 Is there?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, on this one, 

7 this specific claim, we had already looked at 

8 the impact and determined it had no 

9 variability along with the bias factor stuff, 

10 and everything else that we determined on this 

11 claim. So that I believe that we'll be able 

12 to close this, if you so desire.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only 

14 question I have is: you know, we often look, 

15 and when we do this stuff in aggregate we look 

16 at the potential claims that were, the PoC was 

17 reversed, and by extension these nine may be 

18 included. We might want to report back to see 

19 -- I'm not sure though. I mean, I think the 

20 right thing is being done here. So others 

21 have feelings on that? Or you're fading on 

22 me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331

1 MR. KATZ: They're going to look 

2 into this so if you want to know the outcome 

3 of this, I think --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I might just 

5 hold it on here, just to say that NIOSH will 

6 get back on what they find in their assessment 

7 of this.

8 MR. KATZ: The impact of the other 

9 1960 --

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I added also 

11 that a site-specific tool is in the final 

12 stages of development, to avoid the problems 

13 in the future. Okay, that's good. So 

14 otherwise we're closed on that.

15 Alright, go ahead onto the next 

16 one.

17 MEMBER MUNN: The next one is 

18 165.5, Page 19. NIOSH response. Is the tool 

19 used? The action occurred in the two preceding 

20 findings.

21 MR. FARVER: It's just a carryover 

22 discussion from the previous findings, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332

1 basically.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So it's the same 

3 as the last, right?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, we'll 

6 go on to the next one, my update.

7 MR. FARVER: Going to 166.6 is no 

8 change from the March meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, we'll just 

10 hold that as --

11 MR. FARVER: I'm sorry, I'm in the 

12 wrong matrix. I'm in the matrix.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think the next 

14 one I have that NIOSH gave a response on was 

15 173.2. Is that correct, Scott, 173.2 will be 

16 the next one?

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, did you already 

18 handle 165.5? I heard there was a discussion 

19 going on, but I --

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I just carried 

21 through the same action as the previous one.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, yes. Then yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333

1 173.2.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, so 173.2.

3 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see anything 

4 new for June.

5 MR. SIEBERT: That's still our 

6 answer from March.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, is it? 

8 Okay, I'm sorry.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I don't see 

10 anything new.

11 MR. FARVER: But I believe that's 

12 where we stopped.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We haven't 

14 discussed this one at all. That's where we 

15 stopped, I think, right?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

17 MR. FARVER: So that's where we 

18 stopped from the last meeting. We didn't make 

19 it too far the last time. We're hoping to do 

20 better.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've got a half 

22 hour.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334

1 MEMBER MUNN: That means we'll get 

2 through this one.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Who wants a pot 

4 of coffee?

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'll start with 

6 the bottom line of this one. In the final 

7 IREP table, the 250 keV photon doses were 

8 multiplied by a 0.95, in the IREP table. 

9 Okay, there's really no basis for the 0.95. 

10 It was probably like an energy fraction, was 

11 that it? Energy range. But the point is, it 

12 was multiplied again in the IREP table.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It was double14 multiplied.

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And there's no 

17 justification even for the first one, is what 

18 you're saying?

19 MR. FARVER: No, the first one --

20 it is double-multiplied, and it didn't need to 

21 be multiplied the second time, I believe.

22 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335

1 tool applied the 0.95 factor appropriately;

2 however, the dose reconstructor applied it 

3 again while pasting the information into the 

4 IREP sheet, and should not have. And so it's 

5 not a tool issue. It's a mistake by the dose 

6 reconstructor.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And is there an 

8 automated way now that you don't have to cut 

9 and paste, or would this be prevented going 

10 forward?

11 MR. SIEBERT: Let me take a quick 

12 look to see how old this case is. Yes, this 

13 one's done in 2005, so yes, the tools are 

14 specific but they've transferred the 

15 information in an IREP format already 

16 directly, so the dose reconstructor doesn't 

17 need to do that cutting and pasting and 

18 application.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is Dave 

20 Richardson. I got a question again about this 

21 though, because this wasn't a cut and paste. 

22 The person manipulated the data going in.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336

1 MEMBER MUNN: I think so.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, they cut 

3 and pasted and then modified or something like 

4 that, yes.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, they 

6 did a not-trivial calculation on the dose. To 

7 me it's a startling thing to have done, to 

8 have done a hand calculation on entering a 

9 dose value. So what would the logic be? Are 

10 there other examples where they're expected to 

11 do calculations rather than relying on the 

12 tool to do the calculation for them before 

13 entering the data, or did the person not 

14 understand the tool?

15 MEMBER MUNN: I think it must be 

16 the latter.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I presume it would be 

18 the second, but we're talking about a claim 

19 from 2005. I can't tell you their thought 

20 process at the moment.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, what 

22 about the first question, though? Are there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337

1 other examples where they need to manipulate 

2 the data before they put it into the tool?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For the IREP 

4 sheet, you mean, going from the tool to IREP.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Generally not, but as 

7 you know, the INEL tool, if you used the best 

8 guess of the tool for complex-wide, yes, we 

9 are aware of that and that is documented. I 

10 can't think of other options, other places 

11 where we need to do that off the top of my 

12 head, but I'm not going to pretend that I know 

13 every single step and can say that for sure.

14 MEMBER MUNN: This particular case 

15 seems to have had a real problem with respect 

16 to more than one aspect of the calculation.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Hello? Any other 

18 input out there, Scott? Hate to put you on 

19 the spot like that, but --

20 MR. SIEBERT: There's nothing more I 

21 can say.

22 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

1 the ORAU team. You know, Scott gave the next 

2 best example, which was the previous claim we 

3 were talking about. I know several folks have 

4 been able to go to the COC and kind of sit 

5 through examples of how these claims are 

6 processed and illustrate --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: What's the COC, 

8 Matt?

9 MR. SMITH: -- the measures that 

10 help us get these claims done in a more timely 

11 manner, especially with the amount of 

12 calculation that has to go on. And as Wanda 

13 has pointed out, everyone is human, and to the 

14 best of everyone's ability we double-check the 

15 results of those tools to make sure they make 

16 sense. And we always try to reinforce that 

17 with the DR staff when we have our training 

18 meetings.

19 Again, we probably have to sit down 

20 with the DR on this claim and go over it line 

21 by line to get all the definite answers, but 

22 in general, the answer is no. We don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

1 typically have to modify the results of the 

2 tool before it goes into the IREP sheet, but 

3 in cases where the DR is aware of something 

4 that needs to be adjusted, they are free to do 

5 that on their own. Obviously, we expect that 

6 that would be discussed in the report. This 

7 looks like a case where something that was 

8 automatically being done was accidentally done 

9 again.

10 MR. FARVER: The IREP output of the 

11 tool that was used, SM 1.03, that IREP output 

12 is correct. But the final IREP table, which 

13 is SE something, something, something, dot, 

14 XLS, is not correct for those greater than 200 

15 in keV photons. Somewhere along the line the 

16 doses were multiplied by 0.95 and put into 

17 what was called the final IREP table. The 

18 tool was correct.

19 MR. SMITH: Right. And the only 

20 thing I can add off the top of my head, not 

21 being deeply involved in reviewing this 

22 particular claim, is we could look in the DR 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

1 files, Scott, and just see if the DR left 

2 behind a calculation worksheet of their own. 

3 I believe I looked for that and did not see 

4 one, but I will check again.

5 MR. FARVER: How old is this case?

6 MR. CALHOUN: 2005.

7 MR. SMITH: Again, my best 

8 impression is that the SM is a super9 maximizing tool, kind of a general tool for 

10 use, and the DR may not have been aware that 

11 the factor was applied and so, in error, 

12 applied it again.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Then in the next 

14 finding --

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I'm just 

16 going to hold that as NIOSH is going to look 

17 into that one whether the dose reconstructor 

18 left anything in the file related to this. 

19 But overall, otherwise it's in our QA list as 

20 closed.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the next 

22 finding is about the same claim, and it is yet 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341

1 another error on that claim made by the dose 

2 reconstructor. That's why I said this claim 

3 particularly seems to have more than one 

4 problem. It's not just the --

5 MR. FARVER: Oh, for Finding 173.3, 

6 failed to properly account for all reported 

7 neutron doses. While verifying the input 

8 data, it was discovered that the dosimeter 

9 neutron dose from 1993 was missing in the 

10 calculations. Even though the dosimetry data 

11 for 1993 indicated the 20 millirem of neutron 

12 dose, it was not contained in the workbook 

13 data, the SM 1.03 workbook data.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Scott, any 

15 response?

16 MR. SIEBERT: We've already agreed 

17 that it's not there and it should have been.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

19 MR. SIEBERT: I can also answer 

20 that there was not a separate spreadsheet as 

21 we were discussing for the previous one. I 

22 just looked at the submittal.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And the second 

2 part of this back on 4-18, oh, that you said 

3 the tool was reviewed. DR failed to include -

4 - okay, so you did review the tool and the 

5 tool worked okay. It was just a matter of the 

6 20 millirem not being included.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And with 

8 the data entry issue it did not get into the 

9 tool. It was not entered.

10 MR. FARVER: So was it the person 

11 entering the dosimetry data, like -- I guess 

12 you remember you demonstrated to us over at 

13 ORAU how you entered the dosimetry data, and 

14 that data gets loaded into the workbook. So 

15 is it a dosimetry data entry error?

16 MR. SIEBERT: In 2005, I can't 

17 answer that off the top of my head. But I can 

18 tell you it's the dose reconstructor's 

19 responsibility to go back and verify that 

20 information. So it falls on the dose 

21 reconstructor.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And your defense 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343

1 in depth, I mean, you've got a few reviews 

2 also. That's how they missed the other 0.95 

3 thing and they missed this also.

4 MR. FARVER: Well, and I was just 

5 trying to establish if we have a possible data 

6 entry problem that is different than the 

7 workbook problem. You would have to go back 

8 and look at the file that gets floated into 

9 the spreadsheet and see if it's in that file.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's where it 

11 would have to be, right? That would seem to 

12 me.

13 MR. FARVER: I would think so.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And this was 

15 kind of, you know, an early question. This is 

16 one of those QA questions. There's not double 

17 entry and there's not, you know, as far as I 

18 understand there's not a ten percent random 

19 rekeying of the fundamental data that goes 

20 into the spreadsheets. So it's falling on, 

21 you've got a key puncher and then you've got 

22 the dose reconstructor who's being asked to do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

344

1 a lot of kind of deep thinking as well as 

2 something which seems almost clerical, in a 

3 sense, of verifying that kind of historical 

4 record data which is in a PDF, I think, now 

5 that that line-by-line matches up with kind of 

6 the source data that's going into the 

7 spreadsheet, which seems to be asking a lot. 

8 And I'm not sure if that's where 

9 the quality assurance part of the data entry 

10 process would stop or whether when there is a 

11 final signing off the DR, if somebody else 

12 again is kind of expected to be doing that as 

13 well, checking everything from data entry 

14 forward.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think this is 

16 another one where we want to, you know, it'll 

17 feed back into after we get the presentation 

18 of exactly what, you know, the specifics of 

19 what they're doing. So I think NIOSH is 

20 agreeing overall with the finding, right?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 MR. SMITH: So can we close these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

345

1 findings of 173?

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, there's no 

3 further action on this one anyway, yes.

4 MR. SMITH: And really the prior 

5 one too, it sounds like. I mean, they're 

6 saying that --

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, both Part 2 and 

8 Part 3.

9 MR. SMITH: I don't think they can 

10 go any further with it.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, the prior 

12 one, the only thing I said with NIOSH is going 

13 to check to see if there was any note left by 

14 the DR to explain a unique circumstance, you 

15 know, that they --

16 MR. SIEBERT: So Mark, this is 

17 Scott, I'm sorry. That's what I kind of 

18 interjected in the middle of the last one. I 

19 did check that and there is not one there.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, okay. So 

21 then we will close that one. Yes, there's 

22 nothing else we can do. Okay. Alright.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

346

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So this seems, 

2 I mean, if I was going to imagine what the 

3 process was, it sounds like a convergence of, 

4 you know, a bad day for two people, with where 

5 whoever was doing this case, 173, had a series 

6 of things that didn't go right for them. And 

7 I'm assuming a different person, who did the 

8 key punching initially, didn't key punch 

9 information either.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So when you say 

11 a bad day for two people, David, who are you 

12 -- not the initial key puncher, or the key 

13 puncher and the DR?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And what about 

16 the next two reviewers?

17 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know if those 

18 people are responsible for doing kind of the 

19 checking all the way back to key punching or 

20 not. That was always something that seemed to 

21 me astonishing, I mean, just from a research 

22 perspective. We would have somebody do at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

347

1 least double entry on a sample of the data, 

2 but that's not done here.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Yes, I 

4 mean I guess that's the question for, you 

5 know, each step of the review, what are their 

6 responsibilities? What level are they looking 

7 at? Because I would wonder if you had 

8 workbook outputs and you say the final IREP 

9 model and the numbers didn't coincide, I think 

10 that would raise a flag with me as a reviewer. 

11 But maybe that's more detailed than some of 

12 the reviewers are asked to do, I don't know.

13 MR. KATZ: That'll get addressed 

14 with the QA overview.

15 MR. CALHOUN: And the reviewers 

16 typically aren't going to go down to that 

17 level to compare the tools, you know. I mean, 

18 you can take a general look at what kind of 

19 dose was recorded and what kind of dose was 

20 applied and what kind of correction factors 

21 and things like that but --

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And then the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348

1 other question we've always asked is, I think 

2 Stu has raised this several times, is if you 

3 have PoCs from 45 to 52, are there different 

4 review criteria? Are there more rigorous 

5 review, you know, things that you do? But 

6 anyway, we'll save that for after the 

7 presentations. Alright, so that one's closed.

8 MR. FARVER: Next one, is it 174.1?

9 MR. CALHOUN: Mine runs to 

10 Attachment 1.

11 MR. FARVER: I think there's a 

12 174.1.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is where 

14 we run out of the truncated version that you 

15 sent me, Mark.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Except, of 

18 course, for the other attachments of --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I've got 

20 the attachments.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Attachments of 

22 Bridgeport Brass, Huntington and Harshaw TBD 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

349

1 reviews.

2 MR. CALHOUN: So where do we go 

3 from here?

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's a good 

5 question.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think the 

7 deal with the other ones, we would have to go 

8 back to the original matrix from the last 

9 meeting.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And I'm going to 

11 have to merge these matrices anyway, because 

12 these truncated ones, I think I need to get 

13 back to the overall one. And where do we 

14 stand on that original? So we still have some 

15 open ones in the original one, right?

16 MR. FARVER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Give me one 

18 second to find the right --

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Is the one you 

20 sent the truncated one also?

21 MR. CALHOUN: The one I sent to you 

22 was the truncated one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350

1 MS. ROLFES: I don't think I 

2 remember seeing that other one.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

4 MR. SIEBERT: I believe the last 

5 non-truncated version that we worked from goes 

6 back to the December 9th meeting.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: December 19th, 

8 2011? Yes, 2011.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Do you have a 

11 name on that, Scott?

12 MR. SIEBERT: The latest I have is, 

13 I believe, the one that you sent out right

14 after that meeting, which is 8th 30 Case 

15 Matrix Working Draft, underscored December, 

16 well, DEC, underscore, 19, underscore, 2011.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You don't have 

18 something that after that it says dash, NIOSH 

19 from March 2012 meeting, or is that the 

20 truncated?

21 MR. SIEBERT: That's the truncated 

22 one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

351

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's the 

2 truncated one, okay. Okay. Okay, so I have 

3 that one.

4 MR. KATZ: So you have it, but we 

5 don't have any new NIOSH responses on it then, 

6 right, I assume, right?

7 MR. SIEBERT: I went through this 

8 one to prep for the meeting, and the only 

9 outstanding things I saw, outside of what 

10 we've already dealt with in the truncated --

11 and obviously, Mark, you can correct me if I'm 

12 wrong once we get through all this, is one for 

13 174 and a couple on 175. And --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Not including 

15 the attachments?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Not including the 

17 attachments, correct. The attachments are 

18 actually in the truncated version.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: So when are we going 

21 to get a tracking mechanism, a database for 

22 this, like procedures?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

352

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You know, I 

2 actually like this model better, except for 

3 when we start to truncate and work with 

4 various systems. It's going to get very 

5 confusing.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we're almost 

7 over the hump on this set of matrices.

8 MR. FARVER: And I think part of 

9 the problem last time was we didn't get enough 

10 data sent after the meeting, so all we had to 

11 update was previous things.

12 MR. STIVER: That's where these 

13 truncated versions were propagating.

14 MR. FARVER: So in other words, at 

15 the end of the meeting here if you send out 

16 the current one --

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I want to 

18 merge it back into the full matrix stuff. 

19 Because I sent out, or maybe I only sent it to 

20 Scott because he asked for it, so maybe he 

21 reminded me and I sent out the truncated 

22 update.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

353

1 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's 

2 probably the case.

3 MR. KATZ: But it sounds like 

4 Scott's ready to address what's on the fuller 

5 version.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it's actually 

7 pretty easy to address. Not my actions.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, that's nice.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So go ahead. 

10 You're 174, is that what --

11 MR. SIEBERT: 174.1. There is the 

12 April 18th, '11 highlighted note. If you see, 

13 the last thing that I saw there was: "SC&A 

14 will review further." And I don't believe 

15 that we've gotten additional reviews on that, 

16 or if we have I don't seem to have a record of 

17 it.

18 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to find the 

19 right matrix.

20 MR. KATZ: Doug's looking.

21 MR. FARVER: I've got four of them 

22 here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

354

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is a Portsmouth 

2 claim.

3 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. Yes.

4 MR. SIEBERT: And it used the 

5 complex-wide best estimate tool because the 

6 Portsmouth did not have a Portsmouth-specific 

7 best estimate tool back in 2006.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay, yes. They used 

9 a K-25 error calculation workbook, and it did 

10 not total the doses as it should have, so it 

11 came up with wrong doses. We've been through 

12 a couple discussions on this, and the big 

13 concern is workbooks are being changed and I'm 

14 not confident they're being verified before 

15 they're being used.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That goes back 

17 to David's question, yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, it's just a long19 standing issue with workbooks. And in this 

20 case we have where they used a workbook but 

21 the calculation was incorrect. In other 

22 words, the calculation totaled the wrong 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

355

1 column for that indicator. And what was 

2 correct for the K-25 site was not correct for 

3 the Portsmouth site, and the error in the 

4 calculation was not caught.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the actual 

6 calculation within the workbook was in --

7 MR. FARVER: Error.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Was in error.

9 MR. FARVER: In the workbook that 

10 was modified.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, it was 

12 modified. Okay, I got it.

13 MR. FARVER: Correct.

14 MR. KATZ: For the case.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: For this 

16 particular case.

17 MR. FARVER: For this case. I 

18 don't know if it will affect other Portsmouth 

19 cases if they modified the same K-25 workbook.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, sounds clear.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So I mean, in 

22 NIOSH, you didn't review that, did you, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

356

1 could it have affected other Portsmouth cases? 

2 Did you do like you did with the Idaho 

3 analysis, where you pulled a bunch of them and 

4 --

5 MR. SIEBERT: No, the last time we 

6 discussed this had to be, well, pre-April of 

7 last year, so no, I don't think we did.

8 MR. FARVER: We didn't get up to 

9 this point for quite a while.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that 

11 should be a NIOSH action, to determine which 

12 Portsmouth cases were to use this same tool, 

13 this modified tool, and do what you did with 

14 the Idaho review and see which ones were, you 

15 know, if any, were inappropriately calculated.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the other 

17 issue that was pointed out here was: there's a 

18 specific issue of this case being wrong. 

19 There's a wider issue of whether this 

20 particular error related to the modification 

21 of this workbook was repeated for other 

22 Portsmouth claimants, and then there was the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

357

1 bigger issue which is, I think, in the matrix 

2 here, which is the general practice of 

3 modifying existing workbooks without 

4 validating the results somehow before going 

5 forward to use a modified workbook. Like I 

6 said, it's a procedural issue.

7 When you make some sort of change 

8 to calculations that are done, do you just 

9 trust that the person understands how to do

10 that and did it correctly, or is there a 

11 process in place where having somebody take 

12 responsibility for signing off on those sorts 

13 of changes? And that's how I was reading what 

14 was put into this cell of the matrix.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right, I agree, 

16 David. And I think it --

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it sort of 

18 sounds like there's still quite a lot of 

19 latitude, and maybe that's unavoidable per the 

20 DR to not really be locked out very much in 

21 these workbooks and to be able to make 

22 changes, and that that's pretty much, it's all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

358

1 very tailored to each case.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. And I 

3 think that might be back to our broader 

4 discussion in better understanding of the 

5 whole process.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I've got that 

7 written down here: how do we know the workbook 

8 is clean when DR starts?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And also, 

10 if they modify, is there any -

11 MR. CALHOUN: Is there a flag that 

12 shows --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Would 

14 that trigger maybe a more rigorous review by 

15 the next step or whatever, yes.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, I'm 

17 sort of impressed that you were able to figure 

18 out what went wrong.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's like 

21 forensics when you have to go back and figure, 

22 oh, those two columns were added, it's very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

359

1 impressive.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Not easy.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Being that we're 

4 closing in on David's bedtime, I think --

5 although, Scott, you said there's one more in 

6 here that --

7 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Mark, the only 

8 -- we probably could hurry up on this one

9 because it's only 175.1, 2 and 3, and they're 

10 all the same action and it's the exact same 

11 thing as 174 we just discussed. SC&A was 

12 going to do a comparison to the rework case to 

13 the original case. We've never gotten a 

14 review of that back. That's all that this is, 

15 just making sure it's on their plate.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

17 MR. FARVER: We did those but I'm 

18 not sure you want to get into a discussion. 

19 There was two reworked cases you asked us to 

20 look at and --

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MR. STIVER: Kathy, unfortunately, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

360

1 was not available to --

2 MR. FARVER: Kathy's not available 

3 today and she's the one that did do the 

4 reworks on these two cases.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright. Why 

6 don't we hold that? Thanks, Scott, but I 

7 think we'll hold that, because, I don't know 

8 if you heard, but Kathy Behling worked on 

9 those and she's not available today.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Great, just wanted to 

11 make sure we knew the status.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, very good. 

13 Okay, so I think I have an 8:00 p.m. flight, 

14 so what I'm going to do is stay here with Ted 

15 and update the 8th matrix after the meeting is 

16 over, and maybe with Beth for a little while 

17 too, just so we're in the same loop, and email 

18 it out probably to Ted or you can distribute 

19 it --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- before I leave 

22 Cincinnati or Kentucky today.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

361

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll circulate it 

2 tomorrow. It'll be easier for me to circulate 

3 it once I'm back at the office.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But I think the 

5 last item before everybody leaves is maybe 

6 looking at dates for our next meeting.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, let's do that. 

8 David, do we still have you?

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: David and David, 

10 I guess.

11 MR. KATZ: Both Davids, David 

12 squared. Do we have either of you?

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I'm here.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, But we don't have 

15 --

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David's here.

17 MR. KATZ: Oh, we have both.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Alright, just 

19 pull all your calendars here sometime in, how 

20 far apart have we been doing these?

21 MR. KATZ: I think we want to shoot 

22 for about two months.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

362

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: You're saying 

2 through your technical meeting.

3 MR. KATZ: That'll be in between. 

4 We want to do it as frequently as we can, I 

5 think.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So early August 

7 would work out, right, early August?

8 MR. KATZ: Let's look at what's 

9 available. We'll have issues anyway of 

10 availability in August, I think.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I'm sure we 

12 will.

13 MR. SIEBERT: On a related note, 

14 Ted, when is the September board meeting 

15 scheduled for or has that been scheduled?

16 MR. KATZ: That's scheduled, but 

17 that's not an issue, because that's later in -

18 -

19 MR. STIVER: I just want to know 

20 because I have jury duty that's going to be 

21 coming up. I wanted to know what the dates 

22 were.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

363

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: It's September 

18th 2 through the 20th.

3 MR. KATZ: That's right.

4 MR. STIVER: That's smack right in 

5 the middle of --

6 MEMBER MUNN: But we've got a 

teleconference on the 15th 7 of August.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: We've got a 

teleconference the 15th 9 ?

10 MEMBER MUNN: So we probably want to 

11 do it before then. Is that first week of 

12 August reasonable?

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Maybe the first 

14 full week.

15 MR. KATZ: I don't think the 

16 teleconference is the issue here.

17 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's not.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: So the first 

19 full week then, does that make sense, any time 

20 in that week? I'd prefer --

21 MR. KATZ: That's a good week for 

22 me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

364

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 6th through the 

2 10th, yes. I'd prefer on either the 6th or 

3 the 10th, but I know that doesn't --

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, the 6th is fine 

5 with me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The 6th 6 okay with 

7 you?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

MR. KATZ: August 6th 9 is good with me.

MEMBER CLAWSON: 6th 10 will work best 

11 for me.

CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: August 6th 12 , 

13 that'll work.

14 MR. KATZ: How about you, Beth?

15 MS. ROLFES: That's fine.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: David and David?

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I'm okay with 

18 either.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Either is fine 

20 for me.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, great. 

Okay. August 6th 22 then.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

365

1 MR. KATZ: I think John's still 

2 checking.

3 MR. STIVER: I was turning off my 

4 computer.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, sorry.

6 MR. KATZ: August 6th is a Monday.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Start the week right.

8 MEMBER POSTON: It's fine with me.

9 MR. KATZ: John's good too. So 

10 August 6th.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Look at that, 

12 unanimous on our first pick. Alright.

13 MR. KATZ: Amazing.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: August 6th in 

15 Cincinnati. And we'll try to start at 8:30.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, we'll try to get it 

17 all on the agenda.

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Wait, Wanda's 

19 saying 7:30. Just kidding.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No, no, I think 8:30 

21 is just fine.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: 8:30, okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

366

1 Alright, and with that I think we're ready to 

2 adjourn.

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record at 4:08 p.m.)

7

8

9