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

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

JUNE 14, 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
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

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

CHERYL SMYZER, ORAU Team

MITCH STEEL

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 
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 (10:35 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: So, welcome, everyone on the 

5 line. This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

6 Worker Health, the Subcommittee on Dose 

7 Reconstruction Reviews.

8 For roll call, this is a Subcommittee 

9 meeting, so I'll address conflict of interest. 

10 And now we'll address those for the Board Members 

11 and myself, because it's easier than having them 

12 run through their own. So I believe we'll have 

13 everyone that I address on, but we'll see. 

14 So, Josie Beach and Wanda Munn both have 

15 conflicts with Hanford dose reconstruction cases.

16 Dr. Poston, John Poston, has conflicts 

17 with X-10, BWXT, ANL, Sandia, LANL and Lawrence 

18 Livermore National Lab, Y-12. I think that covers 

19 any sites that we might be addressing today.

20 Dr. Kotelchuck, Dave, has no conflicts. 

21 Dr. Richardson will not be joining us 

22 today. I had a note from him, he has a conflict. 
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 So now let's just run through roll call, 

2 see what Board Members we have already.

3 (Roll call.)

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, and we have a quorum.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey, Ted, this is 

6 Brad. You forgot, that I didn't hear the INL for 

7 me.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, thank 

9 you, Brad. And Brad is conflicted just for INL.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Brad, for 

12 catching that. Alright. The agenda for today is 

13 posted on the Board section but it's very simple.

14 We are addressing a host of possible 

15 sites, including Oak Ridge facilities, the gaseous 

16 diffusion plants, SRS, Hanford, Fernald, Mound, 

17 RFP, INL, NTS, maybe some others.

18 And we had on the agenda adjourning at 

19 5:00 but we need to adjourn at 4:00 for a number 

20 of people, including myself who have conflicts at 

21 4:00.

22 And with that, let me just ask people 
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 to keep their phones muted, oh, and let's go through 

2 roll call for the rest of the non-Board Members 

3 before we mute your phones.

4 (Roll call.)

5 Discussion of Case Reviews Issue

6 Resolution Sets 14-18

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

8 Welcome, everyone. And we're back in session and 

9 returning to our traditional activities of 

10 reviewing the Sets 14 through 18.

11 Let me just first note, before we begin, 

12 that we still have one case from Sets 10 through 

13 13, from Hooker, Case 221. And that is being held 

14 until there is a meeting of the AWE Work Group, 

15 which is going to be held in July. So, just to 

16 remind people that we have that one left over.

17 Now, let's go to -- I'm going to go in 

18 the order in your agenda. Let's go to Sets 14 

19 through 18, the file of Sets 14 through 18. And 

20 the first one, or the ones that are still left over 

21 from the previous meeting, the Oak Ridge Case 

22 394.1. If you would.
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 Oak Ridge Facilities

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, I believe that --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, we have 355 

4 first, okay. Good. And there's Finding Number 2. 

5 And NIOSH will continue to investigate.

6 Rose, would you like to -- or whomever 

7 -- would you like to discuss this?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sure. Has NIOSH had 

9 time to investigate this issue?

10 MR. SIEBERT: We're continuing to work 

11 on it.

12 MR. SMITH: Matt Smith for ORAU Team. 

13 We're still taking a look at this to pinpoint the 

14 year in the mid-eighties when things switched over 

15 to DOELAP for Paducah.

16 At that point, then, you know, Hp(10) 

17 certainly agreed to DCF of choice. DOELAP came 

18 into -- you know, hitting different sites online 

19 between '86, '87. So we're just trying to pin down 

20 the particular year.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

22 that's -- we're still holding that in abeyance, in 

23 other words, right?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, not in abeyance. 

2 That one is still in progress.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In progress, I 

4 mean. Okay. Then let's go onto the Oak Ridge 

5 Case, as I see it in my notes, Oak Ridge Case 394.1.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That case we're 

7 holding in abeyance.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And for 

9 SC&A and NIOSH review?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

11 Hanford

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then we 

13 should go to -- and from what I can see, we'll go 

14 into the SRS Hanford BRS printout. And I believe 

15 we start with Hanford 380.2, which indicates that 

16 it's open, and yet it looks as if it should be 

17 closed. So if we can just go there.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. One moment 

19 here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 380.2, Hanford.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This finding is very 

22 similar to .1, however, for some reason it was 
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 missing from the original spreadsheet that NIOSH 

2 provided us with responses, so it wasn't entered. 

3 But when I went to QC to make sure all of our 

4 findings were closed this one popped out of it, so 

5 --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is -- so far 

7 it's not on the screen for myself and others. So 

8 we'll just wait, if we will, one second until it's 

9 on there. Here's 380.2.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is that showing for 

11 everyone?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Let's 

13 see, it's open.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's showing, Rose.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's showing. 

17 I have a small notice -- here we go. Here we go, 

18 okay. Now, hold it just one moment. Okay. Just 

19 in a little different format than we had before. 

20 Okay, do go ahead.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, this is 

22 the Hanford Case 380.2. And the finding says that 
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 NIOSH did not include all missed neutron doses. 

2 This is very similar to Finding 380.1, which had 

3 to do with missed photon doses, but for some reason 

4 this one was left off previously. And NIOSH has 

5 not responded to this one in particular. However, 

6 we could use the 380.1 description that NIOSH 

7 provided.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And the 

9 380.1 was closed. Then it looked to me as if 380.2 

10 should be closed, as well, that we discussed it, 

11 did we not, at the last meeting? There it is. It 

12 keeps moving.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

14 Scott. I checked the transcript from last meeting 

15 and apparently we just skipped right over it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's kind of 

17 what I thought might be the case, because we'd done 

18 a lot of them before and after. But it looked to 

19 me that the status was open and it should be closed.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have not discussed 

21 this finding yet and so we can formally close it 

22 out now, if you'd like.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And the 

2 claimant-favorable assumption would be 12 zeros 

3 per year. These would not have a significant 

4 effect on this dose reconstruction. Any comment 

5 from any of the Members of our Subcommittee?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. I 

7 do have a little bit more on that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. SIEBERT: It is the same as 380.1. 

10 It's just neutrons rather than photons. And we use 

11 an annual badge, which is what was actually in the 

12 records. And we pointed to the TBD, pointing out 

13 that there were some people on annual dosimetry, 

14 non-rad workers at that time.

15 So it falls into that. And the other 

16 point I would point out is we did change 380.1 to 

17 an observation.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Rather than keeping it as 

20 a finding. So that would be my suggestion, 

21 although I'm not sure if I can make that suggestion.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, you can 
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 suggest that we may want to do that. And I think 

2 that, in the spirit of the other 380.1, this would 

3 be also an observation.

4 So I'm open. Let me just suggest, 

5 then, that we close this and call it an observation. 

6 Is there comment on that?

7 Hearing none, let's just close it out 

8 now and turn it to an observation as well.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

10 SRS

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Close, on 

12 observation. Okay, good. So -- and now let's 

13 see, I think we really will start, if I'm not 

14 mistaken, on SRS 356.6 in this file.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this finding 

18 states that there was an inconsistent assignment 

19 of unmonitored environmental tritium dose. And we 

20 had a lot of back and forth here, and at the last 

21 meeting NIOSH gave us an additional response here 

22 that was pretty lengthy.
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 And SC&A was tasked with reviewing 

2 that. And we did have a chance to look at it. And 

3 we do understand what was done, but we believe that 

4 we have a disagreement that has to do with 

5 interpretation of the TBD on Page 85.

6 And I think it's a little bit difficult 

7 to read here in the BRS so I just pulled up this 

8 section in the SRS TBD.

9 And we interpret this section to mean 

10 that when an EE is monitored and has external 

11 dosimetry, and there's evidence that there would 

12 have been internal exposure as well, to assume 

13 unmonitored dose.

14 But it appears that NIOSH interprets 

15 this same text to mean that if the EE is monitored 

16 for external and was monitored for a single 

17 radionuclide, then all the other radionuclides are 

18 not eligible for unmonitored and are instead 

19 assigned environmental.

20 Am I interpreting that correctly?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What do the 

22 NIOSH folks say?
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 MR. SIEBERT: I'm trying to -- just a 

2 second, I'm sorry. I'm pulling up the response 

3 that we gave on there.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a fairly lengthy 

5 response where you break down when you assign 

6 fission product dose and when you assign 

7 environmental dose.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Let me see if I can pull 

10 it up on my computer here. Keep in mind that the 

11 finding has to do with tritium.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. I'm going to have 

13 to -- honestly, I'm going to have to look at your 

14 response because I didn't see you put a new response 

15 in recently.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. That's fine. We 

17 can hold this for the next meeting, if you'd like.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Would this be 

19 for -- this is a more complex one, I know. Should 

20 we hold it for the next meeting or might we come 

21 back to this after lunch break? Or would you folks 

22 from NIOSH prefer a little bit more time?
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. SIEBERT: I'd prefer to hold it for 

2 the next meeting.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then we 

4 will do that, then. Hold to next meeting.

5 And this one, I might make mention to 

6 our Subcommittee Members, this one is, in my 

7 opinion, somewhat more complex. And we will be 

8 asked to, if there remains a disagreement, then we 

9 will need to make a decision on this.

10 So I urge people take a look at this for 

11 the next meeting. And I'll try to remember to put 

12 a note in our next meeting agenda to take particular 

13 notice of this.

14 Okay. Then do we go, I think, 401.4? 

15 Is that our next?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And, again, this is an 

19 SRS case. The finding states that there was a 

20 potential underestimate of missed fission product 

21 dose to the prostate.

22 And here was an instance where they used 
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 the Chooser Workbook and we had some disagreement 

2 on how dose should be assigned when they're on 

3 multiple organs.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, yes.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH said that 

6 this issue had already been discussed in a few 

7 previous tabs: Tab 152, 153, and 155. And we did 

8 go back and look at that and we did find that the 

9 Chooser Workbook had been discussed there, but the 

10 discussion had to do with comparing the Chooser 

11 Workbook dose to OTIB-54.

12 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, we keep 

13 jumping around. What finding are we on now, just 

14 because you're moving so quickly? I need to track 

15 down where we are. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 401.4.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: SRS.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Got it.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And so we did 

21 find that part of the Chooser Workbook had been 

22 discussed. But at that time, it was not discussed 
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 how it could be applied to multiple organs, or at 

2 least that's not recorded in the transcripts, that 

3 I could find.

4 And at the last meeting you indicated 

5 that the Chooser Workbook was not proceduralized, 

6 but you did feel that it followed OTIB-60.

7 So I went back to OTIB-60, Rev 1, and 

8 it does state that consistent assumptions should 

9 be applied for all cancers when performing the best 

10 estimate. However, that revision wasn't in place 

11 at the time of this does reconstruction or our 

12 review. Actually, Rev 0 was in place.

13 And on Page 19 of that, it says when 

14 information for a particular parameter is unknown 

15 or multiple options, the choice that is the most 

16 favorable to claimants, i.e., the one most 

17 resulting in a largest PoC, should be selected.

18 And we interpret that to mean that the 

19 method that NIOSH is suggesting is appropriate, and 

20 we can accept that although it's not documented 

21 formally, it's reasonable that, in practice, it's 

22 something that NIOSH always does with multiple 
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 cancers.

2 But we do question whether or not dose 

3 reconstructors compare the cumulative impact of 

4 each selection of all cancers on the cumulative 

5 PoC, rather than just the cumulative dose.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So you are 

7 saying that it is proper to use the single nuclide 

8 and that one shouldn't use different nuclides?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You can interpret the 

10 OTIB-60 to mean that. It doesn't clearly state 

11 that, but you could interpret that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That we would 

13 use a single nuclide, or that the reviewer would 

14 use a single nuclide?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. But we just 

16 question, when they're selecting the nuclide, if 

17 they compare the cumulative impact.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. In 

19 other words, the question is whether the single 

20 nuclide selected is the best one that gets the 

21 largest PoC.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And this is 
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 Scott. Yes, it's the PoC that we're looking at for 

2 the combined cancers. So that is correct.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's not the combined 

4 dose, it's the combined PoC?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. Because the 

6 dose to one organ can be much larger although it 

7 doesn't have as much impact on PoC.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

9 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Obviously, we think 

12 that that would be much more consistently applied 

13 if it was documented somewhere. Is there any plan 

14 to get that documented?

15 MR. SIEBERT: We can make a note to add 

16 that information to OTIB-60.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Wonderful.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

19 that seems to be -- there seems to be agreement 

20 there. 

21 Is there any comments from any of our 

22 Subcommittee Members on this? It seems as if it's 
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 ready for closure with the agreement, unless there 

2 are concerns from the Subcommittee, or questions.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, no questions 

4 here. That seems straightforward, and if NIOSH is 

5 going to document it, that approach seems good 

6 there.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good to 

8 me.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

10 don't have any questions on it. I think it would 

11 be cleaner for us to be able to have the 

12 radionuclide that's used.

13 I was just looking at this from a Work 

14 Group standpoint, because we've got some questions 

15 on some radionuclides. But this doesn't dive into 

16 that, so I'm good with it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good. 

18 Okay. Unless further? Hearing nothing further, 

19 we will consider this closed. And it will be 

20 documented on OTIB-60. Okay. Now --

21 MEMBER MUNN: This goes into abeyance?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?
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 MEMBER MUNN: That puts it into 

2 abeyance, correct?

3 MR. KATZ: Well, I think --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. I thought 

5 that would close it.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Now, the 

8 next one I have is 403.4.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. This one, 

10 however, we referred to the SRS Work Group, and so 

11 --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They haven't met yet. 

14 We can skip that for now, I believe.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 403.4. So, 

16 right, that is in abeyance. I'll just take that 

17 down. Okay. Then I believe that completes this 

18 file, right?

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

20 Fernald-Mound

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And so the next 

22 file we go to is the Fernald-Mound file, BRS. And 
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 we have the FMPC 373, Observation 1 in progress.

2 So we begin with Mound Case 346, 

3 Observation 1, is that correct?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is NIOSH prepared to 

5 respond to 373, Observation 1?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. We're jumping 

7 between a lot of different places. Give me a 

8 second to catch up here.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sure.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Now, which one 

11 you talking about?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is the first one 

13 in that matrix: 373, Observation 1.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Observation 1. Okay. 

15 Stu is not on the phone. I know they were looking 

16 to it on the NIOSH side. But I'm guessing that Jim 

17 probably does not have that information from Stu.

18 DR. NETON: I do not. And I'm 

19 conflicted at Mound -- at Fernald, so I can't 

20 comment at any rate.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So then 

22 this will just continue on. We'll move ahead. It 
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 will remain in progress.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. 

3 Were we waiting for something from Stu on this? I 

4 mean, just clarifying how they were going to write 

5 that up? Or is that a different one I'm thinking 

6 of?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: With this particular 

8 one, the cancer diagnosis rate that was used was 

9 different than the one that DOL had specified. And 

10 they were going to look into how this had happened.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Alright. 

13 So let's go onto Mound Case 346, Observation 1. Is 

14 that the next one?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is Nicole on the line?

16 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, I will 

18 let you take the lead.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Mound 

20 346.

21 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. Let's see. 346, 

22 this is an observation. And this observation has 
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 to do with the labeling of the ICRP 60 correction 

2 factors. They were a little confusing because 

3 they have been multiplied by the neutron energy 

4 fraction. And in the BRS, NIOSH said that they 

5 have updated the template to indicate that the ICRP 

6 corrections factors are effective, which explains 

7 their approach or what was described in that table. 

8 So we just recommend closing.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

10 That seems fine. Any comments or concerns?

11 MEMBER BEACH: None here, Dave.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

13 And hearing no others, we're fine then with that 

14 closed. Let me make sure I have -- I'm trying to 

15 keep --

16 MEMBER POSTON: Dave, I'm getting 

17 really confused here. Scott's not the only one. 

18 I'm looking at a disc that I got that says Mound 

19 346 was closed on the 23rd of April of last year.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's the next one, 

21 John, the 346. Right below it, Observation 1.

22 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, Observation 1, I'm 
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 sorry. Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sorry.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I had to work 

4 through there too, John. That's why I knew it.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have to put a finding 

6 of no finding when there are no findings, so there's 

7 no holes in documentation and we just close those 

8 right off the bat.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Now I 

10 think we'll begin in sequence, so we won't be 

11 jumping around and it will make life a little 

12 easier. Administratively, we go to Case 347. And 

13 then we have a number of other cases, sequentially, 

14 until we finish this file.

15 So, shall we go to Case 347?

16 MS. BRIGGS: Sure.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And 347, 

18 Observation 1?

19 MS. BRIGGS: You'll see from the Mound 

20 cases that I'm doing, a lot of them are very similar 

21 to the Hanford ones that were closed out, I think, 

22 at the last meeting. So we probably will be able 
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 to get through these fairly quickly.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MS. BRIGGS: Observation 1, let's see. 

4 That was concerning -- yes, we've seen this before. 

5 This concerns a table that was in the external dose 

6 reconstruction guidelines, OCAS-IG-001, which 

7 contained two separate tables that were labeled, 

8 I guess, 4-1A. One that was on Page 38 and one that 

9 was on Page 39. I know we've talked about this 

10 before in closing these observations out before.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MS. BRIGGS: We just mentioned that this 

13 was confusing and needed to be corrected, and NIOSH 

14 said they updated the next document and we 

15 recommend closure.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sounds 

17 good.

18 MS. BRIGGS: Yeah, I think we may see 

19 this again in this round, too --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. So 

21 we'll close this, again, unless I hear something. 

22 And, fine, let's go to the next one.
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 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. This is Finding 

2 347.1. This is that same issue regarding the use 

3 of rotational and isotropic dose conversion 

4 factors for certain cancers that we've seen before 

5 and closed out in the last meeting, I believe.

6 So I'll just briefly explain. NIOSH 

7 calculated the recorded photon doses for this case 

8 using the DCF for the AP geometry for the lung, but 

9 the external dose reconstruction procedures 

10 recommend using the rotational or the isotropic.

11 We just said that could have had an 

12 impact on the recorded doses, but we were in 

13 agreement that the rotational or the isotropic 

14 geometry should have been considered for this 

15 instance.

16 And I think we just recommended closure 

17 for that, because I believe NIOSH had agreed that 

18 the isotropic or the rotational should have been 

19 used. So we recommended closure here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right. 

21 So there was agreement. Are there any concerns? 

22 Wanda, I know you've been doing a lot of work on 
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 this. Does that sound --

2 MEMBER MUNN: I think we cleared up 

3 most of the major concerns the last time we 

4 discussed this. I can't remember whether that was 

5 the last meeting or the one preceding. But I think 

6 we've pretty well ironed out any differences that 

7 NIOSH and SC&A had with respect to rotational 

8 geometry.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. So 

10 we should close on this. Any other comments or 

11 concerns?

12 MEMBER MUNN: I think we're ready to 

13 close it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then, 

15 hearing no further comments, we will consider this 

16 closed. Okay. Let's go on.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Sure. The next one is 

18 Finding 347.2. But I noticed on the BRS that it's 

19 actually listed as 347.1 again, so there's a 

20 repeat. 

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'll get that 

22 corrected.
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 MS. BRIGGS: Yeah, that's just a typo 

2 there, but I think this is really 347.2.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MS. BRIGGS: This has to do with 

5 assignment of missed neutron dose. For this case,

6 missed neutron dose was not assigned because the 

7 EE did not appear to be monitored for neutrons.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Could 

9 somebody scroll up a little bit? I don't see the 

10 discussion on that.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Scroll up just a 

13 little bit.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: A little bit more?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I don't 

16 see anything, but if other's do. I seem to be going 

17 occasionally in and out of online. Well, do keep 

18 going.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Everyone else?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Everyone else is 

21 okay?

22 MS. BRIGGS: Yeah, I can see that.
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, fine. Do 

2 keep going, folks.

3 MS. BRIGGS: Sure. So the DR report 

4 for this case says that the column in the records 

5 for neutrons is blank and only zero results are --

6 I'm sorry, only zero results are indicated with 

7 zeros.

8 But the summary data does have a column 

9 of zeros for neutrons, which could suggest that the 

10 EE was monitored for neutrons. But these 

11 dosimeter records appears to be from a more modern 

12 database, and they are not the original records 

13 from the time that it was done in the 1960s.

14 So it's really not clear from these 

15 records if this individual was in fact monitored 

16 for neutrons. So, the original finding, SC&A 

17 thought it would be claimant-favorable to include 

18 those missed neutron doses in the DR.

19 So NIOSH stated in the BRS that the 

20 quarterly dosimeter records were available for 

21 this EE in two SRDB documents, which show that the 

22 EE was not monitored for neutrons in 1968 and 1969. 
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 So the missed neutron dose assignment is actually 

2 not necessary.

3 But there were no individual dosimeter 

4 records available for 1970, which was the other 

5 year that was in question. So in that instance it 

6 would have been appropriate to assign missed 

7 neutron doses for the four quarters of 1970. It 

8 would be a claimant-favorable approach.

9 So SC&A went back to those reference 

10 documents in the SRDB, and they do in fact show that 

11 the EE had blank in the neutron column for those 

12 years.

13 So we agreed that this EE was not 

14 monitored for neutrons in 1968 and 1969, and 

15 therefore it wasn't necessary to assign any missed 

16 dose.

17 But these documents actually weren't in 

18 or included in the original DR files at the time 

19 that we did the review. We just wanted to make note 

20 of that. But for the year of 1970, we both agree 

21 that since there are no --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hello?
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 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, can you still hear 

2 me?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. So for the year 

5 1970, SC&A and NIOSH do agree that, since there are 

6 no individual dosimeter records, that the 

7 claimant-favorable approach would be to include 

8 missed neutron dose for that year. So, SC&A, we 

9 recommend closure for this finding.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. In 

11 other words, that there's agreement between 

12 yourself and NIOSH on this. 

13 Okay. Any concerns or questions? 

14 Hearing none, let us close it. And let's go on to 

15 the next one.

16 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. The next one is Tab 

17 386. It's Observation 1. Again, this is that 

18 same issue regarding Table 4-1A --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

20 MS. BRIGGS: -- the External VR 

21 Guideline that we just covered a few minutes ago 

22 so we just recommended closure since there was a 
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 correction made.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Let's 

3 just close it. We've already dealt with that this 

4 morning. Okay.

5 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, we're buzzing along 

6 because Finding 386.1, that's similar to Finding 

7 347.1 regarding the rotational geometry for the 

8 dose conversion factors.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MS. BRIGGS: So if you, I guess you 

11 could just close that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we 

13 should just close that, again, one moment in case 

14 there's any comment.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I do have a 

16 comment, Dave. This is Josie.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda mentioned that 

19 there was a lot of discussion on this, for both this 

20 one and those previous ones we discussed. Is that 

21 documented anywhere? You know, I can see that it's 

22 not really documented here.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes, on this I 

2 believe. I'd have to go back and check and as I 

3 said, I can't remember actually when, necessarily. 

4 It seemed to me it's been quite a while since we've 

5 had much discussion about this but we've certainly 

6 talked about it a lot.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that discussion 

9 happened in the Procedures Subcommittee? Is that 

10 correct?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Procedures. 

12 Okay. I just wasn't sure if we should note 

13 something here to those to the effect of that, but.

14 MS. BEHLING: And Josie, this is Kathy 

15 Behling. I know that I had raised a question as 

16 to whether this will become a PER in the future and 

17 I believe NIOSH has agreed that, when they go in 

18 to make all of these changes to the DCS and to the 

19 IG-001, this will be one item that will be included 

20 in a PER that's going to be, I guess, a very large 

21 PER for the IG-001. Can NIOSH confirm that?

22 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 
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 Yes, that's going to be part of that PER as part 

2 of the ICRP 116 update of the DCS. That is correct.

3 MS. BEHLING: Yes, because we see this 

4 routinely and it's quite obvious that the dose 

5 reconstructors aren't always going back to this 

6 table.

7 But I do, you know, I do remember that 

8 we have talked about a PER issue which obviously 

9 is going to happen.

10 MR. SIEBERT: I do want to put one 

11 clarification on that. Yes, we have been going and 

12 doing that for the last couple of years since we've 

13 clarified the changes to the DRs. It still will 

14 be part of the DER for the historical cases.

15 MS. BEHLING: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. So 

17 we shall close it now?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think that's 

19 appropriate.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we 

21 will close. By the way, I am not getting anything

22 on my screen. I'm still stuck on Mound 347.1.
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 If we're going to continue, I will need 

2 to get in sync, either go out and come back or where 

3 are other folks on the screen? Are you at 386.2 

4 now?

5 MEMBER BEACH: I'm following along in

6 the BRS so not sure what --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, 386.2 is showing on 

9 my screen but it is not showing fully. It's not 

10 scrolled appropriately so that I can see the 

11 material.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I went right to 

13 staff tools in the BRS because it's easier for me 

14 to be able to --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

16 I will, let me see if I can get back. Well, we 

17 should go ahead for 386.2. I'm going to just try 

18 to get back on, go back on to the Live Meeting link, 

19 just reboot on that.

20 So let's go ahead on 386.2 and I'll, 

21 while I'm playing around, you other folks can be, 

22 I'll be back with you in a moment. Do keep going 
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 ahead.

2 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. This is Finding 

3 386.2. It has to do with assignment of internal 

4 americium exposure.

5 For this case the EE was monitored for 

6 americium exposure with bioassays and missed dose 

7 from americium was assigned in the DR using 

8 solubility type M.

9 In the SC&A finding, they referenced 

10 the TBD that recommends that the DR should consider 

11 all types of solubility for each radionuclide and 

12 then select the type that provides the greatest 

13 dose to the lungs.

14 Also in Attachment A of the TBD it 

15 indicates that americium solubility for the 

16 building that this EE was working in was type F.

17 So with this information, SC&A used 

18 type S americium in their IMBA calculations and 

19 they got a dose of 0.693 REMS. And this dose was 

20 greater than the type M americium solubility dose 

21 which was about 6 millirem which was used by NIOSH 

22 in the DR.
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 Even though there was a difference, 

2 this small increase in dose would have had a small 

3 impact on the total assigned dose from the case but 

4 SC&A wanted to mention it.

5 We went back to the document and we 

6 agreed with NIOSH's response in the BRS. They 

7 quote the TB that says, that cites the paragraph. 

8 Well, the guideline reminds the dose reconstructor 

9 to use actual case data when sufficient to identify 

10 the appropriate solubility type.

11 And in the BRS, NIOSH states that it is 

12 usually the practice to use the solubility that 

13 results in the highest dose.

14 But in this circumstance when the 

15 americium is in fact a small part of the plutonium 

16 mix, it is appropriate to use type M and not type 

17 S.

18 And they also mentioned that the 

19 recommendation's in Attachment A of the Mound TBD 

20 may no longer be appropriate and they reference 

21 this King document in the BRS.

22 Let's see. So although the assessment 
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 of type M americium was not consistent with the 

2 information in the TBD at the time, NIOSH did 

3 provide additional information in their response 

4 which explains why the assessment of type M was 

5 appropriate for this dose reconstruction. And 

6 because of that, SC&A recommends closure.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Do folks 

8 have comment? I'm still trying to play around to 

9 get back on to Live Meeting. So if others would 

10 comment.

11 MEMBER MUNN: The explanation should 

12 be quite adequate and appropriate and there's the 

13 recommendation I suggested here.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. The

16 question I would have is whether this should be an 

17 observation rather than a finding, because I agree 

18 there were conflicting documents but there was 

19 still overriding documentation such as OTIB-60 on 

20 how to handle americium, which is what the dose 

21 reconstructor actually used correctly.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Was that properly 
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 cited in the dose reconstruction so that we could 

2 follow what was done?

3 MR. SIEBERT: OTIB-60, I can't tell you 

4 off the top of my head if it was but I can't imagine 

5 why it wouldn't have been because it's referenced 

6 in almost every dose reconstruction. I can go back 

7 and verify that though.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

9 I'm back but do continue, folks.

10 MEMBER MUNN: That's --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds like 

12 we're ready for closure or do you want to check that 

13 and come back to us?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Let me check it and I'll 

15 come back and check it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: That would be helpful.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Should 

19 we continue on then to the next one or just wait 

20 a moment?

21 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I can do that. 

22 That's no problem.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, let's do.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

3 MS. BRIGGS: I believe that finishes up 

4 Mound.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's great. Thank 

7 you, Nicole. Is Ron on the line?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm here.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now --

11 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

12 Before we continue, can I just make a comment on 

13 the last finding, the 386.2? I believe, I mean, 

14 our response to this particular finding is that 

15 type M is not, using type M americium is not 

16 consistent with information in the TBD at this 

17 time.

18 And again, we've got to go back to what 

19 is the hierarchy of data here? Generally you will 

20 use a TBD to make a decision as to how to handle 

21 these types of issues. And even though OTIB-60 

22 maybe states something different, I'm in 
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 disagreement with making this an observation 

2 because I think it was appropriate for us to look 

3 at the TBD and use the information that was 

4 available in the TBD at that time.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, thank you for 

6 articulating that, Kathy. I was kind of dragging 

7 my feet about jumping on that too because it seemed 

8 like I was trying to evaluate whether it was from 

9 our distant viewpoint still of legitimate findings 

10 because might that raise the question.

11 I'm a little foreign on that one. It 

12 seems to me that there's some merit to the concept 

13 of it actually being legitimate in the findings.

14 MS. BEHLING: We understand now why 

15 NIOSH made the decision but I don't think it was 

16 inappropriate for us to question this especially 

17 since we were following information that was 

18 provided in the TBD, that was my --

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, I think, Kathy, I 

20 think that's correct that it's not inappropriate 

21 for you to question it. But the issue about 

22 observation versus finding to use different 
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 terminology whether there's a defect or not and 

2 there's no defect in the DR.

3 It's an issue of whether the 

4 documentation is all clear and easy to follow sort 

5 of in effect, what you're saying.

6 You know, and that normally falls in the 

7 observation camp because there's no defect in what 

8 they did for this person, dose reconstruction.

9 MS. BEHLING: Well, there's an 

10 inconsistency between the TBD and perhaps what is 

11 stated in OTIB-60.

12 MR. KATZ: No, I understand, there's a, 

13 again, there's a how do you interpret the 

14 documentation since there's different 

15 documentation being applied.

16 But again the dose reconstruction was 

17 done correctly. This person was not mistreated in 

18 terms of the dose reconstruction. The dose 

19 reconstruction was conducted correctly. There's 

20 no defect in the dose reconstruction.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Other Members of 

22 the Subcommittee want to weigh in?
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I was 

2 just trying to understand the difference between 

3 the S and the M is to, was there any difference in 

4 the dose in those two?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes but that's not 

6 the real question.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. What's the 

8 question then?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the real question 

10 is what we're debating right now, is whether this 

11 is directly an observation or a finding.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, and I understand 

13 that but was the proper type used? It sounds like 

14 kind of from what I'm getting that it was not but 

15 at that time that it was. And what I'm trying to 

16 get my hands around is, was the proper type used 

17 at the very beginning or not?

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. What 

19 happened here is, my understanding is the americium 

20 is not linked in with a plutonium intake at Mound.

21 So the only time it is appropriate to 

22 assign americium type S is when it is locked into 
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 a plutonium matrix along with type S plutonium, as 

2 basically a part of that mixture.

3 When it is considered on its own as it 

4 was in this assessment it is always assumed to be 

5 type M. And all of our documentation, OTIB-60 and 

6 so on, we've always dealt with it in that manner 

7 on this project.

8 The issue is that the Mound TBD did not

9 specify that information accurately in that 

10 attachment. It used a reference from the site that 

11 was inappropriate and said that type S americium 

12 all by itself was an acceptable type of material 

13 to be exposed to, which it clearly is not unless 

14 it's part of a plutonium mixture.

15 So it is an inconsistency with the 

16 methods on how we deal with americium as part of 

17 a mixture and americium on its own as we handle it 

18 in all project documents versus what Attachment A 

19 of the Mound TBD was saying at the time.

20 And we went with the process which we've 

21 known for a long time until the TBD got updated, 

22 that type S americium is only assignable along with 
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 a plutonium mixture.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, that was a 

3 mouthful.

4 MR. SIEBERT: It sure felt like that as 

5 I was going along.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, this is a 

7 complex case in terms of the decision.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, is the OTIB-60 

9 revision that was used, is that more current or was 

10 it published before or after the TBD?

11 MR. SIEBERT: I'm looking at it right 

12 now and OTIB-60, the revision, it was available in 

13 2007 which is two, three years before this claim 

14 was done.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. SIEBERT: But prior, I'm going to 

17 tell you, even prior to us having OTIB-60 

18 documenting this fact, we've known this issue for 

19 pretty much since the beginning of the project and 

20 we were waiting, once again we waited for 

21 documentation sometimes to catch up with the state 

22 of knowledge of how can we do claims appropriately.
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 But the bottom line is, type M americium 

2 is the appropriate type to assign. And we agree 

3 that Appendix A or Attachment A of the TBD was 

4 inappropriate and that's why we updated it later 

5 to remove that information.

6 Now if we don't want to make that an 

7 observation that's your guys' call. I was just 

8 pointing that out.

9 DR. NETON: This is Jim. There is no 

10 type S americium, per se. I mean, it doesn't 

11 exist. If you look in the ICRP it will tell you 

12 americium is type M.

13 But it only, it would exist as Scott 

14 said as a type S if it were embedded in a plutonium 

15 matrix that was type S and would behave like the 

16 plutonium matrix, not as its own entity.

17 I think that's pretty well established 

18 in the health physics world that that's the way it 

19 works.

20 MR. KATZ: Right. So let me just speak 

21 to again when you think about roll ups. When we 

22 do these roll ups for the Secretary like the one 
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 we're almost finished with now, we've finished with 

2 actually all the cases for that.

3 I mean, you're telling the Secretary, 

4 you know, what percentage of cases had defects and 

5 this is not a case with defects. Or this is not 

6 a defect.

7 So you don't want this number as a 

8 defect. And what seriousness are you going to put 

9 to a defect that's not a defect? And you don't want 

10 that as part of your roll up.

11 So I don't think you can determine a 

12 finding because that messes up all of your accuracy 

13 of all of your numbers that you're telling the 

14 Secretary in terms of your review.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm going back 

16 and forth on this in thinking as folks are talking, 

17 but I'm beginning to lean toward an observation 

18 because the folks at NIOSH did the correct thing 

19 when, did the correct procedure based on the 

20 information available at the time even though they 

21 knew change was coming.

22 And so I'm sort of getting, moving into 
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 the observation camp. What about other people on 

2 the line that, John, you're on the line. You 

3 haven't said anything. What's your thinking?

4 MEMBER POSTON: I'm caught in between. 

5 I understand exactly why they did what they did 

6 because as Jim pointed out, when it's mixed with 

7 plutonium it's really held up by the plutonium.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MEMBER POSTON: But I don't know. To 

10 me it's not a, I just can't see that it has the 

11 significance of a finding necessarily because I 

12 think that dose estimates were more than likely 

13 very, very correct.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

15 MEMBER POSTON: I mean, I think we're 

16 spending a lot of time on something that's not 

17 really that big a deal but --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I would agree 

19 with you that it's not a big deal but I think our 

20 different agencies that are working, that is to 

21 say, the NIOSH folks and the SC&A, yes, it's 

22 important to them to, if you will, properly credit 
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 them or properly assign it for them.

2 MEMBER POSTON: Well, no doubt, no 

3 doubt, if there's a difference of opinion --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MEMBER POSTON: -- then that should be 

6 expressed. I don't know exactly how we weight the 

7 seriousness of a finding or what, as Ted says, when 

8 you forward it to the Secretary, is it --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MEMBER POSTON: To me it's like almost 

11 finding that, finding fault in what they did 

12 because, and saying it was done incorrectly.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, well, 

14 that's true. I mean, that's, the finding has that 

15 implication. But well, actually, let me ask --

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, I think, this is 

17 Brad, I think we ought to put it as an observation. 

18 You know, we can go around and around about this.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: But myself, I think 

21 this is an observation and I'm glad that SC&A 

22 brought this up and so we could kind of look at this. 
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 But it also gives us good basis to know what is being 

2 changed and done to be able to correct this too.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well --

4 MEMBER POSTON: I agree with Brad.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I think 

6 we're moving, I think the majority opinion is 

7 moving to observation and I very much agree with 

8 John that we have to assess whether the value of 

9 spending the time of a Subcommittee meeting, which 

10 is precious, if you will, also on this.

11 And let's just understand that this is 

12 one of those borderline calls. I'm going to move 

13 that we make it an observation and I would ask, 

14 would people like to have a vote, or?

15 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think that's 

16 necessary.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MEMBER POSTON: I agree, no.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Then 

20 I think we've all spoken and let's call it an 

21 observation and move on.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Done.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

2 further. It's 11:30 now. We have another half an 

3 hour until we make our lunch slash breakfast break.

4 What is the next one after 386.2?

5 Rocky Flats

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is Rocky 

7 Flats.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, 353, no, 

9 hold it.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, 353.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 353, excuse 

12 me. Go right ahead, Ron.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron. 

14 Yes, our next one's Rocky Flat, 353 Observation 

15 Number 1.

16 We have five tabs on this one with 

17 several observations in Rocky Flats. We have 

18 about five tabs and we have several observations 

19 and findings.

20 And the first one was 353, Observation 

21 Number 1. And in this case the records show that 

22 the worker did not work in '87, I mean, on the CATI 
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 report Scott said did not include '87.

2 So we questioned why NIOSH assigns a 

3 dose for 1987, and they explained that in the file 

4 that showed a 1987 dosimetry readout and so they 

5 assigned it for 1987.

6 And we looked at this and found out, we 

7 looked at documentation and found that that was 

8 true. There was a zero result recorded in 1987.

9 And so we agree that this was correct 

10 to assign that missed dose and NIOSH cleared the 

11 finding and SC&A observation so we suggested 

12 closing it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sounds 

14 good. Comments or concerns?
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I have 

2 none.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

4 let's close this, folks.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Looks good.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

8 Closed. Let's go on.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. We have 

10 Observation Number 2, the same case. And we're 

11 going to see this issue come up twice in this one 

12 and the next tab.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: We find out that the 

15 term non-penetrating wasn't defined, this is more 

16 TBD, Rocky Flat TBD issue.

17 Non-penetrating wasn't really defined. 

18 It was used in the DR. And this doesn't sound like 

19 a big deal but it is for Rocky Flats because they 

20 changed dosimetry systems a number of times and so 

21 non-penetrating had different, you calculated 

22 non-penetrating radiation doses differently for 
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 different periods.

2 And so we would've liked to seen this 

3 defined and suggest that we put in the TBD and NIOSH 

4 agreed that non-penetrating should be defined as 

5 each time for each time period and so did that would 

6 perhaps appear in the next revision of the Rocky 

7 Flat TBD. And we agree and suggest closure on 

8 that.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

10 That sounds --

11 MEMBER POSTON: I have a question.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, question?

13 MEMBER POSTON: Is this, does this 

14 definition change as a function of energy or is it 

15 a function of using film versus TLD versus OSL?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: It's the way they read 

17 the dosimeters and recorded them but they included 

18 in non-penetrate, or they included shallow, 

19 neutron and deep or it's just the shallow and gamma. 

20 It was the way they kept the records, mainly, and 

21 read the dosimetries. And that changed over a 

22 period of each, a period of time it would change.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, procedural changes 

2 apparently.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

4 Sounds like we could close this. Okay. Let's go 

5 on.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. The first 

7 finding was 353.1 and that was that the table made 

8 it the wrong neutron dose, energy rate, the IREP 

9 table, IREP table, used the wrong energy range and 

10 neutron category.

11 And so NIOSH checked this out and find 

12 out that the Crystal Ball version used at that time 

13 assigned miscoded neutron energy in the IREP table 

14 and that has since been corrected.

15 And it was claimant-favorable, 

16 however, but it used, instead of using the right 

17 one using dose conversion factors slightly 

18 greater, and so it was claimant-favorable and since 

19 then the error has been corrected and that older 

20 version is no longer used and we agree that 

21 claimant-favorable is a QA error and recommend 

22 closure.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

2 That sounds like a proper handling of that.

3 MEMBER MUNN: We can close.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

5 close, folks. Good, we will close it. Okay. 

6 354.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: 354, Observation 1. 

8 The same issue about non-penetrating definition. 

9 And again the same discussion. NIOSH agrees that 

10 they should be defined in the TBD as it applies to 

11 each period of dosimeter records. We agree and 

12 recommend closure.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Let me 

14 ask you. How is this different than the previous 

15 --

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Observation.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, this is 

18 Observation 1, excuse me, excuse me. This is not 

19 the same case.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: Correct.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

22 That sounds like it should be closed unless I hear 
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 concerns.

2 MEMBER BEACH: No concerns here, Dave.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

4 call it closed.

5 Thanks. Okay. Let's go to the next 

6 one. Was there any finding? Yes.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, we had one finding 

8 here. 354.1 is the shallow dose, whether we find 

9 shallow dose with, if the neutron dose out or not. 

10 And the workbook was correct that they used. 

11 However, the TBD stated it wrong so when we did the 

12 dose reconstruction review, we did not find that 

13 the dose reconstruction followed the TBD and so we 

14 flagged that as an error.

15 Looking at the workbook, the workbook 

16 did do it correctly so the correct dose was 

17 assigned. And so the TBD needs to be changed to 

18 match the workbook. And so that's what the status 

19 of that is.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

21 sounds reasonable. And NIOSH agreed?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. My screen's not 
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 showing any progress.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

3 That should be SC&A recommends closure. NIOSH is 

4 onboard with that, sounds like, should be closed.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: Someone still has a speaker 

8 phone open and this echoing is really awful.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it seems to be 

10 getting worse instead of better.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could my phone 

12 be acting up? I don't have anything else going on 

13 and I'm not speaking. I don't, now I hear stuff 

14 in the background. I hear, excuse me, noise in the 

15 background. I don't believe it's from me, but.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: So are you on a 

17 speaker phone, Dave?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I am not. 

19 No, I am not.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: So someone else on the line, 

22 you have a, someone that has a speaker phone open, 
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 this is the only way we get this reverb.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I'm 

3 sure it's inadvertent but people should 

4 double-check that they may have it on speaker. 

5 That sounds better. Nope. Nope, nope.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you don't have a 

7 mute button, you can push *6 and that'll mute your 

8 lines for us.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. Everyone except for 

10 the person talking should have their phone muted 

11 anyway.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How are we now?

13 MR. KATZ: That sounds better.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

15 better. Okay. We just finished 354.1. We're on 

16 354.2.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that was a dose, 

18 again it was a dose --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There it is.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: - conversion factor. 

21 And this was a, it was corrected in the workbook. 

22 They assigned the wrong energy range dose 
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 conversion factor. This has been corrected in the 

2 workbook. It was claimant-favorable so it did not 

3 impact the outcome of the case and this has been 

4 corrected and so it was a QA issue and we recommend 

5 closure.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Again, 

7 that sounds reasonable. We can, I think work 

8 through this echo for a few minutes and then we're 

9 going to be breaking and I hope when we come back 

10 all will be well. I don't want to spend more time 

11 on this, so let's close it. Do go ahead.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. We're on 428, 

13 Observation 1.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: And this says that 

16 Procedure 60 did not reflect what was in the Rocky 

17 Flats TBD revision at the time the dose 

18 reconstruction was performed.

19 And NIOSH agrees that Procedure 60 

20 needs updated to match the TBD, and so we have no 

21 further issue on that. And we both agree Procedure 

22 60 needs to be updated and recommend closure.
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. Again, 

2 sounds okay. Unless I hear anything and we'll move 

3 ahead. 428.1.

4 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is the 

5 opposite issue in that the TBD lists the lumbar 

6 spine doses differently than OTIB 6. And so in 

7 this case the TBD needs to be issued, updated to 

8 match the updated OTIB 6.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 DR. BUCHANAN: We agree with that and 

11 recommend closure.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And yes, 

13 right. Okay. Any comments or concerns by our 

14 Subcommittee Members?

15 MEMBER MUNN: No. Do it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Done. 

17 428.2.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. This is an older 

19 issue. These were done a while back. And so this 

20 was a, 428.2 is about the intake, some of these 

21 values recommending a TBD change with the function 

22 in years for the uranium intake.
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 And it looked like in the chronic manual 

2 dose workbook, dose reconstruction tool that 

3 accompanied the file that they used the first value 

4 and didn't change it.

5 It was pointed out by NIOSH that it 

6 appears that way in the summary when you open up 

7 the CADW Report. But if you look down following 

8 that it is broken down into different years and that 

9 the top lines are only the summary of total dose 

10 for those different intakes.

11 And so we have addressed this before. 

12 SC&A is now aware of where they do the actual 

13 breakdown and we agree that it was done properly 

14 and recommend closure.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And that 

16 sounds perfectly reasonable for closure unless I 

17 hear further comment.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

19 I'd point out that's probably an observation in 

20 that we did it correctly.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

22 correct values were used in the assessment?
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 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think that 

3 qualifies as a finding, excuse me, as an 

4 observation if the correct values were used.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we can accept that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

7 let's close it as an observation. Okay. Let's go 

8 on.

9 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So next one is 

10 419.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And this is a 

13 worker that worked at a number of places and the 

14 finding concerned here was Rocky Flats place.

15 And our first Finding Number 1 was the 

16 assignment of doses or photon energy. The 

17 percentage rate was 75, 25, or 50, 50, the energy 

18 of the photon assignment.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 DR. BUCHANAN: What we find out was 

21 that it was, the correct energy was used in IREP 

22 however the DR report used one range and then IREP 
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 actually assigned it correctly using another 

2 range. And so it was a quality issue in the text 

3 of the DR Report.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Could you 

5 go over that again also please speak up a little 

6 bit. Could you please, I'm a little bit unclear 

7 that the energy distribution should have been 75, 

8 25 and that IREP, 50, 50 was put in and IREP made 

9 it 75, 25, is that correct?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: Let's see.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Or do I have it 

12 --

13 DR. BUCHANAN: IREP used 75, 25. Dose 

14 reconstruction report used, stated 50, 50.

15 MEMBER BEACH: So this is where he 

16 worked, is that what the issue is?

17 DR. BUCHANAN: No, the issue is that 

18 the IREP used one energy range in the dose 

19 reconstruction. The IREP used a different one. 

20 The dose reconstruction states one and the IREP 

21 used a different one.

22 We don't necessarily agree with that. 
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 We've had some debate on that but that wasn't the 

2 issue. The issue was it was different from what 

3 the dose reconstruction report stated in the text.

4 MR. KATZ: So it's just an error in the 

5 narrative in the dose reconstruction, is what 

6 you're saying?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And the 

9 calculation was done properly?

10 DR. BUCHANAN: According to the way 

11 NIOSH wanted to assign the dose, yes, the energy.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So that 

13 seems again to be an observation. Right. Using 

14 our standards. So can we close it as an 

15 observation? Does anybody have a concern?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Ron, do you agree with 

17 the assignment of 50, 50?

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Well, I didn't do this 

19 case so I didn't go back and look at all the data 

20 on it. But it appears to be somewhat, you know, 

21 a matter of choice.

22 You know, there didn't seem to be a 
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 definite indication which one should be used, 

2 although we would've probably used the other range 

3 as stated in the DR. Either one could have been 

4 selected.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In this case the 

6 process through which we went corrected what the 

7 person said in the report, right? I mean, they 

8 recorded 50, 50 and the program corrected it?

9 MR. KATZ: Well, Dave, it's not the 

10 program. I mean, someone's inputting that data in 

11 the IREP, right?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, and it's 

13 input of that data itself, okay. Alright, I see.

14 MR. KATZ: The input was correct but 

15 what they said in their dose reconstruction 

16 narrative, they put the wrong ratio in.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it, got it. 

18 Okay. So what do people say? Observation?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, if we follow the 

20 same logic that we've been using previously then 

21 this would follow as an observation.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Rose, I couldn't hear 
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 you, Rose.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If we follow the same 

3 logic that we assigned at the last meeting where 

4 if there was an error in the dose reconstruction 

5 report that didn't impact the actual dose 

6 reconstruction, so the dose reconstruction report 

7 said the wrong thing but they did it correctly, at 

8 the last meeting you indicated that you wanted 

9 those observations.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now Dave, if I can 

14 speak for one second.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Historically we've 

17 always tracked QA findings as issues such as this 

18 where there was a problem in the dose 

19 reconstruction report. But we're now dropping 

20 these all down to observations so these would all 

21 fall out of that category.

22 Do you want me to expand that to now 
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 include QA observations as well? This has to do 

2 with reporting for the next Secretary letter.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Because I'm concerned 

5 that we're losing all of these QA issues when you're 

6 dropping them down to observations versus 

7 findings.

8 MEMBER MUNN: That's a valid concern. 

9 It's a truly valid concern.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MEMBER MUNN: I'm a little concerned 

12 about changing our view of these things. It's 

13 really, well, if I were a cartoon character I would 

14 have a large balloon over my head right now that 

15 says, hmm.

16 Because there's more to be concerned 

17 with here than just simply our metrics that are 

18 going to the Secretary. But again, we're 

19 time-constrained and how much time you're going to 

20 devote to deliberating which is sometimes what 

21 we're debating.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I think 
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 that when we finish the last report, we're trying 

2 to start the next report with a bit more clarity 

3 than we had in the previous one and I know that I, 

4 as a Member of the Subcommittee, was not very clear 

5 in my own mind about observation versus finding.

6 And I think we've tried to correct it 

7 and adjust it so I don't mind changing but now we're 

8 changing for a new report and I'm, I think our 

9 definition is reasonable, I guess, and even though 

10 it does make for some changes in the array of 

11 finding versus, in the distribution of findings 

12 versus observations. Other comments?

13 MEMBER MUNN: The problem though still 

14 focuses around losing all our, are we going to lose 

15 all of our QA commentary because we're putting them 

16 under observations? That's a real concern so 

17 because one of the things we really and truly wanted 

18 to be able to save.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Wanda, I mean, when you have 

21 a QA issue that affects dose, that's still going 

22 to be captured. What you're losing here is what 
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 we're calling a QA issue in how well the narrative, 

2 how correct the narrative in the dose 

3 reconstruction is.

4 And that technical narrative is really, 

5 has only one audience which is the auditors, the 

6 dose reconstruction people themselves, whether 

7 it's the folks at NIOSH and the auditors, but 

8 certainly the worker receiving the dose 

9 reconstruction, these narratives on these details 

10 are meaningless.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, to the claimant 

12 though, when a claimant sees their report, if it 

13 says one thing and the claimant agrees with that 

14 and something different was done, the claimant 

15 doesn't have an outlet to --

16 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean what I'm 

17 saying, Rose, is that a claimant, whether it's 50, 

18 50 or 25, 75, that's all meaningless to the 

19 claimant.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree but in it they 

21 select, the reason that it's selected is based on 

22 their work location. So if the claimant sees I 
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 worked in this and they assigned this because of 

2 that and something different was actually done and 

3 assumed, then the claimant doesn't have an outlet 

4 to use to correct that because they don't know an 

5 error had occurred.

6 MR. KATZ: Well again, the claimant is 

7 in the position to do that in the first place, but.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, since we're all 

9 going to our feeling about it, myself, I am 

10 interested especially being on this committee this 

11 long, we have, I know it may be just an observation 

12 but I kind of like to see the ones that are QA issue 

13 because we've worked very hard to be able to, and 

14 I know NIOSH has been and everybody else, to be able 

15 to take care of these QA issues. Myself, I'd still 

16 like to see even though it is an observation, is 

17 the QA observations.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that 

19 something that we could do or could record?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can easily record QA 

21 observations and QA findings. I could total them 

22 but if I'm not tracking them now then it's going 
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 to be a lot harder to go back and do it versus doing 

2 it --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But we 

4 are now, right, we are now in the beginning of the 

5 new set of the 14 through 18, I mean, and therefore 

6 the new report. So we can make changes now and this 

7 is the time.

8 MEMBER POSTON: Well, to me this is 

9 sort of like keeping a batting average we sort of 

10 need to, it's a --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead, John.

12 MEMBER POSTON: Well, it's an 

13 indication of what's going on. And I think if we 

14 had a lot of QA issues then it would tell us what 

15 we need to follow up on these, so it's an indication 

16 of the quality in the work.

17 So if we have a low QA issue then that's 

18 an indication it's good. So if we don't have that 

19 information it's like having a baseball player want 

20 $10,000,000 and he's got no batting average because 

21 he didn't keep up with it or nobody kept up with 

22 it.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I mean we 

2 can, I think we can, at this point we have not done 

3 that many of Set 14, that we can go back and assign 

4 for the observation QA or not QA, or just --

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would really like to 

6 see that. This is just Brad.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I like what 

9 Rose had to say about this. And John, you're 

10 correct. I'd just like to, it'd just give us, 

11 well, it just gives me a better idea of what we're 

12 actually dealing with in here, what we have seen.

13 And the observation and stuff we've 

14 come up to a pretty good line of that. But still 

15 if Rose could track her stuff I would, myself, still 

16 like to be able to see it because the difference 

17 between a QA issue and observation and just another 

18 observation, I'm --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

20 sounds good. I mean, we don't want to lose 

21 information. We want to gather as much 

22 information as we can in a responsible way that 
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 doesn't tie us up in knots.

2 And Rose, if you think it's not a big, 

3 if you think that we can look at the observations, 

4 the ones that have been done in Set 14 now and really 

5 just make a notation for those that are QA.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can absolutely do 

7 that and with very minimal effort, so.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds very 

9 good. And my feeling is that that would be a proper 

10 procedure. I want to make sure other Committee 

11 Members come in on this because this is an important 

12 decision actually.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I have one more 

14 thing to say about that.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Conversely, conversely, 

17 if we are in a position where we're pulling things 

18 to at the issues that are not specifically an error 

19 of some sort, then the casual observer reading the 

20 metrics later is going to get a mistaken notion of 

21 what has been assigned.

22 And therefore we're going to have to be 
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 very conscious about what we call a QA issue if 

2 we're going to track them in this particular 

3 manner.

4 We'll have to be very cautious of that, 

5 I think. Because to the rest of the world out there 

6 I agree that a QA issue is going to be determined 

7 as being essentially in most cases a personnel 

8 failure issue. And this is not necessarily true 

9 in many of these cases. We're kind of blithe about 

10 some of these QA issues.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Several of them I very 

13 much dislike having us transmit information that 

14 could be that easily misconstrued by the casual 

15 reader.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. The 

17 question is who sees, to whom do we report about 

18 the extent of the QA and that seems to me it's the 

19 Secretary and implicitly the Agency, DHHS. That's 

20 not --

21 MEMBER MUNN: My point is being very 

22 clear about the definition of what we're calling 
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 a QA finding.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: That's my point.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. So, Wanda, so I mean 

5 the way we've just discussed it, these observations 

6 relating to how clear or correct the documentation 

7 is versus the actual dose reconstruction, where 

8 there are QA issues we would be able to sum up, you 

9 know, how frequently our dose reconstruction 

10 report is accurately written up. That's what 

11 we're saying here.

12 And we'll be able to tell people fact 

13 from -- based on this audit. So it's clearer than 

14 it was before for sure because now we're 

15 characterizing it as an observation.

16 It wasn't a problem with the dose that 

17 someone received. It's just a problem with what 

18 was said to them together with their dose.

19 So I don't know, I think this a degree 

20 clearer than it was before in all the previous 

21 reports which seems to me an improvement.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Let me make 
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 a suggestion. It's now 12:01 East Coast time. I 

2 think we could all benefit from having a bite to 

3 eat and relax for a few moments and then let's come 

4 back to this when we resume at one o'clock and see 

5 how we feel.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

8 good, folks. See you all at one o'clock and we will 

9 resume this discussion, and think a little bit more 

10 over our meals about how we feel. Okay. Thank 

11 you, all.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

13 went off the record at 12:02 p.m. and resumed at 

14 1:02 p.m.)

15 Remaining Cases and Discussion

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. To 

17 Wanda, I was just wondering, I was thinking the 

18 concern is that this adding the QA to the 

19 observations may be misinterpreted, and I do 

20 understand that.

21 On the other hand, thinking about it 

22 over lunch, if we gather more information, we can 
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 always choose at a later date not to use it in the 

2 report for the Secretary if we think it really does 

3 lend itself to misinterpretation, but if we don't 

4 gather the data then we don't have it.

5 We can, of course, at the very end go 

6 back and go over everything, but that's a huge job, 

7 whereas collecting more information now will give 

8 us information that we cannot use if it's not, if 

9 it is open to misinterpretation.

10 So I'm kind of thinking that we should 

11 do it. We should just put QA in under observation 

12 as well as under findings.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I don't --

14 MR. KATZ: And I can just add to your 

15 note, Dave, if you are going to report to the 

16 Secretary about QA, the matter of whether, you 

17 know, the reports, the descriptions in the reports 

18 are written well, I mean that you're going to write 

19 clearly and simply anyway.

20 So I don't think in real circumstances 

21 when you report to the Secretary, if it's a report 

22 on that matter, it's very easy to describe what you 
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 are saying.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: So, yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well let me clarify one 

5 thing for myself. I have no objection, quite to 

6 the contrary, I was one of those that in the early 

7 days requested that we seriously consider and 

8 incorporate the concept of a QA designation for our 

9 record keeping and we did that early, early on.

10 How we came to not be doing it in quite 

11 the same way I don't even recall, but I certainly 

12 am not averse to the idea of classifying the issues 

13 as QA issues.

14 My only concern, my only concern is that 

15 it not be misinterpreted by the reader when we 

16 decide to do the kinds of decisions we've been 

17 making today.

18 I think they are appropriate, but by the 

19 same token we make two kinds of quality decisions. 

20 What we are making here is a difference between, 

21 for example, manual copying incorrectly, typos, 

22 misnumbering of tables, you know, using the wrong 
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 citations.

2 But that's an entirely different thing 

3 than a well-intentioned and very careful reviewer 

4 calling attention to something that they might have 

5 a question about that just simply did not appear 

6 obvious to them.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: And that's my only 

9 concern. But, no, please don't mistake my comment 

10 as being either wanting to hold up the train or 

11 being averse to the idea of having a QA 

12 classification in our activities here.

13 I think it's not only appropriate, but 

14 necessary, but I was simply calling attention to 

15 the fact that there is more than one type of issue 

16 going into this --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's true.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- and just looking at 

19 numbers after the fact --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's my only concern.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well how 
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 about other Subcommittee Members, what's your --

2 how are you thinking, what are you thinking now?

3 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with what Wanda 

4 said. I do believe that there is a difference 

5 between them, but I also believe we should track 

6 them moving forward.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. You 

9 already know my opinion. I think that we should 

10 be tracking it and I think myself personally, it 

11 will be self-explanatory because there is a 

12 difference between QA issues and knowing these 

13 observations.

14 But I think it gives us more information 

15 to be able to understand what's going on, so I'm 

16 good with it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. John?

18 (No response.)

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: John I think is 

20 going off mute.

21 MEMBER POSTON: Can you hear me?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we can.
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 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. Sorry, I was 

2 going the wrong way.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

4 MEMBER POSTON: But I don't have 

5 anything substantial to add. I just thought the 

6 idea of keeping score was something that we 

7 probably needed to do.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well it 

9 sounds like the majority of us want to put the QA 

10 in with the observation and I think we should move 

11 ahead with that and keep in mind this discussion 

12 which is a good one.

13 So let's go forward beyond 419.1. What 

14 is our next, 0.2? Pardon, 0.2?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct, Ron and 

16 Emily.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. This is Ron and 

18 we're going on to the findings now that was for 419 

19 and I want to give a little bit of background 

20 because Findings 2, 3, and 4 all hinge on the 

21 following issue, and that is what should this 

22 worker have been assigned as far as external and 
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 internal dose.

2 Let me review this case a little bit so 

3 it gives you a little better background because 

4 there is some decision here that needed to be made 

5 on what should have been assigned.

6 This worker worked as an [identifying 

7 information redacted]. The CATI report was not 

8 very definite on what the worker did or anything 

9 that stood out by the survivor.

10 The worker worked at the Fermi National 

11 Lab, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and the 

12 Nevada Test Site for a short time in [identifying 

13 information redacted], and then at the Rocky Flats 

14 plant.

15 And the question is at the Rocky Flats 

16 plant (telephonic interference) what kind of dose. 

17 The worker worked at the Fermi Lab in [identifying 

18 information redacted], Livermore [identifying 

19 information redacted], was at the Nevada Test Site 

20 [identifying information redacted], worked at the 

21 Rocky Flats plant from [identifying information 

22 redacted], and visited there in [identifying 
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 information redacted].

2 The worker was badged at most of the 

3 facilities except Rocky Flats, and the worker was 

4 badged the last part of '91 and '92, so there is 

5 about from '87 to '91 the worker was not badged at 

6 Rocky Flats and the worker did not have any 

7 bioassays, I believe, at Fermi, the Nevada Test 

8 Site or Rocky Flats.

9 The worker was assigned at Fermi Lab, 

10 there was no bioassay and there is no ambient 

11 significant dose and so was not assigned a dose 

12 there.

13 The Livermore Lab had some bioassays 

14 and assigned, they was all below detectable, so it 

15 was based on the MDA and environmental when there 

16 was no bioassay.

17 The Nevada Test Site there was no 

18 bioassay that was covered under the SEC. Of 

19 course, they couldn't reconstruct intake there, 

20 and Rocky Flats there was no bioassay, but was 

21 badged at the end of the employment period at Rocky 

22 Flats.
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 So according to the title the person was 

2 a [identifying information redacted] at all of the 

3 facilities and there was some question then since 

4 the worker was badged on the last part of '91 and 

5 '92 but not the earlier part from '87 to '91 and 

6 did not have bioassays, what should be assigned, 

7 and this applies to photon dose and to neutron dose 

8 and to internal intake.

9 And so I went over that to give you an 

10 idea of what this person was involved in because 

11 they questioned four -- Findings 2, 3, and 4 was 

12 since the worker was not badged, the dose 

13 reconstructor assigned a missed dose for the end 

14 of '91 and '92 when the worker was badged for four 

15 quarters and zeros were recorded.

16 The worker was assigned environmental 

17 dose for all the previous times, years at Rocky

18 Flats, the four years before that and the internal 

19 dose was assigned environmental intakes.

20 And that was based upon apparently one 

21 statement, or at least one statement which the 

22 worker at Livermore National Lab, it was stated 
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 that the worker was involved in plant and 

2 environmental sampling, Page 9 of the DOL file, and 

3 so this was assumed that it would have similar jobs 

4 at Rocky Flats.

5 SC&A questioned this in that there 

6 really is no written documentation what the worker 

7 did at Rocky Flats and so it did not state that he 

8 worked in the environment at Rocky Flats and at one 

9 place it said helped with cleanup.

10 And so SC&A, the reason they made these 

11 three findings was to bring out the point that the 

12 worker did not have dosimetry in the early part of 

13 Rocky Flats, did in the later part, and according 

14 to the Rocky Flats guidance it says that coworker 

15 dose should be assigned when there is gaps in the 

16 dosimetry dose.

17 Now this was, of course, more than a 

18 gap, about four years from '87 to '91, and there 

19 was no bioassay data. So it brings up to sort of 

20 a judgment call on whether this person should have 

21 been assigned environmental or coworker dose.

22 And so this is what SC&A was bringing 
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 up these three findings for, so I feel that this 

2 needs some discussion on what should have been 

3 assigned.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Ron, I don't see the 

5 case attached here, did I just miss it, because 

6 normally these have the case where we can review 

7 the cases on them?

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. I believe it's 

9 attached up on the first one --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, there it is, yes. 

11 Yes, I got it.

12 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

13 And I'm not very familiar with this particular 

14 case, but during the years that the individual was 

15 monitored during the end of his employment at Rocky 

16 Flats, did he have, what kind of doses were the 

17 dosimeter readings recording?

18 MR. SIEBERT: They were all zeros.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: All zeros, four 

20 quarters in the end of '91 and part of '92 up until 

21 termination were zeros, right.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And Ron explained it 
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 pretty well. This is Scott. Our position is the 

2 fact that it doesn't appear that there is any reason 

3 to doubt that Rocky Flats was monitoring when they 

4 needed to because they did actually monitor him at 

5 some point.

6 When they did monitor him they were 

7 clearly zeros, the deep dose, so they are really 

8 -- and they didn't gather any bioassay data. Based 

9 on that and the fact that the word cleanup from a 

10 survivor can mean a lot of different things, there 

11 really wasn't a reason for us to believe that the 

12 person was being exposed when there was no 

13 monitoring being done by the site.

14 Generally speaking the Rocky Flats site 

15 was, their program was they were monitoring 

16 individuals when they needed to be, so that's the 

17 bottom line as to why it was not assigned.

18 There does not appear to be any reason 

19 that the individual should have been monitored, and 

20 just one thing I want to point out, the portion of 

21 the DR guidance that Ron quoted saying that for gaps 

22 we should assign coworker, that is accurate when 
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 we believe that monitoring should have occurred.

2 However, in this case, it doesn't 

3 appear, to us at least, that monitoring should have 

4 occurred. There is just no indication that the 

5 person was being exposed.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Too, 

7 you know, looking at his job title, too, that's 

8 probably not, he was behind a desk most of the time. 

9 Sorry, that was --

10 MR. SIEBERT: Well --

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: That was a joke for 

12 you guys.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I was on mute. 

14 Dave. So I missed that, but how confident are we 

15 that the person worked outdoors?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: That is the issue. 

17 We're not sure. We only go, NIOSH is going by the 

18 statement that he worked outdoors at Livermore, in 

19 the environment.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean 

21 because --

22 DR. BUCHANAN: We don't know at Rocky 
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 Flats.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There. I mean 

3 there may have been studies where they put, you 

4 know, they put a radioactive source near the plant 

5 so they could see what the impact was, in which case 

6 the person, you know, the plants are being dosed 

7 and the persons working around the plant.

8 Now you acknowledge that the people at 

9 Rocky Flats, the evidence would be that if the 

10 people at Rocky Flats didn't measure his dose then 

11 they probably didn't need to measure it, but that's 

12 not, one can't be altogether confident about that.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Well once again, and a 

14 few reminders, the individual was working for 

15 [identifying information redacted] during the time 

16 frame, that's an [identifying information 

17 redacted] consulting company.

18 You know, they're not necessarily the 

19 people who run out and swing meters. They are 

20 generally looking at various parts of a process and 

21 it all depends on specifically what he was doing.

22 But once again, it's a subcontractor 
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 who there is no indication whatsoever that he 

2 should have been monitored, was monitored for some 

3 of the time.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

5 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

6 And, again, this was in the '80s and '90s so I also 

7 would have anticipated he would have been monitored 

8 if he needed to be during that time frame. If it 

9 was earlier --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, that's 

11 true. I mean the programs picked up all over in 

12 the '80s and '90s in terms of doing things 

13 consistently and having improved oversight.

14 MEMBER MUNN: We have no reason to 

15 believe that he should have been monitored. 

16 Nothing indicates that that's a probability.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

18 true. Well, should we go along with ambient dose?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well is there any further 

20 discussion on this necessary?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I don't --

22 I don't feel entirely comfortable, but on the other 
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 hand I agree that there is not evidence to 

2 contradict the external dose assignment, so I guess 

3 I would go along with it. Again, other comments?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I kind of disagree, 

5 Dave, and only because I think that it bears more 

6 looking into.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MEMBER BEACH: I mean it's hard to make 

9 a judgment when you don't have all the facts.

10 MEMBER MUNN: We never have all the 

11 facts.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Well I understand that, 

13 but --

14 MEMBER MUNN: And what can you do to try 

15 to identify where, we can't -- as the claimants have 

16 pointed out to us from day one, we can't tell where 

17 they went.

18 That's the same old thing that we have 

19 over and over again.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MEMBER MUNN: You don't know where they 

22 went and in the absence of evidence that folks were 
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 exposed we can't just out of the goodness of our 

2 hearts assume that everybody is being dosed with 

3 the worst, or even mediocre or even elevated 

4 exposures.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: We can't make things up 

7 by ourselves any more than they can make things up 

8 by themselves.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Is there 

10 any more information that we could gather if we were 

11 to ask for further work on this and not make a 

12 decision? Where could we turn for further 

13 evidence, Josie?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Have we ever thought

15 about talking to [identifying information 

16 redacted] about this --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Have we ever thought 

19 about talking to [identifying information 

20 redacted] about this, have we researched that?

21 It's my understanding that he was part 

22 of his association. He'd be able to tell us what 
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 kind of work he did or if he was even out in the 

2 area.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Well, and the choices 

5 between ambient dose or coworker model, is that 

6 correct --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER BEACH: -- and which one is more 

9 claimant-favorable.

10 DR. NETON: Brad, this is Jim. I think 

11 trying to find out what the contract that 

12 [identifying information redacted] had during that 

13 time period might be worthwhile.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I said that 

15 jokingly. I was trying to get a rise out of Scott, 

16 or you, or somebody, but the whole thing is, is what 

17 Scott said, they weren't the ones out there 

18 swinging the meter, but he may have had a process, 

19 and this is why I hate putting a name or a job title 

20 on somebody, he may have been out assessing part 

21 of the process for anything else like that which 

22 it may have been more or less, but, you know, you'd 
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 think that it would monitored.

2 DR. NETON: It certainly would have

3 been some type of a contract, which, you know, there 

4 is probably records at [identifying information 

5 redacted] related to that.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just think --

7 DR. NETON: But I'm not sure 

8 logistically how that would work, how we would 

9 approach [identifying information redacted], but 

10 I think it merits some consideration.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think with a phone 

12 call maybe, I don't know. But anyway, yes, that 

13 would be --

14 DR. NETON: Probably got the Privacy 

15 Act thing going here.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 DR. NETON: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why don't we try 

19 that? Why don't we try to see if we can get some 

20 more information on a contract?

21 MEMBER MUNN: I have no objection to 

22 that, but I might point out that if I was 
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 understanding correctly what we were just 

2 discussing this employee is not just a Rocky Flats 

3 employee.

4 Apparently there were many other cases, 

5 many other sites where he was involved in work also, 

6 in which case we're talking about a nightmare of 

7 coworker models.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and one thing I 

9 want to point out, too, is once again he was 

10 monitored during some of his time at Rocky Flats 

11 and everything was zero.

12 So it really doesn't make sense in my 

13 mind that the times where he wasn't monitored we 

14 would be assigning coworker, which is a much larger 

15 value than any indication of anything even when he 

16 was monitored at the site.

17 It just doesn't pass the sniff test to 

18 me.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Add to that the fact that 

21 I can't imagine [identifying information redacted]

22 organization sending any employee into harm's way 
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 without a badge. I can't imagine that. So, yes, 

2 it just doesn't make sense to me in the first place. 

3 They wouldn't do it themselves.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do they have any 

5 data?

6 MEMBER MUNN: I doubt --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do you think 

8 they would have any data?

9 MR. SIEBERT: I can't imagine that they 

10 would. They would have been monitored by the site.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

12 MR. SIEBERT: But once again, 

13 remember, this person is an [identifying 

14 information redacted], so they know what they are 

15 doing and whether there should be monitoring 

16 involved, in my mind.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's true. 

19 That's true. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Once 

21 again, I really don't think there is much more, 

22 actually I don't think there is any more 
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 information that we could really find out that's 

2 going to give us anything more definitive.

3 I think it just comes down to a 

4 professional judgement of what seems appropriate 

5 for this type of individual based on the 

6 information that we have on hand.

7 And NIOSH has made pretty clear where 

8 we believe that the preponderance of the evidence 

9 lays.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well I think, I 

11 guess I'm coming around to what do we lose. What 

12 do we lose trying to find out a little bit more 

13 information?

14 I think you're right that probably 

15 we're not going to get anything much more, but I 

16 would feel more comfortable, as usual, trying to 

17 get all the information that we can get and then 

18 making a decision, hard or not, with that.

19 And this is somewhat more information, 

20 the contract, and it wouldn't involve perhaps more 

21 than a phone call, so it would simply delay this, 

22 delay this review.
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 So I think I would actually opt for 

2 holding it and checking with the -- checking out 

3 the contract. Is that something that NIOSH would 

4 do?

5 MEMBER MUNN: It would be something 

6 NIOSH would have to do.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

8 MEMBER MUNN: If we are going to 

9 recommend that, I hesitate to do that myself, but 

10 your call.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, if it's my 

12 call I would say let's check it out and the worst 

13 that will happen is we spent a little time and we've 

14 got -- and we will make a decision the next time, 

15 so let's hold it until the next meeting.

16 I assume we can get that information by 

17 the next meeting. Yes, Jim?

18 DR. NETON: Yes, I think so.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 DR. NETON: At least attempt to get it.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

22 let's go on, then. Three, four -- and obviously 
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 three, four, and five are going to be about the same 

2 issue, right?

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Two, three, and four.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Two, three, and four are 

6 the same issue.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we'll hold 

10 all those till we get -- and then we'll make a 

11 decision. So let's go on to Task 419.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So we'll go to 

13 419. The observation happens to be listed at the 

14 end here, so we'll cover it now.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: This was where we 

17 believe NIOSH did perform, they didn't respond so 

18 it's still open, the dose -- this observation was 

19 that the dose reconstructor followed OTIB-5, but 

20 had been very helpful, but this was finding the 

21 primary cancer site because -- this was necessary 

22 to go through the process to find what the primary, 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the candidates for the primary cancer site would 

2 be for this particular cancer.

3 And it was found that it was the lung, 

4 and so it took a lot of dose reconstructing on our 

5 part to find out how they, that they arrived at the 

6 lung. It was just stated in the DR the lung and 

7 it went on to do the dose reconstruction, which was 

8 done correctly.

9 Other than the other issues we've had, 

10 we had no problems with using the lung except it 

11 would have saved us a lot of work if they had stated 

12 that they went through the organs and found the lung 

13 was the highest in whatever they went through.

14 So this is an observation that would 

15 save us auditors lot of work if we do this to begin 

16 with, because we had to verify that that was true 

17 in this case.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 DR. BUCHANAN: And so that was our 

20 observation and they didn't provide a response, so 

21 I don't know how you want to handle that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Oh, I 
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 think that was well -- your concerns were well taken 

2 and this is indeed an observation and you did find 

3 out that, in fact, lung was the most appropriate 

4 organ.

5 So I would just say this is good 

6 observation and close it, unless anybody else has 

7 concerns.

8 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

10 to the next one. Okay, wait a minute, 419 --

11 DR. BUCHANAN: That's a duplicate. 

12 Rose --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, it is.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: -- you might want to 

15 remove that.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Rose, I 

17 don't know who -- who removes it, the duplicate?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'll contact Laurie 

19 and she can remove it for me.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, alright. 

21 Good. And are we up to Rocky Flats 388?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, 388, Observation 
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 1. Okay, this is, we want to clarify because I 

2 think we covered this before, but this observation 

3 was about when we use 100 percent less than 30 keV 

4 photons, 100 percent 30 to 250 keV photons, and I 

5 think that we covered this previously and that you 

6 said this would be clarified in the revised TBD, 

7 but it hadn't been issued yet.

8 And so for this observation I'm just 

9 asking that NIOSH clarify that we understand this 

10 right, that for dose reconstruction at Rocky Flats 

11 we use 100 percent less than 30 keV and 100 percent 

12 250, or 30 to 250 keV for recorded dosimetry data, 

13 or coworker data, we only use the split of 25/75 

14 plutonium workers when we use an external dose 

15 rate, is this a correct statement?

16 MR. SIEBERT: That's accurate.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And that will be 

18 clarified in the revised TBD?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. It's 

20 presently in the Rocky Flats dose reconstructor 

21 guidance.

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, then 

2 that closes that observation.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And the next two 

4 we can go through fairly quick, 388.1 is the 1966 

5 neutron dose not assigned, and NIOSH agreed that 

6 that's a correct observation and that it was an 

7 error in the workbook version at that time and that 

8 it was a small dose, it wouldn't impact, but it was 

9 an error and it had since been corrected.

10 We went back and checked the later 

11 version of the Rocky Flats workbook and checked 

12 that Column W is correct now and it has -- there 

13 it has been corrected and we recommend closing it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Move to 

15 close, anybody have any concerns?

16 Okay.

17 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

18 Could I just ask a question?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

20 MS. BEHLING: That error, was that an 

21 increase in dose or a decrease in dose and was there 

22 any need to look back on other cases? Maybe I 
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 missed something.

2 In other words, if there was an error 

3 in the workbook and it was corrected that's fine, 

4 but is there any need to go back to cases that were 

5 done using that workbook if this would have an 

6 impact on increasing their dose?

7 MEMBER MUNN: We do that automatically 

8 with procedures, but not necessarily with 

9 workbook.

10 MS. BEHLING: Scott, do you -- can you, 

11 do you have any --

12 MR. SIEBERT: We do track the changes 

13 to the workbooks and one of the things we had 

14 discussed with NIOSH is when it is appropriate to 

15 go back and do a PER based on workbook changes, so 

16 that discussion is an ongoing discussion.

17 I can't specifically speak to this one, 

18 but suffice it to say, we are looking at those 

19 situations when they are appropriate and we are 

20 dealing with PERs.

21 This was done in 2008. I'd have to look 

22 at it, it may have already been covered under PER 
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 -- for another Rocky Flats PER.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Because I usually 

3 keep track of the PERs on this end and I'm not sure 

4 that I am aware of this. I don't know if we need 

5 to look into that further or not.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It would be a worthwhile 

7 piece of information probably.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? Wanda, 

9 pardon?

10 MEMBER MUNN: I said it would probably 

11 be a worthwhile piece of information.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it would 

13 be.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it's just a matter 

15 of checking records.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's just check 

17 it for next time and just leave it in progress.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so that would be a 

19 NIOSH action?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right, 

21 NIOSH. Okay, 0.2?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, now 0.2 is a very 
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 similar issue as they omitted the dose for 1964 and, 

2 again, this was the older version of the Rocky Flats 

3 Workbook, ignored the zero, and it was changed in 

4 the revised in 4.04 and it resulted an omission of 

5 a small dose.

6 And then we did go back and check the 

7 later version of the workbook and it had been 

8 corrected in Column U, but it's the same issue as 

9 the previous one.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

11 should it not then be just checked?

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, we can do the same 

13 as before.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, let's do 

15 that, folks. Let's just check it. So we'll do 0.1 

16 and 0.2. Is there another?

17 DR. BUCHANAN: That's all of them.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is the end of this 

19 matrix, so we'll open the next one here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

21 that's fine. Then let's go on to INL and NTS.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, moving 

2 right along.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The first one here is 

4 an INL case, Tab 422, Finding 1, and the finding 

5 was that NIOSH did not assign any missed neutron 

6 dose for the years 2000, 2001, 2009, and 2010.

7 When NIOSH looked at this they found 

8 that really two separate errors had occurred here. 

9 With the 2000 and 2001, this was an error that 

10 simply the DR missed and --

11 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, can we say 

12 again which finding number we are talking about? 

13 It's not on --

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 422.1.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, my -- is it on --

17 okay.

18 MR. KATZ: And this is INL?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then the second 

22 issue was for 2009 and 2010, the dose reconstructor 
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 calculated the dose correctly, but when they were 

2 copying and pasting their work into IREP, which 

3 does the actual PoC calculations, they missed the 

4 last two lines.

5 The IREP, the workbook now doesn't make 

6 the dose reconstructors cut and paste anymore, so 

7 that type of error is eliminated in future dose 

8 reconstructions.

9 However, the first error was just a 

10 manual DR entry.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

12 it's a quality --

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this has a very 

14 minor impact on this particular case, so we would 

15 recommend closing the finding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right, 

17 that sounds reasonable. It was an error, quality 

18 assurance error. Okay, should close.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Again, unless I 

21 hear anybody -- as we move along if there is ever 

22 any question by our Subcommittee Members just say 
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 so. Let's go ahead to 422.2.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. In this finding 

3 NIOSH was intending to model a chronic intake of 

4 actinides for January 1989 through December 2000, 

5 but they actually only modeled the chronic intake 

6 for the year 1989, so they selected the wrong end 

7 date which resulted in omitting a decade worth of 

8 dose.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hmm.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH agrees this 

11 was an error that happened in the CADW Workbook, 

12 but it didn't have a significant impact on the PoC 

13 of the case.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Missing a decade 

15 did not have --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Of chronic intake.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Chronic intake, 

18 okay, alright. Then that sounds like it should be 

19 closed.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, Tab 
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

1 422, Finding 3, and the finding states that there 

2 was a failure to account for recycled highly 

3 enriched uranium contaminants and NIOSH does agree 

4 that they didn't include this.

5 They should have included it, however, 

6 if they included it the results would have been 

7 insignificant. The TBD does require that it is 

8 documented, or specifically states that it should 

9 be documented, even if the dose was less than a 

10 millirem.

11 So it didn't have an impact on the case, 

12 but it should have been discussed in the DR Report.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Now is 

14 this, is the problem that it wasn't discussed?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It wasn't even 

16 considered here.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

18 that's -- then it should have been.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It should have been 

20 considered.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's just a matter of 
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 finding out that it doesn't contribute would have 

2 been.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I think we 

6 should close it as an observation.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Moving on to 

8 the next case here is an INL and ANL-West case, 

9 Finding 372.1, and here this has to do with X-ray 

10 dose that was assigned.

11 It was a skin cancer on the [identifying 

12 information redacted] of the EE and it should have 

13 been assigned as a lung dose from an X-ray point 

14 of view and instead NIOSH used the entrance skin 

15 dose.

16 And there was also a secondary aspect 

17 of this finding where NIOSH had assigned an X-ray 

18 to the year 1969 even though the EE wasn't employed 

19 at that time.

20 And so when you take those two things 

21 into consideration they actually kind of cancel 

22 each other out and the dose does decrease.
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.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And here you will see 

3 the --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It was a very low PoC 

6 to begin with.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is really 

8 low. But, anyway, that's again, not to be 

9 considered in our findings so much as the fact that 

10 we corrected the X-ray dose and calculated the 

11 probability.

12 So that should be closed. It just 

13 seems to me there's not even a question on that.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would agree.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 

17 observation comes from Tab 383, which is an INL and 

18 Nevada Test Site case.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Here the observation 

21 states that we found the use of a BP, which is a 

22 beta/photon ratio, was, a five was used for this 
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 particular claimant who was a [identifying 

2 information redacted] and we thought that was just 

3 excessively claimant-favorable.

4 The TBD recommends that you only use 

5 that value when the EE is a tunnel operator and a 

6 value of 1.04 for all other workers. And NIOSH 

7 agreed that this was acceptably claimant-favorable 

8 and would result in a very large, an overestimated 

9 dose and recommends --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

11 that, but that -- under any circumstance that 

12 wouldn't change the decision, right? I mean, 

13 we're not looking to see what the PoC, the 

14 compensation decision?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The compensation 

16 decision, I believe, was not impacted by that.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

18 Okay, I think that we should close it.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright, and the next 

22 one from the same case is the first finding, and 
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 the finding states that NIOSH used a 30 millirem 

2 recorded photon dose for the year 1958 to the 

3 [identifying information redacted] which is not 

4 listed in the DOE file.

5 And here actually NIOSH points out that 

6 it was listed in the files, but they incorrectly 

7 did not assign it to the [identifying information 

8 redacted] and did assign it to the [identifying 

9 information redacted], so we kind of caught the 

10 inverse of the problem, but we did still catch that 

11 there was something incorrect here.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NOISH essentially 

14 says that the DR forgot to press calculate dose when 

15 they were in the workbook, which caused this 

16 problem.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It was a fairly minor 

19 dose.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. But it's a 

21 finding and it should be closed. NIOSH agrees. 

22 Let's go ahead.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 

2 finding, 383.2, NIOSH did not apply the dosimeter 

3 correction factor to greater than 250 keV photons 

4 for the 1965 [identifying information redacted]

5 dose.

6 And here NIOSH agrees that they should 

7 have applied the dosimeter correction factor to the 

8 [identifying information redacted] dose.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so this is just a 

11 DR error.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Closed.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and the next 

14 finding, Finding 3, same case. NIOSH did not apply 

15 a dosimeter correction factor when calculating 

16 missed photon dose. This is similar to the last 

17 issue.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH agrees that it 

20 wasn't applied consistently and should have been.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right. 

22 Same, and same --
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Minor dose --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we'll 

3 close that. Number 4.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This one is a 

5 little bit more complicated. Here the finding 

6 states that NIOSH omitted one zero dose for the year 

7 1965, but applied excessive [identifying 

8 information redacted] dose --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: [identifying 

10 information redacted] zero dose?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Which is the missed 

12 dose. And here NIOSH disagrees with us and they 

13 feel that their zeros are justified.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, they agree with 

16 the 1965, but they feel that the rest of the zeros 

17 were justified.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They asked us to point 

20 out further. And this is kind of an interesting 

21 error that occurred, and I'm not quite sure how it 

22 occurred, but for the [identifying information 
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 redacted] they assumed there were 440 zeros, but 

2 for the [identifying information redacted] they 

3 assumed there were only 413 zeros.

4 And so this seems to be an inconsistency 

5 in how dose is applied, and Ron made this great 

6 figure here that kind of compares for each year how 

7 many zeros were assigned.

8 So, for instance for 1953 for the 

9 [identifying information redacted] there were 38 

10 assigned, but for the [identifying information 

11 redacted] there were 68 zeros assigned, which is 

12 a fairly significant difference in dose.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So I'm not sure what 

15 would cause this error, but these are the 

16 calculated doses that we have.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could we go back 

18 to the previous screen?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't -- it 

21 looks to me as if these are two findings and I want 

22 to separate the discussion.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, there's --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There is a 

3 missed data entry file, right, that there is no 

4 debate about?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH agrees with the 

6 1965 error.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So then

8 that would be a finding. Now the question of zero 

9 doses is a different question, yes?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The same issue but 

11 different applications. So --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I suppose so.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- I think the five 

14 they agree with, but the [identifying information 

15 redacted] dose was more of an excessive 

16 [identifying information redacted] zero, or at 

17 least the missed dose in our opinion.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes. 

19 Well, what do -- maybe folks from NIOSH could 

20 explain their feeling.

21 MR. SIEBERT: I'm going to have to go 

22 back to the dose reconstructor who did this and 
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 spend some time walking through it with him, so I 

2 can't give you an answer at the moment.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

4 fine. So this would be in progress and we'll --

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's okay and --

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- discuss it 

8 next time.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The only reason we have 

10 this as a finding is because they are pretty 

11 different in the number of zeros assigned to two 

12 different organs for the same claimant.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. No, 

14 that's ultimately -- right, okay. We'll go on then 

15 and we'll come back to this next time.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, we'll leave that 

17 one open then.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 DR. NETON: This is Jim. That 

20 wouldn't be something as simple as a beta cancer 

21 diagnosis would it?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, not with this 
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 particular one.

2 DR. NETON: Because they would have had 

3 to been identified exactly at the same for the 

4 number to be exactly the same for those two cancers.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not necessarily. 

6 Most of the time the cancers are after employment 

7 has ceased, or at least the cases that we see --

8 DR. NETON: That's true, yes. Anyway, 

9 just a thought.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Too simple.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next finding 

14 from the same case, Finding 5, NIOSH assumed twice 

15 the correct missed neutron dose of the [identifying 

16 information redacted].

17 And here NIOSH disagrees with us. 

18 Apparently they used the inverse of the bias as the 

19 dosimeter correction factor, which kind of 

20 canceled out the error that we thought had 

21 occurred.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then they did also 

2 omit the missed dose neutron calculations for the 

3 [identifying information redacted], which is 

4 somewhat of a different error, but we backed into 

5 it through this finding.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we do recommend 

8 closing this, but we do have a question on the QA 

9 side of things. We want to know, was the DR 

10 reworked to include the omitted factor?

11 And, actually, I believe for this case 

12 it was reworked and compensated, so I don't think 

13 that that is an issue anymore, but has this process 

14 been corrected in the workbook?

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yes, 

16 this is a very old tool, a complex, wide, 

17 best-estimate tool that had to be specifically 

18 tailored back at the time frame we were doing these 

19 claims with site-specific information, so that 

20 tool does not exist anymore.

21 It would have been used by the dose 

22 reconstructor on the specific single claim. The 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 INL tool that exists now does have this applied 

2 correctly.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So this was an 

4 error where the dose reconstructor misused tools?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But, I 

8 think that was five. NIOSH was correct, okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They were correct in 

10 part, but there was in fact an error that occurred.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

12 there you're right.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Omitted neutron dose 

14 for [identifying information redacted].

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I think we 

16 would close this as an observation.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well there was an error 

18 that occurred.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I mean, 

20 did I say -- I said an observation, I meant, excuse, 

21 I meant finding.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is what 

2 happens later in the day. So, alright, any 

3 concerns on the part of other Subcommittee Members?

4 MEMBER MUNN: No.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MEMBER BEACH: No, none here either, 

7 Dave.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

9 that's fine. Let's go on to six.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, this is --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Lots of findings 

12 on this case.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, lots of findings. 

14 Okay, this finding states that NIOSH used the 

15 incorrect prorated values for the years 1953 and 

16 1964.

17 And here NIOSH agrees that a value of 

18 0.73 should have been used for 1953 and a value of 

19 0.67 should have been used for '64.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Apparently, it was 

22 corrected in the workbook, but for some unknown 
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 reason the dose reconstructor didn't use the 

2 values.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This was a dose 

5 reconstructor error and we would recommend --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a fairly minor 

8 error.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then I think we 

10 could close it. Could I ask a question? Here, 

11 we're going into the seventh finding on this case, 

12 is that something that would have triggered some 

13 closer supervision and discussion with the dose 

14 reconstructor by the managerial people, by the 

15 supervisory people?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: From SC&A's 

17 perspective?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no --

19 MR. SIEBERT: He's talking to the NIOSH 

20 --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I'm talking 

22 to the NIOSH people.
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 MR. SIEBERT: Which is fine. Yes, it 

2 normally would because we would normally have the 

3 dose reconstructor explaining what they did in 

4 these claims, giving me the responses.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. SIEBERT: However, this dose 

7 reconstructor is no longer on the project, it 

8 hasn't been for a while, so there is no way to 

9 correct that individual.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But I --

11 let's put it this way, I assume you spoke to the 

12 individual at the time, I mean that that rang alarm 

13 bells?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this individual --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, no, no, the 

16 -- I'm sorry.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MR. SIEBERT: -- findings came out.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, the 

20 findings came out, the SC&A findings came out after 

21 the individual had gone.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, I'm sorry. 

2 So there was no way to go back to the individual 

3 on this one. But if the individual were still 

4 working you would be having some discussions about 

5 this case?

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. If the individual 

7 was still working generally they'll be the ones to 

8 develop the additional responses and through the 

9 discussion with that it's very clear that there 

10 were problems in the case if that's the case.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

12 That's good to hear and reassuring. Let's go on 

13 to seven.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This finding 

15 states that NIOSH quoted the incorrect reference 

16 in the DR Report and NIOSH agrees that PROC-60 

17 should have been referenced.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like 

19 an observation, doesn't it?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's a 

22 reference.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now it does impact how 

2 we do our reviews, but judging by how we have 

3 previously assigned observations it would fall 

4 into that category.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I think 

6 this is an observation and it is a -- yes, it's an 

7 observation, it's not a QA. Or is it a QA issue?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I would --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, they 

10 should have referenced it.

11 MR. KATZ: It's still an observation, 

12 it's just a QA observation I guess, like as we just 

13 defined earlier.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

15 Okay, yes, yes. Alright, QA observation, close 

16 observation.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And same case, Finding 

20 8, NIOSH did not address internal intakes from the 

21 SL-1 entry and that was an incident that occurred 

22 that required cleanup, I believe, and NIOSH 
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 disagrees with us here.

2 They say that the EE's SL-1 October 1961 

3 entry was made long after the SL-1 rescue and 

4 stabilization efforts and should have been part of 

5 the accident cleanup effort.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The cleanup work would 

8 have been planned work that would have been 

9 performed in accordance with INEL's radiological 

10 detection protection protocols, so there is no 

11 reason to believe that the EE wasn't adequately 

12 monitored during the planned entry into the SL-1 

13 area and because there is no information to 

14 indicate that the EE had an unplanned intake of 

15 radioactivity from the entry there is no need to 

16 address it.

17 And this is NIOSH's statement, however, 

18 we'd just point out that the records show that the 

19 EE did receive approximately two rem of photon dose 

20 and four rem of beta dose during October 1961, which 

21 is fairly significant, levels that we don't 

22 typically see, that we see in a dose reconstruction 
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 review perspective.

2 And they weren't bioassayed until June 

3 of 1962 and we think this issue falls unto our TBD 

4 review Finding 15, which to my knowledge has not 

5 been addressed yet by the INL Work Group.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So it might make sense 

8 to hold off on this issue until the INL Work Group 

9 meets and discusses that issue.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Where I believe they 

12 are now focused now on SEC issues, so that could 

13 be a substantial period of time.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, sounds 

15 reasonable.

16 MR. KATZ: That's quite a while. So, 

17 Rose, if you would just send me the briefest of 

18 emails but reference the case and the issue then 

19 I can send that over to the INL Work Group just so 

20 that this doesn't get lost.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I can certainly 

22 do that.
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 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

3 on then.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we're now at 

6 NTS.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We're into the next 

8 case here which is --

9 MR. SIEBERT: Can I make the suggestion 

10 of perhaps a comfort break?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I was 

12 going to do it in about 15 minutes, but, you know, 

13 I could be -- but we've got a request for a comfort 

14 break. Any objection?

15 Fine. Ten minute comfort break, 

16 sorry. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

18 went off the record at 1:58 p.m. and resumed at 2:14 

19 p.m.)

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's go 

21 on the record now and start our meeting. 370.1, yes.

22 MR. SIEBERT: I have a question for you 
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 before we move on.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott, I'm sorry. 

4 We do -- I did get a response from Stu on that 

5 Fernald observation that we talked about a lot 

6 earlier, 373, so I have an initial response 

7 whenever you would like to cover it.

8 I don't know if you want to interrupt 

9 now of if you --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we might 

11 as well do it right now. Now, let me see, I'm 

12 looking at my list.

13 MEMBER POSTON: Is that Observation 1?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are you sure 

15 it's not Observation 1, 383, isn't it?

16 MR. KATZ: No 373.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay --

18 MR. SIEBERT: It was one of the first 

19 ones we looked at.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay, good.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Just getting it pulled 

22 up here.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, here we go.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: And the issue with this 

4 is, if everyone remembers, which probably not, we 

5 had, there were different cancers that were 

6 assigned and the DOL came back with additional 

7 cancers and made changes to the cancers and data 

8 diagnosis and so on and so forth, and during the 

9 middle of the changes from DOL, NOCTS and DOL's 

10 information did not match up on one of the cancers.

11 It didn't make a difference to the claim 

12 itself because we went back to the documentation 

13 and we used the most appropriate -- the right number 

14 of cancers and the right dates, so it had no impact 

15 on the case.

16 But the Subcommittee wanted Stu to go 

17 back and look into how the difference in the dates 

18 happened.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MR. SIEBERT: And he spoke to, emailed 

21 back and forth with Tracey Gilbertson and it 

22 appears that it was just an oversight on their part, 
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 the changing of the date.

2 So what's going on is from that point 

3 forward, which was in early May, it was just a 

4 mistake putting it into NOCTS. They forwarded 

5 guidance to all the staff indicating all the dated 

6 images are to be QA'd 100 percent when they are 

7 changed.

8 So it was just a mistake in putting the 

9 information in and there is a process now in place 

10 to ensure it does not happen again.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, okay, 

12 and that closes it out.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

15 Alright, so let's go back now to 370.1.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This case is a 

17 Nevada Test Site case that the EE also visited 

18 Amchitka Island Nuclear Explosion Site, Lawrence 

19 Livermore National Lab, Pacific Proving Grounds, 

20 and Project Faultless Nuclear Explosion Sites, I 

21 believe is the acronym, and here the finding states 

22 that the [identifying information redacted] cancer 
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 should fall under the SEC, however, the DR Report 

2 specifically states that the EE did not meet the 

3 criteria for compensation under the SEC.

4 And NIOSH essentially says that it did 

5 qualify for an SEC but the dose reconstruction was 

6 needed for the two skin cancers --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Try that again, 

8 I couldn't hear you, excuse me.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry. NIOSH 

10 essentially said that the cancer did qualify for 

11 inclusion under the SEC but they were two 

12 non-qualifying skin cancers, so essentially the 

13 text in the actual DR Report doesn't accurately 

14 reflect the SEC, which was the problem.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah-ha, okay, and 

16 that seems appropriate, that the [identifying 

17 information redacted] cancer was accepted as it 

18 should have been.

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. We have 

20 since updated the wording in there to say "at least 

21 one of the cancers did not qualify under the SEC" 

22 so it's clear that some of them may have already.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good, good. 

2 That's a recommended closure and I think it should 

3 be closed.

4 MR. KATZ: And that's a finding?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it's a 

6 finding.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, alright. I was 

9 going to suggest that be an observation since we 

10 did nothing wrong when we did the claim.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right, 

12 right.

13 MR. SIEBERT: It's just wording in a 

14 Dose Reconstruction Report.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're actually 

16 right, and I -- closed, and it will be an 

17 observation. Good?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 370.2.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright. This is from 

21 the same case and the finding states the internal 

22 dose section of the DR Report was not clear and 
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 consistent in the dose assignments.

2 And here NIOSH agrees with us the text 

3 was not clear as to why the plutonium worker, 

4 coworker intakes were assigned instead of 

5 environmental intakes and the assignment was an 

6 overestimate for a less than 50 percent claim.

7 Since it did not result in a PoC over 

8 50 percent, no further action was necessary.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And is 

10 that not an observation? That should be closed as 

11 an observation, right?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can call that an 

13 observation, that's fine.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

15 0.3, if there is one.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This takes us, I 

17 believe -- Kathy, is this your case?

18 MS. BEHLING: Yes, it is. Okay, we're 

19 going to move on to my case, which is Tab 387 and 

20 --

21 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy?

22 MS. BEHLING: Yes?
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 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, this is Scott. 

2 We may just want to save a little bit of trouble 

3 because I don't believe there are any responses in 

4 this right now.

5 It's a NIOSH-specific case and I've 

6 talked to Grady and I don't believe there are 

7 responses in there yet and we're going to be on top 

8 of those to make sure there are.

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay. There was a 

10 response in here.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, okay, well then never 

12 mind, ignore me.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And as I go 

14 through here if you have changed your mind we can 

15 talk about that, yes, if you'd like to go on, okay.

16 But Observation 1 indicates that there 

17 was no external dose supporting worksheets in the 

18 file and there weren't specific details in the Dose 

19 Reconstruction Report regarding recorded modeled 

20 electron doses.

21 And so there were some workbooks that 

22 were in the file but they didn't appear to be, they 
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 shouldn't have been in this file I don't think 

2 because they didn't go with this particular case, 

3 so there was a lot of confusion up front as to how, 

4 you know, how NIOSH went about calculating their 

5 external doses.

6 But the response indicates, if I am 

7 reading this correctly, that this case was 

8 compensated but it does indicate in my reading that 

9 NIOSH does pretty much agree with all of our 

10 findings, but stated that there was just an 

11 administrative issue with the observation and 

12 agrees with the other findings.

13 Some of the findings would have 

14 increased the dose, some of the findings would 

15 decrease the dose, but the case was compensated. 

16 With all that said I'd still like to go through each 

17 of the findings, which then there were six of them 

18 because I had some questions along the way, if we 

19 can continue.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's do that.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Finding 1 has to 

22 do with -- NIOSH omitted assigning 40 millirem of 
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 photon dose for 1968, and, as I said, I believe that 

2 they are in agreement with that omission.

3 And I will say Finding 1, Finding 2 is 

4 also a NIOSH omission of assigned dose of 65 

5 millirem for the beta recorded dose for 1968, and 

6 I'm going to group these so we can move on, and also 

7 Finding 5 is an omission of three missed photon 

8 doses for '63 and the use of an incorrect MDL for 

9 1971.

10 And I guess I'm just questioning how all 

11 of these omissions happened. I thought it used to 

12 be that there were files that would be transferred 

13 over to a workbook and the dose reconstructor would 

14 verify all of this data.

15 Is that still happening? Is there 

16 something we're not aware of? I am just trying to 

17 verify there is no systemic type of issue here.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is what I was 

19 trying to say.

20 MS. BEHLING: Oh.

21 MR. SIEBERT: It's a DCAS claim, it's 

22 not an ORAU claim and Grady isn't on the line so 
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 I'm guessing you're not going to be able to get 

2 specific answers to anything today.

3 I am guessing Jim probably is not 

4 prepared to get into the specifics on this case, 

5 I could be wrong, but --

6 DR. NETON: No, you're right, Scott. 

7 I'm sitting in for Grady and I really don't have 

8 any background information on this particular 

9 case.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay, because I have 

11 several questions as we go through here on the 

12 findings, so perhaps we better postpone.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, let's 

14 postpone, let's do the findings next time.

15 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Can I ask one favor?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, can you put your 

20 questions into the BRS for each of the findings that 

21 you have so that Grady can specifically address 

22 each one?
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 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will do that. And 

2 the only other thing I do want to point out, this 

3 particular case we reviewed was revised, so this 

4 is a second time around for NIOSH and ORAU to look 

5 at this case.

6 There were changes, they included some 

7 radon dose for the bronchus and so it was thereafter 

8 that they compensated the case. The first time 

9 around, obviously, it wasn't compensated and they 

10 looked at it a second time, so that even gives me 

11 more, brings to mind more questions as to how this 

12 was done a second time and there were still all 

13 these omissions and these QA-type of findings.

14 But I'll put that in the responses into 

15 the BRS. I was just trying to make that point.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So let's 

17 go to the next case.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I believe the 

19 next case is also one I'll discuss, and this is Tab 

20 348, and it is a NTS and Pacific Proving Grounds 

21 case.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Alright. Now I think 

2 here NIOSH did put in their responses. The first 

3 finding has to do with NIOSH -- SC&A assumed that 

4 NIOSH used an incorrect dosimeter bias for the 1956 

5 through 1965 time period.

6 The Technical Basis Document actually 

7 states that, at least when we were doing this 

8 review, that a dosimeter correction factor of 1.25 

9 should only be applied to the 30 to 250 keV for the 

10 years 1960 through 1965.

11 However, in this case the dosimeter 

12 correction factor was applied to both the 30 to 250 

13 range plus the greater than 250 keV range and it 

14 was applied for all years, '56 through '65 rather 

15 than just 1960 through 1965.

16 And I believe the response here -- okay, 

17 they agree, however, subsequent versions of the TBD 

18 indicates this factor should be applied for all 

19 energy ranges. I don't know if they also changed 

20 the time period. I don't think so.

21 Maybe, Scott, you can fill me in here, 

22 but one of the things that troubled me a little bit 
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 by the response is that it says that there was a 

2 document, they reference an SRDB document that is 

3 a reference in the TBD that indicates why they did 

4 what they did.

5 And I guess I was troubled by that 

6 because the reason that they put together a 

7 Technical Basis Document is to give guidance to the 

8 dose reconstructor and it shouldn't be up to the 

9 dose reconstructor to have to go back to another 

10 reference within there to verify that what they are 

11 doing is correct, and so I just didn't really 

12 understand that portion of the response. Now if 

13 --

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and that's exactly 

15 the reason that the TBD was subsequently updated 

16 was to reflect the better information that was 

17 determined.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay, alright. Yes, I 

19 just didn't -- I hope that -- I mean the dose 

20 reconstructors have enough to deal with, you know, 

21 I didn't think that you were trying to say that they 

22 should be going to other references to try to pull 
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 out the data, everything should be very clear to 

2 them in the TBD.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

4 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Shouldn't this 

6 be an observation?

7 MS. BEHLING: Well --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Not necessarily.

9 MS. BEHLING: I mean they did -- back 

10 at the time that we were reviewing this and that 

11 the dose reconstruction was completed the TBD 

12 stated that they apply the dose correction factor 

13 for 1960 to 1965 and only for the 30 to 250, so 

14 that's what we had to base our finding on.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Well, and once again this 

17 one was done in 2010 if I remember correctly. That 

18 was just prior to the time frame when we started 

19 doing the DR guidance documents to clearly define 

20 when we knew there were changes that needed to be 

21 made to the TBD that are not yet made.

22 I would guess this one probably falls 
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 into that thought process of it's something the 

2 dose reconstructors knew to apply correctly, it was 

3 disseminated through our meetings and discussions 

4 with the site expert.

5 It's the kind of thing that would now 

6 be in a DR guidance document, however, we just 

7 didn't have the process in place when this claim 

8 was done.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

10 that fits what we did for an observation earlier 

11 today, does it not?

12 MS. BEHLING: Now I think back then --

13 I think today that ORAU and NIOSH put a lot of this 

14 documentation in the files because that was 

15 something up front that we had requested.

16 But at the time I don't know that this 

17 information would have been available to SC&A, and, 

18 as I said, this was the guidance at the time and 

19 the TBD does represent site-specific information, 

20 so -- well, let's just --

21 MR. KATZ: Right. So I mean your 

22 findings on this, I mean your observation is 
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 understandable, Kathy, but it is an observation in 

2 that they did have better guidance and they applied 

3 it here.

4 They just didn't have that available to 

5 you at that time.

6 MS. BEHLING: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now is the standard 

11 protocol now when a DR guidance document is used 

12 to include that in the files?

13 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct, it goes 

14 with the Dose Reconstruction Report.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so if we don't see 

16 it in a file that we've done within the last couple 

17 years and it should have been there would that be 

18 a finding?

19 MR. KATZ: Well, if they correctly --

20 regardless, if they correctly do the dose 

21 reconstruction it's a documentation issue not a 

22 dose reconstruction error or problem, right?
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 It's the same thing. It's not a defect 

2 in the dose reconstruction, it's a problem in the 

3 documentation.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So that would be an 

5 observation then?

6 MR. KATZ: That would be an 

7 observation.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Close 

11 0.1. 0.2?

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: With the way this 

14 alphabetizes things it actually skips over to ten, 

15 but we'll get back to two.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. BEHLING: So we're going to go to 

18 ten first?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is that okay?

20 MS. BEHLING: That's fine, whatever.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay, well, I was going 
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 to ask about this. Alright, well I'm going to skip 

2 forward then to ten. So now we are getting into 

3 the finding where we identified that NIOSH omitted 

4 X-ray exam dose for 1981 and 1988.

5 Based on what we saw in the file we saw 

6 a PA and lat X-ray exam for 1981 and a PA exam for 

7 1980 that do not appear to be in the IREP tables 

8 and we think NIOSH, they would agree with us on 

9 this, and just wondered how this gets classified, 

10 I guess as a QA issue and --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

12 right, it's a QA issue and it was an error, so it's 

13 a finding.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And if we move on 

15 to Finding 11, in this finding NIOSH had 

16 incorrectly labeled in the parameters of several 

17 of the IMBA files for electron emitters.

18 They were just in the file folder 

19 itself. They were marked as like FR-90 -- yes, 

20 absorption type S, but when we went into the file 

21 it contained cesium-137 and there were just a lot 

22 of files in there that were mislabeled.
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 It doesn't really have any impact, but 

2 it was just confusing to us and it was incorrectly 

3 labeled files, and NIOSH agrees.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MS. BEHLING: And I don't know how this 

6 error could be avoided.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this is --

8 right, this is an observation with the QA.

9 MS. BEHLING: Yes. The only thing I 

10 will make mention of, we had a total of 13 findings 

11 in this particular case, and as Dr. Kotelchuck was 

12 mentioning earlier, hopefully to this dose 

13 reconstructor some of things were pointed out, 

14 because there were a lot of omissions and that type 

15 of thing, QA issues.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MS. BEHLING: So if we go on to Finding 

18 12, NIOSH omitted potentially ingestion intakes. 

19 Again, we calculated the dose, it would have been 

20 72 millirem, rather small, but NIOSH does agree 

21 that they should have included the ingestion doses.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's a 
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 finding certainly and closed.

2 MS. BEHLING: And we recommend 

3 closure.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

5 MS. BEHLING: Finding 13. Again, this 

6 was an omission of some information in the file. 

7 There was a whole-body count for 1992 and it wasn't 

8 analyzed for missed dose.

9 It would have resulted in 3 millirem, 

10 but it was not even identified, and NIOSH agrees, 

11 and it's a small impact.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, yes. 

13 Closed. Now are we going back to two, three, and 

14 four?

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes. It was just that, 

16 it's the way it filters it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. No, 

18 that's fine. Although this is really -- I have not 

19 seen 13 findings on a case before, but that may be 

20 my limited tenure in this work relation.

21 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I don't think there 

22 are very often 13 findings, but --
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well --

2 MEMBER MUNN: We've had as many as 25 

3 findings.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, well, that's 

5 good, but not good to hear.

6 Okay, let's go on. Two?

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. To go back to 

8 348.2, in this case, again, it was an omission of 

9 30 millirem for a recorded photon dose in 1973 and, 

10 again, I think NIOSH agrees that this was an 

11 omission.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MS. BEHLING: And, again, I'm just 

14 curious, does this information get transferred 

15 over and how -- I was just curious from NIOSH's 

16 point of view how this does get omitted?

17 I know it's a minor dose, but you do 

18 start to question, you know, how these don't get 

19 into -- there used be a file, an Excel file, that 

20 was sent over to the dose reconstructors, you know, 

21 in the early days, and the first think I think the 

22 dose reconstructor would do on the external side 
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 is verify the records were consistent with what 

2 file he got from the data input people. Is that 

3 still happening?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Looking at -- once again 

5 this was done in 2010 and it's in the best estimate 

6 PoC range, so without looking specifically at it 

7 I believe that would be the time frame where there 

8 wasn't an NTS-specific best estimate tool, so all 

9 the information for each of the different cancers 

10 would need to be separately added into each tool.

11 It's just a -- it's a difficulty that 

12 we had at that time because we didn't have a best 

13 estimate-specific tool at the time. So by no means 

14 am I excusing the fact that the data is not there, 

15 but due to the fact that it's a tool that would have 

16 to be -- how should I say it, tailored for the

17 specific site for a best estimate case, it's more 

18 understandable that an entry could be missed like 

19 this.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, let's 
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 close that and go on to three.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Here, again, this 

3 is the same as the previous finding, or previous 

4 case, and this had to do with this dosimeter 

5 correction factor and applying a 1.25 for the 

6 entire time period of '56 and '59 and -- or '56 

7 through '59 when the TBD says '60 through '65, and 

8 it was applied to, I think in this case, only to 

9 30 to 250 keV, but I think that that was explained 

10 earlier, that this was guidance that they were 

11 changing and the dose reconstructors were aware of 

12 it but it hadn't made it into the TBD yet.

13 So I guess this probably becomes an 

14 observation if we are consistent with what we did 

15 earlier.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MS. BEHLING: Alright. To go on to 

20 Finding 4 for this case, we initially thought that 

21 NIOSH omitted a 1980 reported beta dose.

22 NIOSH responded by saying that they 
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 went into the records and looked at this closer, 

2 because we saw 230 millirem of recorded beta dose 

3 and it happens that this individual was monitored 

4 by Florida Power & Light and this dose came from 

5 work that he must have done for Florida Power & 

6 Light.

7 So we realize this does not have to do 

8 with the NTS work and so we can see that this issue 

9 and that NIOSH is correct.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So this 

11 is an observation.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well this is the question 

13 I would have on this one, would this be a removal 

14 of the actual finding itself rather than an 

15 observation because this is --

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's right. This is 

17 a finding that gets withdrawn, Dave.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, oh, right, 

19 okay, yes. Closed. Okay, 0.5. You're right, 

20 you're right.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay, alright. If we go 

22 on to Finding 5, in this particular case NIOSH did 
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 not use the recommended electron/photon ratio 

2 value for 1963.

3 They used an electron/photon value of 

4 one for atmospheric testing instead of the 1.04 for 

5 1963. However, when you go into the IREP I believe 

6 the IREP was correct, but the statements in the TBD 

7 were incorrect I believe.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, my 

9 screen doesn't reflect 0.5. We're on 0.5 now, 

10 right?

11 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well my screen does. 

13 I wonder if it's frozen there.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's --

15 MS. BEHLING: No, we're not seeing 

16 that, Rose.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, let me try again 

18 here.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There's five, 

20 thank you.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: One second, I 

22 disconnected.
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: Sure.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'll reconnect here.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There you go. 

4 Thank you.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sure.

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Let me see here, 

8 let me regroup.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. SC&A found that 

11 NIOSH used an electron to photon value of one for 

12 atmospheric tests instead of 1.04 for 1963 for 

13 underground tests.

14 Atmospheric tests were not conducted 

15 after 1962, but I believe, as I started to say, the 

16 IREP input was correct, so I think that one we just 

17 didn't realize what they had done, but once we 

18 looked further the IREP is correct.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MS. BEHLING: But then we go on to say 

21 that the electron to photon method to assign a beta 

22 dose for 1970 rather they used -- I'm sorry, they 
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 used an electron/photon ratio for calculating the 

2 dose for 1970 when there was actually a measured 

3 beta dose and that should have been used, and NIOSH 

4 agrees.

5 It's a very, very small dose, again, 7 

6 millirem, but they do agree that they should have 

7 assigned the measured dose rather than using the 

8 electron to photon ratio.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

10 MS. BEHLING: And that can be closed. 

11 And if we go on to Finding 6, here, again, NIOSH 

12 applied an incorrect dosimeter correction factor 

13 for 1980.

14 The NTA film dosimeter correction 

15 factor of two, they incorrectly used a dosimeter 

16 correction factor of two for the TLD dose recorded 

17 in 1980. Again, it would have very little impact 

18 on this case.

19 Now let me see. Okay, NIOSH does agree 

20 that that was incorrect, a minor error and we 

21 recommend that it can be closed. And shall I go 

22 on?
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 Okay. Finding 7. Here NIOSH did not 

2 assign missed dose for the period of 1956 through 

3 1965, didn't assign all of the missed dose.

4 They counted 384 zeros, but they only 

5 assigned missed dose for 284 zeros, and so there 

6 was omission of 2.6 rem in this particular case, 

7 and I believe NIOSH does agree with our finding. 

8 Now --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I got cut off, 

10 I'm back on the line. Dave.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay, would you want me 

12 to repeat Finding 7?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. The other 

14 folks have listened to it and that's --

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes. The only question 

16 I have, now that I'm going through this, there was 

17 some missed dose that wasn't assigned for the time 

18 period of 1956 through 1965 that resulted in the 

19 omission of about 2.6 rem.

20 So I guess this would only have really 

21 a moderate impact on the total dose and I don't 

22 think it would change any compensation decisions, 
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 and so NIOSH agrees that this was an error but we 

2 are recommending closing it because it doesn't 

3 appear to make any significant change in --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Did you say 2.6 rem?

6 MS. BEHLING: That's what I'm reading 

7 here, 2.6 rem.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is a skin 

9 cancer claim?

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I did not do this 

11 case. I am working through this now and I was also 

12 going to ask if NIOSH actually went in and looked 

13 at this or tried to recalculate the PoC for this 

14 one.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. SIEBERT: I'll have to look at 

17 that.

18 MS. BEHLING: Okay, because we -- this 

19 is a skin cancer and it is at 46.5 PoC. I think 

20 we need to look a little further into this one.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good. 

22 So let's keep it open.
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 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Eight?

3 MS. BEHLING: And I apologize for that. 

4 And Finding Number 8, again, NIOSH omitted missed 

5 electron dose for 1970 and 1973. Let's see here.

6 SC&A found that NIOSH only assigned 

7 seven missed electron doses and did not assign 

8 missed electron dose for 1971 and 1973, and it would 

9 be a modest dose I think, somewhere around 30 

10 millirem that would be added.

11 Now let me see here, NIOSH states that 

12 this is consistent with OTIB-17, and I think what 

13 we are questioning here is if the NTS case, if the

14 NTS site, if it really applies to, if OTIB-17 

15 applies to the NTS site.

16 It's not specified in their appendices, 

17 and so I think we need to have some additional 

18 discussion on this regarding how you are going to 

19 calculate your missed electron doses.

20 The OTIB-17 appendices I think specify 

21 the gaseous diffusion plants, Hanford and Savannah 

22 River Site, and so would it be appropriate to 
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 calculate these missed electron doses for NTS site 

2 also using OTIB-17, that's a good question.

3 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

4 ORAU Team. I have not looked specifically at this 

5 one, but certainly from the description here I can 

6 see what's going on.

7 The OTIB-17 was written relatively 

8 early on in the project and NTS was probably not 

9 part of the mix when OTIB-17 was first drafted. 

10 Certainly you could, we could take a look at whether 

11 or not the TBD contains some references to OTIB-17.

12 But certainly what's going on here is 

13 the folks that are working the NTS claims are taking 

14 a look at the examples that we have for Savannah 

15 River and Hanford and the other sites, you know, 

16 and how to apply missed dose properly.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. How about 

18 we come back to this next time?

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're going to 

21 be looking at seven anyway.

22 MS. BEHLING: Right. I think 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 would be appropriate.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Before we move on, this 

4 is Scott, I have looked at the claim, and the reason 

5 we didn't go back and determine the impact of these 

6 changes to the claim is because it was reworked 

7 about a year later and it was found to be 

8 compensable due to a new cancer.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good and 

12 that actually addresses and issue that was in my 

13 mind, and that was when I see something like six, 

14 seven, eight findings do I have confidence in what 

15 was, and the dose reconstruction of that case, and 

16 the answer is no.

17 And my instinct is you should take a 

18 look at the case again even though SC&A proposed 

19 specific things, but there was no need to look back 

20 on this one because it's compensated at a later 

21 time.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well for legitimate 
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 reasons, it didn't have anything to do with this.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right, I 

3 understand that.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But what I was 

6 going to say is when you have lots of findings like 

7 this it would make me feel much better if somebody, 

8 even after SC&A made its suggestions, for somebody 

9 to go out from NIOSH and just, if you could, start 

10 fresh on it, do it again blind, if you will.

11 MS. BEHLING: And you could go -- oh, 

12 I'm sorry.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Was this not even 

14 talked about, this OTIB-17, that it was done in the 

15 early years? Was that you that --

16 MR. SMITH: It's Matt Smith.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse 

18 me.

19 MR. SMITH: That's okay.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Anyway, my question 

21 is, because being on the NTS I have seen the 

22 reference of using OTIB-17 on this, because I would 
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 like to, I would kind of like to run this to ground 

2 and make sure that we're right in what we're doing.

3 DR. MAURO: Brad, this is John Mauro. 

4 I just joined the call, I got an email from Rose, 

5 and I hear you are talking of OTIB-17, it's a 

6 subject I am pretty familiar with.

7 I just joined one minute ago, so if 

8 there is anything I can do to help out, I'm not quite 

9 sure where you are going with this, if it has to 

10 do with hot particles or anything like that, but 

11 just to let you know I am here.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

13 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

14 Behling, excuse me just a second, but, Brad, you 

15 just took the words out of my mouth, because I was 

16 going to say even if we realize that this case has 

17 been reworked and has been compensated because of 

18 an additional cancer, I would still, for SC&A's 

19 benefit and the Board's benefit, I assume, we would 

20 like to get an answer to the OTIB-17 and how it gets, 

21 whether it gets applied to the NTS site or if the 

22 TBD refers it to OTIB-17 or how you go about 
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 calculating the missed electron dose.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MS. BEHLING: I think I feel it should 

4 be an open item if you don't --

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: I would, because one 

6 of the reasons, just so you understand why, is 

7 because in part of process in closing up some of 

8 the Site Profile issues and so forth with NTS I know 

9 that it brought up OTIB-17 would be used.

10 MS. BEHLING: Right.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I just want to 

12 make sure that we are, where we are at. I'd just 

13 like to run this ground if we could.

14 MS. BEHLING: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

16 MS. BEHLING: I certainly agree. You 

17 know, the one thing I would suggest if you are in 

18 agreement with, Dr. Kotelchuck, is that the 

19 previous finding, seven, we were going to keep open 

20 to see the impact, I'm not sure if that's still 

21 necessary.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah.
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 MS. BEHLING: And that was the 

2 assignment of missed, the fact that the missed 

3 photon doses were miscalculated, or that the number 

4 of zeros were miscalculated, and it resulted in the 

5 omission of 2.6 rem.

6 I don't think that that's necessary to 

7 go back to that particular, keep it open for that 

8 particular finding because we obviously know the 

9 case has been compensated.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

11 That's exactly why I went back. I thought we were 

12 talking about seven. We are closing that one out 

13 based on it had been compensated. I had --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's a 

15 fair argument.

16 MR. SIEBERT: We are going to find 

17 further and give further description on what is 

18 done with OTIB-17 at NTS for Finding Number 8.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, that's 

20 accepted.

21 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I think there 

22 is an active Work Group reviewing the NTS Site 
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 Profile and I think this is one of the issues that 

2 we are dealing with right now, is the skin dose 

3 issues.

4 But I think is being addressed. I 

5 can't swear where, at point that it is in that, but 

6 I am reasonably certain that we're, it's under 

7 active discussion at this time.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: But, Jim, I'm the Work 

10 Group Chair for NTS and that's why this was kind 

11 of sparking me into this, because this is one of 

12 the issues that we are working on this and I wanted 

13 to figure out where we were at on it, too, so, thank 

14 you.

15 DR. NETON: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay, if you'd like I can 

18 go on. I'm --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. We have 

20 only Number 9 to go.

21 MS. BEHLING: Number 9, okay. That's 

22 right, last one. So in this particular case we 
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 were dealing with missed external neutron doses and 

2 in the assignment of those doses for 1991 and 1992 

3 NIOSH did not apply the ICRP correction factor and 

4 they agreed that they did not do that for those two 

5 years.

6 Again, I am not sure how that happened, 

7 but based on what Scott is telling us is that there 

8 wasn't an NTS best estimate workbook available, so 

9 perhaps that explains why that happened, but NIOSH 

10 does agree.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that 

12 can be closed as well. And am I correct that that 

13 closes -- that doesn't close 348, 248 is finished 

14 for this part of the discussion.

15 We are going to come back to 0.8 later 

16 and a couple of those were changed to observations. 

17 One and three were, all were closed except one and 

18 three, which were changed to observations, which 

19 were closed.

20 MS. BEHLING: And we withdrew four.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And you withdrew 

22 four?
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 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MS. BEHLING: That was incorrect on our 

4 part.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. I 

6 didn't have that down in my notes. Alright, we are 

7 moving along. It's just a little bit before 3:00. 

8 What would the next one be after 348, what case?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are actually 

10 switching matrices.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have to switch 

13 matrices into the DCAS cases, so that's what I am 

14 pulling up now.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, the other 

16 BRS cases?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Other DCAS cases.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And, John, you said you 

20 were on the line, this is the Allied Chemical Case, 

21 Tab 359.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. I am in the process 
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 of bringing up Tab 359, but that always takes time, 

2 and I did go through it this morning after we, you 

3 know, discussed that this may come up.

4 You might be able to help me. We could 

5 walk through each item that is still open and if 

6 you could just briefly -- I remember reading it this 

7 morning and coming to a certain position in my mind 

8 regarding each item that was still active.

9 So would you mind just helping me a 

10 little bit here and we could move through? A 

11 number of them I know have been closed.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No.

13 DR. MAURO: But there are a couple that 

14 are still --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They are all open.

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, I was reading -- well, 

17 let's go through them then one-by-one.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well Allied 

19 Chemical was the first one.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Allied Chemical, Tab 

21 359, Observation 1, and this observation states 

22 that the DR Report could explain the use of a 
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 definite factor post-1976, i.e. the reader should 

2 not be required to review and understand the 

3 workbooks in order to understand the basic 

4 assumptions that were used to reconstruct doses.

5 In addition, we would like to point out 

6 that we do not agree with the depletion rate of 1 

7 percent per day.

8 DR. MAURO: I can speak to the 1 percent 

9 per day portion of it, the work portion. I believe 

10 it's likely one of our work specialists looked at, 

11 but with regard to the 1 percent per day that would 

12 be the rate in which, you know, activity declines 

13 by natural attenuation during the residual period.

14 And as we probably are familiar with, 

15 OTIB-70 now goes with 0.0067 per day as being the 

16 national attenuation rate, so I think that's what 

17 that particular issue was about on the 1 percent 

18 per day.

19 You know, so I'm not sure what NIOSH's 

20 position is regarding that, at least that aspect 

21 of it.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well NIOSH just says 
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 here that a DR template was subsequently added or 

2 updated to reflect this information and a PER was 

3 issued.

4 DR. MAURO: Well that was the reason 

5 why I thought they were closed. Yes. So, you 

6 know, on that basis, you know, accepting that 

7 comment seems to be, you know, certainly 

8 acceptable.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: John, then -- I mean, I'm not 

11 sure why that is an observation because that would 

12 be a finding.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh.

14 MR. KATZ: Normally that would be a 

15 finding if it had substantive --

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: -- on the dose 

18 reconstruction procedure and they agreed because 

19 they issued actually a PER to correct it.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 DR. NETON: Well, Ted, the only thing 

22 is that this, I think that this depletion factor 
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 morphed in between the time that Allied was first, 

2 the issue was generated and OTIB-70 was modified, 

3 because OTIB-70 didn't get modified until --

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, what I am saying, 

5 Jim, is I'm not saying that they weren't, that this 

6 is -- I'm not saying that the procedures at the time 

7 didn't specify a 1 percent per day.

8 I'm just saying in the end of the day 

9 we agree that the science is better, that it 

10 shouldn't have been 1 percent a day, so, you know, 

11 that's a defect.

12 DR. NETON: Well --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But that wasn't 

14 --

15 DR. NETON: That's a change in the 

16 methodology. The dose reconstruction was done 

17 appropriately in accordance with the methodology.

18 MR. KATZ: I know, but we don't -- just 

19 to be clear, I mean it's not a question of, these 

20 DR audits are not a question of whether they simply 

21 did it according to procedure, they are also 

22 whether they are correct.
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 If they find science issues that are --

2 at the time the reviewed it they found science 

3 issues that they disagreed with they may get 

4 corrected in the meantime and so on, but that's 

5 still valid findings.

6 And those are actually, you know, part 

7 of what's really important about the dose 

8 reconstruction case reviews is also finding actual 

9 science issues that are wrong.

10 So it's not that they didn't go by the 

11 play book, but the play book wasn't correct.

12 DR. NETON: But this was also a finding 

13 in the Site Profile Review issue.

14 MR. KATZ: Right.

15 DR. NETON: I mean you get double hit 

16 to some degree. I mean -- but it's not, I mean it's 

17 not -- again, I mean this is not, the Site Profile 

18 is a completely different matter, but here with the 

19 case reviews we want to track how many defects a 

20 case has for each case.

21 And this, you know, clearly it's a 

22 defect, it's better science to have used the new 
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 correction factor, that's why you changed it, I 

2 mean the depletion rate, that's why you changed it.

3 And that's sort of a classic case, you 

4 ought to have that as a finding. I mean, you know, 

5 we have discussed this so many times, this sort of 

6 issue, but this is, you know -- so it doesn't really 

7 matter that the play book was a certain way, the 

8 play book was wrong.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and a lot of 

10 discussion resulted from it.

11 MR. KATZ: Right, right. So I mean 

12 this is -- again, I just, I feel this is, again, 

13 it's a defect in the case and it should be, you know, 

14 so noted in the statistics.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, Ted, the only -- I'm 

16 just trying to rethink. You are absolutely right, 

17 I'm trying to think about why I would have made it 

18 an observation.

19 It may have simply been because I knew 

20 that the issue had been resolved.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, I understand.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay.
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 MR. KATZ: You know, I'm not, you know, 

2 blaming you, John, for labeling it observation. 

3 You know, on multiple occasions we've changed 

4 observations to findings, I'm just saying this is 

5 one of those where it properly should be changed 

6 to a finding.

7 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

8 Behling, I'm just going to interject my comment 

9 here that also let's remember this is a template 

10 and the Board has not reviewed the dose 

11 reconstruction methodology on most of the 

12 templates yet. I don't think I'd like to --

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's not an issue.

14 MS. BEHLING: That's a separate issue, 

15 I know.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. So let's just --

17 MS. BEHLING: Sorry.

18 MR. KATZ: I mean I would either 

19 resolve this, I mean, but --

20 MR. SIEBERT: And let me be clear on 

21 that, the template is not the implementing guidance 

22 in this case, this is Allied Chemical and it has 
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 a TBD, so the TBD is what caused the PER.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. That's fine, yes.

3 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: So, anyway, Dave --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

7 MR. KATZ: -- again, you want to call 

8 the question for the rest of the --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, for a 

10 finding.

11 MR. KATZ: You may, but that's fine. 

12 But I mean I just think this falls squarely in the 

13 definition of finding.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Folks, 

15 any comments or other --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is okay. I think 

17 that it should be labeled a finding.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

20 agree.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, so 

22 let's, we have a finding and we'll close it. Let's 
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 go on.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, were you able to 

3 get it pulled up or do you want me to --

4 DR. MAURO: I am still working. I am 

5 working my way into the Board Review System now. 

6 But that was pretty brief, are they all like that? 

7 It sounds like it might be a good idea if you could 

8 just read it real quick and --

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, Observation 2 

10 for that case.

11 DR. MAURO: Go ahead.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The DR Report to better 

13 explain the DR process used in the workbook, in 

14 addition we'd like to point out that in Finding 

15 Number 6 of our review of the Site Profile it was 

16 concerned with the assumptions used to derive 

17 neutron doses, especially those pertaining to the 

18 duration of exposure, resulted in substantial 

19 underestimates of dose.

20 DR. MAURO: And what was NIOSH's 

21 response, if I recall it that was resolved?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The explanation of the 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR process was based on the guidance provided in 

2 OTIB-12. The Dose Reconstruction Report did refer 

3 to the uncertainty section of TIB-12, which was the 

4 Monte Carlo methods for dose uncertainty 

5 calculations.

6 The neutron doses assigned for this 

7 claim were consistent with the Site Profile from 

8 October 2007, which was used at that time. The 

9 Site Profile was updated in 2014 and this revision, 

10 Rev 2, reflects the higher neutron doses to be 

11 assigned.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, I recall going 

13 through that. So, in effect, NIOSH had, you know, 

14 made the appropriate revisions to that and then I 

15 guess I think I comment back, me, in light of that, 

16 it sounds like the issue has been resolved.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so, as a 

18 finding.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Finding?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That was an 

21 observation. Would you like us to increase it to 

22 a finding?
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 MR. KATZ: Right, convert it.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Then a third 

6 observation, NIOSH would consider assigning the 

7 same fractional intake for radionuclides other 

8 than uranium for AWE periods as well as what was 

9 done for the residual period.

10 NIOSH says per the SEC internal dose 

11 from non-uranium radionuclides during operational 

12 periods cannot be reconstructed, and we concur for 

13 the same reasons in 359.2, which we have not 

14 discussed yet.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you scroll 

16 on 359 on the Observation 3, or am I losing 

17 connection?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have it pulled up on 

19 my screen.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Lost 

21 connection, okay. Keep going, I'll try to find, 

22 get the connection 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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So then I think 

2 it's okay if we were to close out with Observation 

3 3 for the case review.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That makes sense.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Observation 4, the DR 

8 Report to discuss the possibility that the EEs may 

9 have been exposed to enriched uranium and how this 

10 might affect the dose reconstruction.

11 NIOSH says it's unlikely that the EE was 

12 exposed to enriched uranium because the material 

13 was brought in as an ore or concentrates of uranium 

14 assay and moisture content.

15 This material was reduced to various 

16 uranium oxide. Natural enrichment of uranium 

17 wouldn't seem to be present as described in the Site 

18 Profile.

19 And then, John, you came back and said 

20 a careful review of the Site Profile indicates that 

21 AACP received uranium concentration but did 

22 receive recycled uranium from Rocky Flats.
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 However, it appears that the RU was 

2 depleted uranium, hence the weight of evidence 

3 indicates that there is no enriched uranium that 

4 was handled and we recommend closing it.

5 DR. MAURO: Right.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Done.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding Number 1, I 

9 wrote missed photon dose for the colon was not 

10 consistent with the DR Report.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Folks, keep 

12 going ahead, I'm off and I'm having a hard time 

13 getting back on.

14 I don't know the meeting ID or entry 

15 code. Then it's just asking me for things that I 

16 hadn't recorded before, so please do go on. Let's 

17 not waste time.

18 Maybe, Wanda, would you just take over 

19 as Chair until I can get back online as our senior 

20 person?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. You should also 

22 be able to pull up the BRS if you can't get into 
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 the meeting.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

3 will take a few moments.

4 MEMBER MUNN: So this is Observation 3 

5 we are talking about, right?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 1 now.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We just closed 

10 Observation 4.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Observation 3 and 4. 

12 And now -- oh, I thought I was on your screen and 

13 I discovered I'm on my screen. That's why I was 

14 blinking once or twice.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine.

16 MEMBER MUNN: I guess as far as the 

17 recommendation I don't see any problem with it. 

18 Any concerns from anyone else?

19 MR. KATZ: Well this is a case, I think, 

20 is it not, Rose, where the DR was done correctly 

21 but the report description is incorrect?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: One second here.
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 MEMBER BEACH: That's a display error.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that is correct.

3 MR. KATZ: Alright. So these we've 

4 been changing to observations.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, great, so we will 

6 do that for this one if that's okay with the Board.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: And no problem that I am 

9 hearing. Anyone?

10 MEMBER BEACH: No, that's appropriate.

11 MEMBER MUNN: If not, accepted.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. I'm 

13 back again. Where are we at?

14 MEMBER MUNN: We are now picking up 

15 Allied Chemical 2.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Two, thank you.

17 MEMBER MUNN: 359.2.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

19 DR. MAURO: Findings, okay. I finally 

20 got to the BRS and catching up to all you folks.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And this 

22 finding states an incorrect acute intake 
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 resuspension assumptions were applied.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: And this was during the 

4 residual period, I believe. I'm opening up my 

5 response, and it was unusual, I believe, for the 

6 residual period, I'm catching up to you guys, to 

7 have, you know, spikes.

8 I'm reading my -- actually, I am looking 

9 at Scott's response and I believe this had to do 

10 with this acute resuspension during residual 

11 period.

12 Scott, you're on the line, is Scott 

13 there?

14 MR. SIEBERT: I am here.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, Scott, I'm looking at 

16 the BRS right now and I see we had previously 

17 discussed this last year and I recall that the 

18 reason I was concerned here is we were in the 

19 residual period and we are looking at spikes, which 

20 is something you don't really ever see during a 

21 residual period.

22 And you had an answer here that I'm 
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 reading again right now to try to respond to that, 

2 and it looks like it was because you were seeing 

3 spikes in the urine samples?

4 You're going to have to help me out a 

5 little bit here.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that sounds right. 

7 Well, what we did is we used the highest value as 

8 an overestimating assumption.

9 DR. MAURO: I see, okay, and let me keep

10 going. And then I came back -- alright, yes, and 

11 my response was, you know, I guess if you want to 

12 go with the spike bounding approach, as you did, 

13 as long as the PoC was less than 50 percent, you 

14 know, going with the bounding approach probably is 

15 okay.

16 It's unusual to go with that, you know, 

17 looking at spikes, but if it turns out that's what 

18 you elected to do for expediency and the DRs, the 

19 PoC is still less than 50 percent I guess that's 

20 okay, if everyone else agrees with that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

22 it's a bounding assumption and that's certainly 
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 claimant-favorable.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MEMBER MUNN: You can't be any plainer 

4 than that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. We 

6 have done this elsewhere.

7 MR. SIEBERT: So my question, would 

8 that be an observation then?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, gosh.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Since there is nothing 

11 wrong with the approach?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct, 

13 yes, nothing is wrong with the approach. It is 

14 very claimant-favorable, but it's an appropriately 

15 claimant-favorable -- yes, I think we should close 

16 it and make it an observation. Okay, let's go on.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Finding Number 

18 3 states that there is no evidence of raffinates 

19 removal.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. No, I can help out a 

21 little. I'm tracking it now on the BRS and, yes, 

22 the issue had to do with whether there was any 
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 exposure to raffinates during the residual period 

2 and I guess Scott's response was well, it was 

3 removed, the material was removed, there was no 

4 evidence of raffinates being onsite, and I went 

5 back after Scott indicated as such, and it's there 

6 on the BRS, take a look at Page 18 to 20 of 

7 SRDB-1237.9 and I agree, it certainly appears that 

8 way, and, therefore, in this case I was 

9 recommending that we close this finding.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

11 that we close it as an observation, or at least I 

12 would recommend observation on that.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, I'm just unclear 

14 whether this is a finding we are withdrawing or a 

15 finding that was actually an observation. Is 

16 there something, was there anything, any reason to 

17 have this finding then?

18 DR. MAURO: Perhaps I could help there. 

19 Until I read the SRDB, in other words when Scott 

20 -- when I had the original finding and then we 

21 discussed it Scott pointed out that there is 

22 evidence that, in fact, the material was removed 
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 and he pointed in the direction of an SRDB, which 

2 I then had an opportunity to review and I said yes, 

3 it looks like you are right.

4 So I mean to -- that was the sequence 

5 of events that led to my realizing that yes, there 

6 is information, and that information was not in the 

7 report itself, the DR, but it was information that 

8 Scott, I believe, directed me to subsequently.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. It was 

10 appropriate that one check this out.

11 MR. KATZ: Right, right. No, I 

12 understand, that's --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, therefore, 

14 it's an observation.

15 MR. KATZ: Right.

16 MEMBER MUNN: I am still having a 

17 little trouble with rewriting our descriptions of 

18 what the observations and findings are.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: You know, the reason we 

21 have a finding is because a qualified reviewer has 

22 looked at something and it doesn't make sense to 
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 them.

2 Now the fact that it turns out that 

3 there was no harm, no foul doesn't change the fact 

4 that -- I mean, now we are saying that that's no 

5 longer a finding, it's an observation as long as 

6 everything is done all right.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think that was 

9 our original description of observations and if we 

10 want to do that it's certainly within our privilege 

11 to do so, but it bothers me that we are changing 

12 our description of what constitutes a finding and 

13 what constitutes an observation.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, Wanda, that's true, 

15 but we changed it quite some time ago.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Really?

17 MR. KATZ: And it's based on the basic 

18 distinction that findings should relate to 

19 defects, not relate to problems with interpreting 

20 the dose reconstruction.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's -- okay.

22 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, we've, you know, 
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 moved this direction a long time ago and it just, 

2 it keeps coming up as an issue, but I mean that 

3 change was made quite some time ago now.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. There was 

5 nothing that was done wrong, therefore, changing 

6 a finding, and it was appropriate to check out 

7 whether the raffinate was there and it turns out 

8 it had been removed.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Now you don't need to 

10 re-explain it to me. I just --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay, I'm 

12 sorry.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I am personally having a 

14 little trouble with that because to me it seems to 

15 me that it's a valid finding, but if that's what 

16 we have agreed to do and I am just, I'm not trying 

17 to hold up the train. Fine, I'm with you, go ahead.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

19 And other folks do you agree it's an observation?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well this is Scott, I'm 

21 sorry, I hate to be a pain, but I would tend to think 

22 with Ted that this actually should be withdrawn 
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 because the Site Profile did reference the Perkins 

2 document that we pointed to in our response.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, Scott, if that's 

4 the case, that is if that was material that you had 

5 provided originally in support of the DR and I did 

6 not follow up on it --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it was 

8 overlooked?

9 DR. MAURO: -- and it was overlooked 

10 then I would agree that was something I should have 

11 caught. I should have followed up and confirmed, 

12 you know, as part of our review.

13 So what you just described would 

14 indicate that that's something that I should have 

15 checked myself and that would never have been 

16 brought to the surface.

17 So what you described in the case that, 

18 in the first place -- the comment should not have 

19 been made the first place given what you just said, 

20 Scott.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that what you 

22 are arguing, Scott?
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 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And --

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that's a reference 

4 in the TBD that's clearly defined?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

6 question.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it says in here, 

8 it's saying right here that "Site Profiles indicate 

9 the remaining sludge may have contaminated 

10 non-decayed uranium daughters was drowned and sent 

11 to a licensed radioactive facility."

12 I can't say specifically whether that 

13 reference is in the Site Profile or not. I'm 

14 guessing it probably is because that's where I 

15 would have pulled it from.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well let's 

17 confirm that then. Let's leave it open and let's 

18 just confirm that.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, how about --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rather than 

21 saying it's likely it was there or it wasn't.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: How about if it is in 
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 the TBD we'll withdraw the finding and if not --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

3 If it's in the TBD we'll withdraw it. But the 

4 question is, is it in the TBD and that we have to 

5 hold open until we get a chance to look at it.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Is NIOSH going to do 

7 that or both SC&A and NIOSH?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: SC&A can --

9 MR. SIEBERT: I'll do that.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

11 MR. SIEBERT: No, okay.

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so 0.3 is 

14 open and we'll check that before. 0.4?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Finding 4 says 

16 implausible intake spikes were assumed during the 

17 residual period.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, this is the same as the 

19 previous one. You know, and it actually indicates 

20 --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right.

22 DR. MAURO: It's the same issue where 
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 --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

3 DR. MAURO: And I believe in the -- so 

4 the response again is the same. If the PoC was less 

5 than a 50 percent a bounding approach is 

6 appropriate, if everyone agrees with that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I'm just, we 

8 haven't -- that's not Finding, that's not 0.3, 

9 we're talking about 0.2.

10 DR. MAURO: Oh, I thought --

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, he's talking about 

12 Number 2.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, the same 

14 response as 0.2. There it is, okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we closed it 

17 as an observation.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That was the last of 

21 the Allied Chemical case.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are really moving 

2 here.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: I'm going to break away. 

5 Thank you for inviting me and I was hopeful I was 

6 helpful.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Well, we 

8 have -- let's just say this. We need to be, we have 

9 a few more minutes and then we have to, before folks 

10 have to go at 4:00, it wouldn't be terrible to leave 

11 a minute or two before, but we can probably take 

12 another case.

13 So could we do ANL-East in the next ten 

14 or 15 minutes?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I don't think that 

16 should be a problem.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's do 

18 that, and then we'll decide on our next meeting and 

19 call it, finish for the day.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is 

21 ANL-East, Tab 342, Finding 1, and the findings are 

22 that NIOSH used the incorrect LOD value for 1989 
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 and that impacts missed photon dose to the 

2 prostate.

3 Here NIOSH agrees with us. They use an 

4 LOD of 25 millirems and it should have been ten, 

5 and this, of course, overestimate, and that was 

6 caused by the workbook actually and the tool has 

7 subsequently been updated and there is no need for 

8 use of the tool anymore.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like 

10 a clear finding and we can close it.

11 (Simultaneous speaking.)

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- claimant-favorable. 

13 Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 342.2, NIOSH used an 

16 NTA film correction factor for 1989 through 1990 

17 TLD readings, and this impacts missed neutron dose 

18 assignments.

19 Here NIOSH agrees with us, again, and 

20 they used an NTA correction factor that was too 

21 high, so it was claimant-favorable and we would 

22 recommend closing this finding.
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The same case, Finding 

3 Number 3, NIOSH used the incorrect MDA conversion 

4 and this impacts missed plutonium dose.

5 Here NIOSH disagrees with us. They say 

6 that the TBD refers to Page 26 and a table, and the 

7 bioassay in question was collected in 1989.

8 The MDA, according to that table is 

9 0.033 dpm per liter, and that matches what was used 

10 in the DR. Alright. And we agree with them, NIOSH 

11 did use the correct MDA and so I would recommend 

12 that we withdraw the finding.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we should 

14 close it and it should be -- since it was correct 

15 it should be an observation.

16 MR. KATZ: No, no, it's a withdraw.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Dave, it's a withdraw as 

19 Rose suggested.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me -- I'm not 

21 quite clear.

22 MR. KATZ: The finding was wrong so 
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 they are withdrawing the finding.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It appears that they we 

3 were using the wrong table in the TBD, which has 

4 a different unit.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah, okay. 

6 Okay, withdrawn. Okay, go ahead.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And the last 

8 one on this case, Finding Number 4, NIOSH used 

9 one-half the MDA value instead of intake value in 

10 the CADW, and this impacted missed fission product 

11 dose used for calculating strontium-90 in the 

12 OTIB-54 tool.

13 MR. KATZ: Rose, something happened to 

14 the phone, and I don't know about anyone else, but 

15 I couldn't hear anything you said for the last 30 

16 seconds.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry.

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, it's not -- I don't think 

19 it's your phone, but something broke in.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think that's 

21 correct. I don't think it's her phone either. I 

22 certainly heard it.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well in this 

2 finding NIOSH agreed with us. They used an intake 

3 of 11.6 dpm per day instead of 46.8 dpm per day, 

4 which was an underestimated dose.

5 When they did correct it the PoCs did 

6 change, but not significantly. It went from 47.4 

7 to 47.46, and so essentially NIOSH agrees with us, 

8 but it did not impact the overall compensation 

9 decision and we would recommend closing this 

10 finding.

11 MR. KATZ: Dave, are you still with us? 

12 Maybe that was Dave losing his connection, I don't 

13 know. Dave are you with us?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am back again, 

15 I got cut off. My phone line got cut off.

16 MR. KATZ: That's okay. So, Dave, 

17 Rose just went through Finding 4, which is an error. 

18 NIOSH agrees with the error, it has a minor effect 

19 on PoC, increasing it in a minor way.

20 It doesn't change the result of the 

21 case, so she has recommended closing it, it's a 

22 positive finding.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, okay. 

2 Thank you. Alright, so it's -- I don't know, we 

3 have another five or ten minutes. What's AOO, 

4 which is, by the way, what, AOO?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe that is 

6 Albuquerque Operations Office.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah-ha, okay. 

8 Can we go through that in the next ten minutes or 

9 so? I don't know, I --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We'll see. I didn't 

11 plan on making it this far. We've gone through 

12 around 80-plus issues.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. We have 

14 gone through many issues, you are quite right, and 

15 that's fine. Well, what do we have on AOO, how many 

16 findings do we have on it?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have one 

18 observation and six findings.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think, folks, 

20 we are, Folks are getting tired. I am not quite 

21 as sharp as I was at 10:30 this morning, so I would 

22 suggest that at this point we simply, we leave --
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we will start with AOO next time if folks agree and 

2 let's plan the next date for our meeting.

3 Next Meeting Date

4 MR. KATZ: So if you guys want to pull 

5 out your calendars, and we don't have David with 

6 us, but we'll check these dates with him whenever 

7 to make sure that we are not leaving him out.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

9 MR. KATZ: That's David Richardson. 

10 So here are possible dates, just a possible date, 

11 would be the week of July 25th. The other thing 

12 is we don't have Grady on and I don't want to leave 

13 him out again.

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

15 tell you I can't make that, I am out of town that 

16 whole week.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well then so that's 

18 great, because that makes it easy. Okay, so we're 

19 not doing then. So then the next possible week is 

20 the week of August 15th.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: August what?

22 MR. KATZ: We don't want to do right 
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 before a Board Meeting, I don't think.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right, 

3 that's correct. Wait a minute, our Board Meeting 

4 is --

5 MR. KATZ: The 9th and 10th.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: So I would suggest August 

8 15th, the week of that as a possibility.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: August 15th I am 

10 definitely out the entire week. That's my week --

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. What about the week 

12 of the 22nd?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Folks, what 

14 about the week of the 22nd? I'm a bit prejudiced 

15 against late August meetings, but I would rather 

16 --

17 MEMBER POSTON: Are you talking about 

18 August?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know, let's, 

21 okay, the last week in August is possible.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, that's the second to 
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 last week, right, August 22nd. Is that --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, you're right 

3 it is the second. It doesn't matter. Let's just 

4 see. I think a lot of people are on vacation, but 

5 let's actually check it out.

6 MR. KATZ: Well --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am available 

8 that week.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, so am I.

10 MEMBER POSTON: If you do it on the 22nd 

11 or 23rd that's fine. We have a faculty retreat on 

12 the 24th and 25th.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So the 22nd and 23rd,

14 does that work for everyone who is on the line?

15 Okay. And then how about, let's just 

16 have some more options because we want to check with 

17 Grady and also with --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me suggest, 

19 given the time of year, let me suggest Tuesday the 

20 23rd is our first choice rather than the Monday, 

21 rather than Friday or Monday.

22 MR. KATZ: Right, I agree.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then Monday 

2 will be our backup, and let's see what we can do 

3 for other days. What's the 24th or 25th like?

4 MR. KATZ: Well that doesn't work 

5 because John Poston just explained to us --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: He said 24 is no 

7 good, what about 25?

8 MEMBER POSTON: No, it's 2-day 

9 retreat.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, fine.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, so let's just go to the 

12 next week, what about the week of August 29th?

13 MEMBER POSTON: We can't have it on the 

14 30th, that's [identifying information redacted]

15 birthday.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, sure. 

17 Hey --

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. What about the 31st 

19 and September --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are you sure 

21 that's not [identifying information redacted]

22 birthday?
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 (Laughter.)

2 MR. KATZ: How about the 31st and 

3 September 1st?

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's take a 

5 look.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I'm out the whole 

7 week. I just checked.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, that's fine. Then 

9 let's just go to the next week, the week of 

10 September 5th.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Holiday, Labor Day on 

12 the 5th, but other than that I am clear.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, so --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 5th is Labor 

15 Day?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, so then let's not do the 

17 6th either with people --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

19 that's true.

20 MR. KATZ: How about the 7th, 8th, 9th?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hold it just a 

22 minute. I have something I believe on the 7th and 
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 8th. Hold it. Seventh and 8th, yes. I am tied 

2 up the 7th and 8th.

3 Possibly I could -- no, I am. Pardon 

4 me. I can do the 9th.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. September 9th, 

6 that's a Friday, is that okay with other folks?

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's not summer 

9 vacation time.

10 MR. KATZ: No.

11 MEMBER POSTON: What?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's not summer 

13 vacation time.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, that's --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hey, after Labor 

16 Day we're back at work, folks.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, right. So September 

18 9th is another option I'll put out there as a second 

19 option. And then I really need another, I mean 

20 David Richardson is tough, so --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, he is.

22 MR. KATZ: -- let's just try, what 
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 about the week of the 12th, the 12th through the 

2 15th of September?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, the 12th 

4 --

5 MEMBER POSTON: Good.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am busy the 

7 12th.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thirteenth through 

9 15th?

10 MEMBER BEACH: I am good any of those 

11 days. Not the --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: The 13th would be best 

13 for me.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 13th would 

15 be fine for me.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. And, John?

17 MEMBER POSTON: It should be. I think 

18 I have class from 8:00 to 9:50.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We can work 

20 around, work with that as you have done before.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Why don't we 

2 call Tuesday the 13th then the next backup?

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we have three 

4 options, four dates as options and I'll send those 

5 out to both Grady and to David Richardson.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that 

7 sounds good.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Can you go through them 

9 again, I got --

10 MR. KATZ: Alright, let me go through 

11 them again. So our first choice is the 23rd of 

12 August, the second would be the 22nd, then after 

13 that September 9th, and after that September 13th.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thanks.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: September 9th 

17 and then September 13th, good.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, let's hope at least one 

19 of those works for David and for Grady.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, hope so. 

21 Okay, folks, thank you all very much, and have a 

22 good rest of the day.
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 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks everybody.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Bye.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

4 went off the record at 3:32 p.m.)