1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

NOVEMBER 20, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference, at 10:00 a.m., David 

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

ALSO PRESENT:
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH contractor

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

DeKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Call to Order 6

 Ted Katz

 Designated Federal Official

Conflicts of Interest Disclosures 6

 Ted Katz

 Designated Federal Official

Administrative Matters 7

Including Today's Schedule

 Ted Katz

 Designated Federal Official

Progress Report on NIOSH Blind Reviews 12

 Grady Calhoun

 DCAS

 Questions and Comments 14

Case Reviews Issues Resolution 25

 Set 9 25

 185.7 25

 Sets 10-13, Portsmouth 29

 273.2 29

 Sets 10-13, Hanford 44

 227.1 45

 227.2 48

 227.3 55

 Observation 1 58

 Observation 2 60

 Observation 3 60
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Case Reviews Issues Resolution

(Continued)

 Sets 10-13, Hanford

 (Continued)

 231.1 61

 231.2 65

 231.3 68

 Observation 1 72

 242.1 75

 242.2 90

 Observation 1 103

 Observation 2 104

 Observation 3 105

 288 110

 Observation 1 110

 289.1 117

 289.9 123

 318.1 128

 318.2 134

 318.3 137

 Observation 1 141
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Discussion of Matrix of Subcommittee's 145

Progress to Date and in the Future

Plans for Completing Review of 154

Sets 10 - 13, Remaining Cases to be

Resolved

Summarizing Review Results for Board 163

Report

Next Meeting Date 172
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

10:05 a.m.

MR. KATZ: Let me just note, 

because this is a Subcommittee meeting, I 

have to address issues of conflict. So I 

will just address those for you all. That 

way, you can just, then, respond to roll 

call without having to remember what your 

issues are.

Dr. Poston will be recused from 

discussions that we will have today 

addressing ORNL and Y-12 because he has 

conflicts there.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Make a note of that.

And should we talk about Hanford, 

then Wanda will be recused from that 

discussion.

And otherwise, there are no other 

conflicts to note for today's agenda, other 

than Dr. Poston also has a son who does 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

reconstruction. Should it be a claim that 

his son was involved in, of course, he would 

be recused from that, too.

So then, let's then run roll 

call.

(Roll call.)

So the agenda is posted on the 

NIOSH website. You can get to it under the 

Board section for meetings, today's date.

And, oh, this is just a couple of 

things about schedule before we get going.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. KATZ: We have several 

members who have issues, schedule issues. 

So we are planning to run through straight 

to 1:30 p.m., and for that period we should 

have no issues with quorum. We are going to 

break from 1:30 --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: To 2:40.

MR. KATZ: -- to 2:40 or 3:00, 

depending on Mark's availability, because I 

think John Poston can't be back until 3:00 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

or Wanda can't be back until 3:00 Eastern 

Time. Is that correct, Wanda?

MEMBER MUNN: That's correct.

MR. KATZ: That's correct. Okay.

So, just before we break, we will 

talk about when we are going to resume and 

how we will handle that, because then we can 

get an update from Mark and others as to 

what they could do about returning.

And then, I think we should 

proceed without further ado, so we can get 

as far as we can today.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. May 

I suggest, also, that we should have a break 

at some point, usually in mid-morning? May 

I suggest that we take a 10- or 15-minute 

break at noon and, then, get back on? And 

then, we will take break for lunch at 1:30. 

That will give people a chance for a comfort 

break, et cetera.

MR. KATZ: Good. Right. Okay. 

Just be aware that it may be that we can'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

reconvene after the 1:30 break.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. KATZ: That's my concern, but 

that's fine.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I am 

trying to get onto our Live Meeting, and 

they ask me to install Live Meeting, which 

is strange since I have used it before. 

Nevertheless, I did. But I am not up with 

Live Meeting for our run right now.

If I may say, just starting 

Microsoft Live Meeting client, starting time 

10:00 a.m., you can safely close this 

browser. If I close this browser, I am off 

of Live Meeting. I went to the connection 

that you gave.

Are other people having any 

problem?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I certainly 

am.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

because I am --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER MUNN: Just the fact that 

I have the message to begin with, yes.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

just want to tell you what I have found. I 

always use the web version, the last link in 

there, rather than installing. That tends 

to work much better for me.

MEMBER MUNN: I have tried them 

both, Scott.

MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You try 

again, Scott? Excuse me.

MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, I use 

the one that is the last link in there that 

is the web-based version that you don't have 

to install the software.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, okay.

MR. SIEBERT: That tends to work 

for me.

MEMBER MUNN: I have tried that. 

It just keeps me sending me back to Java, 

and it won't install for me. So, I have no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

idea.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am not 

sure.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this makes 

me feel good because I'm on there and I can 

see the agenda.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

Okay.

MEMBER POSTON: I can see the 

agenda. I just can't go through it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sign in. 

Okay, good.

MR. STIVER: This is Stiver. I 

am sharing right now. So I am the one that 

is controlling access. But, as you can see, 

I can move it around.

(Off-the-record comments 

regarding trying to sign into Live Meeting.)

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ted, can 

you continue on my behalf, or Wanda, as the 

senior person? Or can you read 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

MR. KATZ: Yes. The agenda, you 

mean?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I 

simply have your email about join the 

meeting.

MR. KATZ: Okay. I mean, you 

also have, Dave, you have the agenda and 

everything sent to you by email.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

I have it in front of me. I am perfectly 

glad to do it verbally; I just can't see 

anything on the screen.

MR. KATZ: Yes, that's all right, 

but we will be using the same documents you 

are looking at there.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Fine. Then, let's begin.

And the first item is the report 

on the NIOSH blind reviews.

MR. CALHOUN: Okay. This is 

Grady.

I actually have a little 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

something this time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great.

MR. CALHOUN: I don't have the 

write-up completed, but we have completed 

nine new blind DRs in-house since the last 

time I reported that we completed some. All 

of those resulted in the same compensation 

decision as the ORAU original dose 

reconstruction did.

And to give you an idea of the 

overall status of our program, it is that we 

have chosen 123 dose reconstructions for 

review. So you can see we have got a lot in 

the pipe. We have completed 41 of the 123. 

So, that leaves 82 that are still in various 

stages of completion. We have had zero of 

our blind DRs resulting in an overturned 

compensation decision.

Some of the improvements that we 

are still seeing in these that need to be 

done, or need to be made, I think our guys 

need to do a little bit better job of detail 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

as far as documenting how they did their 

dose reconstructions, the blind dose 

reconstructions, just so we can go back and 

make our review a little bit better.

And we still have not gotten to 

the point where we are using the tools, the 

ORAU tools. At least we are not using them 

consistently or well to do our blinds. So, 

we are really just chugging through these by 

hand and through the Technical Basis 

Document. So that is where we stand with 

those.

I will get the report out to the 

Committee probably sometime in the next, I 

would say, couple of weeks.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

is very good. Nine, you have nine new 

reviews with the decision --

MR. CALHOUN: A total of nine, 

yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Very 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

Any comments?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Grady, you made 

a comment -- this is Brad -- that you are 

not able to do it with the tools?

MR. CALHOUN: We can do it with 

the tools. We haven't got the training up 

for our guys yet. There are some people 

that are using the tools and some people 

that are not. And I believe that there is 

also a limitation on connectivity as far as 

how many people can be hooked up to those at 

once.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

MR. CALHOUN: I know that the 

SC&A guys were using those tools. At least 

I believe that we did get them access to the 

tools to do their blinds. I'm not sure how 

it is working for them.

But it just makes it slower. 

We're still coming up with the right 

compensation decision.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. Well, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Grady, I wasn't worried about the 

compensation so much as wanting to make sure 

that the tools were working for people. 

Because, if you remember right, we had a bad 

tool that was in there, and it wasn't 

affecting everybody. It was just like an 

earlier version or something like that. 

Because part of this check was to make sure 

that the tools themselves were working 

properly, was my only concern.

But if we have got some of them 

that are working, okay, I just want to make 

sure that our tools are working properly, 

the way that they should, too. That was one 

of my concerns.

MR. CALHOUN: I believe Doug may 

be or John may be using these tools a little 

bit more frequently even than we are. So I 

don't know if they want to chime in on their 

experience with them.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug.

I have used the tools, 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

typically, what I will do is I get 

everything arranged ahead of time. And 

then, I will log in, run whatever tools I 

need, save the outputs, and just get off 

there. I spend as little time logged-in as 

possible, just because there are only two 

connections.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, so 

Doug, what you are telling me, then, is that 

you are able to use the tools. The checks 

that you are doing on it, they are working 

properly for you?

MR. FARVER: I can't say that 

completely. I can say that we have been 

using the tools.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And I know John 

Mauro has been doing his work by hand. And 

then, Kathy is going to put together the 

reports. And then, we will kind of figure 

out what worked and what didn't work.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 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

what I was wanting to make sure, is that we 

were having a check-and-balance on these 

tools, and if we were seeing problems and 

stuff like that. I didn't mean to put you 

in a peculiar situation. I just wanted to 

make sure that we were looking at the tools, 

if they were working properly. If they 

weren't, you know, and the reports and 

everything else, that will come out and 

stuff. I just wanted to make sure we were 

checking that. That's all I needed to know.

MR. FARVER: Alright.

MEMBER CLAWSON: I appreciate 

that, Doug, and I'm glad to hear that we are 

doing good on these.

DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

Buchanan, SC&A.

Doug, I do want to put in the 

fact that the three blind cases I worked 

using the tools were very difficult, and it 

was hard to find the edition that would 

work. The trouble is there are different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

editions out there, and sometimes the data 

we get from NIOSH that has the doses already 

put in, I go back and check those in the raw 

data. But the doses will not load into some 

of the site's workbook because it is the 

wrong edition, and some of the CADs don't 

work on some of the other CADs.

And it seems to be an edition 

problem because I have to go through and try 

to find an old case I have worked on that 

has an edition that matches that. So there 

are some edition problems on these workbooks 

and OTIB-54.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug again.

And I believe that the versions 

of the work have changed. So has sometimes 

the format of the inputs. And I think we 

are running into some of the files that we 

have are older formats, and we are trying to 

load them into newer versions, and we get 

some errors.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Scott, I don't know if you have 

some input, but that's my guess of what is 

going on.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

Brad again. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in 

on you.

My issue was that we are finding 

these problems, because we are wanting this 

to be looking just like any other kind of 

dose reconstructors looking at them and 

running into the same problems that he 

would. You know, there will be errors on 

this, but I'm sure that this will come out 

when SC&A produces their report and stuff. 

I just wanted to make sure we were running 

all the tools that the dose reconstructors 

were running, too, so we could see the 

problems that they are having.

MR. FARVER: We are trying our 

best.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I 

appreciate it. Thank 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

MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott.

Just addressing what Doug added, 

that may be the case, but I honestly can't 

really help that much because, since that is 

hosted on DCAS's site, it is an IT issue 

that I'm not really involved in. But, you 

know, I can make sure that people over here 

are aware of it.

MR. FARVER: Okay. I mean, 

that's my guess because I think format has 

changed. Because, like Ron said, if we find 

an older version, it will load into it, but 

it sometimes won't load into a newer 

version.

MR. SIEBERT: Right. The 

versions themselves from a loading point of 

view, that somewhat surprises me. We do 

have very new versions that use the mega

files and upload things. But, yes, the 

uploading in different versions, that 

surprises me because that portion hasn't 

changed a whole heck of a lot.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

So, I guess, Grady, you’ve got 

this down to look at it on your site, too? 

I will make sure our guys are aware of it.

MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Yes, I have 

got it. I have got it written down that 

some of the preloaded dose files aren't 

loading well, and it may be a version issue.

MR. SIEBERT: Right. And what 

might be helpful is -- it was Ron that was 

saying that he found this, right?

DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

MR. SIEBERT: Okay. If you could 

give us an example of the versions that you 

tried, so that we at least have a starting 

point to work from, that would be very 

helpful.

DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I will go 

back and see if I can find something.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

Just to make sure that Brad 

understands this discussion, I mean this 

version issue, it is not a reflection 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

problem with doing dose reconstruction. It 

is a reflection of a problem there may be 

with doing blind reviews in dose 

reconstructions because you are going back 

to older dose reconstructions and trying to 

use older tools. So, really, it is not 

going to come out with issues necessarily 

that are relevant for whether the dose 

reconstructions were done right or not, at 

all.

MEMBER CLAWSON: I understand 

somewhat there, Ted. But, if you remember 

right, going through some of these dose 

reconstructions, we come to find out that 

there were improper workbooks used, improper 

tools, newer versions that were out. And I 

just wanted to make sure that, as we are 

going through this, that we were using the 

same tools that the dose reconstructor would 

use, to make sure that they are working 

properly. Because so many times we hear, 

"Well, yes, but we have come to find 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

that this is an older version. We've got a 

newer version out." And I thought this was 

part of what we were doing some of these 

blind reviews to do, is to make sure that 

some of these issues were being taken care 

of.

And maybe I'm wrong. I thought 

these were to make sure that we were doing 

this basically the same as what a dose 

reconstructor would do, to make sure that 

all the tools and equipment were working 

properly.

MR. KATZ: Right. Right. All 

I'm trying to explain is that the issues 

they are having right now, the problems they 

are having with version control, again, it 

is not because someone back then used the 

wrong version. It is because they are 

currently trying to use a version that is an 

old version, or what have you, and trying to 

use it with updated software, or what have 

you. And they are, therefore, having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

problems making it work.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And, you 

know, I'm quite happy to hear that some of 

this is -- not happy, I guess I should say. 

I am pleased to see this because we are now 

seeing what possibly some of the dose 

reconstructors, what problems they have. 

And so, how they would work through it, we 

will better understand what they are dealing 

with.

So, I think, all in all, it is 

going very well. I just had that question 

when I heard that they weren't able to use 

the systems and they were doing it by hand. 

I just wanted to make sure that we got the 

best picture, just as one of their dose 

reconstructors would be finding, because I 

imagine they have the same problems 

sometimes. And maybe they have learned, 

using this as much, to be able to get 

through these issues and how they get 

through them. And it better helps us 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

understand when we review these.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Right. Are we ready to go into case 

reviews?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Sure.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, 

I'm online; I'm fine.

Let's go to the 9th set, the last 

one that we have to deal with, which is, 

let's see -- whoops, did I lose it? -- is 

185.6, right?

MR. FARVER: I believe it is 

185.7, isn't it?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it may 

be. Yes, it may be. There we go. It ran 

by my screen quickly.

185.7, let's go ahead, please.

MR. FARVER: Okay. This is Doug.

This has to do with Huntington 

Pilot Plant. I believe it is the recycled 

uranium nuclides or additional nuclides 

other than uranium.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And this was addressed in an SC&A 

report that Steve Marschke wrote, along with 

we had some other findings and observations. 

And specifically, I know what we talked 

about with this finding was that NIOSH would 

go back and look at the SC&A report, because 

this specific finding was the same as 

Finding 1 of that report.

And we did put together a matrix 

for that report listing findings and 

observations. And, John Stiver, I am not 

sure who that all went out to.

MR. STIVER: It was sent out to 

the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee. So 

everybody on this call should have it.

Now, that said, the point being 

was that matrix would be to have NIOSH go 

through and provide some formal responses. 

So I don't know if it is something that we 

really want to get into right now and can go 

over to that matrix or --

MR. FARVER: Well, they probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

haven't had a chance to look at it and fill 

it in. And so, my suggestion would be let's 

just keep this one open until NIOSH has a 

chance to go back and look at the report and 

look at the other findings. When we start 

looking at those findings, maybe we will 

just close out this one also. So, this will 

remind us.

MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady.

I agree with that. We did, just 

for this specific one, though, I wanted to 

tell you that we agree that we do need to 

add something in there. At least we need to 

look at how we are dealing with americium 

and thorium. And it looks right now like we 

need to modify that to include those.

So I think we do need to respond 

to the overall matrix for the TBD review, 

but for this finding, I will tell you that 

we are not done and we do believe at this 

point that we need to revise the TBD.

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

I'm disappointed that we can't get out of 9, 

but if we need to come back to it, we need 

to come back.

Can we definitively say that we 

will finish this next time? This has been 

hanging for several meetings.

MR. CALHOUN: I can definitively 

tell you that we will get the TBD revised 

before that. I can't definitively tell you 

that they are going to agree with our 

changes, but I think so.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Would folks put some particular focus on 

this, so that the next meeting we really 

truly will bring this to a conclusion and 

finish Set 9? Okay?

MR. FARVER: Well, this is Doug.

This finding is linked to Finding 

1 of the SC&A report. So if you go back and 

look at Finding 1 --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: -- and if you come 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

up with a response for that, and we can 

close that out, then this one goes away.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Well, there needs to be a formal response 

from NIOSH, and we're going to get it. All 

I'm saying is that I urgently hope that at 

the next meeting we will be able to bring 

this to a conclusion.

Let's go on. Now we are going on 

to Portsmouth. We went over Portsmouth, 

Sets 10 through 13 last time, but we have a 

few hanging from that meeting. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Hang on just one 

minute.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

MR. FARVER: Okay. This is Doug.

We have one open, I believe, or 

two. One was 273.2.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

right. Certainly, that one is open.

MR. STIVER: Can you see that on 

the screen?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. STIVER: Okay. Good.

MR. FARVER: That's the only open 

issue.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

thought there were two, but I don't see. I 

have notes on 272.1 and 273.2, well, two 

quality assurances there. But we finished 

272.1, by the way, Doug?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

273.2, there it is. Let's go ahead.

MR. FARVER: Okay. This has to 

do with the correction factor or dosimeter 

correction factor. It is applied to missed 

photon dose.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. FARVER: This is about the 

only place I recall that we see applying a 

dosimeter correction factor to missed photon 

dose. And so, the action was "NIOSH will 

examine to determine if this correction 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

factor should or should not be applied."

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and 

we had a long discussion about this last 

time, did we not? On one hand, one position 

was that it is peculiar to this plant, but 

that it is claimant-favorable. So we should 

simply settle things.

Wanda, I believe that was your 

position, if I am summarizing it correctly.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the

other was Dave Richardson said, "No, we have 

to be consistent and we should not have 

special correction factors for one plant." 

And that's where we left it.

So, NIOSH, does NIOSH have some 

thinking, new thinking on this?

MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Well, this is 

Grady.

First of all, the correction 

factors for different plants are typically 

different for each plant, just as a note 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

there.

MEMBER MUNN: With good reason.

MR. CALHOUN: Or they certainly 

can be.

This one is kind of an outlier 

here in that we only apply that correction 

factor at this site. So it is claimantfavorable. I hate to cop out, but it seems 

like this isn't really a specific dose 

reconstruction issue. It is more of a TBD 

issue.

I believe that all of the GDP 

TBDs -- that would be the Gaseous Diffusion 

Plant Technical Basis Documents -- are in 

various states of review and revision right 

now. I am actually trying to check this as 

we are speaking to find out when that one is 

scheduled to be revised.

But, because I don't believe that 

we are limiting anybody's dose by this 

practice, I think that I would kind of like 

to have this taken care of through the TBD 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

revision rather than track an individual 

dose reconstruction because it affects every 

case at Portsmouth.

MEMBER MUNN: That sounds 

reasonable, then, to take care of it in the 

TBD.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug.

My only concern about that, 

because it is unique to Portsmouth, there 

have been some folks who have suggested, 

well, gee, maybe we should apply a misseddose correction factor to all the sites. So 

it may affect more sites than just 

Portsmouth if it is decided that missed dose 

should have a correction factor.

MS. BEHLING: Yes, this is Kathy 

Behling.

And that was what I had 

recommended during the last meeting also. 

Missed dose is based on a dosimeter reading. 

So, in my way of thinking, what they are 

doing at Portsmouth is correct, and perhaps 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

at the other facilities they should be 

applying a correction factor for missed dose 

if they're not.

MEMBER CLAWSON: And this is 

Brad.

If I could speak for Dave 

Richardson, this is part of his issue, 

because one of his questions that came up 

was, how come this is the only site that 

does it? Which site is doing it right? Or 

should this be to all sites? So I would be 

very careful with this one here because it 

could affect a lot more than just 

Portsmouth.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

right.

Kathy, your argument seems 

persuasive, that we are putting in the 

missed dose, but the correction factor is 

correcting for other measurements where we 

have the dose. And therefore that would be 

the proper dose for the non-missed 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

And therefore, we should, if you will, 

extrapolate it to the missed dose.

MS. BEHLING: Excuse me.

You have to remember this is 

missed dose, not unmonitored dose. And 

missed dose is based on a dosimeter --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MS. BEHLING: -- and a less-thanLOD type of a reading from a dosimeter. So 

if you are going to apply a correction 

factor to a dosimeter reading, it gets 

applied to a missed dose also.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MS. BEHLING: So this needs to be 

looked at, I think, at all of the sites 

where a correction factor is being used.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith, 

ORAU team.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

MR. SMITH: You know, on this 

issue, typically, the LOD as it’s developed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

for each TBD is taking into account all the 

parameters that would affect that final 

value. This particular TBD is, again, what 

I would say, kind of a one-off, in that had 

it been done like other TBDs, anything like 

a correction factor would have been embedded 

into the final LOD value, so that we're not 

applying things on top of it.

In the early days of the project, 

we had many different TBD authors working 

all at the same time in a rapid fashion. So 

now that we're 10 years, 11 years, 12 years 

down the road, as we look back over these, 

we do see different approaches, as we see 

here.

But the general approach has been 

for each TBD to develop an LOD value that is 

a one-stop, one-stop-shopping, if I could 

put it that way, value that we can use. In 

many cases, when you peel back the layers, 

you will find LOD values that are given in 

the TBD already contain a good degree 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

cushion in a sense. If you go back and look

at them carefully, you will find that the 

actual LOD is usually lower than what is 

given in the TBD, but in the spirit of 

claimant favorability, some extra cushion 

has been added along the way.

Again, I would say that this TBD 

is an example of where it was done just 

differently than the rest of them.

MR. CALHOUN: So what you're 

saying there, Matt -- this is Grady -- is if 

the LOD, which is Limit of Detection, by the 

way, for those out there who didn't know 

that -- the LOD on some of these other sites 

may very well include a correction factor. 

But in the Portsmouth TBD the correction 

factor is called out individually.

MR. SMITH: That's correct.

MR. CALHOUN: Is there any way we 

can verify that somehow?

MR. SMITH: You know, right now, 

you're correct, Grady, that the variety 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

GDPs are in kind of a constant -- some have 

been revised already, but they are probably 

due for another revision. And that is 

something that I know is on the list to take 

a look at, based on the conversations in 

these meetings, just to double-check that.

MR. CALHOUN: It looks to me that 

the ORAU, based on our Project Plan -- I 

just pulled it up, not the ORAU. The 

Portsmouth External Dose TBD for our current 

plan is scheduled to be done July 1st of 

2014.

MR. SMITH: Yes, there are other 

issues relating to GDPs that are open.

MR. CALHOUN: Right.

MR. SMITH: And certainly, it 

would just make sense to grab this one and 

include it.

My preference, from the ORAU team 

viewpoint, is that LOD values are just set 

values that include any and all adjustments, 

corrections, or errors that need to 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

accounted for.

MR. CALHOUN: Well, in an effort 

to try to put this one to bed, I think maybe 

we will try to at least look at some of the 

other GDP LODs and see if we can come up 

with some kind of explanation or something 

that shows that the correction factors may 

be embedded in those. Would that be 

sufficient to the Subcommittee to close this 

out, if that turns out to be the case?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is 

Brad.

Not being as savvy on all of this 

as everybody else, I guess I would refer 

this to our contractor.

Doug or Kathy, is this going to 

take care of the bigger picture? I still 

feel a little bit uneasy. What are your 

feelings on this?

MR. FARVER: Kathy, I will let 

you speak.

MS. BEHLING: Well, what I am 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

hearing, if I am correct in what I am 

hearing, you are only going to look at the 

GDP sites. I guess I would also like to 

know what about some of the other DOE 

facilities. Is that what I am hearing you 

say, that you would look at the other GDP 

sites?

MR. CALHOUN: Well, we can ask 

some people just in general. I don't know 

if -- I mean, if it is available, we can 

look. But drilling down into every LOD for 

every site, because keep in mind there's 

multiple dosimeters that were used 

throughout time for each individual site. I 

mean, we potentially have hundreds of 

scenarios to look through. But, if we can 

determine that that's the case and this is 

an older TBD, I think that should make 

people feel better.

MS. BEHLING: And I agree. I 

would just like to see maybe the GDP and, 

also, maybe just one or two other DOE-type 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

sites. And perhaps you are correct, perhaps 

the LOD values do incorporate this misseddose factor, the dosimeter correction factor 

I mean. But it would be nice to have a 

little bit more information, so that we can 

convince ourselves that that is the case.

DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

Buchanan.

I would suggest that you look 

something like at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos, 

something like that. Look at the labs. 

Because all of these places pattern their 

dosimetry after Oak Ridge and Los Alamos 

usually or maybe Hanford.

So, if you looked at these basic 

ones that developed the dosimeter -- Oak 

Ridge actually developed the holder and 

everything -- and see if their LODs 

incorporate a correction factor or not, 

either at the time when they did the 

readings years ago or for the development of 

the TBD. Because, then, I think you 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

feel a little more sure that the other sites 

that developed and copied their dosimetry 

off these basic National Labs, that they 

would be incorporated.

So I would suggest that you look 

also at a couple of the basic National Labs 

and see how that LOD has been determined. 

This might save you a lot of work in looking 

at every site.

MS. BEHLING: I absolutely agree, 

Ron. Oak Ridge National Labs would be a 

great facility to look at. You're 

absolutely right.

MR. SMITH: Yes, this is Matt 

Smith again.

Both of you said exactly what I 

was about to say. Portsmouth is hand-inhand with Oak Ridge in terms of the pedigree 

on the dosimetry system. So we'll benchmark 

off of Oak Ridge.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

like a resolution.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. FARVER: So do you want me to 

enter in that NIOSH will investigate and 

compare with a few other facilities?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, with 

the GDP facilities and others.

MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith.

The most appropriate one to use 

with relation to Portsmouth and the other 

GDPs would be Oak Ridge.

MS. BEHLING: Oak Ridge, yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

GDPs and Oak Ridge.

MR. FARVER: Okay. And the goal 

is what, to produce a report?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It could be 

verbal.

MR. CALHOUN: Whatever you would 

like to do. I mean, I think that a onepager or something. I don't think it is 

going to be super-involved, actually.

MR. FARVER: Well, I would like 

to see something in writing, though.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. CALHOUN: Some kind of White 

Paper or something, sure.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay?

MR. FARVER: Put the verbiage in.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's 

reasonable. Even if it is only a single 

paragraph, it will do.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. But 

we will check it out. So this will come 

back to us. That's fine.

So that does what we can do for 

Portsmouth, right? You said there was only 

that one outstanding. So, I think we're 

ready to go on to Hanford.

MR. FARVER: Okay. Just a second 

while I update.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

MR. FARVER: Okay. I sent out 

the Hanford matrix yesterday, I believe.

MR. STIVER: Can everybody see 

the matrix that's up there now? I'm on page 

10, which is the Hanford 10 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I have 

it, for one.

MR. STIVER: Okay. Does 

everybody else who is on Live Meeting see 

this?

MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

Brad. I can see it.

MR. STIVER: Okay. Alright. I 

just want to make sure we're all on the same 

page.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm good.

MR. FARVER: The first finding 

for the Hanford is on page 10. It is 227.1.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we 

are. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Defining concerns, 

using the correct target organ for the 

medical dose.

Okay. A little background on the 

case. Let's see. Here's a pipefitter 

diagnosed with lymphoma of the stomach in 

2001. And let me go to the findings.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Okay. Our point of view was that 

they used the incorrect organ. They 

assigned the dose values for the remainder 

organ. And we thought it would be more 

appropriate to use the stomach as the target 

organ. And so that was the basis for the 

finding. We thought they used the wrong 

organ.

And you can read through the 

NIOSH response. But the short version is 

there were three PERs that were issued later 

on that pretty much implemented what our 

findings were about, about using the stomach 

as a target organ.

And they went back and they did 

redo the case. I don't believe the 

compensation changed. It was an 

overestimate anyway.

But that's the short story on 

that one, that we had some issues, but the 

PERs that came out called to redo the case. 

And when they redid the case, they used 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

method that we had --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is to 

say, used the stomach as the organ --

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- in 

question?

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

One thing I do want to point out 

is that does not make it an error originally 

because stomach was not an option in the 

original TBD. That was before we were 

breaking that information out. So using the 

remainder was the most appropriate thing at 

the time.

We do agree -- and that's why we 

have updated since then -- that stomach is a 

better selection. And that's why it has 

been updated and changed. But I just wanted 

to point that out, that the dose 

reconstructor didn't make an error. They 

did what was in the TBD at the time.

MR. FARVER: Right.
CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And so, really, all 

those changes have been made, and we suggest 

we can close that finding.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

In a review, how would this be 

classified, later on when we review for our 

report to NIOSH or to HHS?

MR. FARVER: Classified?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is to 

say, this is resolved, but if it wasn't an 

error but based on what was done in the 

first PER or the guidance through the first 

PER, then this is a change. And we had 

categories A, B, C, D, E for change.

MR. FARVER: Oh, and I forgot to 

put them in here. Okay. I'll have to go 

back and put those in.

MR. STIVER: Wouldn't that be C, 

Doug.

This is Stiver.

It would be the external 
dosimetry model?

MR. FARVER: It would be because 

we disagreed, basically, with the technical 

basis.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

Okay. Fine. Then, C it is. I think we can 

go on.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 227.2, this is 

the internal dose model, very similar, and 

it was PER-9 or PEP-9, and I got corrected 

on that. The letter in the file states PEP, 

but Kathy tells me that early on the PERs 

were PEPs, and it is the same thing, I 

believe. But that PER took care of that 

issue.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MR. FARVER: Once again, it was 

using the stomach as the appropriate organ.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Good. The same issue, the same resolution, 

and the same categorization.

MR. FARVER: It would be under 
external, and I'm not sure what category 

that is. I will have to go back and put in 

the appropriate category.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. STIVER: External is Category 

C; internal would be Category D.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

Doug, because I don't recall the 

categorization, but it makes sense, 

everything you have said. My only question 

is, in cases like this where, then, NIOSH 

has changed the methodology, which has fixed 

the problem, do you also keep an accounting 

of that. So that, when the Subcommittee 

makes its report to the Board, and the Board 

to the Secretary, it can not only say, you 

know, there were "X" many where there was a 

methodology difference or a disagreement, 

but also that NIOSH improved the methodology 

consistent with that?

MR. FARVER: What has evolved is 
we have our Table 2 checklist from our 

reviews, and that is pretty extensive. And 

that was decided on initially.

And now here later on, we are 

trying to speed things up and break things 

down. So we came up with just five generic 

categories. And that's the A, B, C, D 

category, E, F, I believe. So, we came up 

with basic categories.

And so now, I really think we are 

at a point that at some point we need to 

decide how we really want to categorize 

these from here on out. What kind of 

categorization do you want?

MR. KATZ: Doug, I don't want to 

disrupt this project in just getting through 

the cases. I am just raising the question 

because I think at the end of the day, when 

we do a summary report, we are going to want 

to know not only which ones were there 

method issues, but, then, which ones for 

which there were method issues did NIOSH, 
then, improve the method, you know, 

obviating the problem in the future. So 

that's all I'm saying. We don't really need 

to wrestle through it right now. I don't 

want to slow the flow here.

MR. FARVER: No, no, no. I don't 

want us to slow the flow, but I'm saying we 

haven't been tracking that. And if that is 

going to be useful information, like from 

here on out, then maybe that is something 

somewhere we need to track.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And we haven't 

talked about that. So I think one of our 

issues coming up is, what information would 

be useful that we don't have?

MR. KATZ: Okay. So that's all 

right. We have a discussion later of 

summarizing review results. So I guess we 

can address that, put it in there, but I 

just wanted to get that on the table because 

I think that will be an important data 
element.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

We'll come back to that, then, later.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady.

I just wanted to add one more 

thing to that. And, Ted, I am glad you 

brought that up.

Even to go maybe a step further 

is that this change was made before anybody 

brought it to our attention that it might 

not be right. So this was a proactive 

change that we identified in May, just 

during the process of our normal Technical 

Document review and revision. Do you know 

what I'm saying?

MR. KATZ: Right. Yes.

MR. CALHOUN: But I would rather 

this not show up as somebody else found the 

problem; we fixed it. I would rather this 

show up as we found the problem or we found 

a need for an improvement and took care of 
that ourselves. It is just due to the lag 

that we have in these documents that we're 

reviewing, somehow that it appears to be 

that -- you may not see the good changes 

that we're making proactively.

MR. KATZ: Well, Grady, that's 

absolutely a correct distinction. And I 

think there will be two categories, the ones 

that actually you addressed in improvements 

on your own, and the other one where the 

Board was involved in finding the 

improvement. I think that is an important 

distinction.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and 

let's come back to that when we're talking 

about summarizing review results later in 

the day.

And I understand the spirit of 

that. That is, that when there are things 

that are changed, we don't want implicitly 

to point a finger at some party and say, 

"You messed up," when, in fact, they didn't 
mess up.

And the purpose of this is not to 

point fingers anyhow, but to correct things 

and move on. Good.

The next one after 227.2.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 227.3.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. FARVER: NIOSH did not 

address all the monitoring practices 

described by the claimant. This has to do 

with some information that's in the CATI 

report.

And as we have talked about in 

the past, we believe it is good to at least 

acknowledge the information that's in the 

report. And I think NIOSH goes through and 

describes it very well, and they also agree 

that it would have benefitted from having 

the information included in the report. It 

would not have changed the outcome, but it 

is just more acknowledging that, yes, he 

reported this and we should probably have
addressed it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Was this a 

case where the person was compensated?

MR. FARVER: Probably not. No, 

it is not.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, then, 

it becomes more urgent in that case, if I 

may say.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because the 

people who are denied compensation are going 

to go over the reports very carefully and, 

rightfully, will say, "Hey," they might say, 

"You did not consider that," when, in fact, 

as indicated, it was considered.

MR. SIEBERT: Right. And this is 

Scott.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's 

why we put our response in there. This was, 

you know, we got the initial responses back 

in 2002, when the program was just starting 

getting rolling and Hanford wasn't even sure 
positively what they needed to send us. 

Then, in '03, they gave us more information 

when we requested it. The claim was 

completed in early 2005.

So, once again, we these days 

would be a little bit more specific on 

pointing out that the claimant may have said 

there was a type of monitoring, and there 

was not, or we found no reflection in the 

records of that. Just once again -- and I 

hate to say this a lot -- but an early case, 

where we would do things more expansively 

these days.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Yes, this is Doug.

This is what we have seen because 

we have talked about it in this Subcommittee 

for years, and we have seen it evolve to 

what Scott mentioned, where now they do put 

little statements in.

So probably if we were reviewing 

this case today, we would probably just make 
this an observation. But, at the time, it 

was still when it was all being discussed.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

if I may, obviously, I am thinking about the 

report that eventually will have to be 

written. How would one categorize this 

change in our A-through-E categorization? 

It is not an error.

MR. FARVER: No. Let me see if I 

can pull up those. I don't have them right 

in front of me.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

truth is I don't have them all in my head, 

either.

MR. FARVER: Oh, I don't remember 

them.

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling. Obviously, we need to include 

those categories at the end of the matrix, 

once they are incorporated, I would say.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Why 

don't we just say that? You will put the 
categorization in, and let's go on.

MR. FARVER: Yes, that's what I 

did the last time. And I'm not sure why 

they didn't get put in here.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I'm 

now thinking about the report. And so, I'm 

focused a little more on that now. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

closed.

MR. FARVER: It's closed.

Next is we have got a couple of 

observations. Both those are where we could 

not find certain attachments to procedures 

that were referenced, and it is likely that 

the wrong reference was used in the 

document.

MEMBER MUNN: Have you been able 

to confirm that since?

MR. FARVER: That the wrong 

reference was used?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
MR. KATZ: Wanda?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes?

MR. KATZ: We're talking about 

Hanford here.

MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I forgot about 

it. Sorry. Forget the question.

MR. SIEBERT: Let's just say, if 

anybody happened to ask that question or had 

it going through their mind --

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, 

and I would like to ask that question.

MR. SIEBERT: I thought you 

might.

Yes, we agreed that looks like it 

just referenced when you're doing all those 

subscripts or superscripts, and this was 

earlier when we had the templates that were 

much less automated. I believe it was just 

a reference. It was pointing to the wrong 

reference.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: And it is the same 
for the second observation. They are both 

very similar.

Observation 3, NIOSH did not 

address the positive whole-body count 

result. It is a little sketchy on this 

because it was in 1981, and the NCRP-94 or 

Report-94 values stop at '77. They have 

since changed their policies. So this would 

be looked at closer, had this been done 

today.

Dose-wise, it is nothing. It is 

more a matter of, if it is greater than the 

body burden from the NCRP-94, what do you 

do? And that's why I wrote it up as an 

observation, because we thought it should 

have been looked at, and it would be today.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it 

would be today, in which case was it looked 

back at? Or was this a compensated case and 

not looked back at, because it need not have 

been looked back at?

MR. FARVER: This is still the 
same case. So I don't believe it was 

compensated, no.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

Sure, 227, sure.

MR. FARVER: And honestly, it is 

not going to make a difference.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: It isn't.

MEMBER CLAWSON: But, Doug, it 

was an observation that was made. And since 

that time, there has been a correction, and 

it is being done now, right?

MR. FARVER: Correct.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. 

Sorry, you're right, we are still looking at 

227 and we have talked about it.

Okay.

MR. FARVER: Next, 231.1. Let me 

find that case.

Okay. 231.1, inappropriate 

elimination of urine bioassay monitoring. 

I'm not even sure I need to get into the 
case details. It was about 42-percent PoC 

and not compensated. And there is a 

statement in the dose reconstruction that 

really prompted this, and I'll go read it to 

you.

Okay, from the dose 

reconstruction: "The employee also received 

two baseline uranium in vivo bioassays in 

1980 and 1986 which were not assessed 

because they were not part of the EE's 

routine monitoring at Hanford."

And that's what prompted it, and 

our finding was that we don't believe they 

should ignore or -- I won't say "ignore" 

because they did look at them -- they should 

not assess them just because it is not a 

part of routine monitoring.

Okay. So that was what was 

written, and that was our position. And 

now, once we get more information and start

digging deeper, we find out that this person 

worked out there for, it looks like, 30 
years. During that time, there were two 

chest counts and numerous whole-body counts.

On the chest counts, each one, as 

NIOSH explains, they look at them for 

americium-241, thorium-234, and U-235. So 

those are the nuclides that pop up.

Both chest counts were less than 

the MDA. The employee submitted a lot of 

plutonium urine samples and one fecal sample 

for uranium in 1980 and a urine sample for 

uranium in 1986. And both were marked as 

baseline. Okay.

So, after looking at it, since 

there were no other routine uranium 

bioassays, we agree the potential was low 

and suggest closing this finding.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. FARVER: It was a little bit 

awkward because the dose reconstruction 

mentioned in vivo, and it really was the --

and actually, I think we even mentioned in 

vivo. No we just said uranium bioassays.
But it was a little confusing, 

and it turned out to be a baseline urine and 

a baseline fecal, but no other routine or 

other special urine samples for uranium.

There's a lot of digging involved 

when you get into some of these.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So all of 

these measurements were looked at 

eventually?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or 

assessed, I should say?

MR. FARVER: They were assessed.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott.

I agree with Doug that the 

wording in the dose reconstruction report, 

it probably could have been worded more 

clearly to say that they were considered. 

However, they were not assessed based on the 

fact that they did not indicate exposure to 

uranium, rather than saying that they were 

not part of his routine monitoring program.
MR. FARVER: Yes, it's more of a 

wording issue.

MR. SIEBERT: But, yes, they were 

all looked at at the time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

So then it is appropriate to close, yes?

MR. FARVER: Yes.

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

I agree with you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

Any other comments from Committee Members, 

Subcommittee Members?

(No response.)

No?

Then, let us go on.

MR. FARVER: Okay. The next one 

is 231.2. Failure to account for internal 

dose from products.

And there is a second part to it 

that has to do with the MDA that was used 

for cobalt-60.

The internal doses from all 
fission products are pretty much the ones we 

have talked about before with OTIB-54 and 

the radionuclide chooser. And this part of 

it has been taken care of and looked at 

through OTIB-54.

The second part is more of a QA 

issue, where the MDA that was used to 

determine the cobalt intake was a factor of 

100 too low. And we feel that should have 

been identified, that it is a QA issue that 

someone should have picked up upon.

Dose-wise, it goes from 14 

millirem to 139 millirem and slightly 

increases the PoC.

We would suggest closing this 

because it is not much we can do, I mean to 

fix this. This was something that should 

have been identified.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But 

it was corrected and reviewed? The case was 

reviewed with the corrections?

MR. FARVER: It was reviewed with 
the correction. It was not redone.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Okay.

MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

Kathy Behling.

Just a quick question. Was this 

a problem with the radionuclide chooser tool 

or this has nothing to do with the tool? I 

just want to be sure there's not an error in 

the tool associated with the cobalt-60.

MR. SIEBERT: No. This is Scott.

It is not a tool issue. It is 

the value that was put into IMBA for the 

calculation was incorrect. So it was a dose 

reconstructor error.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. Okay. Thank 

you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

MR. FARVER: Okay. So, are we 

okay to close that one?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It seems 

so.
MR. FARVER: Okay.

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

I agree.

MR. FARVER: 231.3, not able to 

account for potential internal doses from 

short-lived fission products. And this has 

to do with sodium and zinc, which would show 

up on whole-body counts. And we have talked 

about this in the past, too, about sodium 

and zinc.

And because of the sodium, NIOSH 

did calculate intakes from the sodium-24. 

It turned out to be less than a millirem. 

So the doses are not going to show up --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: -- [less than] a 

millirem.

Part of this, I went back and 

looked at OTIB-54, and there is a section in 

there where they do address short-lived 

radionuclides and the zinc and the sodium in 

the different reactor mixes, the fuel mixes, 
and the fission and activation products. So 

it is contained in there.

So if this were to occur today, 

it should be covered by OTIB-54. I believe 

I am correct in saying that, Scott?

MR. SIEBERT: I would agree.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then it 

sounds resolved.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hearing any 

objection to closing?

MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

Brad.

I just want to make sure on this 

I understand exactly what happened in this 

process. I kind of got lost there.

You're saying that OTIB-54 would 

have, if they were to have used OTIB-54 as 

of today, then this wouldn't have been an 

error, is that correct? Or not an error, 

but this problem --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This would 
be taken into account if it was done today, 

the short-lived fission products.

MR. FARVER: It should be taken 

into account today, yes.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

MR. FARVER: One of the big 

concerns with sodium-24 is it has a halflife of 15 hours. So timing is critical. I 

mean, that was our position: you're going 

to miss it if you wait too long.

I know they did look into that in 

OTIB-54. Based on the percentages of sodium 

to -- and I forget what it is, if it is to 

uranium in the fuel, and how it diminishes 

over time.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Correct.

MR. FARVER: And I don't remember 

exact tables or pages, but I remember 

reviewing that. So it is taken care of in 

there. I mean, they do consider the fact 

that it is a short half-life.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So this 
was a positive correction to take care of 

what your issue was?

MR. FARVER: Yes. And we have 

got this stuff before about the short-lived 

nuclides and the radionuclide chooser, and 

it all was taken into account in OTIB-54.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. And, 

Scott, you agree with this?

MR. SIEBERT: Sorry, I am typing

in and speaking at the same time.

Yes, it is in OTIB-54. And I 

would like to point out that, even back when 

this claim was done before OTIB-54 existed, 

there was a process in place at Hanford for 

assigning or at least assessing the sodium 

and zinc as well.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MEMBER CLAWSON: This kind of 

made it a better process by putting it 

through in OTIB-54 where it really isn't a 

question if it is done or not, right? It is 
in the process of OTIB-54?

MR. SIEBERT: It is automatically 

included and discussed in OTIB-54, correct.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Thank 

you, Dave. That answers my question.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MEMBER CLAWSON: I have no 

problem.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

Close, and let's go on. Any more on 231?

MR. FARVER: There's an 

observation about the photons for some.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

By the way, I might go off for 

one second. Somebody is at the door. One 

second. You folks go on, please.

(Pause.)

Okay, go ahead. Sorry, folks.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You go 

ahead.

MR. FARVER: Oh, we made this an 
observation because it is really not that 

critical for this case.

NIOSH used a combination of 25 

percent less than 30 keV and 75 percent 30 

to 250 keV by selecting it out of Table 6-

13, I believe, on their TBD.

Our reviewer thought that, well, 

you know, it probably would be better just 

to have all 100 percent 30 to 250 because 

that would be more claimant-favorable. And 

it really would only increase the dose by 

about 50 millirem for the photon dose and 80 

millirem for the missed photon dose. It is 

not a big increase. It was just more a 

difference of opinion. And that's why it 

was an observation and not a finding.

So we just wanted to point it 

out, that in our opinion we thought it would 

have been more appropriate, but it is not 

that NIOSH did anything wrong.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

One other thing I do want to 
point out. We did tie that photon energy 

split to the fact that we believed he was 

working with plutonium because he actually 

had monitoring for such. That is the 

appropriate split for plutonium facilities.

If we switched him to 100-percent 

30-to-250-keV facility, yes, I agree that 

the dose based on the photons themselves may 

have increased slightly. However, we would 

not have assigned neutrons at all because 

that is not for a plutonium facility. That 

would be a uranium facility.

So the way we did it actually was 

more claimant-favorable than using a 100-

percent 30-to-250-keV breakdown.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So, 

the argument is that it was claimantfavorable?

MR. FARVER: Yes. It wasn't 

really even an argument. It was just a 

difference of opinion.
CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thanks.

Alright. Let's go on.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 242.

MR. FARVER: 242.2, let me get 

that case up.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What about 

242.1?

MR. FARVER: Oh, I'm sorry, 

242.1. I'm looking at that and saying 

something else.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

They're on our screen.

MR. FARVER: The employee worked 

at Hanford for about 30 years, the forties 

through seventies; was diagnosed with an oat 

cell carcinoma of the lung in '88.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is a 

Hanford case?

MR. FARVER: This is a Hanford 

case.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 
Wanda is not on this part of the discussion, 

right?

MEMBER MUNN: No. I'm listening, 

but I'm trying to stay very quiet.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

Very good. I'm glad. Actually, you knew 

that; I had not noted that before.

MEMBER MUNN: That's why you're 

not hearing the usual comments.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.

MEMBER CLAWSON: But it is real 

hard, isn't it, Wanda, not to chime-in on 

some stuff?

(Laughter.)

MEMBER MUNN: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

is so noted. Let's go on to the discussion 

about 242.1.

MR. FARVER: Now the employee was 

a train and bus dispatcher. And it looks 
like the dose reconstruction was done in 

2006. So this is a rather old one. It was 

a best estimate, and the PoC was 49.6. So, 

it was just under 50 percent.

So, with that background, 

incorrect accounting of recorded photon 

dose. When our reviewer looked at this 

case, they came up 20 millirems short in 

1947 for the annual dose. So that always 

bothers me, when you're 20 millirems short 

or you're short-dosed, and you can't really 

understand why.

So I went back and did some more 

digging. The 1947 dose, it is entered into 

the Hanford workbook, but the workbook has 

an error in the one cell -- actually, it is 

AF10 and AG10 -- where it is supposed to sum 

up the values below it.

And for this person, the 20 

millirem was in row 80, but it was only 

summing up for rows 12 through 63. So, it 

was not going to accumulate that 20 
millirem. So, that's why the 20 millirem 

was not showing up in the IREP table.

Now this goes back to the 

workbook, that there seems to be some 

problems with that version of the workbook 

for at least that particular year, '47.

And I don't know if, Scott, you 

have had a chance to look at this and check 

this to see that I am correct or not.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I did look at 

it. Basically, the workbook was originally 

set up to respond to 52 cycles per year, 

which makes sense. That's your maximum for 

a weekly cycle exchange.

So, the reason it was looking at 

rows 12 through 63 -- if you do some simple 

subtraction, that's 52 rows -- it was making 

the assumption early on that you would have 

a maximum of 52 dosimeter exchanges.

In the case of this claim, 

because there were some instances of 

multiple dosimeters issued in the same week, 
there are more than 52 weeks of data to be 

looked at.

So I agree it is somewhat a 

shortcoming. I don't know if necessarily I 

would call it a QA error because the tool 

was doing what it was designed to do. It is 

just we need to look at the fact that there 

may be more weeks of data than originally 

were thought when it was designed.

MR. FARVER: Well, yes, it was 

designed -- it did what it was designed to 

do, but it was designed incorrectly.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, I wouldn't 

say it was designed incorrectly. I would 

say that the usage of the additional 

dosimeters, it is an "iffy" thing, whether 

we -- well, let me go back.

With the information we had at 

the time for designing, it made perfectly 

good sense. I agree that later processes 

expanded that, so it actually looked for 

more lines. So I did look. It only does 
affect the 1940s data. Later on, it started 

summing more lines. So, especially in 1957, 

when they went to monthly exchange rates, 

you know, even if you only have the 52 

lines, we don't have people that have 52 

dosimeters when they are on a monthly 

exchange rate.

So I agree that that version of 

the tool probably was not as flexible and 

had the information in it that we could have 

used at the time, and it did drop the 1947 

20 millirem in this case.

MR. FARVER: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: I have had a chance 

to look, and at least I haven't had -- you 

know, since we got these yesterday and were 

looking at them, I haven't had enough time 

to really look at the various tools that 

have come after this to exactly when that 

was addressed. I know that we looked at one 

where the tool was approximately a year 

later, and that issue did not exist in that 
tool. So we do have a timeline that it 

looks like we had it corrected at least by 

mid-2007.

MR. FARVER: Well, I can give you 

the versions that I looked at, and the error 

is still there. Version 2.1.0, Version 

2.1.2, Version 2.3.3. All those have the 

same error; only it is in the AG column. So 

they are still supposed to do the same 

summing. It looks like the AF column was 

fixed, but the AG column still sums down to 

63. So it was not corrected for those 

versions, and that covers every case that we 

are talking about in this set.

MR. SIEBERT: So since you have 

gone to different cells than what you 

originally had said, I didn't look at that. 

So I honestly am not prepared to discuss 

that.

MR. FARVER: Oh, no, I understand 

that. I just wanted to let you know.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.
MR. FARVER: I did that this 

morning just because I wanted to see what 

was corrected. So I looked at the AF. That 

had changed. I just went next door to see 

if the same change was made there, and it 

wasn't. So that's the only reason I know.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we do 

not know how this affects the overall 

result, do we?

MR. FARVER: It could miss doses. 

It could just not pick up doses and sum 

them.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, but 

what impact would this have on the PoC? We 

don't know that yet, right, I assume?

MR. SIEBERT: We don't know 

specifically. It could have a small impact 

on PoC because I agree with Doug that it may 

have, as in the case of 1947 --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: -- it did not pick 

up that 20-millirem dose.
CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: So I have got it 

down for us to look at that tool and the 

various versions of it as they go on in 

time, to look at where exactly that issue 

arrived and where it departed. And I can 

tell you, by the time we started using the 

Vose version more recently, that would not 

be the issue because it is a totally 

different -- this is coming from the fact 

that we are using OTIB-12 as the shortcut 

for doing best-estimate cases, the pre-run 

mixed DCF.

So I have it down for us to look 

at the extent of the issue. And hopefully, 

by the next meeting, I can give a report as 

to the extent and what we can do to look at 

it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: We looked at -- it 

was a Version 3.3-something, and the format 

had changed. So this was no longer being 
summed under these columns.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: Yes, eventually, it 

got changed. But my point is that, even 

after it was identified and was changed in 

the AF column, the column right next door 

wasn't changed. So I have a question about 

version control and verifying that things 

are correct.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

I mean, this will be looked at. It's open, 

and we will see both what impact it has 

here. And if it has some impact here, 

whatever impact it has here, if this is more 

-- it would be more claimant-favorable to 

include it, I believe. And if that were the 

case, one would have a number of other cases 

to look at, not just the ones we are 

reviewing, right?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct, and that 

is why we are looking at the -- that is why 

I want to see exactly where it was 
corrected, so that we can determine what 

universe of cases we may have to look back 

at.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

that's important.

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling.

This does prompt in my mind 

another question, a more broad question with 

the workbook. When a newer version of a 

workbook comes out, and you recognize that 

there has been a more claimant-favorable 

approach used or something that is going to 

change in a positive way or create more dose 

for an individual, do you go back and look 

at, like a PER process for the OTIBs, do you 

go back and look at cases that might be 

impacted by a change in the version of any 

workbook? I'm just curious.

MR. SIEBERT: I can tell you I 
know we have in some cases. As to globally, 

I can't specifically say one way or the 

other, since I'm not the person who was the 

keeper of the workbooks. But we can 

certainly look into that question for you.

MS. BEHLING: Yes. I think along 

with -- we should maybe expand this a little 

bit because it does raise the question as to 

when there are changes, like as we are 

seeing with the CADW programs and that type 

of thing. Are we going back and looking at 

cases that may have been impacted because 

they were using an older version, and it 

would have increased the dose to some 

extent?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

mean, this may involve considerable work and 

reworking. But we will know that. Let's 

give them a chance, the NIOSH folks a chance 

to look it over --

MS. BEHLING: Sure.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- and see 
the impact a little bit. I understand. 

They only got this yesterday.

MS. BEHLING: Sure. And I 

believe that -- excuse me; I'm sorry -- but 

I believe that Doug indicated that this case 

was like 49.6 percent. I don't know if 

we're still on that case or not. But it is 

certainly something I think needs to be --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

That's right.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug.

I'll tell you what bothers me 

more about this finding and this result is 

that NIOSH didn't find it. You know, when 

they're putting together their response, 

their response is, "Oh, we missed 20 

millirem. Oh, well." No change in total 

dose would be assigned.

Instead of going in and digging 

and finding out, well, why wasn't that 20 

millirem added in, it is like, oh, well, 

there's no change. And that kind of 
irritates me, that I have got to go into 

their workbook and dig through their 

workbooks and find out why that 20 millirem 

wasn't accounted for.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Issue raised.

Then, this will be gone over, and 

we will take a very careful look at this at 

our next meeting.

MR. FARVER: And what I wrote in 

was "NIOSH will investigate the extent of 

the workbook issues."

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Correct.

Doug, this is Brad.

I just want to make sure because 

I am looking at both what you and Kathy 

said. And Kathy raises a very -- I just 

want to make sure we don't lose that.

And, Scott, or maybe Grady, we 

are not saying, we're not pointing a finger, 

but looking at it from a claimant, for us to 
be able to come back and say, "You know, 

when NIOSH finds this, or something like 

this, they reevaluate it; they look at it. 

It is a big deal." And to not account for 

20 mR or 20 rem, whatever, it doesn't bring 

a level of confidence to them.

So I want to make sure we look at 

this globally. When you take any of their 

workbooks, you go forward; you have found 

some flaws with it. And how do you make the 

determination? I guess one of my questions, 

what I wanted to get to was, how do you make 

the determination that you go back and look 

at the doses that have been done with this 

workbook? If you have found a flaw, is 

there a process that you have in your QA 

program or in your just general program? If 

you find something, like Grady has stated, 

that you guys fix a lot of this yourselves. 

Is there a process in place that you 

evaluate the cases that get done by this or 

the severity level of it, or whatever?
MR. CALHOUN: As you know -- and 

we have talked about this in the past --

typically, TBD changes drive the changes in 

the workbooks, typically. TBD changes that 

result in higher doses all go through the 

PER process.

So what we have to look at -- and 

I think Scott said he was going to go back 

to the keeper of the workbooks to find out 

if there is something in place -- that if, 

for some reason, there is an error found or 

something in the workbook that would result 

in a higher dose, whether we go and do a 

PER-like process for those. So I think that 

that is on his list right now.

I think that's what you said, 

Scott?

MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

MEMBER CLAWSON: And I appreciate 

that. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Important, and we will come back to it, but 
I think we can go on at this point.

I'm partially sensitive to the 

fact that this issue, essentially, just came 

up yesterday.

Let's go to 242.2.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 242.2, 

incorrect accounting of medical x-ray doses.

There were -- let me get the 

exact number -- there were a total of 19 

occupational PA exams. NIOSH assigned 16 PA 

exams. They were short three exams. That's 

the first part.

The second part, there were three 

PFG exams that we thought, and NIOSH 

assigned doses for two of the exams. Okay. 

So that is the basis for it.

The first part, for the three PA 

exams, NIOSH agrees that they should have

been included. They weren't included. I 

went back and looked at the workbook. They 

were just not entered into the workbook. 

There's no reason for it. They were in the 
records. It is a QA issue. It should have 

been caught.

The second issue was a '56 dose 

record that we interpreted as a PFG. And 

going back and looking at it, and with their 

explanation, I can see their point. Because 

on the handwritten record, I think it says 

"chest" or "CHST" or something. And then, 

it is 4X5 and there is a cross-mark. And it 

is not entirely crossed out. So, I could 

see both points of view. And then, you have 

the 14-by-17 written in after that.

And going back and looking at 

that, and after looking at all the other 

records, I'm thinking it probably was 

crossed out because it is probably unlikely 

they would have wrote both those 4-by-5 and 

14-by-17 on the same slip.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you 

just clarify? I'm sorry, but I'm not -- I 

should know, I guess, but I don't, what's a 

PFG? 
MR. FARVER: Photofluorographic.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

Fine.

MR. FARVER: Anyway, so I can see 

where our reviewer would have come up with 

that conclusion, but I believe we are 

incorrect. I believe their explanation is 

plausible. And I would suggest we close it.

But, then, there is still a QA 

issue on why those first three weren't 

included. I can't tell from the records.

MEMBER CLAWSON: So noted.

This is Brad.

I agree to close.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Hey, Dave, I'm 

looking at this one and I note -- this is 

Mark Griffon -- I note the PoCs. And then, 

I see the subsequent observations. I am 

wondering, you know, we're talking -- this 

is one of Paul's favorite issues -- you 

know, 49.6, and then, 49.43. Boy, it's a 
whisker away from 50 percent.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It 

certainly is.

MEMBER GRIFFON: And I'm 

wondering whether the whole case has been 

looked at in totality after these findings 

and observations, you know, were all 

considered.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Anyway, that's 

just a comment, how close this is.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Certainly.

MEMBER GRIFFON: I don't disagree 

with closing that one, but just a comment.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're 

talking 242.2. I'm a little unclear as to 

why we're closing this particular issue, in 

that if three were missed and not included 

initially, and I don't see anyone saying 

that now they've have been considered, I 

mean, why is it that leaving the three off -

- oh, I see. This translates. I see. 
Excuse me. This translates to a PoC of 49.3 

compared to 49.6. So, it would reduce the 

PoC. So, that's why leaving it off is 

claimant-favorable. That is, it was a 

mistake. But the mistake favors the 

claimant.

But I also agree with you, Mark, 

this is a very close call. I assume, as 

folks will be fixing 242.1, that they will 

look over 242 as a whole.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is 

Scott.

When we did the rework, which has 

that 49.34 percent, that includes everything 

that was agreed to here in these responses, 

the 20-millirem in one, the three additional 

x-rays in two.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

MR. SIEBERT: So we have already 

included anything that we agree should have 

been included originally, and that's where 

the updated PoC value comes from. We have 
already run those calculations.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

this response is really to -- the PoC 

response includes 242.1 as well as .2?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct. Whenever 

I run PoC responses, I include them in the 

case.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

okay, good. That's not clear from that 

writeup, but that's clear when you say it.

Nevertheless, we will be --

MEMBER GRIFFON: David?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

MEMBER GRIFFON: My only point 

was that I don't disagree with what Scott 

said. I am just pointing out that there are 

three observations, which I am just 

beginning to look through, and it doesn't 

look like there's any -- you know, often, we 

just have these observations that hang out 

there. But I am wondering if there is any -

- you know, this is a very close call and 
you have three observations.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Would evaluating 

those observations have any impact on the 

decision here?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 

maybe, but I think we need to look at the 

observations then.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's look 

at the observations.

MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm just saying, 

while we do that, keep the number in mind, 

yes?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

242.2 would be closed.

You're concerned that there may 

be some sort of, well, that there is an 

interaction perhaps between some of the 

different findings. So I don't know what to 

say.

Let's go on to --
MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

Brad.

I've got to ask Scott a question 

here.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Scott, I want to 

make clear that what you are telling me is 

that this evaluation, you went back to the 

other findings, the 20 mR, everything like 

that, and added it into the system?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

MEMBER CLAWSON: So you added 

dose to it, and the PoC went down?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct. That is, 

considering the Monte Carlo calculation and 

the fact that it is not a straight one-toone calculation, you are going to see some 

variability in PoC every time you rerun the 

analysis.

Now I do want to point out that I 

did run this final analysis since it was 

between 45 and 52 percent. We used our 
process of 30 separate IREP runs with 

varying feeds for 10,000 iterations, as 

opposed to our normal process, and averaged 

that out, as is done in all best-estimate 

cases now. And that is where the 49.34 

percent PoC comes from.

So, I guess, Brad, what I am 

saying is, it is not unusual for the PoC to 

change slightly, and that means it may go up 

but it may go down slightly, even with the 

30 runs. I mean, it is a Monte Carlo 

calculation; that is the nature of the 

beast.

MEMBER CLAWSON: And this is 

where I want to make sure, Scott, because, 

you know, we hear so many times from 

claimants, "It's interesting, they found 

more dose and my PoC went down." And I 

understand this to a point there, but it is 

just kind of surprising to me sometimes. 

Well, okay.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, especially 
when they are very small doses, they are 

going to have very little impact on the

overall PoC. And I think the change in PoC 

you're seeing here has more to do with the 

Monte Carlo calculation than it does in the 

addition of the dose, which is why we use 

the 99 percentile of the PoC calculation to 

start with.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Part of the 

discussion moves me not to close 242.2, but 

to leave everything on 242 open and have a 

discussion about 242 the next time.

MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is 

Scott.

The only reason I am hedging on 

that is because, if we look at Observation 

1, the point that comes out of Observation 1 

is we believe this was probably paid under 

the SEC already. We don't have the 

documentation from DOL to prove that, but it 

fits the requirements for being included in 
the SEC for Hanford. So it becomes a moot 

point for this specific claim.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, this is 

Mark.

I was just going to say that, 

Scott. So, you're right, that may make the 

whole thing moot.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

Then, that essentially moots it, doesn't it?

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling.

We discussed this, I think, 

during the last meeting, but could perhaps a 

corrective action for these types of 

findings be that you go back to the dose 

reconstructor? This may be a specific dose 

reconstructor. And again, as Brad has 

mentioned, maybe at the end of a lot of 

these types of findings you do a lessonslearned-type thing, but go back to the dose 

reconstructor and just say, "Hey, we took 

notice that there were several chest x-rays 
that were missed. Maybe you need to pay a 

little bit closer attention," or something 

along those lines.

But would an appropriate 

corrective action be to go back to the dose 

reconstructor? I don't know. But sometimes 

just being reminded of these types of things 

makes people pay more attention next time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

although I sort of feel we did this. I 

think we have discussed this in point one. 

And it wasn't an error by the dose 

reconstructor. It was that the program was 

written up, a program was written up in a 

way that didn't take into account a certain 

problem.

It is certainly a good idea to go 

to the dose reconstructor and say, "Hey, we 

found this." But, again, it wasn't the dose 

reconstructor --

MS. BEHLING: It was for Finding 

2.
CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MS. BEHLING: Finding 2 was the 

missed chest x-rays.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

I'm sorry. Restricting the comment to go 

back to the dose reconstructor on 242.2, 

yes, yes.

MR. KATZ: Kathy, this is Ted.

I mean, just to keep clear, we 

find QA issues all the time. The Work Group 

doesn't need to provide instructions to go 

back to -- or whatever the remedy is for a 

QA issue. I think the Work Group work stops 

with this is a QA issue, and then, the QA 

thought process NIOSH takes up from there. 

But we don't need that to close out a case.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MS. BEHLING: I agree.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

One other thing I do want to 

point out is, normally, when these claims 

come back on our side and we are reviewing 
the findings and doing our responses, I 

usually have the original dose 

reconstructor, if they are still on the 

project, they're usually the ones to do the 

initial response, based on the fact that is 

the person who is most familiar with the 

claim, even if it may be seven years old.

So, in most cases, since it is 

the original dose reconstructor or a peer 

reviewer doing the response, they are 

already aware of the fact that that issue 

has been raised. So I just want to point 

that out, too.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yes. That's 

great. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So people 

want to close out 242.2. And since this is 

an SEC, I see no problem with that.

MR. FARVER: Okay. I will mark 

that one as closed.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
MR. FARVER: .1 is still open; .2 

is closed. And now, we are into Observation 

No. 1, which we kind of discussed, where 

there were letters in the employee's file 

indicating that it should have been 

returned. And that is what we saw in the 

file.

NIOSH comes back and says it was 

not returned and may have been compensated 

under an SEC.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

I believe Stu had spoken about 

this before, that whenever we request claims 

to come back, especially under a PER 

process, it is under DOL's purview whether 

they will return the claim or not. And they 

don't tell us why they do not if they do 

not. So there is really little we can do in 

the case like that, although in this case it 

is very nice that we can tell that it looks 

like it is part of the SEC.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
MR. FARVER: Okay?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: No. 2, "Although the 

resulting doses from the whole-body counts 

were less than reportable, SC&A believes 

that NIOSH should have addressed the issue 

in the DR Report for completeness and for 

the claimant's benefit."

Fission product doses were 

assigned based on claimant-favorable 

intakes, which is true. The current 

practice of using the standardized report 

template is to mention all bioassay 

monitoring types and results in more detail 

than in a DR Report.

There was a single whole-body 

count just before the employee was 

terminated. It was greater than MDA for 

sodium-24, zinc-65, and cesium-137.

The dose will be negligible, but 

we thought that it should have been 

mentioned in the DR Report. And that's why 
it was only written up as an observation.

And this goes back to just 

mentioning things for the completeness and 

for the claimant's benefit.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: So I don't know that 

we can take any action on this because, 

apparently, if this would have happened 

today, it should have been at least 

mentioned.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Observation No. 3, 

"Although none of the resulting doses from 

the Hanford environment or exposures were 

above a millirem per year, believes NIOSH 

should have addressed the issue in a DR 

Report for completeness."

They did not address 

environmental internal dose in this DR 

Report. And once again, this is from 2006.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: The bottom line is, 
had it been done today, they would have 

mentioned something in the DR Report. It 

would not have changed the dose because 

there is no dose; it is less than a 

millirem. But it would have gotten 

mentioned.

I believe that's correct, Scott?

MR. SIEBERT: Except for the fact 

that we did actually assign some 

environmental doses that were over a 

millirem. But you're right, in the Dose 

Reconstruction Report it does not call out 

environmental specifically, like it probably 

should.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

That completes our discussion of 242 with .1 

still left open for further discussion. And 

that's because of its implication not only 

for this case, but for other cases.

It is now, folks, almost noon. 

And I suggest that we take a little comfort 
break. I don't know whether we will have --

can we now know whether we are going to have 

a quorum after 2:40?

MR. KATZ: After 3:00 you mean, I 

think.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 1:30 to 

2:40 was what I had written down.

MR. KATZ: That's what I had 

said, but before I knew that Wanda couldn't 

make it back until 3:00.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, yes. 

Okay. And I was having trouble with my 

computer at that point. So I missed that.

Alright.

MR. KATZ: Right. So let's just 

check. Let's just check. The question is 

really to Mark Griffon and John Poston, what 

their availability is after 3:00 or 2:40.

MEMBER POSTON: You will have to 

say that again. I was undoing my mute.

MR. KATZ: So, John, after 2:40 

at least -- I mean, Wanda will be missing 
until 3:00 -- so, after 2:40, you and Mark 

Griffon, what's your availability? That is 

the question.

MEMBER POSTON: I get out of 

class at 1:30, which is 2:30 your time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MEMBER POSTON: So, I'm available 

probably within five minutes or so, getting 

back to the room.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Okay. And then, you, 

Mark?

MEMBER POSTON: Say 2:40.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Pretty unlikely 

that I will be able to be back at --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, in 

which case --

MEMBER GRIFFON: Will you have a 

quorum without me or no?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We won't 

until Wanda comes back at 3:00, but that's 
okay. That's fine.

MR. KATZ: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then, we 

will just break from 1:30 to 3:00.

I do believe people need comfort 

breaks. Let's just make it 10 minutes. 

Okay? Very good. It's 11:59 Eastern 

Standard Time. See you in 10 minutes.

MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

went off the record at 11:59 a.m. and went 

back on the record at 12:09 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let us 

begin.

So, we are on 288, Set 12. 288, 

actually, appears to have only one 

observation. NIOSH agrees that -- there is 

something that is just listed as 288.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug. I am 

back.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, very 
good.

So, in there any finding in 288?

MR. FARVER: No.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

Then, let's see about Observation No. 1.

MR. FARVER: I don't have a date 

on when this case was done. I would say it 

was --

MR. SIEBERT: 2005.

MR. FARVER: Okay. An early 

case.

This looks very similar to the 

other where we believe that the esophagus 

would be a better surrogate than the male 

lung. The doses are very similar. It is a 

compensated case. So it really wouldn't 

matter. It is just more of a, "Gee, you 

might want to take a look at this" type of 

thing.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What is it 

you were talking about, surrogate for what? 

For what kind of cancer, what type of 
cancer?

MR. SIEBERT: It is a 

nasopharyngeal. I always love saying that 

word. So it is more in the head region.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Okay. 

So it is a head and neck finding, which is 

the usual? Or is it head specifically? 

Usually, head and neck cancers are just 

categorized as one.

MR. FARVER: Yes. I don't know. 

I would have to go dig some more.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, don't. 

But it is a head or head and neck. And the 

question is --

MR. SIEBERT: Right. It appears 

to be head and neck.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Good, good.

MR. FARVER: And they chose the 

lung value as a surrogate --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rather than 

the esophagus?
MR. FARVER: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And NIOSH 

agrees with the esophagus. Head and neck 

cancers are complicated, but I don't know 

why -- are there no, I don't want to say 

"findings". Are there no guidelines for 

head and neck?

MR. SIEBERT: Well, in 2005, it 

was not as clearly-defined as we have these 

days.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Now, Scott, do you 

know if that has been changed? Has OTIB-5 

taken care of that?

MR. SIEBERT: No, OTIB-5 does not 

apply to medical x-rays.

MR. FARVER: This is for medical 

x-rays?

MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it is medical 

x-rays.
MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. That's 

right. The lung.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, so we 

are assessing the impact of the medical xrays on a person who happens to have cancer 

of the head and neck?

MR. FARVER: Right. So, this 

would be more of a judgment call for the 

dose reconstructor.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So, 

the chest area is certainly the appropriate 

one. And then, the question is lung versus 

esophagus. And why would the esophagus 

better, more appropriate than the lung for 

that part of the body?

MR. FARVER: Well, I mean, aren't 

you talking about the nasopharyngeal region?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But the 

cancer is nasopharyngeal.

MR. SIEBERT: More, I would say, 

in the epiglottis. And it does seem to make 

sense to me.
CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. I 

see. The upper esophagus part of the head 

and neck?

MR. SIEBERT: But the problem is, 

the claim itself, the ICD-9 code is 147. It 

gives no extension. So it really falls into 

the whole gamut of 147's which do range all 

the way from generally, I believe, you know, 

pretty much the back of the mouth and throat 

all the way down to the upper portion of the 

stomach, if I remember correctly. So it 

could be anywhere in that location.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see.

MR. SIEBERT: It sounds like 

esophagus probably would be a better choice, 

in my mind, than the lung. But, as was 

pointed out, they are very close to the same 

because, well, physically, they are very 

close to the same locations anyway.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum. 

Good. Okay. That clarifies it for me.

MR. FARVER: As I recall, the 
actual choice of the organ, it is not 

defined. It is kind of up to the dose 

reconstructor to choose the appropriate one, 

is that correct?

MR. SIEBERT: In the cases where 

it is unclear, such as this, yes.

MR. FARVER: As this, yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

I understand that rationale in terms of head 

and neck cancer. So, good.

Any other folks want to comment 

or ask questions?

DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron.

Yes. The medical x-ray sounds 

like a small part of a dose reconstruction, 

but a lot of times it is one of the major 

parts. And they went a long ways in helping 

this. It is hard decide on a lot, 

especially around the head, the face, and 

the neck area, what organ to use or what 

position projection to use.

In the past, the older dose 
reconstruction, it was very much up to the 

dose reconstructor. Since they came out and 

revised some of the TBDs and the Procedure 

61, they went to include, oh, a whole list 

of different areas on the body and what 

projections you would use for them. And 

that has cleared up a lot of it. And I 

think that would be more consistent in the 

future.

However, there are still areas 

that it is hard to determine exactly which 

projection you would use. And so, 

therefore, the resulting dose.

And so, I just want to say that, 

yes, this is an area that is very 

subjective, and they have come a long ways 

in helping that, but there is still some 

subjectivity to this area.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

right. And this is a compensated case. So, 

there is no need to think of going back to 

this one. Just so note: that it's 
compensated; that this is appropriate. The 

esophagus is an appropriate choice, and that 

there is clearer direction now on how to 

make an assessment in that case.

Good. That completes 288.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 289.1.

MR. FARVER: 289.1, "The use of 

the incorrect photon energy fractions for 

200 East and 200 West."

In the Dose Reconstruction 

Report, they usually list a table of the 

parameters, the dose conversion factors for 

the different organs they are considering, 

the photon energy fractions, et cetera, and 

for the different areas.

And for this person, he worked in 

-- and it is listed in the table as 200 --

let me call it out exactly -- I think it is 

the 200 East and West. It is in the actual 

dose reconstruction. Anyway, also a K 

reactor. He was in a separate section.
So, when we look at that, we are 

going to look at that and say, okay, what's 

the appropriate energy fractions for 200 

East and West? And when we looked them up, 

they were a little bit -- they were correct 

in the Dose Reconstruction Report. In other 

words, that listed the ones for East and 

West 200. But when they actually did the 

calculations, they used different buildings' 

fractions, energy factions for different 

buildings. And so that is why we pretty 

much wrote this up saying, "Hey, you didn't 

do what you said you were going to do."

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

you are talking about a QA error?

MR. FARVER: Yes. It is finally 

what the whole thing boils down to is they 

did things correctly because this employee 

worked at many different buildings. So what 

they did was correct. What was written in 

the Dose Reconstruction Report was in error.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait 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

minute. They --

MR. FARVER: The photon fractions 

they used were appropriate for the areas 

that the person worked --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: -- because those 

areas were a subset of the 200 East and West 

areas. But the 200 East and West areas have 

a separate photon fraction, which is what 

was listed in the Dose Reconstruction 

Report.

So I think one is more general, 

is saying 200 East and West. And then, they 

do break down into some of the buildings. 

They give more specific photon fractions.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that 

was not picked up by the dose reconstructor? 

That specificity within that building was 

not picked up?

MR. FARVER: No, the dose 

reconstructor picked up on it, but it was 

not translated into the 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

Report.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: As it 

should have been, yes?

MR. SIEBERT: Well, yes.

This is Scott.

We agree that what the dose 

reconstructor apparently did was they tried 

to simplify the table by just putting 

everything into the 200 east and west, 

rather than breaking it down into separate 

tables for each of the smaller facilities 

within 200 east and west. They should have 

broken them out and given each of the energy 

splits within those subsets because they are 

not the same as the overall 200 East and 

West.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. SIEBERT: So we agree with 

it. The report was not written accurately 

to reflect what we actually did.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

you agree that it was just not written. 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

does not seem to say that in the SC&A 

report. But, anyway, if it is a question of 

what was written as opposed to what was 

done, then we could close it and, then, make 

sure that that is written in the report.

MR. FARVER: Well, you really 

have to go back and look at the report that 

we wrote, and not just look at what we say 

in the finding.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Because you go back 

and look into more detail about the finding, 

and it says, you know, Table 613 gives 

photon fractions for 200 East and West, 

divided up in 50 percent 30 to 250; 50 

percent 250 photons. And that is what is 

listed in the DR table. However, when we 

looked at the calculations, they used 25 

percent and 75 percent.

So, all we are really saying in 

the calculation is the table that you 

presented in your Dose Reconstruction Report 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

is not the values you used in your 

calculation.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Thank you for clearing it up --

MR. FARVER: It also --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- for me 

anyway.

MR. FARVER: -- results in a 

claimant-favorable dose assessment.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: So it is not that we 

are criticizing. We are, more or less, 

saying, "You didn't do what you said you 

were going to do."

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

Good.

Well, other comments? Questions?

(No response.)

Then it sounds like we should 

close it.

MR. FARVER: Alright.

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

So let's go on.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 289.9, "Did 

not include all the internal exposure to 

cesium-137."

This is similar to what we had 

talked about before, about having whole-body 

counts that show up with cesium-137, and is 

it greater or less than the NCRP-94 reports?

In our report, we say that four 

of the seven positive cesium-137 results 

were above the levels reported for fallout 

in the U.S.

Let's see. And the feeling was 

that they should have been addressed and 

treated as, you know, calculated in an 

intake, even though it would have been a 

very tiny dose.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay. Back to 

NIOSH's reply, and they give us a response 

that it is based on a combination of 

guidance in the TBD.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I don't necessarily agree with 

what they did. What they did is -- I think 

it's three criteria in the TBD that you try 

to determine whether you should calculate a 

dose from. And they pretty much wrote those 

down there.

And part of it has to do with you 

are excluding zinc-65 or sodium-24. Yes?

Scott, can you help me out with 

any of this? I know what it comes down to, 

but --

MR. SIEBERT: Sure. This is 

basically in the TBD. It was understood, and 

this was back in the 2005-2006 timeframe, 

remember, an older version of the TBD. It 

was understood that those median body-burden 

results for cesium didn't extend out far 

enough for us to actually use them after --

what was it? -- 1980 or '81.

So there were additional things 

put into the TBD to state do not consider it 

as occupational if there are not other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

fission or activation products noted or they 

were actually detected within the whole-body 

count or, additionally, in the urine 

samples, urine sampling.

So, the dose reconstructor 

followed the TBD in place at the time. Once 

again, this is, as we stated before in the 

earlier claim, these days we have removed 

that from the TBD, and these days if it 

detectable cesium, we will go ahead and 

assess it. Oftentimes, it is less than 1 

millirem and will be left out and explained 

in the Dose Reconstruction Report.

However, we will assess them. We 

won't automatically write them off as nonoccupational based on these criteria.

MR. FARVER: So it is something 

that was done years ago and would be done 

differently today.

MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this 

was an SEC?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. SIEBERT: It is at Hanford, 

and Hanford does have an SEC. And this 

individual has the appropriate cancer and 

timeframe. So, likely, they would have been 

covered under the SEC, I would say yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

it will be changed in the future and it has 

no impact on the 289 claim because that has 

already been compensated. That sounds fine.

Other comments?

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

I'm trying to follow and 

understand what has gone on here, Scott. 

And I just want to make sure that this --

anyway, we have captured this right. I'm 

not worried about this claim because of 

where it is at.

But, Scott, you are saying that 

this would not happen now because of what 

change, I guess, is what I am getting at? 

What did we change?

MR. SIEBERT: Correct. Now 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

the TBD we deal with any of the positive 

bioassays, including cesium-137, by looking 

at his occupational, even though it may not 

have been -- we removed this caveat of 

considering it as non-occupational. So we 

actually look at them now.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. That is 

what I wanted.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Sure. I wanted 

to make sure that we had a process to be 

able to capture this scenario. And that is 

all that you were going for, correct, Doug?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that is 

claimant-favorable, of course. It is all 

occupational.

MR. FARVER: The short story is 

it is not going to happen now.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I have no 

problem, then.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MEMBER CLAWSON: We can close it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Closed.

MR. FARVER: Closed.

Next, 318s. Hang on until I get 

my files open.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 

Moving right along, 318.1.

We can't quite see it now. There 

we go.

MR. FARVER: 318.1, is it on the 

screen?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is.

MR. FARVER: Okay. "NIOSH did 

not use the proper dose conversion factor 

and correction factor."

We have seen this one before. 

This is the rotational --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: -- isotopic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

geometries for certain cancers. This person 

had leukemia, worked at Hanford for 25 years 

or so. Started off, jobs included starting 

as like a junior rad tech and worked his way 

up through rad management. So, he kind of 

started at the bottom and worked his way up 

over 25 years.

It was a best-estimate case, and 

PoC was around 45 percent. Okay.

Because of IG-001, there is one 

section we talked about, 4.4. No, I'm 

sorry.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: 4.4?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: There are certain 

cancers that rotational -- or that AP 

geometry is not the most favorable. And we 

have brought this out before, and we have 

even sent it off to the Procedures group, so 

that they can look at the wording of it.

And so, when I looked at 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

what I looked was, well, what would I do? 

You know, because I reread IG-001, and it 

says that you should use something 

different. And I'm thinking, well, how do I 

do something different? What am I going to 

do? How do I determine what's rotational?

So, anyway, I just looked at it, 

and it is not that easy to do. But there is 

a table in there. It is 4.2. And it just 

gives some common exposure geometry for 

various jobs and facilities, like a laborer 

at a uranium facility. And it says it 

should be 75 percent iso, 25 percent AP. 

Okay.

So someone has looked at this, 

and someone has come up with some general 

guidance. So now I go back to the specific 

case and what this person did. This person 

was a rad tech. And I am sure, as a rad 

tech, being a junior tech, he was in every 

grungy hole out there.

And when I look at that, 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

thinking, well, what does a rad tech do? 

They are surveying. Okay. They are 

surveying out in front of them. Sometimes 

they are surveying above. Sometimes they 

are surveying below. Not all the time the 

source is in front of them. They could be 

doing contact dose readings on a drum, have 

drums off behind them. They're acting as a 

source.

So, I'm thinking, wow, I'm not 

sure how I came up with this. And then, I 

read through the justification that is 

written there and the conclusion was, well, 

he's a rad tech; it's 100 percent AP.

And then, I go back and look at 

that table that's in 4.2, and none of those 

positions are 100 percent AP. So I really 

don't believe the justification. I don't 

believe it is 100 percent AP. I believe it 

is something different than that that should 

be applied.

I also don't recall ever seeing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

in any case where anything but AP was 

applied. So in the cases that we have 

looked at to date I don't recall seeing it 

anywhere. So I'm not sure that this little 

section is even being applied.

Anyway, we have moved to transfer 

that to the Procedures Subcommittee. So I'm 

not sure that there is anything that we can 

do beyond that.

I just wanted to point out where 

I don't believe that is an appropriate 

geometry for a rad tech, considering it 

wasn't an appropriate geometry for any of 

those positions that were listed in there, 

even a general laborer.

But I guess we will have to close 

that because I am not sure what else we can 

do.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

the Procedures Subcommittee will complete 

the --

MEMBER MUNN: The 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

Subcommittee has accepted the responsibility 

for the overarching issue of geometry.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

Okay.

MR. FARVER: And, Wanda, I would 

just like to point out that it is very --

when I was trying to go through this, it is 

very difficult. So any additional guidance 

that could get provided in there would 

probably help out a whole lot.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we are going 

to try to pursue the larger question.

MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

Behling.

And I think everything that you 

pointed out, Doug, is very accurate. And I 

believe this is one of those areas where 

perhaps the guidance should be more specific 

and just claimant-favorable. Because, as 

IG-001 points out, AP geometry 100 percent 

is just not going to be realistic.

And here is one area where 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

don't think it should be left up to the dose 

reconstructor. It should just be -- and 

again, this would be something that would be 

talked about in Procedures -- but it should 

be something where you select the most 

claimant-favorable. There is a table there. 

There's specific cancer types, and it is a 

correction factor that gets applied to 

either a rotational or an isotropic.

And I think it would be easier to 

just select the most claimant-favorable 

because it is a very uncertain area that we 

are in here. For this to be one of the 

judgment calls, I don't think it is 

appropriate. Just food for thought.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

we close out on it.

MR. FARVER: Yes. Yes. I will 

make a note that the Procedures Subcommittee 

is addressing it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct. 

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

MR. FARVER: Okay. 318.2, "NIOSH 

did not include all the radionuclides in the 

assessment of the missed internal dose."

This is very similar to what we 

talked about earlier, about the radionuclide 

chooser, and how do we know that it is 

considering other items. And OTIB-54 

addressed this issue.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm just 

reading it over, the NIOSH response.

MR. FARVER: Yes, I gave you the 

short version.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

Brad.

I believe that we discussed this 

earlier with Scott. And this OTIB-54, this 

would be corrected, correct? Or is this --

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

I'm not going to say that there 

is anything to correct. OTIB-54 is a more 

appropriate and gets into more specific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

methodology for dealing with fission and 

activation products.

The process that we used before 

with the chooser was assuming that the 

individual was exposed to the most claimantfavorable fission or activation product that 

the measurement could have detected. That 

is generally an overestimating assumption, 

that we didn't have a better way to assess 

it earlier. OTIB-54 is a better way to 

assess that.

So I am not going to say it was 

an error before. It was really generally an 

overestimation of assuming a single 

radionuclide as opposed to a suite of 

radionuclides at a generally lower level.

MR. FARVER: The issue that 

you're referring to, Brad, was about the 

short half-life nuclides.

MEMBER CLAWSON: That is correct.

MR. FARVER: That's addressed 

also. This was a more general 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

including other nuclides, which is also 

addressed in OTIB-54. OTIB-54 helped out 

both situations.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Understand.

MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy.

I believe that initially we 

wanted to be sure that this original 

approach truly was an overestimate. And 

when OTIB-54 came out, we made the 

comparison between the radionuclide chooser 

tool and if you would go to a more detailed 

approach using OTIB-54 and consider more 

radionuclides. Is this radionuclide chooser 

tool still claimant-favorable? And we 

determined that, yes, it is, and it is 

appropriate to be used that way.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you, 

Kathy.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So 

that should close it. Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay, 318.3, "NIOSH 

did not include a uranium in the assessment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

of missed internal dose."

Okay.

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

My Live Meeting didn't move to 

the next one. We're on 318.3?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: 318.3.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I 

see. It's okay for me.

MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. There it 

goes. Mine just reconnected. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. FARVER: Okay. What's the 

best way to describe this? Okay. The 

employee worked there for we say 25 years as 

a rad tech, probably all over the plant. 

Okay.

So you look at the bioassay data, 

and he had chest counts annually for 10 

years, from '82 to '92. And as we have 

mentioned before, when they do the chest 

counts, the nuclides that show up from 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

library are americium-241, thorium-234, and 

uranium-235. All the results were less than 

the MDA.

For the urine samples, the 

employee submitted urine bioassays from '84 

to '94, but there were no uranium bioassays. 

They were all for plutonium.

He was in many buildings all over 

the site, including some locations that had 

formerly processed thorium. Now that 

doesn't mean he was in a thorium area. That 

means he was listed at a building that had 

thorium in it at some point, according to 

the table that is in --

(Interruption on the phone.)

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Do 

continue, Doug.

MR. FARVER: Okay. Anyway, he 

worked at different places throughout the 

plant, but there is no indication that he 

worked or was monitored for uranium. It was 

just the indication in the chest counts 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

those nuclides showing up in the library.

So after looking at all this and 

reading the NIOSH response, I understand 

their response and I agree that the uranium 

potential is low, and they were correct in 

not assessing uranium.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And why was 

the uranium --

MR. FARVER: It was up on the 

whole-body count -- I would say "the 

results," but there's no results. It is 

just one of the nuclides in the library. In 

other words, it will look for americium-241 

--

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

Right. And U-235.

MR. FARVER: Yes, thorium-234 --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: -- and looking for 

the U-238 --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: -- and U-235.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

MR. FARVER: But there was no 

other indication that there were any uranium 

bioassays or any uranium area.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That I see. 

Okay. Good.

Comments, anybody?

(No response.)

No? Then, there is agreement and 

feeling that we should close it.

MR. FARVER: Okay. I will make 

the appropriate notation.

Okay. There is one observation. 

Did NIOSH not include any missed photon dose 

for the years 2000 through 2004? But there 

was dosimetry records. He received zero 

recorded dose.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Okay.

MR. FARVER: Let's see. Dosewise, it is really not going to make a 

difference.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: And even when I went 

back and looked at his job history for that 

time period, by that time he had progressed 

out of the technician level and he was into 

more management/upper management. So the 

potential was very low.

I do not remember the dosimetry 

results for 2000 through 2004.

MR. SIEBERT: Doug, Dave, this is 

Scott.

They were all zeroes.

MR. FARVER: Okay. But I would 

agree there would be no potential. And they 

did assess ambient instead of missed dose.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. FARVER: Trying to look at 

the big picture, I don't see there is any 

problem with that. That's probably why we 

wrote it up as an observation and not a 

finding.

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

Alright.

MR. FARVER: That's all for 

Hanford.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, good.

So, we still have -- what do we 

have left open for Hanford? Hanford, we 

still have 242.1.

MR. FARVER: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's it. 

Okay. Closed. One remains, 242.1. Good.

Now it is almost 10 minutes of 

1:00. Do we have any other cases that are 

ready to be reviewed?

MR. FARVER: Well, that's what I 

wanted to mention. I really haven't had a 

chance to get to the Oak Ridge ones.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. FARVER: They just came 

across yesterday.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: Don't we have 

Portsmouth-Paducah or 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We finished 

Paducah, if I'm not mistaken.

MR. FARVER: Paducah was finished 

last time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. FARVER: And Portsmouth we 

wrapped up today, I believe.

MEMBER MUNN: Oh, we did it 

first, yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

correct.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's what 

my notes indicate.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we started at 

the back and went forward.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So do we 

have anything else that we might review? I 

understand we didn't get to Oak Ridge. I 

saw the note.

So, okay, ORNL coming up next 

time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Anything else? Any other cases 

to review? Are there any other sites with 

one or two cases that were set for review 

that have been done? I think I know the 

answer.

MR. FARVER: I don't believe so.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

believe so, either.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

We should go ahead and select 

more to get done or have Grady or Beth tell 

us what more they can get to while SC&A will 

be looking at the ORNL ones, Oak Ridge.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: Before we move on 

to what is ahead of us, can we take just a 

moment to discuss what we have done, what's 

behind us, and the record on it?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: I don't know about 

other members of the Subcommittee, but I 

have multiple electronic files for each 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

our sets, and some of them make sense and 

some of them just simply don't because of 

the way we have had to address things as 

they come along.

Where do we have the master copy 

of our matrices, so that any of us can at 

anytime go to that particular matrix and 

review all of the things that we have done, 

run through it and see for ourselves, yes, 

this is closed, closed, closed, closed?

I had been fooling myself for a 

long time that we were keeping them in the 

ABRWH folder in our O: drive. But, of 

course, we don't have them there. What we 

have under the DR Subcommittee there is the 

specific folders that make up the matrix.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: We don't have the 

matrices themselves.

So, my bottom-line question is, 

where do we have the master list up-to-date 

with everything that we have said, "Oh, yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

we have to add that to the matrix," "Yes, 

that note needs to go in," "That note needs 

to go in." Where is the master that I can 

go to electronically and review?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good 

question.

MR. KATZ: Here's what I would 

suggest: I think SC&A is probably the 

keeper of most of that. But, if you recall, 

Mark Griffon was keeping the matrices for a 

long time on his own independently and, 

then, distributing them to everybody in 

advance of the meetings.

So I think we just need an 

effort, which will be helpful then for the 

whole process of what we are going to talk 

about later, for summarizing review results, 

too. I mean, if SC&A can just collect all 

the most recent versions, collect all that 

information, get with Mark for whatever it 

might be missing, if there are some gaps in 

what SC&A has, although SC&A should 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

everything from Mark because we have always 

distributed those before meeting.

MEMBER MUNN: That would be very 

helpful.

MR. KATZ: And then, we can put 

those on the O: drive, so that the whole 

Work Group has easy access to it and doesn't 

have to fight through their own files, each 

member, to figure it out.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

MR. KATZ: So, let's do that. 

Let's just plan on doing that. We will get 

it on the O: drive in its own folder, you 

know, from I guess 8 all the way through 13, 

get all those matrices in there, and that 

will be very helpful, I think.

MEMBER MUNN: That would be 

wonderful.

Also, if we could agree that in 

the future, the upcoming sets that we are 

going to be addressing, if we could maintain 

the updated version of that 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

whichever one it might happen to be, in that 

same file, it would be enormously helpful to 

me.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: I just have found 

it very confusing to have -- in recent 

meetings we have had updated versions of 

only what was supposed to be open.

MR. KATZ: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: But I have not had 

what has been closed before.

MR. KATZ: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

that is a very good suggestion. It would be 

my responsibility to update them and get 

them all on the O: drive, the 8 through 13. 

Then, I will take it on myself, as I should, 

to keep it updated.

MR. KATZ: No, Dave --

MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest, 

instead, David, that you verify that the 

updates have been properly --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

good. Yes. In fact, that's correct. That 

is the correct statement.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It can turn 

out to be a significant time constraint in 

dealing with these.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

also, SC&A is the one that, in fact, keeps 

the matrix and puts it on the O: drive, and 

then, I oversee it.

MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver.

If I could just jump in for a 

second?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. STIVER: I think what we have 

found is that, after Set 9, we went to this 

site-based review. And basically, what we 

are doing is putting the other matrices for 

the sets of sites that we are going to be 

looking at at the upcoming meetings. And 

so, there isn't really at this point one big 

matrix that has everything in it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Now what I kind of envision us 

doing would be to set up a folder on the O: 

drive where we just have them, you know, we 

have Set 8, we have Set 9, which were closed 

out the original way, which is just by 

groupings without regard to a site.

And then, we can just add each of 

the site-specific matrices, to where you 

have got a whole listing. There will be 8,

9, and then, 10 to 13 by the original 

Savannah River, Los Alamos, Rocky, and so 

forth.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. STIVER: We could do that or 

we could try to conglomerate them all 

together for Set 10 to 13, but I don't think 

that would really help us much to do it that 

way.

MR. KATZ: Yes, this is Ted.

MR. STIVER: If you have them in 

one location where they are all up-to-date 

and available, it would be certainly 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

beneficial.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted. 

MEMBER MUNN: I would even 

suggest that -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MR. KATZ: I was just going to 

say we can do most of this offline. We 

don't really need to use a Work Group 

meeting to do it.

But we don't need to agglomerate 

anything really. I mean, we can put them on 

as they are.

I think the main important thing 

is, going forward, why don't we just 

establish a practice of: when Doug, for 

example, sends out an updated matrix to 

everybody, also post it on the O: drive. 

And similarly, when Grady or Beth respond 

with NIOSH's responses, updating the matrix, 

again, just put that on the O: drive, too. 

And then, always the O: drive will have the 

most recent. And I think SC&A could just 

worry about deleting old versions, so 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

don't have duplicate versions. But that 

will take care of it all.

MR. STIVER: Yes, yes, I agree. 

I think one of the problems, you know, a lot 

of this was happening in the last few days 

before the meeting. And so there are 

different versions going back and forth.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, 

Doug, but I think you are submitting the 

final version, in hopes of preventing that 

kind of confusion, but maybe it didn't work.

MR. KATZ: I mean, the other 

thing that would be beautiful would be to 

actually not be trading versions the day 

before, but getting these done far enough, 

you know, at least a week in advance. So, 

there is just the final version for 

discussion up there.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Agree.

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

I would say one more 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

especially when we update the matrix. If 

NIOSH, like what we have requested, maybe a 

short, little paper explaining, that we have 

some way to be able to tie to that, you 

know, a number or whatever. So, we can 

understand a little bit more fully.

Ninety percent of the time we 

don't have any papers associated with this. 

But, when we do, if there is some way that 

we could go review that, either an ID number 

or in another folder or something, I would 

just suggest that we be able have a multiple 

path.

MR. KATZ: Yes. So, I think, 

Brad, that is a good idea. And I think what 

we could just do is White Papers can be 

filed in the same folder as the matrix set 

that they address.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum, uhhum.

MR. KATZ: And then, it will all 

be easy to find.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can we just 

have subfolders by any particular site and 

the associated papers that go in it?

MR. KATZ: Yes, whatever it is, 

whether it happens to be a whole set or just 

the site-specific of a set, either way. It 

doesn't matter.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Can 

we come back to what we need to complete 

yet, beside ORNL’s? There are two or three 

different sites with only one or two cases, 

maybe not two or three. There are several 

sites.

MR. STIVER: Can everybody see 

the table that is up there right now? This 

is that Table 2 that we saw last time.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. STIVER: In the yellow 

highlight are the ones that we have already 

completed.

Let me just close out this. I am 

trying to get this to respond, and it 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

kind of slow here. Let me move that up a 

bit.

So, on Table 2, all the yellow 

highlights are the sites that we have 

completed.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. STIVER: The green is what we 

were planning to complete today, which would 

have been the Oak Ridge, and there are cases 

at multiple sites, but a lot of those, as 

you can see, are related to X-10, K-25, and 

the gaseous diffusion plants. So, I think 

the idea was to try to get as many of those 

wrapped into the Oak Ridge matrix as 

possible.

So, what you are seeing, if we 

would consider all the multiple sites, is 

31. And then, we still have General Steel 

and Nevada Test Site. So it would be 

another 18 to close out the Table 2.

Now, before we break out the 

champagne, we will need to go down to Table 
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 here. And these are all the sites that 

just had one or two cases per site. So, 

this really didn't fall into that -- it 

really didn't make a lot of sense to try to 

bin these by site. So the thinking was that 

we would come back to these after we have 

finished the Table 2 findings.

And you can see in Table 3 there 

are 104 findings all told here. So, there's 

still quite a few to go.

That said, you know, we can 

probably -- we seem to be able to knock down 

about 30 of these per meeting. So, we may 

be looking at several more meetings yet 

before we can get these things all 

completely closed out.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, let's 

just ask -- I mean, this is really a 

question because these are ones where we 

need the NIOSH response. So, let's just ask 

Grady what sort of chunk can be broken out 

for the next meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Well, what I 

have got here is, I guess, on the 10-to-13 

Set, it is not much, but it is the onesiestwosies.

And we have looked at -- I'm 

trying to see -- a couple of General Steel, 

looks like three General Steels, a Hooker 

Electrical, Bethlehem Steel, DuPont 

Deepwater, International Minerals Corp, 

Koppers, and Bridgeport Brass, and then, 

Uranium Mill and Monticello. Those were in, 

I think, the 10th to 13th Set. So, we have 

actually started responding to those 

already.

And obviously, we have got the 

Oak Ridge set.

MR. SIEBERT: And, Grady, let me 

help you out a little bit. This is Scott.

The reason Grady mentioned those 

specific sites is those are the ones that 

are handled by DCAS, not by ORAU. Since 

they do the calculations for those 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

themselves, we broke those into kind of a 

separate grouping because it was easier for 

Grady and I to keep those separate, since 

he's handling those and I'm handling the 

other ones. That's why that became -- it is 

becoming kind of an extra, a separate DCAS 

site grouping for us.

What that gives, it is 13, 11 --

there's 11 claims and 29 findings. When I 

looked at the rest of them beyond that, it 

would be everything that is left, the 

remaining sites. There are 25 additional 

cases and 70 findings that go with those as 

well.

So my suggestion would be to just 

break those into the two groupings, the DCAS 

sites grouping and, then, the remaining 

sites grouping, which, then, would include 

NTS, Allied Chem, Ames, INEL, Lawrence 

Berkeley, Mound, Pinellas. All of those 

have either three or two claims in them. 

And then, the rest of them are single 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

from single sites.

MR. KATZ: So given the 

complexity of this, I think all we really 

need to do is, between ORAU and DCAS, you 

guys sort out what sites you will have cases 

done for the next meeting. I mean, keep in 

mind we are trying to do these meetings 

about six to seven weeks apart. So what 

cases you will have done enough in advance 

that they can get also to SC&A to have a 

look at.

And then, just send that to the 

Work Group and me, the listing of the sites 

that we will be covering. That can take 

care of the agenda, then, too. And then, 

SC&A will know what will be coming during 

that six-week period for them to add to what 

they already have with the ORNL and the Oak 

Ridge site that they have already in their 

hands to look at.

Does that make sense?

MR. STIVER: Okay. So 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

guys could kind of provide us a list of 

those sites and cases that you are working 

on now, then we can come prepared for it and 

be ready to move forward for the next 

meeting.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I find 

the discussion of the different tables a 

little confusing. The Table 1 was what I 

was looking at all along, and that's fine. 

Table 3 -- that's Table 2 -- Table 3 is, 

which one is DCAS-only?

MR. STIVER: This is a little 

different, Dave.

This is Stiver again.

What they are doing is a little 

bit different than what I thought we had 

agreed to last time, but I can kind of 

understand why they are doing it that way.

At the last meeting, what we had 

agreed to do was to do the Oak Ridge cases -

-

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

MR. STIVER: -- in green here. 

And then, this last line in Table 2 is cases 

with multiple sites. And because a lot of 

those kind of had some elements of, had an 

Oak Ridge component with them, I believe 

they were going to go ahead and try to lump 

those together into one grouping.

But what I am hearing is that --

and then, Table 3, of course, would be kind 

of the next step. Go back. These are just 

ones and twos.

And it looks like what they did 

is they decided, you know, to expedite 

things, that DCAS could go look at the cases 

that they were doing separate from ORAU's. 

It would be like two different groupings.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. STIVER: But, at this point, 

we are going to have Oak Ridge and, then, 

kind of a mixture of the ones and twos as 

they come along. From what Grady said, 

there are about 11 different sites 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. STIVER: -- 29 findings, 11 

cases.

And so, I'm okay with that as 

long as we just know in advance what they 

are going to be providing. And then, we can 

respond in time.

So, I think at this point we are 

kind of diverging from the Table 2/Table 3 

strategy.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

That's helpful. Thank you.

MR. KATZ: Okay. So, then, we 

have a plan. Okay. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And you 

folks will communicate to Ted and to me, 

particularly Ted.

MR. KATZ: Yes, I mean, to the 

whole Work Group. Just copy the whole Work 

Group when you figure this out, which sites 

we are going to be covering. And then, if 

SC&A doesn't get it, I will make sure 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

gets to SC&A, so they can start preparing on 

those cases.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, then, 

what we have left for the day -- it is 

almost 10 minutes after 1:00 -- was plans 

for completing review, which we are just 

discussing, but summarizing review results 

for a Board report, which I suspect is my 

responsibility.

Certainly, what we talked about, 

putting things together, everything on the 

O: drive, will be helpful.

Ted, what are my responsibilities 

for the Board report? We are not talking 

about the Board report at Kansas City, 

right? We are talking about some sort of --

MR. KATZ: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- multiyear review, right?

MR. KATZ: Right. Right, we are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

not talking about the Board report for 

Kansas City. We won't be ready at Kansas 

City, I don't think.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Correct. That's right.

MR. KATZ: But this is right; 

this is the drafting that you will do for 

the Board to consider. And then, 

ultimately, it will be a whole Board report 

to the Secretary. So that is what we are 

talking about here.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MR. KATZ: And it is not your 

responsibility; it is the whole Work Group 

does this together with SC&A's help and with 

input from DCAS as well and ORAU. So it is 

not laid on the Chairman's shoulders.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

Well, that's fine.

MR. KATZ: That would be 

terrible.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Glad 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

hear that.

MR. KATZ: But what I wanted to 

just raise for this, I think one thing, 

which I mentioned last time, is I think it 

would be helpful for everyone to review the 

last report that the Board gave, which was a 

long time ago, but just to remind, so that 

everybody can remind themselves of what was 

covered and how it was covered the last 

time, what elements. That would be helpful.

But one thing I just wanted to 

raise for your all's consideration in 

preparing for this is remembering the 

discussions we have had when Jim Melius 

joins us, and so on, about just concerns 

about the integration, because a lot of 

things are left out because they are sent 

off for TBD considerations to a Work Group 

or to Procedures Subcommittee because it is 

a general issue.

I think what we want to do this 

time, which will be different from what 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

have done in the last report, is try to 

integrate it a little bit more to cover not 

only the case review per se itself, but --

because you are looking at quality. The 

quality of the science is basically what you 

are supposed to be reviewing for the 

Secretary, validity and quality.

But, also, integrating, then, 

some elements of how things were addressed 

that were sort of generic issues, either by 

NIOSH independently, because they made 

improvements on their own, or in interaction 

with the Board through those Work Groups and 

Subcommittees. But, anyway, those 

improvements to the procedures themselves, 

whether it is Site Profiles or generic 

procedures, that relate to the set of cases 

that were reviewed. So that, in other 

words, you have given a complete picture of 

here's what has happened over this period 

with our review of the quality of dose 

reconstructions coming out of 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. KATZ: That is my suggestion, 

anyway.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, I 

mean, since I was not part of this before, 

how do we collectively work on that report? 

Do people get assigned sections or is this 

premature? Maybe we should just talk about 

reading the last report?

MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, I think 

it will be helpful to start with reading the 

last report.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. KATZ: The process, 

generally, with the last report, though, was 

that SC&A was tasked with pulling together 

generic information, and they pulled 

together a bunch of tables, and so on, that 

summarized findings and in their different 

categories, and so on. So you had a lot of 

sort of generic -- not generic -- organized, 

summarized data on the reviews that had been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

done over the period.

That is what came to the 

Subcommittee, and the Subcommittee, then, 

organized the whole report around that and 

used SC&A to help with the drafting of 

material. And then, the Subcommittee 

improved the reporting itself that went with 

the data.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Do 

we have an external timeline on that or 

external date that we must complete it by?

MR. KATZ: No, no, no.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or do you 

have in your mind a timetable, a sense of 

it?

MR. KATZ: No. I mean, it is 

really driven by -- I think, as we complete 

these sets, 10 through 13, it has been a 

wish of the Board to get this next report 

done and out to the Secretary. So, I mean, 

I think really it is just as soon as we can 

get it done, but the sooner, the better.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. STIVER: Okay. Ted, this is 

John. If I could jump in for a second?

MR. KATZ: Yes.

MR. STIVER: I was trying to find 

the last letter that Dr. Ziemer drafted up. 

I think it was in July of 2009. And that 

was regarding the first five sets, I think 

the first 100 cases.

MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes.

MR. STIVER: As far as I know, 

that is the last time one of these letters 

went out.

MR. KATZ: That's right.

MR. STIVER: And so, I couldn't 

find a copy of that. I have seen references 

to it in the 10-year report, but I didn't 

actually have a copy to look at. And it 

predates my involvement. So if we could at 

least some of that background information? 

I think Kathy may have been involved, too, 

in developing that. So we can kind of put
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

our heads together. But if I could get a 

copy of that report, that would be great.

MR. KATZ: Yes. SC&A has it, 

because it had a big role in drafting the 

material. But, anyway, it also is on the 

NIOSH --

MR. STIVER: I just haven't found 

it yet, but I will see what I can do, if I 

can locate it.

MR. KATZ: It is on the NIOSH 

website, too, I believe, or it used to be. 

I don't know. I haven't looked for it 

recently.

MR. STIVER: Okay. So that may 

reflect my searching abilities and 

everything else.

MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, we will 

make certain -- you know, I will consult. 

If I can't find it myself, I will consult 

and we will track it down, where that report 

is, in its full glory.

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

Mark, you sent me some materials, and I may 

have that, also.

MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I have 

various versions of that, Dave.

And I was going to say, as we 

assemble the matrices, that is probably a 

good point to kind of organize this stuff 

because, when we put the first one together, 

we also classified the findings. So they 

were DR-specific or site-wide. We sort of 

classified them.

And we should at least consider -

- I'm not saying we have to do that -- but 

for comparison of the original set, it might 

be worthwhile.

And then, I agree with what Ted 

said, too, to integrate some of the other 

stuff into this report would be good.

I am sure I have the originals 

that we sent out, and I worked quite closely 

with Kathy to sort of come up with a first 

draft to bring to 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

That sounds good.

MEMBER GRIFFON: And Ted's right, 

SC&A put together some of the tables that 

we, then, included in the final letter.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MEMBER MUNN: And as a 

Subcommittee, we worked on the report for 

several months.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that's 

helpful.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And one of 

the things that was important to me -- I 

know I'm back on the same horse when I say 

this -- but it was very important from my 

perspective for us to all be in the same 

place at the time we were working on it 

because it was, after the first draft or two 

and some conversations about it, it gets to 

be pretty specific about how to present the 

information that you have and what flavor to 

give 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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

Right. And I can understand that 

sensitivity already.

Well, very good.

Ted, when you get things, you 

will send them out, both the agenda and the 

reports that --

MR. KATZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- you are 

able to come up with?

It is now 1:15. I think all what 

we have left is to set a date for the next 

meeting since we have no more cases to 

review.

MR. KATZ: Yes, that's right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And since 

this is mid-November, it seems to me sixseven weeks puts us into early January. 

And, I don't know, that may impact, also, on 

what SC&A and NIOSH are able to complete 

because there are vacations in that period.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there are 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

lot. Yes, and remember that we have --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I'm not 

even counting parties, just vacations.

MEMBER MUNN: Remember, we have 

the Kansas City meeting at the end of that 

month, also.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

right.

MEMBER MUNN: Which is going to 

take people off the board for a while.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

I just know how life is in the 

federal world, because a lot of people in 

December, in particular, have a lot of useor-lose and end up taking quite a bit in 

December.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-hum.

MR. KATZ: So, yes, six weeks is 

really --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Short.

MR. KATZ: It is really pretty 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

short in this case. So, I was just going to

suggest we look at closely following the 

Board meeting, rather than before it, to 

allow for it.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

MR. KATZ: Because, then, many 

people will be engaged in preparing for the 

Board meeting stuff, and so on.

I mean, I think it would be okay 

-- and folks from ORAU and DCAS or SC&A 

speak up if it is a problem -- but even 

looking beginning the first full week of --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: February.

MR. KATZ: -- February, which is 

the week after the Board meeting.

MEMBER GRIFFON: What are the 

dates of the Board meeting, Ted?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 28th.

MR. KATZ: The Board meeting is 

going to be the 28th. And I haven't sent 

out a notice yet, but it is only going to be 

the day of the 28th.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER GRIFFON: Thank you.

MR. KATZ: It is not going to be 

the 28th and 29th. So that's January 28th.

And what I am suggesting is, you 

know, maybe looking at the 4th or 5th or 

6th, if that is not too soon. And I would 

want to hear from Grady --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

MR. KATZ: -- or Scott about 

that.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or the 6th 

or 7th, Thursday or Friday of the following 

week, to give people time to recover.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And just one 

other piece of information that may or may 

not influence your decision one way or 

another. We tentatively have Procedures 

Subcommittee scheduled for the 13th.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. That 

is helpful.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 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

me, we would look to, again, Thursday, the 

6th, or Friday, the 7th. Or perhaps Monday, 

the 10th.

Oh, you have yours on the 13th?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is a 

little close.

MEMBER MUNN: Uh-hum.

MR. KATZ: Well, they are not 

interfering with each other.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

MR. KATZ: That's not a problem. 

The 10th is fine.

But let's hear from Grady and 

Scott about when they could be ready.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

MR. CALHOUN: So, it sounds like 

you guys are -- you're talking February?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: February.

MR. CALHOUN: Well, I don't ever 

think that far ahead, but I don't 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

anything on my schedule the 6th, 7th, or 

10th.

MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's go 

back to the 6th then.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How about 

the 6th, Thursday, the 6th?

MEMBER MUNN: That's good for me.

MEMBER GRIFFON: That sounds 

good.

MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

Yes, that's good for me.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

MR. KATZ: John Poston, how about 

you?

MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

It sounds good for me at this 

time. I am a lot like Brady; I haven't 

thought that far ahead.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

sounds good.

MR. STIVER: From SC&A's 

standpoint, we're okay with that, too.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

think we have a date.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, my concern is 

always for staff and for SC&A --

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MEMBER MUNN: -- because we get 

overlapping people pretty heavily.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

Right.

How does that sound?

MR. KATZ: Yes, that sounds fine.

John Poston, are you on the line?

(No response.)

Apparently not.

MEMBER MUNN: Can we say 10:00 

a.m. again?

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

MR. KATZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

good. Okay. Thursday, February 6th, 10:00 

to 5:00. And hopefully, we will have plenty 

of cases to review, because this is 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

slightly foreshortened meeting because we 

don't have further review cases ready.

MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady.

Did we ever get the 16th set or 

anything from you guys?

MEMBER MUNN: We have data for 

the 16th set on the O: drive. We don't have 

a matrix, of course, but we have the cases.

MR. FARVER: This is Doug.

I didn't put together the matrix 

for the 16th set. I do have it for the 15th 

set. And I am kind of waiting to see where 

we want to go with our 14th through 18th set 

findings.

MR. CALHOUN: Okay. It is just a 

question.

MR. FARVER: Okay. The 16th set 

probably isn't out there because we haven't 

finalized it.

MR. CALHOUN: Alright.

MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest, as 

we begin to put the matrices on the O: 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

drive, that we have an entirely new folder 

for it, rather than putting it in the DR 

Subcommittee folder. If we had a folder 

that was DR Subcommittee matrices, it would 

be helpful and easier to get to directly, I 

think.

MR. KATZ: Well, it could be a 

subfolder. I think it is easier to be 

hierarchical than to have a bunch of them 

spread out everywhere.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, let's 

put it in a subfolder.

MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

folks, I think we have completed the work 

that we can complete today. And we will 

meet again in early February, and we may try 

to compress our times after that because we 

have got a lot of work to do.

MR. KATZ: Right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

Well, thank you all.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And John probably has left for 

class. So, Ted, could you just email him 

that we finished for the day, so he doesn't 

run back at 3:00?

MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, I will 

email him, and I will also let them all know 

the next date, right.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

good.

Thank you all.

MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

MR. KATZ: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.

(Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the 

meeting was adjourned.)