1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

FEBRUARY 10, 2016

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

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

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

JOEL ARANA, ORAU Team

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

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 and Introduction ......................... 4

Decision on Allied Blind Case .................... 6

Review of Second Draft Report ................... 31

Review of Blind Set 22 .......................... 55

Assigning a New Set of Blinds ................... 62

Review of Draft Report to Secretary...............74 

Criteria for Assigning and Finding Observations..114

SC&A Proposal .................................. 127 

Reviews of Cases in Set 14 ..................... 153 
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 (10:32 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Introduction 

4 MR. KATZ: First of all, welcome, 

5 everyone. This is the Advisory Board of Radiation 

6 and Worker Health, Subcommittee on Dose 

7 Construction Reviews. A few preliminaries: 

8 The agenda for today is posted on the 

9 NIOSH website under the Board section, under 

10 meetings on today's date or schedule -- scheduled 

11 meetings, today's date. So you can follow along 

12 on the agenda. There are some other materials 

13 posted there as well that will be discussed today. 

14 Okay. There's no public comment session today. 

15 And roll call: I already know which 

16 Board Members I have on, although I'll circle back 

17 on Dr. Richardson. But I will address, to make it 

18 easy, conflicts of interest. They may not arise 

19 at all because we're mostly dealing with more 

20 general matters today. But just in case, I'll 

21 cover those.

22 So, we have for Wanda Munn and Josie 
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 Beach conflicts related to the Hanford Site. And 

2 Brad Clawson has a conflict related to the INL Site. 

3 And then the only other conflicts there are would 

4 be for Dr. Poston. And those include BWXT, X-10, 

5 ANL, Sandia, LANL, Lawrence Livermore, Y-12, West 

6 Valley, and then dose reconstructions related to 

7 Dr. Poston's [identifying information redacted]. 

8 Of course, he doesn't have any involvement [on the 

9 Subcommittee] with those.

10 MEMBER POSTON: It sounds like I should 

11 just sign off.

12 MR. KATZ: No, no, no. No, John, we 

13 need you. Thank you. So that takes care of 

14 conflict matters. 

15 (Roll call.)

16 MR. KATZ: Alright then. Dr. 

17 Kotelchuck, it's your meeting. I would just 

18 remind everyone on the line, mute your phones 

19 except when you're speaking.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Hello.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Hello.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hi, can you hear 
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 me, folks?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, we can.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi. Excuse me. 

5 This is David Richardson. I just want to say I'm 

6 on.

7 Decision on Allied Blind Case

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful, 

9 okay. Welcome, Dave. So, well, let's get 

10 started. First, on the first item, the resolution 

11 of the two remaining issues: One was to finalize 

12 the decision on the Allied blind case and the other 

13 was further discussion of the number of cases whose 

14 compensability changed.

15 They may be shorter discussions. I 

16 should report that when I talked with Dr. Melius 

17 on a few occasions about the Allied blind case, he 

18 noted that that case had not been vetted, and, in 

19 particular, not been vetted by the Surrogate 

20 Methods Work Group, which I was not [previously] 

21 aware of.

22 And he's been looking into the case and 
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 been reading up about it further, but would like 

2 to review the case. In which case, we really don't 

3 have to finalize the decision.

4 But I would like to have a discussion 

5 about the case to clarify issues that were raised 

6 at our last meeting on December 1st. So basically, 

7 for myself at least, I would like to understand what 

8 was the core issue that led to the quite different 

9 compensability results by SC&A and NIOSH.

10 And I wondered if folks could try to 

11 encapsulate that for us and discuss further the 

12 issue of: Was there an issue of error, scientific 

13 error, or lack of information that was provided and 

14 would [that] bring the two together? Or were they, 

15 as we mostly discussed last time, two perfectly 

16 appropriate, scientifically appropriate, dose 

17 reconstructions that for various reasons came to 

18 different conclusions?

19 First, in terms of clarifying the 

20 differences which resulted in the very large PoC 

21 differences between the cases. Would somebody 

22 either from NIOSH or SC&A like to start that 
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 discussion and help us on the Subcommittee better 

2 understand that, or clarify?

3 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I can 

4 tell you at least what I remember of it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Initially it started out 

7 to be a radon issue and that's what was written up. 

8 And we had discussions just about the relative size 

9 of the operation compared -- the relatively small 

10 size of the operation compared to the very large 

11 scale operation that we used to calculate the radon 

12 dose.

13 After a lot of discussion, John Mauro 

14 and I pretty much agreed that the radon issue was 

15 adequately handled by our dose reconstruction. 

16 And then what happened was we got a new issue, 

17 basically by memo, about the equilibrium of some 

18 of the daughters and that we underestimated the 

19 equilibrium of some of the daughters for our 

20 internal dose.

21 Based on a couple of emails back and 

22 forth recently between Rose and myself, I believe 
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 that, at least her understanding is, that was taken 

2 care of, too. So that's where my understanding of 

3 this is, is that they agree. But you never know.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

6 Kathy Behling. If you would like, I can maybe add 

7 to that discussion. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely, 

9 thank you.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I'm going to 

11 backtrack a little bit. You know, SC&A initially 

12 did the Method A and the Method B, for this type 

13 of case. And under SC&A's Method A and our current 

14 SC&A blinds, we used the same tools and guidance 

15 that's available to ORAU and to NIOSH, with the 

16 goal, I think, being to determine if there's 

17 consistency in the DR methods used and the 

18 interpretation of those methods.

19 Now, Method B is encouraged to, you 

20 know, think outside the box, if you will, and the 

21 Allied Chemical case was a perfect example of that 

22 approach. And I think everything that Grady has 
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 said is correct with regard to SC&A's Method B.

2 Now, when it comes to Method A, as I 

3 indicated, we were attempting to show some 

4 consistency by using the same documentation. And 

5 Method A starts by using what we consider the 

6 appropriate hierarchy of data and documents, 

7 meaning individual monitoring records and 

8 site-specific guidance.

9 But in the case of Allied Chemical, 

10 there was no formal approved site-specific 

11 guidance. So SC&A felt that it was appropriate to 

12 use surrogate data, as well as the OTIB-43, which 

13 is the generic guidance that's appropriate for this 

14 particular case, in deriving our dose.

15 So that's what Method A did, using 

16 Blockson data, and we were not aware of NIOSH's 

17 approach for using 10 percent values of the 

18 OTIB-43. After becoming aware of that, I think we 

19 from SC&A do feel that, based on the throughput and

20 the operations that were going on at Allied 

21 Chemical, that that was an appropriate approach.

22 But it wasn't something that was 
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 formally documented and we were not aware of it. 

2 So I think this is what led to the differences. We 

3 used what we felt was appropriate surrogate data 

4 which complies with the hierarchy of data, and we 

5 were not really aware of this 10 percent OTIB-43 

6 approach. And we didn't realize that it was being 

7 used consistently, because I think this is just 

8 more of a NIOSH/ORAU guidance letter that's put 

9 into this file.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

11 good. That's helpful to me. Do other folks on the 

12 Subcommittee have questions or want a little more 

13 clarification?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yeah, this is Brad. 

15 I just would like to better understand this 10 

16 percent that you were talking about, Kathy. Is 

17 this something that is used all the time or is there 

18 special circumstances that push you into that?

19 MS. BEHLING: What I found and what I 

20 did look at for this Allied Chemical, I went back 

21 into all of the previously completed Allied 

22 Chemical cases to determine if they were 
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 consistently using 10 percent of the OTIB-43 

2 values, and they are.

3 And they're using -- and correct me if 

4 I'm wrong here -- but I think they're using 10 

5 percent of the maximum values that are provided in 

6 the OTIB-43. And what we did, we actually went in 

7 and used, I think, a mean value -- and maybe, Doug, 

8 you can correct me here if I'm wrong -- but we used 

9 a mean value. They're using 10 percent of the 

10 maximum values that are cited in OTIB-43. And as 

11 I said, this was just not anything that's formally 

12 documented. And I guess, if you don't mind me 

13 continuing a little here,....

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

15 MS. BEHLING: I think one of the things 

16 that it did point out to me when I was doing the 

17 comparison is, like I said, we're hoping to use the 

18 same data to see if there's consistency between 

19 what SC&A does on our blinds and what NIOSH does.

20 And therefore, it's important that 

21 we're made aware of any new methodologies that are 

22 being used or -- and I will give you, not just take 
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 too much of a side step here, but if you've read 

2 through any of the 22nd blinds that we just recently 

3 submitted, we did go outside of that thinking a 

4 little bit in the Metals and Controls blind case.

5 There we realized that there is a 

6 template. And when I talk about a template, it is 

7 something that NIOSH is now embedding into the dose 

8 reconstruction report. It's a dose methodology, 

9 a dose reconstruction methodology, that's embedded 

10 in the dose reconstruction report. And it does use 

11 site-specific data. 

12 So for the Metals and Controls blinds 

13 that we just did, we did make the decision to use 

14 a methodology that has not been approved by the

15 Board at this point, but it did represent 

16 site-specific data as opposed to trying to use 

17 surrogate data.

18 So that is a little bit different than 

19 what we've done in the past. Like I said, we try 

20 to use data that we know has been approved and that 

21 we think NIOSH is also using. But it's important 

22 to identify the fact that we need to be, I think, 
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 kept the loop here so we know what methodologies 

2 are being used for the various sites.

3 And it's interesting to me, because 

4 Allied Chemical is a smaller site and I understand 

5 why NIOSH went down this path, but we just were not 

6 aware of it.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Just a little -- just a 

8 quick point of clarification, and it's a little bit 

9 silly, but I don't want to confuse Allied Chemical 

10 with Allied Chemical & Dye. They're two very 

11 different sites and this case was Allied Chemical 

12 & Dye. That's all. I just wanted to make sure you 

13 were aware of that.

14 MS. BEHLING: Correct. That's 

15 appropriate.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. And 

18 Grady, I'm glad you mentioned that, because Allied 

19 Chemical & Dye and Allied Chemical are 

20 interchangeable on the website and in the 

21 paperwork. So it makes it even more confusing when 

22 you go back and try to research Allied Chemical.
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 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, we just discovered 

2 that. And I don't know if you or somebody tipped 

3 us off to that. But I saw some email traffic 

4 yesterday with our web team and they're trying to 

5 fix that, because that's very confusing and they're 

6 very different sites.

7 So, you're right. We are in the 

8 process of fixing that on our website, too.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Great, go 

10 ahead. Sorry.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Just to go back to 

12 SC&A's paperwork, there's one I reviewed December 

13 2014 for Allied Chemical & Dye, and then I found 

14 one for Allied Chemical Corp. One is in Illinois 

15 and one is in Delaware. But then if you open it 

16 up, the second one I mentioned was September 2011, 

17 it also references Allied Chemical & Dye.

18 So I guess one of my concerns in this 

19 whole process is doing this blind review and having 

20 our sites so mixed up with Allied Chemical. That 

21 concerns me a bit.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I found 
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 that also when I was going onto the websites, that 

2 I was having trouble separating the Allied Chemical 

3 & Dye from Allied Chemical. 

4 And I just want to clarify something 

5 Kathy said. You said that you reviewed the cases, 

6 all the Allied cases, and you mean the Allied 

7 Chemical & Dye cases, right?

8 MS. BEHLING: Yes. That's correct. 

9 I went into NOCTS and I pulled out all of the Allied 

10 Chemical and Dye cases that have been adjudicated, 

11 and I did find in everything that I reviewed that 

12 this method of this 10 percent of the maximum values 

13 of OTIB-43 is being used consistently.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

15 Okay. I just want to clarify. And that was as I 

16 thought it would be.

17 MEMBER BEACH: And I guess I want 

18 clarification why 10 percent is okay instead of 20 

19 percent of the amount. Did you look at that as 

20 well?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, I don't know if you 

22 were in on that discussion, Josie. But John and 
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 I had very lengthy discussions on that. And it 

2 would actually be probably closer to less than one 

3 percent if you actually did the correct ratio. We 

4 tried to overestimate.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

6 certainly, Jim, when we talked, I mean, he's quite 

7 concerned that for the AWE cases that we really be 

8 consistent, that we have a consistent approach. 

9 And I think it goes beyond the issue, if I may 

10 paraphrase my discussion with him, it goes beyond 

11 the issue of Allied Chemical & Dye and this 

12 particular blind. But how are we handling this 

13 issue in AWE cases, with issues of surrogacy in 

14 particular? 

15 So what I think is this has been very 

16 helpful to me in clarifying some of the issues that 

17 we discussed last time.

18 I think there's not a discussion or --

19 well, let me just say, to me, there's no -- let me 

20 get started again. It seems to me that both 

21 groups, the NIOSH and SC&A, tried to conduct dose 

22 reconstructions in a scientifically defensible 
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 way.

2 The way that NIOSH approached it with 

3 the 10 percent of the OTIB is now agreed upon by 

4 all as the better way. And if we were discussing 

5 this as a case that came up for review there would 

6 be no problem about resolving the issue and moving 

7 ahead using NIOSH's approach.

8 Obviously, for the blind, this comes 

9 up. But I think that Jim would like to take a look 

10 at the consistency of our approach.

11 MR. KATZ: Can I, Dave?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I'm just 

14 wondering, because I was part of those discussions 

15 with Jim.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

17 MR. KATZ: And his focus, of course, 

18 was -- and this is a question related to Grady, I 

19 think -- well, I think Kathy could probably answer 

20 it just as well. But SC&A in their sort of 

21 back-of-the-envelope approach used surrogate -- I 

22 don't want to call it that really. But you know 
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 what I mean, Method B used surrogate data. 

2 But my question is, the OTIB-43, the 10 

3 percent, is that still a surrogate data approach 

4 or is surrogate data not on the table the way NIOSH 

5 approached this?

6 MR. CALHOUN: That's still the way we 

7 do these DRs for Allied Chemical & Dye.

8 MR. KATZ: But, no, I mean my question 

9 is, is that surrogate data we're talking about 

10 still?

11 DR. MAURO: Excuse me. I'm sorry to 

12 interrupt. This is John Mauro. I'm sorry I'm 

13 late in joining you. And John Stiver asked if I 

14 wouldn't mind joining you, because you are talking 

15 AWEs and it's a subject that's near and dear to my 

16 heart. And I thought maybe I could help a little. 

17 I've been listening for about five or 

18 ten minutes and I'll just add a little bit right 

19 now, because you may have already talked about 

20 this. But whenever I am involved in either a blind 

21 --

22 MR. KATZ: John.
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 DR. MAURO: Sure.

2 MR. KATZ: I was asking a question that 

3 I'd love to get a clear answer about it before you 

4 take the reins.

5 DR. MAURO: Sure.

6 MR. KATZ: What my question was, did 

7 the NIOSH approach, which, you know, was sort of 

8 mirrored by one of the SC&A approaches, was that 

9 also using surrogate data? That's my question.

10 DR. MAURO: In all likelihood, we rely 

11 heavily on TBD-6000 and OTIB-70. In other words, 

12 when we do any type of review or blind, because 

13 those are two documents that have undergone 

14 thorough technical review, historically. So almost 

15 the rock we stand on.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excuse me. But 

17 I think he was asking, John, just before you start, 

18 I think he was asking Grady the question.

19 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. I thought you 

20 were asking me.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no. He was 

22 asking Grady.
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 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

3 We do want to hear from you soon. But, Grady, did 

4 you have an answer to Ted's question? Does NIOSH 

5 use surrogate data? Did this work involve 

6 surrogate data when you used the 10 percent?

7 MR. CALHOUN: I would have to go back 

8 and look at the derivation of the values in that 

9 TIB. I imagine it does.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: And the reason I ask that is 

13 just because Dr. Melius' interest is in having the 

14 Surrogate Data Work Group look at the site just to 

15 make sure that, in terms of surrogate data, it's 

16 meeting the requirements that, you know, the Board 

17 and NIOSH have set out for how it applies surrogate 

18 data.

19 That's all, that's why I wanted 

20 clarification on that point.

21 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy. If I 

22 can clarify one additional thing: Not only did 
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 Method B use the surrogate data, actually they were 

2 using radon EPA guidance data for the radon. But 

3 Method A, or SC&A's Method A, which was trying to 

4 duplicate what we assumed NIOSH would have done in 

5 this particular case, we also used surrogate data. 

6 We used the Blockson TBD as well as OTIB-43.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. And I understood 

8 that for your method, Kathy. I just wanted to 

9 understand whether that was true for NIOSH's method 

10 because that's what the Board would be looking at, 

11 not really SC&A's approach to it, but NIOSH's 

12 approach.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I'd like 

14 to now get back to John. You were starting to say 

15 and I look forward to hearing from you now. I think 

16 we've answered the question.

17 DR. MAURO: I'll keep it brief. Yes, 

18 most AWEs have some degree of need for surrogate 

19 data. It's very common. And the first place we 

20 look to see if we can find any default or surrogate 

21 airborne activity, occupancy times, whatever is,

22 in TBD-6000, which is a comprehensive -- it's a 
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 compendium that reflects research done by 

2 Christifano & Harris, which is a wonderful report.

3 So what I'm getting at is that, yes, 

4 surrogate data is very, very much part of AWE work, 

5 because very often, almost all the time, it 

6 requires surrogate data. But the surrogate data 

7 has almost become -- the fallback is TBD-6000, 

8 which in turn hangs its hat on Christifano & Harris, 

9 a definitive piece of work that is a classic piece 

10 of work.

11 So when we're dealing with most AWE 

12 sites, what we find ourselves, what I find myself 

13 doing is looking at the site, looking at where there 

14 is a need to fill in holes or provide surrogate 

15 data. Usually it's airborne uranium activity or 

16 deposit activity on surfaces.

17 And what we depend on is this vast 

18 amount of data that has been compiled and reported 

19 on. And then we find amongst that array, that 

20 matrix of different types of activities that might 

21 have gone on at an AWE site, which is often a uranium 

22 operation. We try to find which particular time 
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 period and type of operation and job category for 

2 the particular person that we're looking at, let's 

3 say we're doing a DR review, is best suited. 

4 So we try to find that person, that is, 

5 we think he's, you know, an operator that did some 

6 type of grinding operations in 1958. You know, 

7 that's how detailed the granularity of the TBD-6000 

8 and its backup support information is.

9 So we do have a fairly standardized 

10 process that -- when I say standardized, something 

11 that I use and we use to check AWEs. 

12 Now, when you leave the mode of the 

13 conventional uranium machining and handling 

14 operation, and then we go into things like Blockson 

15 where we're talking about tailings from 

16 phosphates, phosphogypsum processing, then we 

17 leave the realm of TBD-6000. And then we have to 

18 go to our own devices. But there are OTIBs, I think 

19 it's 43, that is the standard method for dealing 

20 with phosphate-type facilities where uranium was 

21 extracted.

22 But we don't just depend on that. In 
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 fact, quite frankly, what I do is I go back to the 

2 original source document, which is the Florida 

3 Institute of Phosphate Research. They've 

4 published very, very widely and have a tremendous 

5 amount of work and a great deal of granularity to 

6 the data on the concentrations of uranium, radium, 

7 radon emanation rates from the operation itself, 

8 from the phosphogypsum stacks.

9 And what we do -- this is what I've 

10 recently done, in fact -- is I go see if I can find, 

11 when we don't have real data -- and I believe this 

12 Allied Chemical Delaware site might be one; I don't 

13 recollect, but might be one of those -- what I do 

14 is I try to say -- and I do use our five surrogate 

15 data criteria.

16 I mean, that is the rock we stand on. 

17 But in this case, you know, I drew upon this 

18 experience from the Phosphate Institute. And by 

19 the way, that doesn't always work very well, for 

20 a variety of reasons I won't go into right now.

21 So we have to be careful when we use FIPR

22 [data] to apply to a place like in Delaware because 
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 there's a lot of differences in the way in which 

2 a phosphate is processed in Florida as opposed to 

3 Delaware. But, anyway, I hope that helps.

4 I wanted to let you know that when we 

5 do this, yes, we do very much tend to the surrogate 

6 data criteria and are very sensitive to that. And 

7 usually our findings on any particular case go 

8 along that line, that we may say that, you know, 

9 we don't really agree with how you applied your 

10 surrogate data for the following reasons and where 

11 we believe it might have failed or passed the 

12 Board's surrogate data criteria. I hope that 

13 helps.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly 

15 helps for me. Thank you, John. Any questions or 

16 comments further about what John said? All of this 

17 discussion today helps me, at least in my own mind 

18 as one Member of the Subcommittee, to understand 

19 better what the issues are and the surrogacy issues 

20 that need to be looked at.

21 In a sense, we do not need -- well, I 

22 think we do not need to go further in -- we've moved 
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 along in understanding. I don't think we need to 

2 go further in trying to resolve some of these issues 

3 if we are going to send this to a Working Group.

4 Is that generally agreed? I mean, how 

5 do folks feel?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just had one 

9 question, because when Kathy was talking she said 

10 that they didn't use surrogate data, and this is 

11 something with the metals. I'm just wondering if 

12 she could expand on that, because I was better 

13 trying to understand what she was talking about.

14 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, Brad. I 

15 apologize if I confused things. I meant to say 

16 that [at] SC&A, we did use surrogate data. In the 

17 hierarchy of the documents that we would use, we 

18 would first try to go to site-specific guidance.

19 And since there wasn't any, we think it would be 

20 appropriate then to use surrogate data, which I 

21 think Doug used Blockson, which is a much bigger, 

22 larger operation. 
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 And we also used the generic guidance 

2 from OTIB-43. But we used, I think, mean values 

3 or geometric mean values, as opposed to the 

4 maximum, this 10 percent [of] maximum values just 

5 because we weren't aware of that. But, yes, both 

6 methods did use surrogate data. I'm sorry if I 

7 misstated that.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, that was probably 

9 me. I just wanted to make sure I was onboard with 

10 that because I always thought if we had actual 

11 information there we were always supposed to use 

12 that for surrogate data. That's just what my 

13 question was.

14 MR. KATZ: Brad, Kathy was talking at 

15 one point about another site, Metals and Controls. 

16 That was about another site, though.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. That's where I 

18 got confused. I apologize.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not at all. No 

20 need to apologize.

21 MS. BEHLING: That was probably 

22 confusing for me to introduce that at this point. 
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 My apologies.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no. Okay, 

3 great.

4 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I have 

5 a question for Kathy. Kathy, what was the number 

6 for that Metals case you were talking about?

7 MS. BEHLING: That's part of the 22nd 

8 set of blinds that we just submitted. It was the 

9 Metals and Controls blind. And in that particular 

10 case, as I indicated, there is no site-specific 

11 data. And rather than going to the approach of 

12 using perhaps surrogate data, we did become aware 

13 that this template --

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, I understand 

15 that. I was just looking for it. I had reviewed 

16 six of them but that one I could not recall. So 

17 I was wondering if there was a case number.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Josie and other 

19 Subcommittee Members, have you all received the 

20 blinds from Set 22? I've seen them.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, they've all received 

22 them.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

2 good. Well, we'll come back to the Blind Set 22 

3 later in Item 3. To my mind, suffice it to say, 

4 I was delighted to get Set 22 and find good 

5 agreement between NIOSH and SC&A.

6 And that means that we will have 

7 completed 20 blinds, which I hope we can include, 

8 all of which I hope we can include in our report, 

9 and we have issues with one out of 20. And we will 

10 talk about those a little bit later.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I'll hold my 

12 question until then. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great. 

14 So the other issue on Item 1 is, again, one that 

15 may be -- it may really be resolved. I did not 

16 understand at the last meeting that it was 

17 resolved.

18 And that is to determine the number of 

19 cases whose compensability changed as a result of 

20 our dose reconstruction review discussion. And I 

21 certainly received, and we received, I gather --

22 or, Ted, say if we all received Kathy's or Rose's 
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 letter, I'm not sure who sent it -- saying that they 

2 looked through the data and they could not find 

3 anywhere, or could not detect anywhere there was 

4 a change as a result of our discussion.

5 And then Grady had long ago talked about 

6 that there were maybe two or three. And I wasn't 

7 clear what the resolution of that was. He wrote 

8 something up further.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Dave.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 Review of Second Draft Report

12 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. We took 

13 a closer look at that and I can tell you exactly 

14 what our findings are.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great.

16 MR. CALHOUN: And of all of the cases 

17 that we've actual spoke about and reviewed at this 

18 point, we found two. And I'll tell you briefly 

19 what they are.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great.

21 MR. CALHOUN: There was one, let's see 

22 --
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's great that 

2 you found them, not that they flipped.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Well, yeah. But I want 

4 to see. There was one -- the very first one was 

5 a long, long, long time ago. And let's see, let 

6 me get down to it. There it is.

7 And this had to do with we were trying 

8 to get cases out. This is like in 2005. And we 

9 just didn't have any data. And we came up with an 

10 approach that we knew would ensure that we didn't 

11 undercut anybody's dose, but it was in fact an 

12 overestimating-type approach for some AWEs for 

13 which we did not have any data at all at that point.

14 And so instead of letting these cases 

15 languish for literally years, we processed some of 

16 these through what was at the time TIB-18. And 

17 that was an overestimating-type TIB.

18 This resulted in a compensable -- a case 

19 being over 50 percent that was reviewed by the 

20 Committee and with a finding that we really -- that 

21 was an overestimating approach and maybe we 

22 shouldn't have compensated that case.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. CALHOUN: My assertion on that then 

3 and now is that wasn't a mistake. We did that 

4 intentionally. Our director at the time told us 

5 to do that and to get these cases out the door and 

6 it wasn't a case of us not following the directions 

7 in our TBD. 

8 So, obviously, we didn't call that one 

9 back or try to rework it or anything like that. And 

10 that was one of several, I'm sure, that were 

11 processed through that. But there was only one 

12 officially reviewed, I believe. And then there's 

13 one other one.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Either way, the 

15 Subcommittee reviewed that at that time?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, they did. They 

17 brought it up.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. CALHOUN: That's how they said it 

20 was flipped and it was an overestimation.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Now, we don't do that 
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 anymore.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. CALHOUN: But it was really based 

4 on the pressure to get cases out the door. I don't 

5 know if you were around in '05, but it was pretty 

6 unbearable. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I was not.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Anyway, the second one, 

9 the second and only other one that we could find 

10 that we've actually reviewed already in our 

11 Committee talks, was a Rocky Flats case.

12 And in this case, the way we processed 

13 Rocky Flats plant cases, is that when we get 

14 information, it's called NDRP data, and that's 

15 indicative of significant neutron exposure. We 

16 requested information from Rocky Flats, and all of 

17 their dosimetry information was provided to us and 

18 they did not provide us with NDRP data.

19 So we did not assign significant 

20 neutron dose because typically the NDRP data is 

21 associated with individuals who worked with 

22 neutrons. Upon review, you guys found that we 
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 probably should have, could have, maybe assigned 

2 NDRP data.

3 We re-requested data from Department of 

4 Energy for that specific case, and lo and behold, 

5 they found it. And so they gave it to us. We redid 

6 the case and it became compensable. 

7 So, again, my assertion on this one is 

8 we used all the data that DOE gave us. And we did 

9 it correctly compared to all of the data that we 

10 had. We certainly don't go back and re-request 

11 data from all of the sites. But in this case we 

12 did and we found it.

13 Since that time, and I don't want to 

14 belabor this, but it's just another process that 

15 we've employed here. And, you know, we do a very, 

16 very large number of data captures for various 

17 sites, central repositories throughout the 

18 country. Whenever we capture data with an 

19 identifier, such as a social security number or an 

20 employee ID or even names, we scan that in a way 

21 that can be linked to other existing cases in our 

22 holdings.
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 And we have literally processed 

2 thousands and thousands and thousands of these. 

3 And we look to make sure that any new data that we 

4 have acquired during these data captures don't 

5 change the outcome of a case.

6 And so what we do is we compare that to 

7 the holdings that we have. And then we literally 

8 do a calculation to determine, if they do in fact 

9 have new information, if that would cause the case 

10 to flip. And weekly I get reports from ORAU that 

11 goes over every case that could have been affected 

12 and flipped because of this.

13 And [for] the cases that are flipped we 

14 request from Department of Labor a rework. And 

15 there's been probably less than ten in the 

16 thousands and thousands. I say that, I'm actually 

17 going to try to call this up while I'm speaking to 

18 tell you how many we've done.

19 But we request that rework from 

20 Department of Labor. They send it to us and that 

21 results in a rework, and, in more cases than not, 

22 a flip. We've done 3,685 of those.
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: How many?

2 MR. CALHOUN: 3,685. Let me 

3 double-check my header and make sure there's two 

4 spaces up there, yeah. And the vast majority of 

5 those there's no consequence because it's data we 

6 already had. But we still take a look at it. 

7 And just for quick illustration, in the 

8 last couple of weeks we've got actually three of 

9 these which could potentially flip. We requested 

10 that DOL send the rework.

11 One of them has no eligible claimants, 

12 so DOL has nobody else to contact. So we can't do 

13 anything with that one. The second one had already 

14 had maximum benefits paid under Part E and Part B, 

15 but we didn't know that because it was done under 

16 beryllium requirements. And then the third one 

17 we're getting a rework from, just to let you know 

18 how that worked. 

19 So that kind of goes back to this Rocky 

20 Flats case. And when we do in fact find additional 

21 data, we don't just sit on it. We look to see if 

22 it can be of benefit to the claimants. 
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 So those were the only two that we could 

2 find that, due to the discussions we had, 

3 potentially flipped. And our belief now is that 

4 the first one was intentionally done that way and 

5 it wasn't an error, although we don't do it that 

6 way anymore. And the second one was just because 

7 we didn't get the right information from Department 

8 of Energy.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. I 

10 mean, that's an excellent report. It seems to me 

11 that, from what you've said, that in the second 

12 case, the Rocky Flats case, you simply got new data 

13 and in a sense that didn't flip so much as in any 

14 case that is processed by NIOSH or that we review 

15 if there's, if new data comes up, of course we 

16 incorporate it and make the decisions 

17 appropriately.

18 In a sense that's not a flip. That's 

19 just simply late data. So from what you've said 

20 I would say there was only one case that flipped.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Well you could interpret 

22 it that way, Dave. But, you know, you could always 
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 say what if DOE never gave us that data? If they 

2 never gave us that data, that case would still be 

3 non-compensable right now.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

5 true.

6 MR. CALHOUN: But we only can work with 

7 what we get.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

9 But then, go ahead.

10 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. This is 

11 Scott Siebert. I just want to make one small 

12 clarification on this. The Rocky Flats case we're 

13 talking about right now is in the 16th set.

14 I don't know if that impacts your 

15 thought process because I know that this letter to 

16 the Secretary is dealing with things up through the 

17 13th set, if I remember correctly.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is correct.

19 MR. SIEBERT: And this would be after 

20 that. But I wanted you to be aware of that while 

21 we were discussing it.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's very 
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 helpful because in fact that would not be counted 

2 among the cases. It will simply be in the next 

3 report, but it would not be in this report.

4 Although I will admit I do want to use 

5 the blinds for Set 22 because we don't have so many 

6 and to my mind a special exception should be made 

7 because the more cases that we've reviewed, blind 

8 cases, it gives a much better picture of how well 

9 we are doing, how precise our DRs are.

10 But let me follow up, I mean from that 

11 question of, from Grady's response. Grady 

12 responded that, yes, they may never have sent the 

13 data and the person would never be compensated. 

14 But would that not be true for any case that was 

15 not compensated?

16 I mean we can always get data that may, 

17 I mean, they may find some eventually. Although 

18 I guess if they're not looking they won't find it, 

19 right? If we don't request it, they won't find it.

20 MEMBER MUNN: True, very unlikely.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right. So 

22 then if you make that argument on the Rocky Flats 
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 case, then let me understand the 3,685 cases, 

2 right, that are referred for a rework based on new 

3 information.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, now those aren't 

5 all referred to a rework. We evaluate all of those 

6 to determine if that new data would require a 

7 rework.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. And like I said in 

10 the vast majority of cases, and I don't have a 

11 percentage, I'm guessing that it's in the 90-plus 

12 percent, the new data that we get in fact isn't new. 

13 It's something that we already have received from 

14 DOE but we found in a different holding somewhere.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MR. CALHOUN: And so when it is new, we 

17 actually write up and actually it's a document. 

18 It's a little one-pager that says here's what we 

19 got. It is in fact different or it's not 

20 different.

21 And if it is different, we do a 

22 calculation to determine if it in fact would cause 
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 the Probability of Causation to go up over 50 

2 percent. And in those cases, we will request from 

3 DOL, we say, they know of this process and we say, 

4 hey, based on this process we have found a case 

5 that's probably going to flip. Please send it back 

6 so we can rework it and they gladly do.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And do you have 

8 any count of how many that are sent back or have 

9 been sent back that are reworked?

10 MR. CALHOUN: I can get that for you 

11 relatively quickly before the end of this call.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

13 useful.

14 MR. CALHOUN: It's very -- sure. It's 

15 very slim that we --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MR. CALHOUN: -- that could have gone. 

18 And like I said just the last three for example we 

19 requested them but we found out that, you know, one 

20 of them had already been paid. And we don't always 

21 find out if they're paid through the SEC or through 

22 some other mechanism.
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 And one, they didn't have a claimant 

2 available. And the other one was, is in the 

3 process of being sent back to us by Labor.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

5 To my mind, and this will maybe come up in the 

6 discussion later of the report to the Secretary, 

7 I would count the first case you talked about today 

8 as a flip.

9 But the other cases and those that 

10 you'll give us by the end of the day or as soon as 

11 you can, I would put those, information about those 

12 in the text. It is not, to my mind, that is not 

13 what I would call a flip in the sense that they, 

14 that, you know, when we talked about -- after you 

15 folks processed the data and did your dose 

16 reconstruction and then we talked about it and with 

17 SC&A's help, then it changed.

18 I mean, you've got, you didn't have 

19 data. So you can hardly be blamed for not 

20 analyzing that data until you get it. So in a 

21 sense, I don't view that as a flip and we can come 

22 back to that as we, but I think it should be noted 
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 in the text that happens and of course the process 

2 that you go through to make sure that you haven't 

3 missed anything in other cases, the procedure that 

4 you follow to track others is very good and 

5 important.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And you know 

7 that this process is very, very separate from the 

8 DR Subcommittee's actions, right?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

10 So I mean what do other folks on the Subcommittee 

11 think? I mean do you, let's say what I said and 

12 in terms of how we interpret flipping and what we 

13 report in terms of flipping.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I don't have any argument 

15 with your position, Dave.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I don't 

18 either, Dave.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, so 

20 basically we've got one flip up to Case 13 and other 

21 cases that we're going to report on in the text.

22 MR. CALHOUN: And one thing to remember 
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 about that is that flip was we compensated them and 

2 the DR Subcommittee thought that maybe we shouldn't 

3 have.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, in that 

5 case, yes. So one case among the thousands that 

6 you've done is --

7 MR. CALHOUN: Well, just the ones 

8 you've reviewed.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes, okay. 

10 One in 300-some, correct.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Grady, what is the tab 

12 number on that case?

13 MR. CALHOUN: Golly, which one?

14 MR. SIEBERT: 423.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Scott's got it, okay.

16 MR. SIEBERT: If it's the Rocky Flats, 

17 it's 423.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's 423. Do you know 

19 about the OTIB-18 case?

20 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know. Give me a 

21 second here.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Okay and then also, Dave, 
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 I just counted. There's been 20 cases out of 3,685 

2 that have, that new information caused the case to 

3 potentially flip.

4 Now the other question you're going to 

5 ask now is how many of those were actually reworked 

6 and I don't have that yet. But more than half of 

7 those based on my notations here had already been 

8 paid through the SEC associated with that site.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So most had 

10 already been paid.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which means that 

13 --

14 MR. CALHOUN: And what happens is we 

15 say, hey DOL, we've got Case Number 1234 and we 

16 believe that it may flip now. And they send it 

17 back, they send a response back and say this has 

18 already been paid through the SEC. No need to 

19 rework.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

21 But as far as we're concerned now, you said 20 

22 flipped. Flipped from non-compensated to 
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 compensable, right?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because we don't 

4 go back for ones that have been compensated.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. We don't look 

6 that way.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

8 Okay, fine. Just wanted to clarify.

9 MR. CALHOUN: I mean we will do the 

10 calculation and sometimes we come up with a lower 

11 PoC but we don't ask for a rework.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, of 

13 course. Good. Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: Dave, can I just make a 

15 suggestion?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: If you're going to discuss 

18 this process we just learned about from DCAS in the 

19 letter, it seems like you almost want to bundle that 

20 with a discussion of the PER process too then, 

21 because the PER process is sort of in effect a much 

22 bigger process that also results in reworking dose 
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 reconstruction cases.

2 It sort of is, right? I mean, Grady, 

3 they're similar in that respect. I mean they both 

4 do dose reconstructions that have already been 

5 completed.

6 MR. CALHOUN: That's based on changing 

7 methodology. This is changing data.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I don't know 

10 how the Board will want to handle the whole PER 

11 process. I don't know if somebody has been 

12 assigned to discuss it. That's totally, you know, 

13 that's out of the part of the report that we're 

14 going to talk about later. But it's important.

15 MR. KATZ: Dave, right. All I'm 

16 saying is if you're going to discuss this process, 

17 I don't know that it even has a name. It's the new 

18 data process. I don't know. But those two are 

19 sort of brothers.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

21 MR. KATZ: I'm not sure either. We can 

22 not discuss either of them or discuss both of them. 
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 But if you're going to try to be holistic and sort 

2 of cover these kind of matters then you might as 

3 well discuss both of them.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

5 And I am counting on Dr. Melius to assign somebody 

6 to talk about those and to incorporate them into 

7 the report -- attach, incorporate, whatever. 

8 That's certainly out of my purview.

9 MR. SIEBERT: I'm jumping in. I'm 

10 sorry. This is Scott Siebert. I looked up the 

11 case. The OTIB-18 overestimate case is Tab 103.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

14 good. Are we, it's 11:30 already. We are, I 

15 think, finished Item 1. We're ready to go, well, 

16 we're ready to proceed. I think it would make 

17 sense, rather than starting discussions of draft 

18 reports -- we have about a half an hour to break 

19 -- to go ahead to [item] three and talk about the 

20 Set 22 blinds that have come up anyway and have a 

21 discussion on that now.

22 And then after the break, we'll start 
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 with the draft report. How does that sound, folks?

2 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds good to me.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Works for me.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So let's 

6 go to Set 22. I'm not sure -- Grady, one can talk 

7 about the blinds process. I'm not quite sure, in 

8 thinking further about it, quite what you might 

9 want to say.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I can make it short 

11 and sweet.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MR. CALHOUN: In that we've done no new 

14 ones since we last discussed it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. No new 

16 blinds. But basically we have up to and through 

17 Set 22 completed, right, the blinds for that, 

18 right?

19 MR. KATZ: Right. But those are SC&A, 

20 not Grady's.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right, 

22 okay.
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 MR. KATZ: Just saying, Grady is just 

2 saying that the NIOSH process, the blind review 

3 process, the internal blind review process, they 

4 haven't done any additional cases.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm not 

6 quite sure how that blind review process differs. 

7 In other words, I guess Grady, what I'm really not 

8 sure about and maybe this will clarify things for 

9 others and certainly for me, when you're going 

10 through and doing dose reconstructions on cases and 

11 claims that are filed, I assume you don't know which 

12 one is going to be chosen to be a blind at some time 

13 in the future.

14 MR. CALHOUN: No, Dave. This is 

15 completely different. And basically we --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, explain.

17 MR. CALHOUN: We started doing these a 

18 while ago for the same reason you guys are doing 

19 them. What we did is we would select adjudicated 

20 cases at random and -- not adjudicated cases 

21 because we're not held to that -- but we would take 

22 cases at random and we would have a separate “DRist”
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 inside our house do the blind DRs just like you guys 

2 are doing them, and just for the same reason that 

3 you guys are doing them.

4 But, you know, given our layer upon 

5 layer upon layer of review and oversight, both 

6 in-house and by you, and limited resources those 

7 are pretty low on our priority list. We're not 

8 required to do them.

9 It's just one of those nice to have 

10 things that we do when we can. And I reported back 

11 on those, I don't know six, eight months ago. But 

12 the only thing I can tell you now is that we just 

13 didn't get any new ones completed since then.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

15 did not realize that. It makes perfect sense. 

16 What you're saying is that's an internal check on 

17 your work that you do and that's absolutely 

18 appropriate to do.

19 And you did report to us on that and I 

20 think I may --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I had actually a 

22 pretty detailed report on that. And time goes so 
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 fast, Dave, I don't remember when. But I would say 

2 it's six months ago or more.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If, Grady, could 

4 I at least for myself, could I ask if you could find 

5 it and email me a copy to look at. I was not clear 

6 about that part of the internal DCAS blind process.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. I've got it all 

8 written up in an assessment report and I'll just 

9 forward you that internal report that we use for 

10 us.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Other 

12 Members of the Subcommittee, do you, this was clear 

13 to you? It wasn't clear to me that that process 

14 was done or at least I don't recall.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I understand. 

16 This is, Brad.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

18 good. I'm still the sitting chair. I'm still the 

19 newbie in the group. So I didn't. And I'm glad to 

20 get that report from Grady and understand better 

21 exactly what's going on.

22 And this will not be in the report 
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 because it's an internal check within DCAS. So 

2 maybe that's good and you'll send it to me and I'll 

3 understand better. So let's go on to Set 22 and 

4 the results that Rose had. And I think you're not 

5 going to do a report on each of the six. I think 

6 it's a matter of summarizing what you have and then 

7 we will go over it, I assume, at the next meeting.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. You just asked 

9 for a brief overview.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MS. BEHLING: And, Rose, before you 

12 start, I just wanted to make mention for Josie's 

13 sake, we submitted the Metals and Controls blind 

14 on December 18, 2015. I'm sorry to interrupt.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, you're 

16 not. Thank you.

17 MS. BEHLING: December 18, 2015, was 

18 when we sent that report out.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And I found it, so thank 

21 you.
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 Review of Blind Set 22

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, great. 

3 In January we finished our review of the 22nd Set,

4 which is a blind [set] similar to what we've been 

5 talking about. Again there were six cases in it.

6 The majority of those cases had one 

7 cancer. There was an ANL-East, a Grand Junction 

8 operations office, a LANL-NTS, a Metals and Control 

9 Corp, a Rocky Flats and an SNL-Albuquerque.

10 We went through and did our comparison 

11 reports in the same process that we've been using 

12 previously. And actually we had pretty strong 

13 agreement with NIOSH in this case. You'll see here 

14 our comparison of PoCs.

15 SC&A and NIOSH PoCs, in every case we 

16 were on the same side of the compensability 

17 decision. I would note that the largest 

18 difference that we found was in the ANL-East case 

19 and in the external dose and that was predominately 

20 due to a difference in the number of zeros.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I can barely hear you.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. I tend to 

23 talk quietly. Is this better?
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Thanks.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So as I was saying the 

4 largest change that we had was total external dose 

5 for the ANL-East case and about a 12 rem difference 

6 in dose, but that was almost exclusively due to the 

7 number of zeros that we chose and it didn't have 

8 an impact on the compensability decision.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And of course we'll go 

11 into more detail when we actually --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

13 And I mean, I just thought that since I had been 

14 looking at the differences, the first issue is of 

15 course whether the compensability decisions are 

16 the same and of course they were for Set 22.

17 But then the other thing I certainly 

18 look for in writing the report was how much 

19 difference in PoC percents was there between the 

20 cases. And the differences between the PoCs from 

21 SC&A and NIOSH were much, much smaller than had been 

22 in the past.
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 I mean it just happened to be a set where 

2 the agreement was quite good, I mean over and above 

3 the issue that the compensability was correct in 

4 all cases. So that was very satisfying and 

5 certainly I do want to include the results from that 

6 Set 22 in the report so that we have 20 blind cases 

7 to report which seems a more, I don't know how you 

8 would describe the number,..

9 It's 14 versus 20. But it seems like 

10 a number that has a little more heft, let's say, 

11 by having 20. So any other comments that anybody 

12 had? The detailed questions we're going to go over 

13 next time and the details of both of those, both 

14 sets of calculations.

15 But is there any other broad question 

16 or comment from anybody on the Subcommittee about 

17 that Set 22? Were you as impressed with it as I 

18 was, or glad to see those results?

19 MEMBER MUNN: My goodness, yes. That 

20 is indicative of a serious increase in precision 

21 from my perspective.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.
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 MR. CALHOUN: Just a question I have 

2 is: Did we ever get that last comparison report on 

3 that last ANL-East?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. All six have 

5 been delivered and if you don't have it, I can send 

6 you another copy.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if I was not 

8 on the list. I just did a quick search. I can't 

9 find it in my inbox. But --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They're also on the O: 

11 drive and in today's meeting folder.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, great. Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great, great.

14 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I think 

15 my only, and I'm not looking for an answer right 

16 now -- my only concern is in the broad review of 

17 those templates again.

18 We've talked about them a couple of 

19 different times and I think there's a couple of 

20 different ones here that mention the templates, the 

21 Metals and Control and then also the --

22 MS. BEHLING: Grand Junction.
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 MEMBER BEACH: Grand Junction, yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not quite 

3 sure what you mean by the templates.

4 MEMBER BEACH: The templates that are 

5 being used that aren't always, [that] SC&A is not 

6 always aware of them. So those continue to be a 

7 source of question and how we're going to resolve 

8 those template issues.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MEMBER BEACH: We haven't really come 

11 up with a solution there and we just keep mentioning 

12 them. So that's something we need to think about.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. I 

14 appreciate your mentioning them now and I'll try 

15 to think a little bit and learn a little bit more 

16 about it as we have a detailed discussion.

17 (Telephonic interference)

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- for our blind 

19 reviews. I think our point is that the templates 

20 have never been reviewed by the Board.

21 MEMBER BEACH: That's my concern, yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 
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 Well, that's certainly important.

2 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. If I can 

3 just interject?

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

5 MS. BEHLING: I'm not sure -- and maybe 

6 Rose has a list -- I'm not aware of a complete list 

7 of which sites are using the templates. We happen 

8 to sometimes serendipitously find them because 

9 we're reviewing a dose reconstruction and we see 

10 that it's embedded in the dose reconstruction 

11 report. But I don't know that we actually have a 

12 list from NIOSH as to which sites they are using 

13 templates for.

14 MR. KATZ: I think we do, Kathy. I 

15 think Grady supplied me, we asked for that --

16 MS. BEHLING: Right, you --

17 MR. KATZ: -- months ago and Grady 

18 supplied it. And I shared it with the Subcommittee 

19 at least once, maybe twice. So we do have a list, 

20 I think, from Grady. If I remember that right, 

21 Grady, that's what that was, right?

22 MR. CALHOUN: I think it was -- it might 
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 have been the other way. It might have been a list 

2 of cases for which we do have a TBD. But you could 

3 figure that out. I think that's it.

4 MS. BEHLING: Was SC&A, I'm sorry, was 

5 SC&A provided that list? Because I never saw it.

6 MR. KATZ: You know, I can't remember. 

7 I normally address my emails to the Subcommittee,

8 not just to the Members but to the staff too. I 

9 would be surprised if I didn't. But I may not have. 

10 I can look.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

13 We'll discuss this a little bit further next time, 

14 whenever that is, after the Board meeting.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And just to point out, 

16 at the end of our reports that we do use a template 

17 for, we do include the actual template in the 

18 report. So if you wanted to see what a template 

19 looked like you could go to the back of the Metals 

20 and Control Corp case and at the very back you'll 

21 see lots of colorful text and that is part of the 

22 template.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

2 you. Good. We've got a little time now still and 

3 that's -- we just wanted to have a brief discussion. 

4 You know, we might start talking about Item 4, 

5 discussing assigning a new set of blinds to SC&A. 

6 Ted?

7 MR. KATZ: Yeah, sure.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You were 

9 thinking about that.

10 Assigning a New Set of Blinds

11 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I'm happy to, because 

12 I would like to get these assigned early in March, 

13 which would coincide with a new contract here for 

14 SC&A, too. And it takes a while to get the cases 

15 together.

16 So, unfortunately, you haven't had a 

17 discussion of the Set 22 blinds. But I think all 

18 the Board Members probably at least skimmed them, 

19 right, and are somewhat familiar with what's there. 

20 And I can remind you, and I will, what the 

21 parameters have been for DCAS pulling cases, and 

22 they pull about 20 cases from which to select six.
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 I can and I will remind you what those 

2 parameters are. But I thought maybe the 

3 Subcommittee would want to think about whether 

4 these parameters should hold, or whether you want 

5 a somewhat different parameter or two, considering 

6 what you've learned so far through your review of 

7 blinds.

8 Now, again, I sort of assumed at the 

9 time, I suggested that you guys would go through 

10 Set 22 and you didn't really do that. But maybe 

11 you're familiar just from having received them and 

12 read them.

13 So, anyway, let me tell you what the 

14 parameters have been, they're pretty longstanding 

15 at this point, for these 20 cases. 

16 So, the first parameter is that they are 

17 recently adjudicated, because we're trying to stay 

18 as fresh as we can be, right? So we say within the 

19 last two years adjudicated. So we're not getting 

20 old cases with old methods to the extent possible. 

21 So I think that's probably one that's good to keep 

22 with.
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 But the second parameter is we've asked 

2 for a full internal and external so that there's 

3 sort of a robust dose reconstruction and not one 

4 with a bunch of shortcuts in it. 

5 Number three, that the PoC is above 45. 

6 Again, I think that sort of relates to the 

7 Subcommittee's focus on cases where errors would 

8 make the most difference, could make the most 

9 difference.

10 And number four is employment at one or 

11 more DOE sites. So we've had a focus on DOE sites 

12 for those. 

13 And number five, that the case was not 

14 previously reviewed by the Board. So they're 

15 fresh cases as far as the Board's review process 

16 is concerned.

17 So those are the sort of marching orders 

18 by which we get nominee cases from Grady and Beth.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: On three, by the 

20 way, Ted, the PoC greater than 45, did we not have 

21 it 45 to 52?

22 MR. KATZ: We just have said greater 
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 than 45. It may come out that way anyway. But 

2 that --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because I think 

4 it is worthwhile, as we had in Set 22, at least one 

5 case where it was above 50 percent.

6 MR. KATZ: Right, but greater than 45 

7 doesn't have a cap on it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, you're 

9 right, I guess.

10 MR. KATZ: It doesn't really -- I'm not 

11 sure whether it makes a difference whether it's 52 

12 or 75, for that matter, so long as it's a best 

13 estimates.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, yeah, I 

15 would actually keep in my mind's eye of 52 or 55 

16 really being an upper limit. But to my mind that 

17 should be in the criteria.

18 MR. KATZ: That's up to the 

19 Subcommittee, right.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, it is. 

21 Also, just in terms of the five criteria you just 

22 outlined, was everybody -- I received from SC&A a 
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 review of the data up through Set 22 on the first 

2 20 blind cases.

3 MR. KATZ: You all should have received 

4 that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did everybody 

6 receive that? Yeah, okay. I found that quite 

7 useful, by the way. And I particularly think that 

8 it will influence me in terms of also where our 

9 cases are.

10 I mean, if we have 20 cases already, we 

11 want to make sure that we don't have too great a 

12 percent from certain large facilities, from any 

13 large facility. That is, we want to have it spread 

14 fairly well among different facilities.

15 So I would look at that when I was making 

16 up my mind as to selection. And that's not a 

17 criterion, but it seems to me it should influence 

18 our decision. And given that we have 20 cases, I 

19 might also make sure that issues like gender, 

20 percent of blinds that are male and female, should 

21 be looked at or should be considered.

22 That's not a criterion, but I think it 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is an attempt to look for balance. So in a way, 

2 what I would say is, I'm open to the five criteria, 

3 except maybe saying a PoC shouldn't be above 55 

4 percent just to put a cap on it.

5 And then say that we, as Subcommittee 

6 Members, in making selections, should look at the 

7 data that we've received to make sure that we have 

8 as good a balance, as representative of a group, 

9 with what will be 26 by the time we finish this set.

10 What do people say? Reasonable?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds okay to me.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds fine, too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

16 I just don't understand your cap on that. Why are 

17 you feeling that you want to put a cap on that?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, because 

19 it's another case where errors, relatively small 

20 errors, might cause a flip. And why we're doing 

21 above 45 percent. And I just want to know if it 

22 flips below. That's a serious matter even though 
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 we're not going to change the compensation for that 

2 person.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I'm just trying 

4 to understand your thought because, you know, I 

5 myself, I'm kind of like Ted, you know, 45 and above 

6 with no cap. It kind of doesn't -- you know, it 

7 doesn't do that much. But it's not going to hurt 

8 anything. I was just trying to understand your 

9 reasoning on it.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, yeah. 

11 Well, I'm also more than open just to leaving it 

12 that way. I mean, but from my personal one vote 

13 among many, we ought to cap it at 55 percent.

14 And why don't we just talk about that 

15 for a moment? I mean, others may just feel it's 

16 not necessary. It's not a major point. But I 

17 would feel better that way. Would you, or would 

18 you like to just leave it off?

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, let me tell you 

20 what my thoughts are.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: We can cap it at 55 and 
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 it's going to show so much. These blinds that we 

2 have done, it's been very interesting to me to be 

3 able to understand the process better, and by not 

4 putting a cap on it we may get something way up 

5 there.

6 I want to see in these doses what it was 

7 that kind of pushed it so much higher. Was it, you 

8 know, was it a substantial event or something else 

9 like that? I just hate to limit us to 55 percent. 

10 There might be something out there that, say it was 

11 60 or something like, that but it was because of 

12 an instance in an area that they were evaluating.

13 And it just gives me more information. 

14 I think my personal feeling, like you said, it's 

15 one among many, I don't see that it would buy us 

16 that much. But, you know, I'll go with the flow 

17 on this, too. I get a lot of information from these 

18 doses and I like to see why some of these are so 

19 high and what pushed them over the edge.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I think 

21 you make a good case for that. We have never looked 

22 in any of the 20 at a percentage that was, if I 
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 recall from memory, above 55 percent. We just 

2 haven't.

3 On the other hand, there are things to 

4 be learned from those and it might be interesting 

5 to take a look at one or two. So you're convincing 

6 me not to put a cap on. What do other people say?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this Wanda. And I 

8 think one could make a reasonably cogent argument 

9 either way. But it's such a minor point I don't 

10 see much point in debating it very much.

11 My only thought is that it's not a 

12 question of whether or not we're going to find one 

13 such outlier amongst the many, and therefore have 

14 a major "a-ha" event of some kind. I don't think 

15 that's likely at all.

16 But it's more a question of the pool 

17 that's available to NIOSH to make the selections 

18 more than anything else. If we say between 45 and 

19 55 percent then it makes it much easier for them 

20 to just look at a smaller set of potentials. If 

21 we have problems with having a large enough set then 

22 obviously it's wise not to put a cap on it.
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 But I was of the impression, and perhaps 

2 someone can enlighten us, as to whether or not there 

3 is sometimes a problem in identifying a set that's 

4 large enough to exceed the number that we need to 

5 choose for our next set. If there is a problem 

6 finding that many completed claims that fit our 

7 criteria then it seems logical to not put a cap on 

8 it.

9 If we have a plethora then it expedites 

10 the process.

11 MR. KATZ: That's the question for 

12 Grady.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, exactly.

14 MR. CALHOUN: And one thing I wanted to 

15 clarify here is that actually the normal criteria 

16 is 45 to 52. It's not 65. And we typically --

17 well, not typically -- when we cannot find the fit 

18 within that criteria for you we'll creep up or down 

19 a few percentage points.

20 But the standard criteria is 45 to 52, 

21 which actually coincides to our 10,000-iteration 

22 IREP runs to make sure that we're statistically 
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 completely valid on that. So it depends. When 

2 you ask for them, we'll tell you what we got at the 

3 time, because that's an ever-changing number.

4 And then if you guys choose to go up or down, we'll 

5 do it.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'm by now 

7 convinced, even though not every Member has spoken, 

8 not to bother with it. You, basically, if you have 

9 problems, you're going to enhance the PoC range 

10 that we're looking at. So --

11 MR. CALHOUN: But we'll tell you first.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well, 

13 I'm more than happy to leave it to you to do that, 

14 start with 45 to 52 as you always do, and then expand 

15 as needed. And unless there's an affirmative 

16 feeling that I'd like to see one or two, or one by 

17 now, in the 60-plus range.

18 Is that -- it's kind of nice. But I'm 

19 not sure, none of us feel very strongly.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm not -- you know, 

21 I'm with Grady. We've got a parameter and we go 

22 from there. If we need to go up, okay, you know, 
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 it's not a big deal.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I think 

3 maybe I'm making a big deal out of it. So let's 

4 keep it as we have, keep three as we have, and allow 

5 ourselves a few minutes more to get some lunch.

6 No, seriously, I feel like my judgment 

7 is, let's leave it as is and it's working fine. And 

8 we all agree it's a small point in the first place. 

9 So, with those, are we ready to just say 

10 that we accept the criteria and that we will look 

11 at the criteria, at the selections that were given, 

12 the cases that were given, also keeping an eye on 

13 the distribution of cases that we were sent 

14 recently?

15 MR. KATZ: That sounds like a good 

16 plan.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: I will send a formal request 

19 to Grady and Beth to provide a new set of nominee 

20 cases.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

22 what would that set be, by the way?
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 MR. KATZ: Well, that would be Set 23.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, Set 23 

3 blinds. Okay. That sounds good. And it is now 

4 five minutes of 12. It seems to me this is the time 

5 to take a break, lunch or breakfast as the case may 

6 be, or coffee.

7 And let's reconvene at 1 o'clock and 

8 start reviewing the second draft report. See you 

9 all in an hour or so.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 went off the record at 11:55 a.m. and resumed at 

12 1:03 p.m.)

13 Review of Draft Report to Secretary

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, we'll now go 

15 over the second draft report. Basically, I took 

16 all the suggestions that I had from the first 

17 report, and it was particularly helpful that I got 

18 the transcription of the talk before I did this 

19 review so I could get exactly the many things that 

20 you suggested, almost all of which were fine, 

21 great.

22 So this incorporates the finding of the 
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 last meeting and any that you have. Now I received 

2 from Wanda a number of suggestions, particularly 

3 dealing with editorial syntax, et cetera. And 

4 also I got a very nice review from Ted, thank you, 

5 which was very good and I will put those in.

6 Ted gave several nice changes in the 

7 chapter on Findings. And let's figure a little bit 

8 more precise language and let's figure that will

9 be put in. Are there any special suggestions or 

10 any further suggestions on findings, Part A, the 

11 first paragraph?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, and, Dave, you got an 

13 email, I don't know if you saw it, from Rose too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I did not 

15 pick that up.

16 MR. KATZ: Rose sent an email. And, 

17 Rose, she's on the line so she can explain what it 

18 is that she's suggesting in her --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great. 

20 So, Rose, do you want to -- are you there?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm here. Sorry, I 

22 was on mute.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so 

2 suggestions or -- I'm sorry I missed yours, but I'll 

3 certainly --

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's alright. It 

5 came through a little later than I would have liked. 

6 I have several suggestions. One in the version 

7 that I sent you, which is not up on the screen now, 

8 I made some changes to the finding numbers.

9 If you remember, we were tasked to go 

10 through, with NIOSH's help, and reclassify all of 

11 our findings.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Oh, 

13 yes, yes, surely.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: These pages were not 

15 requested in your revision. So I did change those.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well, 

17 why don't we just -- we're going through it already, 

18 so why don't we just hold that until we get there.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great. 

21 But that's very good. Okay. So the next one, 

22 Cases Sent to NIOSH for Reconstruction. And I got 
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 those totals from Grady, which was very helpful, 

2 and nothing to say other than the 42,000, which was 

3 used later to calculate the percent that we have 

4 reviewed, I used that 42,000 and got 0.86.

5 And as you see, we really only have to 

6 go over the ones we did dose reconstructions for. 

7 And that put us over one percent, which was a very 

8 happy thing. I felt very good about that. So, 

9 anything on this? This is pretty well factual. 

10 Anything special? I hear nothing. 

11 I'll go on. Types of Dose 

12 Reconstruction. Again, not many suggestions, 

13 that was just simply technical. There were a few 

14 syntax and other suggestions from Ted about the 22 

15 cancers that are covered. Questions, comments?

16 MEMBER BEACH: No, none here.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Dose 

18 Reconstruction Cases. Now the point is we had 

19 31,534 claims with dose reconstruction. So that's 

20 not the 42,000 that I had first used. And we had, 

21 as you recall, we did 332 cases, which is more than 

22 one percent.
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 So, is there anything in Table 1 or that 

2 first set of data or the way I describe it? I try 

3 to be straight, factual.

4 MEMBER BEACH: I didn't see any issues 

5 with that one.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Since 

7 many of these are just adaptations and things you 

8 all suggested at the last meeting, obviously there 

9 may not be lengthy discussion. But that's fine.

10 So, Dose Reconstruction Cases 

11 Reviewed. Let me see, 82 percent of them were best 

12 estimates and 14 percent overestimates. And 

13 that's of course, in Table 2, a dramatic change from 

14 --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, in the second 

16 paragraph, Cases 101 to 234, shouldn't that be 334 

17 or --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of the recently 

19 reviewed cases. Of the 200 we recently -- 6 

20 through 13. I'm comparing those to the first 

21 hundred, right. See, the table compares the first 

22 hundred, one to 100, and then the second cases --
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 whoops, yeah, 101 to 334.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, you did fix that, 

3 okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I did. 

5 Folks had clarified that. And that's of course --

6 you know, I give the rationale for that below. And 

7 again, Ted, you had some things on the second bullet 

8 below about the different site-specific Work 

9 Groups.

10 So are there any things that anybody 

11 wants to comment on?

12 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing I kind of 

13 circled, on that last bullet, there's a couple 

14 things: "many more analytical procedures have been 

15 written down based" and then it's --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: On staff input, 

17 yeah?

18 MEMBER BEACH: You need to add staff.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank you. 

20 Sure, sure. Actually Ted caught that. I remember 

21 looking at that.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, I should have sent 
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 these to you but I didn't think to do that. And 

2 then the last sentence --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If you have 

4 already done it and it's just a matter you didn't 

5 send it in, after we finish I'm going to do one for 

6 everybody, so send it to me.

7 MEMBER BEACH: And the last one, "more 

8 nearly uniform" just didn't make sense to me. The 

9 "more uniform," just get rid of the "nearly."

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So the doses are 

11 now better regularized and more uniform. You're

12 right, you're right. I'll take that out. Thank 

13 you, again. Good, thanks. Other?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Right after the first 

15 bullet, the first sentence, "since 2009" to the 

16 second line, "NIOSH," it just says subcontractor. 

17 It seemed to be hanging there. NIOSH, 

18 subcontractor.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I think, 

20 Ted, you changed that, if I'm not mistaken.

21 MR. KATZ: I think I've commented on 

22 all of this stuff.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, but that's 

2 fine. That's fine. I kind of held everything so 

3 that I might just do one change. If you know, 

4 Josie, that it's in your changes that you have 

5 already done, just send them to me.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If you haven't 

8 done them. Don't do it special.

9 MEMBER BEACH: No, I've already --

10 yeah, I already did it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, that's 

12 great. Appreciate it. Okay. Findings among 

13 Reviewed Cases.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, this is Rose. I 

15 just have one more comment. This sentence here 

16 that I have highlighted on the screen.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not using 

18 the screen actually. Which one, I'm looking at the 

19 --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The paragraph directly 

21 above Table 2.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The paragraph directly 

2 above Table 2, there's a --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Paragraph above 

4 Table 2. One second. Pardon me, I'm going the 

5 wrong way. One second. Excuse me, one second. 

6 Yes, above Table 2. Go ahead.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The sentence in 

8 brackets that says "two cases in Sets 6 through 13 

9 have not been reviewed." That's actually not 

10 accurate.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah. What is 

12 accurate?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The two cases that we 

14 did not review we didn't review because there was 

15 a PER in process and they were being reworked under 

16 the PER at the time they were assigned to us. And 

17 so it didn't make sense to do a dose reconstruction 

18 review of those cases.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Is that 

20 not --

21 MEMBER MUNN: Not an updated Site 

22 Profile. It's the Program Evaluation Review.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see, okay, 

2 okay. Thank you, yes. Okay. I didn't pick up 

3 that distinction. Good, good. Thank you. Got 

4 that. Alright. And it's actually, I'm sure, on 

5 the email that you sent me.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It is.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, 

8 appreciate it. Further suggestions, comments, 

9 changes?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Mine are just 

11 grammatical and I'll send those to you.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great, exactly, 

13 yes. And Ted and Wanda have a number of those too 

14 and that's good. 

15 Findings among Reviewed Cases. Now, 

16 here we're going to discuss findings and impacts, 

17 finding impacts, later on as we talk about moving 

18 ahead into Set 14. But this is just taking the data 

19 as we had defined it earlier. 

20 So there's nothing to say special about

21 this, Grady, even though I know you will be talking 

22 a little later about possible changes. Okay, this 
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 is just what we had --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, the first 

3 paragraph there in that section --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Details on the 

6 findings that need to be changed --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's see. 

8 First paragraph, details on the findings need to 

9 be changed.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And that is my 

11 email with the exact figures.

12 MEMBER MUNN: She has a change in 

13 numbers.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, okay. 

15 I thought I had gotten the corrected numbers, but 

16 apparently I didn't. Thank you. But I'll also 

17 make a note, too. That's important data.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Does that change the 

19 average per case as well?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It does.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

22 Findings change. Good, good, okay. Thank you. 
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 And --

2 MEMBER MUNN: It should change the 

3 percentages below also.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

5 Now, actually, the last line on Page 4. So the 

6 probability would change only in one case, right?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Correct, as we heard 

8 earlier this morning.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

10 And there will be a comment in there about the 

11 numbers that were returned for review. And also, 

12 as we talked this morning, we will also add 

13 information about PERs.

14 Ted, somebody needs to do that.

15 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. On that, 

16 it sounds like, Dave, do you want my numbers on the 

17 -- we call them PADs, post-approval documents. Do 

18 you want those in here, the ones we sent back for 

19 review? Because I was just letting you know that 

20 we do that, because that really doesn't have a whole 

21 lot to do with this particular section. That would 

22 almost be stand-alone, in my mind, I think.
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 MR. KATZ: Right. Dave, that was what 

2 I was suggesting earlier: if that was going to be 

3 addressed it would be addressed with the PERs. And 

4 you were going to maybe check with Melius, or maybe 

5 when the Board takes this up in March, as to whether 

6 you want a section sort of addressing that aspect 

7 of the NIOSH program.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well --

9 MR. KATZ: I agree with Grady that it 

10 doesn't really fit here. It has nothing to do with 

11 the Board's review.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't really have 

14 that much to do with dose reconstructions, 

15 actually.

16 MR. KATZ: It has a lot to do with dose 

17 reconstruction because it's about how they get 

18 improved but --

19 MEMBER MUNN: But that's --

20 MR. KATZ: It has a lot to do with that. 

21 But it's not really the Board's review that it's 

22 --
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 MEMBER MUNN: No, it isn't.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, actually, 

3 that sentence probably should be deleted and put 

4 into the other section, right? There was change 

5 in only one case.

6 MR. KATZ: No, that's part of --

7 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct.

8 MR. KATZ: -- the Board's review.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, that's correct.

10 MR. KATZ: Grady's whole discussion 

11 about the PADs is about an internal process, not 

12 the Board's review.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Yes, 

14 right.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Now, I do have a comment 

16 on that. Since we discussed it, the end of that 

17 sentence would say, "was changed in only one case 

18 and it's not resulting in the compensation of a 

19 claimant who was initially denied compensation." 

20 It's the opposite.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right.

22 MR. CALHOUN: It was changed. And it 
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 wasn't changed, it was identified in one case where 

2 the claimant was compensated and maybe shouldn't 

3 have been or something like that.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right, 

5 no, you're right. That will be changed. Thank 

6 you for identifying that and that will be done.

7 MS. BEHLING: The last sentence on Page 

8 4, one case, not plural.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, of course. 

10 Well, I was assuming it was two or three. So, yes, 

11 I'll change that, sure. Okay, good. And we'll 

12 get rid of those little side comments in red.

13 By the way, when I go to the -- well, 

14 first of all, that will be deleted. But there are 

15 side comments that I may keep in for the Board in 

16 red. But not this one. Okay.

17 Going to Page 5. Deficiencies, again, 

18 we may want to change. But this is what we had. 

19 And --

20 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing I have on 

21 that page, Dave, is towards the bottom of the page. 

22 It says that the great source of findings 40 
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 percent, 21 percent. That table doesn't have 

2 percents listed so --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, maybe we 

4 should put in percents.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Well, if you're talking 

6 about percents, yeah, you probably should or --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I discussed the 

8 percents below. Let me just see in the text.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it says right 

10 underneath the table as --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's clear, yes, 

12 you're right. So that's very good. Table 3, 

13 insert percentages.

14 MR. KATZ: And Rose's figures probably 

15 change all these numbers, right?

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

17 They all do change.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

19 Okay. I'll check Rose's numbers. Good, made a

20 note. And it is what you sent me?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 
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 on to six, Observations among Reviewed Cases.

2 MEMBER BEACH: I just had grammatical 

3 stuff here.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great, and I'll 

5 see it. 

6 And number of dose reconstruction cases 

7 reviewed. And again, I'm going to leave that 

8 little red thing in about 0.86 because people may 

9 remember, you know, that we were disappointed that 

10 we didn't make one percent, and we had actually.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Is that date correct 

12 under number of reconstructed cases reviewed? It 

13 says claims filed as of November 1st, 2015. Is 

14 that the wrong date, year, I mean?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I think that 

16 is correct. That's where we tallied up to.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, by the 

19 time we get to it we may go further. But my feeling 

20 --

21 MEMBER BEACH: I understand. Okay, I 

22 was looking at it from the inception not from where 
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 we were. Okay, thanks.

2 MR. KATZ: You will actually -- I guess 

3 you'll have six more if you add the Set 22.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And by the 

5 way, if we were to add Set 22, we have to have a 

6 DRSC meeting to review those six extra, right?

7 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So that we 

9 can't put it in the report until it's been reviewed 

10 by the Subcommittee. So that will move us to a 

11 meeting not too long after our March meeting.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Scope creep, scope 

13 creep.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: If you don't stick with 

16 your original day.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

18 true. Okay. Page 7, Distribution of Dose 

19 Reconstruction Sites. This is straightforward. 

20 Rose, thank you very much for updating the tables.

21 The figures are fine. I think I want 

22 to take a look at the tables later, but we'll get 
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 to that. 

2 Distribution across Employment Sites. 

3 I trust, straightforward. And then Page 8, 

4 Distribution among Cases Reviewed, PoCs. Okay.

5 Blind Review, which, as we said, we'll 

6 add the others on. And we will remand the Allied 

7 Chemical & Dye. And by the way, I will also change 

8 the table on Table 4 to make sure that I call it 

9 Allied Chemical & Dye. And --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, if we could go 

11 back to Page 8 for a second.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think that you're 

14 confused with overestimating cases versus 

15 underestimating cases.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Really, let's 

17 see.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The last few sentences 

19 on Page 8.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Last sentence on 

21 Page 8. To conduct and compare the tasking.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: "This reflects a sharp 
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 decline in overestimated cases since 2009."

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: One second. 

3 You said the last paragraph? Oh, the last full 

4 paragraph. I'm not following you. As I say, I'm 

5 looking at the program. Where is the issue, the 

6 sentence you're referring to?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: At least on my version, 

8 it is on the bottom of Page 8, or midway through 

9 the last paragraph on Page 8.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The last full 

11 paragraph?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I was 

14 looking at the other paragraph, the other part of 

15 the paragraph. And what was the sentence?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: "This reflects a sharp 

17 decline."

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, here we 

19 are. Okay. In overestimation.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But overestimated 

21 cases are not eligible for compensation. I think 

22 you have the two swapped there.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh. Yes, I do. 

2 I've done that, over and under, right, Page 8. 

3 I'll write that down. Thank you, of course. Is 

4 it in your note to me?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it is.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

7 Thank you. I'll do that. I have done that before 

8 and you are absolutely right. Good. I'm still 

9 going to write that down. Thank you. Good.

10 Page 9, folks. And Page 9, of course, 

11 we will send the Allied Chemical to the other, 

12 referred. And I suspect I will change that -- how 

13 should I change it? I mean, I can leave it in and 

14 just say referred to Subcommittee.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. Dave, I wouldn't say 

16 that it's been referred anywhere because this 

17 Subcommittee doesn't refer cases elsewhere, 

18 really. I mean, the Surrogate Data Work Group is 

19 going to look at the use of surrogate data at that 

20 site.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. KATZ: And that's stimulated by 
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 this case. But they're not, you know, per se going 

2 to review the case itself, right?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, I think you can 

5 simply say that there's a -- I mean, you can write 

6 something after the fact, and I can't say for you. 

7 But, I mean, that, you know, issues related to this 

8 case are under review by another Work Group or 

9 something like that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay, 

11 you're right.

12 MR. KATZ: In effect.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But the point 

14 is, I'm not going to put a number there.

15 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In my opinion, 

17 yeah. Okay. So, Table 4 is being reviewed by the 

18 other Work Group. Good, okay. 

19 And then what should I, folks, for 

20 presentation, particularly Subcommittee Members, 

21 or anybody else who wants to advise me? We will not 

22 have reviewed the last six cases, the Set 22 cases, 
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 by the time of the Board meeting.

2 So I think, probably correctly, I 

3 should not put them down. And I put a note in there 

4 in red just saying that four more, when the 

5 Subcommittee finishes, we will add four more and 

6 --

7 MR. KATZ: Six more.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Six more. And 

9 also that I can't and I will therefore not be able 

10 to revise the percent, the average percent 

11 difference or absolute percent difference. Okay.

12 MEMBER BEACH: That will just be noted 

13 in red to the Board Members?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right, 

15 that's right.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, that makes sense.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, right. 

18 And alright, now Page 10, Distribution of Dose 

19 Reconstruction Reviews figure. Yeah, the 

20 figures. I want to go back to those figures, 

21 because what happened, I want to look at the wording 

22 of the table that SC&A folks put next to the pie 
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 charts.

2 I mean, the data in it was very nice and 

3 it's a very good addition. I just thought the way 

4 it was described was a little less clear to me. And 

5 by the way, we have the open meeting or whatever 

6 they call it. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Live Meeting?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Live Meeting, 

9 thank you. You have Live Meeting on, yes?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And others are 

13 looking at it. You know, we normally have it, and 

14 I looked at Zaida's emails and I didn't see it this 

15 time.

16 MEMBER MUNN: It went out a little 

17 early.

18 MR. KATZ: If you don't have it, I could 

19 send it to you again. But I don't think --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I don't 

21 think it's worth it at this point. But could you 

22 put up one of the tables and could you read outloud, 
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 for at least me, what was the caption over the 

2 table, the little table that you put in next to the 

3 pie chart?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Of which one, for Figure 

5 4, Figure 6?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Either one, 

7 either one. It's the same issue. They used the 

8 same -- it just seemed awkward to me and not clear 

9 to readers, other readers.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So she has three figures, 

11 the breakdown case reviews.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A little louder 

13 please, Wanda.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Breakdown case reviews 

15 101-334 by PoC. And then the table on the left 

16 says, NIOSH case statistics for a population of all 

17 cases.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Statistics for 

19 population of all cases.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Range of less than 20

21 percent rises from 20 to 39.9 percent.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's it, 
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 right.

2 MEMBER MUNN: -- range and percent of 

3 cases.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I found 

5 "population of all cases," statistics for, can we 

6 say for all cases processed or for all DR cases?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I just wanted to make 

8 it clear that those are not statistics for our 

9 review.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I wanted to make it 

12 clear that those are not statistics for the cases 

13 that SC&A and the Board have reviewed. These are 

14 statistics for NIOSH's population of all cases.

15 MEMBER MUNN: This is for everybody.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- that there's a clear 

18 distinction that it's not the same set of data that 

19 we're looking at. We can change the heading. But 

20 I just want to make sure that --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

22 understand that and that's the important 
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 distinction. But would it be clearer to say 

2 statistics for all DR cases, all --

3 MEMBER MUNN: They're not just DR 

4 cases, though. That's what she's trying to say. 

5 These are for all --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm totally 

7 at fault. For all --

8 MEMBER MUNN: For all claimants.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, for all 

10 claimant cases. It's really cases processed by 

11 NIOSH.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For all cases.

14 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I mean, 

15 parenthetically, you know, not just those reviewed 

16 by the Board.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, may I make a 

18 suggestion?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I want to make 

20 the distinction in the title that one is --

21 MEMBER MUNN: Why don't we say, "case 

22 statistics for population of total NIOSH cases."
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Total NIOSH 

2 cases. I think we can say it more succinctly. But 

3 we're moving in the right direction. Statistics 

4 for --

5 MEMBER MUNN: Total population of 

6 NIOSH cases.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. For total 

8 population of NIOSH cases. That to me sounds 

9 better and clearer. Does it sound better to 

10 others?

11 MR. CALHOUN: The only thing I'm going 

12 to add here, and it's just because I'm a “NIOSHian”.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Is that it only counts 

15 the ones for which we've done dose reconstruction. 

16 There are many cases that are pulled for SEC that 

17 don't go through dose reconstruction.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, no, 

19 that's exactly the distinction I missed when I was 

20 using the percentages. So that's very important. 

21 So, total population of DR cases.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Of cases for which dose 
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 reconstruction was completed.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Cases for which 

3 DR completed. Can we use DR in there?

4 MEMBER MUNN: It wouldn't be a good 

5 idea, I think.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It would not?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I think not.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: If it's trying to stand 

10 alone anywhere it's shown, probably it needs to say 

11 dose reconstruction.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That just makes 

13 it lengthy and bulky inside that.

14 MEMBER MUNN: It does.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think what I'm 

16 suggesting is a change, if people accept that it 

17 would be better to change it to be a little clearer 

18 to the reader. Could we -- we're trying to 

19 essentially change it by committee, writing by 

20 committee. And of course, it gets awkward. Could 

21 somebody or somebodies, anybody who has some ideas, 

22 send it in to me? Email me. Could folks do that 
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 and just take a look and see if you can make it 

2 clearer?

3 And it's certainly not incorrect. But 

4 I think by not including either NIOSH or dose 

5 reconstruction cases -- why not statistics for all 

6 dose reconstruction cases? For all dose 

7 reconstruction cases.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I just have a tendency to 

9 like "total" more than "all."

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. For 

11 total.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I know it's a longer 

13 word, but --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Statistics for 

15 total --

16 MR. KATZ: Dave, I just second your 

17 instinct that by committee doesn't work, and 

18 everybody send in your suggestions and then we can 

19 work it out.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

21 good, okay. Great. As long as people -- but 

22 people do agree that we could make it clearer?
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 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

3 Then that would be great.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Dave, this is 

5 Brad. I'm going to be right upfront. I'm not 

6 going to send anything because I write exactly the 

7 way I talk and it stinks. So I just sit back and 

8 it's not that I don't care. I want you to realize 

9 that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

11 No, it's not an assignment. It is a voluntary 

12 activity by any Member of the Subcommittee. 

13 Several of you have sent in -- well, Wanda, Josie, 

14 Ted, you've all sent in some suggestions. So see 

15 if you can make one more.

16 Very good, very good. You will not be 

17 “dinged” in present or future meetings for not 

18 sending it in. Others who agree and can do it, they 

19 will. And we'll get something that's a little 

20 better and then I'll communicate that to you, 

21 right, Kathy -- or Rose, excuse me.

22 Okay. Alright. We're going to go to 
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 Page 11, the last page, Distribution of Cases 

2 Reviewed by Decade First Employed. And I worked 

3 on that because we took out a lot of the chemistry 

4 and physics and latency periods, as you all see.

5 The most light touch on that. As 

6 expected, given the decades long latency period of 

7 most cancer, each percentage, et cetera. Okay. 

8 Anything else?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is Rose. I just 

10 have one more overarching comment.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm concerned that 

13 we're drawing some conclusions --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm -- am I 

15 breaking up folks?

16 MEMBER MUNN: No.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm having 

18 trouble hearing.

19 MEMBER MUNN: No, but Rose has a very, 

20 very soft and gentle voice. I strain to hear her.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Go 
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 ahead, Rose.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm just concerned 

3 that we're drawing conclusions based on the dose 

4 reconstruction reviews that we've done on an actual 

5 population of NIOSH claims. I want to remind you 

6 that our reviews that we do were hand-selected by 

7 the Board. So it's not a random sample of the total 

8 cases that NIOSH has. It's a very selective sample 

9 that was intentionally selected, and I just want 

10 to make sure that we don't draw broad conclusions 

11 based on that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. I mean, I 

13 think there's a real merit to what you say. And 

14 I think it started from the fact that when I was 

15 tasked with writing this I wrote it primarily from 

16 what I knew, which is the DRSC perspective.

17 And what has happened is as people sent 

18 information to me and made suggestions and 

19 corrections, it has expanded the scope of this, 

20 properly so, to be not [about] the review process, 

21 but [about] the process. And these are the reviews 

22 of them. And what I'm saying is I think there's 
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 a real truth to what you say, and an import to what 

2 you say, and I can see where it stems from the way 

3 or the person who first wrote it writing from their 

4 perspective.

5 I always thought, oh, this is just going 

6 to be a piece of the bigger report and then there's 

7 going to be four or five other sections and all 

8 that, which is not going to be the case as I now 

9 understand. But I don't know how to remove that, 

10 slightly change that focus to make it clear that 

11 these are the reviews, but the process for the 

12 42,000 cases is the process.

13 Do any others have comments about what 

14 Rose just said and your feelings about that?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I will be glad to 

16 comment on that, surprisingly. It is, I think, 

17 very, very accurate to point out that this isn't 

18 a completely random process.

19 I do believe that it would be worthwhile 

20 spending no more than two or three sentences on it, 

21 but it needs to be clarified. Rose is absolutely 

22 correct. The reason that the production of the 
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 lists from which we choose is intended to be random 

2 is one can make selections based on certain 

3 parameters. You know, you have to set the 

4 parameters up before you go. For example, the case 

5 has to be completed at the time you're making the 

6 selection or else it doesn't work.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER MUNN: So, at any given time, 

9 you have to have some degree of selection criteria. 

10 Once the basic criteria are established, the 

11 selection is supposed to be as random as we can get 

12 it.

13 But when it comes to us for selection, 

14 as anyone who has ever dealt with random numbers 

15 knows, what you get in randomization is not full 

16 coverage of the sites and the types of cases that 

17 come before you. So to err on the side of adequate 

18 coverage for every type, you can't rely on a random 

19 selection to provide you that.

20 Our selection process, in my mind, is 

21 established to provide a random list of what's 

22 available to us, and then using our personal 
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 criteria inside this Subcommittee with respect to 

2 concern for assurance that all sites, all types of 

3 cancers, and all types of persons are covered, we 

4 therefore established additional internal 

5 criteria for ourselves, saying let's be sure we 

6 look at this. Let's be sure we look at that. And 

7 in order to do that we have to make selections out 

8 of the random list.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds very 

10 good, yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It'll take two or three 

12 sentences to say that. But it doesn't need to be 

13 belabored, in my view. But it does need to be made 

14 very clear.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, probably 

16 someplace way up front here going back to the first 

17 pages.

18 MR. KATZ: David?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. You have 

21 already made the point earlier on as a result of 

22 the same concern, in effect, I mean, that the Board 
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 selection process isn't random. You've made the 

2 point that in fact the Board has been selecting 

3 cases in the range where they're most likely to, 

4 if there are problems, for those problems to be 

5 important.

6 So you've already said pretty clearly 

7 it's not at all a random selection or a random 

8 review.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

10 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, you may be able 

11 to add a little bit more upfront in the front end 

12 of the report on that. But you did try to address 

13 it already in a different part.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I could 

15 try, though -- I'm looking at the report. I could 

16 look on Page 3, Dose Reconstruction Cases Reviewed. 

17 Of those reviewed for this report, et cetera, I can 

18 try to insert some sentences or clarification of 

19 essentially what Rose and Wanda are saying. And 

20 I'd be glad to do that. 

21 So I'm going to put a note to myself, 

22 intro sentences, Page 4, Wanda and Rose. Well, 
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 good. Okay, that's very good. Thank you. I 

2 mean, I think those are very good suggestions of 

3 a broader nature and I think clarifying. I 

4 certainly allude to it. But I can be more 

5 explicit. Okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There's also a few 

7 instances in the report, for instance, the last 

8 sentence of the report, that draw conclusions on 

9 the data specifically that probably are not 

10 appropriate to draw.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This appears to 

12 reflect both the increase in cancer rates.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, and what I sent 

14 you, I put that in brackets and made question marks 

15 about it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: It's hard to see, from 

18 just a casual reading, it was hard to see much 

19 difference in increase in incidents of age-related 

20 cancers and the fact that after people are retired 

21 they have a tendency to file more claims. You 

22 know, it seems like a different side of the same 
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 coin to me.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, you may be 

3 right. Let me look at that. It's in your report 

4 and I'll remember this part of the conversation. 

5 And that last chapter -- excuse me, the last 

6 paragraph, the last section, was hard to write and 

7 we revised it quite significantly. And I think I'm 

8 letting my public health interests interfere, 

9 because it's not just public health. It's also the 

10 rates at which people file claims, which is not the 

11 same as the rates of cancer incidence. 

12 So, okay, good. I may just delete that 

13 sentence, actually. We'll see. As long as you've 

14 noted it there, Wanda, it will be addressed. Any 

15 other comments? These are all very good. 

16 So what I will do is make revisions and 

17 then I can either send them out to the Subcommittee 

18 to kind of look over or just simply give them to 

19 Ted and ask them to be distributed to the Board for 

20 the March meeting. I have a feeling the latter is 

21 probably better. You've all read over this now a 

22 second time, and we've improved it. And I'll put 
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 those changes in and then we'll give it to the Board 

2 and of course you as Subcommittee Members will be 

3 on the Board and will comment on if any of the 

4 changes that I put in reflecting today's discussion 

5 were not put in appropriately or we could do better, 

6 something like that.

7 Which would you prefer? Would you like 

8 to take a look at the changes I'll make before we 

9 submit it to the Board?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, Dave, this is 

11 Josie. I'd like to see them.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Others?

13 MEMBER MUNN: I think it's always 

14 helpful for the Subcommittee Members to see what 

15 we're reporting to the Board.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, alright.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's always fun 

18 reading, you know.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

20 Revisions will be sent to Subcommittee members.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: It may help me with my 

22 English language.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

2 Alright. Fine. Well, thank you. And it's now 

3 ten of two and we finished with that and that's 

4 great. And we're really ready to go on to 5.

5 There's elements in me that would -- I 

6 don't think we want to take a break quite this 

7 early, so let's go on for a little while. Let's 

8 start five. We're not going to deal with all three 

9 bullets, perhaps, before break.

10 Criteria for Assigning and Finding Observations

11 Let's start with the first bullet, the 

12 Criteria for Assigning Findings and Observations, 

13 Grady. And actually, by the way, for this, Ted, 

14 if you would send me, email me Zaida's letter. And 

15 in fact, if you might just send it to my home email 

16 then I'll get on, because it will be helpful to be 

17 on Live Meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: I'll do that right now.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you very 

20 much. So, as he's doing that and as we're doing 

21 that, Grady, you had a number of suggestions about 

22 changing the criteria for findings and 
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 observations, if I'm not mistaken.

2 MR. CALHOUN: We discussed it last 

3 time, and actually Scott wrote some stuff up about 

4 it and we forwarded it on. And I think we discussed 

5 it a little bit the last time we got together.

6 So I really don't know what to say other 

7 than what we've put forth. And I don't know where 

8 there's some agreements or disagreements. I don't 

9 know, Scott, if you have anything on there that we 

10 can talk about. I think we're almost to the point 

11 where you guys need to ask us questions or agree

12 or disagree with what our proposals were.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I did not 

14 leave the last meeting thinking that this was 

15 closed. But it's certainly appropriate for us to 

16 talk about, for us to ask questions of you, since 

17 you did respond with a memo.

18 Can we put this up on Live Meeting? I'm 

19 waiting for it to come in.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm not sure which memo 

21 he is talking about. If he wants to pull it up, 

22 he can certainly take over the screen.
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 MR. CALHOUN: I do not have such a memo. 

2 We discussed, I don't know if it was an email or 

3 what. But last time, we talked about, you know, 

4 like, for example if we found a -- if a finding was 

5 identified and through our course of discussion you 

6 guys decided we were right, then that wouldn't be 

7 a finding.

8 And then there were some other 

9 questions, well, what if the TBD changed or what 

10 if you were looking at an older TBD? So, unless 

11 those criteria are up in front of me, I don't know 

12 if I can speak intelligently about it, and I don't 

13 have them handy.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

15 certainly saw them. And I remember you sent us a 

16 group of tables, you know, saying that the -- you 

17 were talking about low impact ones -- no, that's 

18 --

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We did go through and 

20 complete the reclassification of findings, if 

21 that's what we're talking about.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.
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 MR. CALHOUN: And I think we kind of, 

2 sort of agreed to that before we reclassified them.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know, and it 

4 may be that I'm thinking about the impact of the 

5 findings, the impacts of the findings and that 

6 discussion. What do other Board Members -- what 

7 are your recollections?

8 MEMBER MUNN: I do not remember seeing 

9 any additional information above what we 

10 discussed. It may have come in and I missed it, 

11 but --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You mean on 

13 findings and observations?

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, correct.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. And I 

16 don't recall either. But I was busy with other, 

17 you know, writing the report and things like that 

18 and there were periods that just, I said I'm going 

19 to come back to that and I may have missed [doing 

20 so].

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, Dave, I think Rose and 

22 Grady are correct. Their discussion, which was 
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 concluded, was all about getting to correct 

2 statistics on that Secretary's letter.

3 But the discussion related to what 

4 changes the Subcommittee might want to recommend 

5 to the Board in how it does its dose reconstruction 

6 reviews. The only discussion, you know, that you 

7 just touched on, that there's no memo on it because 

8 there's no detail to it, but with the whole 

9 question, Rose had a memo, I think, or Kathy --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: -- that related to how to get 

12 more efficiency, how do you want to deal with 

13 observations. You had discussed [this], Dave, to 

14 some extent.

15 And then also the question of how do you 

16 want to deal with sort of, which Kathy 

17 redistributed pretty recently I think, the memo how 

18 do you want to deal with circumstances where the, 

19 there seems to be sort of a simple path forward for 

20 agreement, you know, simple conflicts versus more 

21 complicated conflicts and findings and so on.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well that's to 
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 be -- I mean that's the third bullet and we 

2 certainly want to talk about that. I mean that was 

3 presented and but the question is the first two 

4 bullets, or the first bullet -- so I just don't 

5 remember if they're, well let me just start fresh.

6 And I don't -- do people believe that 

7 we have settled the issue of findings and 

8 observations and that there is no change that we 

9 are recommending or [that] the changes were 

10 recommended in the memo which I don't recall 

11 seeing? But that could be my fault and Wanda’s

12 also.

13 MR. CALHOUN: I think we discussed them 

14 and then Rose actually changed them and that was 

15 kind of it and we kind of agreed that going forward 

16 during our discussions we, rather than trying to 

17 go back and change the whole lot of them we would 

18 just say, okay, this one really wasn't a finding 

19 and this one was.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

21 remember those memos that went back and forth and 

22 there was agreement eventually.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: And I think [it] was even 

2 not so much memos. We had a couple emails. But 

3 I think more of it was just discussion during the 

4 meeting but --

5 MR. KATZ: Right. But that's not a 

6 change in process really.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. KATZ: We went through that all 

9 along, updating the findings according to what the 

10 Subcommittee decided. So that's not something you 

11 need to recommend to the Board because that really 

12 was meant to always be in place.

13 So it was sort of a mess for this 

14 Secretary's Report. It shouldn't be a mess in the 

15 future because I think SC&A is already keeping 

16 records in a different way.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: So we won't have that 

19 situation. But you do have the -- you have never 

20 recommended to the Board one way or the other 

21 whether you want to continue with observations as 

22 is or not.
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 How you want to deal with observations?

2 You haven't made any recommendations regarding 

3 that. Right now you still deal with them. You 

4 still review them and so on.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

6 And I, right -- sorry, go ahead.

7 MEMBER MUNN: And we did talk about 

8 [this] extensively based on a memo that Rose sent 

9 out last -- I don't know it's been a number of months 

10 now, I guess the tenth to 13th sets about where we 

11 had discrepancies in our conversations, about 

12 whether this should be an observation or a finding 

13 in that particular set.

14 And we had a memo on that. It was the 

15 basis of a part of our significant discussion the 

16 last couple meetings I think. My memory was that 

17 we pretty much put the issue to bed.

18 But I thought we fairly well, as Ted 

19 mentioned, I think we fairly well resolved how we 

20 were going to go forward with it. But maybe not. 

21 In my mind we're done.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well I'm --
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 maybe the thing to do is --

2 MEMBER MUNN: I haven't looked at the 

3 minutes of the meeting either, I mean --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The transcript.

5 MEMBER MUNN: -- the transcript, 

6 right.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

8 can go back, we can go back and look at those. But 

9 I think in fact it sounds to me as if things were 

10 resolved. I may have missed something. I 

11 remember those emails going back and forth and I 

12 can of course go back to them myself.

13 But maybe the way to say it is that I'm 

14 a little unclear now about what we decided. I can 

15 go back and find things. I'd like to start later 

16 today on 14, go back to 14 to 21 sets, which as Rose 

17 noted, you know, we have done very little if 

18 anything.

19 I don't think we've reviewed cases 

20 there yet. So our -- if people would, I'll go back 

21 and check the records and the discussion. If, Ted, 

22 if you see those and want to forward the relevant 
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 ones to us.

2 MR. KATZ: I don't, Dave, look here's 

3 what's on the plate right now related to this which 

4 Dr. Melius I think, you know, requested that or was 

5 thinking that you would, that the Subcommittee 

6 would make recommendations to the Board on how we 

7 might change the dose reconstruction review 

8 process.

9 Kathy sent you all the memo and the memo 

10 suggested sort of an efficiency process. So 

11 that's one suggestion in effect. It's 

12 complicated. It's not a one sentence suggestion. 

13 But that's one approach to how the dose 

14 reconstruction review process might be changed 

15 going forward for the Board.

16 It was in effect, just to say it very 

17 briefly, sort of an efficiency process where 

18 simpler, easier cases to resolve get sort of 

19 reviewed prior to the meeting and get minimal 

20 discussion in the meeting. And Dr. Melius raised 

21 some concerns about that because --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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 MR. KATZ: -- some problems seemed 

2 simple or straightforward and don't end up being 

3 so and so on. And he thought that every, you know, 

4 finding might need to have, you know, more 

5 substantial discussion engagement by the Board 

6 because, of course, SC&A's review is just that:

7 SC&A's review. It's not the Board's point of view. 

8 So there was that discussion and 

9 there's that sort of one proposal that we have from 

10 SC&A about one way we could make a more efficient 

11 dose reconstruction review process. But the table 

12 is still wide open for other approaches that any 

13 of you may have, other ideas you may have for how 

14 to go forward.

15 We do have a problem in that the current 

16 process is very slow. Very meticulous, very slow. 

17 It's excellent on detail and very thorough. But 

18 it takes a long time and it's hard to get 

19 significant quantity done in any real time which 

20 is why we have this, you know, very big backlog on 

21 the shelves right now.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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. KATZ: So I just say that because 

2 I don't think there's much more to send around to 

3 you other than Kathy's memo. It's really about you 

4 folks brainstorming and coming up with suggestions 

5 if you have them, or don't, for the rest of the Board 

6 to consider.

7 And then of course there's [what] the 

8 rest of the Board can think about this problem too 

9 when it takes it up in March.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well we 

11 have, we certainly have on the table the SC&A 

12 proposal. And we should talk about that. It's as 

13 if the first two bullets are, those are essentially 

14 internal matters that don't need to go to the Board, 

15 right?

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So they do not 

18 have to be resolved or they are resolved to some 

19 extent. I would say, let's figure that we will 

20 focus a little bit on those, some of us at least 

21 between now and the next meeting, and try to follow 

22 a little bit more closely what was discussed.
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 And I think we should, maybe we should 

2 just go right ahead to the SC&A proposal that we 

3 have talked about before and has been formally put 

4 on the table for our discussion and recommendation 

5 to the Board. So let us do that.

6 Okay, folks. We'll do that now.

7 MEMBER BEACH: That would be good.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, Ted, for 

9 some reason I haven't gotten your Live Meeting yet.

10 MR. KATZ: I emailed it to both of your 

11 accounts.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, you know 

13 what that's good. The Gmail account will be there 

14 no matter what. It moves quickly, no, it's, the 

15 other one goes through a second, through another 

16 server, and that's at the college. So let's see.

17 Well, why don't we do this? I mean I've 

18 read it and I remember it and while I'm searching 

19 around maybe we let folks -- and is it Rose or is 

20 it Kathy who will present this?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm prepared to do it 

22 but I'm sure Kathy will jump in if I'm --
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: Okay. So, 

2 Rose, why don't you?

3 SC&A Proposal

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I'll put the 

5 memo up on the screen here. But, in order to give 

6 you some kind of context, as you know SC&A has 

7 reviewed 500 cases and we're just finishing 334 of 

8 them which means that we have a backlog of 

9 approximately 400 findings and observations.

10 And typically we only get through about 

11 30 findings and observations per meeting. So at 

12 the current rate it will take us at least three and 

13 half years to finish if we do nothing else.

14 And so what we proposed is essentially 

15 grouping findings one more time. The findings are 

16 currently already grouped by site and NIOSH makes 

17 that grouping. And we found that by grouping them 

18 in that way that has really expedited the finding 

19 resolution process, but possibly not as quickly as 

20 we could be doing.

21 So SC&A proposed grouping them one set 

22 further. And we call these Type 1 and Type 2 
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 findings and we could call them whatever you want 

2 really. But the Type 1 findings are your QA 

3 findings or your QC findings, findings that the 

4 underlying issue has already been resolved, 

5 simple, technical clarifications.

6 And these are findings that SC&A no 

7 longer has follow-up questions on. And in our mind 

8 there's no longer a source of a disagreement 

9 between SC&A and NIOSH.

10 The second type of finding, Type 2, 

11 would be everything else. These are the more 

12 complicated findings. These are the issues that 

13 SC&A still has questions on, sources [where] we 

14 believe there's still disagreement.

15 These are findings that we really need 

16 Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee input on. So 

17 what we're proposing is simply to create a table 

18 in advance of every meeting, whether it's a week 

19 or whatever predetermined time frame, that 

20 summarizes all the Type 1 findings.

21 And we have an example of that, the type 

22 of table that we have in mind in the attachment to 
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 this memo. Basically it just provides the finding 

2 number, a little bit about the case and then the 

3 finding and a summary of what is already in the 

4 matrix.

5 Now we realize the matrices for the BRS 

6 are really complicated, they have a lot of details. 

7 But we boil these down to just the main points. And 

8 we're suggesting that we provide this to the Dose 

9 Reconstruction Subcommittee and NIOSH a week in 

10 advance of the meeting and that way Dose 

11 Reconstruction Subcommittee Members can review 

12 this information.

13 It highlights everything that was

14 discussed in the matrix but in minimal detail and 

15 makes it very easy to understand exactly what's 

16 happening. Now, I don't want it -- I want it to 

17 be clear that these are not positive and negative 

18 findings.

19 I think that term has been thrown 

20 around, which is not really accurate. We don't 

21 make any judgment on it's either right or wrong. 

22 These are just findings that we don't think require 
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 the level of attention as some of the other 

2 findings, the Type 2 findings.

3 And with this table Subcommittee 

4 Members then, if they have any questions, they can 

5 look into them in the BRS or they can bring them 

6 up for more discussion at the actual meeting. But 

7 our hope is that by providing these in advance the 

8 more simple findings can be addressed in an 

9 accelerated --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hello. I got 

11 cut off.

12 MR. CALHOUN: It sounded like Rose just 

13 dropped off.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it does.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I wasn't 

16 the only one for whom -- Rose, are you there? Good, 

17 I thought it was just me.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like a void to me.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's wait a 

20 moment. She's probably trying to get back on.

21 MEMBER MUNN: She's not moving 

22 anything around on the screen.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And for 

2 some reason, Ted, I do not have what you emailed 

3 me either.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is Rose. Can you 

5 hear me?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can hear you 

7 now? Good.

8 MEMBER MUNN: You're back.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. I could 

10 hear you the whole time and I thought you could hear 

11 me.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Well, good. I thought 

13 perhaps you would hear the clue and move the screen,

14 which you did. Very good.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Where did you lose me 

16 here?

17 MEMBER MUNN: We lost you -- it sounded 

18 to me as though you had pretty much wrapped up. You 

19 were talking about positive and negative findings 

20 and pointing out there is no such thing actually,

21 and what you were doing essentially was just 

22 deriving which of the items you had reviewed seemed 
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 to be the most simple and had the least ongoing 

2 discussion necessary in order to resolve them.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Were there any 

4 questions on this proposal?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, why don't 

6 we, I mean, why don't we first raise, I mean when 

7 we -- I don't remember how Jim Melius, whether he 

8 was in on the discussion that we had at one of our 

9 earlier meetings or where it came up, but he raised 

10 the question immediately: Well are we really -- he 

11 was concerned about the Board taking 

12 responsibility for all the decisions, 

13 responsibility, not, you know, in supervising and 

14 giving our approval to the decisions that were 

15 made.

16 And he was concerned, and I have thought 

17 about it since, whether he was concerned whether 

18 in fact people on the Board on the Subcommittee 

19 would follow through and really look carefully at 

20 the ones that you folks agreed upon so that we could 

21 really say that the Board has looked over and 

22 approved the decision that the two groups, the SC&A 
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 and... --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I could just perhaps 

3 clarify. We're not proposing that we don't talk 

4 about any findings. Disposing [of] findings is 

5 the sole responsibility of the Board.

6 We just want to prevent, provide this 

7 information in a timely fashion, so that if the 

8 Board Members want to look into them in more detail 

9 then we need to present in the meeting what is 

10 available to them.

11 But we're still proposing going through 

12 every finding. It's just we're proposing reducing 

13 the amount of time on each finding.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

15 actually misunderstood then because I thought that 

16 you were proposing that some of us look over the 

17 -- where we have the Type 1, where there's 

18 agreement, and just check it out and then report 

19 to the Subcommittee that it's fine.

20 MEMBER MUNN: That wasn't what I got 

21 out of it.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And so I, 
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 that's an important clarification. So we're still 

2 going to go over every one of the cases.

3 MEMBER MUNN: That was what I took 

4 away.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and that 

6 there would be an explanation. But where there 

7 were Type 1 cases it would be abbreviated.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. So essentially 

9 for a Type 1 case we could go directly down the 

10 example table that we have here.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would say Finding 

13 391.1 has a rank of L, PoC of 46 percent. The 

14 finding had to do with an inconsistency of 

15 unmonitored dose. And the resolution was this and 

16 are there any follow up questions?

17 And at that point we could reduce the 

18 amount of discussion going through explaining 

19 exactly what the small inconsistency was, why NIOSH 

20 thinks it was an error and then we were not focusing 

21 nearly as much time on these small problems.

22 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy. If I 
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 can just interject.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please.

3 MS. BEHLING: Exactly right, Rose. 

4 The point was that we are first of all trying to 

5 not have you have to make a decision real time 

6 because we maybe didn't get something into your 

7 hands in enough time for you to review these things 

8 and we're now sitting at a meeting and you're 

9 hearing this for the first time making a decision.

10 And we're trying to focus your 

11 attention on those that we feel maybe will require 

12 the least amount of discussion. And if this is in 

13 your hands prior to the meeting and you have an 

14 opportunity and you have the time to look at these 

15 things then during a meeting we can maybe quickly 

16 say: Is there any disagreement with what NIOSH and 

17 SC&A have come to conclude?

18 Are you in agreement? Do you have any 

19 additional questions? And we can move on. I 

20 think the problem was, you know, during these 

21 meetings you were sitting and having to make 

22 decisions real time and not being aware of maybe 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all the details.

2 And we're trying to focus your 

3 attention on those that we can more quickly get 

4 through. But we would definitely be discussing 

5 each and every finding, and I think that 

6 understanding will hopefully make other Board 

7 Members who are not part of this Committee more 

8 comfortable with what we're recommending.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Kathy, I will have to say 

10 to both you and Rose, I personally welcome this 

11 suggestion with open arms. It is, I don't know how 

12 conscientious other Board Members are, but I know 

13 there are times when I spend a lot of time looking 

14 at the material that's going to come up. There are 

15 times when I barely have a chance to even identify 

16 where it is and end up having to try to come up to 

17 speed while we're actually in meetings.

18 I try not to do that. But it happens 

19 to me every once in a while. And I, when I saw this,

20 I thought, wow, this is to me the same kind of 

21 thinking that we used early in our deliberations 

22 to approach our entire process.
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 That is, there are some things that are 

2 obvious. There are some things that take great 

3 deliberation. For things that are obvious, for 

4 things that have essentially been resolved in 

5 principle, it's incumbent upon us to identify what 

6 has been agreed to and know that we are agreeing 

7 with the agreement.

8 But it does not require that we search 

9 through a large mass of data in order to get to this 

10 fairly straightforward conclusion. And it seems 

11 to me that this would really clear the decks to a 

12 large degree and allow us much more time to focus 

13 on the thorny things that are going to take days, 

14 weeks, sometimes months to resolve because of 

15 multiple aspects of some issue or because of 

16 inability to identify exactly where we need to come 

17 down on this.

18 So I think it would be a tremendous help 

19 to me as a reviewer's reviewer to, just to know 

20 where to look on the matrix, for goodness sake, to 

21 identify this item and not having to scroll through 

22 pages and pages of what I'm trying to find to take 
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 a look at it and read what's already been done.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely. And 

3 that's the reason we wanted to put together this 

4 summary table because I understand how challenging 

5 it is to find it in the matrix even for people who 

6 use the matrix every day.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's, as I said, 

8 when we're able to perform our jobs properly and 

9 devote several hours to this prior to a meeting then 

10 it's one thing. But there are certainly times when 

11 I can't do that.

12 So being able to focus in on it quickly 

13 during a meeting time is a real blessing.

14 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I also 

15 just [to] make one additional comment. I think, 

16 Wanda, that this is also consistent with how you 

17 handle the Procedures Subcommittee meetings.

18 Often SC&A provides reviews and 

19 summarizes like salient elements of PERs and that 

20 type of thing in advance and so everyone has an 

21 opportunity to read through them, think about them 

22 before the meeting, and then make decisions more 
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 quickly by being more informed during the meeting. 

2 So this is consistent with that approach.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. There's 

4 no question that having you folks send us 

5 information about where the problems are, if any, 

6 that this will help us focus on what to look for 

7 when the report is made.

8 But presumably the report would be,

9 still, a full report about the case because there 

10 are times when there seems to be agreement about 

11 something and then somebody from the Board or the 

12 Subcommittee will spot something and say, wait a 

13 minute, explain this or, you know, there are times 

14 we find things that you folks didn't agree upon.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, Dave, you're still 

16 going to receive the case reviews for the set, 

17 right. You will have the individual case reviews 

18 first.

19 Those will come out first and 

20 presumably subsequently as they're working towards 

21 a Board Meeting SC&A and DCAS will have some 

22 interaction so that they can clarify matters that 
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 are unclear for some of these more, whatever you 

2 want to call them, simple cases that can be 

3 presented then in this kind of a table to give you 

4 sort of a shorthand on what's important and what's 

5 at least agreed upon between SC&A and DCAS for those 

6 matters.

7 So you're still going to get the full 

8 case report for each dose reconstruction review.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we're still 

10 going to get a summary of it at the meeting, will 

11 we?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, you'll still get 

13 a summary of --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

15 It can be a brief summary, I mean much more brief 

16 than we do now.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we certainly are 

18 free to ask any questions we want regardless of how 

19 lengthy the survey is.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

21 MEMBER BEACH: I have a question for 

22 either Rose or Kathy. Is it really clear when 
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 you're doing these, when you put together this 

2 Table 1, what fits in Type 1 and what fits in Type 

3 2? Is there any gray areas or did you find it very 

4 clear cut?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It seems pretty clear 

6 cut for the most part. If there's any gray area, 

7 if I have any question at all, it goes in Type 2 

8 because I want Board input on that.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MR. KATZ: And just from my 

12 observations on this with respect to the cut and 

13 paste and I think Dave said something important too 

14 because the presentations sometimes have been very 

15 long winded and they probably didn't need to and 

16 that's probably another area where we could get 

17 some real efficiency by figuring out how to present 

18 at the right level of detail for the particular case 

19 so that we don't lose a lot of time that way.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's true. 

21 Brad, did you start to say something?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I was just 
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 listening. I was just thinking if Wanda agreed 

2 with this then I would take the other side. But, 

3 you know, just kidding.

4 Actually I would like to tell Kathy and 

5 Rose I think this has been a long time coming and 

6 they've done a good job on this and I think it will 

7 help the process out.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I also 

10 think this would give us a clear record of what was 

11 done and why in very easy to access data, I mean 

12 very accessible. So --

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with that, 

14 Josie, because if you think about it a lot of times 

15 when we bring a case back up it's because something 

16 hasn't been clear in this and we were going to get 

17 some more information. So it takes like five to 

18 ten minutes just to bring us back up to speed of 

19 what the actual [issue] was and why it was an issue.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's true. 

21 You're right about that. So essentially to the 

22 concern that, Jim's concern, that we're --
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 MR. KATZ: Dave, we lost you.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You did. Okay. 

3 You know what, my phone, I'm running off a 

4 wireless... Well, I'll change, can you hear me 

5 now?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can hear you now. I 

7 just --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I will 

9 change phones at the break later. I'll have a 

10 recharged phone. But basically we will go through 

11 all of them.

12 We will have essentially somebody 

13 pointing out where there are minor problems that 

14 seem to be resolvable but that we will have someone 

15 quickly run through the whole case and we will hear 

16 it. But we can do it much more quickly if we know 

17 there's basic agreement and we're not going to have 

18 two reports.

19 We're going to have one person 

20 reporting, right, unless there are findings, 

21 right?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are not going to 
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 present the whole report to the Board for each case. 

2 That is reserved for the one-on-one calls. This 

3 is just the findings.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're talking 

5 about case reviews.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we do the case 

9 reviews and we do a one-on-one call with Board 

10 Members where we discuss the cases in detail.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then NIOSH 

13 responds to our findings and we respond back to them 

14 and then it gets presented in the meeting. So we 

15 only talk about findings and observations in the 

16 meetings.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. You're 

18 right.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. That's what we've 

20 been doing all along.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes, okay. 

22 You're right. You're right and I'm -- I think I'm 
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 going to move for a break more quickly. You're 

2 correct. That's what we're doing.

3 So if we have any questions, any other 

4 questions we can bring them up then. So sounds 

5 good. I mean sounds -- I don't know where I got 

6 the idea, mistaken idea, that one person from the 

7 Board was going to be assigned -- a Subcommittee 

8 member was going to be assigned to look it over and 

9 say it's okay and tell the rest of the committee.

10 MR. KATZ: I don't think you dreamed 

11 that up, Dave. That came up in some discussion 

12 somewhere because I recall it too. So don't feel 

13 --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm glad to hear 

15 that.

16 MR. KATZ: There was a discussion with 

17 some things thrown out like that, for example, that 

18 maybe a couple Board Members would focus on the 

19 cases and then they would come and present back to 

20 -- that was said somewhere.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well that's good 

22 to know I remember. But that's again, that's not 
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 what we're talking about now. And it seems like 

2 it would be a good thing to do and the Subcommittee 

3 members are in agreement on this.

4 And we will go over every single case 

5 before -- the ones where there's Type 1 they will 

6 be rather quick, hopefully.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I also want to 

8 point out that our Type 2 findings, by highlighting 

9 the Type 2 findings, we make NIOSH aware in advance 

10 of the findings that SC&A wants to talk about in 

11 more detail. So that makes them able to better 

12 prepare for a meeting so they don't have to go back 

13 and we don't kick these down the road longer and 

14 longer.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

16 admit I did not realize until your report just a 

17 few moments ago that we have a backlog of 500 cases 

18 now. Is that correct?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have a backlog of 

20 about 150 cases which total 400 findings and 

21 observations.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 
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 Right. So it seems to me it's a reasonable 

2 approach and we can certainly try it. We can 

3 change back if we don't find this working. And I 

4 think we could make this as a recommendation to the 

5 Board, then, at the March meeting.

6 MEMBER MUNN: I would recommend that we 

7 do that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Now do we 

9 need to -- based on this discussion, is there any 

10 need to change anything in the memo itself?

11 MR. KATZ: The Board has to buy into 

12 whatever changes there might be going forward. 

13 But --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

15 Well, alright. Sounds like we should give this a 

16 try. Alright. So we'll essentially present this 

17 memo to the Board and send it out in advance to Board 

18 Members.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I could re-provide 

20 this to the Board. I believe --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You would like us to 
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 provide this to the whole Board then?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not quite 

3 sure who sends and how we --

4 MR. KATZ: That's, Rose, yes -- I mean, 

5 Rose, that -- I'll provide that to the Board with 

6 their other meeting materials.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: So I know I've had it 

9 multiple times but go ahead and send me the memo 

10 again just so I have it on the top of my emails and 

11 I'll package that in to the March meeting. Thank 

12 you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MS. BEHLING: One thing that we would 

15 want to reinforce with the Board Members who are 

16 not part of the Subcommittee is that each finding 

17 will be discussed by the Subcommittee and the final 

18 decision will made by you.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Kathy, anything you want to 

21 clarify in that memo before we send it to the Board?

22 That's fine too if you want to highlight some 
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 things.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: That's probably a good thing 

4 to do.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's why I was 

6 kind of leading to that. You may want to do for a 

7 little bit more clarification or reassurance and 

8 I think --

9 MS. BEHLING: Because it sounds like I 

10 may have misled some people by some of the wording 

11 in here, so we'll --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, let's not 

13 say you have misled. Let us say some of the Board 

14 members did not understand [this] quite, and 

15 clarification and communication is always good.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I have one question. 

17 This gives us an idea of what Type 1 recommendations 

18 will look like. What about Type 2? Will we see 

19 those in a similar chart or will we just go back 

20 to the full reports for each individual site or case 

21 for Type 2?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, we can certainly 
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 make a summary table like that for those. But 

2 since they were so much more complicated we assumed 

3 that it made more sense to go directly to the BRS 

4 or to the matrix and we can talk about them from 

5 there, where the bulk of the material is.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And that just 

7 might be a question when we send this out so I wanted 

8 to be clear on that.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we can certainly 

11 work with you, if that makes more sense, that you 

12 want it all condensed in one, something like this. 

13 We can certainly provide that.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it might 

15 be convenient but that doesn't have to -- that's 

16 an administrative matter and doesn't have to go 

17 before the Board.

18 MR. KATZ: Rose, just thinking, I know 

19 this isn't -- we don't have to deal with this now 

20 but it actually might, since we have some Board 

21 Members that actually don't have access to the BRS,

22 it might not be a bad idea anyway to create a summary 
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 document with excerpts from the BRS for the more 

2 lengthy stuff.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And actually in 

4 advance of every meeting I do “PDF” everything in 

5 the BRS and send it.

6 MR. KATZ: Right, that's true.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which you've 

8 done for this meeting.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And by the way, 

11 thank you because this is very helpful.

12 MR. KATZ: And by the way, Dr. 

13 Richardson has rejoined us.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

15 Well I was thinking actually we should go ahead to 

16 Set 21 and it seems to me even though it's a little 

17 early, that this is an appropriate time to take a 

18 break. David, you just came back and I'm ready to 

19 take a break.

20 But I was thinking of taking a ten 

21 minute break and then coming back and going over 

22 Sets 14 to 21. We will have few enough cases 
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 discussed or resolved that if the Board were to 

2 approve these changes that we're suggesting, that 

3 SC&A has proposed, that we can adhere to them, if 

4 you will, or go back.

5 Just to say, the Board hasn't approved 

6 us working in a new way. And I don't even know what 

7 your situation is in terms of, I don't know if you 

8 made something like that or is that part of or are 

9 the tables that we have now part of Set 14?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: These tables are part 

11 of that. But Dr. Melius was very clear that we are 

12 not to try any new processes without Board 

13 approval.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and that's 

15 what I'm trying to navigate.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we'll go through 

17 them the same way as normal.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay, 

19 that's right. We can certainly go ahead as we 

20 always have and if we adopt something then we 

21 change. So, thank you. That is I think the right 

22 way to go.
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 And so it's 2:33, 2:35. Let's take a 

2 break until a quarter of. I'll also change my 

3 phone so I'll be, my voice will be clearer. And 

4 then we'll go on to Sets 14 through 21. And you 

5 actually have posted those for those of us not on 

6 Live Meeting. Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sounds good.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. See you 

9 at a quarter of.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 went off the record at 2:33 p.m. and resumed at 2:48 

12 p.m.)

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go and go 

14 to Set 14. And have we, folks, can you hear me?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Have we done any 

17 on 14 yet? I thought we had started 14 a while ago 

18 but only got through a few cases, a few findings. 

19 Is that correct?

20 Reviews of Cases in Set 14

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is correct, Dave. 

22 There is one matrix that we have started, the Oak 
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 Ridge sites and the Gaseous Diffusion Plant Matrix.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we've closed 35 of 

4 the issues and it looks like there are eight issues 

5 still open.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

7 we are now on 391.1.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Ron, are you on the 

9 line?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I am.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's what I 

12 have on the screen here.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, is that where you 

14 want to start?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, where do you 

16 want to start?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm talking to Ron, I'm 

18 sorry.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry, okay.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: We did complete that 

21 391.1, if you page down to the next page.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.
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 DR. BUCHANAN: You see in green there 

2 it says February of 2015, they did some 

3 recalculations and we agree with the revisions in 

4 the amended dose and that would not impact the 

5 outcome of the case. So that one has been agreed 

6 upon and I don't know if it was actually closed.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It has not been closed 

8 yet. This would be an example of one that is on 

9 our Type 1 list.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Then 

11 let's just take a quick read, since we are now 

12 formally closing it, let's just take a look at the 

13 issues, the issue that came up.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, the issue was that 

15 there were some gaps without information in them, 

16 some monitoring, external monitoring gaps. And we 

17 pointed those years out and NIOSH went back in and 

18 said okay, yes, some of those we agreed with, some 

19 of those they didn't.

20 And we went back and forth and said 

21 okay. We see how you did it on some of them. On 

22 the other ones there were actually gaps and NIOSH 
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 said, yes, that's correct. And they went back and 

2 they filled in some of the gaps and then they 

3 recalculated the PoCs and it did not impact the 

4 outcome of the case.

5 And we went back to that revision, 

6 looked it over. We agreed with what they said and 

7 also did the PoC and found out that it didn't impact 

8 the outcome of the case. So that was in February 

9 of 2015.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Let me ask is someone 

11 manipulating the screen that is capable of 

12 correcting errors as we go along? The only reason 

13 I ask is because I identified there if we can --

14 yes, great. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Very 

16 good. That's clear enough. Is there any 

17 discussion, any need for discussion?

18 MEMBER MUNN: It appears clear-cut to 

19 me, as long as NIOSH is going to be looking into 

20 it, that, you know, we can't close it because 

21 there's one more thing, one more step you have to 

22 do, a response from where the gaps go.
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 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. This is 

2 Scott Siebert. That was actually what Ron was 

3 discussing was the response that we gave in 

4 February of last year.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That was last year's 

6 response and now we're scrolling down and we're 

7 going to see the closure, right?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Right. What we just --

9 what Ron was just discussing is our response to 

10 looking into the gaps.

11 MEMBER MUNN: And now he's done so and 

12 we can now say that NIOSH agrees, right?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

14 therefore it will be, it is closed. It's over 50 

15 percent and compensable, right.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We need your approval 

17 to close it.

18 MEMBER MUNN: And we can say that --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we 

20 should, yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: With the other members’

22 agreement we can close that case.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And in 

2 case -- often we'll just do this, folks on the 

3 Subcommittee, a lot of times I will accept no 

4 comment as approval. And it's only in disapproval 

5 I expect you to jump up to the microphone and say 

6 stop or whatever.

7 So we're closed, hearing no objection. 

8 Let's go on to the next one.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, thank you, Rose.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

11 looks like it is 394.1.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And here an incorrect 

14 dose value was used and no PFT [pulmonary function 

15 test] exam for ten years is the summary. It looks 

16 like we discussed this at the December 8th meeting 

17 and SC&A and NIOSH were tasked to review OTIB-6 and 

18 PROC 61.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is it my 

20 monitor? I'm not able to read the far right 

21 column.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, you can slide that 
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 over on the bottom.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's what I 

3 thought. There's -- here, hold it. Found it, 

4 sorry, yes. Thank you.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: This was again February 

6 of 2015, NIOSH agreed that Procedure 61 should be 

7 updated to be consistent with OTIB-6. And so what 

8 there was a difference in those two and NIOSH says 

9 that they plan to remove this conflicting 

10 information when they update Procedure 61.

11 And you can see there in February of 

12 2015, if you scroll up a little bit, Rose, we agreed 

13 that this is the proper way to handle it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

15 this, right. So this is agreed upon and we're 

16 awaiting the changes being made. But do we and 

17 when the changes are made then we will be able to 

18 close, right?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

21 Comments or questions.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Good job.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So you would like this 

3 put in abeyance until that is addressed?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: The next one is on page 

8 24.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we are.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Start here for next 

11 meeting. And we have closed that observation so 

12 we can go down another, Rose, another page. And 

13 we see that, okay, and we've closed 355.1.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is not, this is 

15 our recommendation column, Ron.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Let's see. 

17 Okay, so this is, okay, the observations and then 

18 the next one is 355.1-C.2.1. Okay, we agreed that 

19 they went back and there was a QA problem.

20 They didn't include a dose for 1980. 

21 We went back and redid it to calculate it including 

22 that and did the PoC. It did not change any -- it 
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 did not change the case outcome and so we agree that 

2 the DR, it was an error and when it was corrected 

3 it didn't change the outcome. And so we suggested 

4 closing that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

6 sounds like we approve unless there's some 

7 objection. Good. Yes. Okay. Then we're ready 

8 to move on to the next.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. The next line is 

10 355.2-C.3.2. And this is a debate of when they 

11 actually used a phantom and not when you used 

12 exposure and when you use dose equivalent, dose 

13 conversion factor.

14 And there seems to be a 

15 miscommunication here in the TBD. It says NIOSH 

16 says, well, TLD's were started in 1980 so that's 

17 when the dose exposure factor should be used.

18 However, we find that in the TBD it says 

19 there on Page 13, as we have in our column there,

20 that they actually calibrated it into air, free 

21 air, no phantom until the DOE LAP procedure was 

22 adopted in 1986. And so, you know, 1980 may be 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 correct date but it needs to be to last until date 

2 of the TBD statement and so we'll let NIOSH respond 

3 to that.

4 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

5 ORAU Team. The copy of the matrix I'm looking at 

6 on, good grief, it's going to be Page 25 of 30, 

7 you'll see a response in green.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I was not provided with 

9 that.

10 MR. SMITH: I'll read what the response

11 was in November of 2015. NIOSH is conducting 

12 further investigations on the appropriate dates to 

13 switch from roentgen to HP10 DCF recommendation.

14 Until this is complete the DR guidance 

15 document and tool have been updated to state to use 

16 the roentgen DCF through 1986 to be 

17 claimant-favorable. Based on everything we can 

18 see so far, that's likely going to be the final 

19 change that we'll recommend to be made in the TBD.

20 A side-bar note: All of the gaseous 

21 diffusion plant TBDs are due for some revisions due 

22 to some other items. So we'll capture this change 
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 when those revisions occur.

2 But right now the change has been made 

3 to go with roentgen up to '86. '86 is the year 

4 where DOE LAP criteria were then firmly in place 

5 and things switched over to HP10, again based on 

6 having the calibration done on a phantom rather 

7 than in free air.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now are we --

9 MR. SMITH: I don't know which way this 

10 particular file went or didn't go.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So this is, is 

12 this an observation or --

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, this is a finding.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: So the case should be 

15 reworked using --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see, okay.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: -- our exposure because 

18 probably it would be a higher dose.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. So 

20 and the response was that this was not done but it 

21 will be done in the future. I didn't quite catch 

22 that.
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 DR. BUCHANAN: Matt, do you want to 

2 address the.. you said what the TBD and workbook 

3 was going to do. But what about this particular 

4 case?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. SMITH: On this particular claim 

7 I'm going to have to throw it back to Scott real 

8 quick. I am not sure exactly if we've reworked 

9 this one or not.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well, yes, this is Scott. 

11 I don't believe we have because we need the 

12 resolution as to whether it's appropriate to take 

13 and do '86 or not.

14 At this point to be claimant-favorable 

15 we've changed the DR guidance from this point 

16 forward to be on the safe side. However, we 

17 haven't looked specifically at this case because 

18 we haven't determined whether that is truly the 

19 accurate way to do it or not.

20 We don't know if this is something that 

21 needs to be changed for this case or not yet.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 
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 So that sounds appropriate and that you will do that 

2 or bring this back to us. It's in abeyance, right, 

3 until you have a chance to take a look and decide 

4 what is the correct way to deal with it?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, typically we put 

6 a case in abeyance when we've agreed on a change 

7 that needs to be made. But it sounds like they're 

8 not sure the change that needs to be made.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Would this be in 

10 progress then?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, in progress.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Good. 

13 Questions?

14 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I assume 

15 then if this is adopted there would be a PER issued 

16 to go back to these types of cases.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, that would make 

18 sense. We would have to update the TBD to reflect 

19 the new information and then a PER would follow.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Alright.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now it sounds like 
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 NIOSH is working from a different version of the 

2 matrix than I am. Is it possible to get that sent 

3 to me just so we can get them merged for our records?

4 MEMBER MUNN: That would be a really 

5 good idea.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is the last 

7 matrix. So this is the last time this is going to 

8 happen.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. That was 

10 actually just a note for myself at that point. We 

11 hadn't put an official response in because we were 

12 still investigating the actual date.

13 So that's the only change there is to 

14 this matrix since February of last year.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great. Thank 

16 you.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Next.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 395.1.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: 395.1-C.3.

20 MR. KATZ: And could you just mention 

21 the cite when you go to a new case, just so that 

22 for the record, it just makes a better record. 
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 Thanks.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I don't have 

3 that note down here.

4 MR. KATZ: 395 is Paducah.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Paducah, okay, Paducah 

6 395.1-G.3, uranium chronic intake significantly 

7 underestimated. NIOSH agrees that the intake rate 

8 should have been entered as picocuries per day 

9 instead of picocuries per year and that they are 

10 -- and SC&A agrees -- that this was a DR error and 

11 that they redid, NIOSH redid, the PoC and it did 

12 not impact the outcome and we agreed and suggest 

13 closing it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

15 sounds good. Any comments from Subcommittee 

16 members? Then I think we're closed. We have an 

17 observation.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: 396 had no findings. 

19 We did have an observation and that has to do with 

20 the x-ray dose assigned. And this was, and it 

21 would depend on which, what reference you used.

22 And we see that if he used the newer 
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 reference it would be a different dose than if he 

2 used the older reference. However, if when the 

3 dose reconstruction was performed it was, they did 

4 use the right one, we just commented that there 

5 would be a difference in dose if they used the later 

6 revision after the dose reconstruction was 

7 performed.

8 And so there was no further discussion 

9 on that.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So we're good.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: It lowered the dose so 

12 it wasn't, it wouldn't change the case.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

14 So that's closed.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually to be 

17 honest it says closed. It's really so noted, is 

18 it not?

19 MEMBER MUNN: No, that's their 

20 recommendation column, I think.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well it 

22 just tells you there's no more work that needs to 
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 be done on that. But in a sense we didn't close 

2 it. We noted it, right, as an observation.

3 I don't know, you have a standard way 

4 of doing this and if you always use closed, okay, 

5 fine.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's our signal 

7 that we don't have to address it again.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right, 

9 okay. Let's go on. I think I noticed 397 also no 

10 findings.

11 DR. BUCHANAN: No findings on 397. 

12 And again, I didn't mark down the sites on all of 

13 these. They're all on Oak Ridge site of some sort.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Paducah, okay. And 

16 this was an observation that again the 

17 recommendation in Procedure 61 as compared to the 

18 table and we, it depends on which reference you 

19 used, we just wanted to point that out and we had 

20 no further investigation into that as an 

21 observation.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 
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 That takes care of it.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: And that is 

3 351.1-C.2.2. And we had here [an] incorrect 

4 missed dose conversion factor -- correction 

5 factor, excuse me. And this had to do with the open 

6 window, closed window readings.

7 And what this resulted [in] because of 

8 a difference, there was an error in the TBD table 

9 and that wasn't in the worksheet apparently. And 

10 so if you went by the TBD table it was getting a 

11 different answer than if you used the workbook.

12 And so that's what the difference was 

13 and once that was deciphered and explained then we 

14 had no issue with it and it was -- the dose assigned 

15 was claimant-favorable so we had no further issue 

16 with that. But it was a finding resulted as a fact 

17 of a difference in the workbook and the TBD.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Comments 

19 anybody? If anybody wants to? Okay.

20 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Has the 

21 workbook been corrected?

22 MR. SIEBERT: Well, let's back up a 
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 second. We're talking 351.1 right?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we are.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. It's not an issue 

4 of the workbook versus the TBD. It's the fact that

5 OTIB-17 gives specific direction in dealing with 

6 this type of case and is the governing document for 

7 shallow dose.

8 The OTIB-17 directs how to assess this 

9 dose not the TBD. So it's not that the tool was 

10 wrong in any way. The tool implemented OTIB-17 

11 methodology which is the correct methodology for 

12 shallow dose.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I misunderstood 

14 then. But I agree, OTIB-17 does dictate the 

15 shallow dose assignment.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I don't know if Grady 

17 wants to chime in on this, but this is the kind that 

18 it might be good for the Subcommittee putting in 

19 the back of their mind as to whether you would count 

20 this as a finding later on or not.

21 MR. CALHOUN: That's what I was going 

22 to say, Scott. I think this is a non-finding 
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 because there was nothing done wrong on that one.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, shouldn't the TBD 

3 agree with OTIB-17?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's a heavy 

5 question.

6 MR. SIEBERT: So OTIB-17 is a later 

7 document that controls shallow dose. I agree that 

8 going back and having the TBD consistent would be 

9 great. But it's not necessarily the highest 

10 priority when we have a later governing document.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So dose reconstructors 

12 would know then that the hierarchy of data tells

13 them that they are supposed to use OTIB-17 even when 

14 the TBD directs something different than that?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. And the tool 

16 implements it that way as well.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Maybe that's an 

18 observation rather than a finding then, don't drop 

19 it all together.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Can we rely on the tool 

21 always being used in these cases? I'm assuming. 

22 Is that an assumption we can make? If we can make 
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 that assumption then we can close. If we can't 

2 make that assumption then we have to say, well, 

3 maybe.

4 MR. CALHOUN: I believe the tools are 

5 always used for every case for which a tool exists, 

6 I believe.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I would expect that 

8 to be the case but I don't know it to be the case.

9 MR. SIEBERT: I can say from our side 

10 that is the case.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. I'm hearing the 

12 assurance that's the case. So the question that 

13 was asked earlier was referenced to the hierarchy 

14 of instruction makes this a resolved issue.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

16 does it not make it an observation?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The TBD is going to be, 

18 is there any plans for the TBD ever to be revised?

19 MEMBER MUNN: We haven't heard anyone 

20 say that one way or the other.

21 MR. KATZ: Well these TBDs all get 

22 revised eventually, it seems like.
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: There is not any current 

2 plan to do so, nothing hanging out there with regard 

3 to that.

4 MS. BEHLING: It should be put on the 

5 list that if it does get revised this change be 

6 made.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. But in any event, it 

8 is an observation, right?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And so we should 

12 change it and then close it.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Observation and close.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: I'll change that to an 

16 observation.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And close.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now to be clear, we've 

19 decided that we're not going to go back and revise 

20 the actual DR reports to indicate when findings 

21 change to observations. Is that correct?

22 MR. KATZ: Right. Right. You don't 
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 need to revise the actual case report exactly. 

2 Just as long as our summary, BRS and so on materials

3 all show the correct outcome.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So I will 

5 change this in my records and from now on this is 

6 going to be an observation.

7 MR. KATZ: Great, thanks.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. That brings us 

10 to 352.1-E.1.1. And this is concerning, I don't 

11 have that location. It's one of the Oak Ridge 

12 facilities. Okay, lack of neutron dose 

13 assignment.

14 Okay, this was kind of a fine wording 

15 issue here in that the DR report said it was the 

16 best estimate. So the reviewer said okay, why 

17 wasn't a neutron dose assigned and if it's the best 

18 estimate.

19 And NIOSH's reply was that well if it 

20 was needed it would have been but they didn't need 

21 to assign it because it was over 50 percent and they 

22 didn't need to apply the neutron dose. And so it's 
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 actually a best-estimate underestimate in this 

2 case and replied that it could have been mentioned 

3 in the assessment that it was a best-estimate 

4 underestimate.

5 However, SC&A reviewed that and we 

6 agree that, you know, the dose reconstruction was 

7 done correctly for an underestimate best-estimate 

8 combination. So we had no further real comment on 

9 that.

10 But as the DR report was written the 

11 best estimate would have included the neutron dose 

12 also.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's recommendation 

15 and close.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so.

17 MR. KATZ: Can I just ask a 

18 clarification? That remains a finding. Is that 

19 what we're saying?

20 MEMBER MUNN: There was no discussion 

21 one way or the other.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I mean, it 
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 sounds -- I thought it was still a finding.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Wait a second. You 

4 moved too quick for me on that sheet. Did I hear 

5 that we didn't add neutron dose because it was 

6 already comped?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: That's what I 

8 understand. These have been a long time ago. But 

9 I think that's what it is.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well if we added neutron 

11 dose because it was already comped there's no 

12 reason to add neutron dose and it wouldn't be a 

13 finding.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: You said neutron dose 

15 was not evaluated for this dose reconstruction 

16 because based on dose it wasn't necessary for claim 

17 determination.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Right. Then that's not 

19 a finding.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Therefore it was 

21 omitted to underestimate the assigned external 

22 dose. In light of this the dose reconstruction 
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 report could have been reworded slightly to mention 

2 that the assessment was a combination of 

3 best-estimate and underestimate approach.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. So that's 

5 basically just a little wording thing for 

6 clarification. We could, I guess you could say,

7 that's an observation. That we could be clear. But 

8 the dose reconstruction was correct and that 

9 shouldn't be a finding in my opinion.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right, 

11 Grady.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, no, wait a 

13 minute. Help me understand this. So because of 

14 his compensation we don't do anything else?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But what was the 

16 value of doing further work?

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess that's like 

18 writing half a letter to the Secretary and if we've 

19 got both to get done we won't finish it.

20 MR. KATZ: No, Brad, that's not -- I 

21 mean NIOSH does all sorts of underestimates and 

22 they're just saying that this is a partial 
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 underestimate. Some of it was best estimate and 

2 some of it was underestimate.

3 But I mean they do as a matter of course, 

4 they only do as much work as they need to to get 

5 the person compensated if they're going to be 

6 compensated.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The observation 

8 suggests that there was some error.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or something 

11 improperly done, partially done, whatever. But 

12 this was done, I mean there was no, it would have 

13 been needless to do this just when it was already 

14 comped.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. And that's how 

16 we always do it, you know.

17 MR. KATZ: Ron was suggesting that the 

18 report might note that it's not all best estimate. 

19 But I don't think claimants really care as long as 

20 they're compensated, whether they have a best 

21 estimate or a partial best estimate and partial 

22 underestimate.
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 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And that's what 

2 I said if you want to put it in there as an 

3 observation that we could have worded it better, 

4 you know, that's okay. But just it's certainly not 

5 a finding.

6 MS. BEHLING: I guess the only, this is 

7 Kathy, the only question that I have is, we're 

8 discussing a specific case and if we were concerned 

9 that another case like this would be treated this 

10 way where they wouldn't have calculated the neutron 

11 dose weren't we legitimate in questioning why this 

12 dose wasn't incorporated?

13 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely. It's fine 

14 to question it. No problem. It's just not a 

15 finding.

16 MS. BEHLING: Okay. See, well, you 

17 know, a lot of times when it's an..., you're doing 

18 only a partial dose, you will keep out all of the 

19 internal dose or something along those lines.

20 It's questionable for us when a portion 

21 of the external isn't included and I don't know in 

22 this particular case, but I think I might have 
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 questioned this and considered it something that 

2 was worth asking and could have been a finding had 

3 it been a case that wasn't compensated.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct. 

5 If it wasn't compensated this would be a finding 

6 and a serious error. But it was compensated and 

7 therefore they didn't need to go further in the 

8 process.

9 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. 

10 Remember we did clearly state in the dose 

11 reconstruction report that it wasn't evaluated 

12 because additional dose was unnecessary for a 

13 determination.

14 So it wasn't just accidentally left out 

15 and it wouldn't even appear to be accidentally left 

16 out. It was left out as an efficiency method on 

17 purpose.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Alright. That 

19 explains it now. That makes more sense to me.

20 MR. CALHOUN: And that's not even an 

21 observation.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the argument is a 
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 good one that it's not really a finding.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we'll change 

3 that.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Ted, this is 

5 Brad. I hate to leave such an arousing discussion 

6 here but I've got another commitment, so I wanted 

7 to let you know.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

9 Thank you and thank you for today and have a great 

10 --

11 MR. KATZ: So Brad is leaving but we 

12 have, we still have John Poston and Dave Richardson 

13 and Josie, right?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: And Dave, so we're good. 

16 Thank you, Brad.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, bye.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: John Poston has 

19 not come back right? Is he on the line?

20 MR. KATZ: John, are you on the line?

21 MEMBER POSTON: I'm on the line.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, he's back.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, good. 

2 Thank you. Glad to hear.

3 MEMBER POSTON: I got out of class at 

4 12:30 and I came back.

5 MR. KATZ: I thought you were there, 

6 John. Thanks.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good.

8 I'm sorry and I'm glad to hear you. So you haven't 

9 spoken up much so I hadn't heard your voice, your 

10 distinctive voice. Glad you're here.

11 MEMBER POSTON: Like the little boy 

12 that didn't speak until he was 11, so far out 

13 everything is okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: We haven't come to the 

15 gravy yet.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

17 Let's go to 352 observation.

18 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. This is 

19 Scott. Just for my records did we determine that 

20 was not a finding at all and it will be removed or 

21 it's an observation.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is an 
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 observation.

2 MR. KATZ: It's not an observation. 

3 It's not a finding or observation because the dose 

4 reconstruction report actually specifically 

5 addressed the fact that they weren't adding that 

6 dose, remember. That's what --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: My feeling is 

8 that is an observation after all. An observation 

9 is not an error. It's something they wanted to 

10 point out and make sure.

11 MR. KATZ: No, but an observation we 

12 count observations when they're correct. But this 

13 is -- it's not correct even as an observation, 

14 right.

15 I mean it's not correct because the 

16 assumption was that it was. The observation would 

17 have been that the dose reconstruction report did 

18 not address the fact that it was leaving out dose 

19 and it did address it.

20 I just think it's nothing. It was, you 

21 know, put forth as a finding and it's in fact 

22 incorrect.
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 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I suppose 

3 you're correct. I will say my sense of 

4 observations is if people feel like they need to 

5 make a note about the process effectively for an 

6 alert. For what they were really saying I thought 

7 was make sure in future cases if you're not comped 

8 then you better make sure that you do this.

9 MR. KATZ: I mean, well we make 

10 observations on matters such as we talked about 

11 today, discrepancies between documentation. 

12 Basically they're errors of some sort in the 

13 process but that they don't impact the case and then 

14 we call them observations.

15 MS. BEHLING: I agree based on 

16 everything I've heard at this point. And this is 

17 what, when we went back through for the Secretary's 

18 letter when I went through line by line I withdrew 

19 the SC&A finding and I think we can do that here.

20 MR. KATZ: Right. There's no finding 

21 here.

22 MS. BEHLING: We will withdraw that 
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 finding.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Exactly. It's not novel, 

4 Dave, we've withdrawn, you know, many findings.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I'll go 

6 back to looking about what we mean by an 

7 observation. To me a finding is important and 

8 major.

9 MEMBER BEACH: It's not either though. 

10 It's not a finding or an observation.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, and I 

12 understand that an observation was any other thing 

13 people wanted to say.

14 MR. KATZ: It has to have a utility.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well it does, it 

16 does.

17 MR. KATZ: In this case it doesn't have 

18 a utility because there is a process and it was 

19 working.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I agree 

21 reluctantly. But I agree and I understand what 

22 you're saying. So we'll keep that in mind for 
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 future observations. Let's go to Observation 1.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So this is 352, 

3 Observation Number 1, still Portsmouth. And this 

4 is an observation. This relates to something that 

5 we have covered before in that the TBD for this site 

6 says to apply a factor to the missed dose and we've 

7 discussed this pretty much in the past and the 

8 dosimeter correction factor should be right on for 

9 the major dose, not the missed dose.

10 So in this case it resulted in an 

11 overestimate. But the person did, NIOSH did,

12 follow the TBD as stated and so we have brought this 

13 up and we decided that it shouldn't be in there. 

14 It will be removed in the next Technical Basis 

15 Document and NIOSH would have to address whether 

16 that's been accomplished yet.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Anything, anybody?

19 MEMBER MUNN: No.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's 

21 close, if I can call it that.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And this is a 
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 monumental occasion because we just finished the 

2 matrix, the last matrix.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Great.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Give me a 

6 moment here to pull up the BRS and we can move on. 

7 While I pull this up everyone should have gotten 

8 instructions on how to access the BRS if you had 

9 any questions on that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well I'm 

11 watching you. Yes, you gave us some instruction 

12 on that. That was very good. Also watching the 

13 process in real time is helpful for at least some 

14 of us.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And 

16 unfortunately Nicole was not able to join us this 

17 afternoon. So if you don't have any objections 

18 we'll start with Savannah River, which is my site 

19 here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And actually 

22 this is a really timely point in time for this to 
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 come up. Tab 423 was the same case that we were 

2 discussing earlier. That was the one case that did 

3 flip as the result of our findings.

4 And so this is the Hanford case that 

5 also has SRS and RFP employment. And the finding 

6 was that NIOSH did not include all assigned neutron 

7 dose.

8 And here NIOSH came back and said the 

9 data wasn't available when they originally 

10 completed this case. But when they requested it 

11 the data was available.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I guess as a result 

14 of this the PoC has been changed.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

16 that's, in my opinion, not a flip, right? I mean 

17 that's just simply a lack of data. And when you 

18 get data -- I mean just for the future as we're 

19 starting to tally cases that have changed as a 

20 result of, if they're in review process this really 

21 is a data issue.

22 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct. It's 
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 not, there was no error in the reconstruction. It 

2 was just a lack of data.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I question 

4 though whether missed dose or unmonitored dose 

5 should have been assigned when there was the lack 

6 of data though.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's, 

8 that couldn't --

9 MR. CALHOUN: I believe dose was 

10 assigned wasn't it? It's just we didn't assign as 

11 much neutron dose as we typically would have if we 

12 thought that they were a neutron worker.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's possible. I 

14 would have to go back through the case here. But 

15 we also had another question here. The EE was 

16 diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm of the 

17 [identifying information redacted] and then also 

18 a neoplasm of uncertain behavior of the 

19 [identifying information redacted].

20 And we question if the second 

21 [identifying information redacted] cancer also 

22 qualifies for medical benefits. It's not really 
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 clear to us if two cancers of the same origin or 

2 diagnosis and one falls under the SEC does and one 

3 doesn't, what happens?

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's a medical 

5 question.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Is that, this is still 

7 the NDRP data? Once we send forth a dose 

8 reconstruction with even one of the many cancers 

9 identified as compensable, DOL, it's up to them,

10 but typically they will provide medical benefits 

11 for all of those cancers. Is that what you're 

12 asking?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, it says here that 

14 it was determined that the [identifying 

15 information redacted] cancer was paid under the 

16 SEC.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And once they 

18 pay that cancer, I don't know. I wonder if we did 

19 the dose reconstruction. Here's the deal, if it's 

20 paid under the SEC without us doing a dose 

21 reconstruction --

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, a dose 
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 reconstruction was clearly done because otherwise 

2 we wouldn't have reviewed it.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. And if the dose 

4 reconstruction was done and it was comped based on 

5 our dose reconstruction then another dose 

6 reconstruction won't be referred to us by Labor. 

7 If in a different case the case was comped based 

8 on SEC without a dose reconstruction then we will 

9 get the referral from Labor for medical benefits 

10 for the other non-SEC cancers.

11 But once we determine one cancer is 

12 compensable with our dose reconstruction DOL 

13 assumes all of them are. Does that work or am I 

14 still being confused?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I was just curious what 

16 happened when there were two cancers of the same 

17 origin and one falls under the SEC and one doesn't 

18 with medical benefits.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Right, yes. That would 

20 be a -- I mean a simple example of that is a lot 

21 of times you have somebody with a bunch of different 

22 skin cancers and we'll just do dose reconstructions 
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 on the number of them necessary to get it comped 

2 and the rest of them are considered.

3 Even though they're not SEC cancers 

4 they pay medical benefits for all of them.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that, and is 

6 that not a proper way to act in a -- once you find 

7 one then of course medical benefits should go to 

8 all the other ones, right, medical benefits should 

9 be paid for everything partial or not.

10 That's -- I would say the word is humane 

11 there. So, good. So basically this should be 

12 closed, right? I mean we don't have a matrix but 

13 this is something --

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is, we actually 

15 have the ability to close it here.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now I can do these. 

18 Since this is the first meeting that we've used the 

19 BRS I can make these entries under myself or I can 

20 make them on behalf of someone. Now it is time 

21 consuming to go through and select the person that 

22 I'm making them on behalf of.
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 MR. KATZ: I don't see any reason why 

2 you need to do that. I mean we know your role in 

3 this so it's fine to do it yourself.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I just wanted 

5 to make it clear for the record.

6 MR. KATZ: I'm all for it being easier. 

7 So, right, we know you could be saying on behalf 

8 of Dr. Kotelchuck or whatever. But if it's easier 

9 for you to just close it yourself we know you're 

10 not closing them except when you're authorized to.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. If there 

12 was ever any question for a report to be done a 

13 couple of years from now it might even make a note 

14 in there and say this is not a case for which the 

15 dose reconstruction review resulted in a change in 

16 compensation.

17 We'll put it this way. You may want to 

18 make a note or somehow in the future when our, what 

19 do we say, not our, the folks who replace us right 

20 come to it they should know this is not a so-called 

21 flip.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And actually I 
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 think it might be even more time efficient if I just 

2 made these changes offline and keep note of them 

3 here. It takes quite a while to go through and make 

4 the changes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure, sure. 

6 Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And so our next 

8 finding here from the same case is NIOSH did not 

9 include internal dose from all radionuclides. 

10 NIOSH got back to us and said the CAD files assigned 

11 Hanford coworker dose using the radionuclide mix 

12 of Pu-1210 applicable to where I have noted here.

13 And, essentially, here we just came 

14 back and said this was the first time that we have 

15 seen that nomenclature in a dose reconstruction 

16 report and we agree that it's a simplified method 

17 to enter data and it reduces the chances of human 

18 error. So we are completely fine with that.

19 And of course I entered the wrong one. 

20 So we would recommend closure.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That's 

22 an observation, yes.
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 MR. KATZ: It's not a finding right, is 

2 it?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's an 

4 observation, isn't it?

5 MR. CALHOUN: It's not a finding.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Are we advocating that 

7 we change this to an observation?

8 MR. CALHOUN: If that, yes.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We can do that. 

11 Change to observation. The BRS doesn't have a 

12 great way of doing that. But I can change this 

13 actual heading so it will say observation or I could 

14 say changed to observation.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. You can 

16 do the administrative part of it later after we 

17 finish. You don't have to do it online and let us 

18 see it before we believe you've done it. We trust.

19 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Can I ask 

20 a quick question on the previous one?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MS. BEHLING: And perhaps all of you've 
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 already agreed to this. In a case like this would 

2 it be appropriate for SC&A to contact NIOSH and just 

3 get some resolution to or clarification on what 

4 that nomenclature meant so that it wouldn't even 

5 have to become a finding?

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 MR. CALHOUN: That's always okay.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And keep in mind these 

10 were historically done. So Case 356 or 423 in this 

11 case was done quite a while ago. Okay. So our 

12 next one here is SRS observation from Case 356.

13 And here this is kind of a repetitive 

14 finding. We've seen it many times before. ID one 

15 contains two separate tables labeled Table 4-1A, 

16 one on Page 38 and another on Page 39. And we just 

17 pointed out that it was confusing and it's 

18 repetitive. We've seen it before.

19 Here you'll see it was previous and so 

20 we recommend closure.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So moved.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 
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 finding here is 356.1 where an inappropriate method 

2 was used for determining recorded dose. NIOSH 

3 states that it was done correctly in the external 

4 dose calculation workbook and, again, this is one 

5 of the first times we've seen the workbook.

6 But it appears that we were using the 

7 wrong workbook when they made this assumption. So 

8 we would be okay with withdrawing this finding.

9 MR. CALHOUN: So that's another one 

10 that goes to observation at best?

11 MEMBER MUNN: They're withdrawn.

12 MR. CALHOUN: That's what I would 

13 think.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Withdrawn.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We will 

16 withdraw this. 356.2, an inappropriate method was 

17 used for determining the number of zeros. And 

18 again, this is the same issue. Essentially we were 

19 using the wrong workbook and this is a change that 

20 was made where they started using a different SRS 

21 workbook.

22 So we were pulling up the old version. 
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 They were using the new version. It's been 

2 corrected. So we can withdraw this as well.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, do.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 356.3, inappropriate 

5 method was used for assigning dose for 1981 and 

6 1982. NIOSH responded that, based on the 

7 information used in TIB-6, only positive doses are 

8 recorded for '73 through '88. And based on the 

9 EE's low level of doses assigned for prior years 

10 when positive doses were reported, it was 

11 reasonable to assume that for 1981 and '82 external 

12 monitoring data was below the limit of detection.

13 And we came back and said this is a 

14 professional judgment call. SC&A would have done 

15 it differently by assigning missed dose which is 

16 consistent with the recorded dose values 

17 immediately preceding these years, but it is a 

18 professional judgment issue.

19 MEMBER MUNN: So does SC&A essentially 

20 accept, does --

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We accept that what 

22 they did was reasonable.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Then can we 

2 therefore agree with the assessment and close?

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 

4 finding here is 356.4 and the finding states that 

5 an inappropriate organ dose correction factor was 

6 used for a recorded dose. NIOSH responded and said 

7 that, based on the EE's type of work, other 

8 geometries should have been considered which will 

9 be performed in an upcoming PER for ICRP 116.

10 So the impact of rotational geometry 

11 was reviewed and it will be determined whether it 

12 will impact this claim.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And that's the key 

14 phrase, would not impact. So can SC&A accept that?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are in agreement 

16 with NIOSH. It's similar to several other 

17 findings we've seen and we agree with the response 

18 that rotational geometry would have been 

19 appropriate but wouldn't change or wouldn't result 

20 in a large increase in dose.

21 The only thing we question is whether 

22 or not the workbook has been corrected.
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 MEMBER MUNN: NIOSH didn't tell us

2 that, did they?

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They did not.

4 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know that. I'm 

5 sure Scott does and he's looking really hard right 

6 now.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: I wish Scott was doing 

9 that at this second. Which finding was it?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is 356.4.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the question was, 

12 I'm sorry I was answering another thing as well, 

13 looking ahead. I shouldn't do that.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Stay with us, Scott, stay 

15 with us.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. I'm trying 

17 to be so responsive ahead of time I just missed the 

18 actual question. The question is whether we've 

19 updated the tools right now to address the 

20 rotational, as well, correct?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Right. And SC&A would 

22 like to know the revisions of that.
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 MR. SIEBERT: I can find the revision 

2 number for you, but, yes, it has been done.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And you can 

4 just send that to me offline. We're just curious 

5 to know when that change took effect, when we can 

6 expect to start seeing that change.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MEMBER MUNN: So can we close this?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It looks like 

10 it.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And the next 

13 finding is 356.5, an inappropriate organ dose 

14 correction factor was used for missed photon doses. 

15 And this is essentially the same finding that we 

16 just discussed, only with missed dose.

17 MEMBER MUNN: So the result should be 

18 the same?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it's being 

20 covered by an upcoming PER and we recommend closure 

21 so we can close that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next finding 

2 356.6, inconsistent assignment of unmonitored 

3 environmental tritium dose. NIOSH says that the 

4 unmonitored dose was found in the unmonitored dose 

5 section and it states that unmonitored doses were 

6 assigned in '54 through '57, '68 and '75 through 

7 '77, when the EE had no internal monitoring and was 

8 assigned unmonitored dose.

9 The environmental section explains 

10 that environmental tritium was assigned when the 

11 EE was not monitored for tritium or unmonitored 

12 dose was not assigned. The tritium section 

13 explains tritium was assigned in '58 through '61 

14 and '72 through '74.

15 So essentially they believe it was 

16 addressed in the appropriate sections. Then we 

17 responded and said that we understand the doses 

18 that were assigned in each time period. But we 

19 couldn't determine what information was used in the 

20 DR -- DOE files triggered the use of unmonitored 

21 dose rather than environmental dose.

22 This case of course has already, it is 
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 eligible for inclusion in the SRS SEC. And so we 

2 feel that we could close this issue because any 

3 additional dose wouldn't impact the outcome of this 

4 case.

5 MEMBER MUNN: But we don't actually 

6 have an answer to your question, correct?

7 MR. KATZ: Right. I think we need to 

8 resolve the question regardless of the fact that 

9 it got compensated.

10 MEMBER MUNN: It shouldn't be a 

11 difficult one to answer. It's just a matter of 

12 maintaining it on the open file for one more cycle. 

13 We can just ask for the answer to the question, can 

14 we not?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we will put that in 

18 as the question was asked and we'll wait for NIOSH 

19 to respond to that.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I don't have that 

21 answer off the top of my head, for sure.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.
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 MR. SIEBERT: The same thing. I'll 

2 have to go back.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, no 

4 problem.

5 MR. KATZ: It's in progress.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And the next 

8 finding, 356.7, incorrect assessment of fission 

9 product dose for the years 1965 through '66. NIOSH 

10 came back and agreed that fission product dose 

11 should have been assigned for '65 and '66.

12 And that's a dose of 13 millirem using 

13 a log-normal distribution. And when they add that 

14 to the IREP sheet it doesn't change the PoC. So 

15 essentially SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement 

16 correcting the dose doesn't change anything.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thirteen millirem is 

18 inconsequential in any case.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we're fine 

20 with that. We can close it.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And moving on 

22 to SRS Tab 400 and that's Observation 1. And here 
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 we just noted that roughly half of the dosimetry 

2 records in the file had a dark line drawn through 

3 the EE's name and all the corresponding dose 

4 records.

5 So somewhere along the line somebody 

6 that was redacting information or trying to 

7 highlight information crossed out all the 

8 information that was valuable and it makes it very 

9 difficult or illegible to read some of this. As 

10 a result of this NIOSH could not use any of those 

11 records and SC&A cannot verify [that] the correct 

12 dosimetry values were used.

13 MEMBER MUNN: That's just an 

14 observation. Nobody can do anything about that.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Exactly. We did think 

16 it was important to point out that had occurred.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Worthwhile to know but 

19 it's no action, closed.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. SRS 

22 Observation 2 from Tab 400. And this observation 
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 states that although NIOSH correctly used or 

2 assigned medical dose based on the guidance 

3 available at the time, less than a month after this 

4 dose reconstruction was completed the TBD was 

5 revised and that revision reduces the dose 

6 contribution for each organ from a PA x-ray exam.

7 And as a result the DR was revised and 

8 there would be a reduction in the occupational 

9 assigned medical dose. And again, that's just an 

10 observation saying that if it's reworked, this 

11 case, the PoC would go down. But they did use the 

12 correct documentation that was available at the 

13 time.

14 And we do make those an observation when 

15 documentation changes that they could not use at 

16 the time of the dose reconstruction but would 

17 impact the case now.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this was a 

19 non-compensated case, right?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe so.

21 MEMBER MUNN: But in any case, it's 

22 nothing that can be done.
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Then no action required, 

3 closed.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Rose, can I ask you a 

6 question about here in -- SRS is in front of the 

7 case number.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Is there any reason we can't 

10 always have the site acronym in front of the case 

11 number?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, and actually in the 

13 BRS this is a change that I've implemented and I 

14 hope everyone else is okay with.

15 MR. KATZ: I love it.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This organizes all the 

17 cases in order and they're all done alphabetically 

18 and this way I know exactly which case it is instead 

19 of having to hunt for it every time.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think it's wonderful. 

21 Thanks.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I don't even know how 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 many gold stars to give you for that, but it's a 

2 large number.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you. I'm 

4 gradually changing things. But hopefully it's all 

5 for the better.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, so far so good.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Our next one is 

9 SRS Tab 400, Finding 1. And this is kind of a 

10 lengthy one here. And we're trying to include more 

11 information in the BRS than we used to include in 

12 the matrix only because it's much easier to read 

13 and this way we don't have to go back and forth 

14 between documents.

15 But we don't need to go over everything 

16 in full detail here. But the finding was that 

17 missed photon dose was assigned rather than 

18 coworker dose for the selected years. And NIOSH 

19 responded that it appears in the monitoring records 

20 that the EE was monitored for occupational exposure 

21 when deemed appropriate by the site between '53 and 

22 the first quarter of '63.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The vast majority of the badges were 

2 temporary or visitor badges. So essentially they 

3 don't believe that the EE was a full-time employee 

4 and we do have to verify it.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That's probably true.

6 Otherwise that type of badge wouldn't have been 

7 used.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We responded that 

9 TIB-6, Section 2 only applies to the years '73 to 

10 '88. And we couldn't locate anything in the TBD 

11 to suggest that the guidance that they used should 

12 be extended to this time frame.

13 Also the TIB-6 recommends that the DR 

14 should include a discussion of the method used for 

15 missed dose and the rationale for why it was 

16 included or excluded. And NIOSH actually has 

17 responded to this stating that the second quarter 

18 of '63 through '72, the guidance based on external 

19 dose reconstruction implementation guidelines was 

20 used to assign a reasonable number of zeros when 

21 only quarterly reports, this is new since I've last 

22 looked at it.
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Zero dosimeter result was applied for 

2 each cycle and with the missed dose could be 

3 inferred that claimant-favorable zeros were 

4 assigned.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Phone out?

6 MEMBER MUNN: No. I'm still mulling 

7 over that last piece.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: That response to the 

10 response. Can you move down a little? That last 

11 business about the zeros. Okay. That makes sense 

12 to me.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This case has actually 

14 already been compensated through the SRS SEC and 

15 that was since the time of our review. So the 

16 smaller dose that this would add is inconsequential 

17 to this particular case.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but the real 

19 question is does Scott's most recent response 

20 answer your question adequately.

21 MR. KATZ: I mean, Wanda, can you 

22 summarize it? The actual transcript record is not
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to make any sense here because people are just 

2 reading [it[ and mulling over.

3 MEMBER MUNN: As I read this, the 

4 question was asked by SC&A of why there were missed 

5 dose as opposed to zero dose included for certain 

6 years. And the response that I, as I understand 

7 it, is that the dosimeter results that said zeros 

8 were applied for every cycle where a missed dose 

9 could have been inferred and that the 

10 claimant-favorable number of zeros assigned was 

11 equal to the maximum exchange frequency minus the 

12 number of reported positive badge cycles.

13 And I had to think that through. But 

14 that's, I think, that makes sense to me. My 

15 question to SC&A is does that make sense to them. 

16 Is that acceptable?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I am satisfied. This 

18 is a very small difference we're talking about.

19 MEMBER MUNN: So that question has been 

20 answered and in any case the case was compensable 

21 for other reasons and so therefore, from my 

22 perspective, we accept the response SC&A has 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 accepted the response from NIOSH and this can be 

2 closed.

3 MR. KATZ: That was the finding and was 

4 that finding an actual finding or was the TIB --

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, they did use 

6 guidance that was not applicable to the scenario 

7 that they applied it to. So in that case, I think 

8 we are correct.

9 MR. KATZ: Findings are valid, but SC&A 

10 is agreeing that it wouldn't make a big difference. 

11 Is that what you're saying?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. And DCAS isn't 

14 disputing that your finding is valid?

15 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

16 It's okay. We've updated the Savannah River DR 

17 guidance for clarification as to how to determine 

18 zeros during that time frame. Remember this claim 

19 was done quite a while ago.

20 So, yes, we agree that there are better 

21 methods involved.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great. I just 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wanted a clear record on this that's all. Thank 

2 you.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Now the question that you 

5 raise, a new question to me, Ted: Is this a finding 

6 or is it an observation?

7 MR. KATZ: It's a finding where it 

8 entails dose. It's a finding.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Well that's what I 

10 thought, too. But I didn't hear a response to that 

11 question. Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: So we now have accepted 

14 everybody's explanation and are ready to close 

15 this.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: SRS Tab 400, Finding 

19 Number 2. And the finding states that missed 1959 

20 tritium dose was assigned twice. NIOSH agrees 

21 that tritium dose was indeed recorded twice in the 

22 year 1959.
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This was a transcription or 

2 cut-and-paste error, and they say that additional 

3 tools have been put in place that would prevent this 

4 type of error from happening in the future. We are 

5 satisfied with that. And this ensures that the 

6 issue at hand has been resolved for future dose 

7 reconstructions.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Seems like a 

9 simple closure.

10 MEMBER MUNN: It's a QA issue and, yes, 

11 it can be closed.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And I'll move 

13 on to SRS Tab 401, Observation 1. And here we state 

14 that SC&A questions if NIOSH received all the 

15 bioassay records for the EE. Based on statements 

16 in the CATI report the EE was monitored by bioassay 

17 after a 1966 incident.

18 However, the DOE files do not contain 

19 any bioassay records before June of 1966. An 

20 incident report would have been generated 

21 documenting this event. It does not appear that 

22 NIOSH requested additional documentation on the 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incident.

2 If additional records exist for the EE 

3 they would be beneficial for the dose 

4 reconstruction. But without these records it's 

5 impossible to know if the incident was accurately 

6 assessed.

7 And here NIOSH comes back and states 

8 that the dose reconstructor did describe the 

9 incident in the DR report and concluded that the 

10 assigned dose already accounted for any dose that 

11 might have been received. Based on the 

12 description of the incident and the absence of an 

13 incident record in the file, this is probably a 

14 valid and reasonable conclusion. However, no 

15 internal radiation dose for uranium was applied 

16 prior to 1971. Extending the missed dose period 

17 to include the years of '66 through '71 increased 

18 the dose assigned to the [identifying information 

19 redacted] by five millirem and the dose to the 

20 prostate increased by a total of one millirem.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Negligible.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So essentially a 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 negligible increase in dose. We are satisfied and 

2 we recommend closing.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, clear.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Moving on to 

5 SRS Tab 401.1. And the finding states that we were 

6 unable to reproduce assigned neutron dose for the 

7 years 1961 to '63. NIOSH states that they agree 

8 that the DR report does not clearly delineate the 

9 assumed workplace location for these years.

10 There is an incident exposure record on 

11 the final page of the DOE records that states the 

12 EE was in Area 772 and that is the area that was 

13 used for '61 through '63. And we came back and said 

14 that if we use that as the work location, we are 

15 able to match their assigned doses.

16 So this is more of a clarification 

17 because the DR report didn't specifically state 

18 this information. So we weren't able to verify 

19 assumptions.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is a 

21 finding?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a finding, 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correct.

2 MR. KATZ: But it really shouldn't be 

3 a finding, right?

4 MR. CALHOUN: It should be an 

5 observation, probably.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: At the time this was 

7 made, we were making findings if we were unable to 

8 verify that. That has since changed in our 

9 approach of how we address findings. So this 

10 currently would be an observation.

11 But I do think it's an error that it 

12 wasn't clearly stated in the DR report so it could 

13 be replicated.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, well, but I still 

15 think documentation matters about observations 

16 because if the dose reconstruction was done 

17 correctly it's not a deficiency of the dose 

18 reconstruction.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a deficiency in 

20 the dose reconstruction report.

21 MR. KATZ: I know but the report is, 

22 it's a deficiency in language for you to be able 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to reproduce the dose reconstruction. But it 

2 doesn't impact the claimant.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. KATZ: I still think that's a 

7 matter, it's an observation because it's a matter 

8 of internal process, then, for you to be able to 

9 reproduce. It doesn't, it's not a deficiency in 

10 the product they produced for its purpose which is 

11 to determine compensation.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, you could make 

13 that argument, but why put any information in the 

14 DR reports if we're not going to use them to verify?

15 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean the DR reports 

16 have important information for the claimants that 

17 does need to be correct. But this is not a matter 

18 that helps or hurts the claimant at all. It's just 

19 useful for you in reproducing the dose 

20 reconstruction.

21 So again, it's not a deficiency in the 

22 dose reconstruction. It's a problem for you to be 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 able to reproduce, and it's worth observing for 

2 that. But it's not a deficiency as a dose 

3 reconstruction. I just, I mean I don't think it's 

4 debatable, even, matter.

5 It's not, there's nothing wrong with 

6 the dose reconstruction. It produced perfectly 

7 good results.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Don't say it's 

9 not debatable. You can debate. But I think that 

10 it's correct. It's an observation, it seems to me.

11 MR. CALHOUN: I would have to agree 

12 with that.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Other 

14 Board members, do they want to chime in, 

15 observation or --?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I think if you were to 

17 do it today, it would be an observation, correct?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We will change 

21 this to an observation. And that's Tab 401.1.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Whether we in 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the end call it an observation or a finding, it is 

2 very good that SC&A observes lots of things which 

3 can get called whatever they get called and it's 

4 important for you not to miss things, and you don't.

5 So, however, it doesn't downgrade the 

6 impact or importance of your findings that we say 

7 a finding is now an observation. It's just that 

8 we want a finding to be what impacts things that 

9 impact the claimant.

10 MR. KATZ: Right, because remember, at 

11 the end of the day, we have produced a Secretary's 

12 Report on the quality of dose reconstructions.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. KATZ: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead, 

16 please.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it is an 

19 observation and after you get that put in we'll --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We'll change that to an 

21 observation and actually the second Tab 401.2 is 

22 an identical finding only it applies to missed 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutron dose so we will also change this to an 

2 observation. Okay. 401.3, NIOSH did not adjust 

3 ambient doses to a 46-hour work week.

4 Here NIOSH comes back and says that the 

5 onsite ambient doses are not based on a 40-hour work 

6 week but were instead adjusted to a 50-hour work 

7 week. Therefore, this was accounted for, their 

8 increase.

9 And I assume this was reported by the 

10 EE in the CATI report. And we agree that the 

11 version of the workbook was correct when the DR was 

12 reviewed.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

14 observation.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The version of the 

16 workbook already addresses this. So --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, so it's 

18 an observation.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I guess we could 

20 call that an observation. Okay, 401.4 and this 

21 finding states potential underestimates of missed 

22 fission product dose to the prostate.
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Here it states that the dose 

2 reconstructionist would have applied the dose to 

3 the prostate based on an La-140F as opposed to a 

4 Ce-144 as applied to the [identifying information 

5 redacted]. But this would be an overestimate 

6 since the same exposure cannot be from two 

7 different materials in a best-estimate claim.

8 The dose reconstruction determined 

9 that impact between three in 144 on the PoC for the 

10 [identifying information redacted] was larger than 

11 the impact on the prostate. Thus the DR used 144 

12 for both organs of interest.

13 And here we responded that the exposure 

14 in question was not actually due to either 

15 radionuclide. Here NIOSH used the alternative 

16 radionuclide chooser workbook which is a tool that 

17 helps to estimate missed dose based on a 

18 hypothetical intake of a radionuclide that their 

19 MDA would yield the highest dose to a specified 

20 organ.

21 And this is intended to represent all 

22 missed fission product intakes. We could not 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 locate any guidance for the appropriate way to 

2 assign dose to multiple organs. But since this is 

3 a hypothetical model meant to be 

4 claimant-favorable, we believe that this would 

5 have been most claimant-favorable.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 

7 observation.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I'm not sure that 

9 they even used the alternate radionuclide chooser 

10 workbook at SRS anymore. I think is a historical 

11 approach.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. Actually, 

14 yes, we still do use that process at Savannah River 

15 at this point.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Really. It hasn't 

17 appeared in any of our --

18 MR. SIEBERT: It's the only site that 

19 still uses it because we're waiting for the SEC to 

20 get all clarified before we update the TBD to 

21 reflect updated methods.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is there guidance in 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 place currently that would direct a dose 

2 reconstructor to do this for multiple --

3 MR. SIEBERT: To tell you the truth, I 

4 don't know if we have it documented as such like 

5 that. We rely generally going back to OTIB-60,

6 which is discussing internal dose, which is when 

7 you have multiple cancers you need to make things 

8 consistent between the two cancers.

9 You can't assume something is one thing 

10 for one and one thing for another. So that's the 

11 basic thought process that's still behind it. It 

12 doesn't specifically state that for chooser. 

13 However, that is the process we have used 

14 historically.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Now one thing I will 

17 point out. We did discuss this issue back in the 

18 eighth set for multiple claims and an additional 

19 point that we did at that time, something to prove 

20 that this was, the chooser is an overestimate.

21 We went back and looked at it as if we 

22 were using the OTIB-54 methodology. In all those 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cases the OTIB-54 methodology gave lower doses than 

2 the chooser method. If you like, I can give you 

3 the SC&A tabs for the claims we discussed that.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that would be very 

5 helpful.

6 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy. 

7 That's correct. I remember that, yes, but go 

8 ahead.

9 MR. SIEBERT: In 152, 153 and 155 and 

10 actually Tab 153 is a multiple cancer case with 

11 lung, prostate. So it falls into almost exactly 

12 the same category.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, it sounds 

14 like this issue has already been addressed. So I 

15 will look into that there.

16 MR. KATZ: So what's the disposition 

17 here? Is this an incorrect finding?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

19 MR. KATZ: That's a question. That 

20 was not a biased question. I don't know the answer 

21 to that from this discussion.

22 MR. CALHOUN: I'm thinking.
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That was a model 

2 meant to be claimant-favorable. Wait a minute, 

3 okay.

4 MEMBER BEACH: This may need some 

5 answer from NIOSH.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I'm looking at it 

7 and I can't tell all the details here. If, you 

8 know, typically the cerium dose is the highest 

9 dose. But if we're looking at like for example 

10 solubilities, we can't assign different 

11 solubilities for different organs because that's 

12 just impossible.

13 We can pick the most claimant-favorable 

14 radionuclide to be exposed to, but we have to pick 

15 what's aggregately the most claimant-favorable. 

16 We can't pick and choose.

17 But I don't even know if that's an issue 

18 in this one because I can't, it doesn't look like 

19 it's that deep in the finding here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We could leave 

21 it open.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can leave this in 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 progress if this is still murky, what's right and 

2 wrong.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then you can 

4 take a look at it and come back with a 

5 recommendation and SC&A can agree or disagree, or 

6 you guys can talk and come back with a joint 

7 recommendation?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm just 

10 making sure I understand. So who has the 

11 responsibility for answering this one further?

12 MR. KATZ: I think you do.

13 MR. CALHOUN: We do unless you've got 

14 a better answer than I just did.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well SC&A has 

16 proposed this to be a finding and I would say, since 

17 we can't decide you should come back and either 

18 agree or make a suggestion, folks. They have made 

19 up their mind. They want to call it a finding.

20 MR. SIEBERT: So this is just for the 

21 determination of to whether it's a finding or an 

22 observation?
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: In other words, is there a 

3 defect there or not? That's the question.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I just wanted it 

5 clear. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

7 Moving right along.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

9 here is Tab 401.5, also for SRS. And the finding 

10 states that incomplete fitted uranium dose was 

11 assigned.

12 NIOSH comes back and says that it 

13 appears the dose reconstructor projected the 

14 referenced positive results based on the fit 

15 relative to the subsequent data points. Not all 

16 the negative on the same day was also two days later 

17 and seven days later. They agree that it should 

18 have been stated in the dose reconstruction report.

19 However, assuming an acute intake on 

20 the day prior to the positive and negative results 

21 the dose to the [identifying information redacted]

22 and prostate were calculated below a millirem
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 therefore exclusion of the result would not result 

2 in an underestimate.

3 And we do agree that the dose 

4 reconstruction report would have benefitted from 

5 that discussion on why the dose reconstructor 

6 elected to omit the results and the inclusion of 

7 the results did not result in an increase of dose. 

8 So we would recommend closure.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, for an 

10 observation, right?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, currently this 

12 is listed as a finding.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

14 I'm wrong. Yes, because they left out, it should 

15 have been stated and that should have been put in. 

16 But it didn't have a major impact, right?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so that is 

19 an observation. 

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next here is from 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Tab 402 also SRS and it's in Observation 1. And 

2 it states that from the site TBD, it's not clear 

3 what work locations had a risk of recycled uranium 

4 exposure.

5 The issue is still unresolved from our 

6 review that we performed in 2005 of the SRS TBD. 

7 Additionally it's still an open issue under the SRS 

8 SEC petition evaluation and resolution of that 

9 issue does have potential to impact this case. But 

10 without a resolution it's unclear if dose was 

11 appropriately assigned or not.

12 In 2009, NIOSH informed us that they 

13 would be included in the discussion for the revised 

14 TBD, however, that revision is still unpublished. 

15 And NIOSH comes back and says that it will be 

16 included in the next revision of the SRS TBD.

17 Our only question is, is there a 

18 timeline currently for the revision of the SRS TBD?

19 MR. CALHOUN: I think that's kind of 

20 driven by the Board's discussion of some of the SEC 

21 issues.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And as far as we're 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concerned here in Subcommittee, that just simply 

2 means we're in abeyance.

3 MR. CALHOUN: But it's an observation.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's an observation 

5 and they did follow, it's an observation because 

6 they followed the currently available guidance. 

7 But we pointed it out because it is a change that 

8 could potentially impact this case.

9 However, presumably a PER will be 

10 needed if it does impact this case and it would be 

11 captured under that. So we have no problem closing 

12 it.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I would imagine 

14 that's the case.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

16 Observed.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

18 here is Tab 402, Observation 2. NIOSH used OTIB-18 

19 to assign RU. The TIB specifically does not apply 

20 to the respiratory tract and that's specified on 

21 Page 8 of the document.

22 And since the lungs are part of the 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 respiratory tract, we feel that this document was 

2 inappropriate to use for the dose reconstruction.

3 However, we did find one document that implies that 

4 RU contaminants differ from what NIOSH assigned.

5 Despite the inappropriateness of the 

6 document used, we believe that given the lack of 

7 guidance available they had made a strong attempt 

8 to accurately model uranium intake and the assigned 

9 dose was reasonable given the lack of 

10 documentation. And that's why that is an 

11 observation.

12 Again NIOSH comes back saying they do 

13 have plans to include RU contaminants in the SRS 

14 TBD. And here we don't feel any response is 

15 necessary.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: So the same disposition 

18 there.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We will close 

20 that. From Tab 402 Finding 1, the finding states 

21 that no photon dose is assigned in 1952 through '64. 

22 Here NIOSH quotes part of the DR report and says 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, based on the work locations of 400D and H3 

2 production, the absence of external and internal 

3 monitoring except for tritium intakes, it was 

4 assumed that the primary source of occupational 

5 exposure was from ambient photon radiation during 

6 the period in question.

7 And we respond saying that the lack of 

8 monitoring records should not be used to justify 

9 a lack of risk. This has come up many times before. 

10 We find it unlikely that the EE's only external 

11 exposure during '52 through '64 came from ambient 

12 dose and medical dose.

13 But this of course is another instance 

14 of professional judgment. But this case also 

15 qualified for inclusion in an SRS SEC. And so any 

16 additional dose in this case wouldn't impact the 

17 case.

18 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know what to say 

19 on that one really other than I don't think we would 

20 do it any differently. We rely pretty heavily on, 

21 you know, generally speaking, external dosimetry 

22 from SRS is pretty good.
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I think we would probably continue 

2 to do that the same way.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would have to go back 

4 and double-check. But I believe this was the case 

5 where there were significant monitoring records 

6 after the fact and I think we had the concern that 

7 the early records might not be available.

8 MEMBER MUNN: It would be illuminating 

9 to know if this was in fact a part of the concern.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure.

11 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's very difficult 

12 in these cases when one, if one makes the assertion 

13 that you can't rely on any of the administrative 

14 controls that are put in place for these potential 

15 exposure sites, then of course we have to, we're 

16 faced with an impossible task.

17 I think it's unwise to make that 

18 assertion. It's been made many times but 

19 probably, in my personal experience, not 

20 substantiated. But it seems to be what we have 

21 here.

22 And it would be helpful to know what was 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just said with respect to concern and contrast with 

2 the letter here, our subsequent data of, would be 

3 nice to know, I guess.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well I believe the 

5 argument here was just whether or not missed or 

6 unmonitored dose might have been appropriate.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Whether 

8 unmonitored dose might be what?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Missed or unmonitored 

10 dose might have been appropriate in this instance. 

11 But of course this is a professional judgment 

12 issue. A hundred DRs could look at it and we all 

13 could come up with something slightly different.

14 MR. CALHOUN: I just did a quick look 

15 at my database and I don't see that we actually have 

16 come across any new data for that case other than 

17 what DOE provided or at least after the DR was 

18 completed. So we're not looking at it from that 

19 standpoint.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do I detect a 

21 lack or do I detect a certain tiredness on the part 

22 of members of our Subcommittee?
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I think you could 

2 potentially say that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's hard to 

4 judge a hard case at the end of a long day.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's a valid 

6 observation.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could we leave 

8 it open and come back to it next time?

9 MR. KATZ: Right. And I think what 

10 needs to be clarified next time is, I mean there's 

11 got to be a standard for when you apply missed dose, 

12 when there's sufficient basis to be applying missed 

13 dose.

14 And I think that's the question. And 

15 I heard Grady say that they would do it the same 

16 way now, today. So either SC&A contends that their 

17 standard is too low for when they applied missed 

18 dose and that their methods need to change or DCAS 

19 is correct and they're applying it appropriately 

20 when there's reasonable basis and SC&A is 

21 incorrect.

22 But I don't think this can be left open,
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as it's just a matter of judgment and 50 dose 

2 reconstructors would do it 50 ways because that's 

3 not the way we want the program to be, inconsistent.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I agree. And this 

5 one is too important.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me make a 

7 suggestion. I think we are slowing down a bit. We 

8 could do a couple more easy ones, if you will. But 

9 we need to spend a few minutes talking about when 

10 we meet again.

11 And maybe we should just begin. It's 

12 just about 4:30. Maybe we should begin to do that 

13 and close up and then come back to this the next 

14 time we meet.

15 MR. KATZ: That sounds good to me.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Next time we’ll 

17 proceed [on this]. Now, Ted, might you -- we have 

18 a Board meeting in March.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. We have a Board 

20 meeting, I think it's the 23rd and 24th. Let me 

21 get back to my calendar but I think that's when our 

22 Board meeting is.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is 23rd and 24th.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. And so what's our 

4 date today, the 10th. Okay. So we pretty much 

5 cannot meet before the Board meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

7 MR. KATZ: But I'm just looking, my 

8 schedule looks pretty open for those weeks 

9 following. So why don't you --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mine may be a 

11 little tighter. But on the other hand, you also 

12 have a limitation. We're meeting on the 10th. 

13 You need at least six weeks or so.

14 MR. KATZ: We'll be fine after. So 

15 once we've had that meeting in March, in April we're 

16 fine in terms of my time for getting a public notice 

17 out and so on.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. If we 

19 wait two or three weeks after --

20 MR. KATZ: What about the week of April 

21 4th? How are people's calendars for that week?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well that's a 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 good idea. It's a little soon after the Board 

2 meeting. It's two weeks, almost two weeks.

3 MR. KATZ: I mean it's a telephone 

4 call. We're not traveling for this.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well my calendar is 

7 relatively free. But along about that time is 

8 along about the time our house starts to get all 

9 wound up with our friends at IRS. And I'm always 

10 very hesitant to schedule anything that requires 

11 more than a perfunctory nod during the first two 

12 weeks of April.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well that would 

14 put us into the third week.

15 MR. KATZ: How about the week of April 

16 11th?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not the 11th, it 

18 would be the 18th.

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, okay. But --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Put it this way, 

21 I don't have that need, but I respect that if we 

22 did do that we would have to talk about the week 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the 18th, which I have to say is not good for 

2 me.

3 MR. KATZ: We have a lot of backlog. 

4 So we can't over-meet.

5 MEMBER MUNN: The week of the fourth is 

6 fine.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. How 

8 about the 6th. That is a good day, Wednesday the 

9 6th?

10 MR. KATZ: So, John, are you still on 

11 there too?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Give him a 

13 chance to unmute.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Can you hear me?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're there. Good. 

17 I'm just trying to get as many calendars in line 

18 as possible.

19 MEMBER POSTON: Well, unfortunately 

20 this semester I have a class every day. But it 

21 would be the equivalent to what I did today. I have 

22 a class from 11:30 to 12:30.
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

2 fine.

3 MR. KATZ: That works out.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It worked out 

5 well today.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But what about 

8 others?

9 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and it 

10 works for me.

11 MR. KATZ: And, David Richardson, are 

12 you still on?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Give him a 

14 second to unmute also.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, well he may not be on 

16 anymore. So why don't we collect a couple dates 

17 and I'll send those to David and are we missing 

18 someone else?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Brad.

20 MR. KATZ: Brad, right, Brad too.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: So how is, for example, is 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Wednesday a relatively good day for people?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Wednesday or the whole 

3 week; any of those days is fine for me.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. For me 

6 the 7th and 8th are not good. I have a conference. 

7 So how about the 4th and the 5th?

8 MR. KATZ: Or how about the 5th and the 

9 6th? Mondays --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, Tuesday, 

11 right. Tuesday the 5th looks good.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. And Wednesday the 

13 6th.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: And then if we need a backup 

16 because I don't know what about the 12th or the 

17 13th, a week from then, in other words?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

19 take a look at that. I can't, no --

20 MR. KATZ: 12, 13, 14?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm out of town 

22 that week on vacation.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I see, okay.

2 MEMBER POSTON: I can't make it to the 

3 NCRP's meeting.

4 MR. KATZ: No, that's fine. That's 

5 fine. What about --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How about the 

7 week after?

8 MR. KATZ: The week after. What about 

9 the 19th or the 20th?

10 MEMBER BEACH: I'm booked those weeks, 

11 those days already.

12 MR. KATZ: What about the 21st?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not in good 

14 shape. April is tough. I have family 

15 obligations. So let me ask you how about the 5th 

16 and the 6th. Aren't those alternatives?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, they are. I just, if 

18 David Richardson is out of town that week then 

19 that's, then neither of those --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're stuck. 

21 You're right.

22 MR. KATZ: I'm trying to come up with 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one optional other date.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I could work out 

3 something for the week of the 18th.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, so then is the 19th or 

5 20th either of those work for everyone else, Wanda, 

6 Josie?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER BEACH: They don't work for me.

9 MR. KATZ: None of those days. The 

10 18th is --

11 MEMBER BEACH: No, I'm already 

12 committed the whole week.

13 MR. KATZ: You're gone the whole week, 

14 okay.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go to the 

16 next week.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. The next week, I'm 

18 out of town for most of the week, but for work. My 

19 only day would be the 28th. How is the 28th?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Good.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Fine for me.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good for 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me too.

2 MR. KATZ: So we'll do the 28th as a 

3 backup.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks for that. I 

6 appreciate it and I'll get a note out to Dave and 

7 Brad.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 5, 6 and 28.

9 MR. KATZ: And then I'll write you all 

10 a note when we decide on the date.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That will be 

12 okay. It's just a delay. It's just a long delay. 

13 It will be a month after the meeting.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm just trying to turn 

15 the crank as fast as I can.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure, no, okay. 

17 I'm saying do not --

18 (Telephonic interference.)

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- if you can't 

20 do those.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Folks, I think we are finished with our business.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Before, I'm sorry, Dr. 

3 Kotelchuck, before we close out, I did get one more 

4 piece of information from something we discussed 

5 for Rose. Way back on 356.4 we were discussing the 

6 version and the date of the tool change that 

7 included rotational geometry.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, '80 to 

9 '86 you mean, yes?

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, getting the 

11 rotational geometry in the tool. And, Rose, if 

12 you're ready it was, are you ready?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm ready.

14 MR. SIEBERT: It was Version 2.16, 

15 released July 24, 2014. And that should close that 

16 out for you.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Wonderful. 

18 Thank you so much.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. Sorry it was a 

20 little late.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay. 

22 It's there. That's very good. Thank you.
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER POSTON: I've got to run. I've 

2 got a class coming up.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

4 you very much, John. Appreciate it. Thanks, 

5 folks. We'll be in touch.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

7 went off the record at 4:35 p.m.) 

8

9

10

11

12

13