. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

AUGUST 7, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight 

Time, David Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TOM TOMES, DCAS
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

A-G-E-N-D-A

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

SELECTION OF CASES FOR SET 17

SC&A REVIEWS............................... 5

CASE REVIEWS ISSUE RESOLUTION............. 38

Χ Sets 10-13 Savannah River Site

Χ Sets 10-13 Rocky Flats Plants

Χ Sets 10-13 Los Alamos National

 Laboratory

Χ Identification of next sites for

 issue resolution from review of

 sets 10-13

ADJOURN
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (10:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, let's get started 

4 with roll call. 

5 (Roll Call.)

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, a few notes. 

7 They're limited. There's the agenda. It's 

8 posted on the website and Dave will be 

9 speaking to that because we'll probably be 

10 making a change to the agenda.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: And, please, everyone, 

13 when you're not speaking to the group, mute 

14 your phones. If you don't have mute, press *6 

15 to mute your phone, press *6 again to come off 

16 of mute. And please nobody put their call on 

17 hold at any point. And, Dave, it's your 

18 agenda.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

20 good. The one change in the agenda is that 

21 when we go to going over individual cases, 

22 Grady has noted that we have a few items left 
. 

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 over from Set 9. As far as I can see from what 

2 John Stiver sent me, Set 8 is completed. Set 9 

3 has five. I'd like to do those before we get 

4 into Sets 10 through 13.

5 Also, if I may comment, looking at 

6 the number of findings that we have to resolve 

7 in 10 through 13, there are over 200, so --

8 and we are way behind. I mean, we're trying to 

9 finish 10 through 13, and we're already 

10 reviewing Set 8 -- we're going to choose 

11 cases, make selections for Set 18. So, I 

12 really hope we can move along a bit more 

13 rapidly now, and I will try to expedite 

14 things. If I move things along too rapidly, 

15 please, anyone on the Committee or staff who's 

16 on the line, just say whoa, whoa, hold it, and 

17 I will slow down.

18 So, with that, I think that we 

19 need to now talk about the selection of cases 

20 for Set 18. And perhaps somebody will put the 

21 Set 18 list on the line, the Set 18 cases on 

22 the line, the 58 cases listed.
. 

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. STIVER: Okay. This is John. 

2 I'll go ahead and pull that up.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

5 speaking. I need the access code for the Live 

6 Meeting.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, let me -- Zaida 

8 should have sent that to you through your 

9 calendar, but let me forward it to you. You're 

10 on the CDC email. Right, Brad?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yeah, I can be 

12 into that one in just a minute. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, because that's 

14 where the invite is. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: If you go into calendar 

17 on there, it should be in your calendar. And 

18 you just click on the link.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I'll get 

20 into that. Go ahead, Dave. I'm sorry. 

21 MR. KATZ: No problem. Just speak 

22 up. I'll forward it to you again. 
. 

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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

3 wait until we're loaded up. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: I have one question 

5 about that, Dave.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: The copy that I have 

8 has lots of sensitive information on it. I 

9 printed it out hard copy so that I could look 

10 at while we were doing this.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And I am questioning 

13 whether it's wise for us to have that on 

14 screen. 

15 MR. KATZ: Wanda, Live Meeting is 

16 internal only.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

18 MR. KATZ: So, it's only -- it's 

19 like any other intranet function that we have. 

20 It's not available to the public, which is --

21 so there's no concern about revealing private 

22 information. You just have to be careful if 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 your speech, everybody, just to remind you, 

2 about how much information you reveal about a 

3 particular case because -- for that same 

4 reason.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. STIVER: Okay. This is John. 

7 I'm getting off to a great start here. I'm 

8 not seeing the option here to share like I 

9 should at the top of the bar here. I've got 

10 content, attendees, voice and video meeting.

11 MR. KATZ: Under content you 

12 should have a share option. You click on

13 content to get the share option.

14 MR. STIVER: Okay. Hang on just a 

15 second. Alright. Okay. Here we go.

16 MR. KATZ: There you go. Is 

17 everybody --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Excellent. Well done. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

21 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is the file 

22 -- this is the one that Bud sent over and I 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 had included a Column A because recall at the 

2 last meeting there was some discussion about 

3 whether we should be looking at some partial 

4 dose reconstructions. The Subcommittee decided 

5 they didn't want to modify the case selection 

6 criteria, but there was some indication that 

7 we might want to at least take a look, maybe 

8 include one or two. 

9 So, we went through, had Rose 

10 Gogliotti go into NOCTS and pull out the 

11 information for each of these cases, see which 

12 ones had an SEC for which there was a partial 

13 dose reconstruction.

14 It turns out there's 38 out of the 

15 58 have partials.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MR. STIVER: That's what this 

18 Column A is. The blue shading shows those 

19 cases that have a partial and a little bit of 

20 information about the SEC and the purpose of 

21 it. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, thank 
. 

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 you for sending in that column -- adding that 

2 Column A. When I first saw the set I looked 

3 at 58 cases and we have to make a selection of 

4 a dozen. And I thought, oh, how are we going 

5 to do this? But once we realized that, in 

6 fact, there are only 20 full-time -- 20 full 

7 reviews and the rest were partials, that made 

8 the choice a lot easier so that if we chose a 

9 dozen then we may have a couple of partials.

10 I don't know how the other -- I 

11 did not send in any sets of choices, or ask 

12 for them, because we just got this Column A a 

13 little late, and I had a hard time coming up 

14 with things. 

15 I've made some choices that, to 

16 me, seem to balance out, but I don't know 

17 quite how to proceed. I could simply list my 

18 choices; others have other choices. How would 

19 folks like to do that?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Well, Dave, I have a 

21 question before we begin.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 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

11

1 MEMBER MUNN: And that is, are we 

2 going to base our decision primarily on a 

3 complete rework rather than a partial? If 

4 that's the case, then we can throw out a large 

5 number of the choices that I made. 

6 One of the criteria -- I used 

7 slightly different criteria when I was looking 

8 at my selections, and used pretty much the 

9 ones that we had used prior, but was 

10 especially watchful for unusual sites or 

11 unusual cancers. But you also, at our last 

12 meeting, I think, we had some discussion about 

13 whether or not to deliberately try to 

14 incorporate some of the very, very few female 

15 cases that we had. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

17 certainly true, and I made a list of a dozen 

18 that includes two partials and also -- so, ten 

19 out of the 12 were full reviews and then dose 

20 reconstructions, and two were partial. And 

21 then, in my group, I have ten males and two 

22 females, and it was important. And that is 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 about the percentage of females in the entire 

2 set.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes, but not in 

4 our entire case load.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It's much, much 

7 higher.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MEMBER MUNN: It would be 

10 surprising to find one in 10 in the --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

12 C-- so, you're saying that most of yours are 

13 unusual cancers or partials?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, not really. 

15 I'm just questioning the criteria that you 

16 want to use, because --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- the one that I 

19 used was not based primarily on the partial or 

20 complete.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

22 had understood that we were going to choose 
. 

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 only a couple of partials from the last 

2 meeting. And I will say that since the last 

3 meeting I've done a little bit of reading that 

4 Mark gave me, some things about selection 

5 criteria, and I this time have leaned more 

6 heavily in my choices on facility and 

7 occupation. 

8 I did look at the cancer types, 

9 and so I did not -- I would say my choices, I 

10 think, were more dominated by facility and 

11 occupation. And Brad emphasized that at the 

12 last meeting, too, that as he was reviewing 

13 what I had suggested, he noted that, you know, 

14 we needed to pay more attention to occupation 

15 and perhaps facility.

16 What do other people think? I 

17 mean, those are -- you're looking at all of 

18 the -- our larger sample of all of the reviews 

19 that we've done, and I don't personally have 

20 as good a handle on that as a relatively new 

21 Board Member.

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, well, that's 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 alright. This is not exactly the type of --

2 we've already discussed the fact this isn't 

3 the direct type of selection that we've made 

4 before. So, it seems to me that starting with 

5 your list would be as good a way to begin as 

6 any other --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- unless other 

9 Members of the Subcommittee have made very 

10 specific choices for very different reasons.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

12 how about it, folks, other folks? Have you 

13 made choices, or would you just like me to 

14 start by giving mine and move from there?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

16 speaking. You know, it's -- this is kind of a 

17 little bit, as Wanda has already said, this is 

18 a little bit different approach from what 

19 we've done. I guess what my suggestion would 

20 be, we're going to have to get some extra ones 

21 anyway, so if we get a few extras that's 

22 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

15

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I think we 

3 ought to start with you, Dave, and go through 

4 what you felt. And if there's any that we 

5 have that really stick out for us, I guess I 

6 would just say that for certain reasons, you 

7 know, and everybody's got a different reason 

8 why this one is interesting to them, and 

9 whatever.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just kind of air 

12 that a little bit and go from there, would be 

13 my suggestion.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that 

15 sounds good. I see the table back on the 

16 screen. Let us talk about things in terms of 

17 selection ID. The green column --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- that's in 

20 front of us, and that way we will not reveal -

21 - certainly not reveal names, but additionally 

22 we -- and I think I feel more comfortable 
. 

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 talking about sites. When we start to talk 

2 about occupations, there some of them are so 

3 distinctive that an occupation at -- an 

4 unusual occupation or uncommon occupation at a 

5 big -- at a site may well denote implicitly 

6 the person. So, I'll try to be careful in 

7 this discussion. 

8 And my suggestions, the first 12, 

9 and I figure we'll get a few more. I was 

10 planning for it, hoping for it, was first 

11 number one, which is colon cancer and other 

12 ill-defined sites. 

13 Let's see if I can -- I'm having

14 trouble moving my -- learning how to move my 

15 cursor. Well, let me just read them. Okay. 

16 One, 14. I see, 14 -- okay, I can't use my --

17 some of my -- one -- oh, good, 14, 21.

18 MR. STIVER: Dave, you're not able 

19 to use that because I'm currently sharing 

20 right now so I'll just go ahead and move --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, 

22 wonderful. Okay, thank you. Twenty-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

17

1 which is Oak Ridge. One was just -- we don't 

2 -- one was -- I should have mentioned --

3 MEMBER MUNN: We can --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You'll see 

5 it. Okay.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: One, 14, 21. 

8 Fourteen is Ventron; 21, which is Oak Ridge; 

9 24 which is Baker Brothers. Twenty-seven I 

10 chose as one of the two partials in my groups 

11 from Brookhaven. And 30, number 30 which is -

12 -

13 MR. STIVER: Okay, here we are.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we go, 

15 Savannah River. Thirty-one, Oak Ridge. Fifty16 one, Portsmouth.

17 MR. STIVER: 51?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 51, five-one.

19 MR. STIVER: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Portsmouth 

21 Gas Diffusion. Fifty-two, Electro Metallurgy -

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

18

1 MR. STIVER: Electro Metallurgical 

2 Company.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Electro 

4 Metallurgical, yes, good. Thank you. 

5 The next one is my second partial, 

6 55, thanks, Hanford. And 58, Westinghouse 

7 Nuclear Fuel Division. And 73, which is a 

8 uranium mill in Monticello, New York. 

9 So, those are mine. Those include 

10 ten males, two females, they have a number of 

11 different occupations. If I may, I'll read the 

12 occupations not in any particular order. I 

13 have them as a note here, and that will avoid 

14 identifying implicitly individuals. One was 

15 C16 MR. STIVER: Dave, before you do 

17 that can you go over the numbers again?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I 

19 certainly can. And I will read them this 

20 time, John. You don't maybe need to go over -

21 - 1, 14, 21, 24, 27P, 30, 31, 51, 52, 55 

22 partial, 58, 73. And that's a dozen. And I'm, 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 of course, expecting to add several more. 

2 And they -- I would say they -- I 

3 could, for some of them -- you know, there is 

4 a clerical person, a chemical operator. 

5 There's health and safety engineering, the 

6 sheet metal worker, a pipefitter, a furnace 

7 operator -- which, you know, is slightly 

8 unusual -- and one person is a general 

9 secretary. You'll see those as we scroll 

10 over. 

11 So, as I say, two females, ten 

12 males. I think a fair array of different 

13 occupations, and also the three cancers that 

14 were most common: all-male genitalia, non15 melanoma skin basal, non-melanoma skin 

16 squamous. Those -- there is one case of each 

17 of those, and then there are additional cases 

18 from the facilities and occupations, nine of 

19 them. Three of them are from large sites: 

20 Hanford, Brookhaven, Livermore. And the 

21 remaining ones, six ones, are from smaller 

22 sites which is Ventron, Electro Metallurgical, 
. 

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 the uranium mill. So, there -- I tried to 

2 make a pretty general mix.

3 Comments and additions, and 

4 corrections?

5 MEMBER MUNN: I have a suggestion 

6 --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- as to how to 

9 proceed.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Since several of the 

12 ones that you chose were on my chosen list, as 

13 well --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps you might 

16 like to hear what mine were and why I chose 

17 them.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: If the other Members 

20 of the Subcommittee are agreeable, at least 

21 the ones that we agreed on might be checked 

22 off to begin with, if that's okay 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

21

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That, to me, 

2 sounds very good. Any other -- good, let's do 

3 that.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Alright. My first 

5 selection was 7, and the reason I chose it was 

6 facility more than anything else. And before I 

7 go further than that, I might comment that I 

8 didn't -- this is fairly unusual because that 

9 particular cancer was one that is our most 

10 common one and we see it all the time. And in 

11 your comments, Dave, you indicated that you 

12 had specifically chosen some of those that we 

13 see all the time. And for the most part I 

14 tried to avoid those we see all the time, 

15 especially having seen SC&A's figures on how 

16 many we --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: And they're so 

19 heavily weighted towards those that are so 

20 common that I generally tried to avoid those. 

21 But this is --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 good. That's a good point.

2 MEMBER MUNN: But this one is one 

3 of those that falls into that.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Just the facility 

6 was unusual. Number 13, both the cancer model 

7 and gender.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And I had --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that a 

11 partial, by the way? Or we'll go back to 

12 that.

13 MEMBER MUNN: 13 --

14 MR. STIVER: Actually, yes, it is.

15 MEMBER MUNN: It is a partial, 

16 yes. And I chose 14 because of the facility. 

17 I chose --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we agree 

19 on that.

20 MEMBER MUNN: -- 17. Yes, 14 is 

21 one of those on which we agree. 

22 Seventeen was my next one, site. 
. 

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 And 20, again the site. Twenty-one for the 

2 cancer model.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, and we 

4 both selected that one. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: I chose 24, site, and 

6 so did you.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I chose 27 for the 

9 site and the percent PoC.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

11 MEMBER MUNN: And also the years 

12 worked were very interesting on that one. 

13 I chose 30. Sorry, sorry, that's 

14 -- I chose 30 because of the site and the 

15 number of years worked. And it looks like 

16 that's one you chose, as well. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I chose 35 because 

19 of the site and gender. I chose -- next page, 

20 sorry, 44 because of the site. I chose 49, 

21 again the site, and also the occupation. And I 

22 chose 52, as you 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

24

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Because of the PoC 

3 and site, and years -- beginning of employment 

4 year as well as the occupation. And so we 

5 agreed on that one. 

6 I chose 61, again because of the 

7 PoC and locale. 

8 I chose 58 because of the locale 

9 and the occupation, so we agreed on 58. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't think 

11 -- oh, yes, yes, that's right. Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And I chose 64, 

13 again site and occupation. And I chose 73.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which we --

15 MEMBER MUNN: Which you did, as 

16 well.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: PoC, the cancer model 

19 and the location, as well as time worked.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, good. 

21 That's -- 64 was your last one, or 73 was your 

22 last?
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 MEMBER MUNN: Seventy-three was my 

2 last one, yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Well, 

4 we --

5 MEMBER MUNN: So, we have one, 

6 two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight that 

7 you and I both chose.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Eight out of 

9 12 is, I must say, is an impressive overlap, 

10 given that there were so many cases to choose 

11 from. So, that, I think, starts us out well 

12 if we agree on those -- if we pick those eight 

13 and then try to supplement it with another 

14 five of six. 

15 Your choices and reasons, I could 

16 give reasons for mine, but yours were clear 

17 and good. 

18 And how should we -- maybe others 

19 would suggest how do we proceed to pick our 

20 next probably six or so, get 14 figures? Some 

21 may end up not being used for either 

22 administrative reasons or I gather that 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

26

1 are some that people will look into and find 

2 out that they were really not -- should not 

3 have been on the list or not appropriate in 

4 some fashion. 

5 So, what do others think besides 

6 Wanda and myself? How would -- John, or Dave, 

7 or anybody, Brad?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: How many more do 

9 we need?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we 

11 have eight. We want to have a dozen, so I 

12 thought we would pick perhaps fourteen. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

14 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think actually 

15 SC&A's ballpark for what they're able to 

16 accomplish is ten, I think is what John Stiver 

17 said.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, really?

19 MR. KATZ: So, like you said, we 

20 want some additional ones in case for one 

21 reason or another when DCAS pulls the case 

22 they find issues where we can't take it up. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MR. KATZ: But we do want some 

3 extras and, you know, four extras would be 

4 good, I think.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

6 most open -- I think -- let me take three 

7 cases that I selected for being the common 

8 cancers. And I agree and I understand Wanda's 

9 point, and I would -- those happen to be 24 --

10 well, 31 I chose for type of cancer, and 51, 

11 so if I -- let's -- I think I would drop those 

12 two, 31 and 51, from my list and add two more 

13 from Wanda's. 

14 It's hard to see a balance without 

15 really going over -- sort of looking at them 

16 as a whole, but let's try to do it. I will 

17 appreciate input from anyone. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this is Wanda. 

19 I still think 13 is interesting from the 

20 cancer type point of view. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. My 

22 screen is down temporarily but that's -- 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

28

1 second. I would just say let's do it. I'm 

2 open to that. So, let's take 13 which, is 

3 another partial. So, so far we have three 

4 partials -- two partials. So, yeah, two 

5 partials. So, add 13. Okay. 

6 So, we now have, if you want to --

7 if you've circled the ones that we have in 

8 common, add 13 to that, it would start with 

9 13, 14, 21, 24, 27, 30, 52, 58, 73. Let's 

10 pick -- Wanda do you want to make a 

11 suggestion, maybe another where you noted 

12 gender?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yeah, there's 

14 -- we're already kind of -- we're good, I 

15 think, in that respect.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: But I'm looking at C

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I didn't 

19 look at the PoC. You used a number, I think 

20 it was -- was it 61?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, one that I did 

22 use PoC and that I didn't even mention when 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

29

1 was going through them is 30.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thirty.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Both the PoC and the 

4 years worked, from that point of view, that's 

5 an interesting one. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I think 

7 that sounds good to me.

8 MEMBER MUNN: But we've had 30 on 

9 our --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's add 

11 30.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Well, actually, we 

13 already have 30.

14 MR. KATZ: You already have that.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. I'm 

18 sorry.

19 MR. KATZ: Can I suggest something 

20 else to think about at least?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: And I think John Stiver 
. 

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 or Kathy Behling can probably help on this, 

2 but looking at the cases available, are there 

3 some sites that are especially under-sampled 

4 relative to the others? That might be a 

5 helpful leg up on some choices.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yeah. For 

8 example, there's -- it wasn't on my list, but 

9 there's 33.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Joslyn. 

11 Could I ask on 33 --

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's reserved.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry. 

14 What does -- I did not understand -- I didn't 

15 know what "reserved for NIOSH" means for 

16 occupation in 33. What does reserved for 

17 NIOSH mean in that context?

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

19 can answer that for you. The issue is we put 

20 that information together for NIOSH and screen 

21 these for them. But the ones that are 

22 reserved for NIOSH that NIOSH does in-house, 
. 

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 we don't specifically have the information for 

2 those, so we have -- we put reserved for 

3 NIOSH. NIOSH usually had the chance to walk 

4 through and give that additional information. 

5 I'm not sure if we didn't get that finished 

6 this time or not.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we 

8 have -- that is a smaller facility, Joslyn. 

9 There are two Joslyns, 33 and 38; 33 is 

10 reserved for NIOSH. Maybe we should just -- I 

11 would assume that the smaller plants tend to 

12 be under-represented. Is that -- would that be 

13 a correct statement?

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's true. That's 

15 true, yeah.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So --

17 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. Joslyn 

18 is one that is somewhat under-represented.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

20 either 33 or 38, which the 38 we have that the 

21 person is an operator.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And in both cases 
. 

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 the PoC is very similar.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We have --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think I 

5 would choose 38 simply because the information 

6 on the occupation is available.

7 MEMBER MUNN: That's true.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, it's not 

9 -- it would not be a repeat. It's a good 

10 general occupation: operator.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I agree.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's do 38. 

13 Okay, 38 is added. So we now have two, four, 

14 six, eight, ten. We have a total of ten.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

16 Brad. I'm having a hard time going between 

17 back and forth.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I 

19 admit --

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I can't 

21 remember if this one was put on there or not, 

22 but I was looking at number 29. Have 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

33

1 already selected that one? I'm just going off 

2 what mine was and trying to check what --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. John, 

4 could you put us on to 29?

5 MR. STIVER: Okay, we're there. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sandia. Yes, 

7 and many different types of cancers.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, actually, 

9 too, it's because it's two different sites 

10 from one thing. The era that it was at, it was 

11 --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Plus, both these 

14 are coming -- both these sites, I guess one of 

15 the reasons -- I want to see -- you know, 

16 there have been questions of how some of these 

17 would be done and so forth, and I just wanted 

18 to --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's a 

20 partial.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 
. 

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 good. So, I would be open to that, 29, which 

2 is a partial again.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Twenty-nine looks 

4 good to me.

5 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Let me 

6 just raise a question about the -- which I 

7 think the NIOSH folks can answer about the 

8 Joslyn case, was where this case falls, the 

9 employment period in relation to the SEC?

10 MR. CALHOUN: I'll have to look 

11 and see -- this is Grady. I'll have to look 

12 and compare those dates.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. I just think 

14 that the Subcommittee might want to know 

15 whether this is one that falls in the SEC or 

16 not.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we 

19 have eleven, so we could -- does anybody have 

20 a suggestion for one more? Or we could call 

21 it a day on this.

22 MR. SIEBERT: John Mauro, are 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

35

1 on the line?

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Could you -- do you 

4 know the dates of the Joslyn SEC off the top 

5 of your head?

6 DR. MAURO: No, I don't. I'd have 

7 to --

8 MS. LIN: I do. This is Jenny. 

It's March 1st, 1943 through December 31st 9 , 

10 1947.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, this is 

12 outside the range then.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, good. That makes 

15 it easier to hang on to that one then.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

17 I --

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

19 Brad. I just had one more that I've been 

20 looking at that was on my hit list.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I apologize, 
. 

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 I'm trying to go between my stuff and this 

2 stuff, and I really can't remember which ones 

3 have been added and which ones have not. But 

4 has 38 been looked at?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we just 

6 chose 38 from Joslyn.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, 38 is not 

8 Joslyn. It's --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go 

10 down to 38. I'm going under Selection ID, the 

11 green column. 

12 MR. STIVER: 38 is Joslyn.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, is it?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, it is.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, it is. 

16 By the way, it's confusing. All the way over 

17 on the left is the number of the Excel, and 

18 that's -- we're using the Selection ID, the 

19 colored one, if you will, the one that's green 

20 and yellow.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I 

22 was just -- I was looking at the actual 18 set 
. 

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 that I was going off, and I think we might be 

2 off a little bit because I've got --the one I 

3 was looking at is a little bit different. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I had General 

6 Electric Company, Oak Ridge, BWXT 

7 Technologies.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: General 

9 Electric? I don't think we have --

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's actually the 

11 one right before Joslyn Manufacturing.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Oh, 

13 yes, that -- 37.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Mine is 

15 off one set somewhere.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay, 

17 37. And, John, will you scroll through? So, 

18 that's squamous and basal cell skin, but the 

19 person has been at GE, Oak Ridge, BWX. Yes, 

20 that's -- and the work decade in the `50s.

21 MR. STIVER: Long period of 

22 employment, multiple sites.
. 

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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Alright. This 

3 was merely because I wanted to be able to see 

4 how these things crossed over.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and I 

6 think that's an excellent criterion for 

7 choice. So, I'm -- let's go with that, the 

8 37. 

9 And that is twelve, and I think 

10 that should finish it. And I'll read off --

11 I've been doing my clerical work and I'll read 

12 off the list as I have it now, okay? In order 

13 of Selection ID.

14 Thirteen. Ted, you're getting this 

15 or someone? Yes, all the folks are. Thirteen, 

16 14, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38, 52, 58, 73.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I have.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great. Okay. 

19 So, any other further thoughts, or I think 

20 we're ready to close.

21 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. I 

22 think we've got a pretty good representation 
. 

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 here for this.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good. 

3 Okay, folks. And we did that in 45 minutes, 

4 so, excellent.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Fantastic.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

7 really, I mean, we have an awful lot of 

8 agreement which was very nice, really starting 

9 us off. 

10 Okay. We are ready to go to the 

11 case reviews, and we want to start with --

12 Grady, we want to start with 9. Right? Set 

13 9.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Actually, I wanted 

15 to hit Set 8 because --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You said 

17 that. Yeah, you said Set 8. Go ahead, I'm 

18 sorry. Excuse me for interrupting you.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. Basically, 

20 what I would like to do, if possible, and I 

21 don't know if anybody's had time to look at 

22 this, but we sent some responses a week ago, 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

40

1 few days ago, whatever, relative to Huntington 

2 Pilot --there you go, perfect, I see it up 

3 there.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Are you doing that? 

6 I'm not doing that, am I?

7 MR. STIVER: I'm doing it. This is 

8 John.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, John.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 

11 you.

12 MR. CALHOUN: I have the same 

13 thing on another one of my screens here and I 

14 thought, wow, I've been doing that on 

15 accident. Okay. 

16 So, basically, that is our 

17 response to that. And if any of you guys have 

18 some questions on it. Tom Tomes is on the 

19 phone with us right now, and that's the reason 

20 he's here. He's very familiar with the 

21 Huntington Pilot Plant, but I was kind of 

22 hoping that we could -- just because they'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

41

1 so old, you know, get some resolution. 

2 MR. STIVER: I know John Mauro and 

3 Steve Marschke on our side have been looking 

4 into this pretty heavily. So, John, if you'd 

5 like to --

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I could kick it 

7 off and then, Steve, you could help me out a 

8 little bit because you dug a little deeper 

9 than I did. I'll set the table.

10 We have closed -- we went through 

11 a process where we managed to close out a lot 

12 of these issues that we had. But there are 

13 two -- in fact, they're really one -- and they 

14 have to do with the airborne dust loading of 

15 nickel. 

16 Just so everybody is on the same 

17 page, basically Huntington Pilot Plant was 

18 working with diffusion barriers. You folks 

19 may be -- just sort of a refresher. And 

20 they're made of nickel, and they were 

21 processed at Huntington Pilot Plant because 

22 they contained some enriched uranium. And they 
. 

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 would basically go there for refurbishment, 

2 and the enriched uranium and the nickel would 

3 be separated so that they would recover the 

4 nickel and the uranium and, I presume, 

5 refabricate barriers made of nice clean 

6 nickel.

7 And what happens is in the process 

8 they generated airborne enriched uranium 

9 associated with the nickel. They sort of 

10 intermingled. And the way in which the 

11 inhalation doses are derived, according to the 

12 protocol, is to estimate what the airborne 

13 dust loading of nickel in milligrams per cubic 

14 meter is, based on measurements and also based 

15 on knowledge on the specific activity of the 

16 uranium in the nickel and its associated level 

17 of enrichment.

18 The area where we were struggling 

19 is the amount of nickel, milligrams of nickel 

20 per cubic meter. Our original concern was we 

21 look at the table of nickel concentrations 

22 that are in the TBD originally, and there's 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

43

1 whole array of values for different locations 

2 within the facility. And there are a lot of 

3 numbers, maybe 30 or so airborne dust loading 

4 measurements expressed in milligrams of nickel 

5 per cubic meter. 

6 And NIOSH used all those values 

and picked off the upper 95th 7 percentile of 

8 those values and said we're going to use that 

9 nickel dust loading, which came to some value.

10 Our original comment was, well, 

11 we've got a bit of a problem with that because 

12 when you look at the 30 numbers or so, I don't 

13 recall the exact numbers, you see that they're 

14 really broken up into two categories. There 

15 were numbers that were taken many, many years 

16 ago, and then there were numbers that are much 

17 more current. 

18 And we felt that since the dose 

19 reconstructions are being done for workers 

20 that worked at the facility many, many years 

21 ago, they should have used a subset of nickel 

22 concentrations that represented the older 
. 

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 data. And if you look at that subset, which 

2 represents perhaps 10 of the full set of 

numbers, and picked off the upper 95th 3

4 percentile from that subset, you get a much 

higher 95th 5 percentile, maybe a factor of 10 

6 higher. 

7 So, our position at the time was 

8 don't you think that's the better way to do 

9 it? Because that time period is more 

10 representative of the time period of interest 

11 to the DR.

12 However, it was also recognized 

13 that that subset -- again I'll use the 10 

14 numbers as an example of these older numbers. 

The upper 95th 15 percentile was driven by a 

16 single outlier. That is, the reason the upper 

95th 17 percentile was so high is there was a 

18 single measurement of 5 milligrams per cubic 

19 meter which was easily 10 times higher than 

20 the next highest one. 

21 So, the Subcommittee discussed, 

22 well, what do you do in a circumstance 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

45

1 that? And there was agreement that, gee, when 

2 you have an outlier like that, you know, you 

3 let it go. And we talked -- if you remember, 

4 we talked a little bit about the use of 

5 statistical methods to deal with outliers, do 

6 you really take them seriously? So, we were 

7 sort of on the verge of letting that go and 

8 say, okay, I think we're okay, except for one 

9 fact that emerged during the process. 

10 And I'll ask Steve to describe 

11 that new twist that, unfortunately, really 

12 puts us back where we do have an issue. And, 

13 Steve, because you looked more deeply into the 

14 source documents that stood behind all this, 

15 could you give a summary of what you found?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I looked into 

17 the -- most of these on the nickel 

18 concentration data came from a document that 

19 was prepared by Enterline and Marsh -- and I 

20 don't know what the date of it is, but it was 

21 a while back. I think it was in the 1980s. And 

22 there's a Table 8 in there, which basically 
. 

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 that's what John is referring to with all 

2 these different nickel concentrations and 

3 different departments on the Huntington site.

4 I would make one correction to 

5 what John said. He mentioned that there's one 

6 outlier number. It's an outlier number but 

7 it's not really a single measurement. It's an 

8 outlier number for one department, what they 

9 called the refinery at the Huntington site. 

10 It's not -- and I don't know how many -- if 

11 more than one measurement is in there or what, 

12 but it's -- you know, with this Table 8, which 

13 has the different nickel concentrations in it, 

14 or reported on it, are for different areas of 

15 the site. 

16 So, it could be that this refinery 

17 area is just one area where it has the higher 

18 concentration. And it may be -- it's 

19 definitely an outlier in that it's larger than 

20 all the other measurements by almost an order 

21 of magnitude. But, again, it may not be a 

22 single value. It may be -- you know, 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

47

1 know how many values -- how many samples went 

2 into calculating that number. So, that was one 

3 thing I wanted to point out.

4 The other thing I wanted to point 

5 out is if you, again, go back to this original 

6 document by Enterline and Marsh, right at the 

7 beginning of the document on the first page 

8 they talk about concentrations of nickel 

9 around the -- what do they call it?

10 DR. MAURO: Calciners.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, which range 

12 from 20 to 250 milligrams per meter cubed and 

13 from 5 to 15 around what they call the areas 

14 where the crushers are. So, there are areas 

15 which are, you know, at or above the highest 

16 number that are reported in this Table 8, 

17 which was the only value that NIOSH used in 

18 the TBD. 

19 So, you know, one of our concerns 

20 is, you know, how do these higher numbers, 

21 which were reported back in 1976, how do they 

22 impact the distribution? They seem to 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

48

1 been left out of the discussion in the TBD 

2 and, you know, I guess the question is what 

3 would -- if they were included in the 

4 discussion what would -- how would that change 

5 the discussion?

6 So, that's, basically, the 

7 concerns we have with what's going on. It's -

8 - you know, as John mentioned, on the Table 8 

9 numbers or the whole series of numbers, we 

10 think that you'd be better off using just the 

11 historical numbers because Enterline and 

12 Marsh, they note in the report, the discussion 

13 of the Table 8, they note that they tried to 

14 adjust the modern day samples back to 

15 historical exposures, but they admit that it's 

16 probably an imperfect process and maybe they 

17 have underestimated the exposures when they 

18 have done that process. 

19 So, the numbers in there, the 

20 modern day numbers that are reported in that 

21 Table 8, may be underestimates, according to 

22 the notes that are in -- you know, according 
. 

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 to the discussion on Table 8.

2 DR. MAURO: So, I guess, you know, 

3 where we are operates at really two levels. 

4 The most fundamental level is there are all 

5 these other data, some of which are extremely 

6 high in milligrams per cubic meter. And we 

7 also recognize that at some point it gets so 

8 high that it's really not breathable. You 

9 know, we've been through this before. But 

10 certainly the 5 milligram per cubic meter 

11 number is no longer now an outlier, unless 

12 someone could explain, you know, why all these 

13 other numbers that we uncovered for different 

14 operations may not be appropriate as a basis 

15 for dose reconstruction. 

16 But right now it appears that that 

17 5 milligram per cubic meter high-end number is 

18 really -- does not appear to be much of an 

19 outlier. And there really is no basis, as it 

20 stands now from the discussions and the 

21 writing and the documentation we have so far, 

22 we don't have a basis for rejecting 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

50

1 higher numbers and going with NIOSH's exposure 

2 matrix for Huntington. 

3 And I think if we could resolve 

4 that issue one way or the other, either say 

5 NIOSH provided a good reason why those higher 

6 numbers could be excluded, fine. But we don't 

7 see that. Or, second, NIOSH says, well, you 

8 know, you're right, it looks like we should 

9 have included some of those higher numbers and 

10 rethink what the distribution should be for 

11 the dust loading for nickel. And, really, 

12 that's where we are.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And one other thing 

14 -- this is Steve, again. One other thing I'd 

15 just point out is, in the Enterline and Marsh 

16 report where they talk about these higher 

17 numbers, they refer to a report that was 

18 submitted by International Nickel to NIOSH 

19 back in October 1976. 

20 I went looking for that report but 

21 I was unable to find it in the open literature 

22 on the web or anywhere, so I don't know, 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

51

1 know -- I don't have any more information than 

2 what is presented in the Enterline and Marsh 

3 report as to how that data was collected or 

4 what is it. But it's just presented here at, 

5 again, the beginning of their report and it's 

6 very high numbers. 

7 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. I 

8 think I can add a little bit more on the 

9 numbers that's in the TBD and how they came 

10 out of that article. 

11 The Table 8 values -- which, I 

12 think, 37 pieces of data -- those were results 

13 that were put together to be average worker 

14 exposures. And they were not based on single 

15 measurements. 

16 I'll read from the article here, 

17 it explains it better than I can. "These 

18 estimates are intended to represent average 

19 airborne concentrations of nickel in all forms 

20 over an 8-hour shift." So, the Table 8 values 

21 are actually not air sample results, they are 

22 estimates of average worker exposures 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

52

1 various departments.

2 And I did focus on the higher 

3 results in reviewing this. The 5 milligrams 

4 per cubic meter is for the refinery, and the 

5 refinery exposures was one of the focuses of 

6 this epidemiological study. And they had 

7 refineries operated in the `40s, specifically 

8 the high concentrations from the calcining 

9 operation which operated from 1922 to 1947. 

10 They tore out the calciners in 1947 and the 

11 crushing and grinding associated with the 

12 operations created very high dust. And these 

13 numbers are represented in these high numbers 

14 for the refinery.

15 So, these numbers would not be 

16 appropriate to assume for exposures to the 

17 Huntington Reduction Pilot Plant because the 

18 plant was not built until the `50s, early `50s 

19 is when they built the plant. 

20 But these data were admittedly 

21 difficult to separate out into specific values 

22 that I could use for distinguishing 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

53

1 Reduction Pilot Plant, and that is basically 

2 why we choose the entire data set without 

3 discriminating it, and just chose the upper 

95th 4 percentile which we thought would be 

5 bounding for the Reduction Pilot Plant. 

6 The Reduction Pilot Plant does 

7 have a value represented in that table, which 

8 is a very low number, but we don't have -- we 

9 don't know much information about how that 

10 number is determined. It could have come from 

11 the operations of the Reduction Pilot Plant or 

12 it could have come during the idle period of 

13 Reduction Pilot Plant. 

14 This article was published in 

15 1982, and as Steve mentioned, there was some 

16 data sent to NIOSH in 1976. I don't have a 

17 copy of that either, but the Reduction Pilot 

18 Plant was in the standby status at that 

19 particular time.

20 So, that low number represented by 

21 the Reduction Pilot Plant may not be an 

22 accurate representative of the operations 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

54

1 the late `50s and early `60s when they were 

2 handling recycled nickel contaminated with 

3 uranium. So, we didn't really have any 

4 confidence that we could say that .02 value 

5 for the Reduction Pilot Plant was 

6 representative of worker exposures during 

7 operations. But we did include it in the set 

8 of data.

9 And I would like to point out one 

10 other thing that I believe was in one of the 

11 writeups I saw from SC&A concerning another 

12 table in this Enterline and Marsh article. 

13 There was a Table 4 in that article, had 

14 exposures to four -- average nickel exposures 

15 to four different workers. And the highest 

16 one of those was a guy who started work there 

17 in 1941 and he worked at the refinery from 

18 1941 to 1944. And this average nickel exposure 

19 over his career there was .94 milligrams per 

20 cubic meter. But this article points out that 

21 he was in the calcining department from 1941 

22 to 1944. And that particular department 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

55

1 the focus of these exposures for the cancer 

2 risk they had from exposure to nickel. 

3 So, that would account for part of his higher 

4 exposures than the other three. 

5 And the estimated exposure to the 

6 other three workers is below the value we have 

7 estimated in TBD. I'm trying to put the 

8 numbers into perspective here of what we have 

9 in the TBD.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, how do 

11 we move to resolution? It's a complex 

12 argument. It's a little hard to follow given 

13 that we're -- at least for me, because the 

14 screen is fixed, and I can't look at all of 

15 the, if you will, the green box. But first, 

16 according to SC&A, they have indicated that 

17 all the findings are resolved for Set 8. I'm 

18 not quite sure what -- it's the question of 

19 whether to reconsider based on that --

20 MR. FARVER: David, this is Doug 

21 Farver. Can I --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please.
. 

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 MR. FARVER: Can I go ahead and 

2 explain?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes, 

4 please do.

5 MR. FARVER: There are two open 

6 issues from the attachments of Set 8. They 

7 weren't included in our stats on findings 

8 because there's no official finding numbers 

9 for them as with the other findings where we 

10 have a --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah.

12 MR. FARVER: -- case number, and a 

13 Table 2 Identifier, and then a finding number. 

14 But these don't follow the normal protocol so 

15 they were not included in those stats. But 

16 there's only those two open issues on the 

17 Huntington Pilot Plant with Attachment 3. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 

19 you. 

20 MR. FARVER: And then again in --

21 now, in Set 9, which I think Grady might want 

22 to discuss, there are some open issues 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

57

1 Huntington Pilot Plant cases that we reviewed, 

2 and those findings have numbers and those are 

3 counted as real findings. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, getting 

7 back to 8 -- thank you for the clarifications 

8 -- getting back to 8, what is the -- how do we 

9 move to closure on this complex --

10 MEMBER POSTON: It doesn't sound 

11 like we're getting a whole lot of agreement 

12 right now but, you know, I don't know if we 

13 could take some time, if we need time. I mean, 

14 I'd like to get these closed out, but if we 

15 need time, maybe we could just try to deal 

16 with it in one of these technical calls we've 

17 done in the past.

18 DR. MAURO: Tom, this is John 

19 Mauro.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Because these 

21 might need a little bit more time.

22 DR. MAURO: Tom, this is 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

58

1 Mauro. It sounds like this -- perhaps I 

2 didn't fully appreciate or understand. It 

3 sounds like that you've looked at the data, 

4 the same data that we looked at and, you know, 

5 we have all these numbers for different work 

6 areas. But for some reason there are certain 

7 work areas and time periods that you feel are 

8 discounted. For example, I guess, the 5 

9 number and the bigger -- the 5 milligrams per 

10 cubic meter, and some of those other bigger 

11 numbers really should not be explicitly part 

12 of the distribution. 

13 And the reason for that is -- I 

14 mean, if you could give us the reason why --

15 and I didn't really understand your rationale. 

16 That is, you pointed out that, yes, those 

17 numbers are there and they represent the 

18 refinery or the calciner. And, yes, they are 

19 big numbers, and they represent a number --

20 but for some reason, and you may have a good 

21 reason, you don't feel that they are really 

22 applicable to this particular --well, 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

59

1 are really two issues. One is applicable to 

2 the Site Profile. Because, remember, we're 

3 talking about two different things now. We're 

4 talking about, I guess it's Attachment 3, 

5 which is the Huntington Pilot Plant Site 

6 Profile review. And simultaneously we're 

7 talking about a real case or a real 

person that's part of the 9th 8 set. 

9 You remember this is one of those 

10 places where we did one of these focused Site 

11 Profile reviews and included it at the back of 

12 the set of 8. So, to help clarify, when you 

13 say your -- what I understand, when you say 

14 you're comfortable not including the 5 number 

15 and those bigger numbers that Steve 

16 summarized, are you saying that because they 

17 don't apply to this particular worker that's 

18 part of the set of 9 and therefore can be 

19 dismissed? Or are you saying, no, this can be 

20 dismissed across the board, including the Site 

21 Profile that's addressed as Attachment 3 in 

22 the back of this thing? 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 And, if so, if you could just -- I 

2 didn't quite understand -- that was what my 

3 reading was, that you felt that you could 

4 dismiss them. And I'm fine with that, but I 

5 didn't hear the rationale. 

6 MR. TOMES: John, I may have said 

7 it wrong. I didn't mean that we could dismiss 

8 the 5 milligram per cubic meter value, because 

9 we included that in the distribution. It is 

10 the outlier in the distribution that was 

11 included. So, you know, if you look -- it may 

12 have the line in TBD, but if you look at the 

5th 13 line, that value is there.

14 DR. MAURO: And I recall that, but 

15 I also recall that that was part of a group of 

16 maybe ten out of the 37 numbers that seemed to 

17 be the ones that should have been used, and 

18 that the newer measurements, the ones that 

19 were made in recent times, relatively recent 

20 times, which are really not the time periods 

21 of interest here, at least not for this 

22 particular case, I believe. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 By using the full suite of all 37 

2 numbers to get you your distribution, it seems 

3 that you're biasing. In other words, the real 

4 distribution that applies here is not the full 

5 suite of all numbers in Table 8, but the 

6 subset of it that represents the time period 

7 of interest. And I guess if could sort of 

8 grind -- I think we're close to resolution 

9 because I see you feel strongly about, no, 

10 your numbers are okay. But then we still 

11 raise these questions, as Steve articulated. 

12 And I don't know, maybe other 

13 people followed it, but I still don't see the 

14 rationale for, let's say, dismissing the big 

15 numbers that Steve mentioned in this other 

16 report -- and let's say you can. Okay. Let's 

17 just assume for a second you can do that 

18 somehow. Then you're left with, okay, the 37 

19 numbers that are in your table. I guess it's 

20 called Table 8. And why is that you use the 

21 full set of 37 numbers and not go only to the 

22 numbers that represent the real time period 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

62

1 interest? You know, I'm just looking for 

2 something that -- the rationale that rings 

3 true for me, and I'd be fine. But right now, 

4 I really haven't heard that.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what I --

6 John, this is Steve. What I heard him say was 

7 that the calciners and the crushers were taken 

8 out before the Pilot Plant was operated.

9 DR. MAURO: Before the uranium was 

10 on site?

11 MR. TOMES: About 15 years before 

12 that.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay, you see, I 

14 missed that.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So, that was taken 

16 out, so those big numbers that I was talking -

17 - and that was missing from my part of the 

18 story.

19 DR. MAURO: Ah, very good.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: So, now I have that 

21 part of the story. I think the big numbers 

22 that I'm talking about, basically, I would 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 have no problem in taking those out. 

2 Now, the other part of the story I 

3 heard was that the -- you know, by leaving 

4 that 5 number in, you know, basically it adds 

5 conservatism or claimant-favorable-ism to the 

6 distribution that they come up with. And, you 

7 know, I don't know. Again, now we're talking 

8 about a factor of four if you use the -- only 

9 the historical numbers, the numbers which are 

10 identified by Footnote C versus the full set 

11 of 37 numbers. So, really we're back to a 

12 factor of four --

13 DR. MAURO: Right.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- in the 

15 difference.

16 DR. MAURO: We're halfway home. I 

17 think that --

18 MR. TOMES: But one of the results 

19 you're proposing we take out is an actual 

20 result of the Reduction Pilot Plant itself. 

21 And that's one of the lower numbers, also. 

22 DR. MAURO: I'm going by time. 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 other words, my recollection when I worked on 

2 this is that I looked at the table and there 

3 was a little Footnote C next to each of those 

4 37 numbers that represented a certain time 

5 period. And at the time I did the work, and I 

6 think Steve did the follow-up work, that C was 

7 -- the real question was, gee, shouldn't you 

8 have just used the numbers that had little C 

9 next to them, the footnote? Because those are 

10 the numbers that represent the time period of 

11 interest. 

12 And all the others really are not 

13 relevant to the time period of interest. And 

14 if you do that, you come up with a 

distribution that gives you a 95th 15 percentile 

16 that I believe was about ten times higher. And 

17 I guess that's where we -- so, I'm okay with 

18 the first part. Get rid of all those other 

19 big numbers. I did not realize that they 

20 really weren't applicable. 

21 So now we've sort of simplified 

22 the question, is should you use the full 
. 

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 distribution of all 37 numbers and pick off 

the upper 95th 2 percentile, and thereby get the 

3 numbers you guys got? Or should you go with, 

4 no, we're only going to pick the numbers with 

5 the little letter C next to them which 

6 represent the older measurements of nickel, 

7 because that's a more appropriate number to 

8 use when doing DRs for this facility and for 

9 this particular work?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: But, John, what 

11 NIOSH is saying, if you look in the table 

12 there is a -- Reduction Pilot Plant is listed 

13 as one of the departments that has a nickel 

14 concentration associated with it.

15 DR. MAURO: Okay.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: And that department 

17 does not -- that number does not have a C 

18 associated with it.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: So, what they're 

21 saying is the historical data, I guess the 

22 historical C data, the data that's 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

66

1 with a C as being historical --

2 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: -- comes before the 

4 Pilot Plant went into operation. It was data 

5 that was collected -- it's really historical 

6 data. It's data that was collected before the 

7 Pilot Plant went into operation. Is that 

8 correct?

9 MR. TOMES: It's clear that some 

10 of it is. What is not clear is how much of it 

11 is and how of it isn't.

12 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. I think we 

13 got to the nub of the matter, and this is very 

14 good because we cleared away a lot of the fog 

15 in my head. And what we're really zeroing in 

16 on is whether or not, you know, the Cs -- this 

17 little model I have in my head is that the 

18 right number to use are the ones with the 

19 little C next to them. And I'm hearing that 

20 maybe that's not the right way to do it. 

21 And it's not apparent -- right 

22 now, I guess we're at a place where I haven'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

67

1 heard the argument that those numbers with the 

2 little Cs next to them are really not 

3 appropriate, or you're not sure. I guess, if 

4 you could help me with that part, we might be 

5 able to close this out.

6 MR. TOMES: Well, I'm not 

7 following why we think we should only use 

8 those for being historical for the era of 

9 interest.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. May 

11 I, as Chair, we spent half an hour on this. Is 

12 it appropriate that this continue with a 

13 technical call?

14 MR. KATZ: Dave, it sounds like 

15 they're right at the end of this.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: And a technical call 

18 takes a lot of arranging and so on. If they 

19 C20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

21 Okay. We'll continue for another few minutes, 

22 I hope.
. 

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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Dave, this is 

2 Brad.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, one of 

5 the things in this is, you know, granted, I 

6 know we've got a big agenda on here, but one 

7 of the problems with this that we have is that 

8 we don't kind of finish this out. So, I'm 

9 just starting to follow where they're at and 

10 I'd really like to be able to kind of stay on 

11 track with --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

13 Okay, fine. Very good. Okay, let's continue.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can you hear 

15 me? This is David Richardson.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes? Yeah, I 

18 agree that I think we're making headway. I 

19 wanted to raise one other question or other 

20 point and pose it as a question, I guess.

21 There's a lot that seems to be 

22 hinging on one table in an epidemiologic study 
. 

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 that was -- so it wasn't a study that was 

2 focused on exposure assessment, it was a study 

3 that was basically focused on standardized 

4 mortality ratios. And it was --it's a study 

5 that was done by contract by --between 

6 Huntington and a university, so it's an 

7 industry-funded study reconstructing exposures 

8 for workers who, you know, there's a concern 

9 about an excess of cancer in that facility. 

10 And the numbers that are I think

11 in Table 8 are not well described. I mean, 

12 they're saying that they're taking -- your 

13 data -- converting them to modern graph metric 

14 expression whenever possible using knowledge 

15 of change they've extrapolated back from 

16 recent measurements, but they're not really 

17 saying how that is except to say that it's 

18 imperfect, but we can assume that exposures 

19 were greater in the past. 

20 I don't have a good sense of, you 

21 know, just kind of the basis for a lot of 

22 these numbers. I mean, some of them are based 
. 

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 on modern exposures but they're described as 

2 being the average concentration over the 

3 entire period, for example, of operation of 

4 one of the departments that makes up a row of 

5 this table. 

6 So, I mean, how are people 

7 thinking about that, like one of these numbers 

8 where they're saying it's big or small? Is 

9 that on average over the entire period it was 

10 big or small, or is it that there was no 

11 variation? They've done some sort of 

12 extrapolation over time implying that the 

13 exposures were higher, of higher magnitude in

14 the past. 

15 And then we're going to look at 

16 the variation in the values, either values 

17 with superscript c or not, between different 

18 departments here and say that that's going to 

19 represent the variation over time, for 

20 example, in the intensity of exposure in the 

21 Reduction Pilot Plant, so that's one of the 

22 rows. 
. 

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 We're taking a variation in the 

2 column of the values and saying that that 

3 represents a variation over time within one of 

4 the rows? And we're taking the numbers at 

5 face value from a paper that wasn't really 

6 designed to investigate this. 

7 I mean, I'm fine with if you want 

8 to say we're taking a big value and we're 

9 thinking it's plausible bounding and everybody 

10 agrees that it's an upper bound. But we seem 

11 to be doing a lot of talking about how we're 

12 going to derive a distribution. I'm not sure 

13 it's the distribution at all that we're really 

14 concerned about.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

16 Brad. This is one of my questions that I was 

17 going to get into after they got into this, is 

18 my understanding of this information, we're 

19 taking it -- we don't even know how it was 

20 derived, how it was put into place, but we're 

21 taking this. And I understand, you know, we've 

22 to go with the available information that 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

72

1 do have, but it gets to also credibility of 

2 it. 

3 Here we're seeing in other areas 

4 we've got such high dust loadings or whatever, 

5 nickel. I'm questioning, as you are, the 

6 papers that were used for this. It's just 

7 really -- but it may be the best we have, but 

8 if it's something that we can really use this 

9 for, I don't think this was set up to be able 

10 to be used for dose reconstruction. It's just 

11 my personal opinion, but that's what I was 

12 kind of hoping we were going to get to up 

13 here.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yeah, this is Steve 

15 Marschke again. And if I can just -- a little 

16 bit more information. The way Enterline and 

17 Marsh used these numbers in their Table 8 was 

18 they didn't come up with a distribution to 

19 represent anything. What they did was, when 

20 they wanted to calculate an individual 

21 worker's exposure, they figured out how much 

22 time he spent in each one of 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

73

1 departments. And then they used the exposure 

2 associated with that department and summed it 

3 up over that way so that they could calculate 

4 his total exposure over the time that he spent 

5 on site. Which is a little bit different than 

6 the approach which -- is quite a bit 

7 different, I guess, than the approach which 

8 was being taken here where we're coming up 

9 with this, you know, distribution of these 

10 exposures that is supposed to be 

11 representative of the whole site.

12 DR. MAURO: And one of the 

13 dilemmas you have is if you have a real worker 

14 and you want to reconstruct his inhalation 

15 doses, and you do have data regarding where he 

16 worked and when he worked, and you do have 

17 data on airborne dust loading in those rooms 

18 at that time, well, certainly, then the idea 

19 of a distribution you don't need any more, 

20 because you could say, well, listen, we have 

21 some good data for what the building -- the 

22 room he worked in or the 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

74

1 values or the room he worked in.

2 But, I guess, my sense was that 

3 they didn't have that information and so they 

4 used this full distribution. And that's why 

you picked the upper 95th 5 percentile, saying, 

6 listen, not knowing -- not having any more 

7 information we will simply just assign to 

everyone that worked there the upper 95th 8

9 percentile value. And that's been done in the 

10 past as a way to deal with the fact that don't 

11 have the granularity of information that we'd 

12 like to have.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, this is --

but when you say upper 95th 14 , you mean the --

15 you're looking at the distribution of values, 

16 some set or all of the values that are in 

Table 8, and it's the 95th 17 percentile of the 

18 departmental averages.

MR. TOMES: Yes, it's the 95th 19

20 percentile of the departmental averages. 

21 That's correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And my 
. 

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 position was --

2 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

3 reporter. Was that just Tom Tomes and Steve 

4 Marschke?

5 MR. TOMES: Yes, this is Tom Tomes.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve 

7 Marschke, yes.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John. And 

9 the only -- I guess I'm still stuck in the mud 

10 here having to do with these little Footnote 

11 Cs. And my only position was, well, if you're 

12 going to do the distribution approach and pick 

the 95th 13 percentile, shouldn't you only use 

14 the numbers in that report in Table 8 that 

15 have the Footnote C because of the time 

16 period? It zeroes you into the time period of 

17 interest. 

18 And if there's a reason why that's 

19 not appropriate, well, I think we've solved 

20 our problem. But if there is a reason -- I 

21 mean, this is my perspective. But if it makes 

22 sense that, well, you know, we really should 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 only use the old numbers because that's the 

2 numbers that are applicable.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, John, this is 

4 Steve again. 

5 DR. MAURO: Yes.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: This is a question, 

7 how do you know what -- I mean, as I read it, 

8 they talk about Footnote C as being the 

9 historical numbers.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: And the ones which 

12 are not Footnote C are being the more recent 

13 numbers.

14 DR. MAURO: Right.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: But I don't know 

16 that they define anywhere what they mean by 

17 historic, what time periods they're talking 

18 about when they talk about historic. Now, it 

19 could be argued because the -- if you look at 

20 the Table 8 there and the Pilot Plant does not 

21 have a Footnote C associated with it, so it 

22 could be argued that anything that has 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

77

1 Footnote C basically came prior to the Pilot 

2 Plant, and therefore the Footnote C should be 

3 eliminated from the distribution.

4 DR. MAURO: Well, if that's the 

5 case and the argument is being made then by 

6 NIOSH that --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I don't think 

8 that -- NIOSH is not making that argument.

9 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. So, that 

10 means that --

11 MR. MARSCHKE: They're basically -

12 - NIOSH is saying let's take everything and 

13 use everything.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's fine.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I just said that's 

16 an alternative argument that could be put 

17 forth.

18 DR. MAURO: If that was the case, I 

19 think we're done. But I guess I didn't now 

20 that -- I don't know that to be the case. 

21 Because, if I recall, the actual case we did 

22 was for a person that worked in the early 
. 

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 year, and therefore these numbers that are in 

2 the table, some of them might apply to him but 

3 some of them would not. So, therefore --and I 

4 think there's about a 20-year time period 

5 difference, that's my recollection, between 

6 the old measurements and the newer 

7 measurements. 

8 And that was important to me at 

9 the time that I looked at it, but like I said, 

10 you know -- NIOSH, if you folks could make a 

11 case why we shouldn't segregate, I'd be fine 

12 with it, but I haven't heard the answer yet.

13 Steve, you started to answer and 

14 say, well, maybe, you know, I'm giving a 

15 reality to something that doesn't really have 

16 play here, the old versus new. But at the time 

17 I looked at it, it did have meaning to me. I'd 

18 like to hear a little bit more about that.

19 MR. TOMES: This is Tom again. I 

20 don't believe I have enough information in 

21 that article to say that some of these values 

22 does not include old data and new data. 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

79

1 example, the refinery at the outlier, 5 

2 milligrams per cubic meter, they used this 

3 data for the 1940s era when they had very high 

4 dust loading before they tore out the 

5 calciners in 1947. 

6 But as someone pointed out a while 

7 ago, these data appear to have been used over 

8 a period of years for average worker exposure 

9 over a period of years, which would mean that 

10 the earlier year exposures were higher, but 

11 they put these numbers together for the 

12 purpose of the study.

13 DR. MAURO: Alright. Let's say we 

14 have a real case, let's go -- I heard what you 

15 just said, very good. We have a real case. We 

16 have a guy that worked there in the 1940s. 

17 Wouldn't you want to use then the high number 

18 for the calciner? And if you find that 

19 another person was there after that time 

20 period ended and that calciner or whatever was 

21 generating the high dust loadings was no 

22 longer in play, and then I could see going 
. 

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 with some of the newer numbers. 

2 Right now, that level of -- that 

3 breakdown isn't there, and that story isn't 

4 told. But, I mean, if that's the way you 

5 might come out, that seems to be a reasonable, 

6 what I'd say, compromise.

7 MR. TOMES: But it wasn't a 

8 covered facility then.

9 DR. MAURO: Pardon me?

10 MR. TOMES: It wasn't a covered 

11 facility then.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, you're 

13 saying that the -- you're helping me out 

14 because I haven't looked at this in quite a 

15 while. So, you're saying that the time period 

16 when the high nickel concentration, the 5 

17 milligram number was observed, was not a time 

18 when there was uranium on site and people --

19 when there was any uranium on site. It was 

20 when they were just doing their nickel thing 

21 without any uranium?

22 MR. TOMES: That's right. 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

81

1 Reduction Pilot that was built -- I forgot, 

2 I'd have to read my writeup I had on that --

3 but it was built in the early `50s, and they 

4 actually operated using uncontaminated nickel 

5 for several years. Then they expanded it and 

6 started putting recycled nickel back through 

7 there. I believe the first contaminated nickel 

8 went in there in 1956.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, what you're 

10 arguing is that it's really the data that 

11 covers the time 1956 forward when they were 

12 doing the -- handling these barriers. You're 

13 saying prior to that they were not handling 

14 the barriers.

15 MR. TOMES: Right, the facility 

16 would not have been contaminated at that 

17 point.

18 DR. MAURO: I got you. Okay. I've 

19 got to tell you that sounded like a pretty 

20 good argument to me.

21 MR. STIVER: Tom, this is John 

22 Stiver. One further point, hopefully 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

82

1 clarify but maybe just to muddy things up even 

2 more. From what I'm gathering in this 

3 conversation is that we really don't know if 

4 there are data, historic data that might 

5 actually span into the operational period of 

6 the Pilot Plant. And because of that, just to 

7 err on the side of claimant-favorability, 

8 you've gone ahead and included some of the 

9 older data because there just isn't the 

10 granularity, the clarity as to what those 

11 particular measurements that went into 

12 creating these averages were actually taken. 

13 Is that a true statement?

14 MR. TOMES: That was my 

15 understanding of the data, yes.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. So, there's no 

17 way you could really separate out the 

18 applicable data from non-applicable in the 

19 historic data set itself. 

20 MR. TOMES: No, we don't have 

21 those details.

22 MR. STIVER: That's why you'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

83

1 stuck in this position.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, my -- now, 

3 I'm okay. My premise that the data that 

4 really was applicable here in Table 8 was the 

5 data with the little C next to them. That was 

6 a false assumption, and the reality is --

7 because that was the position I took. And 

8 you're making a good argument here why, no, 

9 that's not -- that may be very -- I mean, in 

10 theory, one could say if you do that it might 

11 be unrealistic because a lot of that data with 

12 the little C next to it actually was collected 

13 at a time before there were these barriers 

14 processed. It was at a time when, yeah, they 

15 were doing nickel work, but they weren't 

16 processing contaminated barriers. So, for 

17 that reason -- I'm sort of like saying if I 

18 was NIOSH, what would I -- I'm trying to 

19 answer the question. So, what you're saying 

20 is that -- and that's the reason why the full 

21 set of data probably is the right balance to 

22 strike, because the other way 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

84

1 implausible if that -- you wouldn't have -- in 

2 other words, there would be no worker there 

3 that was there working with uranium at the 

4 time when the 5 milligram per cubic meter 

5 number was there. You know, that was before 

6 any uranium was being handled.

7 If that's the case, I mean, if you 

8 could say that, you could say, no, that 5 

9 milligram number with the so called outlier, 

10 which is really not an outlier, but the real 

11 problem with it is not that it's an outlier, 

12 it's that it was collected at a time when 

13 there was no uranium onsite. Now, if that's 

14 the position, I'm ready to let this go. 

15 MR. TOMES: Well, that was my 

16 interpretation exactly, John. You know, he 

17 summed it up pretty well for me.

18 DR. MAURO: Well, I tell you, just 

19 based on what you just said, if that, in fact, 

20 is the case and, you know, I'm not 

21 misunderstanding, and you're not 

22 misunderstanding the records, as far as I'm 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 concerned this issue has been resolved. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments by 

3 others?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, this is Brad. 

5 I just have one question. I'm sorry, I'm a 

6 little bit muddy here. What you're telling 

7 me, and Tom and John, help me understand in 

8 layman's terms here. What you're saying is 

9 the information that we are using is from the 

10 earlier years when there was no contamination, 

11 but it's giving us a baseline for what we feel 

12 the people could have been associated to 

13 nickel-wise when the uranium came in 

14 contaminated that. Because we have no data 

15 for that time period in there, we don't have 

16 any information on that, is that why we're 

17 using that?

18 MR. TOMES: No, we have no data on 

19 airborne exposures during the operations with

20 uranium contaminated nickel. No, we have no 

21 data on that.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, so -- I'm 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 sorry, go ahead.

2 MR. TOMES: And the reason that we 

3 are using this other data that includes older 

4 data that would not normally be applicable is 

5 that it is all thrown into one basket, if you 

6 would, that includes older data and current 

7 data both. Current as to the study that was 

8 done in the late `70s, assuming that's when 

9 most of the -- mid to late `70s when this data 

10 was accumulated, I'm assuming.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Refresh my 

12 memory on this site, because what's -- how 

13 many years are we looking at using this data 

14 for? What is the year spread that we're --

15 when did they -- when did the uranium come on 

16 and when do we stop?

17 MR. TOMES: Just a second, I can 

18 give you a more precise -- hold on.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just trying 

20 to figure out how long of a time that we were 

21 using this for. 

22 MR. TOMES: Well, the covered 
. 

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 period is listed as 1951 through 1963, and 

2 then remediation `78 to `79. But the period 

3 1951 through sometime in `56 was processing 

4 uncontaminated nickel, so the worker exposures 

5 to uranium that we need to calculate or 

6 estimate is from 1956 to `63 and `78 to `79. 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

8 DR. MAURO: And that 5 number is 

9 applicable to what time period?

10 MR. TOMES: That's for the 

11 refinery, which includes those earlier 1940s 

12 era high exposures.

13 DR. MAURO: And that was not a 

14 time period when there was uranium because 

15 it's pre-`56.

16 MR. TOMES: Right, so that biases 

17 the results high, but I don't know how to 

18 separate that number any further than that.

19 DR. MAURO: I got you. So, by 

20 including -- okay, now I'm good. So, what 

21 you're saying is even though that 5 number is 

22 a number that was measured in the earlier 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 years, you're leaving it in your distribution, 

2 but you're not going to just focus in on the 

3 Cs because the -- okay, good. I'm good now. 

4 Because the little letter Cs, really if you 

5 were to collect and only work with those, all 

6 of those would only be associated with times 

7 before 1956 when there was any uranium onsite.

8 MR. TOMES: It would be very high, 

9 I believe, if we did that.

10 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and then you 

11 come in with a high number, as I did, and it 

12 would not necessarily apply because it wasn't 

13 at a time when the uranium was there.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's not 

15 appropriate.

16 DR. MAURO: And I'm with you, I'm 

17 okay. 

18 MR. TOMES: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: I think I got it. And 

20 I think that it -- gee, it's a shame it took 

21 me so long to get through my thick head, but I 

22 understand now, and this is very helpful. 
. 

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 Thank you. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

3 Brad. I appreciate your discussion with it 

4 because this brought clarity to my 

5 understanding of what was going on, because 

6 I'll be right honest with you, I didn't 

7 understand why we were using what we were 

8 using for what. And I would agree with you as 

9 well as SC&A at this time that this issue 

10 should be closed, but that's my personal --

11 DR. MAURO: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

13 it sounds like there's an agreement and 

14 closure.

15 DR. MAURO: And one comment, Tom. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hopefully --

17 DR. MAURO: You've got to tell 

18 your story a little better next time.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

20 Alright. Do we -- is there another -- there 

21 is another item in 8. It's 11:30. Let's keep 

22 going on to 12. We started at 10, so I'm 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 hoping that we can take our break at noon to 

2 eat lunch, as well as comfort, if you will. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Man, I'm going 

4 for breakfast.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm so 

6 sorry. Of course, my apologies to several of 

7 you. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there are 

9 several of us out here that --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please 

11 excuse us East Coast Daylight Savings Time 

12 people. I'll remember that for the future. Do 

13 we have one more item in Set 8?

14 MR. TOMES: I believe that this 

15 closes out Items 3 and 5. And I think that 

16 might be all.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I agree with 

19 that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful. 

21 Great. So 8 is now concluded.

22 MR. STIVER: Eight is closed.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright,

2 folks. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Thank goodness.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

5 how do we want to proceed? Although it's a 

6 little early here in the East Coast, we could 

7 take a break now and start on 9, which I hope 

8 will move more quickly, but right after lunch. 

9 We could take an hour break, or would you like 

10 to go on for another half an hour?

11 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let me ask. 

12 Grady, did you want to talk about -- it's more 

13 Huntington Pilot Plant issues on Set 9?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I think, 

15 though, on Set 9, I believe that these are 

16 going to revolve around the new review, and I 

17 don't think that we're prepared to comment on 

18 those yet because we haven't reviewed that.

19 MR. SIEBERT: I understand, I just 

20 wanted to make sure if we needed our 

21 Huntington Pilot Plant people around, but you 

22 understand that those -- I think there's two 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 findings there, and it has to do with Steve's 

2 report?

3 MR. CALHOUN: Right, and that's 

4 the newest one. Right?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And unless 

7 those are -- I'm just not smart enough on that 

8 new report to say that those are directly 

9 related. If Steve says they're directly 

10 related and it's closed, we're good. But I 

11 don't know that off the top of my head.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Are there other 

issues on the 9th 13 Set you want to talk about?

14 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. Scott, 

15 there were some things on there, do you want 

16 to try to knock those out? Oh, yeah, there's 

17 something on Ashland Oil we can talk about, 

18 yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Do we 

20 want to go ahead for --

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

22 just Brad.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would like to 

3 just continue on up until at least lunch or 

4 so.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's my vote.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Your lunch 

8 or our lunch?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Your lunch, our 

10 breakfast. 

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, let's go for 

14 it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, 

16 excellent. Let's go to 9, folks. 

17 MR. STIVER: Eight-nine is loading, 

18 be patient.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, we are.

20 MR. SIEBERT: And I think it's the 

21 first finding, 179.1.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I've got 179.4. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 How did I miss 1?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, and I believe 

3 that's it. I'm seeing if I've got the right C4 MR. STIVER: 79.4?

5 MR. SIEBERT: One I had open. 

6 MR. CALHOUN: 179.1.

7 MEMBER MUNN: NIOSH was to review 

8 SC&A response. 

9 MR. STIVER: Everybody see that?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. CALHOUN: This one might be 

12 kind of quick because I'm not sure it'll close 

13 anything out. But we discovered something 

14 here. It's case-specific, not TBD or anything 

15 like that specific. This individual had -- are 

16 we ready? Can I talk?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, please.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. This 

19 individual had some verified employment 

20 through the Department of Labor I believe back 

21 to 1947-ish. If you look at the Department of 

22 Labor website -- I'm going to try to call 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

95

1 up while we're talking here -- you'll see that 

2 the covered period for Ashland Oil is listed 

3 as -- and let me find it real quick before I 

4 speak. 

5 Okay. The covered period starts 

6 1944 to 1960, and then it goes all the way 

7 through 2006 when you consider the residual 

8 contamination periods, two of them which are 

9 mixed in.

10 The site is called out as Ashland 

11 Oil. That is a problem. This individual worked 

12 for Ashland Oil and was given verified 

13 employment through -- or beginning in 1947. 

14 And in fact he did work for Ashland Oil. The 

15 problem is, Ashland Oil had nothing to do with 

16 this facility until 1960. So, the argument 

17 here about us looking at earlier data to get 

18 the dose to this individual is irrelevant 

19 because we used data based on 1957 levels, I 

20 believe. And his covered employment is, in 

21 fact, wrong. 

22 We've just addressed this recently 
. 

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 with Department of Labor, and they're actually 

2 looking at -- now, looking at, they didn't say 

3 they're going to do it -- they're looking at 

4 changing the name of the site from Ashland 

5 Oil. Because when you read Ashland Oil, you 

6 believe that Ashland Oil was involved since 

7 1944, but that is not true. They didn't gain 

8 control of that facility per a DOE Legacy 

9 Management document until 1960. 

10 So, the DR, this individual DR is 

11 correct because it's based on dose 

12 measurements that were taken after 1957. So, 

13 I don't know if we'll have to come back to 

14 that. I just wanted to let you guys know 

15 what's going on with that. There may be a 

16 somewhat significant change to the name of 

17 that site. And then people who were employed 

18 by Ashland Oil wouldn't automatically be 

19 assumed to have worked at this facility prior 

20 to 1960 when they took ownership of that land.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And how 

22 would it affect that individual that 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

97

1 talking about here, 179.1?

2 MR. CALHOUN: The dose is right. 

3 The argument, I believe, is that we didn't use 

4 previous -- we didn't use older -- he had 

5 covered employment from 1947, and we used --

6 let me see if I can find it. We used dose 

7 measurements that were taken, I believe, in 

8 1957.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, `58.

10 MR. CALHOUN: `58. And the 

11 argument was that we should have used earlier 

12 -- is that really representative of earlier 

13 dose rates that may have been at that site? 

14 For this individual it doesn't matter, because 

15 he worked for Ashland Oil, he wasn't at the 

16 site. Ashland Oil, as we all know, is a very 

17 big facility. Big company, I mean. So, we 

18 have actually informed DOL of that, as well as 

19 of the individual case telling them that that 

20 we believe it's an employment verification 

21 issue. 

22 This is a very, very old 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

98

1 deconstruction, and from talking to the people 

2 back then, rather than argue with Department 

3 of Labor, we decided just to maximize the 

4 dose. And we kind of thought there might be 

5 an issue with the employment, but we just gave 

6 him the dose for the entire period even when 

7 it appears now that he was very unlikely to 

8 have been involved at that site prior to 1960.

9 DR. MAURO: This is John. Let me 

10 say it, because then it helps me solidify in 

11 my head. This place, as I recall, was 

12 receiving slag from Linde just for storage. It 

13 was just piling up there. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

15 DR. MAURO: And there were 

16 measurements made, radiation fields, the 

17 walkover surveys made when they were doing 

18 that.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: And there were certain 

21 levels that were observed.

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

99

1 DR. MAURO: Then when -- now, here 

2 we have this guy who works there, and I seem 

3 to recall that my concern had to do with, 

4 well, you used his radiation field information 

5 that was collected in the 1950s. Why didn't 

6 you use the numbers that were there for the 

7 1940s, because wasn't he there then?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

9 DR. MAURO: And you're saying he 

10 wasn't there then.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Exactly.

12 DR. MAURO: That's the end of the 

13 story. I understand it. That being the case, 

14 taking it on, you know, what you described, 

15 the right way to do this is to base it on the 

16 radiation measurements that were made when he 

17 was there, which was, I guess, a later time 

18 period when for whatever reason the radiation 

19 fields were not as a high. I don't know the 

20 reasons why they would go down. It was still 

21 a dumping site, but apparently they made 

22 measurements in the `50s and those are 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

100

1 measurements that really should apply to this 

2 guy. If that's your position, I mean, again, 

3 I, for one, it sounds like that's a reasonable 

4 position to take.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. And I 

6 didn't know that either until maybe two days 

7 ago. And it looks like that we had not even 

8 notified DOL about that until just yesterday 

9 when we found this out. I don't believe that 

10 they will actually change this guy's covered 

11 employment. If they do, we're not going to 

12 change his dose reconstruction unless, of 

13 course, he comes through -- well, he's 

14 deceased. But if there was another cancer 

15 identified somehow we would revise the dose 

16 reconstruction, but that would certainly just 

17 make this dose go down because he wouldn't get 

18 any dose applied for the years prior to 1960.

19 DR. MAURO: Right, because he 

20 wasn't there.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Right. He worked at 

22 Ashland Oil, but Ashland Oil didn't own 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

101

1 site until 1960.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

3 Sounds like resolution. 

4 MR. STIVER: Okay. Just so I have 

5 this correct for the matrix, it's not that he 

6 wasn't there in `47 or in the `40s. It's that 

7 he was employed by Ashland Oil and Ashland Oil 

8 was not the operator at that time. Is that 

9 correct?

10 MR. CALHOUN: No, he wasn't there 

11 because Ashland Oil wasn't there.

12 DR. MAURO: I've got to say that -

13 - my recollection was the -- when you go back 

14 to the old Linde records and the Ashland Oil 

15 records, why -- I'm of the belief, and I might 

16 be wrong, that they were dumping material at 

17 Ashland Oil.

18 MR. CALHOUN: They absolutely 

19 were. Here's what happened, and I'm trying to 

20 call up the other site here. If you bear with 

21 me for just a second.

22 DR. MAURO: Sure. The Haist?
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that's what it 

2 was previously known as, and I -- and if 

3 you'll -- Ashland Oil site. Okay. I don't 

4 want that. Okay. If you indulge me for just 

5 a moment I'm going to actually read from this, 

6 okay? And I can email this out. 

7 This is from the Department of 

8 Energy Legacy Management site. Let's see, I 

9 want to get to the -- "1944 to 1946 uranium 

10 ore processing wastes were transported from 

11 Linde to a 10-acre area known as the Haist 

12 property, H-A-I-S-T, now called Tonawanda 

13 North Unit 1 (Ashland Oil 1 site). These 

14 materials consisted of about 8,000 tons of 

15 low-grade uranium ore tailings. In 1960, the 

16 property was transferred to Ashland Oil for 

17 use in the company's oil refining activities."

18 Now, what the problem was there is 

19 that Ashland then used that for disposal of 

20 general plant waste but they were digging 

21 around in it. So, that's how the exposure to 

22 Ashland Oil people would have come 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

103

1 because they were using the same site that was 

2 previously used as a low-level radioactive 

3 material dump that dumped general plant 

4 refuse. So when they were digging around in 

5 that, that was causing exposure to their 

6 people, but that would have been after 1960, 

7 or beginning of 1960.

8 DR. MAURO: So, this guy then was 

9 not there before -- in the `40s --

10 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

11 DR. MAURO: -- when Ashland Oil 

12 was receiving this junk from --

13 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. He worked 

14 for Ashland Oil, but Ashland Oil wasn't there.

15 DR. MAURO: Well, he wasn't there. 

16 I mean, that's my main concern.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: Was he there in the 

19 1940s when Linde dumped the stuff? If the 

20 answer is no, he was not; therefore, any 

21 measurements made in the 1940s would not apply 

22 to him, only the measurements made when he 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

104

1 physically there. The fact that these names 

2 changed and that causes some confusion is of 

3 less interest to me than the fact that we have 

4 evidence that this guy was not there in the 

5 `40s. He was there in the `50s, and it's the 

6 data that was collected in the `50s regarding 

7 the radiation field that he might have been 

8 exposed to that's applicable to this work.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: Bingo. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

12 Resolution, yes?

13 MR. CALHOUN: Did the matrix just 

14 pop off or did I -- am I not -- can I not get 

15 that?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: My screen 

17 went down.

18 MR. CALHOUN: I've still got my --

19 okay, there it is.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we go.

21 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, quick 

22 question. Like the Procedures Subcommittee, 
. 

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 do we close these issues or do we hold them in 

2 abeyance until you make revisions to your Site 

3 Profile that explains all this?

4 MR. CALHOUN: We don't have a Site 

5 Profile for Ashland Oil.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is not -- I'm 

7 trying to think of how this all came -- this 

8 is just a dose reconstruction --

9 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: -- based on whatever 

11 records we have.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay, I got you. 

14 Alright. So, therefore, there really is 

15 nothing to revise. This record, in effect, 

16 revises the information relevant to the whole 

17 process.

18 By the way, as an aside, when 

19 there is a Site Profile -- and let's say this 

20 was a Site Profile where the story was told, 

21 but this aspect of it was not well developed, 

22 and there would be -- if that was the 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

106

1 and there would be a need to clarify the Site 

2 Profile just for this reason, would this issue 

3 we're talking about be closed or would it be 

4 put in abeyance as a matter of process?

5 MR. KATZ: Well, this is Ted here. 

6 I would suggest it would be closed. This is a 

7 case we're trying to close. We're trying to 

8 close the whole set of cases.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: And the abeyance 

11 wouldn't help us there at all.

12 DR. MAURO: I got you, okay. 

13 MR. KATZ: That's my suggestion.

14 DR. MAURO: You know, I keep 

15 tripping back and forth between these mini 

16 Site Profile reviews and the cases. I 

17 understand. Thank you for helping me out.

18 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

19 That kind of brought up an interesting point 

20 that we've talked about before, which is, you 

21 know, when we come up -- we do a particular 

22 reconstruction that identifies 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

107

1 whether it be a Site Profile, or a site, or 

2 what not. In this case there really isn't a 

3 Site Profile, but that would then go into the 

4 Case Set Summary Document, and also into Table 

5 3 to identify things that came up during the 

6 review of the case.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

8 MR. STIVER: This would be kind of 

9 an example of that type of a situation.

10 DR. MAURO: Under the new 

11 protocol.

12 MR. STIVER: Yeah, when a new -- a 

13 dose reconstruction uncovered a problem and it 

14 was previously unknown or unrecognized. 

15 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, the vehicle 

16 that would be used to, I guess, have a record 

17 of this conversation would actually find its 

18 way -- I guess, I'm just trying to think of --

19 I'm now thinking more of an administrator, how 

20 do we make -- keep track? Certainly, we have 

21 this transcript. I guess that would be it, 

22 but often we also have other methods 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

108

1 maintain these kinds of matters. I guess it's 

2 in the transcript, but you're saying there's 

3 other places where we would somehow capture 

4 this?

5 MR. STIVER: John, remember at our 

6 last meeting we discussed this very issue 

7 about how do you prevent the stovepiping.

8 DR. MAURO: Right.

9 MR. STIVER: And how do you 

10 address these issues that -- I guess, it's 

11 really twofold. One being if a particular 

12 reconstruction were to uncover a previously 

13 unknown problem with a Site Profile or a site 

14 in general, then that would be captured in the 

15 summary document that would accompany the set 

16 of dose reconstructions.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. STIVER: And there was also 

19 the discussion of modifying or adding to Table 

20 2, and actually creating another Table 3 that 

21 really talks about the issues related to PERs, 

22 TBDs, TIBs and so forth that impinge on that 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 particular case. The whole idea being to try 

2 to link all these different aspects together. 

3 We're kind of straying afield here. I just 

4 wanted to --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

6 DR. MAURO: It's good, at least 

7 for me, to be reminded that we have a way to 

8 track all this for the future, for posterity, 

9 so to speak. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is there 

11 another item we want to -- by the way, I do 

12 not have Set 9 up on my screen at this point.

13 MR. STIVER: That's because you 

14 took control away from me.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh.

16 MR. STIVER: I can request it back 

17 here right now.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

19 MR. CALHOUN: It looks like the 

20 next thing on the matrix is 185, 6 and 7. And 

21 like I said before, this had to do with the 

22 new report in dust loading and what not. And I 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 don't know if those have been answered based 

2 on our previous discussions or not, because I 

3 cannot say that I am well-versed in that new 

4 report at this time. 

5 DR. MAURO: Are we back at 

6 Huntington now, the Site Profile?

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, that's what 

8 185, 6 and 7 are.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, and that's your -

10 - Steve Marschke's June report?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Steve, did we close 

13 out the issues that were of interest to you 

14 also in the June report?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I think we've 

16 closed out the major technical issues which 

17 were, you know, finding 5 and 6 of the June 

18 report, which talks about the similar things 

19 that John talked about in the Enterline and 

20 Marsh and the table there, and so on and so 

21 forth. So, I think finding 5 and 6 we could 

22 probably definitely close those 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

111

1 There's a number of other findings 

2 in there which are kind of small findings more 

3 or less related to certain things that are in 

4 the TBD, some typos, some numerical errors 

5 maybe that I think I have identified which, 

6 you know, NIOSH may want to take a look at. 

7 So, I think, you know, some of 

8 those are still going to be open, but I don't 

9 think there would be anything that, you know, 

10 this group of people have to really be 

11 involved in. I think it's something that 

12 NIOSH would just have to sit down and agree --

13 either agree with the findings or point out 

14 why the finding is in error.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Well, just 

16 from a process standpoint then, do we close 

17 out 185.6 and 185.7 and respond to the report? 

18 Or do we leave these open and revisit them 

19 next time?

20 MR. FARVER: This is Doug, and I 

21 suggest we just keep these open until you just 

22 look at the report and you'll have some kind 
. 

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 of response.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: For now, let's just 

4 keep these -- there's just two of them, just 

5 keep those two open.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. CALHOUN: The next one is 

8 195.1, and I don't know if -- Scott, were you 

9 going to say something on that?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is the --

11 this is Scott. This is the rotational 

12 isotropic AP DCF discussion we've had many

13 times. And, Grady, we talked about this the 

14 other day, do you want me to kind of --

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, go ahead. 

16 Basically, I think, in a nutshell, is that 

17 because of the new ICRP document that came 

18 out, the huge number of DCFs are changing. 

19 Some are going up, some are going down. And 

20 this is going to require a very, very large --

21 what am I looking for?

22 MR. SIEBERT: PER.
. 

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 MR. CALHOUN: Program Evaluation 

2 Report to address any DRs in which DCF used 

3 those up, not down. So, it's something that's 

4 going to ultimately be addressed, but it's not 

5 going to be any time probably within the next 

6 year. 

7 DR. MAURO: Is this an overarching 

8 issue that cuts across virtually all the dose 

9 reconstructions that are done?

10 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely, it's 

11 giant.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, so it almost 

13 sounds like something that needs to be 

14 transferred to the Procedures Subcommittee.

15 MR. CALHOUN: It does.

16 DR. MAURO: If I should be so 

17 bold.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You should 

19 be.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you ever so 

21 much, John. But could we have, perhaps, the 

22 30,000 foot view of what these changes 
. 

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 actually are that we're having to deal with?

2 MR. CALHOUN: I can just give you 

3 a couple of generalities, because I don't know 

4 off the top of my head the details. Tim 

5 Taulbee is our guy working on this, but --

6 MEMBER MUNN: If you would, 

7 because I am not aware of having been briefed 

8 at all on this change.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. What's 

10 happened is, and I don't know what data came 

11 out, but there was a new ICRP publication that 

12 came out with new dose conversion factors. And 

13 that's where we derive our dose conversion 

14 factors to begin with. And they've changed.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Is this a major 

16 change in ICRP?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

18 MR. SMITH: Hey, Grady, it's Matt 

19 Smith on the line. I can help out, if you 

20 want.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, good. Thank 

22 you, Matt, you've 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

115

1 MEMBER MUNN: That would be great. 

2 Thanks, Matt.

3 MR. SMITH: As Grady said, this 

4 was the new ICRP report. Let me back up. 

5 Implementation Guide Number 1 is the document 

6 that contains the external dose DCF values. 

7 And those values are based on ICRP Report 74. 

8 I believe that one was from 1996. 

9 In the interim, the Committee has 

10 updated reference man, and they've also 

11 updated weighting factors. We don't have to 

12 worry about the weighting factors because 

13 we're dealing with organ dose. 

14 The update to reference man I 

15 believe is Report 110. And when that was 

16 completed they realized, hey, we actually have 

17 more realistic phantoms now to use both for 

18 male and female subjects. So, the Committee 

19 went to work and produced ICRP 116, and that 

20 is the replacement for Report 74. It's a basic 

21 top to bottom re-do of 74 using the new more 

22 anatomically correct phantoms, and also 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

116

1 male and female. 

2 And because, obviously, geometry 

3 has evolved and updated especially for female 

4 subjects, as Grady indicated, a lot of 

5 changes, both upward and downward on DCF 

6 values. No particular trend. It is really a 

7 mix and match.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Alright, fine. Thank 

9 you, Matt. That helps clarify my big question 

10 mark in my head, and it certainly throws the 

11 cat out with the dishwater, doesn't it? I can 

12 see that that would be really an overwhelming 

13 task for us. Alright, fine. As much as I 

14 hate to say it, you're probably right. It 

15 sounds as though it needs to go into the 

16 overarching issues.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I have a real 

18 concern with this specific issue of the 

19 rotational geometry, because it has been in 

20 IG-001, and I have never seen it applied. And 

21 it says you are supposed to use or consider 

22 these geometries for lung cancers and bone 
. 

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 cancers. I think there's three cancers. And 

2 we've never seen it applied, and we always 

3 write it up as a finding, and it doesn't get 

4 closed out. And this is going to come up more 

5 on Savannah River cases. And it can happen, 

6 it can increase your external doses by maybe 

7 50 percent, so if you have people that are 

8 teetering at 48-49 percent, a significant 

9 impact. So, I think since it is still a part 

10 of their current IG-001, they should be 

11 implementing it, and not just ignoring it and 

12 saying, well, things will change later on. 

13 DR. MAURO: Doug, this is John. I 

14 know that they've been using AP because of the 

15 problems with rotational and AP -- PA, and 

16 they've been using AP because, it was my 

17 understanding, that that was the fix until 

18 they made the permanent fix.

19 MR. FARVER: That's the old Rev.

20 DR. MAURO: Exactly. And that 

21 being -- now, what I hear you saying, though, 

22 is that, no, the AP approach, which is the way 
. 

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 to get around this problem and be claimant2 favorable may not very well be claimant3 favorable?

4 MR. FARVER: Correct.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: It states it 

7 specifically in Table 4-1A, of which there are 

8 two tables with the same number. We've brought 

9 that up before.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we've addressed

11 that.

12 MR. FARVER: And what it says, if 

13 they're wearing it on their chest, for certain 

14 types of cancer, the AP may not be the most 

15 claimant-favorable, the most applicable. So, 

16 you have to go through this process and look 

17 at these others and use these other 

18 geometries, and it's not being done. I've not 

19 seen it being done.

20 MR. SMITH: There is also a 

21 sentence in that same section that does 

22 indicate if AP is, in fact, the proper 
. 

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 geometry to be assuming, that it is okay to go 

2 ahead and use AP.

3 MR. FARVER: I understand that, 

4 but you can't just assume that by default and 

5 then try and defend it later. I mean, what 

6 we're seeing is there's nothing in the dose 

7 reconstructions in the files that say we 

8 looked at these other geometries, or we looked 

9 at this person's work location, or their job, 

10 and we've determined that AP is appropriate. 

11 There's nothing in there about the rotational. 

12 It's just completely absent. So you can't tell 

13 me you're looking at it and then you decide 

14 it's AP, because it's not being done. There's 

15 no evidence of that being done.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Do we have any 

17 workbook instruction or anything of that sort 

18 that would --

19 MR. SMITH: The information on 

20 that was shared as the IG was revised.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

22 MR. SMITH: You know, Scott and I 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 have discussed this. You know, in some cases 

2 it's probably a situation where the DR should 

3 have added another sentence that said, you 

4 know, that the geometry was looked at 

5 explicitly. I believe some of the claims that 

6 have come through that we've reviewed for 

7 this, you know, it turns out AP is a valid 

8 assumption.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, that doesn't -

10 - I guess doesn't really satisfy the question 

11 that SC&A has.

12 MR. SMITH: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: I don't know that 

14 there's anything in any of the workbooks that 

15 gives you the option to use the rotational. I 

16 don't know the -- I have not seen any 

17 indication where this section is being 

18 implemented.

19 MR. SMITH: The workbooks always 

20 have the option to use the other DCFs. All 

21 the DCF values are built in.

22 MEMBER POSTON: I've got to put my 
. 

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 two cents in here. This is John.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Speak, John.

3 MEMBER POSTON: I think the 

4 problem is that you're interested in dose to 

5 specific organs. If you go back and look at 

6 the paper George Xu, Reece and some guy by the 

7 name of Poston, you'll see that the best place 

8 to wear your badge is in the front in the 

9 middle of the chest, second best place is to 

10 wear it in the middle of your back. And if 

11 you move the -- if you rotate in the radiation 

12 field, and we're talking about photons now, if 

13 you rotate in the radiation field it turns out 

14 that the extremities and parts of your body 

15 shield the organs of interest and the 

16 effective dose equivalent actually goes down.

17 There are some three-dimensional 

18 graphs in that paper in Health Physics. It 

19 takes a bottle of wine and you have to really 

20 sit and ponder those graphs, but any situation 

21 except for head-on, what I would call PA --

22 actually AP, not PA -- PA in the AP situation, 
. 

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 the best place for your badge is right in 

2 front, in a rotational field it's still right 

3 in front. And I think this may not be a 

4 problem, but it's worth a look at those 

5 papers.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it sounds to 

7 me as though the concern here is that SC&A 

8 does not see that there is any instruction 

9 anywhere either in the IG or elsewhere that 

10 would help the dose reconstuctor know that 

11 what you just said is correct, John.

12 MEMBER POSTON: No argument there.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah. I think 

14 that's the issue, isn't it?

15 MEMBER POSTON: But it's -- as I 

16 understood what -- maybe I missed a statement 

17 or two here, but I was trying to keep up, but 

18 Doug says that they haven't used rotational at 

19 all.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I think what 

21 he's saying is not that they haven't used 

22 rotational, but that there isn't any 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 indication for the dose reconstructor that 

2 they can find that it's okay to use AP. I 

3 think that's -- isn't that the issue?

4 MR. FARVER: No, it's more like I 

5 can't see where the dose reconstructor is even 

6 following this part of IG-001. They're not 

7 following the instructions.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

9 MEMBER POSTON: I can't comment on 

10 that, but I can comment that using AP is, 

11 according to the data that we obtained, it 

12 took the NRC about five years to figure it out 

13 and finally issue a Regulatory Guide on the 

14 issue. But AP, the badge in the front is the 

15 best place, all other situations the dose goes 

16 down. 

17 MR. FARVER: I mean, I can read 

18 you the exact paragraph out of IG-001. It 

19 says, "The AP DCF values in Appendix A are not 

20 the most claimant-favorable for bone surface, 

21 bone red marrow, esophagus, and lung when the 

22 dosimeter is worn on the chest."
. 

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 MEMBER POSTON: That's absolutely 

2 wrong. Absolutely wrong. 

3 MR. FARVER: Okay, that could be. 

4 I'm just reading it from their own Guide. It 

5 goes on, "For these organs, if the dosimeter 

6 is worn on the chest, multiply the Appendix A 

7 value of the ROT and ISO by the factors in 

8 Table 4 of 1A instead of using the AP value. 

9 In these cases, the rotational and the 

10 isogeometries are more claimant-favorable than 

11 the AP value in Appendix A. However, the 

12 correction factors need not be applied if it 

13 is determined that the most representative 

14 geometry is 100 percent AP or other 

15 compensating claimant-favorable determinations 

16 have been made in the dose reconstruction."

17 What we're not seeing is we're not 

18 seeing that process. In other words, they're 

19 just going directly to AP and there's no 

20 indication that they even considered the other 

21 geometries. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: So, if I understand 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 the conversation we just had directly, we know 

2 have two issues instead of one.

3 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: We started with the 

5 issue that IG-001 was not being followed 

6 correctly, or it's not being followed. And 

7 number two, we now have Dr. Poston's assertion 

8 that the information as presented in IG-001 is 

9 not correct.

10 DR. MAURO: Right, and we have a 

11 third layer. The whole thing is being trashed 

12 because of the new ICRP 116 guidelines that 

13 eventually will replace all this.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Yeah. But, John, 

16 remember all models are wrong, including the 

17 phantoms, and some of them are -- as George 

18 Box said, all models are wrong, but some are 

19 useful.

20 DR. MAURO: Right.

21 MEMBER POSTON: I wouldn't hang, 

22 you know, just because we have new 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

126

1 conversion factors doesn't make it clear that 

2 they're any better than --

3 DR. MAURO: Right.

4 MEMBER POSTON: I'm not proposing 

5 that SC&A undertake such a big project.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, no. I only 

7 mentioned it as it's a layered problem, that 

8 is -- I think that Wanda clearly articulated 

9 that we have our simple concern. You know, 

10 ours is, when you think about it, pretty 

11 straightforward. Did they use the procedures 

12 that they were instructed to use? And the 

13 answer is not always.

14 Now, the other layer, which is 

15 really a --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Or that we don't see 

17 it.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah. But the other 

19 layer is the point, like Wanda said, that the 

20 procedures themselves under certain 

21 circumstances, according to John's work, may 

22 very well be problematic, which then all 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

127

1 sudden becomes more of an overarching issue. 

2 You see, the first one is very much a dose 

3 reconstruction issue. Did you do it the right 

4 way for this guy? And did you provide the 

5 proper documentation that follows your own 

6 instructions?

7 The next level -- if it turns out 

8 the instructions, they are or are not doing 

9 that -- the next level is, well, are the 

10 instructions correct? And the answer is 

11 perhaps not, based on the work Dr. Poston just 

12 described. So, I think that those are matters 

13 that need to be tended to.

14 This business of the ICRP report, 

15 I understand what you're saying, John. You 

16 know, that's another matter all together. The 

17 day comes when NIOSH engages that issue and 

18 makes some, you know, does some I guess what 

19 you would call science-based judgments on 

20 whether they want to move into that world or 

21 not. That's really outside the framework of 

22 any of the matters I think we're discussing. 
. 

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 That would be a judgment that will be made by 

2 NIOSH some time in the future.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

4 this --

5 MEMBER POSTON: I want to avoid 

6 that. See, we could just say we can't do 

7 anything because the ICRP is going to come up 

8 with new dose conversion factors in five 

9 years. And I'm not suggesting that we wait, 

10 and I'm not suggesting that we go back.

11 DR. MAURO: I agree with you 

12 completely. I mean, I'm with you.

13 MEMBER POSTON: I suggest that it's 

14 -- we shouldn't have to worry about it. We 

15 have to take the best data or the best 

16 approach that we have and use it in the time 

17 in which we're being used. We can't go --

18 DR. MAURO: Bingo, I agree with 

19 that. Yes, we should not -- no way should 

20 these issues, the first two we just mentioned, 

21 be put on ice. They have to be dealt with.

22 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 
. 

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 If I could jump in for just a minute. Dr. 

2 Poston, what was the reference number for that 

3 Health Physics article that we're talking 

4 about here?

5 MEMBER POSTON: I don't have it in 

6 front of me, John, but it was in Health 

7 Physics. The first author was George Xu, 

8 second author was Dan Reece and I was the 

9 third author. I can get it for you. I can look 

10 it up on my resume, but I don't have my resume 

11 in front of me. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: George --

13 MR. STIVER: Just email me the 

14 reference to it and I can get it off the HP 

15 site.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: George Xu, 

17 X-U?

18 MEMBER POSTON: X-U.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

20 But in terms of this Subcommittee, this is an 

21 overarching issue that's going to go over to 

22 the Procedures Review Committee. 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

130

1 MEMBER POSTON: You're welcome, 

2 Wanda.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, thanks ever so, 

4 again. Sure.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MEMBER MUNN: We'll look at it 

7 there. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

9 good. So, we have that moving to the other 

10 Committee. Where do we go now? It's 10 after 

11 12 on the East Coast.

12 MR. FARVER: David, could I ask a 

13 question?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. FARVER: If we're going to 

16 transfer this to procedures, does that mean --

17 well, they're going to look at it for, number 

18 one, correctness?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. FARVER: But are they going to 

21 look to see if they're implementing this?

22 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that -- 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

131

1 Thanks, Doug, this is Ted. That stays with 

2 this -- so I think that issue still needs to 

3 be closed out here: did they follow the 

4 procedures they should have? Because the 

5 discussion so far didn't make that crystal 

6 clear, and that needs to be closed out for you 

7 to be able to close out these cases. 

8 The science issue of what is 

9 actually right to do is -- again, that's 

10 correctly transferred, I think, to Procedures, 

11 but --

12 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John. I 

13 agree. I think I see exactly the line of 

14 thought there. Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: And, David, if you 

16 will be good enough to make sure that we get a 

17 memo to the Procedures Subcommittee so that we 

18 remember to --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: -- get it onto our 

21 agenda next time.

22 MR. FARVER: I believe that 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

132

1 should be able to go back and look at previous 

2 lung cancers and bone cancer cases that are 

3 approaching the 50 percent mark and see how 

4 many of those they actually used these two 

5 other geometries.

6 MEMBER MUNN: That's true, 

7 although in my mind we still have not -- NIOSH 

8 has not put to bed the question of how it --

9 if the dose reconstructor has any instruction 

10 elsewhere. I still haven't heard anything 

11 about that one way or the other.

12 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and 

13 we'll check into that. I certainly am not 

14 going to commit to going back to every case 

15 and look for the DCFs. I think, first of all, 

16 we need to see what the instructions are and 

17 maybe we're just not documenting it 

18 appropriately.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. So, anyway, the 

20 findings relevant to Dose Reconstruction 

21 Subcommittee, I think they're just -- "in 

22 progress" is the term we use with 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

133

1 DR. MAURO: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: NIOSH will get back to 

3 us on that. And to make things easy for the 

4 transfer, I can -- David, you don't really 

5 need to do anything. When we get the 

6 transcript for this Work Group meeting, I 

7 mean, for the Subcommittee meeting, I'll 

8 excerpt the discussion related to the science 

9 issue that Dr. Poston raised.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

11 MR. KATZ: And I will then send 

12 that to Wanda with indications this is an 

13 issue that needs to be taken up.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That's good, Ted.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Where 

20 do we go now? This, by the way, being our 

21 first Live Meeting that at least I've 

22 attended, the issue of time and what 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

134

1 people stop for lunch/breakfast, comfort, et 

2 cetera is open. So, where do people want to 

3 go right now?

4 There seems to be perhaps only two 

5 more items on this Set 9. Is that correct?

6 MEMBER MUNN: I wasn't even sure 

7 there were two more.

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

9 believe there's only one more.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can we go 

11 with it?

12 MR. SIEBERT: I believe it's a 

13 relatively straightforward one.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, let's 

15 try it.

16 MR. SIEBERT: 215, Observation 4.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Wait for that to get 

19 there.

20 MEMBER MUNN: And remember this is 

21 an observation.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 MR. SIEBERT: As it gets there, 

2 I'll kind of outline it really quickly.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

4 MR. SIEBERT: This was an issue 

5 where there were differing values that were 

6 coming out of the CAD program, the dose 

7 calculation program we used for polonium, when 

8 it was done -- when the claim was originally 

9 done and then when SC&A did the review. 

10 And the reasoning for that is CAD 

11 had been updated to reflect different organs 

12 for the highest non-metabolic organ. So, the 

13 issue itself has already been resolved. We 

14 all agree that there was a change. It actually 

15 ended up -- the doses went down in the case of 

16 polonium, so that the issue itself, this 

17 observation is closed, or at least resolved.

18 The last issue we have discussed a 

19 couple of times is the fact that we have never 

20 done a PER for any of the CAD updates, the 

21 tool updates that may have resulted in 

22 increased dose. And I believe -- Grady, feel 
. 

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 free to correct me if I'm wrong -- but I 

2 believe we've agreed to put this on our list 

3 of PERs to be considered -- well, not just to 

4 be considered. We will end up doing one at 

5 some point reflecting any of the changes in 

6 the tool over time, and how they've affected 

7 claims that have already been previously 

8 completed.

9 MR. CALHOUN: That is true, and we 

10 have -- as you probably all know, we've got 

11 quite a number of PERs that are in the 

12 pipeline, and they're being actively worked, 

13 but there is a backlog, so I can't give a time 

14 when that's scheduled.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Right. So, I 

17 believe we're just -- what would close this 

18 out, in my mind, it's up to you guys, 

19 obviously, but the fact that we have committed 

20 to it and put it on the list and we will be 

21 conducting at some point I think would close 

22 out the 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

137

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is 

2 that agreed?

3 MEMBER MUNN: As long as we say so 

4 on the matrix, yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: Just so I have the 

7 wording correct, you're going to -- you're 

8 reviewing the need for a PER, or you're going 

9 to issue a PER at some point?

10 MR. SIEBERT: I believe we're 

11 agreed there is a need for one. We just have 

12 to determine the scope. So it's going to be 

13 placed on the PER list to be conducted.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, thanks.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Grady, correct me if 

17 I'm wrong.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

19 this --

20 MR. CALHOUN: You're correct.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Does 

22 this finish what we can do on 9? We're 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

138

1 closing it out, but we have a few items to 

2 come back to now.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We have everything 

4 that's marked, I think.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I 

6 can't -- since I'm on Live Meeting I can't 

7 see that because I can't scroll through. I'm 

8 not complaining, but --

9 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that is 

the last one that was on the 9th 10 Set that we 

11 could --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Then 

13 this is an appropriate time, I think, to 

14 break. Yes?

15 MEMBER MUNN: For an hour. Right?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, for an 

17 hour. It's 12:20 on the East Coast. Is it 

18 possible we want to get started back at 2:00 -

19 - excuse me, at 1:00, in 40 minutes, or should 

20 we take a full hour, folks?

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's up to you. I'd 

22 prefer a full hour, frankly.
. 

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 KOTELCHUCK: Okay. How 

2 do others feel? Full hour it is then. So we 

3 will get back at 1:20 Eastern Daylight Time, 

4 and have a good lunch, folks.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Good, thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we will 

7 start back on Set 10.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Great.

9 MR. KATZ: Great. Thanks, 

10 everyone.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Bye-bye.

13 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

14 off the record at 12:21 p.m., and went back on 

15 the record at 1:28 p.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. I think we can 

17 carry on then. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. John, 

19 do you want to -- is it 10 through 13 is on 

20 the screen?

21 MR. STIVER: This is 10 through 13, 

22 Savannah River Site.
. 

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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MR. STIVER: And I believe I'm at 

3 the first one that needs to be --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 276.1.

5 MR. STIVER: Doug, are you on?

6 MR. FARVER: Yes, I just wanted to 

7 see what you were going to say.

8 MR. STIVER: Okay. I'm going to 

9 turn the mic over to you.

10 MR. FARVER: I thought you were 

11 going to try and handle it, John. 

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. KATZ: And let me just remind 

14 everyone, the court reporter reminded me, make 

15 sure you identify yourself before you speak so 

16 that he can keep track of who's speaking. 

17 Thanks.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay, this is Doug 

19 Farver. We're going to talk about Finding 

20 276.1. These are all Savannah River cases, and 

21 this has to do with assigning a neutron dose. 

22 And for this particular finding there were two 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 issues; one, the table that was in the Dose 

2 Reconstruction Report contained incorrect dose 

3 conversion factors. They're just wrong. It's 

4 not the ones to use, so that's a quality 

5 error. 

6 The second issue we had was with 

7 how they were calculated, and after going 

8 through -- it's a very lengthy explanation, 

9 and then if you go back to -- they sent a 

10 document in May for May's meeting, and what it 

11 all comes down to is the number of zeroes 

12 counted for missed dose, how that was 

13 determined. 

14 There is a single dose for a year, 

15 an annual dose, say like 30 millirem neutron 

16 dose for 1976. They don't break it down into 

17 exchange periods, so you have to come up with: 

18 how do you determine missed dose? Do you 

19 assume that is a one exchange period and there 

20 are 11 more zeroes so that you have a monthly 

21 exchange frequency, that's one method, which 

22 was the method that our dose reviewer used. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 After reviewing the NIOSH file, 

2 what they did is they did the mean value. In 

3 other words, you have one value, you could 

4 have gotten all the dose in one exchange 

5 period, or it could have been evenly 

6 distributed through 12 exchange periods. So, 

7 what you do is you take the mean value in 

8 which this case would be 5 2, and I think they 

9 rounded it down to 5. So, now we're looking at 

10 a difference between 11 zeroes and 5 zeroes. 

11 And that's what it came down to the 

12 differences. 

13 There's nothing wrong with what 

14 they did. It's something we don't see very 

15 often, but they used a little phrase in IG-001 

16 that talks about if you don't know the number 

17 of missed dose periods, number of zeroes, you 

18 can use a mean value. So, I don't have any 

19 concerns with their explanation. It was 

20 correct, they provided a good explanation, and 

21 I suggest we just close this. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 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

143

1 Comments?

2 MEMBER MUNN: I'm for the 

3 recommendation, let's do it.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, sounds 

5 good. Let's go on.

6 MR. FARVER: 276.2 is very similar. 

7 Actually, it's about exactly the same thing. I 

8 will mention that this case was a little 

9 confusing. There was a Savannah River SRS 

10 workbook, there was an EDCW workbook, there 

11 was a final IREP table, and the EDCW tool had 

12 some values that were in the final IREP table, 

13 but there were some, such as the medical dose, 

14 that were not contained in either the Savannah 

15 River tool or the EDCW tool, in those 

16 calculations. It's not that they did them 

17 wrong, it's just there was nothing -- there 

18 was no tool that documented what they did. 

19 It's not a big deal and it's, like 

20 I say, they did the calculations correctly. 

21 They didn't show their work. That was the only 

22 -- that was an unusual thing about 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

144

1 files. But, basically, this one can get closed 

2 out along with the other one for the same 

3 basic reasons.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I think 

5 enough said.

6 MR. FARVER: And give me a second 

7 here to get these updated.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

9 MR. FARVER: Then I believe we go 

10 down to 329.1. And I'll be there in a second.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Unmonitored photon 

12 dose. 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay, I'm almost with 

14 you. I'm going to call up this case so I have 

15 it in front of me. I thought I was. 

16 329, okay. This is a Savannah 

17 River case. It is thyroid cancer, PoC of about 

18 47 percent. It looks like the person was an 

19 administrative clerk typist, so there's some 

20 background.

21 The finding has to do that -- we 

22 contend that they should have assigned 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

145

1 unmonitored photon dose for the years `62 and 

2 `66. NIOSH contends that they did correctly by 

3 assigning ambient dose. 

4 The person worked [identifying 

5 information redacted] from `62 to `66, and 

6 that's really the time period we're concerned 

7 with. But there was no dosimetry data for `62, 

8 and no dosimetry data for `66, but there was 

9 for the three years in between. So, our 

10 contention is well, the job assignment didn't 

11 change, the location didn't change, therefore, 

12 that should be unmonitored dose, and not just 

13 ambient dose.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which would 

15 result in what in terms of exposure?

16 MR. FARVER: Probably about 700 

17 millirem more. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: About how 

19 much more?

20 MR. FARVER: 700 millirem. And let 

21 me go back to -- if you read through NIOSH's 

22 explanation, really, if you get down 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

146

1 bottom of it, what they're saying is they 

2 assigned the ambient dose because the ambient 

3 dose for `62 and `66 was more comparable with 

4 the individual's dosimeter dose for those 

5 years. Okay?

6 Now, the catch is that is correct, 

7 but they didn't assign just the dosimeter 

8 dose, there's a missed dose. Like for 1963, 

9 they assigned 5 millirem, because a lot of 

10 that was missed dose. So, `63 was 505, `64 was 

11 533, `65 was 283, so these doses are more in 

12 line with what you would get with an 

13 unmonitored dose. So, if you want to be 

14 consistent we think you should go ahead and do 

15 the unmonitored dose, and not just cut them 

16 back by a factor of 10 and issue an ambient 

17 dose. Now, granted a lot of that is missed 

18 dose being accounted for. And that's pretty 

19 much what it comes down to, two different 

20 points of view.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it looks like 

22 you're right. It's a question of philosophical 
. 

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 approach, and it's -- I guess one of the 

2 questions that we may have gone over in prior 

3 discussions, but I don't remember, is whether 

4 we have any kind of information from the 

5 Savannah River Site that would lead us to have 

6 any information about why those three 

7 intervening years are unmonitored. 

8 In many of these sites, by the 

9 `60s there were administrative procedures with 

10 respect to when, especially non-technical 

11 employees, were monitored and when they were 

12 not. And although you say there was no change 

13 in either the place where this individual 

14 worked, or the work that was done, the 

15 question that arises for someone who wasn't 

16 involved with that particular issue is whether 

17 we have any indication at all that the 

18 assumption that no change occurred is 

19 supported.

20 MR. FARVER: Well, let's just say 

21 there's no indication that a change occurred.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And there's no 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 indication why the status changed from 

2 monitored to unmonitored and then back to 

3 monitored again. One could make a very good 

4 case for assuming that administrative controls 

5 -- everyone was concerned over what was 

6 involved with badging; there were significant 

7 cost and personnel issues. It wasn't necessary 

8 -- one would logically not provide badges. At 

9 that time, I don't know whether all the badges 

10 were duplicate badges involving identification 

11 as well as dosimetry or not. Do we even know 

12 that?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: With Savannah 

14 River, they went through several -- this is 

15 Brad, I'm sorry. They went through different 

16 generations.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I know they did. 

18 That's why I was asking the question.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: But one of my 

20 questions on this is: they didn't do it for 

21 this time period but then all of a sudden come 

22 back to it, is it because they evaluated 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

149

1 and seeing that yes, it was necessary. You 

2 know, it comes back to, you know, we're 

3 surmising what they were trying to think back 

4 then. I guess my question is: is what is the 

5 difference between the two approaches dose6 wise? Is there much, or is there substantial?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I thought I heard 700 

8 millirem, didn't I?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 700 millirem 

10 was the answer.

11 MR. FARVER: 700 millirem, 

12 something on that ballpark.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Less than a rem.

15 MR. FARVER: See, according to our 

16 report, they only reported annual dose for 

17 `63, `64, and `65. That was it, we just got 

18 three numbers. So, what do you do for `62 and 

19 `66? I mean, is it well, we just assumed that 

20 they didn't need it that year, in which case 

21 we'd assign ambient.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Which seems like 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

150

1 logical assumption.

2 MR. FARVER: Does it fall under 

3 unmonitored?

4 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and I 

5 don't know, Scott might jump in. And I'm 

6 looking at this case individually. 

7 [Identifying information redacted]. They were 

8 a clerk, didn't -- just always worked in the 

9 typing department. So, you know, sometimes you 

10 certainly do see that somebody was not in a 

11 monitoring program right away when they 

12 started their job, and they kind of slacked 

13 off at the end between each one. There's not a 

14 full year on each end of that period, so 

15 that's certainly part of it. And it seems odd 

16 to me that they would have, you know, not been 

17 monitored on both sides of that employment 

18 unless there was a reason.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It seems 

20 reasonable, but if it's a matter of -- seems 

21 reasonable, but if it's a matter of 

22 professional judgment and neither has 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

151

1 evidence to confirm what was done or what 

2 should have been done, seems to me one has to 

3 go with claimant-favorability.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott, 

5 again. We're kind of getting off -- what the 

6 actual issue here is: there are only annual 

7 reports for this individual. We could not get 

8 any badge-specific, any monitoring cycle data 

9 for this individual. They only gave us the 

10 annual reports. And there are no annual 

11 reports for `62 and for `66. They're left off 

12 the report, `63, `64, and `65 are given 

13 numbers. 

14 We honestly did not know how much 

15 the individual was monitored during those 

16 years where there are numbers in the report, 

17 so we make the assumption that they were 

18 monitored the full time frame and assessed 

19 missed dose as well as what was on the annual 

20 report. So, the fact that there is no 

21 reporting for `62 and `66 on this report, we 

22 treated it the same as we treat an HPAREH 
. 

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 report, where, if a year is not mentioned, 

2 that is an indication there is no monitoring, 

3 whereas, if a year is mentioned and there's a 

4 blank space, that is an indication there was 

5 monitoring but it was a zero. The same thought 

6 process was placed on -- was used for this 

7 annual report.

8 Once again, the fact that we 

9 assumed the individual was fully monitored all 

10 three of those years where we did assign it is 

11 likely claimant-favorable because they're 

12 relatively low doses.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. SIEBERT: And we're talking 

15 about a clerk typist.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The other is, 

17 though, the clerical -- I mean, Wanda 

18 indicated the clerical position itself is --

19 there's been, apparently, a long-term set of 

20 issues about whether people like that should 

21 be monitored, and how much, how often. So, the 

22 clerical -- I mean, the concern is that 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

153

1 clerical might not have a large exposure but 

2 the fact is that they -- well, I'm sorry. This 

3 is not leading anywhere. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I don't 

5 think -- this is Brad. I don't think that we 

6 can judge it just on our clerical part of it 

7 because I can tell you right now that we have 

8 a lot of clerical people that are out in the 

9 bases with us as we speak, and they're --

10 we've gone around and around about doing AP 

11 monitored and not monitored. They're within 10 

12 feet of us, but they're taking care of the 

13 paperwork to be able to process the fuels that 

14 we're dealing with. But I really worry 

15 sometimes about using job titles and stuff 

16 like that because they've changed so many 

17 times over the years. I know in the labs, to 

18 be able to do a lot of these processes, they 

19 had a lot of clerical people in there helping 

20 with the process. Able to just document, just 

21 be able to document the stuff.

22 MR. FARVER: And for 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

154

1 particular case, there's a note in the file 

2 about, this person had a damaged dosimeter 

3 when they were out in M area distributing some 

4 kind of cards, you know, so it was just an 

5 administrative task but it was not just 

6 located in an admin area.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: And this is my 

9 point that I'm trying to get to, is I don't 

10 think we can go into that. But I guess what 

11 I'm looking for is recommendations from either 

12 side, or does this fall onto the Board to make 

13 the decision of which way to go?

14 MEMBER MUNN: I think probably 

15 since it's here in front of us, it's more than 

16 likely up to us. And we all have different 

17 experiences with situations of this sort. My 

18 experience with this type of personnel is that

19 even though they might go into other areas, 

20 they do not work there as a routine. So, the 

21 fact that they're beside me for a couple of 

22 days out of 30 doesn't really and truly mean 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 that their likelihood of exposure is increased 

2 by any significant amount.

3 Now, it still returns again, given 

4 the information we have, back to the 

5 philosophy that you want to take. And it seems 

6 to me that the philosophy that's been taken is 

7 a perfectly reasonable one. 

8 MR. FARVER: I think NIOSH could 

9 have chosen a better approach, and let me 

10 suggest, based on what we just talked about 

11 with IG-001 and using the mean value when you 

12 don't know the number of exchange periods like 

13 we had in the other finding, if they would go 

14 back -- if they would have done that to begin 

15 with, instead of assuming the 11 zeroes a year 

16 for those three years, it would essentially 

17 cut those doses in half.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Which is probably more 

20 reasonable.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Probably is.

22 MR. FARVER: And then add 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

156

1 `62 and `66 using the same method, you'd 

2 probably have a claimant-favorable, more 

3 reasonable dose. Now, overall what that's 

4 going to do, it would probably lower the dose.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, probably would.

6 MR. FARVER: But it's more about 

7 method than numbers. And you can see that this 

8 is a judgment call. I understand that.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there's an 

10 argument to be made in favor of following the 

11 procedure that's already established with 

12 HPAREH, so yes.

13 MR. FARVER: But it's just 

14 something, you know, Scott and Grady might 

15 want to consider. If this comes up again, go 

16 back to your mean number of zeroes. I don't 

17 know if that's just an efficiency method just 

18 to do 11 and call it quits or what, but it 

19 seemed like you used one method on one case, 

20 and another method on another.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Probably depends on 

22 the dose reconstructor and the professional 
. 

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 judgment.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I will 

3 point out the mean dose value method that's in 

4 OCAS-IG-01, that is specifically called out as 

5 the best estimate method if it's needed. This 

6 case came out, it was 46.99 percent, so these 

7 days it would be in the process where we 

8 probably would -- we would use the best 

9 estimate method and would use the median. Back 

10 when this was done in 2009, I'm not sure if we 

11 were at the time where we switched over to 

12 doing best estimate methods starting at 45 

13 percent. There was a time frame we started 

14 those at 47 percent, so it's not horrendously 

15 surprising to me that they may have used some 

16 overestimating assumptions for the years where 

17 they assigned them. That does make sense to 

18 me. 

19 MR. FARVER: I don't think we can 

20 really resolve this. I mean, I'm not sure 

21 there's anything this Subcommittee can do. I 

22 think it just comes down to judgment.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it would make 

2 sense to me to indicate that existing protocol 

3 at the time, IG-001, should be followed. Isn't 

4 that rational? Isn't that essentially what we 

5 were talking about in our prior cases we were 

6 discussing?

7 MR. FARVER: As Scott points out, 

8 that's for best estimate cases, and this is 

9 not really a best estimate case, and it is we 

10 call it a hybrid case. So, they were very 

11 generous on the missed dose.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I don't understand 

13 that.

14 MR. SIEBERT: I agree if we did 

15 this claim today we would use the median 

16 method most likely. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But we're 

18 reviewing it today. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: To find it acceptable 

20 as is, or suggest that it be reworked.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again, if 

22 we reworked it based the way we do things 
. 

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 today, the dose would actually go down.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I suspect that's 

3 the case. It seems rational to me to accept it 

4 as is with a comment that today's methods 

5 would reduce the dose rather than increase it, 

6 and so it's accepted as is. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That seems to 

9 capture it. 

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let me put 

11 something in there. 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Scott, this is 

13 Brad. I've just got a question. You know, I 

14 guess I looked at what this group is kind of 

15 set up here to do and, you know, I know 

16 there's a difficulty between older cases and 

17 how we do them now, but I guess I want to walk 

18 away from this one understanding that no, 

19 we've got a different process in line now 

20 that's going to make this more rigorous and so 

21 forth, because I feel like that what this 

22 group is set up to do is to make sure 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

160

1 we're doing these processes right. So, we have 

2 got -- I guess my question, Scott, is do we 

3 have a more defined process now in place?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we presently 

5 have -- if we turn in a claim between 45 and 

6 52 percent it will use fully best estimate 

7 methods. That is clearly defined how we work

8 these days, so this issue would not come up in 

9 this case these days because the dose 

10 reconstructor would have used best estimate 

11 methodologies which would have been the OCAS12 IG-01 median.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I just 

14 want to make sure that when we walk away from 

15 this case that we have -- you know, that we 

16 were doing what we were tasked, and that was 

17 to make sure that the process is working the 

18 best we can. And I know there's generations of 

19 things that we have done through the years, we 

20 have gotten better, and better, and better, 

21 and I just want to make sure that when we walk 

22 away from this one, that we have done 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

161

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Should 

2 we go on?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: 330.1, I believe.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Say that again, 3 

6 what?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 329.2 I 

8 thought you have here.

9 MEMBER MUNN: 329.2 is where we 

10 stopped, I think.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I believe this is 

12 closed out. Doug, I didn't hear you very well. 

13 What's the next one?

14 MR. FARVER: I'm sorry, I was 

15 looking down at my keyboard.

16 MEMBER MUNN: That's where we 

17 stopped.

18 MR. FARVER: 329.2, looks like we 

19 closed it at the last meeting.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

21 right.

22 MR. FARVER: We ended. So, 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

162

1 back to 330.1. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Dose conversion 

3 factors --

4 MR. FARVER: 330.1, let me go down.

5 MR. SIEBERT: This issue -- this is 

6 Scott. This issue is identical to 195.1 we did 

7 in the last set. It's the rotational isotropic 

8 AP geometry issue for DCFs, for the lung, 

9 esophagus, red bone marrow and bone surface.

10 MR. FARVER: Exactly.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Looks familiar.

12 MR. FARVER: Only for this case we 

13 have a PoC where it's 48 percent, so adding an 

14 extra 50 percent to the external could have an 

15 impact on this case. The previous case was a 

16 compensated case so it really would not have 

17 an impact. 

18 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: That's two big 

20 differences in these cases.

21 MR. CALHOUN: What step are we on? 

22 I'm sorry. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 MEMBER MUNN: 330.1.

2 MR. CALHOUN: 330.1? Thank you.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Just one notch 

4 down from our ending spot last time. 

5 MR. FARVER: And, once again, I 

6 didn't find any indication in the file where 

7 it was even considered to use the rotational 

8 or the isotropic. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: So, the real question 

10 here is the same one that we had, really, 

11 which is: was the procedure that was followed 

12 the proper one even though there's no workbook 

13 or other tool indication that that is the 

14 judgment that was made. Correct?

15 MR. FARVER: Correct.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And I think I've 

17 heard -- did I not hear reassurance from NIOSH 

18 that this is, essentially, an established 

19 procedure? It's just not defined anywhere that 

20 we could find in print. Is that correct?

21 MR. KATZ: Well, what NIOSH said on 

22 the previous case was that they were going to 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 follow up and get back to us, so we didn't get 

2 any resolution to that one.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it seems the 

4 same thing applies here, does it not?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, I would think so. I 

6 mean, Grady, speak up, if it's different.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it's got to be 

8 the same, it's the same issue.

9 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I 

10 thought.

11 MR. FARVER: Right. And what it's 

12 going to come down to, where do you think the 

13 person wore the dosimeter? Was it appropriate 

14 for the job that the person was doing, because 

15 that helps you determine if it was -- which 

16 geometry to use and so forth.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: But it just comes down 

19 to following that section in IG-001. Okay, so 

20 we'll just keep this open and I'll put down 

21 the same verbiage I had for the last one, 

22 which I'll go look up.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 MEMBER MUNN: It looks like that's 

2 appropriate, since we'll be tracking the 

3 technical issue elsewhere. 

4 MR. FARVER: And since we can only 

5 transfer this to Wanda once --

6 MEMBER MUNN: One time, yes. You're 

7 right, you don't get a second chance on that.

8 MR. KATZ: The transfer didn't 

9 relate to this question.

10 MEMBER MUNN: No, it didn't, it was 

11 a technical issue.

12 MR. FARVER: Now, 330.3, I believe, 

13 is the next one. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: I take that's a 

15 closed?

16 MR. FARVER: Let me find it, 330.3. 

17 No, we do not consider this closed. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Because?

19 MR. FARVER: Because there's an 

20 attachment to this matrix. If you go down to 

21 the very bottom you'll see that I reprinted 

22 OCAS-TIB-007, which talks about how 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

166

1 determine neutron exposures at Savannah River 

2 Site. And the part we're concerned with for 

3 this person is Section 3.1, because he was a 

4 non-routine worker and this was after 1971. 

5 That's the criteria that I was looking at to 

6 determine whether or not neutron exposure 

7 should be applied.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So seeing that, 

9 then I guess I'm misreading then the response 

10 from last time. It says, reviewed NIOSH's 

11 response and believe that meets criteria for 

12 Section 2. I misunderstood, I guess, the 

13 notation. 

14 MR. FARVER: We contend that the 

15 person should be assigned neutron exposure 

16 for, I believe it's `81 through `88, and I 

17 have to call up that case, if I can find it.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, actually, the 

19 response says `82 through `88, and I read the 

20 response.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that doesn'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

167

1 I guess I was misinterpreting what's there.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay.

3 MEMBER MUNN: You see why I'm 

4 confused? 

5 MR. FARVER: No, the response says 

6 SC&A reviewed NIOSH's response and believe the 

7 EE meets the criteria in Section 3.2 of non8 routine for years `82 through `88. Okay, that 

9 is -- those are the correct years. And the 

10 `82, I believe that starts when the person 

11 went to M area. So, what we look at is -- if 

12 you look at the criteria at the very bottom is 

13 work location. Is the work location any of the 

14 areas noted in Section 2.1? Yes, then a 

15 neutron exposure should be considered, 

16 providing the other criteria are met. Okay? 

17 So, we look at that, and that's the one area 

18 is in there, Section 2.1 talks about 300 

19 areas, particularly 321 M which is what the 

20 employee mentions in -- or I believe the 

21 spouse mentions in the CATI report.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So, it appears 
. 

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 to me then that what we need now is NIOSH's 

2 response to this position. Right?

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. I mean, we look 

4 to the --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, 

6 the last sentence in the SC&A comment 

7 considers this reasonable and claimant8 favorable, not but. I'm not quite sure what a 

9 “but” means there. It's reasonable "but".

10 MR. FARVER: I believe that's the 

11 wording that's in the TIB, because if you look 

12 at the very last sentence on the page.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If it's “but”

14 reason -- but not -- that English is --

15 MR. FARVER: Understood.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's not 

17 logical.

18 MR. FARVER: I know I -- all I did 

19 was I copied the sentence from the original 

20 and put it in there.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well C22 MR. FARVER: I understand.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yes, 

2 yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Basically, we're 

4 looking at the work location, we're looking at 

5 the job description.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, I 

7 see. I see, yes.

8 MR. FARVER: Does the employee have 

9 a measured proton dose?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

11 I see what you're saying and in that -- in the 

12 text itself it makes sense. Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: At least three 

14 criteria were met, so we thought they should 

15 have had a neutron dose assigned. I mean, 

16 that's --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

18 NIOSH is going to report back on that?

19 MR. FARVER: They already put out a 

20 document. I don't know if they want to discuss 

21 that or not. They talk about other things like 

22 bioassay and shallow to deep ratio, things 
. 

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 that aren't included in the TIB. And it's not 

2 that I'm disagreeing with what they did, I'm 

3 disagreeing that if that's what you want your 

4 criteria to be, then you should put that in 

5 your TIB. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

7 Once again, this is the fact that the OTIB may 

8 not be as prescriptive as it could be, I would 

9 agree, but there are discussions in the TIB 

10 about bioassay and shallow to deep ratios. 

11 They're just not specifically in this portion 

12 of the OTIB -- sorry, not the OTIB, it's the 

13 TIB, because this is an OCAS TIB, OCAS TIB-7. 

14 But once again, this individual did not have 

15 any plutonium bioassay during the time frame 

16 which if he was working with the plutonium17 aluminum targets which were the reason that 

18 there could be neutron exposure in the area he 

19 would have been monitored for plutonium. 

20 Looking at the shallow to deep ratios for the 

21 time frame we're talking about in the `80s 

22 when he was in M area, the ratios are never 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

171

1 the range that you would expect. And I'm 

2 looking at the previous document that we sent 

3 in May. His ratios generally hover between 1.4 

4 and almost 2. We looked at some other 

5 individuals that we know were in those areas 

6 and the ratios were more like 4.3, 4.1, and 

7 2.6, so the shallow to deep ratio does not 

8 indicate that.

9 That's all the information that we 

10 had at the time that we gave this to the 

11 Subcommittee in May. As some of you probably 

12 well know, the Savannah River Working Group 

13 has been working tirelessly to work on the TBD 

14 on the various other sundry things. As part of 

15 that investigation, we've been looking into 

16 the use of coworker at Savannah River for 

17 various internal components. And as part of 

18 that, we've also done a lot of investigation 

19 as to what is going on in different areas. And 

20 in the last couple of months we have been 

21 looking at M area, especially 321 where the 

22 targets were manufactured, there does 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

172

1 appear to have been any of that work after 

2 approximately 1980 based on the more recent 

3 information and digging into the reports and 

4 so on that we've had.

5 The reason we had it in OCAS TIB-7 

6 all the way through I believe `92, there was 

7 still some plutonium in those areas at that 

8 time, but our further investigation has found 

9 that that seems to be tied in with neptunium 

10 work, not the target work. And it's the target 

11 work that would be giving any sort of neutron 

12 exposure.

13 So, logically based on the 

14 individual's monitoring, lack of plutonium 

15 monitoring and what we've significantly found 

16 out since then on that specific area, it all 

17 backs up how the case was done originally.

18 Now, I'm not saying that we had 

19 the additional information about the plutonium 

20 at the time we did the claim. I'm just saying 

21 that it appears it was done appropriately 

22 based on all the information that we have 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

173

1 Even looking back at the time it was done, we 

2 knew the individual did not have plutonium 

3 monitoring and a shallow to deep ratio just 

4 does not bear out to any type of neutron 

5 exposures based on that target work. And this 

6 individual was fully monitored for photons 

7 during the time frame he was working in that 

8 area. Clearly, he was working in the area on 

9 the uranium fuels that were being made at the 

10 time, and it just does not appear that he 

11 worked with any plutonium-aluminum targets.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And is it logical for 

13 us to close this item with a note that recent, 

14 more recent work by NIOSH and the Site 

15 Subcommittee support the assumptions that were 

16 made by NIOSH in the original claim approach? 

17 Can we do that, or is that presumptuous?

18 MR. FARVER: I think they need to 

19 modify their TIB-7. I mean, if that's the 

20 criteria that they want to use, that is 

21 clearly not in TIB-7. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: 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

174

1 MR. CALHOUN: It is not in that 

2 Section of TIB-7.

3 MR. FARVER: It is not under the 

4 criteria to determine whether you assign 

5 neutron dose or not. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Post-1971, I agree.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: It's in the pre-`71 

9 direction.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 MR. SIEBERT: I agree it is not 

12 clearly written, and I believe, and Grady can 

13 correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we are 

14 present -- I know we're working on the 

15 Savannah River TBD, as we all well know that. 

16 I believe we're rolling the information from 

17 OCAS TIB-7 into the new TBD, as well, which 

18 would negate the OCAS TIB-7, and I'll talk to 

19 the TBD owner to ensure that we're clarifying 

20 the information in that section.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. So, you're 

22 either going to modify the TBD or TIB-7.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and I

3 think the bottom line is that we wouldn't 

4 change our approach. It'll just be more 

5 prescriptive.

6 MR. FARVER: Right, and I'm not 

7 saying to change your approach, just document 

8 your approach. How is that?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

10 Richardson. I've got a question. Is there --

11 when you first described this, I thought that 

12 actually there was a prescription for an 

13 approach and it was a different approach to 

14 making the judgment about neutron dose 

15 reconstruction. It had to do with work area. 

16 Is that correct?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So, that is a 

19 problem. It's not that it was vague and not 

20 prescriptive, it was prescriptive but 

21 prescribing something which wasn't the action 

22 that was taken.
. 

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 MR. FARVER: And they used a 

2 different prescription.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, so that is 

4 -- to me that's like a quality issue and 

5 everything, wasn't following what was 

6 prescribed. I mean, whether it was logical and 

7 there should have been something else done is, 

8 I think, a bigger and important issue, and I'm

9 glad it's going to be addressed. But that 

10 distinction needs to be made.

11 MR. FARVER: That was our point, 

12 that they didn't follow what was written, but 

13 now how to fix that, all I know is that if you 

14 don't want that criteria to change your 

15 documentation to reflect a criteria you want. 

16 Any suggestions on how to close this?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Does this get 

18 kicked to Procedures?

19 MR. FARVER: I'm sorry, David, I 

20 didn't hear you.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, does it 

22 go to Procedures? Is that the place 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

177

1 MEMBER MUNN: I was hoping you were 

2 being facetious, David. I don't really think 

3 so in this case. I really think we wouldn't 

4 have any more to add than what this 

5 Subcommittee is debating here. It's going to 

6 have to come down to a Subcommittee's finding, 

7 I think, one way or the other.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

9 you're right, Dave. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: I've made my 

11 suggestion.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Your 

13 suggestion again, Wanda?

14 MEMBER MUNN: My suggestion was 

15 that we close this based on the information 

16 that NIOSH has given us with respect to the 

17 fact that later information about the site and 

18 the activities there have -- support the 

19 assertions and assumptions that were made 

20 during the original reconstruction of this 

21 case, but SC&A said they did not agree because 

22 they felt that the information as we read 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

178

1 the attached note did not -- 007 was not 

2 followed in this case. And NIOSH gave us the 

3 reasons why they felt that it was not because 

4 it wasn't applicable. They were using a 

5 different time period, and the instruction was 

6 there.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I tend 

8 to side you, Wanda, in that we have 

9 procedures. Clearly, they were not followed, 

10 but based on professional judgment and that 

11 the procedures are, in fact, in the process of 

12 being changed to reflect what was, in fact, 

13 done. As long as the scientific work done by 

14 NIOSH was correct as best NIOSH and SC&A can 

15 tell, then I don't see anything wrong. I 

16 support putting a statement in saying that 

17 this is reasonable. The most important thing 

18 is that the science is sound to the best of 

19 our determination and both sides agree, both 

20 groups agree.

21 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

22 Would we want to include a note in 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

179

1 to the effect that, you know, the guidance 

2 documents are being revised to improve clarity 

3 in this, so that we can kind of close the loop 

4 at some future date and it doesn't come up 

5 again?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Someone probably 

8 needs to work on the verbiage to make sure 

9 that it's agreeable to everyone. Perhaps we 

10 could request that NIOSH or SC&A, I'm not sure 

11 who's the appropriate individual to be working 

12 on that particular wording, but it seems to me 

13 that we need to have words in front of us 

14 before everyone can agree to it. It's a little 

15 too nebulous right now, as we just speak of it 

16 verbally. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, why 

18 don't we leave this open for that verbiage and 

19 task somebody for the next meeting to put that 

20 verbiage in, and I don't know who is 

21 appropriate.

22 MR. STIVER: This is John, again. 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

180

1 believe Mark Griffon wanted SC&A to basically 

2 be the keepers of the matrices, so Doug could 

3 do it, and certainly we could through email or 

4 what not make sure that it's acceptable to 

5 Grady and his crew.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why don't you 

7 do that, and then you'll just report back at

8 the next meeting. We'll close it real fast.

9 MR. STIVER: Okay, we'll do that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because we're 

11 nearly -- we're essentially resolved, it's 

12 just a matter of getting the wording to be 

13 acceptable. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I have a 

15 question on this. So, what we're saying is 

16 that in -- because I have the same issue that 

17 Doug does here. We've got OTIB-7 that's not 

18 moved out there, but they're not using it so I 

19 guess I would kind of like to see the process 

20 that is now in place that is going to correct 

21 this, which what are we -- I guess my question 

22 is to SC&A, have we seen that they'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

181

1 corrected this down the road in the next OTIB, 

2 or the next --

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I want 

4 to correct a perception here. I'm not going to 

5 agree that we did not follow OCAS TIB-7. I 

6 will agree that OCAS TIB-7 is written in a 

7 somewhat convoluted manner so that the 

8 application may not be 100 percent 

9 straightforward. However, the section where 

10 we're talking about post-`71 clearly sends you 

11 back to the section where you do talk about 

12 pre-`71. And that section does send you to the 

13 discussion on plutonium and the discussion of 

14 the facility 321 M. It's just not necessarily 

15 the easiest to follow, so I just wanted to say 

16 that, you know, I think the OTIB or the OCAS 

17 TIB does give direction. It's not necessarily 

18 written well, but I'm not going to -- I really 

19 don't want to agree that we did not follow 

20 OCAS TIB-7.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, Scott, I 

22 apologize. That was my misconception. I'm 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

182

1 saying that --

2 MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I 

3 think we're in agreement that they followed it 

4 appropriately, but that the verbiage is going 

5 to be improved in a new iteration of a 

6 guidance document. And that's really --

7 MR. SIEBERT: We wholeheartedly 

8 thank you.

9 MR. FARVER: This is Doug, and I 

10 don't agree that they followed it because that 

11 takes them right back to Section 2.1, which 

12 clearly does not talk about bioassay. I mean, 

13 you've done it. There's no word bioassay in 

14 Section 2.1, which is what you get referred 

15 back to. That strictly talks about work area. 

16 They didn't follow the post-`71 guidance.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Section 2.1 bottom 

18 under fuel fabrication 300 area, fuel 

19 fabrication facility 321 M only during certain 

20 time periods, see Section 2.2 for further 

21 guidance.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Who was 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

183

1 just speaking?

2 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, that was 

3 Scott Siebert.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

5 MR. SIEBERT: That's Scott Siebert.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Just quoting the 

8 person that --

9 MEMBER MUNN: The OTIB.

10 MR. SIEBERT: OCAS TIB-7. It 

11 clearly -- it does send you to Section 2.2.

12 MR. FARVER: This is Doug, I stand 

13 corrected. It does for the 300 area. It does 

14 send you down there. Correct.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

16 MEMBER MUNN: This is why the 

17 verbiage is so important.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, so this is Ted. 

19 So, it sounds like you can close it now, and 

20 with the recommendation that the verbiage be 

21 clarified. There's nothing more to it. Right?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 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

184

1 but I think it has to come back to the 

2 Committee to approve so that all parties 

3 agree.

4 MR. KATZ: No. I mean, you just 

5 talked through it. I mean, there's nothing 

6 more in terms of verbiage. I mean, they don't 

7 have to -- this Committee does not have to 

8 approve the verbiage in their TIB or whatever 

9 it is that we're referring to, the verbiage 

10 for instructions. That doesn't need to be done 

11 here. I mean, again, you're trying to close 

12 out a case. You've determined that the science 

13 is fine, and now you've determined that there 

14 has been some confusion because the 

15 instructions aren't crystal clear. And that's 

16 been resolved, and you've determined that they 

17 should clarify the language, and you could 

18 make that recommendation. But then it seems to 

19 me the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee is 

20 done with this issue completely.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, who --

22 they're going to talk to each other, SC&A 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 folks and NIOSH, and ORAU, I guess.

2 MR. KATZ: No, I mean, there's 

3 nothing more to talk about. They've just 

4 resolved it.

5 MEMBER MUNN: We've talked it 

6 through.

7 MR. SIEBERT: I think we're 

8 confusing the verbiage that we're going to put 

9 into the matrix with the verbiage that's going 

10 to go into the TBD.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And what we have just 

14 said is what needs to be said in the matrix.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine.

16 MR. KATZ: So, you can close it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: They'll follow up with 

19 the TBD but that doesn't need to hold the 

20 Subcommittee hostage.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we do need to 

22 make sure that both the Agency and our 
. 

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 contractor agree that the words that we're 

2 putting in the matrix cover the issue. That's 

3 my concern.

4 MR. KATZ: Well, I know but you 

5 just discussed it.

6 MEMBER MUNN: I know.

7 MR. KATZ: Everyone agrees that the 

8 verbiage isn't as clear as possible, and I 

9 think I heard Scott say that it's not as clear 

10 as possible, and they can clarify it. So, that 

11 finding is clear and can be written in the 

12 matrix.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And let's not forget 

14 that we have the transcript of this 

15 discussion, too.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, it's --

17 so, it seems like everything that the 

18 Subcommittee needs to do is now crystal clear 

19 in terms of what its findings were. I think 

20 you're done with it. There's nothing left for 

21 the Subcommittee to do. NIOSH can go in in the 

22 future and change its TBD language, 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

187

1 there's nothing more here.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I'm not even 

3 worried about the language in the TBD.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean --

5 MEMBER MUNN: My only concern is 

6 that if I come back to this finding a year and 

7 a half from now and look at the way it was 

8 closed, if we don't have something that 

9 indicates that at least the Subcommittee 

10 discussed it and everyone agreed that the TBD 

11 -- the TIB was difficult to follow --

12 MR. KATZ: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: -- but that this 

14 case was done appropriately, then that's what 

15 I think would make everybody happy.

16 MR. KATZ: Right, Wanda. That's all 

17 I'm saying, is that you just said exactly what 

18 the Subcommittee found, and that's all the 

19 Subcommittee needed to do here.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: But as long as 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

188

1 agree that that's what we're going to do.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we 

3 agree we're going to do it. It's just a 

4 question of whether the statement ever comes 

5 back before the Committee. To my mind, it 

6 would take just a couple of minutes to have it 

7 come back before the Committee. I think we 

8 have resolved the issue, and whether we call 

9 it closed or not, we are coming back to this 

10 matrix next time, and we can do it very 

11 quickly.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's do it. 

14 Let's do it that way. Okay? The statement 

15 comes back before the Committee next time. 

16 Let's go on.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. Unless you want 

18 me to read it real quick, what I wrote.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. You 

20 have the statement?

21 MR. FARVER: I have something 

22 that's short and sweet, I hope.
. 

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 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then, if we 

3 can resolve it, let's do it. Go ahead.

4 MR. FARVER: The Dose 

5 Reconstruction Subcommittee discussed this 

6 issue and agreed that the guidance in TIB-007 

7 is not clear, but the dose calculations were 

8 done appropriately. I could add something 

9 about the TIB being revised in the future. No 

10 further action from the Committee. Closed.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I don't think 

12 you even have to do that. Just, it's closed.

13 MR. FARVER: Closed. The dose 

14 calculations were appropriate. No further 

15 action.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Correct.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Good.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is 

20 closed now. Is that okay, folks? Everybody 

21 participating?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, this is Brad.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 MR. SIEBERT: Good with me.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

3 let's go on.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I have 334?

5 MR. FARVER: 334.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Looks like it's 

8 NIOSH's ball. Incomplete missed photons.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Grady, 

10 you want me to -- this one?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I always want 

12 you to take this one, Scott.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I guess that is a 

14 silly question. What we had discussed at the 

15 last one, we all believe -- okay, let's go 

16 back. This was an interpretation of when we 

17 should be assigning missed dose and when we 

18 should be assigning ambient dose for the 

19 record for a Savannah River worker. 

20 We all agreed that the way this 

21 was done, there was an error made and it could 

22 have -- it should have been more clearly 
. 

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 assessed with missed dose as opposed to 

2 ambient during certain time frames, and we all 

3 agree on that. The only outstanding question 

4 was whether this type of issue was going to 

5 affect additional claims.

6 Grady and I talked about this a 

7 little bit earlier this week, and it appears 

8 that this is a very claim-specific issue in 

9 this case because this case had documentation 

10 in it where there was visitor badges, routine 

11 badges, documentation as to when the dose --

12 when the monitoring was actually stopped 

13 during a few years. There was a lot of very 

14 case-specific monitoring data in this claim, 

15 so it seemed that this issue was affecting 

16 this claim and how we dealt with this claim, 

17 as opposed to a global how we deal with missed 

18 and ambient at Savannah River Site with the 

19 records.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that appears to 

21 answer the question that was asked to 

22 determine whether other cases were handled 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

192

1 a similar manner. What I'm hearing is it's 

2 case-specific and, therefore, the question is 

3 resolved. I assume SC&A has no problem with 

4 that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: SC&A?

6 MR. STIVER: This is John. I have 

7 no trouble with it at all.

8 MR. FARVER: I'm just typing, 

9 "NIOSH determined that this is a case-specific

10 issue, no further action is needed, closed."

11 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Moving 

13 right along., 334.5.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay, 334.5 has to do 

16 with how they calculate the missed to measured 

17 plutonium, the internal plutonium doses. Okay. 

18 What the finding is based on is: there were 

19 two dose reconstructions done, one in -- an 

20 earlier one, it was a couple of years earlier, 

21 and then this one we reviewed. When our 

22 reviewer was looking at it they went back 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

193

1 the first one and looked at what was done, 

2 then looked at the second one that was done, 

3 and there were some questions about the MDAs 

4 and some of the values used. But what it comes 

5 down to in this one, and I'm trying to find a 

6 PoC on this --

7 MR. SIEBERT: About 32 percent, 

8 Doug. This is Scott.

9 MR. FARVER: This is a very low 

10 one, so when NIOSH came back did the second 

11 dose reconstruction, they used what we'll call 

12 efficiency methods, which they calculate the 

13 plutonium dose based on the samples, actual 

14 samples, and then based on the assumed missed 

15 dose, go back and compare the doses for each 

16 year and use the highest dose. It's part of 

17 their efficiency method. That kind of confused 

18 our reviewer, but really, I mean, they give an 

19 excellent explanation. It's a little tedious 

20 to go through, but actually you go through the 

21 whole thing, and it's a very good explanation, 

22 and I'm glad they did it because it helps 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

194

1 tremendously. And as we say in our initial 

2 response, you know, "Appreciate the detailed 

3 explanation and recommend closing the 

4 finding." We really don't have anything to 

5 add. There's nothing they did anything wrong.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. FARVER: They just -- they 

8 overestimated. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

10 good.

11 MEMBER MUNN: So, we're ready to 

12 close it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, close 

14 it.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Subcommittee agrees. 

16 Closed.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Dave, yes?

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Dave, yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: 334.8. And SC&A 

22 should have the CATI.
. 

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 MR. FARVER: I don't believe we 

2 received that.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

4 think that getting the updated matrix didn't 

5 happen the last couple of days. This is the 

6 only one we updated for this matrix. I can 

7 address this just verbally, if you so desire.

8 There is no other CATI. We had a 

9 misprint in the first response, so SC&A was 

10 looking for a CATI that did not exist, and I 

11 apologize for that.

12 The actual CATI is S4248, rather 

13 than S4247, which is at the beginning of the 

14 response in the summary. That 4247 really 

15 should be a 4248, and look at that CATI which 

16 is actually dated in November of 2003 instead 

17 of 8, so we had two misprints there. It is on 

18 page 8 of that original CATI where the 

19 incidents that they're asking about is 

20 described. So, I apologize, I thought that had 

21 gotten over to you so you could look at it 

22 before this meeting. I don't know if 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

196

1 honestly may want to be able to just grab it 

2 during the break and take a look at it real 

3 quick, or how you want to handle that, but 

4 that's what the issue was.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't sound as 

6 though there's really anything to handle. It's 

7 typographical error, sent people off in the 

8 wrong direction, looking for something that 

9 wasn't there.

10 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. Beth 

11 sent that to me the first thing this morning, 

12 that response, so I'll include it in the 

13 matrix. And if we take a break, I will try to 

14 find it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Great.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We've been 

20 going a little over an hour since lunch break, 

21 or breakfast break, so --

22 MEMBER MUNN: Good time to do 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

197

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is this an 

2 appropriate time to take a break?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Let's do. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

5 good. It is 2:37. We will get together at ten 

6 minutes of three, our time. Okay?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, great. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, see you 

9 all at ten minutes of three, Eastern Daylight 

10 Time.

11 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

12 off the record at 2:38 p.m. and resumed at 

13 2:53 p.m.)

14 MEMBER MUNN: Who was doing the 

15 wording for us?

16 MR. KATZ: I think Stiver.

17 MR. STIVER: I pulled up RFP. This 

18 is a continuation of Rocky Flats and Los 

19 Alamos.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, we just 

21 finished SRS. Oh, great.

22 MR. STIVER: A real milestone 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

198

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: We were just going to 

3 close 334.8.

4 MR. STIVER: Do we have Mr. Farver 

5 back?

6 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

7 MR. STIVER: Lead on, my man.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

9 good.

10 MR. FARVER: Is Scott on the line?

11 MR. SIEBERT: I am.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. Scott, I went 

13 back and looked at the documents you said, the 

14 summary -- CATI summary draft document.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: That does contain 

17 information about the 1979 incident. However, 

18 if you go to the final CATI report, it's not 

19 in there.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well, wait a minute.

21 MR. FARVER: Somehow it got -- when 

22 it made it to the final CATI report, 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

199

1 information did not make it. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Give me a second to 

3 look at the right sheet. Oh, I already closed 

4 -- dang it. I already closed that to go to 

5 Rocky Flats. Give me a second here.

6 MR. FARVER: Sure.

7 MR. SIEBERT: I can't blurt out the 

8 NIOSH ID number. Oh, there it is. I believe 

9 the CATI summary draft is when they send it 

10 out to the person who did the interview and 

11 they say, you know, look over this. This is 

12 what we believe you told us. 

13 MR. FARVER: That was done by three 

14 different survivors.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Right. There were 

16 three different CATIs, or final CATI reports.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

18 MR. FARVER: Right. But in any of 

19 the final ones, I did not find that indication 

20 of the 1979 incident. It is in the draft 

21 summary, as Scott stated. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm just making sure 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 I see which survivor did that. Okay, I will 

2 agree that it does not appear to be in the 

3 final version. 

4 MR. FARVER: I just thought that 

5 was odd.

6 MR. SIEBERT: I agree 

7 wholeheartedly that is odd. But, of course, it 

8 is the draft that we used for the claim.

9 MR. FARVER: Why don't you use the 

10 final?

11 MR. SIEBERT: The final is not 

12 generated until --

13 MR. CALHOUN: It's not generated 

14 until we send the information to Labor.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Generate what we call 

17 the ALR.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. I did not know 

19 that.

20 MR. CALHOUN: What usually happens, 

21 and I don't know, maybe we don't need to talk 

22 a whole about it. I don't know what 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

201

1 incident was, but if you know what I'm saying.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes. That explains how 

3 we had the misunderstanding. We were looking 

4 in the final report because we thought that 

5 was the final, and you looked in another 

6 report. Okay, now I --

7 MR. CALHOUN: The final doesn't 

8 exist.

9 MR. FARVER: I understand. I didn't 

10 understand that at the time. I understand that 

11 now.

12 MR. CALHOUN: But I'm as perplexed 

13 as you there, Doug, so --

14 MR. FARVER: I would say this is 

15 probably a unique case and not something 

16 that's going to happen all the time. All I can 

17 suggest is for the matrix I'll just put in 

18 that it is contained in the one report, but 

19 not contained in the other. No further action. 

20 I don't know what to do. I don't think there 

21 is any action we can take.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 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

202

1 MR. FARVER: Unless anyone has some 

2 suggestions?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest we do 

5 what we did earlier; namely, identify this as 

6 a misunderstanding because of terminology. 

7 There was no real problem that existed, and 

8 it's closed. The Subcommittee agrees it's 

9 closed. It's a single case not likely to 

10 affect any other cases, and closed.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any

12 comments? Okay. Then SRS is closed, the SRS 

13 cases are closed. Let's go on to Rocky Flats. 

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. Do we have the 

15 Rocky Flats on the screen?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We do have 

17 Rocky Flats on the screen. We haven't gotten 

18 to one where --

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- there is 

21 an issue.

22 MR. FARVER: The last time 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

203

1 talked about this was the November of 2012 

2 meeting, in which case, we ended at 253.2. 

3 Okay, so here we go. I don't believe we 

4 discussed any of this beyond that. I think 

5 that's the only time we've talked about this 

6 matrix.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we are, 

8 yes. So, we simply proceed to the next one?

9 MR. FARVER: We can go through 

10 these because we're basically starting from 

11 scratch on these others. We haven't discussed 

12 them before.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. STIVER: Do you want to talk 

15 about the observations at all, or just go 

16 through the findings?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, let's do 

19 findings. For the most part we know that 

20 observations are not true findings, they're 

21 just comments from our contractor about things 

22 that are observations, not real concerns 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

204

1 must be addressed.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: But define 

3 observations, what they are.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Define. 

5 Observations are something that the contractor 

6 has observed and would like to comment on in 

7 the process of doing their review. A finding 

8 is something that the contractor has 

9 identified as being an item which could be an 

10 error or which needs to be changed. An 

11 observation could be positive or negative. It 

12 might want -- the Subcommittee might want to 

13 follow up on it in some way or not, depending 

14 on the magnitude of the considered impact on 

15 this and other cases. 

16 Just an observation. You could 

17 have done better on this paragraph. That's an 

18 observation which could be taken into 

19 consideration the next time that particular 

20 document or case is looked at, but it doesn't 

21 say go back and redo something or you did this 

22 wrong. It's an entirely different kind 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

205

1 entirely different level of concern.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, our 

3 screen puts us into the 12th Set 274.1 with a 

4 close. So, let's go on to the next finding.

5 MR. STIVER: None of these have 

6 been discussed yet, so it might -- this is a 

7 recommendation to close it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

9 if NIOSH and SC&A --

10 MR. FARVER: Boy, this is going to 

11 be a difficult one, 274.1, and it has to do 

12 with the NDRP Data Manipulation. And I 

13 personally don't even understand how all that 

14 works.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What is --

16 could you tell me what the letters stand for?

17 MR. FARVER: What does that stand 

18 for? Grady, Scott, do you know off hand?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Neutron Dose 

20 Reconstruction Project. Rocky Flats went back 

21 and recalculated some of their neutron doses 

22 to reflect better 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

206

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Better 

2 information regarding the individual?

3 MR. SIEBERT: I believe it was the 

4 process. Mutty, do you happen to have the 

5 specifics on that, or Matt?

6 MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt 

7 Smith. NDRP was an overall effort done 

8 separately from this project to reassess the 

9 MTA film results for neutron dosimetry at 

10 Rocky Flats. They were fortunate enough to 

11 have actually all of the film in the vaults 

12 from the early years all the way up through to 

13 the transfer to TLD technology. So, they 

14 underwent a project where they got out and 

15 reread the tracks on those films and 

16 reassessed neutron dose for everyone involved.

17 It is not a simple methodology to 

18 follow. There's a whole separate report on 

19 what they did by itself, and then the Rocky 

20 Flats TBD goes ahead and describes how we use 

21 that data, as well.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 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

207

1 there any -- what is the issue, then?

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, let me try to 

3 explain it.

4 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

5 I'd just step in for a second. Ron Buchanan is 

6 pretty close to Rocky Flats. I'm going to call 

7 him and see if I can get him to join in.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

9 Thank you.

10 MR. FARVER: Normally, these are 

11 the ones I hand off to Ron and then he'll 

12 respond back to me in an email saying whether 

13 he agrees with NIOSH or not, so I suspect 

14 that's what happened in this case.

15 As you can see there was recorded 

16 photon doses about 5 2 rem for these years but 

17 NIOSH did not assign any recorded deep dose 

18 for those years. Now, if you go through what 

19 NIOSH -- their response is, I mean, I can 

20 follow that. And that's what I say it comes to 

21 it's a result of the NDRP data manipulation. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, he had C-
. 

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 the person had recorded 5 rem of photon 

2 radiation, high-energy photon radiation, and 

3 NIOSH did not assign -- oh, I don't understand 

4 that.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Somebody had 

7 a recorded dose. NIOSH didn't assign any 

8 recorded dose because of NDRP?

9 MR. KATZ: We could just skip this 

10 until we can get Ron Buchanan to explain it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, why 

12 don't we do that? Although we're going into 

13 Rocky Flats now. Right?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, they're 

16 all --

17 MEMBER POSTON: Before -- Dave, 

18 this is John. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Before we leave, I 

21 had a couple of questions. We're talking about 

22 using track film for the neutrons. Is 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

209

1 correct in this situation?

2 MR. SMITH: Yes, it was NTA film.

3 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. Okay. And they 

4 went back and reread them. Is that what I 

5 understand?

6 MR. SMITH: That's also correct, 

7 yes. It was quite a massive effort.

8 MEMBER POSTON: I would have 

9 anticipated the doses would have been less 

10 than the record originally. Did you see that?

11 MR. SMITH: In many cases the dose 

12 went up. They also attempted to deal with what 

13 I'll call unmonitored neutron dose. I won't 

14 call it missed dose.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, the dose 

16 actually went up after -- when you read the 

17 track the next time?

18 MR. SMITH: Well, the overall dose 

19 for an individual would tend to go up. As they 

20 went through the process and, Mutty, if you 

21 want to weigh in, please do. They would 

22 attempt to interpolate what kind of neutron 
. 

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 dose a person had received for periods where 

2 they weren't finding film results for an 

3 individual.

4 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

5 reporter. Who is answering Dr. Poston's 

6 questions?

7 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, it's Matt 

8 Smith with ORAU.

9 COURT REPORTER: Thanks.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Hey, Matt, how are 

11 you?

12 MR. SMITH: Doing okay.

13 MEMBER POSTON: Typically, when you 

14 read those films after they've been stored for 

15 a long time, they actually shrink so the --

16 some of the holes may actually disappear. But 

17 the other thing that can happen is because 

18 they shrink you get more tracks per unit area, 

19 so -- and I'm trying to figure out -- and 

20 then, of course, the gamma dose is simply a 

21 blackening that's laid on top of that, or at 

22 least it can be. So, if you have enough photon 
. 

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 dose you can actually blacken the NTA film, 

2 too. I'm just trying to figure out what you 

3 did.

4 MR. SMITH: Yes, just for 

5 everyone's reference, I know it's not 

6 something we can open up and get into right 

7 now, but as these claims continue to be under 

8 review that separate report done on this 

9 project is available in the database. I'm sure 

10 it's referenced multiple times in the Rocky 

11 Flats tech basis document, and from there with 

12 the reference number you can get into the 

13 database and see it. 

14 MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

15 MR. SMITH: It was quite an 

16 undertaking, to say the least.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

18 Siebert. I believe all these -- the 

19 methodology for applying the NDRP data and so 

20 on was all discussed in the Rocky Flats 

21 Working Group ad nauseam. And the process we 

22 are using is the approved process from 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

212

1 discussion, so I just want to point out that 

2 this has been discussed a lot in the past in a 

3 different Work Group.

4 MEMBER POSTON: I probably 

5 shouldn't be commenting, because I'm 

6 conflicted with Rocky, so I wasn't on the 

7 Working Group and don't know what they 

8 discussed.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mark was the 

10 Chair, and he's not with us today. 

11 MR. STIVER: This is John. I did 

12 call Ron and he's going to call in, so he 

13 should be online soon.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm on line.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay, great. We're 

17 still on 274.1?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we are. 

19 Somewhat waiting. Can we -- is there any value 

20 in moving on to another case until your 

21 colleague gets on?

22 MR. STIVER: He's already 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

213

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

2 Alright. We'll wait.

3 MR. STIVER: I'll send him the 

4 matrix so he can be online with us. He's not 

5 on Live Meeting, so I'll have to actually send 

6 it to him.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, yes. This is 

9 Ron Buchanan with SC&A. And I'm online --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Welcome.

11 MR. STIVER: Ron, I'm going to send 

12 you an email with the matrix for the Set 10 

13 Rocky Flats and Los Alamos. It should be --

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

15 MR. STIVER: -- there in just a 

16 minute. 

17 MR. FARVER: And once again, we're 

18 not contending that they did anything 

19 incorrect. What we found is when we reviewed 

20 their answer, they did it correctly. It is 

21 just an artifact of the NDRP process. Okay? 

22 But it was just odd that you could 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

214

1 recorded dose and still not have any 

2 assignment of photon dose.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

4 would like to point out there was less than 30 

5 KeV photon dose that was assigned in this case 

6 as well as the neutron dose. It's just there 

7 was no 30 to 250 KeV dose.

8 MR. FARVER: That's correct. But 

9 what prompted the finding is when we looked at 

10 this we saw that there was recorded dose data 

11 from dosimeters, and then we go to look at the 

12 calculations and there is no -- we'll say 30 

13 to 250 KeV dose assigned. Then we are a little 

14 concerned, and that's what prompted the 

15 finding.

16 MEMBER POSTON: This is John Poston 

17 again. Doug, when you do these can you tell 

18 what the source of the low-energy photons is, 

19 or do you have to have the whole thing in 

20 front of you in order to answer those kinds of 

21 questions?

22 MR. FARVER: When we do our reviews 
. 

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 you mean?

2 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Typically what I do is 

4 I start from the dosimeter data and try to 

5 replicate their numbers, using the method that 

6 I'm aware of. Rocky Flats is different because 

7 they do some different things, you know, as 

8 you can see under the NIOSH response, so I try 

9 and go through the calculations and match 

10 their numbers, and that's how I approach it.

11 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

13 Buchanan. I just received your matrix here. 

14 MR. STIVER: Ron, we're on page 7 

of 38, 12th 15 Set, 274.1.

DR. BUCHANAN: 274.1, 12th 16 Set, 

17 Rocky Flats, incomplete assignment of recorded 

18 photon dose. Okay. Again, you brought me up to 

19 speed. What is it that we -- what is it we 

20 need to be answering here?

21 MR. FARVER: Well, Ron, what -- you 

22 know, the initial findings about 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

216

1 incomplete assignment of recorded photon dose 

2 because the employee had a recorded photon 

3 dose in the records for years `63 through `67, 

4 but there was no 30 to 250 KeV photon dose 

5 assigned by NIOSH.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: Now, I believe that's 

8 what prompted the finding to begin with.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct.

10 MR. FARVER: And when you work 

11 through NIOSH's response it comes down to it's 

12 just the way that the data was manipulated 

13 through the NDRP process. And I know you 

14 understand that better than I do.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. The NDRP 

16 process, the way I understand it, it's been a 

17 number of years since I went through that in 

18 great detail. However, the NDRP process can 

19 add photon dose if they reread the film. They 

20 reread all the NTA film and some of the gamma 

21 film, and if the gamma film they read results 

22 in a greater recorded dose than the original 
. 

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 records, then they add that in. However, and I 

2 think I'm probably the one that brought up 

3 this finding because I worked on quite a few 

4 of these Rocky Flats cases, and there was 

5 several of them where there was no 30 to 250 

6 KeV photon dose assigned, and I did not know 

7 why when they had a recorded dose.

8 Now, they did have some -- if they 

9 worked in a plutonium facility they did have 

10 less than 30 KeV photons assigned, and if I 

11 recall right in several cases they had less 

12 than 30 KeV photons, and also some greater 

13 than 250, but none 30 to 250. And according to 

14 the TBD, I believe that it gives a certain 

15 percent that should be 30 to 50 KeV.

16 So, the NDRP process, if the 

17 workbook is removing the photon dose for some 

18 reason, then that's a problem, that's an issue 

19 that we need to address.

20 MR. SHARFI: This is Mutty Sharfi. 

21 I had to go back to the raw claim to look at 

22 this, the response. I think I figured out why 
. 

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 in this particular claim you see what you're 

2 seeing. I think we're confusing the reported 

3 10 dose which includes the neutron and gamma 

4 dose. It's a sum dose versus the NDRP dose 

5 which has them broken out. So, what happens is 

6 when you remove the neutron dose from the pen 

7 dose you actually -- outside a couple of 

8 places you get some very small gamma doses. 

9 Most of it's missed dose so what you see is in 

10 the assignment almost all the 30 to 50 KeV 

11 photon dose is assigned as missed, and then 

12 the actual -- most of the recorded pen dose is 

13 actually neutron dose.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: So, does that 

15 explain -- I don't know if this case had it, 

16 but some cases would have a greater than 250 

17 and a less than 30.

18 MR. SHARFI: Sure, you could have 

19 some gamma dose, but in this case all the --

20 in those early years, the individual gamma 

21 dose was all basically reported as zeroes with 

22 positive NDRP dose. And when you sum them up 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 you get the pen dose, so really in the early 

2 years what you have is a lot of missed dose 

3 for gamma and assigned neutron dose. That's, I 

4 would say, pretty rare in NDRP in a Rocky 

5 Flats claim, but that just happens to be 

6 what's in this, that they had the cycle data 

7 for the gamma. The pen dose is just quarterly 

8 summary dose, so what you end up having is a 

9 lot of gamma missed dose and positive ND -- or 

10 neutron dose for these early years for this 

11 particular claim.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, the SC&A 

13 response which really -- am I correct that the 

14 employee had recorded photon deep dose and 

15 neutron dose totaling 5.5 rem in the matrix?

16 It says photon deep dose.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes, I think they're 

18 summing up the quarterly pen dose.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, which is 

20 neutrons and photons.

21 MR. STIVER: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It 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

220

1 doesn't say it in the matrix. But in the SC&A 

2 part of the response --

3 MR. STIVER: And it may have not 

4 been intuitively obvious to them. I don't 

5 know.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. No, I'm 

7 comfortable with what you say. I just -- it 

8 says something different in the matrix.

9 MEMBER MUNN: But the suggested 

10 action is to close it and certainly from the 

11 Subcommittee's point of view, I can't see any 

12 reason why not to.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. I 

14 just -- I asked the SC&A people. You may want 

15 to change that. It's unclear what you wrote, 

16 in my opinion. But there's no issue about 

17 closing it because it's --

18 MEMBER MUNN: It's been recommended 

19 by the contractor.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. No, no, 

21 that's fine. Okay. Let's go on, folks. 

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Can I ask 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

221

1 clarifying question for future audits? So, 

2 what you're saying is that the -- that you can 

3 have positive penetrating dose and part of 

4 that assigned as missed photon dose in 30 to 

5 50 KeV, but you can have assigned greater than 

6 to 50 KeV measured dose in the same instance.

7 MR. SHARFI: I'm saying that the 

8 pen dose column that they report as quarterly 

9 values could be positive, and depending on how 

10 the neutron and photon break down, you could 

11 have no 30 to 50 KeV, or the dose that you 

12 would calculate would be less than the LOD, 

13 therefore, we define it as missed.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you.

15 MR. SHARFI: Does that answer your 

16 question?

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, closed. 

19 We'll go on.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. And I'll work on 

21 the wording at the --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is?
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 MR. FARVER: In the workbook it has 

2 that listed as final dose. In other words, if 

3 you go to the yearly tabs you'll see original 

4 dose, you'll see NDRP dose, and then you'll 

5 see final dose. And the final dose numbers are

6 the ones that I tabulated to come up with that 

7 5.538, I believe.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: I will make those 

10 changes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Appreciate 

12 it. Alright, scrolling down, 274.2.

13 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to update.

14 MEMBER MUNN: It looks like it's 

15 been adequately answered.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it 

17 has been. In fact, I'm not sure why we're even 

18 talking about this --

19 MEMBER MUNN: Because we have to 

20 look at it as all -- as a Subcommittee need to 

21 agree that SC&A's closure is acceptable.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. 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

223

1 So, good.

2 MR. FARVER: Right. This is where 

3 that -- the findings went to NIOSH. NIOSH 

4 responded. We read their responses. If we have 

5 questions about it we would either go back and 

6 ask them, or we would put our recommendation. 

7 You know, this is our streamline process.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: I don't see a lot of 

10 these where we recommend closing it because we 

11 went through and reviewed their responses in 

12 detail, and we understand what they did now.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we know --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good, 

15 okay. And it's the Committee's response --

16 Subcommittee's responsibility to approve --

17 MEMBER MUNN: We need to fill in 

18 the final column saying we agree with the 

19 recommendation --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: There may be some 

22 findings where we don't agree with what they 
. 

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 said, and we probably are never going to agree 

2 with them. And that's when we'll come back to 

3 the Subcommittee and say well, this is what we 

4 think, this is what NIOSH thinks.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: We disagree.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 274.2, close?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

10 MR. STIVER: Does the Board agree 

11 then that this can be closed out?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. FARVER: Two is closed, 

15 observation.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: While we --

17 MEMBER MUNN: We don't need to do 

18 that.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No action is 

21 necessary. Takes us down to 275.1. 

22 Recommendation from the contractor to close 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

225

1 based on NIOSH response to the finding.

2 MR. FARVER: Correct. This was a QA 

3 issue. Basically, they did not use the correct 

4 revision of the document of the environmental 

5 dose.

6 MEMBER MUNN: The Subcommittee 

7 accepts the SC&A recommendation to close.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: And the same for 

11 275.2, part of the environmental dose 

12 calculation. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: For plutonium 39 and 

14 40, and americium. Yes, agree with SC&A 

15 recommendation to close.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 300.1. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: My word, what luck. 

18 I'm certain he's not included in the list of 

19 30 KeV photon doses. They agreed with the 

20 response from NIOSH, so it appears that the 

21 Subcommittee can accept SC&A's recommendation 

22 to close.
. 

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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Another QA issue.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: .2?

4 MEMBER MUNN: .2, another 

5 recommendation from the contractor. They 

6 accept the addition of the photon dose and 

7 NIOSH's response is, therefore, correct. Can 

8 the Subcommittee accept and close?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 301.1. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Same situation.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Subcommittee can 

13 recommend -- can accept and close.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good. 

15 Okay, 327.1, let's see what's happening.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Photon energies.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 327.1. Let's 

18 read that. 

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. Are we at --

20 this is Doug. We're at 327.1?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now, I'm 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

227

1 sure what matrix you're looking at. NIOSH did 

2 give a response to this.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, this is the --

4 MEMBER MUNN: That's the one I'm 

5 looking at but I haven't really --

6 MR. SIEBERT: That is NIOSH's 

7 response.

8 MR. FARVER: It is?

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay, so you can see 

11 their response with the fractions in Table 6-

12 10. Okay. Basically, the finding came from the 

13 fact that Table 6-10 of the Rocky Flats TBD 

14 says, "For plutonium facilities you assign, I 

15 believe it's 25 percent to less than 30 KeV, 

16 and 75 percent to the 30 to 250 KeV.

17 Okay. But that's not what they 

18 did. They said they assigned 100 percent to 

19 the less than 30 KeV, and 100 percent to the 

20 30 to 250 KeV photons. Okay. So, that's the 

21 differences that we're talking about here. 

22 After rereading their response 
. 

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 several times and going back to the workbooks 

2 and the TBD, I think I understand what they 

3 did, although it's -- I don't think it's very 

4 clear in the TBD. I don't know. Scott, Grady, 

5 any input on that? Do you feel the TBD is 

6 clear? I mean, you could understand how we 

7 would see where it's 25/75 because that's what 

8 the table says in the TBD. Any thoughts on 

9 that, Scott?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

11 I'm talking to Mutty. He is going to talk on 

12 this. I think he's having a difficulty being 

13 heard.

14 MR. SHARFI: Can you hear me now?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I can 

16 hear you.

17 MR. SHARFI: Alright. I guess if 

18 the question is [is] it clear for us, I would 

19 say yes, but I guess that doesn't really help 

20 you. The problem is the two sections are 

21 really covering -- one is covering generic 

22 fields and the other one is covering how 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

229

1 assess Rocky Flats. And I think maybe some of 

2 the confusion is that Rocky Flats is very 

3 unique in the sense of the algorithms they 

4 have for their dosimeters is how most sites 

5 were just straight up gamma dose is gamma 

6 dose, or they have these algorithms that break 

7 up their 30 to 50, greater than 250, and their 

8 shallow dose. There are all these convoluted 

9 algorithms that you use, so the 25/75 split is 

10 true if you're talking about generic fields, 

11 but when you get to the dosimetry you have to 

12 apply it in a different way. So, if you do a 

13 lot of the Rocky Flats dosimetry, then I think 

14 it makes sense to you, but if you're probably 

15 looking from the outside then it's probably 

16 more confusing.

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I agree with 

18 you, Mutty, because after rereading this and 

19 rereading the documents, that's what I came up 

20 with, that it's not a Savannah River where you 

21 can just take it and multiply 25, 75, and go 

22 with your dose like that. 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 MR. SHARFI: Correct.

2 MR. FARVER: And I understand what 

3 you're saying, but I'm trying to figure out a 

4 way to make it a little bit more clear. 

5 MR. SHARFI: That's hard given the 

6 intricacies of Rocky Flats.

7 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to pull up 

8 the TBD real quick and see -- I thought that 

9 maybe if you just named that table different, 

10 6-10, to make it clear that it's not like a 

11 Savannah River. I mean, you know how they do 

12 things at the Savannah River where you have 

13 the table of the energy distributions.

14 MR. SHARFI: Correct.

15 MR. FARVER: Right. And Rocky Flats 

16 is not like that, I agree. But how do --

17 MR. SHARFI: It's -- I mean, we 

18 could look at it the next time we revise the 

19 section to try to add some wording. I don't 

20 know exactly what I'd tell you right now that 

21 I'd add, but --

22 MR. FARVER: I don't know either, 
. 

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 but that is the best I came up with, was 

2 trying to add some wording around the table to 

3 make it clear that it's not where you can just 

4 multiply it by 25 and 75, or 100 percent for 

5 the uranium, or so forth. It's different.

6 MR. SHARFI: Yes, then maybe we can 

7 add some wording like generic gamma field 

8 distributions. 

9 MR. FARVER: Right, because right 

10 now it says default photon energy 

11 distributions, and I read that and I think 

12 back to like Savannah River tables.

13 MR. SHARFI: And it's accurate 

14 because they are photon energy distributions 

15 but you think of photons in the sense of 

16 dosimeters.

17 MR. FARVER: Yes, and that's not 

18 what this is.

19 MR. SHARFI: It's more generic.

20 MR. FARVER: Right.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron. So, you 

22 would not use that in dose reconstruction? 
. 

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 This is just -- you would not use a generic 

2 gamma 25/75 in dose reconstruction?

3 MR. SHARFI: If we're basing it off 

4 your actual dosimetry, no, because they have 

5 special algorithms to devise the high energy 

6 and low energy gamma, so you have to go 

7 through that process for the dosimeters. If I 

8 was actually using field monitoring data then, 

9 yes, I would use the 25/75 split.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. 

11 MR. SHARFI: So, I'm not saying you 

12 wouldn't use it, just in most cases we're 

13 using dosimetry data so you wouldn't -- so you 

14 don't need it. But if there arose a situation 

15 that we would be using generic gamma data 

16 then, yes, we would apply that kind of split.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Like a radiation 

18 survey instrument kind of thing?

19 MR. SHARFI: Yes, exactly.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Something to that C21 because I know I brought this -- this is 

22 probably my finding. So, yes, if it was worded 
. 

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 that survey field energy distribution or 

2 something as opposed to dosimetry data, then 

3 that would be -- help clarify it. 

4 MR. FARVER: I don't think we can 

5 fix this but how about if we put down that 

6 NIOSH will consider adding --

7 MR. SHARFI: Maybe we can clarify 

8 that table.

9 MR. FARVER: Yes, adding 

10 clarification to the section containing Table 

11 6.10, I believe, or 6-10. Would that be 

12 acceptable? We're just going to -- you're 

13 going to consider adding wording to clarify 

14 that Table 6-10 applies to for generic 

15 radiation --

16 MR. SHARFI: Survey data would be -

17 MR. FARVER: Survey data. It's 

18 applicable to survey data. 

19 MR. SHARFI: I don't have a problem 

20 with the next revision. I don't -- I can't 

21 tell you when we plan on revising --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds 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

234

1 MEMBER MUNN: But that's probably 

2 the best we can do under the circumstances. It 

3 looks like you have a technical Catch 22 

4 there.

5 MR. FARVER: I mean, when I first 

6 read that, I was thinking back to the Savannah 

7 River table where you just take the deep dose 

8 and then you multiply it by 25 percent to get 

9 the shallow dose and so forth. And that's not 

10 the case here, that's a different table.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, different 

12 application at this site. But as far as I'm 

13 concerned, I can't see any other solution 

14 other than to accept what's been proposed, 

15 that NIOSH will consider attempting clarifying 

16 language in the next revision of the document. 

17 I can't see what else can be done. It simply 

18 needs clarification. It isn't good or bad, it 

19 just requires clarification if it can be done. 

20 Anyone else have any better ideas?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, that's 

22 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

235

1 MEMBER MUNN: It seems the 

2 appropriate solution.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Others?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I was just 

5 wondering where this is kind of in NIOSH, is 

6 this -- is that okay for them? I think I heard 

7 Mutty say okay, but I just wanted to make 

8 sure.

9 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I 

10 mean, you know, the fact of the matter is we 

11 certainly will consider, you know, any change 

12 when we revise the TBD. That's an easy one to 

13 commit to because it's just considering --

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

15 that. I just didn't want us to end up putting 

16 words in your mouth, we didn't understand the 

17 -- if it would be hard or not. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: No, it's something 

19 we'll consider, and it sounds like a 

20 reasonable idea.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

22 let's go 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

236

1 MEMBER MUNN: Can we close it?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds like 

3 it.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes, we'll close this. 

6 I'm just working on some words.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We'll 

8 take a moment, that's fine. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 327.2.

11 MEMBER MUNN: We have a 

12 recommendation from SC&A.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'd like to 

14 read that SC&A response. I'm finding it a 

15 little confusing.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It says there 

18 was -- this was -- this assignment of photon -

19 - coworker photon was done incorrectly and 

20 underestimated. They're concerned about other 

21 cases, but this is not a recurring problem. 

22 Well, what about this case itself, or 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

237

1 NIOSH say that it is -- it has corrected or is 

2 correcting -- SC&A is correct -- I'm sorry. I 

3 see what it is. SC&A is correct and that is 

4 being changed. There's no other -- so, if it's 

5 changed, then there's no other cases where 

6 this problem has recurred.

7 MR. FARVER: We have not seen it. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

9 fine. I'm ready to close.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, then the 

11 Subcommittee --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Any other 

13 Subcommittee Members? We're moving along 

14 rapidly, and people should feel free to state 

15 their views or concerns, if there are any. 

16 Okay, 327.3. Alright. 

17 MR. FARVER: Okay, give me a minute 

18 until I call up this case.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

20 MR. FARVER: 327.

21 MEMBER MUNN: You put it in our 

22 laps. So, the contractor is asking 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

238

1 Subcommittee have NIOSH -- request that NIOSH 

2 formalize practice in their policy statement.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. For this case, 

4 they used the frequency for medical x-rays 

5 that is in the TBD. They did not apply actual 

6 x-ray.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Their response says 

8 they do one or the other, but not both.

9 MR. FARVER: Right. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, I have a little 

11 more information if you'd like.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, please.

13 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

14 Actually, we sent a response to this and 

15 another -- for 327.1, as well, back in March. 

16 Since we didn't discuss this matrix I'm 

17 guessing you just didn't transfer those over. 

18 It's not a huge deal. We have a response that 

19 we put in in March that addresses this. First 

20 of all, this is an older case and once again, 

21 now the present process is we will use actual 

22 x-rays when they are available. We will not 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

239

1 the overestimating assumptions for x-rays any 

2 more, and that is policy. So, we already have 

3 addressed that, and I believe we've talked 

4 about that in this Subcommittee before.

5 Another portion of this is Rocky 

6 Flats has begun, I believe in 2009, they 

7 started giving us all the film badge -- not 

8 film badge, I'm sorry, film -- the x-ray films 

9 in their responses. They were not doing that 

10 previous to 2009 which is why we had to do 

11 some overestimating in the previous cases.

12 Now that we are getting actual x13 rays from Rocky Flats, we always use the 

14 actual x-ray data that we have in the claims. 

15 And one last portion to go with that is that 

16 is written in the current Rocky Flats dose 

17 reconstructor guidance document, so it is 

18 documented that we do it that way, as well.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Which, essentially, 

20 closes the issue, but we just don't have it in 

21 the matrix yet. Can we make sure that that 

22 response --
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 MR. FARVER: Yes, and I'm just --

2 MEMBER MUNN: -- from March gets 

3 in there?

4 MR. FARVER: I didn't find it, but 

5 I imagine it's on the O: drive. I usually try 

6 to get everything downloaded so I have that, 

7 but I didn't see it from my March meeting.

8 MR. SIEBERT: It was sent March 

20th 9 , but we can send it to you again. That's 

10 not a problem.

11 MR. FARVER: Well, is it something 

12 that was on the -- that you put on the O: 

13 drive and -- or was it an email?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Grady sent it out, so 

15 I believe it was an email. 

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. Yes, if you 

17 would resend that, and then I will add it to 

18 this matrix. Do we want to close it now or 

19 wait for the response to be added?

20 MEMBER MUNN: I think it would be 

21 nice for us to get a chance to read the 

22 response rather than just hearing it. 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

241

1 sounds fine to me, but in terms of what goes 

2 on the matrix, it's probably a good idea to 

3 see it before we --

4 MR. FARVER: I agree. We will keep 

5 this open pending addition of a previous 

6 response.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I think that's 

8 the only thing to do.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Just to read the 

11 response and get it inserted properly.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 327.3, 

13 are we on now?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Open 

16 for response. Okay, good. Let's go to number 

17 what, 327.4?

18 MEMBER MUNN: 4, yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uranium. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Another QA finding to 

21 which SC&A accepts the NIOSH explanation and 

22 recommends closing.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, it was a 

2 boo-boo.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Can the Subcommittee 

6 accept that recommendation and close the 

7 finding?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds like 

9 it. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. This is Brad.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, dear. Let's not 

13 get into crystal ball on observation one. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are we 

15 talking about LANL? Have we finished Rocky 

16 Flats?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it looks as 

though we're starting out with 245.1, the 11th 18

19 Set, and we're into LANL.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wow, fine. 

21 We're at LANL, fine. Really what's happening 

22 is -- and this was not the case in recent 
. 

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 meetings, was that you folks have talked 

2 together, SC&A and NIOSH, and pretty well --

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's a part 

4 of it. And the other large portion of it, 

5 also, is that many of the responses to the 

6 matrix just have not been able to get to the 

7 surface. We haven't had enough time during the 

8 meetings to get this far --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MEMBER MUNN: -- into this 

11 particular set.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good, 

13 because I read that we had 200 findings to go 

14 over according to the tables.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But we're 

17 moving right along, so this is fine.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, many of them 

19 have been looked at and there are responses. 

20 We just have been time constrained to how many 

21 we can handle each --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine, all 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

244

1 well. Let's -- now, as we start LANL, it's 

2 3:51. We did have a break before until a 

3 quarter of 3:00 Eastern Time, so should we 

4 continue on, folks?

5 MEMBER MUNN: I think we're good to 

6 keep going, unless somebody has a need.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go. 

8 Okay, very good. 245.1. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, 245.1. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: A QA issue.

11 MR. FARVER: It is, and ambient 

12 doses. Let me find it. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Can the Subcommittee 

14 accept the SC&A recommendation that this is a 

15 quality concern and can close this finding?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I can't see 

17 the bottom. Okay, fine, thank you. Just 

18 finishing up the NIOSH.

19 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. One of 

20 the good things I like about when we have a 

21 chance to get responses from NIOSH and then 

22 look at them is that both parties can 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

245

1 their time and go through the case, and look 

2 at things in detail because I know I went and 

3 I looked at this case in detail, and I can't 

4 remember it right now. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, so much time 

6 has passed.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER MUNN: We've had most of 

9 this matrix filled in for --

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: -- a number of 

12 months.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Long time.

14 MR. FARVER: And, as you can see, 

15 these explanations get rather complicated.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, they are. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And it's 

18 not easy to for us on the Subcommittee, we 

19 really can't get into any depth on them for 

20 ourselves. On the other hand, we can do a 

21 brief look at what you said, and I feel 

22 comfortable with it. And I feel like we can 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 close this. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: I certainly do, I 

3 agree. 

4 MR. FARVER: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Any argument to the 

6 contrary?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Good, closed.

9 MR. FARVER: 245.2. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, this brings us 

11 back to -- yes, we had quite a discussion at 

12 our last meeting about the tools. And we -- I 

13 had assumed that we might revisit that again 

14 this time, but I don't know what's transpired 

15 in the wings in the meantime, whether that 

16 discussion has continued off line with respect 

17 to the verification and validation process for 

18 the tools, or not. Has any of that taken 

19 place, or is that an item which we need to 

20 specifically put on our agenda as a discrete 

21 action for the Subcommittee? I don't know the 

22 answer 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

247

1 MR. FARVER: Well, it looks like 

2 the workbook they used had incorrect values. 

3 It appears as though that's been corrected in 

4 a revision to the workbook, so that error has 

5 been corrected. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: But that doesn't meet 

7 the standard of concern that was the topic of 

8 our discussions earlier. 

9 MR. FARVER: Then why wasn't it 

10 caught the first time before the workbook was 

11 released?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, as in are the 

13 tools and validation process really up to 

14 snuff? Are they the quality that we --

15 MR. FARVER: I think that 

16 commission is still out there. I don't think 

17 that this answers that question.

18 MR. STIVER: This is John. I can 

19 second that. It's one of the things we 

20 discussed in one of the Subcommittee meetings, 

21 and it's something that should probably be 

22 looked at. And to the best of my knowledge, 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

248

1 don't think it has been at this point.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I'm not at all sure 

3 that --

4 MR. STIVER: Maybe Scott or Grady 

5 could weigh in on that.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm not sure we 

7 were clear in terms of our direction. I 

8 remember we did talk about it, but I'm not 

9 sure whether definite action was outlined. If 

10 not, then the Subcommittee certainly needs to 

11 do that now, I think. 

12 MR. FARVER: Yes, I don't recall 

13 direct actions being given to or requested of 

14 anyone. I just remember there being a general 

15 discussion.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I think it was more a 

17 matter of resources, availability. There was 

18 just so much else going on at the time that I 

19 believe -- I don't want to put words into 

20 Stu's mouth, but as I recall it, it just --

21 they were going to try to get to it when they 

22 were able to.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 MR. CALHOUN: I don't -- this is 

2 Grady, and I don't remember taking home a go 

3 do.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I don't think 

5 there was one. That was my concern, that if 

6 this is an issue that's of significant 

7 magnitude that the Subcommittee really should 

8 be pondering it, or giving directions, then we 

9 need to address it in a more specific manner 

10 than we have so far. But if it's one of those 

11 we'll get to it when we get to it kind of 

12 things, then there's no point for us to 

13 continue to revisit it. I guess I'm at a loss 

14 to know exactly what our action needs to be.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are you 

16 suggesting a report to the Committee to be 

17 read by Committee Members and then come back 

18 for discussion next time?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I think it's 

20 incumbent on us to try to identify whether we 

21 -- I, for one, would like to re-review it. I 

22 very quickly went over our transcript from 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 last time, but we spent the first few minutes 

2 of our meeting last time were devoted to some 

3 discussion of the tools, but I don't remember 

4 that we went away with any feeling about how 

5 that should be addressed, or was going to be 

6 addressed. It seemed --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda, I'm sorry, 

9 this is Scott. I just want to point out, 

10 remember this finding and the response are 

11 old. They're basically from -- I think we did 

12 this first back and forth in the beginning of 

13 2012.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: And since that time, 

16 if you remember back in, I believe it was July 

17 or August of 2012, we did have that 

18 presentation that I gave you guys on our whole 

19 quality process and how we work through the 

20 various portions of our quality process.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I do remember that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 MEMBER MUNN: I don't remember 

2 applying that to this issue.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I believe --

4 MEMBER MUNN: My brain was in two 

5 different directions at the time.

6 MR. SIEBERT: I believe we included 

7 in your discussion of tools along with the 

8 rest of the quality issue, because I believe 

9 Keith also covered some of the processes we 

10 use, and the procedures that we use for V&V of 

11 the tools, and the tracking of them in our 

12 databases on when they get updated and things 

13 like that. 

14 We did discuss all that stuff 

15 about -- gosh, about a year ago, so I can --

16 I'm not surprised it's not uppermost in 

17 everybody's mind, but at that point I'm not 

18 going to say everybody was happy with what the 

19 finishing product was, but I know -- as far as 

20 I know, there were no additional go dos out of 

21 that after the information was presented to 

22 the Subcommittee --
. 

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 MEMBER MUNN: No.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, but I 

3 don't think it was presented to us. It was 

4 presented as informational, and it seemed 

5 okay, but I don't recall that we were asked to 

6 make a decision. If we are asked to make a 

7 decision, then we need to revisit it and think 

8 about it. I can't make a decision based on 

9 this matrix, it seems to me.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed. And I agree, 

11 also, that Scott's presentation was very well 

12 received. Yes, I remember.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. No, it 

14 was -- I learned a lot.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it was -- and I 

16 recall that -- I think your memory is correct, 

17 that everyone was pleased with what was there.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: But, certainly, as 

20 David says, I wasn't in any way applying it 

21 specifically to a finding.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 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

253

1 MEMBER MUNN: And perhaps I'll let 

2 the Chair decide which way to go with this.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

4 think -- in fact, what we were pleased with 

5 was the overall report.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But we 

8 weren't asked to think about should we change 

9 some of the details, are some of the details 

10 problematic. But now at least one of them is, 

11 and I feel that somebody has to write a -- has 

12 to join the issue, and that suggests a report 

13 by somebody, a brief report, maybe, but a 

14 report on the issue.

15 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver, 

16 if I could weigh in for just a minute. It's 

17 all coming back to me now. We all were pleased 

18 with the -- with what Scott put together. I

19 think one of the things that was still left 

20 out there was that well, could we possibly see 

21 the results of maybe an audit trail for one of 

22 these workbooks. I think the question was if 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 this is going on and we have this V&V process, 

2 why do we keep seeing these errors of the type 

3 that were coming up in our DRIs. So, I guess 

4 as a follow on maybe something along those 

5 lines, maybe --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. STIVER: What is the actual 

8 process, and the record keeping, and so forth, 

9 and document control goes into it. Scott's 

10 report covered some of that but we never saw 

11 any actual examples of it.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me ask, 

13 which -- for which group is it appropriate to 

14 report about this? Maybe Wanda, or you might 

15 suggest, or other Members of the Subcommittee. 

16 I'm not sure who to ask, if you will.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it looks as 

18 though it's going to have to be a job that at 

19 some point NIOSH will need to undertake if 

20 we're going to respond to this particular kind 

21 of concern. And if we're going to try to 

22 resolve it in a Subcommittee then you'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

255

1 right, we will have to have some additional 

2 report probably incorporating, or at least 

3 starting from the point of what we've already 

4 been presented with, but which I doubt is 

5 foremost in any of our minds.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MEMBER MUNN: So, I hope if the 

8 presentation still -- is it available to us in 

9 hard copy, I guess, so that we can refresh our 

10 memories, and what kind of additional 

11 information should be incorporated in a report 

12 that might --

13 MR. KATZ: Well, what I could 

14 suggest, why don't -- if someone can point me 

15 to -- I can go digging, but it would be 

16 helpful if someone knows, Scott maybe, when 

17 that presentation was given. Why don't I just 

18 excerpt the presentation about the workbooks. 

19 The Subcommittee can look at that 

20 presentation, what was actually said, and then 

21 you guys can decide what it is more you want 

22 to know about V&V process with respect 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

256

1 workbooks.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That would be 

3 helpful.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

5 good. That's -- in other words, you're going 

6 to look in, for example, the transcript.

7 MR. KATZ: So, we'll just pull the 

8 -- I'll pull the transcript. I'll send it to 

9 the Subcommittee. You can see exactly what 

10 discussion you already had on V&V of 

11 workbooks, and what was presented to you. And 

12 then you can decide if there's more you want 

13 to know.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That would be very 

15 helpful to refresh --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- our memories.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And how do we 

20 -- we're going to get it, we're going to read 

21 it.

22 MR. KATZ: 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

257

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then are we -

2 - and then we'll have a discussion at the next 

3 meeting?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Right, right. I mean, 

6 you can email each other in between before you 

7 get to the meeting about ideas about what you 

8 might like to know that you don't know from 

9 the transcript, so as far as what you might 

10 want to be asking NIOSH to explain more fully.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

12 people will get emails from me, Wanda, 

13 whomever --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- after we 

16 read the transcript, and we'll have a little 

17 Committee discussion on the internet.

18 MR. KATZ: Sure. So, Scott, if you 

19 have in your records somewhere an easy way of 

20 figuring out what date it is when you guys 

21 made that presentation, I'll go searching 

22 otherwise, 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

258

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We didn't 

2 have that many meetings last year.

3 MR. KATZ: We had a few.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we had 

5 a few, no, no. But it was in the spring time. 

6 Right?

MR. SIEBERT: August 6th 7 , 2012.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, good.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

MR. KATZ: August 6th 10 , 2012. I'll 

11 excerpt the relevant portion and send it to 

12 all of you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

14 MR. STIVER: Actually, this is John 

15 Stiver. I just found a document from August 

6th 16 , 2012.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

18 MR. STIVER: ORAU team dose 

19 reconstruction quality assurance/quality 

20 control program.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent, yes.

22 MR. STIVER: This isn't 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

259

1 presentation, but it's got the overall --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, let's 

3 have that, as well. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. John, go ahead and 

5 send that to me, as well. I'll get the 

6 transcript, you send me that, I'll send it 

7 around to everybody.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

9 fine.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

13 MEMBER MUNN: That'll give us a 

14 basis for a meaningful discussion next time.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

16 that -- with that, I think we can move on, 

17 give the people a moment to put their notes 

18 together on what we've just decided.

19 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. Now, do 

20 you want to close this finding and then put in 

21 there that the Committee -- Subcommittee will 

22 have a discussion on the 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

260

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I don't 

2 think this is a closure.

3 MEMBER MUNN: No.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, this is not.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, just --

6 but I think what Doug is saying is, I mean, 

7 the specific workbook for this case, it was 

8 closed. Right? I mean, the workbook was 

9 corrected?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, so, I mean, this is 

12 a generic issue now the Subcommittee is 

13 looking at, but the case is closed. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

15 MR. KATZ: You've remedied it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I see 

17 what you're seeing.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, what you're 

19 saying, Doug, is for this one it's closed, but 

20 the issue is not.

21 MR. FARVER: Correct.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I'm sorry.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 MEMBER MUNN: Break it out as a 

2 broader administrative issue in our next 

3 agenda.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, that will 

5 be on the upcoming -- the next agenda, that 

6 will be an item on the agenda, specific item.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A discussion 

9 of the accounting of medical x-ray doses.

10 MEMBER MUNN: No, actually of --

11 MR. KATZ: No, V&V of workbooks.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Verification of 

13 review tools --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

15 Right, right, V&V workbooks. Okay, moving 

16 along, we are about an hour short of 

17 finishing. Can we -- let's just figure --

18 folks, can we just go on for the next hour, 

19 or actually 50 minutes?

20 MEMBER MUNN: It's okay with me.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

22 Nobody has to catch --
. 

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 MR. FARVER: I would like to take a 

2 5-minute break, if I could.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Let's 

4 take literally a 5-minute break. It's 4:09, 

5 get back together at 4:15.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes. Dave, I had an 

7 email from John. I don't know if he's still on 

8 the line, saying that at 4:00 he had to go.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I 

10 understood that implicitly, but --

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

13 MR. KATZ: As long as we don't lose 

14 another Board Member, because then we don't 

15 have a quorum. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Five 

17 minutes, folks, at 4:15, six minutes, 

18 actually, 4:15.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, bye21 bye.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Do 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

263

1 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

2 off the record at 4:10 p.m., and went back on 

3 the record at 4:18 p.m.)

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Can I 

5 just throw one thing on our discussion about 

6 V&V before we go on?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: As I was digging 

9 through the break -- because I'm a contractor, 

10 I don't take breaks -- I found we also did a 

11 follow on presentation about V&V, and other 

12 quality concerns as well, in November of 2012, 

on November 27th 13 . So that's another date for 

14 Ted that he may want to go back and look at, 

15 as well.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Scott.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Sure thing. August 

6th and November 27th 19 . 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, very good.

22 MEMBER MUNN: So, we're back 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

264

1 245.3. Right?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. Try to take it 

4 off mute, that works better. 

5 We're at 245.3. Okay. NIOSH used 

6 an incorrect U-234 value for their internal 

7 dose. It was off by factor of 100. This is 

8 one of those values that's contained in the DR 

9 guide. It's not in the TBD, it's in the DR 

10 guide. And the value that's in the guide was 

11 a factor of 100 times low compared to Table 4-

12 30 of the Technical Basis document. 

13 So, now this comes down to how do 

14 you verify that the information in your DR 

15 guides is correct if people are going to 

16 follow them instead of follow what they're 

17 supposed to follow in the TBD? It's another 

18 quality issue, but that's how it came about. 

19 It was factor 100 lower than what it was

20 listed in the TBD. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: It appears in many 

22 ways that this is related to our D&D question 
. 

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 with respect to the quality of the tools that 

2 are being used. However, from the 

3 Subcommittee's point of view, since we've 

4 already broken that issue out as a separate 

5 one for administrative decision next time, can 

6 the Subcommittee accept the SC&A 

7 recommendation that this particular item can 

8 be closed?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. NIOSH 

10 has made the correction pointed out by SC&A. 

11 Right?

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yeah, 

13 that's correct, because it's now covered under 

14 the LANL SEC during that time frame and no 

15 environmental at all is assigned.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

17 let's close it.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments, 

20 folks? Okay. 

21 MR. FARVER: 245.4, germanium-68 

22 was not included in the dose calculations. 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

266

1 there were a few other issues, three issues, I 

2 believe. The first one was the Ge-68 was 

3 omitted. The second one has to do with the 

4 basis for the environmental doses. 

5 Apparently, and I don't know if 

6 this is still the same now, but at the time 

7 LANL's environmental was based on ORNL's 

8 environmental dose. So, that was the second 

9 concern.

10 And the third concern was there 

11 were no calculations showing that the cesium12 137 was the most claimant-favorable as opposed 

13 to cesium, or strontium, or both. And I know 

14 there's been a new TBD issued in, I believe, 

15 2013. I do not know if these changes have been 

16 made from the DR guideline to the TBD. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: I can address them 

18 one by one. The germanium dose, that was a 

19 dose reconstructor mistake leaving it out. And 

20 that is in there and should have been applied 

21 and was not, so that was a mistake in this 

22 case. So, that is case-specific and we agree 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 that that was an issue.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And is this 

3 corrected?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it was correct 

5 at the time. It's just the dose reconstructor 

6 made a mistake.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And you 

9 corrected the dose reconstructor's mistake.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well, yeah, we 

11 looked at what effect it would have on the 

12 claim, and there was no effect on 

13 compensability.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

15 You put it in. Fine, okay. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: The second one being 

17 the ORNL environmental values. We agree that 

18 that's not appropriate, which is why there was 

19 a LANL SEC and we do not assign environmental 

20 at LANL pre-`71, which is this time frame 

21 that's addressed. So, that has been corrected 

22 as well, because there is no environmental 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

268

1 LANL during that time frame per the SEC and 

2 the TBD.

3 And the third one, give me a 

4 second here. This is one where we're talking 

5 cesium-137 versus strontium-90. And I believe 

6 it's one of those cases where the dose 

7 reconstructor just did not include the 

8 additional documentation to prove that they 

9 looked at both of them, and they assigned 

10 cesium because it was more claimant-favorable. 

11 I believe that's the case in this one.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Which we agree these 

14 days we would include that type of comparison 

15 to verify. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Later you 

17 checked it out?

18 MR. SIEBERT: And compared, yeah.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

20 what's the recommendation?

21 MR. FARVER: And, Scott, if I read 

22 this correctly, under your response 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

269

1 first item, it says, "After the case was 

2 reworked and additional covered conditions 

3 were certified, the compensability changed."

4 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

5 MR. FARVER: So, it went from 

6 being non-compensable to compensable?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Not based on this 

8 issue, based on the fact that there were 

9 additional cancers applied.

10 MR. FARVER: Based on there were 

11 additional cancers, yes, I understand that.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, so it's 

13 compensable now. There would be no reworking 

14 this claim.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you, Doug, 

18 good point.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, that's 

20 what needs to be said. Right?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Pretty much.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And 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

270

1 so, that would close it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It would, as long as 

3 the statements are incorporated correctly.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Do 

5 we need to see those statements?

6 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

8 think so either. Others?

9 MEMBER MUNN: We've done a good 

10 job so far with closing statements.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps this is 

13 another one of those that can be compiled.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Do 

15 others on the line, do you agree?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That would be 

17 fine with me. This is Brad.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. David?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I believe 

20 that's fine.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

22 we're closed. Now, we will -- it's close 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

271

1 4:30. At a quarter of 5:00, we'll start 

2 talking about schedule for the next meeting.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But let's go 

5 ahead, 245.5, recommendation for closure by 

6 SC&A. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Can the Subcommittee 

8 accept recommendation of SC&A and close this 

9 today?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we 

11 can.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, the short 

13 answer was there are a couple of extra cancers 

14 mentioned in the CATI that we did not apply 

15 because we did not -- DOL did not refer them 

16 to us until after this claim was done.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Was this a 

19 compensated claim?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it says --

21 yeah, when we reworked it with the additional 

22 cancers it was compensated.
. 

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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

2 I think we can close it.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, 

5 let's go to the next one.

6 MEMBER MUNN: That's the last of 

7 the 245 findings.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Whoa, how 

9 nice.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Takes us down to the 

13th 11 Set.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Boy, this 

13 may be a nice place to close if we --

14 MEMBER MUNN: It might be, yeah.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Last LANL, 

16 320.1. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: We have 

18 recommendations for closure all the way down 

19 on 320, but I haven't read the --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's look 

21 at them. Okay, 320.1, let's take a look at 

22 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

273

1 MR. FARVER: 320.1, method used for 

2 less than 30 KeV photon dose is not apparent. 

3 You can read through their description. 

4 Basically, it's an uh-oh, it's a QA error. The 

5 shallow dose was incorrectly calculated. Not a 

6 big dose value, it's not going to change 

7 anything. It's just a QA issue.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and 

9 the status of the case? It won't change much, 

10 but --

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. It 

12 would actually reduce the dose.

13 MR. FARVER: Yeah. And you're 

14 looking at just over 30 percent PoC.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's 

16 not going to change anything. Fine. Should 

17 we accept closure?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 320.2.

20 MR. FARVER: Consistency in 

21 assigning unmonitored coworker doses during 

22 different years. NIOSH agrees 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

274

1 finding. The dose reconstruction assumed the 

2 claimant had potential for unmonitored 

3 external dose during periods with no reported 

4 dosimetry results. Then they go on to talk 

5 about modifying the DR guidelines, which the 

6 bottom line is when you read through all that, 

7 it looks like that those changes should help 

8 improve the consistency when they assign 

9 unmonitored doses.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

11 getting some the tables -- there we go. Okay. 

12 You ask for closure?

13 MR. FARVER: I don't have an 

14 alternative. I mean, I'm not sure what else 

15 to do. They've made changes, that should 

16 help. I don't know that there's anything else 

17 this Subcommittee can do. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

19 Well, if we put in the current modifications 

20 then I think we have done what we could do. 

21 And we should accept the closure.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.
. 

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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 320.3.

2 MR. FARVER: 321.3 -- or 320.3.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 320.3.

4 MR. FARVER: Number of missed 

5 doses for `62 and `67 is incorrect. They 

6 forgot a couple of zeroes. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Common human error.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 

9 certainly wouldn't affect it. 

10 MR. FARVER: No, this would not 

11 affect it, but kind of what bothers me about 

12 this case is now we're on our third finding 

13 for this case, and they look like they're uh14 ohs. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, you 

16 have been QA -- you've raised QA issues.

17 MEMBER MUNN: For more than one --

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: There's more QA 

19 issues on this one dose reconstruction.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That 

21 suggests that folks should, on NIOSH's end, 

22 should be taking a look at what was done.
. 

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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

2 Brad. When was this one done? Or Scott, 

3 whichever?

4 MR. FARVER: 2008, December of 

5 2008.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: We should have 

7 been far enough along with what we've been 

8 doing.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I don't know. 

10 Things that were done before 2009 where we 

11 didn't have a lot of formulation in place --

12 but that doesn't change the fact that these 

13 are outright errors. 

14 MR. FARVER: I would have thought 

15 that the peer review would have caught some of 

16 this.

17 MEMBER MUNN: One would think, 

18 wouldn't you? Yes. This seems like an 

19 unusual number of uh-ohs.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Individually 

21 these findings are not that significant, 

22 especially dose-wise, but they're just kind 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

277

1 -- you add them all up and it just kind of 

2 points you in the wrong direction.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, tolerances are 

4 always a bugaboo when there's more than one or 

5 two involved.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Maybe 

7 we close this with a suggestion that to take a 

8 look back at that when it was done, where it 

9 was done, who was doing it, make sure that 

10 things are okay now. I think they are. I 

11 mean, I think we've been doing blind dose 

12 reconstructions. They have been consistent.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Nevertheless 

15 -- but this should be closed. From the point 

16 of view of our Committee, this should be 

17 closed.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I 

20 suggest we close it. And we are -- let's see. 

21 Did we get to the point that we could finish 

22 up LANL? How far are we from the end?
. 

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 MEMBER MUNN: I think we're almost 

2 at the end of 320, anyway, and that's --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: We just have two more 

5 of 320.

6 MR. FARVER: 320.4. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. FARVER: NIOSH used an MDA 

9 value instead of one-half of the MDA value. 

10 Okay. This is another uh-oh.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is 

12 an overestimate and therefore claimant13 favorable, but we don't want to have mistakes.

14 MEMBER MUNN: One more reason to 

15 request NIOSH review this again.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: This particular 

18 claim.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, if 

20 it's an overestimate, it's not going to change 

21 the outcome.

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, but it's 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

279

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But it 

2 should be reviewed for QA.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Just to be clear, so 

6 would you like -- I mean, I gather, because 

7 NIOSH is on the line, I gather they don't have 

8 a response right now. Do you want them to 

9 follow-up and see what was going on with this 

10 case, with all these QA?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't have 

12 a suggestion that they report to the 

13 Committee. I think the Committee just simply 

14 suggests to them that they look at this, and 

15 if they deem it that they wish to make a 

16 report at a future meeting, that's fine.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because 

19 these were without negative consequence in all 

20 cases that we've just looked at.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 320.5.
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 MEMBER MUNN: It's more of the 

2 same with respect to the uranium bioassay.

3 MR. FARVER: I believe this one is 

4 a little --

5 MEMBER MUNN: This one is a little 

6 different, yes. This isn't an uh-oh. Yeah, 

7 the explanation is a reasonable one.

8 MR. FARVER: They give a good 

9 explanation, and really I believe our finding 

10 was based on information in the CATI report. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: They're always 

12 helpful.

13 MR. FARVER: We've talked about 

14 that before, information in the CATI report.

15 But they do, they give a good 

16 explanation. And this is a good example of a 

17 case where once they come back with a good 

18 explanation, you can look at that and then go 

19 back and look at the CATI report and look at 

20 the other documents and say, well, gee, that 

21 makes sense.

22 MEMBER MUNN: It makes sense.
. 

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. FARVER: And that's what we 

2 did, and after doing that we suggest closing 

3 it.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So be it.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I suggest the 

6 Subcommittee accept the recommendation.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I do.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, I 

10 accept it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That brings us to a 

13 good closing point, the end of that particular 

14 claim.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

16 Incorrectly assigned, 321.1.

17 MR. FARVER: Are we going to try 

18 and make it all the way through?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's try 

20 to, folks. Can we?

21 MEMBER MUNN: I don't know. I 

22 don't think you're going to make 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

282

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

2 nice as it would have been, I don't --

3 MEMBER MUNN: Even though --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We don't 

5 want to short shrift any case because we're in 

6 a hurry to get ourselves to some arbitrary 

7 goal. Should we -- it is 4:40. We should 

8 talk about the next meeting. Where have we 

9 ended? We were at 321.1.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, ended 

12 at 321.1. Right? LANL.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so 

15 we'll finish LANL next time, and we'll --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we will.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- get on to 

18 the last one, which is -- we did Rocky Flats. 

19 Oh, then we go to other sets. Right? We're 

20 on Set 11 LANL.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We'll go 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

283

1 Set 12, and then to 13. I don't know, next 

2 time. 

3 Okay. Ted, do you have a 

4 suggestion about when we next meet, or do 

5 other Subcommittee Members?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that all 

7 depends on when we can get together. I think 

8 we seem to have --

9 MR. KATZ: Well, I guess the first 

10 thing to talk about -- let me just be clear, 

11 because I'm not clear, but I gather you are, 

12 Dave. So, are we just saying we still have 

13 more SRS, all three sites, beyond set -- I 

14 mean, this is Sets 10 through 13. Right?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: So, am I understanding 

18 correctly, are we about finished with all 

19 three sites for all these sets, 10 through 13?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am not 

21 clear.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I haven'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

284

1 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is John. 

2 For Sets 10 to 13, we've taken these off the 

3 books.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, then, I 

5 mean, one thing you want to do which will, I 

6 think, affect -- may affect when you schedule 

7 your next meeting, the date for that, is 

8 you're going to have to pick some more sites 

9 so that SC&A and NIOSH will be ready for those 

10 sites for the Subcommittee meeting.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: From Sets 10 through 

13 13.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that is 

15 -- we finished, let's see, Savannah River.

16 MR. KATZ: So you will have 

17 actually finished Savannah --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Los Alamos, 

19 Rocky Flats.

20 MR. KATZ: Los Alamos and Rocky.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, we have

22 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

285

1 MR. KATZ: You have a number of 

2 other sites and you need to select an adequate 

3 sort of bolus of work to take you through at 

4 least the next meeting.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The sites 

6 with more than -- why -- well, according to 

7 Table 2 that John sent out, we have a number 

8 of sites with more than two cases.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, starting 

11 with Hanford, we have Hanford down to cases 

12 with multiple sites. That's quite a large 

13 one.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Too big, probably.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, but 

16 let's just go by number. That is, by number 

17 of cases we have.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Can I interject 

19 something? This is Scott.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry 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

286

1 interrupt but since we are running out of ones 

2 that we already have responses to, I just want 

3 to put this on the table. I tried to work on 

4 the side on some other sites so that we didn't 

5 run into this situation.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

7 MR. SIEBERT: And just based on 

8 the assets that I had available and the dose 

9 reconstructors and which sites they were 

10 available for, I am personally about halfway 

11 already done with Portsmouth and Paducah. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I know they're a 

14 little further down the list, but we may want 

15 to put those for the next meeting because that 

16 is going to be the quickest one for me to turn 

17 things around to you, because I'm already 

18 about halfway through it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

20 good. Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Scott, I mean, there is 

22 a maximum number of cases. There are six 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

287

1 Paducah, anyway, so that would rise to the top 

2 anyway.

3 MR. STIVER: And keep in mind 

4 there's only six findings --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For Hanford.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, I think 

7 the number of cases -- I don't know whether 

8 you prioritize by cases or number of findings, 

9 but -- so anyway, that seems good.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right, 

11 by number of findings we have -- well, they 

12 run parallel to each other. So you have 

13 Paducah and Portsmouth. I would just continue 

14 down the table by cases or findings with 

15 Fernald.

16 MR. KATZ: So, let's get a sense 

17 from Scott then since he's the one --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What he can 

19 do, right.

20 MR. KATZ: We have the findings 

21 from SC&A. It's really the work of NIOSH to 

22 respond to them. So give us a sense for 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

288

1 many other sites you can get to for --assuming 

2 that we have another meeting -- we can't have 

3 one sooner than about a month and a half 

4 because we have to do a Federal Register 

5 notice.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: But we could have one 

8 as soon as that. So with that in mind, Scott, 

9 why don't you just give us a sense. I know you 

10 can't commit resources per se, but --

11 MR. SIEBERT: I mean, 

12 realistically, Paducah and Portsmouth are 

13 going to be the first ones that I can get in 

14 your hands. I guess those are the only ones 

15 we'll really be able to discuss by the next 

16 meeting because we'll have to turn them 

17 around, give them to Grady, and then I know 

18 it'll have to go to SC&A, and they'll want to 

19 look at it beforehand. So, that's really 

20 pretty much all I can see for the next one.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: It would be 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

289

1 helpful to me, however, if the Subcommittee 

2 would select which of the next sites you would 

3 like, because then I can work on those while 

4 they're over at DCAS and SC&A.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I know.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: My feeling 

8 is--

9 MR. STIVER: Going down the line 

10 go for Hanford and Fernald, another 24 

11 findings there.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, and plus, I mean, 

13 Fernald is a pretty fresh site in a sense, in 

14 terms of -- I know you folks at ORAU had lots 

15 of staff working on Fernald.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, to 

17 me, it's just we should go in order of number 

18 of cases and findings, so that would be 

19 Fernald. I mean, I would just go down the 

20 list, and if I may suggest Fernald, General 

21 Steel, Nevada, X-10.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, you've got 
. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 Hanford with --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I know we 

3 can't get to them all, and I'm not suggesting 

4 that you can. You will get to what you can get 

5 to. But that just seems to me to be a 

6 reasonable sequence, and then we go down to 

7 Table 3.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, in light of 

9 the comments that have been made, it seems 

10 that for next time specifically, since 

11 significant progress has already been made on 

12 both Paducah and Portsmouth, we should save 

13 those for a certainty --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, for 

15 sure. Let's do that.

16 MEMBER MUNN: The comment with 

17 respect to Fernald is certainly well taken. It 

18 seems to me this would be a good time for us 

19 to begin to do that, although I'm conflicted 

20 and can't address that. It's a shame to put 

21 Hanford off that much longer because there are 

22 claims --
. 

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 MR. KATZ: You can't skip Hanford, 

2 and shouldn't. But, anyway, it's very clear, 

3 the numbers are clear, we know the number of 

4 cases. So, Scott, with Dave's direction, I 

5 mean, you know the priority order and you will 

6 let us know how far you get for agenda 

7 setting.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

9 we accept what you will present to us, of 

10 course. And I'm sure you're working as hard 

11 as you can to get these out. So, we're open -

12 - so, Paducah, Portsmouth, and then we'll go 

13 through others if you have others done. Those 

14 are the order to work on.

15 MR. KATZ: Right. So, let's -- if 

16 people want to pull their calendars, we can 

17 pin down our next --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, our 

19 next Board meeting is when?

20 MR. KATZ: The next Board meeting 

21 is in September.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In Denver?
. 

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 MR. STIVER: That's October, isn't 

2 it?

3 MEMBER MUNN: It's October in

4 Denver.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. No, no, no. I'm 

6 talking about a teleconference.

7 MEMBER MUNN: We have a telecom in 

8 September.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, wait a 

11 second. Okay. Go to September --

12 MR. KATZ: Right. Don't worry 

13 about the next Board meeting. Let's -- I mean, 

14 we just --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we have 

16 a teleconference in September. Right. And a 

17 Board meeting in October.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. But let's just 

19 go out -- again, I need at least -- so, let's 

20 just give us at least six weeks would be the 

21 soonest.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 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

293

is the 7th 1 , so it would be late September at 

2 best.

3 MR. KATZ: Let me just --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I know 

5 there are --

6 MR. SIEBERT: The only thing I'm 

7 going to point out -- and I apologize for this 

8 -- I am the resource doing this and I'm also 

9 going to be preparing for the Dose 

10 Reconstruction Chair coming out on September 

11th 11 and getting that presentation together 

12 for you, as well.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, anyway, the 

14 soonest, getting back to this, is September 

18th 15 . So, we plan out from there forward as 

16 to what date --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

September 18th 18 . 

MEMBER MUNN: Is the 25th 19 a good 

20 time?

MR. KATZ: The 25th 21 is fine. It's 

22 wide open on 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

294

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's see. 

2 There are always, if you'll excuse, Jewish 

3 holidays --

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. Right.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- in that 

6 period. I'm not sure -- we talked about this, 

so I think I have them down. And the 25th 7

8 looks good to me.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: I'll need to check with 

11 Poston and Griffon anyway, because --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wednesday, 

the 25th 13 .

14 MR. KATZ: But let's pencil in the 

25th 15 . I'll send that out as a suggestion. Why 

16 don't you give me a second date as a backup?

MR. CALHOUN: Right now the 25th 17

18 doesn't look [good] for Beth.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MEMBER MUNN: On either side of it?

22 MR. CALHOUN: I am gone 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

295

1 Livermore until, let's see, September, let's 

2 see, August, September, I am gone until the 

18th, I'm back the 19th and 20th 3 of September.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How about 

the 24th 5 ?

MEMBER MUNN: Or 26th 6 ?

7 MR. CALHOUN: Well, Beth is out 

September 23rd through October 3rd 8 .

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, wow.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wow.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Then it sounds like 

it's either the following week or the 19th 12 or 

20th 13 , huh?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Yes, the 20th 15 isn't good 

for me. The 19th 16 is okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me just 

see, the 19th 18 not good for me.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the 20th 21

22 certainly is 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

296

1 MEMBER MUNN: Well, but that's not 

2 good for Ted, so that means --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 

Ted, you said 20th 4 is not good. Excuse me, I 

5 missed that.

MEMBER MUNN: September the 30th 6 , 

or October the 1st 7 ?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's 

9 see, October --

MR. KATZ: The 30th 10 is fine for me.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's fine 

12 for me, too.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Beth is going to be 

gone until the 3rd 14 of October.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, she's going to 

be gone until the 3rd 16 . 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: Grady, is she --

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, she -- if it's 

20 the only way to do it, we can do it without 

21 her. We'll just pay for it later.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 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

297

1 MEMBER MUNN: For sure.

2 MR. KATZ: Then you make up a 

backup then to the 25th 3 . I mean, if she's 

4 going to do -- if she helps with the prep 

5 stuff at least, then you would have that 

6 before, anyway. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: September 

25th 8 , reconsider?

9 MR. KATZ: Yeah, you want to go 

10 back to that?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'd be happy 

13 to. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: -- ideal timing for 

15 us, as long as we're not going to foul up 

16 personal preferences.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the 

backup date you want to make the 24th 18 ?

19 MR. KATZ: Yeah, whatever is good 

20 for you is fine.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 26th 21 is 

22 not 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

298

MR. KATZ: Okay, the 24th 1 is okay, 

2 or the --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 24th 3 or 

25th, 25th or 24th 4 .

MR. KATZ: Okay, the 25th 5 is the 

first choice. The 24th 6 is the second. And I 

guess 30th 7 is third if John and --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: -- Mark have problems.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'll do that, 

25th, 24th, 30th 12 . 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and 

I'll put a tentative 25th 14 in my book. Will we 

15 do it again by Live Meeting?

16 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

18 Subcommittee Members okay with that?

19 MR. KATZ: If that's what we're 

20 doing.

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's what we're 

22 doing.
. 

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 MR. KATZ: Not really putting it 

2 up for vote. I'm not putting it up to vote.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

4 assume we're talking budget.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, we're talking 

6 budget.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we are 

8 talking budget, and that's what it is.

9 MR. KATZ: Actually, we're talking 

10 more than budget because it's actually no --

11 we're beyond -- we're just about beyond the 

12 travel date when --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: -- we don't have any 

15 more travel, anyway.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Can't book more travel 

18 any more come this Friday.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: For the rest of the 

21 fiscal year, which ends, you know, October 

1st 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

300

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. CALHOUN: How about Scott? I 

3 didn't hear from you. Does that work for you, 

4 Scott, because you're very important to me now 

5 that Beth is gone.

6 MR. SIEBERT: I am always happy to 

7 support you in any manner required, Grady. I 

8 will be there.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, and you’re 

10 important to all of us, Scott.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Thanks, Ted.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Isn't that a 

13 wonderful attitude, gosh.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

16 Live Meeting it is. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Starting up 

with the 25th 19 as our --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. And thank you, 

21 everybody. I think everybody really made well 

22 with this setup 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

301

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I'm 

2 C-- it was a little awesome having closure on 

3 so many things.

4 MR. KATZ: It's shocking.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It kind of 

6 scares me. I hope we did everything right. We 

7 certainly tried to.

8 MR. KATZ: I think you did great.

9 MEMBER MUNN: I think so, too.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Folks, 

11 you have a very good rest of the week.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, same to all of 

13 you. Take care. We're adjourned.

14 (Whereupon, the proceedings were 

15 adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)

16

17