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 REVIEW

+ + + + +

Wednesday

JUNE 24, 2015

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m., David Kotelchuck, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member
 

2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSANNA GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

ED MAHER, ORAU Team

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

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

CONTENTS

Welcome 4

Roll-Call 6

DISCUSSION

Report on Dose Reconstruction Review Methods 

Work Group 6/22 Meeting 6

SC&A Blind Review – First Case (Set 17) 36

SC&A Blind Review – Second Case (Set 17) 73

Blind Review – First Case(Set 17) Resolution 101

Further SC&A Blind Reviews (Set 17) 112

Blinds from Sets 1-5 129

SC&A Blind Reviews – Cases 3-6 (Set 17) 134

Begin Blind Reviews for Set 20 165

Summarizing Review Results for Report

to the HHS Secretary 189

Develop Report Drafting Plan 195

Adjourn 208
 

4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everybody. This 

4 is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

5 Health, the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

6 Review. 

7 And a few notes on the front end: the 

8 agenda for this meeting is posted on the NIOSH 

9 website under the Board section for meetings for 

10 today's date so you can follow along. There's a 

11 sample agenda there. There's also some documents 

12 that can be PA-cleared posted there for people to 

13 follow along.

14 And then Board Members should have the 

15 non-PA-cleared documents, the full complement of 

16 those, by hook or crook. Some people should have 

17 had them FedEx’ed to them and others have them 

18 available electronically.

19 So, let's -- we're going to do roll 

20 call. I'm going to sort of address, to make things 

21 simpler with roll call for Board Members, where we 

22 have conflict matters, just by covering their 

23 conflicts up-front. And then we'll do roll call 
 

5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 per se for the Board Members. 

2 I wasn't on the line for long, so I'm 

3 not sure exactly who -- I know we have a quorum 

4 already, but we'll go through that in a second. So 

5 let me just -- for conflicts for Board Members who 

6 are potentially present today, I think they'll all 

7 be present, Ms. Beach has conflicts at Hanford 

8 relevant to this. And Mr. Clawson for INL, Idaho 

9 National Laboratory. Wanda, Ms. Munn, for Hanford 

10 as well. And Dr. Poston for a variety of sites, 

11 but those are possibly to be discussed today, I 

12 think, [they] would be -- I'm not even sure that 

13 any of these are -- but X-10, Los Alamos, Y-12, and 

14 Lawrence Livermore National Labs. And I'm almost 

15 certain none of the others are going to be addressed 

16 today. And we do not expect Dr. Richardson on the 

17 call today; he's overseas.

18 Okay. So, let's begin with roll call 

19 with Board Members beginning with -- well, we've 

20 heard Dr. Kotelchuck.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: And we'll go from there.

23 (Roll call.)
 

6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. So, for 

2 everyone, for audio quality, there are already some 

3 issues. Please, when you're not speaking, just go 

4 ahead and mute your phone: *6 if you don't have a 

5 mute button, and then *6 to take yourself off of 

6 mute.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ted, I've 

8 occasionally had trouble later in the day with my 

9 cordless. So if I start to break up, please tell 

10 me, you or anybody else, and I can replenish it and 

11 get back online, okay?

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. We'll do that. And 

13 David, it's your meeting.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Folks, 

15 you all have the agenda. In fact, it is in front 

16 of you. And let's -- we had a meeting of the Dose 

17 Reconstruction Review Methods Work Group on 

18 Monday. I'll talk a little bit about it. Josie 

19 is also a Member of the Methods Work Group, and Ted 

20 was there. And I will ask for help and supplements

21 from others.

22 The first, in terms of the findings, we 

23 received Excel files on all of the 500 cases that 
 

7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have been reviewed, not all of which have come 

2 before the Subcommittee. And Josie, since you're 

3 new, the DR Subcommittee not long ago completed 

4 sets 10 through 13, which had 116 cases. And we 

5 just started 14 through 21.

6 Now we also received an Excel file of 

7 sets 14 through 21 and associated analyses, one of 

8 which I wanted to point out that I think maybe 

9 useful to help start on. There are 166 cases for 

10 review under sets 14 through 21, the upcoming sets. 

11 In fact, SC&A found only 29 findings among these 

12 166 cases. This is a quite dramatic shift from 

13 what we had previously. In earlier cases --

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, I think you might 

15 be misinterpreting this. We do have a lot more 

16 than that in findings for these.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon, could 

18 you speak just a little louder?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think you're 

20 misinterpreting this. We do have more than 29 

21 findings for this subset of cases.

22 MEMBER MUNN: How many do we have, 

23 Beth?
 

8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, how many? 

2 Because we talked about that the other day, but you 

3 were not there. But anyway, do tell us and tell 

4 me what's wrong with that, because that, to me, was 

5 my reading of 14 through 21.

6 MR. KATZ: That's Rose, by the way, 

7 Rose Gogliotti.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rose, thank you. 

9 Sorry.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It looks like we have 

11 58 -- hold on one second. We have 307 findings.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Three hundred and 

14 seven findings.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Three hundred 

16 and seven findings. We're distinguishing 

17 findings and observations. Do we have 14 through 

18 21 up in front of us?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I do not 

21 -- okay. I'm having -- oh, okay, fine. Can we 

22 scroll up to 14 for a moment? Okay, getting to the 

23 top of the screen, I just counted total findings 
 

9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in that column "K." I just went down that. And 

2 I don't understand --

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's possible you were 

4 only looking at the 21st set.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that 

6 possible, for goodness sake, that I was not reading 

7 -- because that did inform a significant part of 

8 the discussion, that this seemed to be quite 

9 different than the past.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Do we have a total in that 

11 column?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, 307 it 

13 says, findings for 166 cases, which is in the 

14 ballpark of what we had previously in earlier sets.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You know, there is a 

16 trend of less findings.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon me?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is a trend that 

19 we've seen of less findings per case.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. We did not 

21 have in that discussion details about 10 through 

22 13 and the number of findings in that. Do you 

23 happen to have that? Or it may be that you weren't 
 

10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 tasked for that yet. But I thought you may just 

2 happen to have it.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I do not have trending 

4 on the 10 through 13.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So there are 307 

6 findings for -- my goodness. And I --

7 MEMBER MUNN: I'm trying to look at the 

8 numbers quickly as they were scrolled down there. 

9 I did not see any large number of significant 

10 findings on any single --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

12 the largest so far have been six. There's one 13. 

13 One of them is 13. And I wonder if I -- let us go 

14 down -- that's great. The number of 2-A findings, 

15 is it possible I looked down a wrong column? No.

16 Well, I'm -- if you will, I'm bothered, 

17 not just simply because I may have made a mistake 

18 -- I did, obviously -- but it did inform some of 

19 the discussion that we had that things were looking 

20 quite good. But there were and there still are 

21 many cases in which there are no findings. 

22 And let's go on to that and just -- we 

23 may, as the Methods Work Group, reconsider some of 
 

11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the discussion that we had. Nevertheless, in the 

2 findings, there are quite a few cases that had zero 

3 findings. And the question is, could we in some 

4 way identify a priori, or with initial observation, 

5 that there was some pattern to which ones are zero 

6 and that they maybe would not have to be gone over 

7 by the Subcommittee, or maybe would not have to be 

8 gone over by the Subcommittee in any detail, in 

9 other words. And there was a pretty lengthy 

10 discussion about how different things that might 

11 help us identify where the zeros are.

12 Ted, I believe SC&A was tasked, and if 

13 you have notes on that, for one or two reviews of 

14 14 through 21?

15 MR. KATZ: Sure. SC&A was tasked. 

16 And we actually just went over this, Rose and I, 

17 this morning by email. But, two things: One, to 

18 have a look at sort of breaking out the cases for 

19 which there were no findings, what distinguishes 

20 them from cases with findings? But also sort of 

21 a little bit more text here to just look at where 

22 findings are concentrating by facility. And we 

23 had hoped also to maybe do it by procedure, where 
 

12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings may be concentrating by particular 

2 procedures, but as Rose noted today with me, we 

3 don't have these spreadsheets sorted that way. 

4 That's not a category. So cases haven't been 

5 classified that way, so we can't really do that 

6 easily. It could be done, but it would be 

7 laborious and we don't want to do that.

8 But down the road we talked about adding 

9 that, so that down the road we just track that by 

10 procedure as well. And that way we could look at 

11 any kind of trends or concentrations of findings 

12 in terms of particular procedures.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

14 that's something for us in the Subcommittee to keep 

15 our eye on now.

16 MR. KATZ: For the future. So, that 

17 will not be in a report from SC&A, which I think 

18 she expects. O

19 therwise the reporting that was 

20 requested could be done in about a week or so.

21 And related to that, I think Dr. Melius

22 was indicating he'd like to reconvene the Work 

23 Group once we have that information prior to the 
 

13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 July Board meeting to prepare for the July Board 

2 meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Josie?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Dave?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Sorry about that. Do 

7 we have the specific spreadsheet that we're looking 

8 at on the screen in our document review file? 

9 What's the title of it, if we have it?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is 14 through 

11 -- Additional Detail, Sets 14 through 21, in an 

12 Excel file.

13 MR. KATZ: And Wanda, you received it 

14 multiple ways. You received it, I think, in 

15 association with this meeting, but also previously 

16 in advance of the last full Board meeting I sent 

17 that material out that SC&A supplied.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: So you should be able to find 

20 it in two places.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I was just looking at the 

22 document review file.

23 MR. KATZ: Yeah.
 

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

2 there were other -- I mean, other issues and 

3 concerns came up. I raised issues about was there 

4 any correlation with -- or was there any 

5 association of those zeroes with -- or association 

6 with findings from situations where the claimant 

7 was deceased, as opposed to being able to give us 

8 a CATI, whether the CATI was really from the 

9 claimant or whether it's from the claimant's 

10 survivors.

11 We were reassured by Grady, at that 

12 point, that a lot of care is taken to make sure that 

13 if the case looks as if it will be terminal within 

14 a short period of time, there is a major effort made 

15 to speak to the claimant while he or she is still 

16 able to speak to us. Although that was raised, I 

17 don't think there was really any follow-up needed. 

18 We get all the CATIs we can from those who are alive. 

19 And also we get a second CATI, if the person passes, 

20 we get a second CATI from the family. So I doubt 

21 that that's going to be a source of findings in 

22 terms of that that will characterize where we have 

23 more findings as opposed to less.
 

15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Are there other -- I mean, this is not, 

2 if you will, a complete report. And there were 

3 some discussions that we have [had] and decided 

4 that it didn't appear that there were things that 

5 we should be doing that we're not doing now. It 

6 ended with Dr. Melius, as you heard, saying that 

7 he will do an early draft of the recommendations 

8 for the July Board meeting.

9 Josie, is there anything -- or Ted, are 

10 there things that you might want to add?

11 MR. KATZ: Sure. I can add some, and 

12 then Josie can follow me if I leave anything out.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

14 MR. KATZ: But several other things. 

15 One, I think DCAS is going to supply the Work Group 

16 with a list of the sites that lack TBDs, because 

17 there was some discussion about whether there's a 

18 correlation or an issue with sites that don't have 

19 any standing TBD but are done to other kinds of 

20 procedures, basically, for very small sites. But 

21 that's one deliverable that will be coming from 

22 Grady.

23 Another point of discussion, I think, 
 

16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which was kind of important to the Subcommittee, 

2 which you raised, Dave, was the question of whether 

3 we couldn't forego or abbreviate the discussion of 

4 observations versus findings.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Because, as you noted, we 

7 can spend quite a bit of time on observations even 

8 when we're trying to move through them quickly, and 

9 the question is whether that's really worth the 

10 time that's spent on that.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And as I 

12 recall, we were told that there were, in sets 10 

13 through 13, either Rose or Kathy reported that 

14 there were five observations that after discussion 

15 were turned into findings. And if we were not to 

16 discuss the observations and just have them 

17 internally discussed between SC&A and NIOSH or 

18 ORAU, that we would miss those. And that's a 

19 concern. And I'm not putting words in your mouth; 

20 I'm remembering, Josie, what you said, and I think 

21 that's an important point.

22 So dropping observations, we would miss 

23 perhaps -- well, I don't know what percent, but a 
 

17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 small percentage of the observations that turned 

2 into findings.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. And perhaps we can 

4 just get from SC&A exactly what that percentage is, 

5 because your question was, well, it may be a small 

6 percentage and is it worth it still just the same?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. KATZ: I think that's a valid 

9 question. The other thing I just left out that 

10 SC&A was planning to provide was they had done, and 

11 mentioned that they had previously done, an 

12 analysis of findings for four sites that SC&A 

13 thought might be sort of more efficiently closed, 

14 and they were going to share that with the Work 

15 Group. This is an analysis, I think, that they 

16 perhaps had already provided to the Subcommittee 

17 in the past. But in any event, Dr. Melius had asked 

18 to look at that analysis, too.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

20 Josie?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah -- no, I'm here. I 

22 think you guys have covered everything. I can't 

23 think of anything that anybody missed.
 

18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. MAURO: David, this is John Mauro.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. MAURO: May I speak for a moment on 

5 something? I listened in to the conversation on 

6 Monday carefully, and in respect for the meeting, 

7 of course, I just listened.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: But there was a subject 

10 that did not come up, and I think this might be a 

11 good opportunity for me to raise it, because it has 

12 been on my mind and you folks may want to consider 

13 it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 DR. MAURO: When we do our dose 

16 reconstruction reviews, one of the subjects in our 

17 scorecard, we call it table 2, is "to be 

18 determined." What that means is that there's an 

19 issue before us on this particular case that we 

20 really cannot make a statement regarding whether 

21 or not there's a problem or not because it is 

22 currently being discussed by a Site Profile work 

23 group.
 

19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A great example, I think, that 

2 everyone's familiar with are things like 

3 neutron-to-photon ratios at Hanford, would be a 

4 very nice example. And because of that, we leave 

5 that as something to be discussed. And this is has 

6 always troubled me. What this means is that, I 

7 haven't done the count, but if we were to go over 

8 the 400 or so cases that we reviewed, I would not 

9 be surprised if there's a very significant fraction 

10 of those reviews that contain with them an item that 

11 says, "to be determined." Which means, in a way, 

12 it puts the Board in a difficult position because 

13 you're really not yet in a position to say that 

14 we've completed our review of that case because 

15 there are still certain unresolved issues related 

16 to the Site Profile.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're 

18 absolutely right.

19 DR. MAURO: Now, I have a suggestion, 

20 with all due respect. I think that we have the tail 

21 wagging the dog. Let me explain what I mean. I 

22 believe that, besides the SECs, the single most 

23 important mission of the Board is to evaluate the 
 

20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 quality of the dose reconstructions. 

2 Now, the whole idea of the Procedures, 

3 under Wanda, and the Work Groups, the Site Profile 

4 Work Groups, under a variety of Work Groups, 

5 they're there and they exist because they are a 

6 construct that is not required by the statute or 

7 by regulation, but they were created by NIOSH with 

8 very good intentions to develop the best science, 

9 to streamline and make consistent the process.

10 Now let me say where I'm going with 

11 this. But I do not think the fact that these issues 

12 which are being addressed under separate venues 

13 from the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee should 

14 in fact prevent the Dose Reconstruction 

15 Subcommittee from completing their reviews. 

16 Now where does that leave us? It 

17 leaves us in a position where it almost makes it 

18 impossible to report back to the Secretary 

19 regarding the status of the dose reconstruction 

20 reviews because so many of them are, what I would 

21 call, in a state of limbo.

22 Now that being the case -- get ready for 

23 this -- and this I'll often do this sort of throw 
 

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something on the table that could be quite 

2 controversial. I believe that the Procedures 

3 Subcommittee and all the Site Profile Work Groups, 

4 for all intents and purposes, are there for two 

5 reasons: to either support SEC decision-making or 

6 support the review of dose reconstructions. 

7 I believe that, as we move through the 

8 process of issues resolution on a particular case, 

9 as we will be doing today, if there is an item, let's 

10 say it has to do with Hanford and it has to do with 

11 some issue that's undergoing debate as a Site 

12 Profile issue at Hanford. I believe that the Dose 

13 Reconstruction Subcommittee should give direction 

14 to the Site Profile [group] to resolve that issue 

15 immediately. And if it cannot be resolved 

16 immediately -- and this is where it may get a little 

17 controversial -- and where an answer cannot be 

18 provided such that you could close the issue out, 

19 it has to be determined that there is a failing 

20 here. That is, we have a subject that we are 

21 incapable of addressing without a great deal of 

22 research and resources and time to the extent that 

23 it's impeding the ability of the Board to fulfill 
 

22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 its mission. 

2 I realize I just made a very 

3 controversial statement, but I feel it's essential 

4 that it be put on the table for discussion by this 

5 Subcommittee.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

7 question is whether that's more appropriate to be 

8 raised before the Methods Work Group. We will try 

9 to have a meeting before the July meeting in Idaho. 

10 But I don't think it's appropriate for our 

11 Subcommittee to discuss that now. That's my first 

12 thought.

13 DR. MAURO: I agree completely. I 

14 only bring it up now because I was sort of in a 

15 position where it really was not appropriate at 

16 that time, Monday's meeting, for me or anyone from 

17 SC&A to bring this issue up. We realized it was 

18 not our meeting.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, that's 

20 right.

21 DR. MAURO: But I see this as an 

22 opportunity, as an opening, quite frankly, for me 

23 to sort of voice my thoughts on these matters, and 
 

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 certainly for it to be brought now, to hand it off 

2 to you folks to deal with it as you see fit.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

4 Procedurally, I'm not sure how -- I understand, at 

5 the beginning of the Methods Work Group, it was said 

6 that this is a Board activity and that the other 

7 groups were there to answer questions, that is, 

8 ORAU and SC&A, so that you would feel hesitant to 

9 raise it. This is an issue that is important. I'm 

10 not sure procedurally how to move ahead. And, Ted, 

11 you may be able to help us.

12 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I'm glad to. Let me 

13 just raise this with Dr. Melius. I mean, first of 

14 all, I mean, I just have to say on the record, John 

15 Mauro, John, your interpretation of the statute is 

16 peculiar, I think, to start with, okay, in my 

17 perspective. And so I will raise this with Dr. 

18 Melius following this meeting and let him sort of 

19 think about what John has raised. 

20 But, again, I'm not sure I concur with 

21 John Mauro's reading of the statute in the first 

22 place, and it's sort of a little bit odd for our 

23 contractor to be doing statutory interpretation as 
 

24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 part of a meeting, but we can -- I'll address this 

2 with Dr. Melius, I'll copy the Subcommittee on this 

3 so you can see what he's doing.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. I 

5 appreciate that. Also, I will be having to get in 

6 touch with Dr. Melius to correct my error from that 

7 meeting about having only 29 findings when we had 

8 300. So I will also be talking with him, although 

9 I would appreciate, given that these are policy 

10 questions about how to proceed, that, Ted, you go 

11 ahead and raise this issue with Dr. Melius. 

12 I will also be in touch with him 

13 regarding the analyses of the Excel file for 14 

14 through 21. I'm embarrassed that I made the 

15 mistake. I must also say there were other people 

16 on the line with me and you had all looked at those 

17 files. If you catch me doing something that wrong, 

18 please say something [about] making an error. 

19 Just bring it to my attention, please, I don't care 

20 what the committee is, because that -- Jim is 

21 writing up a report for that. 

22 Okay. Before we begin looking at some 

23 of the blind reviews, I would like to have a word 
 

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of personal suggestion. And that relates to the 

2 issue that we raised at the Methods Work Group about 

3 observations. I said I believed, over the past 

4 meetings, that we have ended up spending lots of 

5 time on discussions of observations. On occasion, 

6 they have been moved over to findings, and we have 

7 to think about that issue. 

8 However, if I could just say, as Chair 

9 of the DR Subcommittee, I would appreciate as we 

10 move ahead that we try to keep our committee 

11 discussions on the observations limited to what 

12 needs to be said. As Chair, I've always felt it 

13 is not my role to -- you are all experts, you are 

14 all appointment Members of the Board. I have 

15 always found it difficult to say, "Gee, I think 

16 you're going on a little long," or this is an 

17 interesting discussion, because often the 

18 discussion of observations lead us into some either 

19 intellectually or scientifically interesting 

20 discussion. And we have a good discussion. And 

21 they may be satisfying to us -- they are -- but if 

22 we internally think about the discussion of the 

23 observations as a slight sideline to our main goal, 
 

26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is to do the dose reconstruction reviews, we 

2 might save some time. 

3 And I will continue not to take the 

4 liberty of the Chair to say, "Gee, I think somebody 

5 is going on a little too long, at too great a 

6 length." But if I say this now I'm hoping that that 

7 will help us as we go ahead, to when we're doing 

8 our regular dose reconstructions, it will help us 

9 move a little more quickly and save a little time 

10 so we can go through more cases.

11 So obviously this is not an order, this 

12 is a personal feeling, as Chair, of what I'd like 

13 to do. And I hope it's taken in the spirit of 

14 suggestion. And, again, in no way do I intend in 

15 the future to cut people off because I don't find 

16 that part of the conversation useful.

17 Are there comments or suggestions? 

18 And I'm most open to including people saying, 

19 "Dave, you're wrong," if you feel that way.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

21 I want to get a better understanding what you're 

22 saying about these observations, because to me 

23 these observations were not really a finding but 
 

27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was to give us a better quality product at the 

2 end.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Personally, I'll tell 

5 you, I feel that this group right here is where the 

6 rubber meets the road. We are the last of all this 

7 whole process and we're taking the opportunity to 

8 review all this. And I can personally tell you I 

9 think there's a lot of times these observations 

10 were just a clarification, they weren't really a 

11 finding or anything else like that, but they 

12 brought light to each one of these sites, because 

13 every one of these sites are so unique and so 

14 different, I think it's monumental task of what 

15 they have performed in this process to be able to 

16 make these things work out. 

17 But it's not condemning nor excusing, 

18 but it's an observation and do we need to be able 

19 to look at this, because I feel that this committee 

20 is one that is set up to make sure that we ultimately 

21 are doing the best product out there that we can.

22 And my question to you is, so, what do 

23 you want to do with the observations if there is 
 

28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the least bit of a thought that it is just either 

2 make it a finding or not?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: My own feeling 

4 is, and is that what I'm really trying to -- what 

5 I'm concerned about are digressions in the 

6 discussion of observations, and lengthy 

7 digressions. And I certainly don't -- I mean, we 

8 have to -- at this point, and until there is some 

9 change in policy, we have to discuss observations, 

10 and we should. And for those limited number of 

11 cases where in fact we change an observation to a 

12 finding, that's important, and that may have some, 

13 you know, impact on the final decision.

14 So, I'm not saying we shouldn't talk 

15 about it, absolutely not. But what I am saying is, 

16 if we can try not to digress as we discuss those 

17 issues. The issues that are raised for 

18 observations, as I say, we will continue to 

19 discuss. It's just that I felt, over many 

20 meetings, a lot of times we spend a lot of time on 

21 them that, in my mind at least, in this case as one 

22 Member, don't move our discussion on very much. 

23 And I'm saying that I will not, as Chair, stop 
 

29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 anybody. I will absolutely not, I never have said 

2 to people, hey, this is -- if it's totally off the 

3 point, sure, I'll say something. But generally 

4 that's not the case. You know, they're 

5 interesting discussions.

6 And I'm just suggesting that if we can 

7 keep the discussion of observations on point and 

8 crisp it will save us a fair amount of time.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, and I understand 

10 what you're saying. One of the things that's kind 

11 of interesting to me, and I'm sitting here and 

12 looking and listening to this that is coming 

13 through this, that the Procedure Review Committee 

14 or whatever the other one is called --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Methods.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- Methods. So are 

17 they dictating to us of how to perform this?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. Because 

19 whatever the Methods Work Group comes up with will 

20 go to the Board, and it is the Board, all of us, 

21 that will make decisions on changes. And that's 

22 why I'm saying whatever we discuss the methods will 

23 be brought before the Board. And at that point --
 

30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and by the way, this statement that I just made, 

2 or this concern that I just expressed about 

3 observations, is my personal, my concern as Chair 

4 of the Subcommittee. It's not, unless further 

5 discussion in the Methods Committee, it's not going 

6 to be part of recommendations. 

7 We're still thinking about how to 

8 handle observations. And if we can speed things 

9 up without losing quality and being fair to all the 

10 claimants.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, because, you

12 know, we've tried to make this a cookie cutter 

13 program that, you know, each one of these sites, 

14 this is how we've learned to do it. But I just want 

15 you to always remember that each one of these sites 

16 have their most unique little twists to them.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I just don't want 

19 to lose that, because it is important.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I accept 

21 that. I agree and I'll try to be aware of this. 

22 Again, I'm not saying I'm going to cut people off, 

23 but I'm just asking as a suggestion.
 

31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

2 MR. KATZ: Dave, and I don't want to 

3 prolong this discussion anymore because I know 

4 you've got other --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. KATZ: -- you want to get to the 

7 blinds. Brad, just to remind you, I mean, some 

8 context here why this review has come about. Right 

9 now, if we stopped -- if SC&A did no more dose 

10 reconstruction claims reviews, just the pile 

11 that's sitting on the shelf right now would take 

12 the Subcommittee about three years to get through.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

14 that, Ted. I've been worried about this, too. 

15 But, you know, what I said earlier really is my 

16 bottom feeling of what this whole committee is for, 

17 because we're ultimately the one that looks at the 

18 final product at the very end of it. And I just 

19 want to make sure that we do -- I know that we're 

20 having trouble getting through these, and I wish 

21 I had a magic way that we could do it.

22 But also on the other sense, too, of the 

23 number that you came up with, Dave. One of the 
 

32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 things that I've seen, and I believe me and Wanda's 

2 been on this for quite a while, the product that 

3 has been coming out, in my eyes, I see as being so 

4 much better. NIOSH and ORAU have been producing 

5 a much better product because of a lot of this 

6 discussion and stuff like that. You know, we're 

7 still having them, but through the years, holy cow, 

8 I've watched so many changes. 

9 And I think that we've got to give 

10 ourselves credit, too, that everybody is doing a 

11 much better job and it's a more focused task. It 

12 might sound like a lot of numbers, but you know 

13 what? I can tell you I've watched such a better 

14 product coming out.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And I 

16 haven't been on the Board for so long, but certainly 

17 folks in the Methods Work Group echoed your 

18 feelings that things are improving significantly 

19 in the overall process of doing the dose 

20 reconstruction and for claimants.

21 So, with that --

22 MEMBER MUNN: Dave, this is Wanda. At 

23 the risk of falling prey to the 8515 rule, I'll try 
 

33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to make my comments very brief. 

2 I think sometimes the lack of 

3 institutional memory, and especially in critical 

4 Subcommittees like this one, make it a big impact 

5 on us and is sometimes telling. I think 

6 recognizing the amount of discussion and the amount 

7 of concern that was placed on the identification 

8 of the difference between an observation and a 

9 finding up-front could be very helpful for us. The 

10 decision was made fairly early on, and those of you 

11 in SC&A who have been through the entire process, 

12 if I'm incorrect in any of this, please stop me. 

13 But those of us who went through that 

14 entire process were very clear that the purpose of 

15 an observation was an illumination for the 

16 reviewers and for us so that we would have just a 

17 slightly better understanding of what transpired 

18 in the completion of that particular report, of 

19 that dose reconstruction report. It was never 

20 intended to be an overlooking or a shortcut for some 

21 issue.

22 It might be illuminating for us, in that 

23 light, if we are going to be concerned about this 
 

34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 differentiation and how it has progressed through 

2 the years, it might be illuminating for us to take 

3 a look at those very few cases where a decision has 

4 been made by this Subcommittee to change the 

5 observation to a finding. That might tell us more 

6 than anything, any other type of discussion, if we 

7 look at those very few where that has occurred and 

8 identify whether that did in fact have a major 

9 difference, or even a significant difference that 

10 could be measured at all, in the outcome of what 

11 we were doing while we were actually doing the 

12 identification itself. That might be more 

13 beneficial to the discussion than another rehash 

14 of what we did many years ago when we established 

15 the original --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like 

17 a good idea to me. That is to say, to look at the 

18 five cases in sets 10 through 13 and see where they 

19 occurred. Actually, initially, it would mean 

20 getting a summary of those five cases.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it would. And 

22 identifying any difference in the PoC as 

23 calculated.
 

35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I think 

2 that's a good idea. Ted, is that something that 

3 is reasonable to task SC&A with?

4 MR. KATZ: Sure. I mean, I think Rose 

5 had already identified the five cases --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: But, yeah, I'm not sure the 

8 point is whether the PoC changed. I don't think 

9 that was really necessarily the pertinent matter 

10 there. But, sure, she can supply the five cases 

11 if you want to look at those.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think perhaps 

13 we could just distribute it to Members of this 

14 Subcommittee to look at, and then briefly, if it 

15 is brief, just go over that at the next meeting.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, absolutely. We 

17 can do that for you.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that would 

19 be very nice.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Even the makeup of this 

21 current Subcommittee may see that change 

22 differently than the Subcommittee did at that time. 

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It could well 
 

36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be. Good suggestion, thank you.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, we will do 

4 that. Let's go now to the blind reviews. And 

5 particularly, can we scroll into -- would either 

6 Kathy or Rose, could you put up the original 

7 comparison -- there we go -- of the blind DR reports 

8 and differences.

9 And the first two were -- maybe one of 

10 you would like to just comment again. We have a 

11 new Subcommittee Member, so I think it's worth 

12 reviewing, and all of us can gain from that, 

13 briefly, what the table says and where we are at.

14 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

15 And if you'd like, I can make some comments.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I appreciate it.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay. First of all, 

18 what I'd like to ask you is, during the last meeting 

19 we discussed three of the blinds and they were all 

20 from the 17th set, because we looked at those that 

21 perhaps were going to be somewhat controversial. 

22 And so we looked at Allied Chemical, as you see 

23 there, the first one under the 17th set.
 

37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MS. BEHLING: We also looked at the 

3 Fernald case and the Rocky Flats case, beneath the 

4 Hanford there on the 17th set.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MS. BEHLING: Now, as a result of that 

7 discussion, I believe the Subcommittee Members had 

8 some questions and had asked us to prepare a memo 

9 to maybe provide you with a little bit more detail 

10 on some of the topics that we covered on those three 

11 cases. And we have done that. Now, do you want 

12 to start this meeting by discussing, trying to 

13 finalize the discussion of those three, or would 

14 you prefer that we discuss new cases?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, I think 

16 that's for our Subcommittee to decide. My own 

17 feeling was that I would like to dispose, I believe, 

18 of two of them. I'm not sure we're prepared for 

19 all three. But to dispose of those that we could, 

20 and make a decision as to whether there was 

21 agreement between SC&A and ORAU on that.

22 What do other Committee Members think? 

23 Would you like to go complete the cases as best we 
 

38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can from the last time?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'd 

3 like to complete them and get them out of our hair, 

4 actually.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. That's 

6 my feeling.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Because [we] spent a 

8 lot of time coming back and refreshing ourselves 

9 with these, so I'd like to be able to get them 

10 finished up and out of the way. That's my take.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And any 

12 other thoughts?

13 MEMBER POSTON: This is John --

14 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

15 certainly agree, the more fresh the last discussion 

16 is in our minds, the easier it is for us to proceed, 

17 for me in any case.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

19 MEMBER POSTON: I agree with Brad. 

20 John Poston.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

22 I think then -- Josie?

23 MEMBER BEACH: No, I agree.
 

39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Then 

2 we're agreed. So the first one that we discussed, 

3 if I'm not mistaken, was Allied Chemical. And we 

4 received some material from Grady, so let's go to 

5 it.

6 MS. BEHLING: And there was also a memo 

7 that was sent out by SC&A -- let me see, what was 

8 the date of that memo?

9 DR. MAURO: April 29th.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. John Mauro sent 

11 that memo, so I think John's also prepared to 

12 discuss this.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Now we 

14 will have to briefly review -- I mean, if that is 

15 the situation -- or maybe John should talk about 

16 -- well, I'm trying to think on my feet about how 

17 to start this part of the discussion on Allied.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Dave, this is Grady. 

19 And what I provided you is not going to have any 

20 impact on the case, given John's comments. So to 

21 me, you know, what we've got, what I think is the 

22 most relevant thing here is, you know, we based our 

23 case on actual information that we had on the 
 

40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facility. We know that they processed a few pounds 

2 of uranium over about 20 years. Our methodology 

3 that I gave you used ten percent of the radon values 

4 typically seen in phosphate plants.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. CALHOUN: John's approach was to 

7 use the regulatory standard and basically just say, 

8 "Well, it had to be higher than what you said." So, 

9 I hate to be terse here, but unless we can come up 

10 with an actual basis with numbers and math on where 

11 that dose he thinks came from, I don't know where 

12 we can go with this. It's almost like saying, you 

13 know, let's base it on the DAC for uranium, and if 

14 you can't prove they didn't get it then let's assign 

15 it. It just doesn't work for me to base something 

16 on the EPA standard when we have at least some 

17 information. 

18 Physically, it may not even be possible 

19 to come up with those kind of levels given the 

20 distribution of uranium that was used over a 

21 20-year period. It just seems unlikely. And it 

22 would be, in my mind, a better discussion if we had 

23 a little bit more based on some numbers and some 
 

41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose calculations rather than just saying it just 

2 doesn't seem likely that it would be that low.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe, in a 

4 sense, you're saying your position, and maybe we 

5 should let John or Rose or whomever, but John's here 

6 on the line. Maybe, John, would you like to 

7 respond? And that will refresh our memories also 

8 of the discussion that we had the last time.

9 DR. MAURO: Yeah, I would. And I 

10 believe that we have -- I referred to the problem 

11 we have as a conundrum. And we haven't seen this 

12 problem before, and it's a very interesting 

13 problem.

14 Now Grady is correct that there's an 

15 OTIB-43 that says, well, when you're going to do 

16 a dose reconstruction for workers who were at AWE 

17 facilities that were phosphate processing plants 

18 that were asked by the Atomic Energy Commission or 

19 the MED to do some work for them related to the 

20 uranium, and that happened quite a bit, they said, 

21 what do we do? Especially when those facilities 

22 were -- the work was done very early on, the early 

23 days of the weapons program. And here we have 
 

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 people who were working at a phosphate plant and 

2 are asked to do some uranium work. And they're 

3 working with the phosphate itself to extract, as 

4 best they can, and do some experimental work, some 

5 uranium, because as we know uranium is elevated in 

6 phosphate rock.

7 Now here's the dilemma. Basically, 

8 NIOSH has adopted a surrogate approach to dealing 

9 with this, because measurements were not made, for 

10 example, at this facility, Allied Chemical & Dye 

11 Corporation in North Claymont, Delaware. So they 

12 used a surrogate approach, which is, "well, we do 

13 have data, lots of data, from Florida, and let's 

14 use that data."

15 Now, my problem -- and that data, when 

16 you look at it, the concentration -- first of all, 

17 the concentrations you observe of radon, we're 

18 talking of a radon problem in the air in the 

19 buildings that were processing phosphate rock in 

20 Florida were very low. They were often less than 

21 one picocurie per liter. And there's a reason for 

22 that, which was surprising. The reason is those 

23 buildings did not have walls. They were not 
 

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 buildings; they were opened up to the general air 

2 flow of the atmosphere. So they serve as a very, 

3 very poor surrogate for a building in Delaware or 

4 in Illinois or in Idaho where phosphate rock is 

5 being processed but it's within a completely 

6 enclosed building where the radon is allowed to 

7 accumulate, the radon progeny is allowed to grow 

8 in.

9 So my concern is we have a dilemma. We 

10 really can't use the data from the phosphate rock 

11 industry in Florida, where they process the rock, 

12 because the measurements apply really to outdoor 

13 concentrations because of the way in which the 

14 buildings were structured and how the work was 

15 done. And along comes this facility in Delaware 

16 where very small amounts of uranium were produced. 

17 I agree with that completely. But there is a 

18 dilemma. The dilemma is we don't really know how 

19 much phosphate rock was processed in the research 

20 process, even though only a little bit of uranium 

21 came out of the process. And we agree completely 

22 with that.

23 That doesn't mean that there wasn't a 
 

44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 substantial amount of phosphate rock that was being 

2 worked on, experimented with, handled, et cetera, 

3 to get to the point where they got to the point they 

4 said, "Well, listen, we did everything we could but 

5 we really only could generate a few pounds of 

6 uranium." So the experiment failed.

7 Okay. So in one respect, one could 

8 argue that, well, they could have been -- even 

9 though there was only a very little bit of uranium 

10 produced, that doesn't mean they didn't play around 

11 with a considerable amount of phosphate rock. I 

12 don't know if that's true or not, but that's part 

13 of the play of the dimensions of the problem. So 

14 we're left with this circumstance, okay?

15 The next circumstance we're left with 

16 is, as it turns out, I went ahead and in sort of 

17 almost an innocent way said, let's just --

18 remember, the method I'm using we call Method B, 

19 which is called a common sense approach. I said, 

20 listen, let me see if I can just get through this 

21 thing in 15 minutes. I'm going to simply assume 

22 that the concentration of radon inside this 

23 building is on the levels that are not uncommon in 
 

45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any building, never mind a building that might have 

2 handled some phosphate rock. And the number I 

3 picked was four picocuries per liter. I could have 

4 picked three, I could have picked two. In other 

5 words, the concentration that's in the room you're 

6 in right now is probably one or two, on that order. 

7 So I picked a very low number, and I happened to 

8 pick four because it was the regulatory guidance 

9 number.

10 And lo and behold, what happens? I end 

11 up getting a PoC of 64 percent. I said what do I 

12 do with this? I don't know -- we don't know what 

13 the concentration of radon is inside that building, 

14 but we do know two things: whatever it is, it's due 

15 to two factors. One, the radon that's there 

16 naturally, which could be a few picocuries per 

17 liter; and the radon that's there because phosphate 

18 rock was being processed. It's a combination of 

19 both, and we don't know how much is from -- you know, 

20 even if we had a number, some measurement, we 

21 wouldn't be able to discern how much of it was from 

22 phosphate rock, how much of it was from natural. 

23 It would be one of those situations where you can't 
 

46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 separate the two. And that has regulatory 

2 implications, by the way, when you can't separate 

3 the two.

4 Okay. So my case is one that's quite 

5 provocative and creates a conundrum. One, I don't 

6 think you could use the phosphate industry 

7 experience where they had open walls, open areas, 

8 where the concentrations of radon in the buildings 

9 were less than one picocurie, well below, often, 

10 one picocurie per liter indoors, a situation that

11 actually does not even exist in people's homes. My 

12 basement right now is higher than one picocurie per 

13 liter, where I'm working right now. 

14 So I'm stuck with a certain -- I'm not 

15 saying NIOSH is wrong. Don't get me wrong here. 

16 What I'm saying is we have a conundrum. It's 

17 impossible to deny this man his compensation, in 

18 my opinion, because we have -- we know that he may 

19 very well have experienced a few picocuries per 

20 liter of radon airborne for chronic, long periods 

21 of time while he worked at the Delaware facility. 

22 And that few picocuries per liter was no doubt due 

23 to some combination that came from 
 

47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 naturally-occurring radon in the building and from 

2 any phosphate that was handled in the building. 

3 And we don't know what that number is. 

4 But what I can say, even if it was a 

5 relatively low number, it was enough to bring him 

6 over 50 percent. What do you do in that 

7 circumstance? NIOSH is not incorrect, but neither 

8 am I, in terms of what they're saying. And I'm not 

9 saying that I am correct. I'm saying that it's --

10 I, for one, will find it very difficult to deny this 

11 man compensation under these circumstances. And 

12 therein lies our dilemma.

13 So, really, it goes to the heart of, can 

14 you really use the phosphate industry experience 

15 as a surrogate for buildings in the north where the 

16 buildings are closed and where phosphate was 

17 handled? I don't think you can.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Before we start 

19 the discussion from the Subcommittee Members, 

20 could we have the first graph on, the one that gave 

21 the results for ORAU, NIOSH, A and B? There we are. 

22 So, there was a Method A -- let's see. I can't read 

23 it too well. That's good. Thank you.
 

48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So Method A gave 85 percent. And SC&A, 

2 using Method B, which you were talking about, John, 

3 right? That is to say, you were just using the four 

4 picocuries per liter.

5 DR. MAURO: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You got 64 

7 percent and NIOSH got 45.9. We're looking, in this 

8 case, I mean, we're looking at blind reviews. So 

9 for the Subcommittee, it seems to me we have to --

10 what we need to decide is, is there a disagreement 

11 between the NIOSH and the SC&A results? And then, 

12 if there is a disagreement, was ORAU wrong or is 

13 ORAU's choice not the better one?

14 Now, to be sure, just before we start, 

15 we chose this as the -- we started with the worst 

16 cases, right? We started with the cases where 

17 there seem to be some disagreement. And as folks 

18 looked at the rest of the table last time, I mean, 

19 there was agreement in quite a few of the cases, 

20 pretty good agreement. But this one, there 

21 wasn't. And this was, if you will, the worst case. 

22 What I would like to ask is for 

23 Subcommittee Members to express their feelings 
 

49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about what -- neither approach is wrong, but which 

2 is the better approach? And would folks have 

3 thoughts or opinions about that?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Dave, this is Wanda. 

5 Since I'm going to have to leave you, and since this 

6 is a battle which I have fought and lost repeatedly, 

7 I'm going to make my comments very quickly.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: What is not under 

10 discussion here, and which needs to be taken into 

11 consideration very, very carefully, is this is not 

12 an operation that took place out in the boneyard 

13 where rock is being crushed and there was 

14 particulate as well as radon flying around 

15 everywhere. This was a wet laboratory process. 

16 And, yes, it was an enclosed building, but what is 

17 also not being taken into consideration is the fact 

18 that none of these closed buildings were closed 

19 buildings in the way that we like to think of them. 

20 Of course, they were ventilated; they had to be 

21 ventilated for more than one reason. And the 

22 ventilation is, again, an unknown, but we know that 

23 it existed.
 

50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And without taking credit for the fact 

2 that this is a wet process, and therefore it does 

3 not have the kind of extrusion that one gets in the 

4 crushing process and the handling of other 

5 materials like phosphate, but also the fact that 

6 there is a very high probability that there was a 

7 high level of air motion through whatever rooms 

8 these things were occurring in. So, with that, I 

9 just -- it's probably just as well I'm not a part 

10 of the discussion here, because I'd probably 

11 rupture my spleen. But, please, just remember --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, thank you 

13 very much. And Wanda will return, folks, later 

14 after lunch.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I will.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And John, I 

17 know, has to leave during lunchtime. But, Wanda, 

18 when you're back, we'll have a -- we will have a 

19 quorum whether John returns or not, and I hope he 

20 is able to.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I hope so, too.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Thank 

23 you.
 

51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Bye-bye for the moment.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye. Other 

3 folks on the Committee? 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'd 

5 like to make a comment.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, Wanda made 

8 her comment on that. And you know what, she's got 

9 a good, valid point. But I've got to jump back to 

10 my life that lives out where I'm at. I work in a 

11 facility that has wonderful ventilation and 

12 everything else. If I lose the least bit amount 

13 of it, every CAM in the facility will alarm within 

14 five minutes. We know a fair amount about these 

15 facilities and what went on with it. Radon has 

16 been an issue in all of these places. 

17 To be able to take one from down in 

18 Florida that is wide open to the whole process of 

19 everything else like that is totally different than 

20 what it is going to be up north. And we all know 

21 that. That's a fact. If you want to deal with 

22 facts, deal with that. 

23 Radon is a bigger issue in these 
 

52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facilities where they're more closed up like that. 

2 Radon is an issue at every one of these facilities 

3 and every area is being a little bit different. My 

4 personal opinion is you've got to handle it 

5 different and you've got to look at it different, 

6 too. Just my point on it.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did you finish?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I am.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I was 

10 persuaded, in the first presentation by Grady and 

11 John, I was persuaded by John that we can't move 

12 from what was largely an indoor operation to what 

13 was largely an outdoor operation. 

14 It does seem to me that Wanda suggested 

15 that, first, people were working inside a lab. 

16 That is to say, she suggested that -- I thought I 

17 understood her suggestion that people in Delaware 

18 were working indoors in a lab. Is that -- first, 

19 which is the case? I mean, would either Grady or 

20 John want to say? I mean, in response to Wanda's 

21 concern that in fact they're both indoor?

22 DR. MAURO: No, the Delaware facility 

23 is indoor. Now, this now is a [identifying 
 

53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information redacted], and I'd be the first to 

2 admit, who knows, maybe he never was indoors, okay? 

3 But we're operating on the premise that he was, that 

4 he was doing whatever service he provided on behalf 

5 of Allied Chemical indoors.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay? And the nature of 

8 the work that was done there, as best I can tell 

9 from reading the SRDBs, and I have a whole section 

10 of attachments to my report that I sent in. I tried 

11 my best to say, you know, what were they doing 

12 there? Is it possible they were handling a 

13 phosphate rock in some quantity that may be more 

14 than simply the amount you need to make a few pounds 

15 of uranium? And I couldn't find that. 

16 It may turn out that's all they did. 

17 All they did was handle that amount of phosphate 

18 rock necessary to produce a few pounds of uranium. 

19 Or it may be that they were doing a large amount 

20 of experimental work. Because this is what the 

21 whole purpose was: can we extract uranium from 

22 phosphate rock at amounts that are important to 

23 contributing to the Weapons Complex program? I 
 

54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could not answer that question by looking at the 

2 SRDB.

3 So I'm left with the dilemma that, well, 

4 they handled some phosphate rock, and I don't know 

5 how much. But here's the real trouble, I call it 

6 a conundrum, is that even if it was a little, that 

7 meant it contributed a little radon indoors, okay? 

8 And we also know that there's probably a little 

9 radon indoors from naturally-occurring, you know, 

10 and we don't know that amount. And the two of them 

11 together represent the radon and its progeny that 

12 the workers that were indoors in this building were 

13 exposed to. And we can't separate the two.

14 And I came up with a number that, if you 

15 look at just the natural concentrations of natural 

16 background radon levels in buildings in Delaware, 

17 there's a large number of them that are above four 

18 picocuries per liter. And these aren't buildings 

19 that are handling any phosphate rock. These are 

20 just homes. And so I say, what do I do with this? 

21 I say, you know, I cannot pick a good concentration. 

22 I certainly cannot use the phosphate experience in 

23 Florida as a surrogate. That is just, as far as 
 

55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm concerned, off the table. 

2 So I'm left with a circumstance that 

3 says, what do I do? What do I assign? Is it 

4 possible this man experienced something above? 

5 I've got to tell you, there's no doubt he 

6 experienced something above one. I mean, just 

7 about everybody's got one picocurie per liter in 

8 their house.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, let me ask 

10 you a follow-up on what you're saying. Would 

11 working in a wet lab, how would that impact? And 

12 by the way, I'm not sure -- I mean, Wanda believes 

13 it was a wet lab. Apparently, if that is the case 

14 --

15 MR. CALHOUN: That has to be the case, 

16 because they did extraction.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 DR. MAURO: Now, does that eliminate 

19 the radon?

20 MR. CALHOUN: No.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. So the point that 

22 Wanda was making was, because it was a wet lab, 

23 there should be no radon. Well, that's not, you 
 

56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know --

2 MR. CALHOUN: It depends. This is 

3 Grady. And it really obviously depends on how long 

4 that the material is underwater, because we all 

5 know that radon has a relatively short half-life. 

6 And if it's trapped under there very long and can't 

7 escape, then it is going to decay and not be an 

8 exposure.

9 Now, just from my point of view, the 

10 fact of whatever the natural radon concentrations 

11 are in Delaware is completely irrelevant. It 

12 doesn't count, it's not going to be counted towards 

13 dose. It doesn't matter. The only thing that 

14 matters is the amount of radon that this guy was 

15 exposed to based on -- now, let me read this. This 

16 is from the Department of Energy, okay?

17 "Research and development in small 

18 pilot scale operations on uranium recovery from a 

19 phosphoric acid plant." Okay, they used less than 

20 1/100th of 1 percent of the lowest level of the 

21 phosphoric acid extraction plants that we know of.

22 I go back to, it is much more plausible 

23 to base something, or to base your dose on some 
 

57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number, which we have, which is a few pounds, than 

2 base it on an EPA protection standard. 

3 Like I said, it's critical to 

4 understand it doesn't matter what the natural radon 

5 was in that area. We don't have that, ever. It's 

6 not included because it's not a part of weapons 

7 production. So unless you can show me that a few 

8 pounds of uranium concentrate, over 20 years --

9 that's the whole time that the few pounds was 

10 generated -- can give me high enough radon levels, 

11 it almost isn't worth discussing. Because I'm at 

12 least basing it on something. And you say that 

13 that's off the table, but basing something on four 

14 picocuries per liter and saying, "you know what, 

15 it had to be over one because everybody in that area 

16 was over one," that's irrelevant.

17 DR. MAURO: And that's why I call this 

18 a conundrum, because I can't argue with you on that. 

19 But what I can argue is that, whatever the level 

20 of radon was in that building, some of it was due 

21 to natural and some of it was due to the phosphate 

22 rock business they were in.

23 MR. CALHOUN: Start with that number 
 

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and do a calculation and show me.

2 DR. MAURO: And we don't know. We 

3 don't know what the concentration was, and even if 

4 we did --

5 MR. CALHOUN: If you know how much 

6 radon can be generated from, you can make some 

7 assumptions over how much a few pounds over 20 years 

8 was. You can make some bounding assumptions. 

9 That's where you've got to start, because that's 

10 all the information that we have.

11 DR. MAURO: Well, good, we're 

12 converging. Listen, I'm not disputing this. 

13 We're converging. I came away from reading the 

14 SRDB that we really don't know how much phosphate 

15 rock was handled. We know how much uranium was 

16 produced, but we don't know how much phosphate rock 

17 was handled and the degree to which experiments 

18 were run and what tests were run and what they did. 

19 But we do know at the end of the process, they were 

20 not very successful over those years in generating 

21 very much uranium.

22 So I don't -- and let's -- you may have 

23 information I don't have. And if you can say, 
 

59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 listen, they didn't really handle any -- I mean, 

2 the amount of phosphate rock they handled, it was 

3 virtually zero and therefore any contribution of 

4 radon that might have been airborne was miniscule, 

5 you know. And as a result, there was none, you 

6 know.

7 But even if there was some -- you see, 

8 here's the problem. Even if there was some amount 

9 that we can't define, it doesn't take very much for 

10 it to be enough to bring you over 50 percent. See, 

11 it's this combination of the radiosensitivity to 

12 radon carcinogenicity to the lungs. And the fact 

13 that we can't separate how much was it from natural, 

14 how much of it was from the process that leaves us 

15 in a place where you're going to tell this man, 

16 we're going to deny you because we know that 

17 whatever radon levels you were exposed to, it was 

18 so small it was impossible for it to contribute to 

19 your cancer. I can't say that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Grady, 

21 I'm reasonably -- I'm somewhat persuaded as a 

22 scientist and professional to say that it doesn't 

23 sound like it's likely that the work there is likely 
 

60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to have caused his lung cancer. But I have to say 

2 that you -- I don't -- I do side with the argument 

3 that you can't compare the Florida outdoor site 

4 with the indoor site at Allied Chemical. And what 

5 -- I do feel that there's a policy question, not 

6 a question of give me a number and hard science, 

7 if you will. But the question is what is policy 

8 in worker's compensation, which I do -- I work with 

9 people dealing with worker's compensation, not in 

10 the radiation situation but in industrial and 

11 other, in the years that I've worked in the field. 

12 And the policy always is, when there is 

13 scientific doubt then you have to find for the 

14 claimant. That [is] worker's compensation is not 

15 a scientific process only, it is a policy -- there 

16 is a policy about how to approach what we know and 

17 don't know in science. And I'm impressed that we 

18 really don't know. I do find that the 45.9 

19 percent, based on what seemed to me were mostly 

20 reasonable assumptions on your part, you're trying 

21 to figure out a number, that that's a fairly high 

22 number, combined with uncertainty, how you 

23 extrapolate, how you -- what the data is from other 
 

61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facilities.

2 So my feeling is that -- at this point 

3 in the discussion, is that there is a disagreement 

4 and that we probably should have compensated on the 

5 basis of a policy concern that the science just 

6 wasn't good enough. You did a good job.

7 MR. CALHOUN: This is all supposition 

8 and you're being swayed by its supposition. Start 

9 with the poundage, look up -- go Google how much 

10 uranium is in phosphate that is needed to come up 

11 with a few pounds over 20 years. That has to be 

12 your starting point. You can't start anyplace 

13 else and just -- because basically even though this 

14 is surrounded, the argument is surrounded by, you 

15 know, four picocuries, we're throwing out a bunch 

16 of numbers here, it's all -- I really don't think 

17 it's that low. And that is the entire basis of 

18 that.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-huh.

20 MR. CALHOUN: It is. And to think 

21 something else is wrong, I think they need to come 

22 back with a calculation that's based on four 

23 picocuries -- or on the amount of phosphate rock 
 

62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 needed to come up with a few pounds of uranium 

2 concentrate. I just was Googling here quickly and 

3 it's out there. You can find out how much 

4 phosphate rock is, how much -- what the uranium 

5 concentrations are. And that seems to be the 

6 starting point.

7 And then you've got to spread that out 

8 over 20 years and you have to make some assumptions 

9 as to the size of the facility and say there's no 

10 ventilation.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. CALHOUN: And then show me that 

13 that number is high. Because right now we have a 

14 basis and the only argument is I don't think it 

15 could be that low. It's -- you know, you're 

16 presenting it eloquently but that's the basis. 

17 And I need more than that, than to just say you're 

18 wrong.

19 DR. MAURO: Grady, the only place where 

20 I think we have a degree -- some disagreement, as 

21 a matter of fact, is the quantity of phosphate that 

22 was handled. You see, what you're arguing is over 

23 a ten-year period the amount of phosphate that was 
 

63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 handled was the amount that could have produced 

2 three pounds of uranium. I could -- I was looking 

3 for that. If I could have found that and it was 

4 -- if I could have found some language that said, 

5 we know that the amount of phosphate that was 

6 shipped there for processing over that time period 

7 was only the amount that you needed to get three 

8 pounds of uranium I'd buy your argument. I'd buy 

9 your argument in a second. But I couldn't find 

10 that. 

11 So I'm stuck with the situation that I 

12 don't really know how much phosphate was shipped 

13 there and what they did with it. I do know that 

14 they only ended up with three pounds of uranium but 

15 that doesn't mean that they didn't work with more 

16 phosphate than that, you know. So I'm left with 

17 this dilemma.

18 I understand what you're saying and 

19 your science is good. But your premise that the 

20 amount of phosphate they handled there was only the 

21 amount you needed to make three pounds of uranium, 

22 I could not find any evidence of that. Now you may 

23 have some. If you do then you win --
 

64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: But I prefer that you 

2 tell me that you win by finding a calculation that 

3 shows me the other way.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I've 

5 got a heck of an idea. Both sides of you are right, 

6 and this is where it comes into a conundrum, or 

7 whatever you want to say. But the bottom line, 

8 Grady, can you tell me for a 100 percent is there 

9 -- that they only used that much phosphate? 

10 Because this to me was a research facility. They 

11 were making mistakes, they were throwing away and 

12 starting over because it didn't work right. Their 

13 whole process, from what I read their premise was 

14 to design and help figure out how to be able to get 

15 this uranium out of the rock. That to me is telling 

16 me this is research that they --

17 MR. CALHOUN: I have confidence that we 

18 assigned him more dose than he probably got. 

19 MR. KATZ: Dave?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

21 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I don't really 

22 like to butt in on the substantive discussions and 

23 all. But I mean, it sounds like it wouldn't be 
 

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unhelpful if someone would just run the numbers 

2 along with Grady's assumption that only enough --

3 only so much was used for three pounds and even see 

4 what order of magnitude you're talking about there 

5 compared to the number of years that this 

6 [identifying information redacted] worked at the 

7 site. At least then you would, you know, would 

8 have a realm. And you know, if it were orders of 

9 magnitude apart that would tell you plenty because 

10 even if they threw away a lot of rock, they could 

11 have thrown away, you know, 100 tons more rock than 

12 would have been -- or what have you. But it feels 

13 like that would at least inform this discussion.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, that would 

15 give some order of magnitude sense. But Grady, you 

16 said you believed that that could be done. I don't 

17 know whether it's best to let SC&A or you to try 

18 to do that?

19 MR. CALHOUN: I can't tell SC&A what to 

20 do but I think that you could certainly make some 

21 assumptions and come up with some numbers. 

22 MR. KATZ: I mean, Grady, do you -- we 

23 can task SC&A to do it but do you want to take this 
 

66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on? Do you want to make some assumptions and lay 

2 that out so we see those figures or do you want us 

3 to task SC&A to do that?

4 MR. CALHOUN: I would prefer that they 

5 do it. But you know, like I said, you know, this 

6 is what we found that we found was a reasonable 

7 approach. And this is just one of those very few 

8 times when I just see no basis in the argument other 

9 than, nuh-uh. And I just -- I have a hard time 

10 swallowing it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I will say, by 

12 the way, remember, I mean everybody, this 

13 discussion is not -- we're not doing a case and 

14 trying to evaluate what the PoC is. What we're 

15 doing is blind reviews and we're trying to see if 

16 there is a disagreement. Right now there is, 

17 right? I mean, there is -- in my opinion there is 

18 not much question, there is a disagreement between 

19 the two reviews.

20 But I would love to find out a little 

21 bit more. In a sense I would say, yes, there's a 

22 disagreement. It -- I guess, Ted, I need your help 

23 because I don't know whether to task SC&A or to say 
 

67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Grady believes that we could estimate from the 

2 amount of phosphate that would be needed to 

3 generate three pounds of uranium, if he could do 

4 it. It sounds like the people at SC&A don't think 

5 they can do it.

6 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, no, you could do it.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You could?

8 DR. MAURO: In other words, to back out 

9 and say how much phosphate would have to be 

10 processed to produce three pounds of uranium --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

12 question.

13 DR. MAURO: -- that's a walk in the 

14 park.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, let's - can I just 

16 suggest, Dave -- Dave, can I suggest, here's what 

17 we can get from SC&A then. I think two 

18 calculations would be helpful because they would 

19 sort of bookend this question and then the 

20 Subcommittee could consider that. One could be 

21 the calculation John just reiterated which is how 

22 much does it take to produce three pounds of uranium 

23 and what is the picocurie exposure level of 20 years 
 

68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of that production? And then the other bookend 

2 would be how much phosphate would it take to produce 

3 a level of picocurie exposure that would put you 

4 over 50 percent over those 20 years and that would 

5 be the other side of sort of the question. And 

6 then, you know, the Subcommittee can consider the 

7 reasonableness of the assumptions based on those 

8 two figures, at least.

9 DR. MAURO: I like it.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You could do 

11 that, John?

12 DR. MAURO: I like it. I think it 

13 would -- the way Ted's thinking about it is clean. 

14 It's clean. Then you have bookends. And then you 

15 say, okay, let's look at these bookends. But now 

16 you realize you will be stuck with the situation 

17 that says, we’re within that distribution -- and 

18 let's say it's a spread by two orders of magnitude, 

19 whatever the number is. You're going to have these 

20 numbers and now you're going to have to say, okay, 

21 what do we do about that?

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. But it still gets 

23 you, I guess, more information to consider what the 
 

69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reasonable judgment is.

2 DR. MAURO: Without a doubt.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And actually, 

4 that would be good. Why don't you do it? For the 

5 moment we are left with their -- in this blind 

6 review, there is a disagreement between NIOSH and 

7 SC&A. I mean, that's -- and if you do this and find 

8 out that you were over-estimating the risk, well, 

9 we'll talk about it. I mean, it's -- if you would 

10 do that and then report back at the next Committee 

11 Meeting? Or better yet, send us by email. 

12 DR. MAURO: We have one more -- I mean, 

13 I agree with what you're doing and I hate to bring 

14 this up.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

16 DR. MAURO: It's painful. But we 

17 effectively went through this process where we 

18 tried to model the concentrations of radon indoors 

19 when we went through the Blockson Program and the 

20 ruling of the Board was that you cannot model the 

21 concentration of radon indoors. In other words, 

22 it was rejected. That is, there are very simple 

23 models that Bill Field voted, yes, we agree you can 
 

70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come up with a model to predict what the 

2 concentration of radon is indoors giving -- given 

3 knowledge of what the throughput of the phosphate 

4 rock is through the facility. And we came up with 

5 a model. NIOSH adopted the model and agreed, in 

6 fact refined it and worked with it.

7 But at the end of the process, now we 

8 have a bureaucratic problem. The end of the 

9 process was that there was a ruling -- a vote taken, 

10 are we going to make a decision on compensation for 

11 the Blockson Facility based on a model? And the 

12 answer was, no, and as a result Blockson was granted 

13 its SEC.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. But that's an SEC 

15 petition and evaluating the outcome of that, I 

16 mean, I just -- I don't think that gets in the way 

17 of you giving this information to the Subcommittee 

18 to consider these judgments.

19 DR. MAURO: No problem.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

21 would be good. Okay, and I'll read through a 

22 little bit about Blockson. I've heard that name 

23 come up, that was decided before my time on the 
 

71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Board.

2 So if you would do that then we can move 

3 ahead to a -- I think we can call the discussion 

4 on the Allied Chemical -- we can rest it for the 

5 moment until -- and we will -- you'll send us 

6 something in email and then we'll discuss it at the 

7 next Board meeting, right, as to whether the 

8 disagreement remains?

9 DR. MAURO: By the way, the 

10 calculations are so simple that it wouldn't hurt 

11 for -- I'll run one and Grady will run it and we'll 

12 probably come to the same numbers independently. 

13 We won't even talk to each other. We'll both come 

14 to the same numbers, we'll say, yep, I got it. 

15 There will be a couple of differences in certain 

16 assumptions on the content, what the percent of 

17 uranium is rock, and that's neither here nor there.

18 You know, we should not -- on these 

19 bookends, we should be pretty close to each other 

20 on one bookend and on the other bookend, and it 

21 would be a good QC check.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

23 DR. MAURO: If you'd like to do it. 
 

72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And then you'll have these numbers. Or SC&A could 

2 do it by itself or Grady, because this is not a 

3 difficult calculation.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's have SC&A 

5 do it and we'll -- I think we can move on.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this has 

8 been -- it's been slow but remember for folks on 

9 the committee, this is the worst case, right? I 

10 mean, we started with the worst case first so 

11 hopefully the other ones will move more quickly and 

12 with greater agreement.

13 Wanda had to leave, she will be back, 

14 she can be back somewhere between 1:15 and 1:30 East 

15 Coast time. I was hoping that we would go until 

16 12:30 and then break for lunch. After that John 

17 will be with us -- Wanda will be back and we'll have 

18 a quorum, actually we'll have a quorum even if Wanda 

19 is not back, which is great. 

20 So two questions: One, do people feel 

21 they need a quick break now? It's five after 12:00 

22 here on the East Coast. We were going to break at 

23 12:30. Do I hear a request for a five-minute break 
 

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right now?

2 Okay. Let's take a five-minute break 

3 and we'll see you back at 11 minutes after 12:00 

4 East Coast time. Speak to you in a few moments, 

5 folks. Thank you.

6 (Whereupon, the 

7 above-entitled matter went off the record at 12:06 

8 p.m. and resumed at 12:12 p.m.)

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can we go on? May 

10 we now and start, start Rocky Flats? I believe 

11 that's the next one that we wanted to talk about.

12 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

13 Yes, Ron Buchanan has prepared a memo on -- and I 

14 think you received it on June 16th and I think he's 

15 prepared to discuss that.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

17 good. And folks, we have a little over 15 minutes. 

18 Just to be sure, Ron, can you start us for the first 

19 15 minutes and then we'll complete it after lunch?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, sure.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that okay? 

22 Okay, fine. Good.

23 So let's go ahead then.
 

74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Ron 

2 Buchanan, SC&A, and we're looking at the Set 17, 

3 Rocky Flat Plant blind dose reconstruction 

4 comparison. And we have -- when we were doing 17 

5 we had Method A and Method B, you recall. And so 

6 we went through this previously and we came down 

7 to three issues. And we came down with these 

8 three: Number one was architecture of medical 

9 frequency. And in this dose reconstruction 

10 method, SC&A used the annual doses from the table 

11 in TBD-3, Table 3-1 page 8, which indicates that 

12 there was perhaps not a full availability of all 

13 the X-ray data and so to assume an annual dose. And 

14 so that's what we did in both A and B.

15 NIOSH elected to use the records that 

16 they were sent which was two X-ray exams. And so 

17 last time we discussed this I think NIOSH stated 

18 that they had a RFP guideline or it amended only 

19 those assigned that you received the DOE records 

20 for.

21 I looked at our RFP guide which is dated 

22 2012 which states as what we did, that not all the 

23 records may be sent, you know, if it wasn't over 
 

75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 50 percent, which was claimant-favorable, or 

2 perhaps an over-estimate. And so that's what we 

3 did since this was not over 50 percent. And so at 

4 this point then we need to discuss if Grady wants 

5 to bring information forward that dates later than 

6 the guidelines we have of 2012.

7 And Grady, do you have any response on 

8 that?

9 MR. CALHOUN: I do not. I don't know, 

10 does Scott have anything on that?

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

12 Basically we do have the dose reconstructor 

13 guidance document that states historically Rocky 

14 Flats was not giving all their X-ray data to us. 

15 However, the point in time where they did start 

16 doing that, and we can also request it -- I'm 

17 looking up to see if I can find the date when that 

18 started to occur.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: The DR was actually done 

20 in November 2012.

21 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

22 I believe there was also some conflict between --

23 is it PROC-61 and the guidance that was in PROC-61 
 

76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and what Scott said that they were actually -- that 

2 the dose reconstructors were actually doing. So 

3 I think all we need to do is coordinate that if you 

4 feel you're getting correct records or all the 

5 records for the X-rays then that needs to be 

6 reflected in the procedures, both the TBD, I would 

7 assume, and this PROC-61 because I don't believe 

8 that that's the guidance in PROC-61.

9 MR. SIEBERT: We do need to update 

10 things to ensure that that's valid. However, 

11 that's why it's in the dose reconstructor guidance 

12 document, until we get the other document updated.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Now what's your latest? 

14 My latest, and we don't always receive the updates 

15 on this, the Rocky Flat general guidance was 

16 November 20th, 2012. And it states that if it's 

17 a non-compensating case they're assigned annual, 

18 according to the TBD. Is there a later one than 

19 November 20 of 2012 that states otherwise?

20 MR. SIEBERT: There's a present 

21 version from even April of this year that's stating 

22 that RFP records would be going through the actual 

23 films and providing a list of all procedures. What 
 

77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm doing is I'm digging with another person to see 

2 if I can find a date that they agreed to do that 

3 but I don't have that at my fingertips right now.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, since this 

5 dose reconstruction was done in November of 2012 

6 I would assume they were using the Rocky Flats 

7 Guidance of November of 2012 which does state to 

8 use the annual doses if it's non-compensatable.

9 MR. KATZ: Well, do we want to just come 

10 back to this point since Scott's searching for his 

11 date?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yes, 

13 because that -- we'll break soon and that will leave 

14 him a chance to continue to check it. I'm 

15 shortening your lunch, Scott, I'm sorry, but at 

16 least you'll have a little bit more time to look 

17 at it.

18 I will admit, I mean, there's one other 

19 question, while we're waiting on this and when we 

20 come back to this, and we discussed this last time 

21 but it still bothers me enormously, that the SC&A 

22 got a lower dose, total lung dose, and got a greater 

23 PoC. I mean, this is on the record, if you will. 
 

78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean, this is a public document. I do not know 

2 how -- I do not know how to discuss this with a 

3 claimant. Why a lower dose would give a higher 

4 PoC? And could someone -- we did discuss this last 

5 time -- could someone -- Ron, is it possible for 

6 you to suggest how this could be?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: I would have to go back 

8 and look at that. I think that we did look at that 

9 previously but I don't have the answer right now.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, in the 

11 first place, even if we use Method A which tries 

12 to reproduce as much as possible the ORAU effort, 

13 it flips. I mean, the result flips. We're 

14 getting a lower dose and then we flip the results.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert. 

16 Are you referring to Table 1 in that where it's 

17 showing that the PoC values?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Remember, those 

20 are the PoC values from the first version that SC&A 

21 did. And this discussion came up because they had 

22 assigned -- most of that is due to the distributions 

23 that were assigned. We assigned missed dose as a 
 

79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 triangular distribution in accordance with our 

2 documented procedures and SC&A assigned it as 

3 log-normal with a GSD of three, if I remember 

4 correctly.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: That's correct.

6 MR. SIEBERT: And it resulted in a much 

7 larger PoC.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So that --

9 right. So those were both reasonable judgments. 

10 On the other hand the question is did NIOSH do what 

11 it was supposed to do? And the answer -- I think 

12 the answer is, yes, right? That you were supposed

13 to do a triangular distribution?

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that SC&A 

16 felt that in their best judgment they wanted to use 

17 the log-normal, is that correct?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: That's correct. If you 

19 look at Table 2 -- yes, to answer your question --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

21 DR. BUCHANAN: -- Table 2 does show, 

22 and in fact, that was our next issue of discussion 

23 item two was missed internal dose. And I know we 
 

80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discussed this.

2 And that refreshes my memory, and 

3 that's what the next item was. And that is that 

4 the internal dose should be, it should be assigned 

5 as a triangle rather than the way we assigned it. 

6 So if you look at Table 2 you see that it falls back 

7 in line.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good. 

9 That is most satisfying. Because then there is the 

10 issue of whether the occupational medical dose but 

11 fundamentally doing -- using the triangular 

12 distribution which is, as I understand it, is 

13 that's what ORAU should have been using. Then they 

14 get a lower dose and the PoC is lower.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is -- and 

17 we do not flip, if you will?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And in fact, the 

20 Method B -- although Method B is really optional. 

21 I mean, we're supposed to be checking NIOSH in 

22 Method A which is to say Method A tries to reproduce 

23 the NIOSH result -- the procedure, the NIOSH 
 

81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 procedure. And so that is most satisfying.

2 Other Subcommittee Members have any 

3 comments about this? I'm really pleased to see it. 

4 And it gives me a lot of confidence in the process 

5 that you folks are agreeing on. Any other comments 

6 by any other --

7 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I don't 

8 have any.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Are you 

11 just asking about this or the whole case in general? 

12 Because I have --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, I'm just 

14 asking about this.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But this was 

17 something we discussed last time and it does seem 

18 to me that aspect of the discussion is resolved and 

19 resolved properly, that there is agreement between 

20 NIOSH and SC&A. And I'm always glad when there's 

21 agreement, particularly because we're looking at 

22 blind -- you know, blind case reviews.

23 Now it is now 12:25.
 

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Dr. Kotelchuck, I do have 

2 the X-ray answer if you want to get that out of the 

3 way before we --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes.

5 MR. SIEBERT: We looked back and it was 

6 back in 2009 when we got the agreement from RF, 

7 Rocky Flats, to be sending us -- they went through 

8 all the film jackets as well and gave us all the 

9 information. It was February 2009. So we have 

10 been getting complete X-ray records since that 

11 time.

12 When it comes to the DR Guidance, I see 

13 what Ron is probably talking about as Part A under 

14 the Guidance for X-rays.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Would 

16 somebody please scroll up a little bit as we're 

17 talking?

18 MR. SIEBERT: But I believe in the DR 

19 Guidance document there is also a statement in that 

20 that states -- let me get the actual wording here. 

21 The first portion says, "X-rays listed in the DOE 

22 file may not be complete if it's for a compensable 

23 claim, that's fine. Use TBD defaults if the 
 

83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claim's non-compensable."

2 The next portion says, "going forward, 

3 RFP records will be going through actual films and 

4 providing a list of all procedures."

5 So from 2009 on we've been able to use 

6 actual records. And we probably can clarify in the 

7 DR Guidance the specific date that that occurred. 

8 I agree that's probably a good way we should do 

9 that. But that's the case, it's been -- we've been 

10 getting full records since 2009.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And so that 

12 means in terms -- I'm not clear what the implication 

13 is.

14 MR. SIEBERT: So the implication for 

15 this specific case is we used only the medical 

16 X-rays that were in the record whereas the SC&A 

17 blind audit used, I believe, annuals based on the 

18 TBD rather than the actual X-rays that are in the 

19 file.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And you're 

21 arguing that you're correct?

22 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

23 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 
 

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the problem is we are using a TBD which is 

2 supposed to be, according to the hierarchy of data, 

3 we don't -- I don't know, are the DR Guidance 

4 documents published? Is that something that we 

5 should be working from? And if not, then we have 

6 to have the same documentation and it should all 

7 be consistent.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I would like --

9 this requires a bit more discussion and I know that 

10 at least one person has to leave. Josie has to 

11 leave soon.

12 I would like to conclude right now and 

13 return to this as the first point of discussion 

14 after lunch. Is that okay, folks? Or lunch here, 

15 breakfast for some of the West Coast people. Is 

16 that okay, folks?

17 Okay. I would like to -- so I'd like 

18 to call this part of the meeting to a close and we'll 

19 return at 1:30, in an hour. We'll return at 1:30 

20 East Coast time. And John, thank you very much. 

21 I do -- will you be back, John? Excuse me, John 

22 Poston?

23 MEMBER POSTON: I'm planning on being 
 

85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 

3 wonderful. We look forward to having you. And 

4 then also Wanda will be back. So folks, have a good 

5 meal and we'll see you all at 1:30.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks everybody.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thanks.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

9 went off the record at 12:28 p.m. and resumed at 

10 1:33 p.m.)

11 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

12 (1:33 p.m.)

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So let us go 

14 back, let us finish the discussion hopefully on the 

15 Rocky Flats.

16 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

17 Just to clarify the last comment that I made is when 

18 SC&A did our blind for this Rocky Flats case we 

19 followed -- we looked at the guidance in the 

20 Technical Basis document and also in PROC-61 which 

21 has an Attachment A on it. And that attachment 

22 says for a best estimate case, frequency per TBD 

23 Table 3.1 or actual records, if records indicate 
 

86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more procedures than Table 3.1. So if you go into 

2 the Rocky Flats Occupational Medical TBD and you 

3 look at Table 3.1 it says for the time period that 

4 this person worked there to do annual. And that's 

5 what we did.

6 Now, all I'm saying is, if we don't --

7 these site-specific DR Guidelines as far as I know 

8 are not published or not something that we would 

9 be working with. And if the dose reconstructors 

10 are using that, that's fine. But if this change 

11 was made, if they had got confirmation from Rocky 

12 Flats back in 2009 I would have thought that by 2015 

13 or whatever, we did this a year or two ago, that 

14 there would have been enough data in the documents 

15 that we are supposed to be using that, as a blind. 

16 We used the appropriate documents and we followed 

17 those documents by assigning an annual.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And Grady, 

19 you're --

20 MS. BEHLING: No, Scott.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Grady, 

22 you felt like -- or Scott -- that you used the right 

23 one for that time?
 

87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, correct. We have 

2 the DR guidance documents. And I just want to 

3 clarify, the DR Guidance documents are also 

4 available to SC&A. I don't know if they were back 

5 when you did your blind. At that time however what 

6 we did is we keep them in the same folder as the 

7 tools. When the tools folder gets replicated over 

8 to the DCAS server where you guys can access them, 

9 the DR Guidance documents should also be being 

10 replicated over there so you should also have those 

11 available.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it seems 

13 to me although there is disagreement, there -- it 

14 is not that the ORAU people did what was proper and 

15 used the proper procedure at that time. And to the 

16 best of their knowledge. And that there is 

17 contradictory information in the documents, right?

18 MS. BEHLING: The only thing I'm going 

19 to ask is what is the proper procedure? Because 

20 there is a hierarchy of data, of documents out there 

21 and typically if you have a Site Profile, you use 

22 the data in that Site Profile for determining. And 

23 so I would think that that should be consistent with 
 

88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what the practice is. That's all I'm asking.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And my 

3 feeling is that that's -- my guess is that this is 

4 not the only case where, with all of these documents 

5 around, that there are -- will be internal 

6 disagreements among -- within the documents, I mean 

7 among the documents.

8 MS. BEHLING: That is true. And in 

9 fact, when we do a dose reconstruction review, 

10 often that will become an observation. Now I don't 

11 know how you would like us to deal with that in the 

12 future, but should we continue to do something like 

13 that as an observation? I made mention of this 

14 point in Monday's meeting, just in order to be sure 

15 that NIOSH and ORAU are aware that there seems to 

16 be a conflict here and we're not sure which guidance 

17 we're supposed to follow.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we would 

19 normally -- that would normally come up as a finding 

20 in the regular dose reconstructions, right?

21 MR. KATZ: As an observation it would 

22 come up.

23 MEMBER MUNN: It should be an 
 

89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 observation. The issue really is not who is right, 

2 the issue is what is the hierarchy. And if we're 

3 all working to the same hierarchy these things 

4 don't occur even if there are disagreements in the 

5 documentation.

6 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I mean, it 

7 seems pretty clear, I mean so the documents are 

8 inconsistent and I think anyone would want their 

9 documentation to be consistent. So I don't think 

10 -- you know, no one's wrong here. There was 

11 confusion because of that inconsistency in the 

12 documents. I mean, so NIOSH did the right thing 

13 in how they did the dose reconstruction, SC&A did 

14 the right thing in following documentation that 

15 they thought was appropriate, that anyone would 

16 think was appropriate and they went down the wrong 

17 path because they didn't realize there was this 

18 other document that governed in this case. But I 

19 think it's simply repaired by making documents more 

20 consistent and I think it can be done.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And in terms of 

22 the blind case reviews there is no discrepancy. 

23 That is, there's a difference but there are 
 

90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 differences in all of the blind reviews. But if 

2 NIOSH used the proper procedure, even if that 

3 procedure later gets updated or we have a debate, 

4 fundamentally the two processes gave the same 

5 fundamental results, at least with respect to this, 

6 right? I mean, so far, correct? I mean, they're 

7 both -- they have both said that the numbers were 

8 under -- the PoCs were under 50 percent?

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And people did 

11 things correctly, both group did things correctly 

12 and that's why we're doing blind case reviews 

13 precisely because this is a complicated -- these 

14 are always complicated calculations and we want to 

15 make sure that we're right. And that we don't 

16 deprive someone of compensation they deserve, and 

17 we don't give compensation that is outside of what 

18 Congress tried to -- those Congress tried to 

19 compensate.

20 MS. BEHLING: And as you can see on the 

21 Table 2 that it's showing the difference in the dose 

22 in both Method A and Method B, used procedures that 

23 we both thought were most appropriate and we came 
 

91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up with the same dose and that was 294 millirem as 

2 opposed to 84 at NIOSH.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So now is 

4 there -- there is, I believe one other -- oh, is 

5 there one other item, Ron, that you wanted to --

6 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, it just got --

7 can I jump in with just --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

9 MR. SIEBERT: -- point out one more 

10 thing about the documentation.

11 We agree wholeheartedly that we want to 

12 have the documentation consistent and Kathy, I'm 

13 entirely with you. The issue that we run into with 

14 Rocky Flats is there's an ongoing SEC that has been 

15 going on for quite a while and there was no point 

16 in updating the TBD until that is resolved and we 

17 can have the TBD reflect everything that comes out 

18 of the SEC.

19 That being said, we've agreed through 

20 the Subcommittee and NIOSH has given us as ORAU Team 

21 direction that the Dose Reconstructor Guidance, 

22 Guidelines, are used as an interim method until 

23 we can get the TBD updated. Once the TBD is updated 
 

92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that Guidance document goes away because all that 

2 information is in the TBD again.

3 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, and -- oh, I'm 

4 sorry, Scott. Go ahead.

5 MR. SIEBERT: No, I --

6 MS. BEHLING: I agree with what you're 

7 saying. What I want to know then from somebody 

8 needs to tell SC&A should we be using the DR 

9 Guidelines as our first-tier document as opposed 

10 to the Site Profile? Or should be comparing them? 

11 How do you want us to proceed in future?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Does someone 

13 want to speak to that on the Subcommittee?

14 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Dave, can I speak 

15 to this?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

17 MR. KATZ: This is something I've sort 

18 of addressed generally anyway but let's address it 

19 specifically here.

20 In any circumstance, Kathy, where it's 

21 confusing because you see contradictory 

22 information, there is -- it is fine to contact NIOSH 

23 and find out what the deal is, why is it 
 

93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 inconsistent and what should -- you should be 

2 following. I think that would be the appropriate 

3 to do. If you find this case -- I mean, I don't 

4 believe you ever read the guidance, the DR Guidance 

5 or even were aware it was there. But if you had 

6 then you would have seen the inconsistencies. The 

7 thing to do would have been to contact NIOSH and 

8 say, what gives here? And that way it doesn't even 

9 become an issue to bog down the Subcommittee 

10 because you can sort it out. And you can still make 

11 an observation that the records, you know, the

12 documentation is inconsistent although, you know, 

13 in this case as Scott explained, it's because of 

14 a timing issue, we're updating the documents.

15 MS. BEHLING: Right. Okay. And I 

16 appreciate that. It was just that the two 

17 documents that we looked at, PROC-61 and the Rocky 

18 Flats Site Profile were consistent. And as you 

19 said, we just didn't even know to go to these 

20 guidance documents. And it's not -- if I would 

21 have even seen it in the guidance document I would 

22 have still just based it on the way we've been 

23 conducting ourselves in the past, said to myself, 
 

94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 well, the Site Profile takes precedent. But I 

2 understand and I understand why it didn't get 

3 changed, because there is a lot going on with the 

4 SEC process, especially for Rocky Flats. But I 

5 just needed to know how we are -- you know, how 

6 everyone would like us to proceed.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. So when in doubt, 

8 just inquire would be the --

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And can I -- I 

10 don't want to hold up the process here but I just 

11 want to -- since we're on the subject about 

12 inquiring, I want to also be sure that we, that SC&A 

13 can contact NIOSH people. Is that correct?

14 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

15 MS. BEHLING: We cannot contact ORAU 

16 directly, is that correct?

17 MR. KATZ: I think that's correct. I 

18 think they have to -- that's their contractor and 

19 so it's best to go through Grady or Beth.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you.

21 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then, Ron, 

23 was there a further issue, the depleted uranium?
 

95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. I'll continue on 

2 with SC&A and we're still continuing on Rocky 

3 Flats. This would be -- okay, I just want to 

4 summarize that item number two there, we did 

5 discuss using the triangular distribution and we 

6 have used that and I made some corrections and we'll 

7 see that a little later. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually, you 

9 showed it to us earlier, I believe. 

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah, okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In fact, I 

12 remember, and that was very good.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So that answered

14 that.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: And so item three there, 

17 we have some internal dose differences on Method 

18 B. And one was that depleted uranium was used in 

19 addition to the plutonium. We discussed that last 

20 time and decided that was unnecessary 

21 over-estimate. And so I went back and reworked the 

22 case without that. And then the next item was 

23 again we used the triangle distribution for 
 

96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal missed dose. And went back and worked the 

2 PoC using the triangle instead of the log-normal. 

3 And then probably the item that needs 

4 to be addressed is the plutonium-americium. We 

5 discussed last time that when we used the IMBA 

6 program that we had, we did not have the add-on 

7 feature, the option number 10 which compensates for 

8 americium 241 and so that gives us about double the 

9 americium intake that it should. And so NIOSH said 

10 that, you know, if you have that feature it would 

11 decrease your dose by about 55 percent of the intake 

12 value, of course the dose. And so what I did is 

13 I went back and reworked these cases with this 

14 information and came out with Table 2 which you see 

15 is consistent with the methods we used.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could somebody 

17 scroll into Table 2?

18 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

19 Kathy. And Ron, I want to ask a question here 

20 because you've been closer to this. You said you 

21 reworked it but we still do not have that add-on. 

22 You just reduced the doses by 55 percent, is that 

23 correct?
 

97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Right. I just manually 

2 did that. We did not have the latest IMBA program 

3 with the option number 10 that does that 

4 automatically. That's correct.

5 MS. BEHLING: We don't have that yet.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, alright. 

7 And that's okay. Is that something you're going 

8 to get?

9 MS. BEHLING: I don't know how we go 

10 about -- do we talk to the IT people? I'm not --

11 because our version of IMBA was downloaded to our 

12 government computers through the IT people. I 

13 don't know why we don't have some of these add-ons.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Maybe Ted can address 

15 that.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, yeah, I think for any 

17 -- you would have gotten that through DCAS, I think, 

18 those downloads, not from the general CDC computer 

19 support. So in that case, I think you go back to 

20 them and ask them for updated software.

21 MS. BRACKETT: This is Elizabeth 

22 Brackett. Can I ask you what version you have? 

23 Because this is something we've had for a very long 
 

98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time and it's something you have to turn on. I 

2 don't believe it's an add-on, it's something that 

3 needs to be turned on.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, in our edition it 

5 gives you the options at the top and option 10 is 

6 not available in our IMBA edition.

7 MS. BRACKETT: It's grayed out?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: It's grayed out, right.

9 MS. BEHLING: Perhaps we're not doing 

10 something correctly. If you could provide us with 

11 maybe a step-by-step, perhaps we're just not even 

12 -- we don't know how to --

13 MR. KATZ: Maybe we could just do this 

14 offline, though.

15 MS. BEHLING: That's what I meant.

16 MR. KATZ: If you don't mind, Kathy --

17 MS. BEHLING: Of course.

18 MR. KATZ: -- or Ron, whoever is sort 

19 of going to be the user, if you can get in touch 

20 with -- through Grady, whoever can help you from 

21 ORAU or DCAS sort this out. I mean, I agree you 

22 need to have the right software and you have to know 

23 how to operate it or get help with that.
 

99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Yeah. Because actually 

2 I thought that Scott had at one point in time given 

3 us some instructions and when we tried to follow 

4 that we couldn't -- we still couldn't implement 

5 this add-on or whatever it is.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. So if we can sort 

7 this offline and not now.

8 MS. BEHLING: That's fine.

9 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that is -- that 

11 completes my information that I had for the Rocky 

12 Flats blind case.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. 

14 Let me cut in and say I've been back online for about 

15 ten minutes.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Josie. 

17 Dave, do we still have you?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hello. Dave 

19 Kotelchuck back online.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, good.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Was everybody 

22 else okay? Was that just my phone?

23 MR. KATZ: I think it was just you.
 

100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay, I 

2 went down and I thought -- okay.

3 So I left it at the plutonium-americium 

4 discussion. I don't know if you've talked since. 

5 The --

6 MR. KATZ: So Dave, the rest of the talk 

7 after that, that was settled, which closes the 

8 third finding I think, if everybody is in agreement 

9 with all that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Then everything else we've 

12 discussed is a process matter with software and 

13 you're okay, you don't need me to repeat it to you.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. So 

15 we have -- for the Rocky Flats we have blind dose 

16 agreement between the two parties after our 

17 discussion and that's good, correct?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. That's right.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now then 

20 I think we're ready to go on to Fernald.

21 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me just one 

22 second.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
 

101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Let me just ask a 

2 question.

3 Since Bob Anigstein and John Mauro are 

4 on, did you want to go back to the Allied Chemical?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry. 

6 Right. You folks mentioned that. I'm sorry, they 

7 had mentioned that to me before and I forgot. In 

8 the anxiety of trying to get my phone working again 

9 I overlooked that.

10 We did want to go back. We have the 

11 data that we were looking for for the Allied 

12 Chemical case. So can we go back to the Allied 

13 Chemical case now?

14 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd be glad 

15 to give you the 30-second sound bite and the 

16 details. Bob Anigstein's on the line, he actually 

17 ran the program.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I'm just in the 

19 process of sending out an email. Shall I do it or 

20 shall we just talk?

21 DR. MAURO: Well, let's talk because 

22 this is very unofficial and we did it on the back 

23 of the envelope over lunchtime. But I think we got 
 

102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the numbers for you. And I'll give you the bottom 

2 line and keep it real simple.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Before you do 

4 the bottom line I wonder if somebody would scroll 

5 the screen up back to Allied. Back to that first 

6 graph with Allied on it. Wonderful. Okay, thank 

7 you.

8 Do go ahead, John.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. Grady is absolutely 

10 right in the respect that, if all they did -- and 

11 stay with me now -- is produce ten pounds of 

12 uranium, and we did it on the per-year just to make 

13 life simple for the purpose of this conversation.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did all in one year.

15 DR. MAURO: We did it all in one year. 

16 You generate -- in other words, you push through 

17 the ore and at the end of the year you produce ten 

18 pounds of uranium. What would happen is you would 

19 have a chronic concentration of radon in the air 

20 during that year of 4 times 10 to the minus 3 

21 picocuries per liter, just as we suspected. I did 

22 not disagree with that as you recall. So Grady is 

23 100 percent right. You know, if all they did was 
 

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process enough ore to get ten pounds of uranium, 

2 and I did it -- this happens in one year.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And assuming 100 

4 percent recovery from the ore.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now the other -- on 

7 the other extreme, okay, if you were going -- if 

8 you were in an operation that caused you to have 

9 four picocuries per liter, my number, you'd have 

10 to push through 46,400 tons of ore per year.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 DR. MAURO: So you'd have to push a lot 

13 -- so really he difference is --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Unreal.

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah. Now it's not so 

16 unreal when you look at -- I'm not defending myself, 

17 believe me.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: Blockson pushed through 

20 300,000 tons per year but it was in production mode.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 DR. MAURO: So just to give context, 

23 the -- there's no doubt that Grady is correct if 
 

104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they only pushed through enough ore to make 10 

2 pounds. There is no exposure to radon, it's 4 

3 times 10 to the minus 3.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: If they pushed through as 

6 much as 46,000 tons per year, which is a big number, 

7 then you could get four picocuries per liter. So 

8 that gives you your bookmarks and on that basis I 

9 believe you're in a position to make a judgment.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

11 And it's pretty clear that is wonderful, in that 

12 we have agreement and that if anything since the 

13 4 times 10 to the minus 3 was to make 10 pounds of 

14 uranium, far more than -- generously more than the 

15 amount that this reported, a few pounds, then Grady 

16 and ORAU certainly were generous. And the 45.9 

17 percent represents an over-estimate, if anything, 

18 which is exactly what was thought that it might be. 

19 So to my mind, this is resolved. There is 

20 agreement.

21 DR. MAURO: Could I just make one 

22 clarification? Keep in mind the only thing I 

23 looked at was radon and I stopped. I believe, 
 

105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Kathy, there were other sources of exposure that 

2 gave the numbers that we got and they got that was 

3 -- that differed. So generally --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John --

5 DR. MAURO: Yes?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I just add --

7 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- to what you're 

9 saying. What about the uranium and radium dust 

10 concentrations?

11 DR. MAURO: And others. That's the 

12 point I want to make so that we make sure that we 

13 don't too quickly leave.

14 What we have here is a demonstration 

15 that, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem 

16 likely that they pushed through 46,000 tons to 

17 generate 10 pounds of uranium on an experimental 

18 basis. So I have to tip my hat to Grady from that 

19 perspective and I agree on that.

20 Now what -- the thing we're not done 

21 with is that the lung dose -- now we just sort of 

22 put to bed the radon issue. There may still be 

23 issues in terms of the dose reconstruction blinds 
 

106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that transcend the radon issue, that goes toward 

2 more, let's say, what Kathy had done. And she 

3 being the much better -- because we did still come 

4 up with differences. We just put to bed one item 

5 that I brought up but I think there are other items 

6 under the Method A that are, to some degree, in 

7 dispute. I'm not sure. So I'd like to ask Kathy 

8 if she is in a position to address if there are

9 differences related to other exposure 

10 radionuclides.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yeah, I can 

13 briefly address that. If you want more detail Doug 

14 can probably help me out here also. 

15 But one of the things, when Doug 

16 actually did the Method A blind and the approach 

17 that he used, again, NIOSH had used the ten percent 

18 of the OTIB-43 data. And Doug actually used -- he 

19 used Table 4.3 -- 4-3 of OTIB-43 plus he used ratios 

20 associated with other radionuclides and he 

21 selected surrogate data from the Blockson TBD for 

22 the operational period. And then during the 

23 residual period he used the depletion data from the 
 

107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 OTIB-70.

2 So that -- and we came up with -- Method 

3 A also came up with some very high doses and perhaps 

4 we need to discuss this in a little more detail, 

5 if it's necessary for the Subcommittee. But the 

6 thorium, uranium-thorium dose for the operational 

7 period, it ended up being 93 rem. And the 

8 uranium-thorium for the residual period was 24 rem 

9 as opposed to NIOSH coming up with an operational 

10 dose of 15 rem and 88 millirem for the residual 

11 period. And again, it was because of them using 

12 this ten percent of the OTIB-43 data.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: uh-huh. 

14 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt.

15 And that did make a difference in the 

16 compensation decision?

17 MS. BEHLING: That was the primary 

18 dose, the internal dose, yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Right. But what I'm 

20 saying is, the difference is that you also came up 

21 with a dose that resulted in a PoC above .5 while 

22 NIOSH came up with a dose below .5?

23 MS. BEHLING: Correct.
 

108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: That's why I'm saying it's 

2 important. Notwithstanding the radon issue.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

4 put up the -- good, let's put up the report. 

5 I recall that as the only issue. So 

6 Grady or -- what do you say to this?

7 MR. CALHOUN: I say that I focused 

8 entirely on radon and I can't speak intelligently 

9 and quickly on the uranium-thorium.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Sorry about that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, that's okay. 

13 And to me, that's just come up. I haven't reviewed 

14 that report as I wish I had.

15 Do we want to -- does the Subcommittee 

16 want to go back and take a look at the -- we'll go 

17 back and take a look at the report and meanwhile, 

18 Grady, you will look at the uranium-thorium issues 

19 and report back to us next time?

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I will.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. CALHOUN: As a side note, 

23 completely aside, I just want to let you know I just 
 

109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forwarded some IMBA instructions to Ron and Kathy 

2 --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

4 MR. CALHOUN: -- but it's seems just 

5 based on these discussions you may not have that 

6 available. But at least try it and then let me know 

7 what version you have.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Good.

9 MS. BEHLING: Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So we've 

11 resolved the radon issue which was keeping us apart 

12 last time. So we have one more piece to see if we 

13 will have agreement. 

14 So I believe we are ready, unless --

15 well, let me ask Subcommittee Members, does anyone 

16 want to have anything to say before we leave Allied?

17 MEMBER MUNN: I think your choice is 

18 correct, Dave.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay. 

20 Good. And I will gather from your comment that, 

21 on the discussion, that you were not -- you are 

22 happy to have reached agreement, if not swallowed 

23 your gorge because you though we all disagreed with 
 

110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's correct.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay, 

4 well that's good. I'm always happy when we all 

5 agree, at least so far. We'll come back to 

6 uranium-thorium.

7 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Can I 

8 just ask a quick question?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

10 MS. BEHLING: Because I'm confused. 

11 So is NIOSH going to respond to the internal dose 

12 or is SC&A supposed to write a memo also on our 

13 approach? I'm just --

14 MR. CALHOUN: The ball is in my court 

15 right now.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

17 Correct.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I just wanted to 

19 be sure we --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Grady 

21 report, yeah.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.
 

111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Could I just -- before we 

2 move on, just to expedite things, so once Grady 

3 responds, Kathy, you'll respond and we'll -- that 

4 will be distributed to the whole Work Group and to 

5 the staff and you folks. So please once Grady 

6 responds, if you can do a memo there --

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: -- that takes into account 

9 how he responds and then puts out whatever your view 

10 is.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: That would be good. That 

13 way we'll have that ready for the next Subcommittee 

14 meeting.

15 MS. BEHLING: Right. Great.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

17 hopefully we'll get that resolved next 

18 Subcommittee meeting.

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now I believe we 

21 are ready to go to Fernald.

22 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Fernald was 

23 presented by Doug last time and there were several 
 

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issues I believe that you wanted some clarification 

2 on. He prepared a memo now, it just was sent out 

3 yesterday and I think that Nancy got us a PA cleared 

4 version this morning. So Doug, are you in a 

5 position to discuss this memo?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If I may just as 

7 we start, for everybody, let's go back to that very 

8 first table that we started out with with all of 

9 the eight blinds that we're considering and just 

10 take a look at Fernald again and see what the 

11 results were that SC&A and NIOSH both agreed that 

12 this was not compensable. And now do go ahead. 

13 Now you'll put the report on on the screen? 

14 Thanks.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is Doug 

16 Farver. And I'll kind of walk you through the 

17 issues that I believe were in question.

18 It is my understanding that there were 

19 questions about the occupational medical dose and 

20 the internal doses. Those were the two areas that 

21 are covered in the memo and you might want to put 

22 the memo up.

23 MS. BEHLING: It's there, Doug.
 

113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Oh, it is up?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

3 MR. FARVER: Oh, it helps if I look at 

4 the right screen.

5 MEMBER MUNN: We're looking at Table 

6 1.1.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Table 1.1, we're 

8 talking about the occupational medical doses. 

9 NIOSH and SC&A both used the same number or Method 

10 A used the same number of exams, 8 PA. 1 lacked exam. 

11 Method B used 6 PA exams so that's not a big 

12 difference. 

13 The NIOSH dose values that were in the 

14 workbook were the same values that were in Tables 

15 3.7, 3.8 of Rev 1 of the Technical Basis. SC&A 

16 Method A used 026 and Method B used Tables 3.14 and 

17 3.15 of Rev 0 of the TBD, Medical TBD. Table 1.1 

18 shows the difference in doses.

19 For the DR, for the dose reconstruction 

20 that we looked at, it was completed in July 31st, 

21 2012. Now, after that there were more cancers 

22 added and a new version was produced later. But 

23 we were looking at the 2012 version. So how many 
 

114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- you can see the three references I mentioned and 

2 their effective dates.

3 Now at the time of 2012 and when Rev 00 

4 was effective and OTIB-6 was effective, and I will 

5 mention that PROC-61 Rev 3 was also effective from 

6 2010.

7 But Rev 1 of the TBD didn't become 

8 effective until two years after this dose 

9 reconstruction was completed and that was a little 

10 confusing. Why would the workbook contain values 

11 that aren't going to be out for two years?

12 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. 

13 Would you like the answer to that?

14 MR. FARVER: I think I'll get there.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

16 MR. FARVER: And as it turns out, it's 

17 not that they did anything wrong because they 

18 actually followed the guidance set forth in 

19 Attachment C of PROC-61 along with the X-ray 

20 parameters that were in the Technical Basis. But 

21 I did not find those numbers published anywhere. 

22 You know, they might have done the calculations but 

23 I did not find those numbers published anywhere. 
 

115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, Scott, maybe you could help me, were they 

2 published somewhere other than in the workbook?

3 MR. SIEBERT: They did not need to be 

4 published because all they were doing was taking 

5 Rev 0 of the TBD and applying the methodology of 

6 Procedure 61 to the values and getting the 

7 consistent numbers which, as you pointed out, we've 

8 been -- instead of having that kind of convoluted 

9 way to get there, we then updated the TBD to reflect 

10 those numbers directly later on. However the 

11 methodologies were in place during the time the 

12 dose reconstruction was done.

13 MR. FARVER: And I understand 

14 completely. But you kind of see the difficulties 

15 when you try to reconstruct a case here and you're 

16 trying to use documents that are in place and 

17 effective. And you go to OTIB-6 and you go to the 

18 Technical Basis Document that's in effect and those 

19 are the values you would typically use, especially 

20 since OTIB-6, you've got doses published for all 

21 the different skin cancer sites.

22 So for our part, there is no way we would 

23 have come up with those numbers, the same number 
 

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH did because they were not published anywhere. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: The method was published 

4 but not the numbers. That's all I'm trying to 

5 point out.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

7 sounds more like a finding that the folks at NIOSH 

8 used a correct procedure with data that they knew 

9 but had not written up or put into Rev 1. And so 

10 understandably you would get different results.

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I take 

12 exception to that. There is nothing wrong with the 

13 documentation at the time of the dose assessment. 

14 Procedure 6 or OTIB-6 is for claims that have sites 

15 that do not have TBDs or there's not specific 

16 information. This site, Fernald, had a TBD which 

17 had the entrance skin doses which were to be used. 

18 And Procedure 61 was in place to tell you how to 

19 apply those to various skin locations.

20 Now I agree it's not necessarily 

21 straightforward at the time which is why we updated 

22 the TBD to make it easier. However, all the 

23 documentation in place at the time of the dose 
 

117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction could be used to verify those 

2 numbers. I went back this last week and actually 

3 hand calculated to ensure that I could recreate 

4 that and, yeah, it's workable.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

6 Any other comments or --

7 MR. FARVER: It's just from a modeling 

8 point of view which is very difficult to audit 

9 something like that when it's -- you reference the 

10 Rev 00 TBD, reference the OTIB-6 Rev 4 in your dose 

11 reconstruction and you reference PROC-61 in your 

12 reconstruction. So now let's guess where the 

13 numbers are coming from. It's very difficult to 

14 go back and try to determine where you got your 

15 numbers when you referenced many documents in the 

16 same paragraph for these same doses.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

18 understand, at least I feel like I understand. But 

19 the procedures for NIOSH were correct and 

20 eventually the differences between your 

21 calculations and theirs don't -- do not give 

22 dramatic differences? That's fine. I mean, to me 

23 this is -- this aspect, this issue seems reasonably 
 

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 settled and I can understand why there's a 

2 difference. But that there was not an error in 

3 either case.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It's true, the language 

5 that was used is also correct. However, auditing 

6 that type of activity is difficult. One can see 

7 that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

9 MEMBER MUNN: As long as we have the 

10 clarification before us respective of this 

11 Subcommittee, that's acceptable.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. We move on to the 

14 second item which would be the internal doses. You 

15 can see in Table 2.1 the doses for Methods A and 

16 B in NIOSH. Only NIOSH calculated doses for 

17 thorium and the other three did the uranium and the 

18 contaminants. So we'll talk about the thorium 

19 doses first.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: Before we had a baseline 

22 fecal sample for thorium and several chest counts 

23 throughout the years. And what they did was 
 

119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 proper, they went back and calculated a missed dose 

2 based on .4 nanocuries of thorium in the MDA and 

3 came up with the chronic impact and dose. And that 

4 was done. SC&A did not do that.

5 And since I did Method A I can tell you 

6 why I did not do that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

8 MR. FARVER: And that is because I 

9 missed it in the CATI report where the employee said 

10 that he worked at a Plant 6, I believe, thorium 

11 processing for a couple years. And I screwed up 

12 so I admit it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: Now move on to the uranium

15 in the recycled doses.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Let's 

17 scroll to that.

18 MR. FARVER: And in this one, NIOSH and 

19 SC&A Method A were pretty similar. They assigned 

20 acute intake from the elevated bioassay data and 

21 then they applied a chronic intake for the missed 

22 dose. Most of the results were less than the 

23 detection limit. There was one that was right at 
 

120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the detection limit and one was 18 micrograms per 

2 liter, a little higher than the 14 micrograms per 

3 liter detection limit. But most of them were less. 

4 So we both got that very similar. 

5 NIOSH used two of the elevated data, the 18 and the 

6 14 micrograms. We did not use the 14 micrograms 

7 per liter, we just modeled it off the 18 micrograms 

8 for acute intake. I don't think it really affected 

9 it that much. And then we did the underlying 

10 missed dose for our doses.

11 And Method B, they just assumed the 

12 chronic Type S intake from 83 through 97 based on 

13 I think it was the MDA. So that's the basics behind 

14 those two. NIOSH chose Type S uranium, SC&A 

15 Methods A and B chose Type S uranium. Then the 

16 contaminants were added in.

17 Now the underlined portion, the key 

18 difference between NIOSH and SC&A Method A is in 

19 the collection of the radiation weighting factors 

20 and the remainder organ selection. In IMBA 

21 there's two little icons in the upper left side of 

22 the screen. One says, I believe it's ICRP default 

23 and the other is CFR default. And depending on 
 

121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which one of those you choose it will determine 

2 whether you're using the CFR weighting factors or 

3 the ICRP weighting factors when it comes to dose 

4 calculations. And I believe this is correct.

5 If I get this too wrong, Scott, please 

6 yell at me, but I believe that's the way it works.

7 And then the little italics portion is 

8 a note that's in the IMBA documentation and it talks 

9 about the users for the U.S. and the 10 CFR 835. 

10 And really, I didn't think there's that much of a 

11 difference in the dose. As it turns out, we'll see 

12 that that can make a big difference.

13 When you recalculate it, like for 

14 example the skin dose for the year, it's from 37 

15 millirems, it will pretty much cut it in half to 

16 17 millirems just by the selection of the weighting 

17 factors and partitioning rules and so forth. So 

18 that explains that big difference.

19 Now which is correct?

20 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett. 

21 I would like to jump in here.

22 MR. FARVER: Well, I mean, I know which 

23 is correct, Liz. I mean, I can tell you it goes 
 

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back to 42 CFR something-something, Part 82, 

2 something?

3 MS. BRACKETT: Well, actually, no. 

4 There's two issues here. One, the 835 tissue 

5 weighting factors that are in IMBA are actually old 

6 ones. IMBA was written in the late '90s or mid to 

7 late '90s and the 835 weighting factors that are 

8 in there are from ICRP-26. It's not the ICRP-60 

9 weighting factors. So they wouldn't be correct if 

10 they were used. But different weighting factors 

11 don't have any impact on our calculations because 

12 they're only applied to effective dose and we only 

13 look at organ dose so there is no weighting factors 

14 applied to the doses. 

15 MR. FARVER: Well, it's the 

16 combination of the weighting factors and the 

17 partitioning rules and the remainder rules.

18 MS. BRACKETT: But the remainder --

19 none of those impact organ doses. And I think we 

20 need to see your IMBA file because when I run, I 

21 try switching between the two of them and I get 

22 absolutely no difference at all in the organ doses. 

23 It only has an impact on the effective dose. 
 

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That's the only time that any of those rules come 

2 into play.

3 MR. FARVER: Well, the only change I 

4 made was I selected the ICRP default instead of the 

5 CFR default and it cut it down by 45 percent.

6 MS. BRACKETT: Right. Like I said, I 

7 tried running it both ways and I got no difference. 

8 But I didn't have the same file you did so I don't 

9 know. I think we really need to see your IMBA file.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure the 

12 Subcommittee needs to see the IMBA file.

13 MR. FARVER: No, no, no, I will email 

14 that to Grady and then he can distribute it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

16 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. We also 

17 made mention earlier that the IMBA, version of IMBA 

18 that we have may be different than what NIOSH is 

19 using.

20 MS. BRACKETT: Right. But these, the 

21 weighting factors are not applied to organ doses.

22 MS. BEHLING: That's true. Okay.

23 MS. BRACKETT: That might make the 
 

124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference.

2 MS. BEHLING: You're right. Yeah.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just one 

5 thing from a procedural point of view, I just want 

6 to point out regardless of the version of IMBA 

7 that's used is Procedure 2, which is the procedure 

8 that documents the use of IMBA, does clarify which 

9 of those two buttons to select. Actually Step 

10 6.1.4 states to click which button, the ICRP 

11 default button as opposed to the CFR one. 

12 MR. FARVER: Where is Procedure 2, 

13 Scott? I don't know where that's at.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Posted with all the other 

15 procedures.

16 MR. FARVER: Which is?

17 MR. SIEBERT: Wherever you get your 

18 procedures. I mean, we have our internal version 

19 so I don't know where your --

20 MS. BEHLING: They're likely on our K: 

21 drive under the Advisory Board. And there is an 

22 ORAU and OCAS, and I think that those are the most 

23 current procedures, am I correct, Grady?
 

125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: I would think so. I'm 

2 kind of looking right now.

3 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think you have both 

4 historic and current procedures for everything.

5 MR. FARVER: Alright.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. So I 

7 wonder if we could go back to the first screen --

8 that screen. Thank you.

9 So we are -- I mean, we have a situation 

10 in which there are some issues, I mean we understand 

11 now some of the discrepancies. But the NIOSH 

12 result was one that was pretty close, 48 percent, 

13 the PoCs. And the -- both of the SC&A were under 

14 that. So from the perspective of trying to decide 

15 if the blinds agree, it seems to me they do. And 

16 that for the Subcommittee, that's sufficient, even 

17 though you may want to discuss, and it's proper to 

18 do so, the details of how you did the calculation. 

19 But I think for the Subcommittee we had basic 

20 agreement on that. Is that not a fair statement, 

21 and that's basically resolved?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Pretty much.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And I'm 
 

126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pleased with that. And particularly pleased when 

2 you'll have a number that's so close to 50 percent. 

3 And that when we check it, if anything, it goes 

4 down, right? Other people checked it out, it goes 

5 down. So that's -- and again, NIOSH properly tried 

6 to be as user, as claimant friendly as it could be 

7 and it was close. But with the recheck it was 

8 definitely well below 50 percent.

9 So it seems to me we should close. And 

10 are the committee members, anybody have any 

11 questions or is there anything that we should

12 continue to discuss about this?

13 MEMBER MUNN: I'm ready to close it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

15 Others?

16 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I agree 

17 with that.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. It's 

20 just a little confusing to me because we've gone 

21 into this before. I just hope we're all playing 

22 with the same programs and if not we need to get 

23 that straightened out.
 

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it seems 

2 to me we are playing -- I mean, there -- this is, 

3 I mean, obviously [a] complicated calculation. 

4 And that is not at all surprising to me that the 

5 two groups don't get exactly the same numbers. But 

6 they should be close. And it seems to me they are.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm not worried about 

8 -- you know, a little bit off, there's so many 

9 factors that play into it and I understand that. 

10 But having different versions of a IMBA or so forth 

11 like that, that bothers me a little bit. But we're 

12 working through these things. These have been 

13 issues from the very beginning, too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. There's 

16 another thing I think everyone should keep in mind, 

17 which has been our experience with both these and 

18 with the -- as far as I know with -- because it's 

19 blind comparisons, blind sort of reviews that's 

20 done. Which is, you know, the ORAU folks are very 

21 proficient because they're doing this every day, 

22 day in and day out. And even these folks at SC&A 

23 and the folks at DCAS that review dose 
 

128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstructions all the time, it's different being 

2 a reviewer than being a producer. And so it's not 

3 necessarily the same proficiency with the guidance 

4 and all the PARs. And so I think there should be 

5 some level of expectation, too, that it's hard for 

6 either SC&A or for the DCAS folks to comply 

7 perfectly even if they have, you know, all the 

8 documentation sort of somewhere to refer to.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which is why we 

10 go over the differences --

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- even when 

13 there is a basic agreement. Because we saw the 

14 agreement initially and we went through it and we 

15 try to understand where the differences came and 

16 that would help both groups and our Subcommittee.

17 But okay, I think we really have decided 

18 to close. 

19 So going once, seriously.

20 MS. BEHLING: Dr. Kotelchuck?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MS. BEHLING: If I could make a 

23 suggestion?
 

129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

2 MS. BEHLING: If you want to move on to 

3 a new blind case, can I perhaps recommend that we 

4 discuss today the two initial blinds that we were 

5 given, and this was like way back in 2009 timeframe 

6 or so. And at that point in time when we were asked 

7 to do our blinds we did not calculate a PoC.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MS. BEHLING: But if you look at the 

10 table that is up in front of us, you can see that 

11 the total doses are quite different between the 

12 three methods for the X-10 case. And also I didn't 

13 -- in fact, I should have maybe totaled -- did a 

14 total on these. But also for the Portsmouth case, 

15 I think the grand total there for Method A was 33.9 

16 rem which is very close to NIOSH's 34.6 rem. But 

17 then Method B came in at about 69 rem. So if you'd 

18 like we could perhaps talk about the two of those 

19 as just a suggestion.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'd be open to 

21 that. 

22 I did not -- the Portsmouth -- oh, okay. 

23 The Portsmouth, you didn't have the totals written 
 

130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 down, right?

2 MS. BEHLING: No.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The X-10 we did. 

4 So could you repeat what you said about the sum --

5 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- so I can take 

7 it down?

8 MS. BEHLING: And if you would like me 

9 to update this comparison table and put grand 

10 totals in when we have multiple cancers, I can 

11 certainly do that. But for Method A, the total 

12 dose was 33.971 rem.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MS. BEHLING: And for Method B it was 

15 69.388 rem.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-huh.

17 MS. BEHLING: And then for NIOSH it was 

18 34.656 rem.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Uh-huh. So --

20 MS. BEHLING: And NIOSH did come in at 

21 48.75 percent and we didn't calculate, we were not 

22 asked to calculate PoC for those.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But the 
 

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agreement, the total rems were, in fact, pretty 

2 close, right?

3 MS. BEHLING: Between Method A --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, Method A. 

5 I'm not sure -- I've always been -- I'm not sure, 

6 there's been some discussion when the renewal came 

7 about whether we want to do Method B, whether that's 

8 required. I've never been sure. Ted? Tell us 

9 who we are supposed to handle it?

10 MR. KATZ: We don't do Method B 

11 anymore. Method B was sort of an attempt to go at 

12 it sort of using more basic principles to just sort 

13 of get a rough, very sort of independent 

14 perspective on the doses that were being produced 

15 to the dose reconstruction process. And so that's 

16 why originally there was a Method B. But we did 

17 discontinue that with the current contract so there 

18 is now only a Method A.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And the 

20 Method A agrees with NIOSH?

21 MR. KATZ: And the Method A is 

22 consistent with the NIOSH documentation. I mean, 

23 they're not hamstrung to copy NIOSH's work, 
 

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 obviously.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

3 MR. KATZ: They don't even know NIOSH's 

4 work until they've done their own. But they've 

5 followed the NIOSH guidance where there's 

6 agreement already from the Board that a certain 

7 method is a good method, and so on. Where there 

8 is an agreement they have more independence.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well 

10 then, with the Portsmouth case, I'm not quite sure, 

11 Kathy, where are -- the method that the SC&A Method 

12 A has a smaller total dose than the NIOSH. The 

13 NIOSH dose puts them up at 48.75 percent which is 

14 very close to 50 percent. Is it that you're 

15 suggesting or have you calculated the PoC for 

16 Method A? Or is it that you're proposing that you 

17 will do that if we would like?

18 MS. BEHLING: We have not done that. 

19 If you would like us to do that we certainly can. 

20 But I just wondered if you wanted to get the story 

21 of those two. I'm prepared to do the X-10, Doug 

22 was going to do the Portsmouth. But however, if 

23 you prefer to continue on with the 17 set or even 
 

133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 20th set, we're all prepared to support you in 

2 any way you would like.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then I 

4 think what you've said about the first two is a very 

5 good suggestion and that it would be good for the 

6 sake of completion. We don't have that many, after 

7 all, blind cases that we are going over in the 

8 Subcommittee. So if you would calculate for 

9 Portsmouth and X-10 the PoC for Method A I think 

10 that would be a good idea. On the other hand, I 

11 don't think it would -- I'd rather go -- personally 

12 I would rather go on to the 17th set and leave that 

13 for a report back later when you have the PoCs.

14 MS. BEHLING: That's fine.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do other Board 

16 Members -- do other Committee Members, is that --

17 does that seem reasonable to you? I mean, it's 

18 just a choice of how we'd like to proceed.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: There's no problem.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I'd 

21 like to go to -- in 17 to the next case. And we 

22 have done now -- well, let me ask you, Kathy or Rose, 

23 where we should -- what you would like to -- which 
 

134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one you would like to talk about under 17? Given 

2 that we chose the first three we've now -- two of 

3 which we've done and one of which we're close to 

4 having done. Would you want to suggest the third 

5 -- the fourth one that you would like to talk about 

6 now?

7 MS. BEHLING: Well, I guess I'm 

8 prepared to discuss the Hanford case under the 17th 

9 set if you'd like to do that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

11 good.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Rose, I don't 

13 know if you can bring that up. And if you'd like 

14 I can start and Rose --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Before 

16 she brings it up we all are looking at Hanford case, 

17 there's agreement between Method A and NIOSH. And 

18 if anything Method A is a little less than -- the 

19 PoC is a little less than NIOSH.

20 MS. BEHLING: That's correct.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. For this 

23 particular case the energy employee worked for 
 

135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hanford and for the Grand Junction Operations 

2 Office and he worked at Grand Junction -- or at 

3 Hanford from [identifying information redacted]

4 through [identifying information redacted] and at

5 Grand Junction from [identifying information 

6 redacted] through [identifying information 

7 redacted]. The individual was monitored at 

8 Hanford and there was no monitoring at the Grand 

9 Junction facility.

10 By and large, the data that was used, 

11 and there were [identifying information redacted]

12 skin cancers as you can see in Table 1. And we 

13 tallied up doses from each of those.

14 Now for Method B, because there was no 

15 monitoring at the Grand Junction facility, Method 

16 B did not calculate any dose for the monitoring 

17 period at that site. Data that was used was the 

18 Hanford TBD, the OTIB-17, which is a skin dose 

19 procedure. And for Method A and NIOSH there was 

20 also, for Grand Junction there was a template that 

21 is used for calculating doses. And if you go on 

22 you can see that under Table 2.2 --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Before you go 
 

136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there, excuse me. On Table 1.1 I don't see the --

2 where you're doing Grand Junction. I'm looking at 

3 the headings on the columns. 

4 MS. BEHLING: Okay. On the left-hand 

5 side under the recorded dose, I've identified 

6 whether the external doses from Hanford or from the 

7 Grand Junction --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. Yes.

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay. The --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then do 

13 go on. Sorry.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. No problem.

15 So if we move on to Table 2.2, that's 

16 our comparison table of the data that was used, the 

17 assumptions that were used. Like I said, Method 

18 B did not calculate any Grand Junction dose since 

19 the EE was not monitored. And NIOSH and Method A 

20 used similar data and assumptions except for -- I 

21 will talk about in a little bit more detail later 

22 -- for some job category assumptions under the 

23 internal dose.
 

137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So if we move on to page 11 of the 

2 comparison report, this is where we calculated --

3 I compared external doses for the Hanford recorded 

4 photon doses. And all of the methods used the 

5 Hanford TBD and OTIB-17 and actually calculated 

6 identical doses. So that was a good comparison. 

7 However, NIOSH -- let me see here. Yeah. NIOSH 

8 and Method A based their doses on a 25 percent of 

9 30 to 250 keV and 75 percent greater than 250 keV 

10 based on the assumption that the assumption worked 

11 in the reactor areas. Where Method B assumed that 

12 the EE worked throughout the site and assumed 100 

13 percent of the dose came from the 30 to 250 keV. 

14 And as I said, all methods then calculated 680 

15 millirem for the employment at Hanford for the 

16 recorded photon doses.

17 Now the Hanford missed doses, here 

18 there were a lot of similarities also, used the same 

19 procedures. Method A and NIOSH counted eight 

20 zeros or records that were less than one-half of 

21 the LOD value where Method B counted six zeros. 

22 NIOSH used -- they all used -- Method A and -- no. 

23 I'm sorry.
 

138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH and Method B assumed an LOD of 30 

2 millirem. NIOSH indicated that they selected that 

3 LOD from the Implementation Guide 001. And Method 

4 B actually took their LOD value from the OTIB-17 

5 document. Where Method A assumed -- assigned an 

6 LOD of 20 millirem and that came out of the Hanford 

7 TBD. So that explains some modest differences in 

8 doses that are shown in Table 2-3 which is on page 

9 12 of the document. And I see that that's not up 

10 yet but it's -- the differences are 80 millirem and 

11 90 millirem and 120 for NIOSH.

12 So to go on to the Hanford electron 

13 doses or shallow doses, SC&A's Method A and Method 

14 B again used the OTIB-17 guidance for calculating 

15 the shallow doses. The difference was that Method 

16 B applied a clothing attenuation factor for the one 

17 skin cancer on his [identifying information 

18 redacted]. And I don't think any of the others 

19 applied a clothing attenuation factor.

20 And although -- now this is -- and it's 

21 a minor issue but NIOSH did mention in their dose 

22 reconstruction report that they calculated a 

23 shallow dose. But when I went through the IREP I 
 

139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 didn't see it. It was only for 1982, I couldn't 

2 identify where they actually calculated that dose.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, if you want I can 

4 answer that real quick.

5 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MR. SIEBERT: The reason -- we 

7 calculated it but because we used that value, was 

8 actually 10 millirem, it's less than half the LOD 

9 since we were using the 30 millirem LOD. So it was 

10 zero.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That answers it. 

12 Okay.

13 And we assigned 10 millirem and 9 

14 millirem. So that explains it. 

15 Okay. If we go on to the occupational 

16 medical doses, NIOSH and Method A consulted the 

17 four documents that we've been talking about a lot 

18 today when it comes to the medical doses. The 

19 Technical Basis Document for Hanford, also the 

20 OTIB-6 and the PROC-61 along with OTIB-79, which 

21 talks about medical experts that are provided 

22 offsite.

23 Method B used the Hanford TBD and Method 
 

140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- and strictly used the guidance followed in the 

2 Hanford TBD. NIOSH and SC&A's Method A assumed six 

3 documented X-rays and took their doses from Tables 

4 3.8 and 3.9 of the Hanford TBD. And Method A 

5 assigned dose for -- oh, and to go back just to 

6 clarify, those were six documented X-rays where 

7 what Method B did was they calculated doses not only 

8 for the documented X-rays but also using the 

9 guidance in the Hanford TBD, which is written here,

10 and states that under Table 3.3, that you should,

11 if the person worked there for five years, for 

12 numerous years they get an X-ray every five years 

13 and they get one exam at termination. So rather 

14 than calculating those for only six documented 

15 X-rays, they calculated X-ray dose for 10 different 

16 exams. So that is where the difference was with 

17 the occupational medical dose. And those doses 

18 are shown in Table 2-4.

19 And if we go on now to the external dose 

20 for the Grand Junction, again, as I said, SC&A's 

21 Method B did not calculate any of these doses. And 

22 both NIOSH and SC&A's Method A used a template that 

23 exists. And based on that template, they 
 

141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculated unmonitored dose. And they also, from 

2 that template, they used a coworker dose. And 

3 within that template, you have to select what the 

4 job category is for this individual. And for 

5 calculating the photon doses, both SC&A and NIOSH 

6 assumed that this individual was an administrative 

7 worker and calculated doses according to that.

8 Okay. No one calculated missed doses 

9 because we used the coworker data. In calculating 

10 shallow doses for the Grand Junction, they also 

11 used the coworker data and used a beta-to-photon 

12 ratio of 1.5. The only difference there was SC&A, 

13 for the first year of employment and in the last 

14 year of employment, only assumed a partial year and 

15 adjusted the doses accordingly, where NIOSH gave 

16 the individual full years' worth of dose for first 

17 and last years of employment.

18 No medical doses were assigned and --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Somebody needs 

20 to scroll up, I believe.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm now on page 

22 16. And neither SC&A nor NIOSH assigned medical 

23 doses because it was determined that all the X-ray 
 

142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 doses were given offsite. And so, according to 

2 OTIB-79, they wouldn't be considered.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. BEHLING: Now, if we go to the 

5 internal dose, for the Hanford for the internal 

6 dose, NIOSH and SC&A's Method A assigned coworker 

7 dose and environmental intakes. Now, Method B 

8 only assigned the environmental intakes for the 

9 Hanford dose.

10 Okay. We can see in Table 2.6, that is 

11 on page 17, that they calculated nearly identical 

12 doses. And NIOSH and SC&A's Method A calculated 

13 the unmonitored internal doses based on Section 

14 5.6.2 in Attachment C of the Hanford TBD.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. 

16 Remarkable agreement.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And let's see, we 

18 go on here. NIOSH and SC&A's Method A also 

19 considered internal dose from fission and 

20 activation products, and they used OTIB-54 for 

21 calculating a dose. And both methods, only the 

22 ruthenium-106 resulted in any measurable dose, 

23 which was only one millirem. 
 

143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the internal dose was considered by 

2 all methods using the TBD. And, again, all of 

3 these methods came up with a dose that was less than 

4 one millirem and so it wasn't included. And then 

5 Table 2.6 gives you a comparison of the Hanford 

6 total internal doses associated with the three 

7 methods.

8 When it came to the Grand Junction 

9 internal dose, again, Method B did not calculate 

10 any dose, and Method A and NIOSH used the Grand 

11 Junction template to calculate those doses. This 

12 is where there is a difference. In this particular 

13 case, NIOSH determined that the individual, rather 

14 than being an administrative job category, they 

15 assigned a general labor job category which was 

16 more claimant-favorable. And SC&A stayed 

17 consistent with what they did in their internal 

18 dose and used the administrative position for the 

19 job category. And that is why you see the 

20 differences in dose, even though they're minor.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But, 

22 yes, they are minor. On the other hand, NIOSH was 

23 more claimant-friendly in this case.
 

144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: That's correct.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So that's fine.

3 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. So that 

4 sums it up.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then let's go 

6 back to the first table. I'm sorry, Scott, did you 

7 want to say something?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I don't know how 

9 you want to do it. There are in summary, if I 

10 remember correctly -- and I'd like to compliment 

11 Kathy on how she wrote up the comparison. That was 

12 very easy to follow, that was great.

13 I think there's three things in the 

14 summary that are the pieces of the comparison I 

15 think we need to discuss, if that's --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Let's do 

17 that.

18 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, that's great, 

19 Scott. Go ahead. I assume that you take issue 

20 maybe with some of our assumptions, but go ahead.

21 MR. SIEBERT: So I don't know if you 

22 want to put up the summary up on the screen?

23 MS. BEHLING: Page 19 and 20.
 

145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Great. The first thing 

2 that I saw differentiation-wise is the decision of 

3 where the LOD values come from. Is that how you 

4 read that as well, Kathy?

5 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I was under the 

6 assumption that NIOSH selected the LOD value of 30 

7 millirems from the Implementation Guide, and SC&A 

8 took it from the OTIB-17, although they're the same 

9 values.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. And actually, 

11 that has to do -- you're right, we used the 30 

12 millirem LOD. That has to do with where you're 

13 looking at for the reference. The reference of the 

14 IG is actually referencing the LOD over 2 

15 methodology at the end of that paragraph, as 

16 opposed to the LOD values.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

18 MR. SIEBERT: So we went back and we 

19 used the values that are in OTIB-17 just like was 

20 also used in approach B. And I figured out 

21 approach A used 20 millirems for the LOD, and I 

22 think I figured out why. It looks like they used 

23 Table 6-13 from the TBD. The issue with that is, 
 

146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that is for the penetrating LODs, not the 

2 non-penetrating, shallow LODs. 

3 The LODs for the shallow 

4 non-penetrating are actually found in -- well, 

5 originally in OTIB-17, but it's also in the 

6 Technical Basis Document in Attachment C where it 

7 discusses in assessing skin claims and it states 

8 that the non-penetrating LOD for that timeframe is 

9 30 millirem.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Agreed.

11 MR. SIEBERT: So that's that one.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MR. SIEBERT: The next one has to do 

14 with the number of medical X-rays, correct?

15 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, yes. 

16 What Method B did is they actually looked at the 

17 documentation, saw the six documented X-rays. But 

18 then also went into the Hanford TBD, read through 

19 the Hanford TBD, and I think have words in there 

20 to that effect on -- what page are we on here? Page 

21 14 of my write-up. And I can read here that Method 

22 B also used guidance cited in Table 3.3 of the 

23 Hanford TBD that states from 1956 through 1980 all 
 

147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 employees at Hanford received an annual 

2 conventional X-ray exam. And from '81 through '90 

3 all employees less than 45 years of age were given 

4 an X-ray exam every five years and one exam at 

5 termination.

6 And so based on that guidance, they 

7 added four additional X-rays. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And I believe 

9 that's once again an issue of us knowing more than 

10 the TBD specifically states, because although that 

11 may be the case that they maybe have been scheduled 

12 for such, we have reviewed Hanford's X-ray data and 

13 the documentation they're giving us, we're 

14 convinced that when they give us the X-ray record, 

15 the X-ray record is actually correct. If 

16 somebody's not shown as getting annual X-rays we're 

17 not going to be assigning X-rays. We assign it 

18 based on the actual X-ray record that was given.

19 MS. BEHLING: And is that also written 

20 up in your Guidance Document for Hanford?

21 MR. SIEBERT: That I can't tell you off 

22 the top of my head.

23 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm just curious. 
 

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Alright. Again, this goes back to the issue of 

2 consistency. And if NIOSH and ORAU are convinced 

3 that they are getting all of the records from 

4 Hanford, I just think that we need to reflect that 

5 in the documentation.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. So we've got 

7 that. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do we need to go 

9 back to 19 or does that close it? Page 19.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, one more.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

12 back, then.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And this will be a quick 

14 one, too.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

16 MR. SIEBERT: This was the assignment 

17 of the job category for internal doses. And 

18 although it was claimant-favorable, we agree that 

19 the individual was more likely fit into the admin 

20 category as was defined for external. And I agree 

21 this should have been consistent for admin both 

22 ways. It's claimant-favorable in this case, for 

23 a non-comp case, but still I agree that it should 
 

149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have been administrative.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we 

3 have basic agreement here, really quite good 

4 agreement. And the PoCs from SC&A are just a 

5 little bit lower, reflecting, just as you 

6 discussed, among other things the choice of 

7 administrative versus general labor.

8 Is there anything more that the 

9 Subcommittee needs to -- it looks to me like there's 

10 agreement, and I would be ready to move on, or await 

11 other Subcommittee Members' comments and then make 

12 a decision. Comments from other members?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

14 don't have any.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

16 Anybody?

17 MEMBER BEACH: I believe I'm 

18 conflicted, so I can't comment on this. Is that 

19 correct, Ted?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct. 

21 Yeah.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And I'm not even here.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right, 
 

150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you aren't, either. So, John, you're the third 

2 one. Are you in agreement this is fine?

3 MEMBER MUNN: He may not be with us, 

4 either.

5 MEMBER POSTON: Hello, can you hear me?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. I was on mute. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I thought 

9 that might be. It looks fine, right?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay, 

12 folks, I think we have agreement here, and we can 

13 move on to the next case.

14 Now, it is now almost 3:00 o'clock. It 

15 probably is a good time for a break. We came back 

16 at 1:30. Would people like to take a brief break?

17 MS. BEHLING: Sure.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's 

19 five of 3:00, let's get together at five after 3:00. 

20 Okay? See you all in ten minutes.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

22 went off the record at 2:54 p.m. and resumed at 3:05 

23 p.m.)
 

151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let us begin. 

2 So, we have closed out the Hanford-Grand Junction. 

3 I see we have one left from the 17th on the screen.

4 MS. BEHLING: I think that's -- excuse 

5 me, I'm sorry.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, Kathy, go 

7 ahead.

8 MS. BEHLING: There is, on the second 

9 page actually, there's 6 blinds in the 17th set and 

10 6 in the 20th set. So there are two more left under 

11 the 17th set. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Which 

13 is what we'd like to go on to do.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Perhaps, if you 

15 don't mind, we could start with the Y-12 and the 

16 X-10, and that would be Doug.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

18 good. Okay. And let's see, there's remarkable 

19 PoC agreement. And while Doug is, I assume, 

20 getting his materials together, the Method A and 

21 NIOSH, all of the different doses are a little bit 

22 larger in Method A. And by half a rem, typically;

23 in some cases, three-quarters of a rem. And the 
 

152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference in the PoCs is negligible. And both of 

2 them are above 50 percent.

3 Doug, are you on the line?

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'm here.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Would 

6 you like to start to go over them?

7 MR. FARVER: Sure, we'll go through the 

8 comparison report.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: Table 1-1 just lists the 

11 different cancers and the dates. In this case, 

12 they're all skin cancers. We can scroll down to 

13 the next page, Table 1-2, and it will give you a 

14 better breakdown of the doses. And just kind of 

15 glance across at the recorded photon doses, you can 

16 see everything's about the same.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: If you look at the missed 

19 photon doses, you see everything's pretty much the 

20 same.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. And shallow doses 

23 are very similar. So we don't have a lot of 
 

153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 discrepancy so far in in the external doses. If 

2 you look under the missed shallow dose from skin 

3 deposition, Method B assessed the dose for 

4 potential skin depositions, and also a missed 

5 neutron dose. Method A and NIOSH did not.

6 We jump down to the occupational 

7 medical dose, all very similar. Environmental 

8 dose, very similar. And the internal dose, pretty 

9 similar. They're a little bit different on the X-10 

10 coworker doses for the electrons. All in all, 

11 they're all three pretty similar.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Which is what you 

14 said.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

16 there are the total doses.

17 MR. FARVER: So we can go on down and 

18 go through each one individually, if you like.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

20 it's worth it.

21 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see any reason to 

22 pursue it.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. I don't 
 

154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 either, unless it would serve some purpose for SC&A 

2 and NIOSH to be talking so that they can get on the 

3 same page for those few that are disagreed. But 

4 I think for the Subcommittee there's really no 

5 need.

6 MR. FARVER: When I went through this, 

7 the big difference, like for the missed photon 

8 dose, is the number of zeros. One came up with 110 

9 zeros, another one comes up with 125 zeros. So 

10 it's kind of small differences like that throughout 

11 the whole document. And I'm really not sure it's 

12 worth the time to go through it, but that's up to 

13 you.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't think 

15 it's worth it. Wanda has indicated similarly. 

16 Other Committee Members, is it worth going more 

17 thoroughly through it?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. This is Brad.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. I think 

20 we have fine agreement. John? Josie?

21 MR. KATZ: John can't speak, he's 

22 conflicted. But --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.
 

155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that. 

2 This is Josie. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What did you 

4 say, Josie? I missed Josie.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I agree there's no need 

6 to go into it.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

8 Alright. I think we have agreement, unanimous 

9 agreement. So that is completed and in agreement. 

10 And so we have only one left, as I recall, from set 

11 17.

12 MR. KATZ: Before we go on, let me just 

13 make a note for SC&A. If there are matters where 

14 there are differences and you don't understand why 

15 you have the differences, even though they were too 

16 minor for the Subcommittee to be concerned with 

17 them, if you'd just follow up with NIOSH so that 

18 you, the folks at SC&A, understand the reason for 

19 the difference, whatever it is, whichever way, 

20 whoever's correct. But that will just help you 

21 down the road with other blind reviews.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So the 
 

156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 last one is the Savannah River Site.

2 MS. BEHLING: Yes. And I will take 

3 that and we'll start off. Yeah, this is Savannah 

4 River Site. In fact, the individual worked at 

5 Savannah River and at the Dana Heavy Water Plant. 

6 And I think Rose will pull that up for us. But the 

7 individual at the Dana Heavy Water Plant from 

8 [identifying information redacted] through 

9 [identifying information redacted] and at Savannah 

10 River from [identifying information redacted]

11 through [identifying information redacted].

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

13 both agree, from that first table, that the person 

14 should be compensated and the PoCs are pretty close 

15 to the same.

16 MS. BEHLING: Exactly. Everybody is 

17 compensating. We went about it a little bit 

18 differently. There were five different cancers, 

19 and NIOSH actually approached it using a best 

20 estimate approach and calculated doses for 

21 external and internal. SC&A's Method A and Method 

22 B did a partial dose reconstruction where Method 

23 A did not calculate internal dose and Method B only 
 

157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculated doses associated with the 

2 non-presumptive cancers, and also did not 

3 calculate internal dose. And as you can see here, 

4 everybody’s compensated based on their individual 

5 approaches.

6 Now, when it comes to -- and, again, 

7 I'll make this brief because there's -- well, we'll 

8 go through it. When it comes to the Dana Heavy 

9 Water Plant, that's listed as a covered facility 

10 but there is no radioactivity at that site. And 

11 so the only thing that you would calculate for at 

12 Dana is the occupational medical doses.

13 For the Hanford site, again, we used --

14 all of the methods used the Technical Basis 

15 Document for Hanford, the OTIB-17, which is the 

16 skin dose guidance, and the Implementation Guide, 

17 External Implementation Guide.

18 Table 2-2 is an extensive table that 

19 provides you with all of the assumptions in the data 

20 that was used by the various methods. The biggest 

21 difference in this table is the fact that SC&A's 

22 Method B did calculate an unmonitored beta, gamma, 

23 and neutron dose. That method was the only one to 
 

158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculate that dose.

2 With regard to other methods, SC&A's 

3 Method A and B did not calculate internal. NIOSH 

4 did calculate an internal dose based on the best 

5 estimate approach. 

6 The only other big differences, again, 

7 are the missed doses, missed photon doses. You can 

8 see in Table 2, counting the number of zeros, again, 

9 it depended on if you assumed that the individual 

10 was working on a quarterly basis or a monthly basis. 

11 And, well, we'll get to that as I go through this. 

12 But that's one of the key differences.

13 All of the three methods assumed that 

14 the individual worked at the F and H separation 

15 areas, and therefore assumed a 50 percent, 30 to 

16 250 keV, and 50 percent greater than 250 keV photon 

17 energy split. They also all applied a dosimeter 

18 correction factor of 1.119 for the recorded doses.

19 Let's see here. And the recorded doses 

20 can be seen in Table 2.3, comparison to the recorded 

21 photon doses. And they're quite similar. The 

22 only difference, again, is that Method B did not 

23 calculate dose for the bladder and the colon; only 
 

159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculated for the non-presumptive cancers.

2 As I was saying with the missed dose, 

3 NIOSH assumed 93 missed doses. All of the methods 

4 assumed an LOD of 40 millirem. Their assumption 

5 or calculation of 93 missed doses was based on 

6 quarterly exchanges from 1964 through 1971. What 

7 Method A did, SC&A's Method A, they actually used 

8 the Savannah River Site Workbook, I think it's 

9 Workbook 2.10, to calculate the number of zeros or 

10 less than LOD values and that generated 239 zeros. 

11 And Method B calculated 172 zeros based 

12 on the fact that during the quarterly -- during the 

13 period where DOE records indicated only quarterly 

14 results, they assumed that it was a monthly 

15 exchange and assumed that all of the doses received 

16 in one month, and the other two months of that 

17 quarter would be assumed as a zero. And they 

18 assumed that based on Table 5.5.1-1 of the Hanford 

19 TBD. And, again, in Table 2.4 you can see a 

20 comparison of the missed doses. Again, similar 

21 doses. And, again, Method B did not calculate the 

22 bladder and colon dose.

23 Recorded shallow dose. Method B's is 
 

160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lower due to the fact that prior to 1971 the method 

2 applied a dosimeter correction factor of .6 to the 

3 dose. So that is why the recorded photon dose for 

4 the skin cancers is slightly less, as shown in Table 

5 2.5.

6 Missed shallow dose. Only Method A 

7 calculated a missed shallow dose, and that was 

8 based, again, on running the Savannah River Site 

9 Workbook, which arrived at a total of six zeros or 

10 less than LOD electron doses. 

11 And to go on to unmonitored photon and 

12 electron doses, only Method B calculated, as I 

13 stated earlier, unmonitored photon, electron, and 

14 neutron doses and based that on coworker data for 

15 years 1972 through 1974, and used the 50th 

16 percentile for the coworker data for the gamma and 

17 the electron doses, the non-penetrating doses.

18 For the unmonitored neutron, again, the 

19 unmonitored neutron which was calculated only by 

20 Method B and it was based on OTIB-7 guidance. And, 

21 again, used the neutron-to-photon ratios from the 

22 Savannah River TBD.

23 Onsite ambient. All three methods did 
 

161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculate an onsite ambient dose, as explained on 

2 page 17. NIOSH assumed four years of unmonitored 

3 data and calculated the onsite ambient for those 

4 four years using a best estimate approach. Method 

5 A assumed three years of unmonitored dose and 

6 assigned ambient dose for those three years. And 

7 Method B assigned onsite ambient for 18 years based 

8 on PROC-60, Attachment A, and also assigned an 

9 argon-41 dose for that timeframe.

10 And as you can see in Table 2.6. I've 

11 lost my Live Meeting here, so I hope you're seeing 

12 this.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Table 2.6? 

14 We've got it.

15 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And, again, 

16 obviously, the doses are higher for SC&A's Method 

17 B just because of assigning the onsite ambient for 

18 18 years as opposed to 3 or 4.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. SC&A and 

20 NIOSH are basically the same?

21 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, yes. 

22 Occupational medical dose, NIOSH and Method A 

23 calculated annual doses, Method B also, for the 
 

162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Dana employment period according to OTIB-6. And 

2 also calculated Savannah River Site occupational 

3 medical doses for 16 documented X-rays that were 

4 in the DOE files. Both Method A and NIOSH 

5 calculated based on just the 16 documented. 

6 Method B only calculated for 15 as opposed to 16, 

7 somehow didn't see all of the documented X-rays. 

8 But it's obviously nearly identical doses that are 

9 shown in Table 2.7.

10 And again, as I said, internal dose was 

11 only calculated by NIOSH. In all cases, the 

12 urinalysis data for plutonium and fission 

13 products, europium, they were all less than LOD 

14 values or MDA levels. And so NIOSH used one-half 

15 the MDA level to calculate those doses. And they 

16 also calculated an internal environmental dose for 

17 years '66 through '77 when there was no bioassay 

18 monitoring and they calculated an unmonitored 

19 tritium dose.

20 Now because SC&A's Method A used the 

21 Savannah River Site Workbook, the Workbook also 

22 calculated an environmental tritium dose for the 

23 entire period, as shown in Table 2.8. And like I 
 

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said, Method B did not calculate any internal. But 

2 as you can see, and I realize that on the summary 

3 table our initial PoC values were incorrect, and 

4 I don't know if -- like I said, I hadn't filled this 

5 out, but everyone, all three methods, did 

6 compensate, and not as we had initially reported 

7 on this table. And I apologize for that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you -- if 

9 you're finished with this, could you go up to that 

10 table and tell us what those numbers should be?

11 MS. BEHLING: Yes. NIOSH calculated a 

12 PoC of 51.39 percent. SC&A's Method A calculated 

13 a PoC of 51 percent and SC&A's Method B calculated 

14 a PoC of 60.84 percent.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay, 

16 fine. So, a high level of agreement again, A and 

17 NIOSH, which were --

18 MS. BEHLING: Yes, very close.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And both 

20 compensated. And that's fine. Is there any 

21 comment from -- it seems there's agreement. Is 

22 there any comment from a Subcommittee Member? 

23 MEMBER MUNN: Looks clear to me.
 

164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Brad. Looks fine.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

4 MEMBER BEACH: And it's Josie. I'm 

5 fine, too.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Okay. 

7 So we have agreement, and John is listening. So, 

8 we have agreement. That's settled. 

9 And as a result, that, I believe, is the 

10 last of the set 17. We simply have one issue to 

11 come back to in the set 17 blinds, mainly the Allied 

12 where the issue of the other radionuclides was 

13 raised, and Grady's going to look at it and respond 

14 to it. 

15 And then folks from SC&A are going to 

16 calculate the PoC for the first two cases. And so, 

17 this is fine, making good progress. And good 

18 agreement, which is the more important thing.

19 We have a little time. It's 3:30. Is 

20 it possible that we can go through and start the 

21 20th set?

22 MS. BEHLING: We're prepared to 

23 discuss the 20th set.
 

165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Grady? 

2 I mean, Scott?

3 MR. KATZ: Can someone take their --

4 someone has their speakerphone on and everyone's 

5 voice is feeding back.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Scott, 

7 can we -- or Grady, can we -- do you want to start 

8 on 20? Can we?

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yeah, we 

10 sure can. The only one that we're still looking 

11 at because we didn't get the supporting files until 

12 a little bit later is the Rocky Flats one.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Which 

14 one -- I look to either SC&A or NIOSH to suggest 

15 the first one to do. Well, maybe, folks, it would 

16 make sense -- no, let's do as we did before. Let's 

17 look down the list of the PoCs for set 20, which 

18 I have not looked at before, and see if there's none 

19 in which the two methods have disagreement in terms 

20 of compensation. 

21 So there's a pretty high level of 

22 agreement. Generally, SC&A has a smaller, a lower 

23 PoC, with one exception. Okay, well, I'll leave 
 

166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it to Scott and to Kathy to suggest a first one, 

2 whichever you would like.

3 MS. BEHLING: If I can make a 

4 suggestion, if Ron Buchanan is on the line and ready 

5 to talk, NTS, I think, is a fairly -- well, I 

6 shouldn't say simple one, but are you ready to 

7 discuss NTS? It's first on the list.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that would be fine.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

10 fine. How about Grady, is that fine?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that's fine.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Folks, 

13 let's go. Rolling right ahead.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is the NTS 

15 case in volume 20. And if we can get that up here. 

16 We'll give them a second to get that up.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: If we can go to Table 

19 1-1. Okay, you can see this one is a fairly 

20 complicated table. However, if we look at it in 

21 general, there's pretty good agreement. There 

22 were eight cancers in set 20. We just did NIOSH 

23 and SC&A Method A, so it decreases the complication 
 

167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a little bit. And these were mostly skin cancers, 

2 except for three of them. And so that fairly 

3 simplifies it.

4 And so, now, that is the overall. And 

5 rather than trying to analyze that complex table, 

6 I'll go down and the first SC&A PoC is 40.59 and 

7 NIOSH's is 41.17. So [it’s] a fairly close PoC. 

8 If we go down to Table 2.1, we've got a summary of 

9 the cancers there. We see that this person worked 

10 as a [identifying information redacted] at Nevada 

11 Test Site from [identifying information redacted]

12 to [identifying information redacted], 

13 essentially, with just a year, [identifying 

14 information redacted] he didn't work there. Was 

15 diagnosed with [identifying information redacted]

16 cancers in [identifying information redacted], one 

17 of them being [identifying information redacted]

18 and then [identifying information redacted] and 

19 the other [identifying information redacted] being 

20 [identifying information redacted] cancers. 

21 So, this was a partial dose 

22 reconstruction because the internal dose can't be 

23 constructed prior to '93 unless there's records of 
 

168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bioassay monitoring, according to the Nevada Test 

2 Site SEC. The worker was employed there in the 

3 SEC, and at least one of the cancers was 

4 non-presumptive, so DR was required.

5 Now, in general, SC&A and NIOSH both 

6 used the best estimate approach. NIOSH did some 

7 overestimate in part of the dose reconstruction. 

8 And if we go to Table 2-2 there, we look at the 

9 external dose comparison. And I'll essentially go 

10 through this and just emphasize areas that perhaps 

11 were different. And if I don't emphasize it, then 

12 they were the same. If there's any questions, 

13 please be sure and stop me and I'll clarify it.

14 We see that they're the same external 

15 dose methods except for the biggest in this whole 

16 case, the dose conversion factors. SC&A used them 

17 directly from IG-001, for whatever they were, and 

18 OTIB-17 for the [identifying information 

19 redacted]. And whereas NIOSH used the 

20 overestimating method, in that if any dose 

21 conversion factor was below one, they rounded it 

22 up to one. And so this obviously resulted in some 

23 greater dose assignment than SC&A.
 

169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In most cases, we see that it was the 

2 same parameters used. Now if you go down to the 

3 LOD values for the missed external dose, we see that 

4 there was some discrepancy there. We used it 

5 directly from the TBD and the main differences were

6 in 1971 there was a switch from 40 millirem to 30 

7 millirem. And NIOSH sometimes did the switch; 

8 sometimes it didn't. Sometimes they used the 40, 

9 sometimes they used the 30 for '71. So that makes 

10 a slight bit of difference, not a whole lot of 

11 difference but a little bit of difference in 

12 comparing values, using different LODs. 

13 Again [for] the dose conversion factor, 

14 they used one, if there was less then one for a 

15 missed dose also. And so that’s pretty much all 

16 the same for the external dose other than that. 

17 Go down to Table 2-3, and this is for 

18 comparing the internal dose. And we see that in 

19 Table 2-3 we essentially used similar methods and 

20 so there was not too much difference in the internal 

21 dose assignment.

22 So, in general, if we look at the 

23 external dose section, we see that we agree except 
 

170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for they had a larger dose in Table 2-4 there. If 

2 you go down to Table 2-4, you see this is reflected 

3 in comparing the reported dose. Theirs was a 

4 slightly higher than ours for the [identifying 

5 information redacted] and the [identifying 

6 information redacted], and the same for 

7 [identifying information redacted] because they 

8 rounded their dose conversion factors up to one.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And the same 

11 thing applies in the missed dose they're showing, 

12 again, in Table 2-5. Now there were other factors 

13 in Table 2-5, and that depends again how you 

14 determine your number of zeros. Like we said, SC&A 

15 generally goes in and physically counts the zeros 

16 or the possible zeros, whereas NIOSH usually uses 

17 the best estimate program. So sometimes we'll 

18 come out with slightly different numbers. 

19 However, for the [identifying information 

20 redacted] cancer that occurred in [identifying 

21 information redacted], it occurred in June, so we 

22 just assigned six zeros for before cancer. You 

23 don't assign it after cancer is diagnosed. 
 

171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, NIOSH used 12 zeros for the full year, 

2 which was an overestimate.

3 And for 1971, sometimes they applied 

4 the 40 millirem for the full 12 months and sometimes 

5 30 millirem for the full 12 months, whereas if you 

6 divide it between February and March, and we 

7 divided it according to the TBD. So that created 

8 some differences in Tables 2-5. Of course, the 

9 skin remained the same, but some of the other organs 

10 were different with respect to '94 because of the 

11 dividing in half we did for six months, they did

12 twelve months. So that was a slight difference.

13 Onsite ambient, again they assigned 

14 that according to Procedure-60, and we agree. You 

15 go down to occupational medical, we see that Table 

16 2-6, we agree there with the occupational medical. 

17 Now I just would like to say as a side note, it 

18 certainly has helped when the TBDs have come out 

19 with the [identifying information redacted] dose 

20 already calculated for the different [identifying 

21 information redacted] locations. However, they 

22 can't always cover all of them. For example, the 

23 [identifying information redacted] is not covered 
 

172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in any of the tables and so you have to use a close 

2 proximity and it depends on what close proximity 

3 you use exactly what dose you would find. 

4 Fortunately, there's not much difference in using, 

5 say, the [identifying information redacted] as 

6 opposed to -- and so it doesn't result in much dose 

7 difference.

8 So we agree that the doses were very 

9 similar, just a slight difference in the 

10 [identifying information redacted] for 2011 

11 because of the choice of the alternate location. 

12 So we had no real dispute there.

13 Okay. Now, for internal dose, we go to 

14 the next section, 3.2. We see that we can't assign 

15 it because we didn't have any data in the SEC during 

16 that period, and so we used environmental doses. 

17 And we assigned it according to the TBD. And we 

18 assigned it using air concentrations, so according 

19 to OTIB-49 we don't apply the Super S adjustment.

20 And if we go to Table 2-7 we see that 

21 we agree there on the dose assignment, and so we 

22 didn't have any disagreement on internal. And so 

23 we come down to the summary in section three, we 
 

173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 see that the assignments were similar, the main 

2 difference was in external when NIOSH used the 

3 rounding up to one for dose conversion factors when 

4 we used the direct mode out of IG-001. So the doses 

5 were similar; the PoCs we came up with 40.59, NIOSH 

6 came up with 41.17 because they had slightly higher 

7 external doses because of that reason. And so 

8 pretty much in agreement and we had no real issues.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. It 

10 looks like close agreement and you very clearly 

11 explained why what little difference there was 

12 between the choices -- between the calculations.

13 I propose that we approve. Anybody 

14 else from the Subcommittee have thoughts or 

15 comments?

16 MEMBER MUNN: I certainly approve and 

17 have to comment that this is exactly the kind of 

18 result we hoped for when we established this 

19 program. Great.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly is.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, Dave, I happen to 

22 agree, it looks very straightforward.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Okay. 
 

174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, agreed? And since I heard no other comments, 

2 so I'm assuming there's agreement there. 

3 And it is now 3:40. Maybe we should --

4 if we're moving at this pace, we have time perhaps 

5 for one more and then we want to do some summaries.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Y-12 is a real simple 

7 one. We can get that out in five minutes probably.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, hey, 

9 that's fine. Okay. Set 21, Y-12. Is that okay, 

10 Scott? Grady?

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, I agree 

12 wholeheartedly, that should be a quick one.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's do 

14 it.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. If we can pull up 

16 Y-12, this was a fairly simple one. We go to Table 

17 1.1 and we see that SC&A assigned -- this is a 

18 [identifying information redacted] cancer, one 

19 cancer -- 143 rem, 51 percent, and NIOSH assigned 

20 150 rem, 52 percent. So we're fairly close on the 

21 dose assignment.

22 This was for a -- excuse me. Let me get 

23 up the right thing here.
 

175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay, Y-12. This was 49.46 percent, 

2 NIOSH; SC&A, 49.48. This was a simple one here. 

3 This was a [identifying information redacted] who 

4 worked at Y-12 [identifying information redacted]

5 through [identifying information redacted]. 

6 Unfortunately, he was under the 250 days slightly, 

7 and this was a person that had [identifying 

8 information redacted] cancer, these were secondary 

9 cancers, and [identifying information redacted]

10 cancer, [identifying information redacted] cancer 

11 and [identifying information redacted] primary 

12 carcinoma. 

13 And so we went through the dose 

14 comparisons and all that could be assigned was the 

15 medical X-ray because their SEC was applied during 

16 this period at Y-12 and there was no external dose 

17 or bioassay information. And according to the 

18 SEC, you couldn't reconstruct it unless there was 

19 records of that. The only thing we could do was 

20 apply an annual determination X-ray exam. We both 

21 agreed that you do one in December, the person 

22 started in [identifying information redacted], an 

23 annual in [identifying information redacted], and 
 

176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a termination in [identifying information 

2 redacted], using the TBD doses. And so we agreed 

3 with the doses assigned there in Table 2.2. 

4 According to OTIB-5 you take the organ

5 that would result in the largest dose, the primary 

6 organ, when you have a secondary cancer of unknown 

7 origin. And so 2.2 shows in bold there those 

8 primary organs that you assign the dose to. And 

9 we see in Table 2.3 that we agree with the dose 

10 assignment. No issues there. And then in the 

11 internal dose section, we can't assign any, and so 

12 none could be assigned. 

13 That takes us to section three, and we 

14 see that we have the same doses, same PoC, except 

15 for the [identifying information redacted]. We 

16 calculate 27.71 percent; NIOSH calculates 26.67 

17 percent. We looked back over the programs used and 

18 we found that NIOSH used version 5.7. We did ours 

19 a little later. And our version of PoC calculation 

20 of program was 5.7.1. And so this is the only 

21 difference we could find that contributed to that. 

22 But the overall PoC, both resulted in less than 50 

23 percent. And so that's the only difference we 
 

177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 found and that's all we had on that case.

2 MR. SIEBERT: And, Ron, I can address 

3 the difference in PoC if you'd like.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Actually, it's not the 

6 difference between 5.7 and 5.7.1; those do give 

7 identical PoC values. What it appears is, for the 

8 secondary [identifying information redacted]

9 cancer, the IREP model that you used was 

10 "other/ill-defined site" rather than one of the 

11 models that is referenced in OTIB-5. We used 

12 [identifying information redacted], which is the 

13 largest of the ones that you have to run. I think 

14 it's probably just an error, an accidental error, 

15 of "other/ill-defined site" is what was used for 

16 the carcinoma and I guess it was just carried on 

17 to the [identifying information redacted] as well.

18 So once I changed that to the correct 

19 IREP model the PoCs matched up identically.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: And what was the correct 

21 IREP model?

22 MR. SIEBERT: [identifying 

23 information redacted]
 

178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me ask. I'm 

2 not quite clear. If you weren't able to assign an 

3 external dose, how would you get your PoC? I don't 

4 understand. That is, normally there's an external 

5 and internal dose, and you have neither.

6 MS. BEHLING: There's an external dose 

7 from the medical.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: We assume --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

10 Absolutely. But that's all?

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. That's all we can 

12 assign during the SEC for an uncovered -- well, this 

13 person wasn't employed 250 days, so we had to assign 

14 doses for medical only.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It was 

16 the under 250 days that made this --

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now, it 

19 is satisfying that the original NIOSH one was very, 

20 very close to 50 percent, but a little bit under. 

21 And when NIOSH redid it, they were also a little 

22 bit less, actually, so that it gives one confidence 

23 in this aspect of the partial calculation that even 
 

179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though there was something close to 50 and we would 

2 have to reject it, that a review or another blind 

3 calculation of the same thing would give the same 

4 result.

5 So, I agree, it should be accepted. 

6 Are there any comments from Committee Members?

7 MEMBER MUNN: No.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Basically, it's 

9 the structure of the EEOICPA law, itself, right? 

10 Because if they assigned external and internal 

11 doses for the less than 250 days, that person would 

12 have been over 50 percent, right? Probably.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Probably, yeah. But 

14 there was no bioassay records or external 

15 dosimetry.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And that's an 

17 excellent point. This is Scott. In a case like 

18 this, during an SEC period, as long as the records 

19 are not the problem due to the SEC, if there's 

20 actual monitoring results, that does not preclude 

21 us from assigning data based on those monitoring 

22 results for that individual. It's only if there 

23 is no monitoring, then we can't assign any type of 
 

180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker or other sort.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

3 approve? Comments? Anybody else on the 

4 Subcommittee?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Approve.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

10 agree.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, then. 

12 This is agreed upon. We are making much progress, 

13 wow. Based on a lot of work by NIOSH and by ORAU 

14 and SC&A.

15 So, let's see, well, if you're able, we 

16 went through it so quickly we still have time. We 

17 don't have to go 'til precisely 5 o'clock. We 

18 should leave some time for the last item on the 

19 agenda, summarizing review results for report to 

20 the Secretary. But I think we could take one more.

21 MS. BEHLING: Can I suggest, if Doug is 

22 prepared, would you want to talk about the BNL case, 

23 Doug?
 

181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: I was going to say, I was 

2 going to talk about that.

3 MS. BEHLING: Oh, I was going to give 

4 you a break. Go ahead. If that's okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay with 

6 us, with me, and I'm -- that's fine. Okay. This 

7 is a compensated case. Both agree that it should 

8 be compensated and the PoC results are very 

9 similar. Okay. Go ahead, Ron.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I'll get the BNL 

11 up here. Okay.

12 We have a BNL case here where the person 

13 worked as a [identifying information redacted] at 

14 BNL for a good number of years, [identifying 

15 information redacted] to [identifying information 

16 redacted], and was diagnosed with [identifying 

17 information redacted] cancer in [identifying 

18 information redacted]. Again, this was a partial 

19 dose reconstruction because of the BNL SEC, and so 

20 internal dose could only be constructed if there 

21 were bioassay records. 

22 We see that, in Table 1.1, that -- this 

23 is where I started a while ago on the wrong case. 
 

182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay. Table 1.1, if we could get that up just to 

2 give us a frame of reference here. We see that we 

3 assigned 144 rem, 51 percent PoC, and NIOSH 

4 assigned 151 rem and about 52 percent. So we were 

5 again fairly close. And we'll go mainly into the 

6 differences. 

7 So if we go into Table 2.1, external 

8 doses, we have it broken down into the different 

9 categories there. And we see that they all are 

10 fairly close. Again, on the missed external dose 

11 there is some difference in the number of zeros, 

12 as we discussed in the past. The main difference 

13 in this whole case was that SC&A reads the TBD to 

14 mean, when they say to apply the neutron fading 

15 factor, to apply it to the recorded dose and not 

16 to the missed dose. And in this case, we didn't 

17 apply it for the missed neutron dose, NIOSH did. 

18 And so that's the main difference in this case.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'm not 

20 quite sure, neutron fading factor?

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. When you had NTA 

22 film, they would fade --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.
 

183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: And so, that 1.81, he 

2 multiplied the result by 1.81 to compensate for 

3 that. But we did not do that. The way the TBD 

4 reads, we didn't interpret that you should apply 

5 that to missed, only to measured, because it just 

6 uses the word "recorded," recorded dose. And so 

7 we will discuss that.

8 And then the rest of it was pretty much 

9 all the same. Internal dose, in Table 2-2, the 

10 summary there, no bioassay records, and so we used 

11 the TBD method. We used maybe a best estimate 

12 whereas NIOSH minorized (phonetic) some of the dose 

13 assignments, and we'll just go through that in a 

14 little bit of detail. There wasn't a whole lot of 

15 difference.

16 The main difference, one of the main 

17 differences, if we go down there to section 2.1, 

18 was in external dose calculations. There was like 

19 14 periods that had NM in the dosimetry records 

20 which meant "not monitored." And so the way SC&A 

21 did, they addressed this by dividing --

22 additionally to that, there was 440 millirem 

23 greater sum dose than individual dose in the DOE 
 

184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records. And so what both NIOSH and us assumed is 

2 that that [it] got left out someplace, and so how 

3 do you distribute that? 

4 And so what we did was we applied that 

5 during the first two missed quarters, the ones that 

6 had "not monitored." And so that assigned 220 

7 millirems in the first case and another 220 

8 millirem during the second case. Whereas NIOSH 

9 divided 440 millirem by 14 and distributed it 

10 evenly among those unmonitored periods. So, 

11 again, that was a subjective call on both parts.

12 And so the periods then that were not 

13 monitored, the other 12 periods, we applied 

14 coworker dose, and, of course, NIOSH didn't need 

15 to do that because they distributed the other doses 

16 between those. So, that ended up essentially in 

17 NIOSH assigning a slightly less dose than we 

18 assigned.

19 So that brings us down to Table 2-3. 

20 And as you can see there, we assigned about 17; they 

21 assigned 16.7 total dose. And the neutron dose, 

22 they assigned 1.3 and we assigned 1.8. And, so, 

23 similar, but that was the difference in the 
 

185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 methodology that we used.

2 Then we come down to missed dose. 

3 Again, we used the physical counting and 

4 interpreting between the badge exchanges and came 

5 out 287 for photons and 383 for neutrons. And 

6 whereas NIOSH used 238 and 385.5 using the best 

7 estimate program. So, this obviously results in 

8 slightly different dose assignments, as we see 

9 there in 2-4. So we would assign slightly larger 

10 missed photon dose, they had more periods of missed 

11 doses. 

12 And then on the neutron dose it was 

13 reversed because, again, NIOSH applied the 1.8 

14 factor to the missed neutron for fading whereas we 

15 did not. And so that gave it higher missed dose 

16 than we did. Oh, I'm sorry, and that, again, 

17 wasn't applied because it was monitored.

18 Medical dose, we used the dose records 

19 and we agreed with that. Assigned the same doses 

20 except for 1949, the PFG. And we interpret OTIB-6 

21 where it says for PFGs to areas outside the chest 

22 that you did not use the thyroid as the surrogate 

23 organ because the eye/brain would be outside the 
 

186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 primary beam of the PFG for that one only. And so 

2 the wording is not real clear but we underlined it 

3 there, the last sentence in the statement from 

4 OTIB-6. Right. And that's it.

5 Okay. It says, for PFG, it's the one 

6 where the thyroid sits in the eye/brain, it's just 

7 outside the primary beam. And so a better choice 

8 of a substitute dose conversion factor, for a dose 

9 to the eye/brain for the PFG is one where it's 

10 outside the primary beam. And so we selected, 

11 since the [identifying information redacted] is 

12 near the eye/brain, we used that instead of the 

13 thyroid. And so in Table 2-5 you can see that we 

14 assign a smaller dose because the thyroid and the 

15 PFG is inside the primary beam, whereas the 

16 eye/brain is not, and so we assign a smaller dose 

17 for the PFG. So, that is the difference in the 

18 medical dose.

19 On the internal dose where there was no 

20 dose records, the SEC prevents assigning it because 

21 there's no bioassays. So we both used the internal 

22 environmental dose and used the best estimate 

23 method. However, we assigned it for the full 
 

187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 years[identifying information redacted], and 

2 through the year it was diagnosed in [identifying 

3 information redacted]. It appears that NIOSH 

4 assigned it from [identifying information 

5 redacted], not including [identifying information 

6 redacted]. And they did not assign it for the year 

7 the cancer was diagnosed in [identifying 

8 information redacted]. So this decreased the dose 

9 somewhat. In Table 2-6, you can see there that --

10 2-5, oh, the label is incorrect there. But, 

11 anyway, the comparison of internal environmental 

12 dose is there. You can see that NIOSH's doses are 

13 slightly less than what we assigned because of the 

14 truncation of the years which was done in the DR.

15 Everything else was pretty much in 

16 agreement, and so this brings us to section three. 

17 And we see that Table 3.1 there, the external dose, 

18 ours was greater because of the fading factor 

19 applied to missed neutron dose. The internal dose 

20 was slightly less because of the truncation of the 

21 year. The total dose was slightly greater by NIOSH 

22 and the PoC was slightly greater. We come out with 

23 51 percent; they come out with 52 percent. And 
 

188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that is our summary.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Again, 

3 excellent agreement. And I have no comment about 

4 it other than it seems fine and a good result --

5 a good result meaning that they agree. Any 

6 comments by other Committee Members?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I think it looks good.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hearing none, I 

9 think that we're basically in agreement on this, 

10 right?

11 MEMBER MUNN: True.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, it's 4 

13 o'clock. We have done a remarkable number of cases 

14 today, blind cases today. We've done eight. And 

15 we have only one case from set 17 to carry over, 

16 which was the one issue on Allied that hopefully 

17 will be resolved readily next time. And the first 

18 two we're going to have the PoC. I think we should 

19 go on to the last item, not take another case. 

20 We've done very well today, got an awful lot 

21 accomplished.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. I would 

23 certainly like to compliment SC&A on the thorough 
 

189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 nature of the reports they're doing on these blind 

2 studies. It's very, very helpful to the 

3 reviewers.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, they are. 

5 This whole set of discussions has been very clear 

6 on all sides.

7 We talked about tasking SC&A to provide 

8 additional summary statistics. And the only one 

9 that I -- I remember talking with Ted a little bit 

10 about this. When the Methods Committee was given 

11 the Excel file for cases 14 through 21, that was 

12 excellent and there were a couple of analyses done, 

13 graphs that were presented to us, and a little bit 

14 more will be asked. 

15 It would be very helpful to have a 

16 similar review for 10 through 13, which is really 

17 a matter of collecting the data that you have for 

18 presentation to us. I think that would be useful. 

19 And, Ted, is that appropriate to ask SC&A?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, of course.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And SC&A 

22 folks, that should be pretty straightforward, I 

23 hope.
 

190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'll have to look into 

2 what's been done in the past and see if we can 

3 combine that. But I don't think we'll have a 

4 problem.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That's 

6 fine. That would be fine. Just expand that table 

7 to start with 10.

8 Actually, no, you know what, 10 through 

9 13 in a separate table, or do them as sub-tables 

10 of a larger combined table.

11 MR. KATZ: Dave, let me just -- someone 

12 refresh my memory, but the first report went to set 

13 what?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It went up 

15 through the end of set 9.

16 MR. KATZ: Did it? Okay. I wasn't 

17 sure that it actually went all the way to 9.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, actually, 

19 I mean, I believe so. I'm not certain. Let's just 

20 double-check it, but I'm pretty sure.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, so, all I was 

22 going to add to what you were saying was, in 

23 addition to -- I mean, SC&A should look at the first 
 

191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report, basically the appendices, which is where 

2 they provided all their descriptive statistics. 

3 But some other descriptive statistics, or at least 

4 one I can think of that's going to be useful context 

5 for your report, Dave, is a summary of when these 

6 cases were done. Because I think timeframe is 

7 important.

8 So when NIOSH did the cases for this, 

9 describing that for all of these sets, the 

10 parameters for that, when the cases were done, so 

11 that the Secretary has a sense for what period of 

12 work is being evaluated, in effect.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's a 

14 good idea.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: When they were 

16 completed by NIOSH and us?

17 MR. KATZ: Exactly. Not when the 

18 review was done, but when the dose reconstructions 

19 were actually performed. I think that's important 

20 context.

21 And then, for example, another sort of 

22 descriptive matter that's important, or statistic, 

23 is characterization of the cases as they're 
 

192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distributed by best estimates versus any that are 

2 efficiency cases. And it may be that they're all 

3 best estimates, but it may be that there's some mix. 

4 If there's a mix, we would want to know that, too. 

5 Because I know the first report emphasized heavily 

6 that the vast majority of the cases were efficiency 

7 cases.

8 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me one second. 

9 The first report was the first 100 cases, so that 

10 would have only taken us up to the 6th set.

11 MR. KATZ: Right, thank you, Kathy.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

13 thank you. Okay. Then I was wrong.

14 MR. KATZ: So we want this, all the 

15 summary statistics, to actually cover all the sets 

16 since the first report.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then you 

19 were also going to provide for us the summary of 

20 the five cases where the observations were turned 

21 into findings?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That was from 10 
 

193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through 13, although --

2 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that we've asked them 

3 to provide. I don't think it'll be that useful for 

4 your report to the Secretary.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I think 

6 that's true. That will just be helpful. So, just 

7 do that, as we said, 10 through 13. And, no, excuse 

8 me --

9 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I may have made a --

10 this is Kathy -- did I say including the 6th set? 

11 It's from the 6th set on -- we did the first five 

12 sets.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I thought maybe I 

15 made a mistake. Okay, sorry about that.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So these 

18 statistics will cover everything from the 6th set 

19 through the 13th set?

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's great.

23 MR. KATZ: And the other thing is I 
 

194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think we'll need separate information. We're not 

2 finished with them, but we'll need a separate 

3 summary related to it, and I don't know how much 

4 will actually be statistics that SC&A needs to 

5 prepare. But you'll want to address the blind 

6 reviews as well in this report. But we're not 

7 through them.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, 

9 definitely. No, we're not. But we have 

10 remarkably good agreement so far.

11 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, alright. 

13 There's one point in summarizing review results, 

14 and that is report drafting plan. And I must say 

15 I certainly have not thought about a drafting plan 

16 or thought about a timetable. 

17 MR. KATZ: One thing, I guess, Dave,

18 that might be helpful is just some of what was done 

19 before. I think it's very hard to write by 

20 committee, or to think about sort of generalizing 

21 on the information and then summarizing it and 

22 coming conclusions. It's very hard to do that by 

23 committee together. 
 

195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I think what we did the first time 

2 was Mark Griffon drafted sort of a straw proposal 

3 for sort of general findings. Not writing out the 

4 report in its entirety, but sort of writing out the 

5 summaries of what's been learned and where we are, 

6 introduction, et cetera. And I think it works best 

7 -- I've just done so many of these kind of things 

8 -- if someone is to -- and I would say it should 

9 be as a Committee Member, not SC&A, but write, sort 

10 of try to take a first stab at just some summary 

11 points and introduction, et cetera. You may want 

12 to divide it among people, but then the whole 

13 Subcommittee can consider and improve.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is this 

15 going to be addressed in some way by the Methods 

16 Work Group?

17 MR. KATZ: No, I don't think so.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, you may be informed 

20 by the Methods Work Group, because part of this 

21 report, also, which will be different from the 

22 first report or might be different, is you might 

23 want to address in this report to the Secretary also 
 

196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a going-forward sort of few paragraphs, too, to let 

2 the Secretary know what's next.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: So, that may be informative 

5 for that. But not really for this evaluative piece 

6 of the work.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I 

8 will certainly need help for the 6th through the 

9 9th sets, since I was not even there. Not that I 

10 can't look over the data, but I'll probably need 

11 help from one of our more senior Committee Members 

12 to help me on that. So that sounds like I should 

13 begin thinking about writing a draft and getting 

14 --

15 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think you'll want 

16 the statistics first, because you'll want to wrap 

17 your head around those.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And 

19 think about what I want to do, if I want to ask 

20 people to do some parts of it, other Subcommittee 

21 Members. We certainly will want to have another 

22 meeting. Well, let's say we're scheduled to meet 

23 in July, in the end of July. August, we should not 
 

197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meet, we normally do not. So probably we're 

2 talking about September sometime when we next meet. 

3 And I should have something drafted by then, some 

4 outline at least. Something. Some work product.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. And another thing 

6 to say is you guys can shoot back and forth writing 

7 between the Members. In the meantime, you don't 

8 have to wait for a meeting just to share individual 

9 information. 

10 So, for example, Dave, I mean, once you 

11 get the statistics, if you want to draft some 

12 initial conclusions, there's nothing to keep you 

13 from sharing those with the other Subcommittee 

14 members and getting their thoughts on some of 

15 those. You go over all of that in the next meeting. 

16 But if you want to get the ball rolling by sharing 

17 back and forth, that's fine.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

19 That would be great. That's a good way and I will 

20 do that. And folks can take a look at it and if 

21 they want to make comments. And, again, I look to 

22 the senior members, not in chronological age but 

23 who have been on this Committee for a while. And 
 

198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so that sounds good. Should we think now about 

2 next meeting date?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Before we go away from 

4 the draft of this, I have a question. Ted, if you 

5 remember, or somebody, maybe Wanda does, who did 

6 the breakdown of the summary tables?

7 MR. KATZ: SC&A did the statistical 

8 stuff.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Did they? Because I 

10 found that to be very helpful.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it was.

12 MR. KATZ: I mean, that's always --

13 that was what we just tasked.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, that was 

15 excellent, and that's what we want more of.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I wanted 

20 to just ensure that -- and perhaps this is already 

21 tasked -- but I believe that Rose said there were 

22 just a few findings that we still need to resolve 

23 from this 10 through 13 set. And I assume that will 
 

199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be like first on the agenda for the next meeting. 

2 I just want to be sure how we're going to proceed 

3 with those findings.

4 MR. KATZ: It would actually be good to 

5 put those to bed before you do your statistics and 

6 sort of confirm or deny a particular finding.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MS. BEHLING: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But we're going 

10 to -- that's going to be hard.

11 MEMBER MUNN: But then, I thought we 

12 had tentatively recognized that the reason they're 

13 outstanding is because they're out of our control.

14 MR. KATZ: No, they're not, Wanda. 

15 There were a couple that are sort of in the camp 

16 of a Work Group or whatever, but half of them were 

17 just that they hadn't been resolved by the 

18 Subcommittee.

19 MS. BEHLING: I was wondering, I mean, 

20 would it be appropriate for SC&A to just put 

21 together just a summary of those, a memo, and send 

22 it out that you all could discuss before the next 

23 meeting? I don't know.
 

200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. It 

2 seems to me the people in those other Subcommittees 

3 have to know that we have now a bit of a deadline 

4 ahead of us.

5 MR. KATZ: So some of those are just not 

6 going to be put to bed in time. The ones that are 

7 with the other Work Groups and Subcommittees, I 

8 wouldn't worry about those. You do need to call 

9 them out and you can call them out in your report. 

10 I mean, it's trivial in terms of the vast number 

11 of cases that are covered. But you can call them 

12 out in your report, or you don't even have to 

13 because the Secretary's going to hardly care about 

14 a few cases.

15 But then there were a few cases, I 

16 believe Rose said, that were not an issue, such as 

17 Hooker, that belongs with another Work Group but 

18 that simply hadn't been finished, resolved.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The findings on Kopper 

20 Co. and the uranium mill observations.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's what we're 

23 waiting on NIOSH to draft.
 

201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: So, those two, you know, 

2 again, it's a trivial number, but if you want to 

3 be as complete as you can then you want to put those 

4 to bed. You can't put them to bed by email because 

5 you cannot deliberate by email.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

7 MR. KATZ: Rose, do you think they're 

8 ones that are going to take a lot of time?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You know, I really 

10 don't know. I'll have to see NIOSH's response.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. If you 

13 draw up a memo of what's outstanding and indicate 

14 which ones are possibly under our control, okay, 

15 potentially under our control, and send it out to 

16 the Subcommittee members, that would be helpful.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then if 

19 NIOSH and SC&A are able to do any of them before 

20 the next meeting in September, then we'll certainly 

21 discuss them. And if not, we won't, right? But 

22 it would be nice.

23 MR. KATZ: Right. And then just -- you 
 

202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can amend your summary statistics by these little 

2 numbers, you know, before -- it will take longer 

3 than that before you get the report finalized and 

4 then add statistics or appendices to it. So it 

5 won't be a problem. You can just amend those 

6 appendices after you've put these to bed.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

8 let's talk about the September meeting date. I'm 

9 looking at my calendar. Constitution Day looks 

10 pretty good. That's Thursday, September 17th. 

11 That's also Citizenship Day.

12 MR. KATZ: September 17th is out. I'm 

13 not available then.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

15 looking, I have on my calendar Rosh Hashanah and 

16 Yom Kippur for those of us who observe it. And are 

17 you out that week, Ted?

18 MR. KATZ: So, I'm only out the 17th. 

19 Half of the 16th through the 18th I have a work 

20 meeting in Morgantown.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MEMBER BEACH: We have a Board call on 

23 the 22nd.
 

203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That's true.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, do we? I 

3 don't have that.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Board 

6 call.

7 MEMBER MUNN: So, what about that week? 

8 The Board call would be out of the way on the 22nd.

9 MR. KATZ: So, the 23rd, I think, is a 

10 Jewish holiday, or the 24th.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually, the 

12 24th is not, no. Yom Kippur begins on the evening 

13 of the 22nd, so that's fine. So, the 23rd is the 

14 day that people celebrate for that. So the 24th 

15 is fine in terms of availability. I don't know if 

16 it's a good date for members of this Subcommittee, 

17 and others. What does Thursday the 24th like?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Thursday the 24th is open 

19 for me.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay.

21 MEMBER BEACH: It's open for me.

22 MR. KATZ: It's good for me.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Well, 
 

204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we're all here except David Richardson. And the 

2 NIOSH folks and --

3 MR. KATZ: Is John Poston gone?

4 MEMBER MUNN: He said it was open for 

5 him.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Good.

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yeah, I'm on. I don't 

8 know, I may have classes on Tuesday --

9 MR. KATZ: I mean, school's already 

10 started again, right.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. And 

12 we'll work around that, I'm sure. I hope. Okay. 

13 Do we want to just say Thursday the 24th?

14 MR. KATZ: Yeah. I mean, we'll have to 

15 get -- we'll have to check with Dave when he gets 

16 back, but, yeah.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I'll 

18 write that down as 10:30 rather than 10 o'clock. 

19 I assume this was done out of respect for our 

20 Pacific Coast people who don't want to get up at 

21 --

22 MEMBER BEACH: Seven is fine for me.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How about 
 

205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 others? Wanda?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the other one, if 

3 you want to suffer my indignity and my outrage at 

4 every turn, yes, that's fine. Otherwise, I would 

5 suggest that you stick with 10:30.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

7 (Laughter.)

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's do 10:30. 

9 So I like 10:30 too. So, alright. Ted, you'll 

10 double-check with people?

11 MR. KATZ: I will do that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And if that 

13 doesn't work out for David, we should have a second 

14 date.

15 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We could think 

17 of Friday the 25th? I don't actually like to meet 

18 on Fridays, but we could.

19 MEMBER MUNN: How about Tuesday the 

20 29th?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Tuesday the 29th 

22 is good for me. How about others?

23 MEMBER BEACH: Good for me.
 

206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: It doesn't work for 

2 me.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It doesn't?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I'm sorry.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay. 

6 That's why we're asking.

7 MR. KATZ: What about Monday?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Monday's fine.

9 MR. KATZ: Brad, what about Monday?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Monday would be 

11 better, yeah.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's not good, 

13 huh?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, it just falls in 

15 the beginning of a week and that's when I've got 

16 all the new projects coming in.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. How 

18 about Wednesday the 30th?

19 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: What about October 

21 1st?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know what, 

23 the 10:30 on Monday the 28th is actually our second 
 

207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 choice. If we can make a guess that we're going 

2 to probably be able to do it on the 24th, famous 

3 last words, then there's less than 50 percent 

4 chance that, Brad, you'll get stuck with it on the 

5 28th. How does that sound?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's all we've got 

7 to do.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Is the 10th no good? 

9 Thursday the 10th of September?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

11 Thursday the 10th, no. What is that?

12 MR. KATZ: I have no idea. It's a 

13 Thursday.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You want to 

15 start early in September rather than late?

16 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I won't make it.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

19 okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I'll be traveling that 

21 day.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, what about September 

23 3rd?
 

208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: That's Brad's birthday.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, we love being around 

3 for Brad's birthday.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MEMBER MUNN: I'll be in West Texas 

6 where they don't have electricity.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. Let's run with what 

8 we have and see if it works for us.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

10 Alright. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I call this 

11 meeting to a close and I thank everybody for a very 

12 productive day.

13 (Whereupon, the meeting in the 

14 above-entitled matter was concluded at 4:21 p.m.)

15

16

17

18