1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 22, 2016

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

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

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member 

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

Welcome and Roll Call ............................ 4

Case Reviews Issue Resolution for ................ 9

Sets 14-18 (Paducah GDP [Case 355.2], ............ 9

SRS [356.6], RFP [419.2-4], INL [383.4], ......... 9

NTS [348.8 & 387.1-8]) ........................... 9

Continue Category 1 Cases from .................. 92

Sets 18-18 (approx. 15 cases) ................... 92

Blind Case Reviews from Set 22 ................. 120

Sandia National Laboratories ................... 123

Grand Junction ................................. 128

Rocky Flats .................................... 146

Begin Discussion on Improving Consistency in Dose 

Reconstruction (SC&A Memo 3-11-16) ............. 168

Next Steps/Future Meeting Date ................. 209

Adjourn ........................................ 220
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:31 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone. This is 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

6 Dose Reconstruction Review Subcommittee. 

7 (Roll call.)

8 MR. KATZ: Alright, then, so, let me 

9 just note for everybody to mute your phones except 

10 when you are speaking.

11 Dr. Richardson will be with us at least 

12 until -- will be with us until about 12:30. Dave, 

13 then we have the conflict.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: It's your meeting.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I am still 

17 trying to get on in my CDC computer. I don't have 

18 -- I seem to be having trouble finding Zaida's 

19 invitation, which I had on my regular computer. 

20 However, let's -- we can begin with me on audio. 

21 I certainly have had a chance to look over the 

22 materials today.
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, before we begin, just for 

2 everybody, a couple of just administrative things. 

3 Ever since I got the note from Dr. Melius about our 

4 full name, the Dose Reconstruction Review 

5 Subcommittee, I thought it was reason reasonable 

6 and proper to use our full name when we abbreviate 

7 as DRRSC and I started using it. When I took over 

8 as Chairperson, I just simply used DRSC because 

9 that is what we have always used. But since I know 

10 the correct name and I always did, I guess, I 

11 thought it was a reasonable thing to start using 

12 it. And I'm going to start using that in notes. 

13 And when Zaida sent out information about the 

14 meeting, she called it DRRSC.

15 So, are folks on the Subcommittee okay 

16 with using that? Is there anybody who -- is there 

17 any problem with that?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No, but we can debate it 

19 for a while if you like.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? Okay. 

21 Alright.

22 MEMBER BEACH: No objection.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so I would

2 like to do that. And that will be --

3 The other thing, and this I will speak 

4 to Ted about, and while it is not, strictly 

5 speaking, a Subcommittee issue, I am always 

6 bothered on our transcripts where we use the word 

7 Chairman for all people who chair Committees and 

8 Subcommittees. And I would like to change it to 

9 Chairperson. That will involve a larger change 

10 and in fact something I think we need to mention, 

11 where we go to the Board or I will speak with Ted 

12 further about it.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, I don't think that is 

14 really a Board issue, Dave.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: I mean we can also just use 

17 the term "Chair."

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We can. I don't 

19 prefer "Chair" because chair, to me, is a fixed 

20 object made of wood or metal or plastic.

21 MR. KATZ: I mean it is in pretty common 

22 parlance. 
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay. We can 

2 talk about it some other time.

3 MR. KATZ: It doesn't matter. I mean 

4 that is something to discuss with the transcription 

5 service. Because what people say out of their 

6 mouth is any number of these versions.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: True. True. 

8 Let's talk about it further, you and I, and that 

9 is just a pet thing of mine. Anyway, I just wanted 

10 to mention the DRRSC.

11 MEMBER MUNN: David, I hate to say this 

12 but that is a pet thing of mine, also, from an 

13 opposite view.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Interesting. 

15 Well, let's talk further about it, then, and I will 

16 appreciate your input. Let's talk about that off 

17 of Committee time. And I will make sure that you 

18 are included in our discussion, my discussion with 

19 Ted about it. Let's think about it.

20 Anyway, let's start with our agenda. 

21 So, the first item is the Case Reviews Issue 

22 Resolution for Sets 14 to 18. And while I am still 
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 trying to join Live Meeting on either of my 

2 computers --

3 MS. ADAMS: Dave, this is Nancy Adams. 

4 I sent you a link in your email to CDC that might 

5 help.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. Good, 

7 and I will look at that.

8 Meanwhile, Rose, are you on the line?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I am on the line.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so why don't 

11 we start with the -- I don't know if you want to 

12 start with the first one, the Paducah GDP.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, yes, absolutely.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Ted, before we get 

16 going, though, do we need to do a roll call for SC&A 

17 and NIOSH for the record?

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Rose. We 

20 stopped in the middle of the roll call. That's my 

21 fault. But let's go on.

22 (Roll call.)
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, Rose.

2 Case Reviews Issue Resolution for

3 Sets 14-18 (Paducah GDP [Case 355.2], 

4 SRS [356.6], RFP [419.2-4], INL [383.4],

5 NTS [348.8 & 387.1-8])

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, we are going to 

7 start with we have one more in the Oak Ridge matrix 

8 and this is actually a Paducah case. And this is 

9 by name. This is --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could you speak 

11 just a little louder, Rose?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, sorry about that. 

13 This is Finding 355.2 and it is a Paducah case. And 

14 we have had a lot of back and forth with this 

15 particular case. The finding states that NIOSH 

16 used incorrect dose correction factor for the years 

17 1980 through 1982 for missed photon doses. And 

18 basically as a result of this, we determined or 

19 NIOSH determined that the text in the TBD doesn't 

20 accurately reflect what they thought.

21 So, NIOSH is modifying their 
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 recommendations here in the TBD and they have also 

2 offered does reconstruction guidance for Paducah. 

3 When they update the TBD, they will include the 

4 guidance there.

5 So, SC&A recommends closing this issue.

6 MR. STIVER: Rose, this is John. 

7 Could you speak up just a little bit? I am having 

8 a real hard time hearing you.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Same.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry about that. I 

11 have got my phone turned up all the way. I am just 

12 soft-spoken, I guess.

13 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just to 

14 let you know, we have already made that change and 

15 it is in the process of going over and it should 

16 be signed off relatively soon. So, it is pretty 

17 much a done deal on our side.

18 MR. KATZ: Good.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So, if there 

20 are no objections, I would recommend closing that 

21 finding.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I am still having 

2 trouble -- Brad, are you still having trouble 

3 hearing Rose?

4 MR. KATZ: It's very clear and loud on 

5 my phone.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, it's good on my 

7 phone.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so that wraps up 

10 our Oak Ridge Matrix. And now we have one 

11 straggler in the SRS, Hanford. And that is Finding 

12 356.6.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Let me just pull it up 

15 here. And here it was in the findings, it states 

16 that there was an inconsistent assignment of 

17 unmonitored environmental tritium dose. And we 

18 had some back and forth, historically, that is 

19 documented here in the DRS when this should have 

20 been applied. There was lots of back and forth but 

21 mostly NIOSH responded that essentially SC&A and 

22 NIOSH are interpreting the guidance for 
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 unmonitored workers --

2 MR. KATZ: Hold on, as we have a lot of 

3 static on the line. Can everyone but Rose mute 

4 your phones, please? Thanks.

5 Okay, go ahead, Rose.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, here you will see 

7 we recorded from the TBD exactly the guidance on 

8 page 85 of the TBD of when coworker dose should be 

9 assigned.

10 Here, SC&A essentially believes that 

11 coworker dose should have been assigned but NIOSH 

12 argued that if the EE was monitored for one 

13 radionuclide, then they are no longer eligible for 

14 coworker dose and only should receive 

15 environmental dose. And we recommend additional 

16 discussion on this topic.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I'm sorry. You 

18 recommend what?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Additional 

20 discussion.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Oh.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Folks want to weigh 
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 in on that?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, again, it seems to 

3 me that there is the statement that NIOSH has made 

4 which makes perfect sense. That they already have 

5 at least one bioassay, then it doesn't seem to me 

6 that the unmonitored worker item would apply to 

7 them unless there is a ---

8 (Telephonic interference)

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Wow, 

10 there is a lot reverb, isn't there?

11 MEMBER BEACH: There is a ton. It's 

12 hard to hear.

13 MR. KATZ: Again, everyone but the 

14 speaker needs to mute their phone. That is how you 

15 get the reverb.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, there seems to be 

18 trouble with mine, my phone. Maybe for some reason 

19 known only to God and my landline provider, I have 

20 no long distance service on the landline, so I am 

21 having to use my cell phone.

22 MEMBER BEACH: You know, Wanda, I'm 
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 having the same issue.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, but it is Wanda's that 

3 is echoing. Wanda, are you muting your phone?

4 MEMBER MUNN: I'm using my cell phone 

5 because my land line is shot.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Ted, you are actually 

7 echoing and so was Scott.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I'll try my landline one 

9 more time but Josie is having the same problem. 

10 This may be a local problem with our provider.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Wanda, mine is not 

12 working either. So, it must be local. I was going 

13 to call on that break and find out what is going 

14 on.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think I will 

16 probably do the same but they will tell us they are 

17 having problems and they will let us know when they 

18 are well. We're trying.

19 Meanwhile, I don't have another 

20 solution.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is Scott. 

22 What I was going to point out is the Savannah River 
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 Work Group has been working on this extensively as 

2 part of their coworker discussions. And there are 

3 going to be changes in how coworker is applied and 

4 dealing with unmonitored workers and locations in 

5 the next TBD. But I believe, and Grady can correct 

6 me if I am wrong, I don't believe any of that is 

7 fully nailed down yet. So, what we have been doing, 

8 historically, is what we have referenced here. 

9 And once all that gets ironed out and the Technical 

10 Basis Document is updated, we know there will be 

11 changes in how it is all applied. I just can't tell 

12 you specifically how the changes are going to be 

13 applied until that whole process plays out.

14 MR. KATZ: So, it sounds like, Scott, 

15 from what you are saying, this is, in standard 

16 fashion, a finding then that you table until the 

17 Work Group, or wherever it is getting resolved, 

18 resolves it.

19 MR. SIEBERT: How you guys want to 

20 handle that is entirely up to you.

21 MR. KATZ: Right and normally what we 

22 do is we then leave this in progress. We wait for 
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 report out from whoever the deciding body is, 

2 you are saying the SRS group is addressing this. 

3 And in the meantime, it just sits there.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Right. That may or may 

5 not change with the finishing.

6 MR. KATZ: Understood.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I would suggest that we 

8 simply note on our BRS that we are awaiting the 

9 results of the Work Group's discussion.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. And Rose, just 

11 reference the SRS Work Group here.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, that sounds 

13 reasonable.

14 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And now actually the 

16 only other one in the SRS matrix here is also 

17 waiting for an SRS Work Group decision. So, I 

18 would recommend that we just move on to the next 

19 matrix.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Louder.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We will switch here --
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Dave. I have 

2 changed phones. I have a land line.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay and Dave, did you catch 

4 all of that?

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I caught -- yes, I 

6 caught it on audio.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, good.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next finding 

9 here that we have open in this matrix is 388.1. 

10 I'll pull this up here for a moment.

11 And here the original finding says that 

12 NIOSH did not assign 1966 recorded neutron dose. 

13 And NIOSH agreed with us here but we do have one 

14 question. Apparently they said that there will be 

15 an RFP PER following the conclusion of the TBD. 

16 And we are wondering if this particular issue will 

17 be encompassed by that PER. In cases that were 

18 adversely impacted by, I believe this is a workbook 

19 error, it would be corrected as part of that PER.

20 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. Until 

21 the SEC process is fully complete and the TBD is 

22 completed, I can't tell you the scope of the PER 
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 and whether it will include all these cases or not 

2 but I can tell you that this is on the list of issues 

3 that we need to deal with in any PER from Rocky 

4 Flats. So, regardless of whether the PER based on 

5 the changes to the TBD reflect this specifically 

6 or not, we will be dealing with this issue.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And if that is 

8 the case, we will recommend closing this issue. 

9 And actually, the same issue also applies to 388.2. 

10 It is simply a workbook issue. The workbook wasn't 

11 probably reacting to all the dose that was input 

12 into it. And NIOSH has already corrected that 

13 issue and apparently it will be covered in the PER. 

14 So, I am including that as well.

15 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. Just for my 

16 notes, which ones specifically have we closed?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 388.1 and this would be 

18 388.2.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I just wanted to 

20 verify. Thank you.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Do you know whether this 

22 one is also on the list?
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 MR. KATZ: Wanda, do you want to repeat 

2 your question?

3 MEMBER MUNN: I said do we know if this 

4 one is also on the list to be addressed.

5 MR. SIEBERT: It is the same issue.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Then I think that we need 

7 to make a notation on our BRS that this has been 

8 noted by NIOSH that it is on the list to be addressed 

9 and we have nothing more to do in a case like that.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I was on mute. 

11 Excuse me. But Rose, when you were saying we were 

12 discussing 388.1 and what other one?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 388.2.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, .1 and .2, okay.

15 I don't see that on my list for this 

16 discussion on the agenda. It could be my list.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It wasn't on your list. 

18 I apologize but --

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that's okay. 

20 That is perfectly alright. I am still having 

21 trouble. I did not get Nancy Adams' note on my CDC 

22 computer. It hasn't come in yet and I can't get 
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 in on Live Meeting. So, I am having a lot of 

2 trouble.

3 MR. KATZ: I will send you the Live 

4 Meeting connection again, Dave.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

6 MR. KATZ: I will send you the 

7 connection again.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, send it to my 

9 Hunter address.

10 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, frankly, and 

12 this is because it is very difficult sharing 

13 without an ability to --

14 MR. KATZ: Will do. Will do.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Now, the next 

17 open issue in this matrix is 419.2 and this is an 

18 RFP from the Lawrence Livermore and NTS case.

19 And here the finding says that there was 

20 an incomplete assessment of neutron dose at RFP. 

21 And we have discussed this previously.

22 And although NIOSH doesn't have a 
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 response directly in here in the BRS, I spoke with 

2 them offline and -- 419.1 and that hasn't been 

3 corrected yet. Nope. No, I guess --

4 MEMBER MUNN: I'm sorry, Rose. I 

5 didn't get that completely. I'm trying, which we 

6 all are trying with our phones here.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I understand.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Would you repeat the last 

9 part of your last comment?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Although that there is 

11 not an entry directly here in the BRS, I did contact 

12 Beth offline and I guess the response got entered 

13 into the wrong --

14 Here, the finding says that or the NIOSH 

15 response says that the claimant [identifying 

16 information redacted] at Rocky Flats and did not 

17 enter any RMA areas. Therefore, there were no 

18 monitoring or dosimeters required.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I contacted her 

21 again offline because I was curious. That is not 

22 reflected at all in this EE's file. And according 
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 to her, I believe she said Grady had contacted the 

2 EE's employer, who was a contractor -- I won't give 

3 out the name for PI information -- and they had told 

4 them that but that is not in any of the records --

5 in that respect how dose should have been assigned. 

6 The guidance document says that if there is large 

7 gaps in the EE's dosimetry, then coworker dose 

8 would be assigned. And that was not done. 

9 However, NIOSH is arguing that it wasn't necessary.

10 So, I'm not really sure how to treat 

11 this.

12 MEMBER MUNN: So, this is Wanda. From 

13 my perspective, that we check the things from the 

14 very beginning is failure to have accurate 

15 information. There wasn't any reason for 

16 dosimetry to be used over a certain period. If the 

17 employer had the records indicating that this was 

18 the case and the employee was not being sent --

19 going into the exposure area at all and was in fact 

20 working somewhere else at the time, then that seems 

21 to me to be a reasonable piece of information to 

22 be added to the file and to give us to make the 
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 resolution right here.

2 MR. KATZ: Right. So, this is a case 

3 of an observation, then, Rose, a correct 

4 observation that the documentation isn't in order.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I would point 

6 out, though, that they didn't have that information 

7 when they were making the assessment.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, they failed to 

10 follow their own guidance. And then it turns out 

11 it was okay after the fact when they got more 

12 information.

13 MR. KATZ: I see.

14 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady here. I 

15 don't want to let that go completely. Based on the 

16 era when the individual worked and based on the job 

17 descriptions that we had, we believe that that was 

18 the case. Only when it became questioned during 

19 this review did we go to get further information. 

20 And that just confirmed what our decision was 

21 already. It wasn't really just a shot in the dark 

22 like is being presented here.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The only information 

2 that we really had to go off of is RFP employment 

3 was the survivor's claim that he helped with 

4 cleanup. And it is unclear what site that might 

5 have happened at because he was employed at 

6 multiple sites. But to us that would indicate that 

7 to trigger, he may have had exposure risk.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it doesn't seem to 

9 be a major problem. It is just a question of having 

10 had incomplete information at the time the file was 

11 first addressed. And further requests for 

12 additional information have revealed that it 

13 wasn't necessary at the time.

14 So --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It also makes me 

16 question, if the contractor had more information 

17 why wasn't that already provided?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, true.

19 What we are really and truly debating 

20 here is whether or not some standard needs to be 

21 pointed in one direction or another, not whether 

22 the case itself has been properly handled.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we feel we now have 

3 enough accurate information or at least more 

4 complete information. And the file will be 

5 handled accordingly. It is no longer an issue for 

6 us, correct?

7 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean so I would 

8 still suggest to you that this is an observation 

9 because dose reconstruction was done correctly, 

10 irrespective of whether the process followed was 

11 ideal or proper.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Additional information 

13 now confirms that the dose reconstruction was found 

14 to be done correctly, given the new information.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now is there a process 

17 that NIOSH seeks this information from contractors 

18 when it is not already part of the DOE file?

19 MR. CALHOUN: Typically not. I mean 

20 we can and like in this case but we typically go 

21 with whatever is provided to us by DOE and DOL.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would just be 
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 concerned that other employees might also fall into 

2 this same category.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Rose, this is Josie. I 

4 would say that would be true, especially when it 

5 is a survivor that they are talking with.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, it has 

7 been pointed out that that might be a potential 

8 hole.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, it is up to 

10 the Subcommittee to decide how you want to 

11 characterize this and close it.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I just got back on. 

13 I finally, finally got on to the website. So, I am 

14 sort of out of this conversation. I came in in the 

15 middle. I heard -- I have been on audio all the 

16 time, of course. 

17 So, do continue, folks.

18 MR. KATZ: Well, Dave, at this point, 

19 it is really up to the Subcommittee to decide how 

20 you want to characterize this. Is this a finding 

21 or an observation? And then you can close it.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I will take 
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 advice on this because I feel like I have been too 

2 distracted trying to get on, while the meeting is 

3 going on.

4 So, I would welcome a statement from 

5 Committee Members as to whether this is an 

6 observation or finding and then simply ask for 

7 folks to vote on that.

8 So, do I have someone making a 

9 suggestion, making a motion, if you will?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I think it should 

11 remain a finding, although we have additional 

12 information. The information at the time, it was 

13 the finding.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MEMBER BEACH: So I personally don't 

16 think it should go as an observation at this time.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, a comment for 

18 a finding. Do others agree it should be a finding 

19 or there is clearly disagreement? Would somebody 

20 state a case for observation for the record, if you 

21 will?

22 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I can't 
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 make a statement for an observation because I think 

2 Josie's observation was correct: given information 

3 that our contractor has to work with at the outset, 

4 it would appear to be a finding. Additional 

5 information now reveals that the dose 

6 reconstruction was performed in the correct manner 

7 in light of the new information. So, and it is 

8 closed as a result of that. That there is an even 

9 bigger sample on the record to deal with that.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, you would agree 

11 it is a finding?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, then 

14 are people agreed then it should be a finding, the 

15 Subcommittee Members?

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I feel 

17 it is a finding.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any others?

19 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. I 

20 agree.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

22 Then, I think we should close this as a finding and 
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 go on to the next.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Actually, the 

3 next finding, 419.3 and 419.4 are all related to 

4 that same issue. If you accept that there was risk 

5 of exposure, then ambient dose was assigned 

6 incorrectly and also internal dose wasn't handled 

7 correctly by that assumption.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, I would recommend 

10 that we close those as well.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay and then the next 

13 one is also part of the same case. It is 419 

14 Observation 1.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And here we just 

17 pointed out that, although this case was done 

18 correctly and followed OTIB-5 recommendations, 

19 this particular case had a cancer that was a 

20 secondary cancer so it was treated different than 

21 primary cancers. Multiple dose reconstructions 

22 need to be done on different organs and then the 
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 highest was assigned. And that was not mentioned 

2 at all in the DR report. We did see evidence of 

3 it in the files that were presented along with the 

4 DR but it wasn't actually stated in the DR and we 

5 just felt that it should have been mentioned. And 

6 NIOSH did agree with what is here.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, we recommend 

9 closure.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, that 

11 sounds reasonable.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's been a standard 

13 process of not mentioning it, a secondary cancer 

14 and the additional work that needs to go into it. 

15 I believe this is the first secondary cancer we have 

16 ever reviewed.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Scott or 

18 Grady?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry, I had to get off 

20 mute. No, normally we have a blurb in there that 

21 states, as a secondary cancer, there were multiple 

22 primary cancers and the one that was used was the 
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 one that was given, again, the largest PoC.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so this was an 

3 abnormality.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I just wanted to 

6 verify that. And that would wrap up everything in 

7 our Fernald-Mound RFP matrix.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, we will go on to the 

10 INL-NTS matrix.

11 And turning to the first one that is 

12 open, which is 383.4 and this is an INL-NTS case. 

13 And here the finding states that NIOSH admitted one 

14 zero dose for 1965 and applied excess kidney dose. 

15 And NIOSH did agree with us that the NTS dosimeter 

16 was missing but they disagreed with the secondary 

17 part about the excess kidney zero doses.

18 We have talked about this before. And 

19 here, NIOSH went in and investigated the problem.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't understand 

21 when you say zero kidney dose -- kidney zero doses.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: A zero would be a blank 
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 in the dosimetry file or something that would be 

2 less than half of the LOD.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so missed doses 

5 assigned in those cases.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see, okay. Okay. 

7 Go ahead.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So, after NIOSH 

9 investigated, they found that SC&A was correct and 

10 that a different number of zeros was used for the 

11 prostate calculation. And it turned out to be a 

12 dose reconstructor error. They didn't save the 

13 file.

14 And so the problem has been identified 

15 and we would recommend closing this.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And actually, the case 

18 is already going to be reworked under PER.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the cases is 

21 already going to be reworked under PER. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Just for clarification, 
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 it already has been reworked under the PER.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

4 Alright.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We would recommend 

6 closing that.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. Any 

8 objection, folks?

9 MEMBER MUNN: None.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MEMBER BEACH: None here.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. Then 

13 it'll be closed.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great. And the next, 

15 383.8 is actually reported to the INL Work Group. 

16 So, we can skip that one and the next one would be 

17 387, observations.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next would be 387 

20 Observation 1.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is the NTS 
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 case. And about the same, NIOSH did not include 

2 any external dose supporting worksheets in the DR 

3 report files. This is an observation just 

4 pointing out that typically we do see these files 

5 and they were not provided.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH points out this 

8 case was already compensated because it had a PoC 

9 over 50 percent. So, additional information 

10 wasn't necessary.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This was just an 

13 administrative detail. So, we would recommend 

14 closing it.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed, absolutely.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sure.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next finding 

19 is 387.1, the same case.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The finding states 

22 that NIOSH omitted a finding supporting the photon 
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 reported dose for the year 1968. And here, after 

2 back and forth, we found out that it was just a QA 

3 error but being addressed -- it was a workbook 

4 error, essentially, and that has already been 

5 corrected.

6 And we just question if there is a PER 

7 in place that will infer that cases impacted by this 

8 workbook error are being captured.

9 MR. SIEBERT: And as we mentioned 

10 before on that previous one -- is this an NTS one?

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. There was already 

14 an NTS PER that would have caught this. So, yes.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next one here 

18 --

19 MR. KATZ: Wait. So, we agree to 

20 close, right?

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, we did

22 agree.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: Thanks. Okay, go on.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 387.2, the finding 

4 states that NIOSH omitted the findings of 65 

5 millirem beta recorded dose for the year 1968.

6 And NIOSH responded that the PoC was 

7 greater than 50 percent. It wasn't necessary. 

8 Although it wasn't necessary for the compensation 

9 decision, it does appear to be an unintentional 

10 omission because other years were assigned 

11 recorded beta dose. So, this particular result 

12 was just omitted from the dose reconstruction.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, it is a 

14 quality assurance.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Close.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Agree to close.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Closed.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you. Finding 3, 

21 NIOSH used an overestimating uncertainty factor 

22 and, of course, this claim was compensated so it 
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 should not include overestimating factors. And 

2 NIOSH does agree the overestimating factor of two 

3 was incorrectly applied to this case. It should 

4 have used 1.23. But since beta dose is such a minor 

5 component of the overall dose, they don't feel that 

6 it had a significant impact.

7 So, essentially, this is a QA issue and 

8 it didn't impact compensation. So, we would 

9 recommend closing.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Agree.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And so the next 

14 finding, same case, Finding 4 is that NIOSH did not 

15 assign beta dose for 1961 through 1965. And NIOSH, 

16 again, responded that PoC was greater than 50 

17 percent. It was not necessary.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, same issue. 

19 Observation: quality assurance. It seems to be 

20 clear.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Unless folks 
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 disagree.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I agree but I have 

3 a question. If it wasn't compensated, that dose 

4 would have been added. Is that correct?

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, sure.

6 MR. CALHOUN: And there has actually 

7 been some changes to that workbook, like we said, 

8 that make it -- it is a little bit more 

9 user-friendly now and it actually, I am going to 

10 say technically poorly here but it reaches out and 

11 grabs the doses from the individual years that are 

12 input and this was done so long ago that that kind 

13 of more advanced workbook options weren't there but 

14 they are getting worked into the new workbooks as 

15 we develop them and revise them.

16 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

17 So, this was a workbook error and this was covered 

18 under that initial PER?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Well, this is a 

20 compensable claim that wouldn't be covered under

21 PER.

22 MS. BEHLING: No, I mean if it was a 
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 workbook error, it is going to impact other cases 

2 other than this. And you indicated that because 

3 of a workbook error, there was a PER issued and I 

4 assumed that this beta dose issue was also 

5 addressed in that.

6 MR. SIEBERT: No, there was a separate 

7 NTS PER that was recently completed that would have 

8 included these claims. So, yes.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, we will 

10 close this.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next 

12 finding, same case, Finding 5, a case that NIOSH 

13 omitted photon doses for 1963 and gave the 

14 incorrect MDL for 1971.

15 And this is kind of an interesting case. 

16 The original case was done and included 1963 

17 because there is dosimetry records indicating that 

18 the EE worked at the site in 1963. However, the 

19 claim was actually reworked to remove 1963.

20 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Rose, to 

21 interrupt, but someone is not muted and we can hear 

22 sirens and so on.
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 Okay, go on, Rose.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So, the case 

3 was reworked to remove 1963 because that is not a 

4 covered year for the site.

5 And so I guess this is where the 

6 confusion lies since most of the DOE records show 

7 1963 as being a covered year but when we reworked 

8 those files, obviously they don't get updated 

9 because they were historical at that point.

10 And so to us it appeared that 1963 

11 should have been covered when it was actually 

12 removed intentionally.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, this is Dave. 

14 But at a formal level, we only look at what DOL 

15 verifies. So, even though it may have been a DOL 

16 error, if we did not catch it, then we have to abide 

17 by what DOL said, in which case to my mind this 

18 wouldn't even be -- this would be an observation 

19 and a correct one, it appears to me. But I don't 

20 even see this as a finding in terms of the coverage 

21 of 1963. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I would agree with 
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 you in 20/20 hindsight but at the time the case was 

2 being worked, it would appear to have been an 

3 omission. It is a logical thing to want to change 

4 it as a finding. And if afterwards, we made 

5 decision it is not a covered year and that is --

6 but perhaps I am misunderstanding what you 

7 discussed.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, there is the 

9 1963 issue and then there is the 1971 issues, which 

10 cover, if you will, handle the covered period. And 

11 that part of it seems to me to be a finding. I just 

12 would -- let's put it this way. I just don't see 

13 the first line 1963 as something that is material 

14 for a finding. But the other part is, I guess. It 

15 is.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I could add 

17 something, I guess the thing that is a red flag in 

18 my mind is this is not an AWE site. Project Gnome 

19 was a nuclear explosion site.

20 So, if there is evidence that the EE was 

21 working there past the covered years, that, to me, 

22 is a flag but there was likely work going on outside 
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 of the covered period of time.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, this is Grady. 

3 Let me clarify this a bit.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. CALHOUN: If we are doing the case 

6 that we know is comp, we cannot include dose from 

7 a year that has not been verified by Labor. If this 

8 case was going non-comp, we could send that 

9 information back to Labor and say hey, we have got 

10 good information that this was a covered year and 

11 they will almost always add that to the covered 

12 employment.

13 But because this is a comp case, we 

14 cannot include that dose.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: My question was more 

16 from a larger perspective. If this EE was on-site 

17 at that time, then work must have been going on at 

18 that time as part of the DOE mission.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But this is -- this 

20 was compensated. Because it was compensated, it 

21 was -- we just can't -- properly, we cannot deal 

22 with your observation that there was work going on 
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 in '63. I agree.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree with you on 

3 that but I am thinking about the broader picture 

4 of other employees that may have been working 

5 on-site at that time.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Then, if they 

7 were not compensated, as Grady said, they would 

8 send it back to DOL. But presumably, all those --

9 Grady, everybody was compensated, right, on that 

10 one? Everybody working at that site.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This individual was 

12 compensated.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Here is what she is 

14 looking for, Dave. The covered period approved by 

15 -- the official covered period ends on June 30th,

16 1962. And there is dosimetry information from 

17 1963. What she is looking for is a request from 

18 us or DOL or somebody to reevaluate the covered 

19 period -- I believe that is what she is looking for 

20 --

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is exactly right.

22 MR. CALHOUN: -- to include 1963.
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 Now, this dosimetry very well could 

2 have been issued by a different site. I guess it 

3 is actually NTS. And I am not going to guess that 

4 it was issued by NTS and he was working somewhere 

5 else, but that could have been the case, too.

6 But it really is -- the bigger point, 

7 it is irrelevant to this case. It can go on but 

8 I see what she is looking for.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. But and my 

10 question to you was would any case be affected by 

11 going back to DOL for this.

12 MR. CALHOUN: If DOL decided that there 

13 was additional employment to be covered, it would 

14 be up to DOL to send that information to us and to 

15 begin considering that as covered employment.

16 I mean, there is a chance that DOL could 

17 send us a case and never even mention those dates. 

18 So, sure, but I don't want to pass the buck here 

19 but it is really a DOL issue.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: There is even a 

21 possibility, and logically there is a possibility 

22 that if work was going on in '63 in this case, that 
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 somebody could have missed being compensated 

2 because they didn't work 250 days. Yes?

3 MR. CALHOUN: But Project Gnome I don't 

4 believe is SEC. NTS is, but Project Gnome is not.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Aha.

6 MR. KATZ: In any event -- this is Ted 

7 -- I don't see how this gets construed as a defect 

8 in this dose reconstruction case.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Exactly.

10 MR. KATZ: I do not see that.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, for the 1963, I 

12 agree that was an error on our part that we missed 

13 because the files don't clearly indicate that would 

14 happen even if you read deep into the DOL files.

15 However, the 1971 was still valid, I 

16 believe.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it appears 

18 that seems to be the case.

19 And that would qualify as an 

20 observation. The question is what we do with that 

21 first sentence. Do we effectively eliminate 

22 consideration of it? Do we delete it or do we send 
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 note back to DOL in case it might affect other 

2 cases?

3 And if there is any question, it seems 

4 to me I would go back and ask for DOL, unless one 

5 is certain that everybody who might be affected by 

6 that is compensated. If there are any cases that 

7 are not compensated, then, say on Project Gnome, 

8 then I think we have an obligation to go back to 

9 DOL and ask them to verify.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Oh my. This is 

11 completely beyond what we are doing here, I think.

12 MEMBER MUNN: We are really way off.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I mean this is 

14 getting into covered periods at facilities and I 

15 don't know.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, alright. 

17 This is not a dose reconstruction review. Our 

18 committee is Dose Reconstruction Review. This 

19 issue is not a review issue. It is not in our 

20 mandate.

21 So, I am perfectly -- is it in somebody 

22 else's mandate and whose?
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 MEMBER MUNN: Well, whether it is or is 

2 not, it is not in our purview. There is no question 

3 about that. And anything other than -- we can't 

4 conjecture what if and what if not. We can only 

5 work with the information available to us. That 

6 is what we have done. We have looked at the case. 

7 We have reached a conclusion from our experience, 

8 there is no reason to indicate that it was not 

9 handled properly, given the information that is 

10 available to us.

11 And if there isn't more information to 

12 be gained, anything else is administrative or in 

13 some way outside the realm of that finding and doing 

14 what is necessary to be done in this specific case 

15 that has been done.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I have to 

17 agree it is outside of our mandate. Absolutely, 

18 I acknowledge that.

19 Can I ask you, Ted, is this -- as our 

20 DFO, what -- we happened on something that is 

21 outside of our purview but that may be of some 

22 concern in terms of affecting compensation in some 
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 cases.

2 MR. KATZ: I mean, I just -- this is a 

3 question for Grady. But it seems to me if they 

4 received another case where their dose is in '63 

5 and that case is not compensable, whereas this was, 

6 they would follow that normal procedure of going 

7 back and saying, DOL, we have doses in a year that 

8 doesn't appear to be part of the covered period.

9 I mean this wasn't and they didn't but 

10 if they received another case, they would, right?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, this is Grady. 

12 Yes, we would do that.

13 And how about this? How about I go back 

14 and I will look at this case and look at the records 

15 but let's completely divorce it from this committee 

16 and this case. And I can get back with some people 

17 offline and see if there is something we can do but 

18 let's just keep it out of what we are doing right 

19 now.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think that sounds 

21 like a fine suggestion, as long as somebody 

22 responsible is keeping an eye on an issue that has 
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 come up. But as far as the committee goes, that 

2 is not -- this is outside of our mandate.

3 But it is an observation, we agree --

4 excuse me -- a finding, we agree, the rest of it. 

5 And it is a finding that we would approve, right?

6 MR. KATZ: If you could just repeat 

7 what is the finding that you are supporting. 

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The 1971. The two 

9 lines, it is an underestimating measure.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and we are following 

11 the mitigation slope.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And, 

13 Grady, thanks for checking it out and you will do 

14 what is appropriate and responsible.

15 So, can we go on?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so the next 

19 finding is Finding 6 from the same case. Based on 

20 NIOSH's views, the primary beam for face and neck 

21 cancers and that is in reference to x-ray, medical 

22 exposure. 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And there was some disagreement about 

2 which revision was used for PROC 61. We believe 

3 NIOSH used PROC 61 Rev. 1, which was from 2006. 

4 However, Rev. 2 is from 2008 and Rev. 3a is from 

5 2009, that would indicate they should have used a 

6 different -- well, it was a different area than what 

7 was selected. And both of those were issued after 

8 the DR was completed -- or were issued before the 

9 DR was completed. I'm sorry. And so it should 

10 have superseded Rev. 1.

11 And that is only important because this 

12 case had a PoC of just slightly greater than 50 

13 percent. However, this particular issue wouldn't 

14 impact compensation when we consider --

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This issue wouldn't 

17 adversely affect compensation when you consider 

18 all the other findings in this case.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Response?

20 MR. CALHOUN: I agree with that.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just one 
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 clarification. The Rev. 3a, the letter revisions 

2 that are in the record are not actually approved 

3 versions of our document. They are only the 

4 numbered revs. So, that is an interim document 

5 that was being worked on during that time frame so 

6 that that should not be compared to any dose 

7 reconstruction. It should only be the official 

8 version.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Really? Okay. 

10 Interesting.

11 So, if we see a lettered revision, we 

12 should disregard it? Is that what I am hearing?

13 MR. SIEBERT: I am honestly wondering 

14 how you got a lettered version, to tell you the 

15 truth because that is an internal process.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, Dave, this is Ron 

17 with SC&A. The rev below it was issued before the 

18 DR and it would have lowered the dose. And 3a would 

19 lower the dose also. But if you use the Rev 2 

20 before it, it still would have used a different exit 

21 dose instead of entrance dose. So, it would have 

22 been less dose assignment.
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 MR. SIEBERT: Right. I don't think 

2 Grady and I are arguing about the Rev. 2 version. 

3 It is just I want to point out the Rev. 3a is not 

4 an official version.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, that is good to 

6 know because we were not aware of that.

7 MEMBER MUNN: That sounds reasonable. 

8 And so Rose's question was a good one, one that 

9 should be taken to heart. If you have a lettered 

10 version, it is an internal, not official, and not 

11 ever been used version. It should not be used, 

12 relied upon for decision with regard to how this 

13 was handled.

14 That is something I didn't know. Of 

15 course that is because it is an internal document 

16 and we haven't seen them before.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Well that is kind of the 

18 question. How was this document obtained?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly, yes, how it got 

20 into the file. But nevertheless, that is, again, 

21 not in our purview.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So that the issue of 
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 3a is not for our consideration.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct, at least 

3 from my point of view.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. SIEBERT: I just wanted to point it 

6 out for SC&A for the future.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Fine but where does 

9 that leave --

10 MR. KATZ: So, the finding is still 

11 affirmed because Rev. 2 would have done the same 

12 thing, lowered the dose.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see.

14 MR. KATZ: The finding is still 

15 affirmed, it is just this issue of Rev. 3a. It is 

16 sort of an internal issue.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, right. 

18 Okay, so Rev. 2 would have done the same. Okay.

19 Then is it a finding that we approve, 

20 folks? It sounds like it.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think so because 

22 NIOSH agrees.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, there is 

2 agreement.

3 Okay, folks, unless I hear objection, 

4 then we will approve.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next case 

8 with Finding 7 that says NIOSH omitted tritium 

9 bioassay data for 1963. So, this is essentially 

10 the same issue as 5. So, I would recommend closing 

11 this as well.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Done.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Agreed.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 8, the same 

16 case. It says that NIOSH did not address the 1967 

17 bioassay data for fission products. And NIOSH, 

18 again, came back and said that the PoC was greater 

19 than 50 percent.

20 And we agree that it wouldn't impact 

21 compensation decisions but we believe it is still 

22 appropriate to acknowledge the bioassay results 
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 and indicate why it was omitted from the DR in the 

2 DR report.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It sounds 

4 reasonable.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, can I be clear about 

6 that one, though? I mean it is not they did that 

7 on purpose because it is not necessary dose. Is 

8 that a defect or not?

9 MR. CALHOUN: That would be an 

10 observation I would think or just an area for 

11 improvement or something.

12 MR. KATZ: I mean that is how we treated 

13 problems with the DR report versus problems with 

14 the DR.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's true.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: From our perspective, 

17 we always point out when things are missing and we 

18 don't know if it was intentionally omitted from the 

19 dose reconstruction and I am still not positive 

20 that it was intentionally omitted.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Well and just because it 

22 didn't impact this case --
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 MR. KATZ: Okay, I mean there is --

2 again, that is a question for NIOSH as to whether 

3 this was an intentional omission or whether --

4 MR. CALHOUN: Well, the fact the matter 

5 is, is maybe we could have been clearer in the DRs 

6 and what we do now is a lot of times what you will 

7 see is you will see there was no need to include 

8 internal dose because the external dose was 

9 sufficient, blah, blah, blah. And we could have 

10 been clearer there but calling this a finding 

11 really doesn't make sense because we can't include 

12 all of the reasons for stuff that we don't do in 

13 a DR. We like to include stuff that we do do, 

14 especially when it is a comp case. So, that is just 

15 where we stand. 

16 And although you are not convinced that 

17 we did it intentionally, that will never get 

18 resolved, other than, I believe, we did omit it 

19 intentionally.

20 So, it is a comp case, I believe that 

21 it is an observation and could have done better in 

22 describing what we omitted and we do that now a 
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 little bit more consistently.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I am buying. 

3 I buy the argument that it is an observation. I 

4 think it is a perfectly good position. It is the 

5 report that we are concerned about, not the actual 

6 dose reconstruction.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, but there is 

8 another thing, another issue here also. It seems 

9 to me that we, as a Subcommittee, need to get 

10 comfortable with the fact that if we are going to 

11 do accelerated kinds of processes like we have done 

12 for years and this is why we take a view that we 

13 just simply accept the fact that we can pointedly 

14 know something is compensable, missing all of the 

15 things that are also there that you didn't look at. 

16 You know, what does that really achieve for us 

17 except where we are dealing in administrative 

18 activity ten years after the fact being able to say, 

19 well, tsk-tsk, why didn't we say this; why didn't 

20 we say that. 

21 Are we not comfortable with doing 

22 accelerated dose reconstruction? There is no 
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 reason why we shouldn't, if we are going to 

2 compensate on one, then why do we have to list 

3 everything that we did not take into consideration?

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MEMBER MUNN: The whole point was to do 

6 it as quickly as possible, once we know it is 

7 compensable.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I agree.

9 MEMBER BEACH: But the point is if it 

10 wasn't compensable, would they have still added 

11 that dose?

12 MR. KATZ: I mean I think, Josie, I 

13 think we have to credit -- actually they have been 

14 very honest about their QA errors when they have 

15 QA errors and I think you have to give them the 

16 benefit of the doubt that they are speaking 

17 truthfully. I mean we all know there is efficiency 

18 processes used on many, many cases. And they are 

19 saying that is what they have done here and I think 

20 you have got to credit that.

21 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

22 Just one additional item. This particular case 
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 did have eight findings and three of the earlier 

2 findings were external doses that were also 

3 omitted. And so I guess once we got to the internal 

4 portion and we saw some additional dose that was 

5 omitted, we started to question whether these were 

6 intentional or unintentional, maybe question who 

7 did this particular dose reconstruction and some 

8 of the other issues. That's the only thing I want 

9 to point out, that there were a lot of other 

10 omissions in this particular dose reconstruction.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But I think one has 

12 to -- I think it is proper to assume once it hits 

13 50 percent PoC that other things simply are not 

14 pursued and that the benefit of the doubt is given, 

15 in this case, to the folks doing the dose 

16 reconstruction. That is to say, I think SC&A 

17 should have or should try in the future to have 

18 observations -- have statements like this be 

19 observations. Which is to say, you presumably --

20 you know that it is compensated.

21 MS. BEHLING: At what point does NIOSH 

22 know that it is compensated, in the external 
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 portion already? This is very close. It is just 

2 over the 50 percent.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it is an iterative 

4 process. It is like, well, we start doing the dose 

5 reconstruction and then run a PoC. And once it 

6 becomes over 50 percent, we are done.

7 MS. BEHLING: Right. I understand.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would suggest 

9 that SC&A give the benefit of the doubt to NIOSH 

10 and that they simply -- by all means, if you wish 

11 to record it, record it. But it is strictly an 

12 observation.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

14 Richardson. I guess I disagree. I think we are 

15 asking SC&A to play this role of questioning 

16 omissions to flagging it, to question the logic of 

17 how things are done. 

18 I mean if there is omissions early on 

19 and they don't yet know that they are at 50 percent, 

20 to say that they shouldn't be flagged as potential 

21 omissions with not knowing where the case is going 

22 seems to me like -- we can discuss it afterwards 
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 but I think we are asking them to kind of just kind 

2 of turn a blind eye to things seems like a waste 

3 of our time.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, an observation 

5 is not turning a blind eye.

6 MEMBER BEACH: But Dave, without 

7 documentation as to why it was omitted -- and I'm 

8 not saying NIOSH is not honest or dishonest but I 

9 still think it should be a finding.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me understand. 

11 When SC&A is going over and reviewing this, do they 

12 know what the PoC was and that it was compensated?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, we do know that.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Then --

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I guess from our 

16 perspective, Dave, this was not an 80 percent PoC 

17 that is clearly an overestimating case -- or an 

18 underestimating case. I'm sorry. This is a close 

19 to 50 percent case.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It falls in more of a 

22 best estimate.
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 MS. BEHLING: And I guess we also ask 

2 these questions about omissions not specifically 

3 only for this particular case but to determine is 

4 there a systemic issue here. Should we be 

5 questioning if this is perhaps impacting other 

6 cases?

7 And so especially in this particular 

8 case, because the NTS workbook, up front early on, 

9 as NIOSH admits to, was not the best workbook, there 

10 seems to be some errors here. We were not 

11 necessarily aware of that. And so you don't know 

12 if it is just a dose reconstructor that didn't look 

13 at the records close enough or if it is a workbook 

14 issue. So, I think we feel we need to ask them 

15 these questions to determine if it goes beyond this 

16 particular, whether this case is compensated or 

17 not. It may impact others. That is, I think, a 

18 lot of the times what SC&A tries to consider.

19 MR. KATZ: Dave, this is Ted. And I 

20 agree with all that that was just said from Dave, 

21 David, and also from Kathy. My only point is that 

22 when you come to the discussion of it in the 
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 Subcommittee where some of the doses -- I mean I 

2 don't think SC&A can know in advance what was 

3 intentional or not and I think it is fine for them 

4 to initiate this as a finding but once you have a 

5 Subcommittee discussion and NIOSH says we 

6 intentionally omitted that, I think we should trust 

7 them that they are telling the truth because they 

8 have been very open in admitting where it was a QA 

9 problem and it wasn't that they intended to omit 

10 it or it was workbook problems.

11 That's all I'm saying. And so --

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So you are saying 

13 that at this stage, at this point --

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: -- it is the 

16 Subcommittee that should turn this into an 

17 observation but that it should not have been turned 

18 into an observation earlier, or frankly isn't 

19 necessary to suggest that SC&A --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's all I am saying. 

21 I think this is the appropriate point because this 

22 is when NIOSH has a chance to respond and you find 
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 out. This has happened many times. We have had 

2 many cases like this.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: And that is another case 

5 here. That is one of the things that seems to be 

6 at issue here. Dose reconstructors can specify 

7 but the concern is did you or did you not consider 

8 other things. The point is, once it is over 50 

9 percent, even if it is just slightly over 50 

10 percent, it is fine for us to review it 

11 administratively and act was would be implied. 

12 This case was compensated based on a numerical 

13 analysis that shows they were going to have more 

14 exposure than was necessary to be compensated. 

15 And whether you review other things or 

16 not doesn't mean that you are ever going to go back 

17 from that. Your decision has been made to 

18 compensate this person. And regardless of the 

19 esoteric arithmetic issues later, you are not going 

20 to encounter something that will withdraw. Either 

21 the calculations are -- you are not going to reduce 

22 the dose.
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 If it were slightly under, I think there 

2 would be a valid argument. But as long as it is 

3 even the slightest bit over, there is not a valid 

4 argument for SC&A to look at it.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So -- go ahead.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. 

7 I'm sorry, I can't agree with that, only because 

8 I didn't clearly hear from NIOSH that it was an 

9 omission intentionally, and there were so many 

10 other omissions on the external and internal and 

11 it was such a close number to the PoC.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay, here's the deal. 

13 This thing was completed in March of 2009. And I 

14 can't -- I assume -- all I can do is assume that 

15 it was done intentionally. And, you know, I don't 

16 know, based on all this discussion and all the work 

17 we had to do, I mean, just call it a finding and 

18 move on, you know? It's not worth arguing.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, let's put it 

20 this way, I think, as a Subcommittee, we have a 

21 responsibility beyond your -- even though I respect 

22 your feeling of just forget about it.
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 Also, I think this is proper for -- this 

2 kind of discussion is absolutely proper for the 

3 Subcommittee. And I still feel like it should be 

4 an observation, but I base it, David, on what you 

5 have said. I do agree that it is not up to me to 

6 criticize, as a Board Member, to criticize SC&A for 

7 listing it. Everything they see they need to put 

8 down and we will decide whether it is an observation 

9 or a finding.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I had one further 

11 thing.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I really -- I have

14 no desire to engage in discussion about intent. 

15 You know, I have no basis for evaluating it. It's 

16 just a gut feeling, like everybody who is on the 

17 call. So, and I would suggest that we move away 

18 from evaluation of intention. What we are looking 

19 for is logic and clarity, and if there are questions 

20 about things which already -- issues of fact, then 

21 those are the things that we note and record.

22 And I also -- we have a responsibility 
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 to make sure that things are done in a way which 

2 is fair, and that means fair to all parties 

3 involved. So, if there are errors that are made 

4 that lead to judgments that we're falsely 

5 compensating people, those would be errors also of 

6 concern. So I think the fact that you say, well, 

7 it exceeded 50 percent and so we really don't want 

8 to bother about the logic of how we got there and 

9 we close the book because we're never turn back on 

10 that. Part of our role is to evaluate is there a 

11 reproducible and consistent and fair process by 

12 which we are getting to make a decision. I think 

13 we need to scrutinize most cases that are above 50 

14 percent, as well as those below.

15 And the fact that there's -- we can flag 

16 out a series of problems in a case, means that we 

17 need to look at the case. And I actually agree with 

18 the question of, when there are more problems, we 

19 begin to kind of want to look more clearly at where 

20 we have ended up.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, you have just 

22 answered my question. My original question was, 
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 are we ever going to be comfortable with the fact 

2 that it's okay to do these accelerated cases? And 

3 your answer is no.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Comfortable with 

5 what?

6 MEMBER MUNN: With handling 

7 accelerated cases by accepting the fact that we 

8 don't have to look at everything once we've looked 

9 at --

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, that's not 

11 what I said. I said when there are errors along 

12 the way -- I mean, if somebody wants to clearly say, 

13 "I evaluated just the external dose and not the 

14 internal dose because I was at this point," then 

15 there would be a record there. This was the 

16 process. There is no reason to go into the second 

17 part of this or to reconstruct the medical doses. 

18 That doesn't flag out anything as erroneous.

19 But when a portion of the dose which has 

20 been reconstructed has errors, then it does seem 

21 to me that this is what we were given and we should 

22 look at it.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And I do want to point 

2 out that NIOSH has called that out now. This is 

3 an historical issue.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's good.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. You 

6 know, I agree on all sides of this. And we've kind 

7 of put SC&A in a difficult situation. 

8 And Wanda's comment about us not 

9 accepting it, we do accept it and one of the things 

10 I want us all to look at is that, because of these 

11 issues, NIOSH has changed their process, and when 

12 they hit this 50 percent they have now stated in 

13 their process that they are admitting these things 

14 because it has gone past the 50 percent, which makes 

15 it easier for us. It makes it easier for SC&A 

16 because we set into this situation, we're asking 

17 SC&A to go in there and dig through this and lay 

18 out everything that is there. And they don't stop 

19 at 50 percent. They do the whole thing.

20 And as far as being a finding or being 

21 an observation, I will honestly tell you it does 

22 not matter one way or the other to me. It's just 
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 we are addressing the issues, and that if it 

2 wasn't a compensated case, that these people, that 

3 they would still go through the process, and all 

4 this information is there to be able to help them 

5 do the right dose reconstruction.

6 My bottom line is making sure that the 

7 people are getting the best dose reconstruction 

8 that they can. And I will simply say that I 

9 honestly believe that NIOSH does the best job that 

10 they can. And we are all in a difficult situation, 

11 but coming into something like this, we need to be 

12 able to address the whole picture, not just half 

13 of it.

14 And I think -- I could care less what 

15 we call it. I don't want to ever say that NIOSH 

16 has done a failure job or whatever, or SC&A. What 

17 I want to make sure is that SC&A brings us something 

18 and that we address everything.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, Brad, maybe 

20 I'm sensitive to the fact that I've been spending 

21 a lot of time on this report to the Secretary. And 

22 there's no question in my mind that if SC&A finds 
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 many findings, that seems to suggest that NIOSH is 

2 perhaps not doing its job in the way that 

3 observations don't reflect on NIOSH. So, findings 

4 do reflect on NIOSH administratively.

5 Now, in terms of people getting 

6 compensated, which I agree, that is the first and 

7 most important thing, this issue has been resolved 

8 at the current time, in that there's a statement 

9 in there that 50 percent was achieved and, 

10 therefore, no further work was done, or something 

11 to that effect.

12 So, but I, personally, feel like it does 

13 make a difference whether you say observation or 

14 finding. And it's since writing with that report 

15 and working on that that I have been more sensitive 

16 to the issue of observation versus finding.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

18 that, Dave. And I have no problem with this being 

19 an observation. I really do, because I don't see 

20 that -- I see what NIOSH has done, but on the other 

21 hand, we call out our contractor to do a certain 

22 job and they just want to make sure that all of these 
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 -- because we're not looking at it as basically this 

2 one case. We're taking a small portion of all the 

3 cases that we are doing and we're making sure that 

4 these small cases, this small portion that we do, 

5 covers for everybody, that we are looking at all 

6 the information. 

7 And I understand with this case, but I 

8 have had to look at it as an overall picture for 

9 all cases. Are we making sure that this information 

10 is getting fed in there?

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And it is proper to 

12 do so. Let us resolve this.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Hey, let me clarify 

14 something just a little bit.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Okay? And I'm not going 

17 to say any names here because I'm just looking at 

18 the DR. 

19 It says this dose reconstruction was a 

20 partial dose reconstruction, an external dose 

21 received by whoever. It was not necessary to 

22 perform a dose reconstruction of internal dose 
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 received from those cancers. A full dose 

2 reconstruction for the reported dose is an 

3 underestimate for claim determination purposes.

4 So, that's actually in there in the 

5 summary of the latest dose reconstruction.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Did that happen after 

7 our review? I'm sorry. Because there was 

8 internal dose in this dose reconstruction.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, this one was the 

10 2008 version that I'm looking at.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- version we 

12 reviewed, because I know for a fact that --

13 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. Is that 

14 the one you reviewed?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'd have to go to --

16 MR. CALHOUN: There was a 2009 one, 

17 too. And let me go down here and see what that one 

18 says.

19 MS. BEHLING: Our review was in 2013. 

20 So --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, but I'm just 

22 looking at -- the very last one was '09. Yeah, see, 
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 the last one it just says this reported dose is an 

2 estimate. It doesn't say that we intentionally 

3 omit it. So, we definitely could have done a 

4 better job of describing it in the last one.

5 MS. BEHLING: Well, we would have used 

6 the 2009 version because our review was in 2013.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Right. That's why I was 

8 saying I think we definitely could have done a 

9 better job of describing what we did and didn't do.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'd like to move 

11 that we call this an observation. And people do 

12 disagree or may continue to disagree. Let's just 

13 choose up and down.

14 So, how about those who support calling 

15 this an observation, please say aye or please 

16 report your --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, each one of us 

18 may need to report for ourselves. I say that this 

19 can be classified as an observation because they 

20 addressed what our issue was. They went through 

21 their -- I have no problem with it being an 

22 observation. This is Brad.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Others?

2 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda --

3 MEMBER POSTON: I vote for 

4 observation. This is John.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Other? 

6 Wanda?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Observation.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Observation. 

9 David?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm going to 

11 abstain, I think.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. And 

13 Josie?

14 MEMBER BEACH: I'm going to still say 

15 it is a finding.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. So, as 

17 I hear, the vote is three in favor of observation, 

18 one against, and one abstention. Is that correct? 

19 Ted, that is a correct tally?

20 MR. KATZ: I think it is four, one, and 

21 one.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, four, one, and 
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 one.

2 MR. KATZ: I think you left yourself 

3 out.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, well, I don't 

5 vote unless there is a tie. Or do I?

6 MR. KATZ: Yeah, you vote.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, four, one, 

8 and one.

9 MEMBER MUNN: This is not the Senate. 

10 You're okay.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. Very 

12 good. Let's never be the Senate.

13 Alright, four, one, and one. And this 

14 was a good discussion, even if we did spend a fair 

15 amount of time.

16 It is now noon Eastern Standard Time, 

17 and we have only finished -- I believe that 

18 finishes, does it, the case reviews resolution? 

19 Is there anything else?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There's one more 

21 findings, 348.8 in this matrix, and then we will 

22 move on to the --
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 348.8. Folks, I 

2 move that we -- I'd like us to discuss this. 

3 Hopefully, it won't take too long. And then we 

4 will break for lunch, unless I hear objection.

5 MR. KATZ: Yeah, just to note --

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Or for breakfast in 

7 some cases.

8 MR. KATZ: Yeah, to note, David has to 

9 leave us at about 12:30. 

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine, so it 

11 will be -- then, maybe we can go on until 12:30. 

12 Would folks be open to going until 12:30, which 

13 would be 9:30 on the west coast?

14 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's fine with me. 

16 I won't shrivel up and blow away.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

18 Wanda?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Same.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, let's do it. 

21 Go right ahead.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, 348.8, which is 
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 an NTS and PPG case. And the finding states that 

2 NIOSH omitted missed electron dose for 1971 and 

3 1973. And NIOSH agrees. However, they feel it's 

4 not an error and believe it's in concurrence with 

5 the guidance in OTIB-17. 

6 And this has been going on for a while, 

7 but I will just go through it here.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you look at OTIB-17, 

10 this guidance is contained in the appendices, which 

11 are site-specific. And there is no NTS or PPG in 

12 OTIB-17. And NIOSH said that they follow the 

13 guidance, essentially, because the NTS TBD calls 

14 out sections, or refers to OTIB-17. But it does 

15 not refer to the appendices specifically.

16 And we believe there needs to be a 

17 change of guidance or something. I don't believe 

18 any dose reconstructor would look at OTIB-17 and 

19 say, "this site is not SRS or another site, 

20 Hanford," and use the guidance pertaining to 

21 another site when their site was absent. I just 

22 don't believe that that's a normal assumption that 
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 anyone would make.

2 And so I would recommend updating 

3 TBD-17 to reference that it could be applicable to 

4 other sites, or the NTS specifically, to say 

5 basically follow guidance from Appendix A or 

6 Appendix D or whatever that appendix might be, even 

7 though it's referring to a different site.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If it is asking that 

9 a TBD be changed or modified in any way, it seems 

10 to me that that is not our committee's function, 

11 but that we should refer it to another 

12 subcommittee, yes?

13 MR. KATZ: Dave, it's okay. I mean, I 

14 think this Subcommittee is fine in making 

15 recommendations about improvements. It doesn't 

16 have to be referred.

17 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith with 

18 ORAU Team. I will point out, in Section 4 of 

19 OTIB-17, the hope was there to do additional 

20 attachments. It does say the information in the 

21 OTIB may be used for other sites with similar 

22 dosimetry systems.
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 And if you look at Section 3, which is 

2 a general approach, it lays out the steps one needs 

3 to take, regardless of what the DOE site is, in 

4 order to, in a sense, follow the guidelines of 

5 OTIB-17. And of course, since this is citing 

6 OTIB-17 in several places, in the end, what the dose 

7 reconstruction team did, through the use of a tool, 

8 is followed the general approach that is in Section 

9 3 of the OTIB-17. And, in a sense, they are using 

10 Section 4 as their application of the OTIB.

11 In the NTS TBD, they are citing OTIB-17 

12 as the methodology used to assign shallow dose. 

13 And within the OTIB, the general approach is given 

14 in Section 3, and that is essentially what has 

15 happened here.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Response?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: From SC&A's 

18 perspective, I know that multiple of our dose 

19 reconstructors have looked at that document, 

20 OTIB-17, and have never come to the conclusion that 

21 that's the case.

22 Maybe training for NIOSH 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstructors is --

2 MR. SMITH: Again, in Section 4, at the 

3 time it was written, this was early on in the 

4 project, the effective date is 2005, the intention 

5 was that subsequent revisions of the OTIB would 

6 include other information for major DOE sites. 

7 It then goes on to say, however, this 

8 information may be used for other sites with 

9 similar dosimetry systems and reporting protocols, 

10 provided that you have adequate documentation.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But that would mean 

12 that each dose reconstructor would have to be 

13 intimately familiar with dosimetry practices at 

14 their site and at other sites to draw the conclusion 

15 --

16 MR. SMITH: For DOE, but for NTS they 

17 would be. And the DR lead works with the tool team 

18 to get the necessary tool product in place to deal 

19 with that site. Am I off-base on that, Scott?

20 MR. SIEBERT: No, that would be 

21 appropriate.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You just have to 
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 understand, from our perspective, that's not 

2 clear.

3 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Doesn't 

4 Section 4 state that this document provides 

5 site-specific information for Savannah River, 

6 Hanford, and the gaseous diffusion plants, and that 

7 subsequent revisions will provide site-specific 

8 information for major DOE sites.

9 MR. SMITH: Correct. And that has not 

10 and did not occur due to the march of these 

11 priorities on the project. And it would make 

12 sense, as I already stated, to give the DR team the 

13 option to use this approach, and the approach 

14 that's given in Section 3, to get these claims done.

15 Essentially, like I said already, 

16 that's what's happened here. They have used the 

17 precepts given in Section 3, which are spelled out 

18 in detail for the sites such as Savannah River in 

19 the appendices to this document.

20 And, you know, this has been used in 

21 this manner on many sites that are not in the 

22 attachments of OTIB-17.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, getting back to 

2 what was the original issue in the finding, I mean, 

3 was leaving out the two years proper for that site, 

4 for the PPG site or NTS? Was that proper?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you assume that this 

6 -- if you follow the guidance in the appendices of 

7 OTIB-17, then yes. However, we're arguing that it 

8 is not clear that NTS should follow that guidance. 

9 So we're just asking for a revision of some kind, 

10 which NIOSH has already indicated that they want 

11 to revise OTIB-17 at some point, that would 

12 indicate which sites this was applicable to.

13 MEMBER MUNN: This is really confusing 

14 and I'm sorry now that I didn't take the time to 

15 go back and re-read OTIB-17 all the way through, 

16 including appendices, because it's almost 

17 impossible.

18 I'm a Member of the NTS Work Group. 

19 It's been so long since we visited any of this, I 

20 can't even remember the last meeting that the Work 

21 Group had. And OTIB-17 is way back in forgotten 

22 history somewhere for me. And I hate to even 
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 suggest this, because I would really like for us 

2 to address this and just take care of it and go to 

3 lunch, but I feel as though I need to go back and 

4 look at some of these documents, the original 

5 documents, rather than trying to -- I guess no clear 

6 path is jumping out at me from the questions that 

7 are being raised here.

8 MR. KATZ: Wanda, maybe I can help. 

9 This is Ted. I mean, to boil down what Rose is 

10 saying is, SC&A is concerned that the documentation 

11 isn't clear about the ability to do this, but there 

12 is no unclarity in terms of the NIOSH team that this 

13 is something they can do and do do. 

14 And so it's just like the other 

15 documentation issues. It is an observation. 

16 There's a documentation concern on SC&A's part, and 

17 really only the Subcommittee needs to decide 

18 whether it thinks, based on this observation, the 

19 documentation should be clarified to be more 

20 specific to other sites or not. But there's not 

21 a lot more to this.

22 MS. BEHLING: I agree. This is Kathy. 
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 In fact, I think SC&A is looking for some 

2 clarification. Let me ask the question in this 

3 way. Are there any sites that you are familiar 

4 with, or that you know of, that you wouldn't use 

5 OTIB-17 for determining this? Are there any that 

6 come to mind that you wouldn't use OTIB-17 and the 

7 Section 3 data that you just discussed? That is 

8 what SC&A is trying to determine.

9 MR. SMITH: I guess I don't understand. 

10 The quick answer would be, I guess, in a sense, no. 

11 I mean, we are going to use this OTIB with all of 

12 our DOE sites. I mean, the title is 

13 "Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment 

14 of Shallow Dose."

15 So, even if the site is not discussed 

16 in the appendices to this document, we are going 

17 to use the general approach in Section 3 of OTIB-17 

18 to address how to assign that shallow dose for any 

19 given site.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I think the 

21 problem here is that Section 3 doesn't specifically 

22 say only assign one missed dose is there's a zero 
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 in shallow and deep dose. But it does say that in 

2 appendices.

3 And here that says that you could follow 

4 Appendix A or C, but nowhere in the NTS TBD does 

5 it say "follow Appendix A and C," even though 

6 Appendix A and C are not NTS-specific documents.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But I hear that the 

8 clarifying --

9 (Pause.)

10 MR. KATZ: Dave, I think we lost you.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought he was still 

12 thinking.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Can you hear me now?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. I must 

16 have had mute on.

17 You're asking for a change in the OTIB, 

18 and the people from NIOSH and ORAU are saying that, 

19 in terms of the work priorities that they have, they 

20 were not going to make that change in the OTIB-17. 

21 It's not our responsibility to assign them work to 

22 make a change.
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right, Dave, I think the 

2 limit of the Subcommittee is to make a 

3 recommendation that you think it should be changed 

4 based on what you heard, and that's it. I mean, 

5 the NIOSH response --

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, that's what 

7 I hear. And my feeling is that I don't think that 

8 it's proper for us to do that.

9 I think it's absolutely proper that 

10 SC&A has raised this, and it's useful. To me, I 

11 don't set the work priorities. I don't have the 

12 information or the responsibility to make that 

13 assignment. That's an internal administrative --

14 MR. KATZ: Right. Dave, everything 

15 that the Board does is advice. It's just advice.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, true.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

18 Being the Work Group Chair for NTS, I find an 

19 interest in this. And we do have a Working Group 

20 coming up, I believe it's January 5th, that we can 

21 discuss this and look into this. 

22 But being a Work Group Chair, I do find 
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 great interest in this, because as we go through 

2 this process, one of our questions is how is this 

3 going to be implemented in the dose reconstruction.

4 So, I think, myself, the Work Group 

5 here, the Subcommittee has done what they should 

6 and now it falls back to me to be able to look at 

7 this and make sure that it is being implemented 

8 properly.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Brad.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, thank you, 

12 yes. So maybe we hold this in abeyance and you will 

13 report back at our next meeting?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I can do that, or have 

15 you guys -- myself, I feel that we have actually 

16 already addressed in the Subcommittee. Now, it is 

17 up to me and to the Work Group to be able to have 

18 SC&A and NIOSH be able to sit down and review what 

19 the issue and the problem was here, because this 

20 is one of our tasks, too, as a Work Group, is to 

21 assure how these things are being implemented. 

22 That's one of our big questions of how are you going 
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 to implement this when you do a dose 

2 reconstruction?

3 So, I think that, really, my personal 

4 feeling is that it can be closed and just allow the 

5 Work Group to be able to deal with it at a little 

6 bit higher level.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That sounds fine. 

8 That is fine.

9 MR. KATZ: And so we are closing it as 

10 an observation.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, I think we can 

12 -- pardon me?

13 MR. KATZ: And I assume we are closing 

14 it as an observation, right?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: What I would request 

19 is that maybe if Rose just kind of sent to me --

20 you know, I've got everything in this, but to be 

21 able bring all of this to the NTS, you know, this 

22 finding and this question, because SC&A is, we are 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 getting ready to go over Site Profile issues and 

2 so forth like that. So, I would just like kind of 

3 a summary, if you could, Rose, or Kathy. You guys 

4 always write it to me in a way that I understand 

5 it so much better. So, if I could just have 

6 something like that, it would help me out.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yeah, absolutely, I 

8 can send you an email.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thank you.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Okay.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I think that would be 

13 helpful, because in the Work Group really and truly 

14 it appears that the only question we have here is 

15 whether the document, as it currently stands, 

16 actually provides the kind of instruction -- 

17 clearly, NIOSH feels that the document does provide 

18 an adequate direction to address this properly. 

19 And it looks like that is the only real question.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And as a Work 

21 Group, we've looked at and we've asked questions. 

22 I feel like this has been covered, and it sounds 
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 like there is a little bit of question on this. So 

2 we can take it up at that level.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I just want to 

5 make sure that John Stiver and them are aware of 

6 this, because this may not be into the matrix part 

7 of it, but we need to discuss this at the Work Group 

8 level.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay, fine. 

10 So we'll close it as an observation now.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, thank you. 

13 So, it's about a quarter after 12, a little over. 

14 So, we finished discussion on Item 1. 

15 It took us a little more time than I had hoped, 

16 perhaps, but we've resolved that.

17 I think, rather than, since David has 

18 to leave in about a few minutes, that we should 

19 perhaps break for lunch now and come back and 

20 continue the category 1 cases on our expedited 

21 process. And then we'll begin discussion on 

22 improving consistency. And I'm not clear what we 
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 will come to in terms -- whether we will come to 

2 the blind cases.

3 So, I'd like to -- it is about 20 after 

4 12. So, could we take a lunch or breakfast break, 

5 as the case may be, until 1:20 Eastern Standard 

6 Time?

7 MR. KATZ: Sounds good.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

9 Thank you all. David, thank you for being here for 

10 as long as you have. Okay, see you folks at 1:20.

11 MR. KATZ: See you in an hour.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

13 went off the record at 12:19 p.m. and resumed at 

14 1:20 p.m.)

15 Continue Category 1 Cases from

16 Sets 18-18 (approx. 15 cases)

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then let us 

18 begin at 1:20 p.m.

19 Okay, on our screen we are starting off 

20 with the expedited cases, category 1. Apparently, 

21 as I see it, there are 13 cases to go. No, did that 

22 just change? In progress, four, zero -- gee, I 
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 thought I saw --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I did update this over 

3 the lunch break.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

5 Because I looked it over yesterday and I have it 

6 on my other machine. I'm getting ready to -- very 

7 good.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I just updated this to 

9 reflect what we did this morning.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, yes. 

11 Yes, that's great.

12 So we only have four items left in 

13 Category 1. Is that correct?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, this is actually 

15 not Category 1. This is just showing the remaining 

16 findings and observations left in Sets 14 through 

17 18.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, you will see, as of 

20 this moment, we have about 23 percent of issues 

21 remaining.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. So, all 
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 the rest are Category 2 after today?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, no, no, no. 

3 Category 1.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We are going to 

5 finish Category 1 today, are we not?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We will finish 

7 Category 1 for the DCAS sites.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have not touched on 

10 the remaining AWE site matrix yet.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that's really the 

13 only matrix that we have remaining.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But after today we will 

16 see if the committee is still happy with using this 

17 Category 1 and 2, approach and I can apply that to 

18 the remaining.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I just wanted to get 

21 that out there to show that we are making progress.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And after today, 

2 including the remaining 19 and 21st set things, we 

3 will have about 150 issues left.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, that's about three 

6 meetings' worth of work, and then we will be 

7 entirely caught up on the findings.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, that's marvelous.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful. 

10 Wonderful. Okay, so, shall we begin?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, we left 

12 off here, and I just highlighted it so we know 

13 exactly where to start.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And thank you for 

15 that.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We've done everything 

17 above that. I know it is kind of confusing when 

18 you have hundreds of lines in here.

19 Okay, so the first case is Tab 399, it's 

20 a Sandia case. And this is Observation 1. And 

21 this is an interesting case for us because when 

22 NIOSH did their dose reconstruction, they took into 
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 account the CATI report, which said that the EE had 

2 worked at several sites that were not DOL 

3 confirmed. And so NIOSH properly went through and 

4 contacted all the sites and requested additional 

5 information that the EE had provided. And they 

6 didn't hear anything back. 

7 So, in October of 2010, they went ahead 

8 without that information, not having heard 

9 anything. And then after that, in December, a lot 

10 of information came in. So, after the dose 

11 reconstruction was completed, several site visitor 

12 data requests from Lawrence Livermore and Pantex 

13 came in. And the DR was not revised to incorporate 

14 that. 

15 And according to NIOSH, all this 

16 additional information was evaluated under a PAD, 

17 the post-approval dosimetry evaluation. And it 

18 was determined that it wasn't necessary to revise 

19 the case based on this information.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, that's 

21 an observation. That's fine.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- in this case where 

2 information came in after the fact. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And from our 

5 perspective, we pointed it out that, yes, it became 

6 available after. And that's really all we can do. 

7 We can't fault NIOSH for that.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

9 this is a clear-cut observation. I don't see 

10 anything to discuss, unless somebody else from the 

11 --

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: SC&A has one follow-up 

13 question.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. A little 

15 louder, please, by the way.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is the PAD documented 

17 somewhere that SC&A could see that a PAD had 

18 occurred?

19 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, this is Grady. We 

20 have a single sheet for every PAD that's done and 

21 there has been many, many, many thousands of them.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And would that be in 
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 the files on NOCTS?

2 MR. CALHOUN: No, they're not on NOCTS. 

3 They are in separate folders, but I can -- do you 

4 want to see the one for this case?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Just when we come 

6 across issues like this, to know whether or not it 

7 had gone through a PAD would be helpful for our dose 

8 reconstructors.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, you'll give her 

10 information to have access?

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, anytime she needs 

12 one of those, I can get her one or we can see where 

13 we are. Right now, the majority of them are 

14 sitting out on my actual drive that's for me only. 

15 But I can let you know where those are, or at least 

16 send them to you as you need them.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and just for my 

18 personal knowledge, the Subcommittee is okay with 

19 us requesting that information?

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, the 

21 Subcommittee is perfectly okay. Good.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I don't want to 
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 break any chain of command there.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, no, no. 

3 Alright. So, I propose that we go on to the next 

4 one.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: All of the 399 

6 observations are along the same lines. There was 

7 additional dosimetry records that would warrant 

8 additional missed or measured dose, internal dose 

9 records that should have been accounted for, and 

10 coworker dose that would have been triggered by the 

11 unmonitored dosimetry. But I would recommend that 

12 we just close all of these at once.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, agreed. Any 

14 concerns?

15 MEMBER MUNN: They should all be the 

16 same.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, they should. 

18 It's almost not worth going over. Well, formally, 

19 we do that for every observation. So, do number 4, 

20 if you would, and then we'll approve.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The rest of them? 

22 Well, the next one would be 2. And this one there 
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 were eight additional dosimetry records that were 

2 received after the fact. And they were all zeros 

3 with no missed doses assigned to them.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That's been done.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Done, approved.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And number 3, 

8 similar, more no missed doses assigned to the 

9 dosimetry records from Lawrence Livermore.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Number 4 is -- let's 

12 see. When we began reviewing the case, Lawrence 

13 Livermore records were available that would 

14 trigger potential intakes for internal dose but 

15 were not assigned.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And number 5 has to do 

18 with coworker dose. Unmonitored periods would be 

19 added by the dosimetry records, and that added 

20 about 0.126. And the PoC in this case was 22.5. 

21 That low of a dose isn't going to impact the 

22 compensation for this case.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. And 

2 let's go on to the next.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

4 Tab 368, the Spencer Chemical case, Finding 1. And 

5 the finding says that there was a failure to 

6 demonstrate that default uranium inhalation rates 

7 were appropriately bounding. And NIOSH came back 

8 and said, essentially, the rates that we had cited 

9 in our review were actually only applicable to 

10 outside inhalation, and this was actually indoors.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH had indicated 

13 that the inhalation rates that we had cited in our 

14 dose reconstruction review were only applicable to 

15 outdoors and this was an indoor worker. And based 

16 on that, we believe that their judgment was sound 

17 and we do agree with their approach.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Discussion? 

19 One sec. Okay. The question is, should this be 

20 --looking at this again just to see whether it 

21 should be an observation.

22 MR. KATZ: I guess, was the 
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 documentation not explicit about this, Rose?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It said TBD-6000, but 

3 there was some confusion, I believe.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, it's a 

5 professional judgment, right?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, if you wanted to 

7 reduce it to an observation, we wouldn't fight it.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I think it is 

9 an observation. What do others think?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so. I can't 

11 see any way that one could determine any further 

12 information than we already have.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right.

14 MEMBER BEACH: I'm okay with this being 

15 an observation.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

18 okay with an observation.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. So, we'll 

20 approve this as an observation. And thank you.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case --

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I am 
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 particularly sensitive to the remark I made this 

2 morning, and I really mean it, that I'm not going 

3 to -- everything you find, we're very glad you find 

4 it, however we categorize it. That's your job.

5 Okay, next one.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Finding 2 here, 

7 same case, says differences in guidance provided 

8 in Table 5.2 of TBD-6000, which references 

9 environmental dose, and Section 7.15 should be 

10 reconciled.

11 NIOSH pointed out in their response 

12 that Section 5.2 actually refers to environmental 

13 intakes while Section 7.15 refers to intakes from 

14 formerly operational areas during residual 

15 periods, and so that's why the guidance doesn't 

16 seem to correlate well. But they are actually 

17 referring to different intakes.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so based on that, 

20 we agree that their determination is correct.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, in which 

22 case, again, 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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, observation. 

3 Any comments? Good.

4 Let's go on.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, 411.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is Finding 1. 

8 And the finding says that NIOSH did not use the 

9 appropriate organ dose correction factors. And 

10 here, disagreement stems from actually a 

11 mislabeling of information in the tables in 

12 TBD-6000. The tables lists the unit as milli-R 

13 per year. And it actually means millirem per year.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is, the 

15 capital R suggests roentgens.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay, 

18 good.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so we would just 

20 suggest that they modify that table in the next TBD 

21 revision to reflect the correct unit.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 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 MR. KATZ: Another observation.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, correct. 

3 Observation.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Typically, don't we 

5 leave it as a finding when --

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? A little 

7 louder, please.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Typically, don't we 

9 leave things as findings when we identify a problem 

10 with the actual TBDs?

11 MR. KATZ: Not when it's just a 

12 documentation but it's being used correctly.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: That's a documentation 

15 issue.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I think you 

17 are correct.

18 So, approved as an observation.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright. And the next 

20 one is Tab 341, which is a Westinghouse case, 

21 Finding 1. The finding states that NIOSH did not 

22 assign complete doses for the years 1971 and 1979. 
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 And NIOSH agreed.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, and that's 

3 certainly a finding. NIOSH agreed that it should 

4 have done this. And when it corrected it, there 

5 was no impact on the final decision. But it's 

6 certainly a finding.

7 Any objection or any comment?

8 Okay, no. Let's go on to Finding 2.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, same case. 

10 Finding 2 states that NIOSH did not assign a 

11 recorded zero for missed dose for the year 1975. 

12 And NIOSH agrees that there should have been an 

13 additional zero for that year.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Again, a 

15 finding. And by the way, both of those are QAs, 

16 right?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Item 3 we'll 

19 approve.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Finding 3, NIOSH 

21 used the one-time uncertainty for MDA instead of 

22 three times the uncertainty. And NIOSH has agreed 
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 also that they should have --

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, fine. 

3 Good.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding No. 4 states 

5 that NIOSH's ingestion values were not 

6 substantiated. And NIOSH did agree with us. And 

7 this has to do with uranium intake.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, that's -- the 

9 ingestion value was not substantiated. And then 

10 agrees that no ingestion. Was ingestion applied 

11 by NIOSH?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, NIOSH applied 

13 ingestion.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe there was an 

16 urinalysis that was used in IMBA to calculate an 

17 inhalation, but there wasn't really a basis for 

18 assuming.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so that seems 

20 to be a finding. Again, is there any -- are there 

21 any comments or questions?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Not 
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 me.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Hearing no 

3 others, let's consider that approved. And let's 

4 go on to 434.3.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is a 

6 Westinghouse case. And the finding says that the 

7 modeled inhalation intake quantities appear to be 

8 in error. 

9 And here what happened is the CADW entry 

10 failed to be objective for the 365-day exposure 

11 period. In the TBD, it lists, I believe, 210 days, 

12 but it needs to be entered into the CADW as 365. 

13 And that was not done, which caused an overestimate 

14 in dose by a factor of 1.46.

15 And NIOSH has actually corrected that 

16 to limit the error in the future.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: What about this 

18 case itself? Did that affect the decision?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It resulted in an 

20 overestimate. So, they assigned more dose than 

21 should have been assigned. And the PoC was already 

22 below 50 percent, so it didn't --
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. So, it 

2 would have reduced it further below 50 percent, 

3 and, therefore, in the noncompensable category.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any 

6 comments, folks? Hearing none, we do approve.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next is Tab 

8 369. It's a W.R. Grace case. And Finding 1 -- and 

9 we've seen these numerous times before 

10 --basically, the TBD said that the case didn't 

11 qualify as part of the SEC even though it's a 

12 bladder cancer, when in fact it did qualify for the 

13 SEC. And the dose reconstruction was done only to 

14 determine medical benefits. And that was just a 

15 textual error. 

16 NIOSH has since corrected the text and 

17 modified so it's clear that it's just a partial DR 

18 and the case did qualify.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

20 Bladder cancer is one of the 22 compensable 

21 cancers, is it not?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct. So --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is just text that 

3 appeared, boilerplate text that NIOSH was 

4 inserting into the dose reconstruction that said 

5 that the case didn't qualify or didn't meet the 

6 criteria for inclusion --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so this is --

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- when it actually did 

9 meet the criteria. It's simply a --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: This is the report. 

11 Then this is the issue with the report.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which is to say, an 

14 observation.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any comment 

17 on this, approving this as an observation?

18 MEMBER BEACH: None here, Dave.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright, 

20 then let's approve and go on.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the same case, 

22 Finding 2 says that NIOSH used a 1976 fecal result 
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 as a urinalysis result in a modeling. NIOSH agrees 

2 that the data was incorrectly used. And when they 

3 revisited the case and correctly used the results, 

4 in increased the dose by a negligible amount.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, this 

6 is a -- this would be a finding.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The line in Column 

9 I, it's obviously regarding measurement, not 

10 physical -- it has a funny quality, if you interpret 

11 this in physical terms, rather than in measurement 

12 terms. But that is the way it is. It's perfectly 

13 proper.

14 Okay. So, I think we should just 

15 approve this as a finding. And I don't know how 

16 you do it, but that would now be the first finding, 

17 since the original first finding was an 

18 observation.

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- the same --

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We do leave the finding 
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 numbers the same and I just change it my record.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Because otherwise, it 

4 is very confusing when the numbers change.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. Okay, I 

6 understand that and why it's done that way. That's 

7 fine.

8 Does that complete it?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's all of the Type 

10 1 findings in this matrix.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

12 Before we go on, since this is the end 

13 of the Category 1 cases and you asked, do we approve 

14 continuation of this expedited processing, I think 

15 it has worked well so far. I, personally, think 

16 we should continue with it.

17 What do other Members think?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I definitely think 

19 so, says Wanda. But before we completely leave the 

20 W.R. Grace item, the typo -- I hate to even mention 

21 it.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yeah, that was my 
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 fault. I'm sorry.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, that's a minor 

3 thing.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, thank you.

5 MEMBER MUNN: But nevertheless, yes, 

6 this, from my perspective, is working very, very 

7 smoothly. It's extremely helpful to me.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: How about other 

9 folks?

10 MEMBER BEACH: I agree. I like this 

11 method.

12 MEMBER POSTON: I agree.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Well, we all 

15 agree. So, I would say, just as an overall to you, 

16 to the SC&A folks, that I don't consider this --

17 well, put it this way. Our approval will become 

18 definitive, I hope, after we go to and do the 

19 Category 2 cases. We've done the easy cases, and 

20 they went very well and this was a very good 

21 procedure. What happens when we get to Category 

22 2 may impact our overall sense of whether we're 
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 doing the right thing.

2 We're certainly doing the right thing 

3 for Category 1. That's my opinion, anyway.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, the Category 2s 

5 should proceed just the same way we were doing this 

6 morning with the --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, right.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, I don't see that 

9 being a problem. For the next meeting, though, we 

10 only have -- we have one matrix remaining in the 

11 14 through 18th set, which is the remaining AWE 

12 cases.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There are 44 findings 

15 there, and an additional maybe seven findings from 

16 the DCAS site. So, I will extend this process 

17 through the remaining AWE sites.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And actually, we're to 

20 a point now where we are caught up in NIOSH 

21 responses. So, I just want to remind NIOSH that 

22 we will need responses for the 19th and 21st sets' 
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 matrices soon.

2 MR. KATZ: Can I suggest, though, in 

3 addition to that for the next meeting, I think it'll 

4 be time, right, you're planning to take on some Type 

5 2, because we need experience on that sooner than 

6 later. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I'd recommend 

8 that we start with those in the next meeting.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's great. Okay.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, sounds good 

11 to me. Okay, well, thank you. And this has been 

12 very good.

13 So, we are now on to Item 3. Now, I 

14 ordered this discussion such that we would talk 

15 about the report on consistency in dose 

16 reconstruction next. And we may not get to the 

17 blind case reviews. I don't know.

18 Do folks go along with that? Or maybe 

19 we could change and we could do the blind case 

20 reviews now. The reason I put the consistency in 

21 3 is that we have probably six months or so in which 

22 to report back to the Board on improving 
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 consistency. And it seems to me we will probably 

2 have to have several discussions. And since there 

3 is a time frame on that, I thought we would go with 

4 3 first.

5 MR. KATZ: Dave, so, I have a 

6 suggestion.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: I actually think it would be 

9 helpful, from an administrative standpoint, for 

10 me, if we proceeded with the blinds first and then, 

11 if we run short of time on consistency, it's not 

12 so much of a concern to me.

13 The reason I say that is because we are 

14 trying to get through these backlogs. I mean, the 

15 blinds aren't exactly backlogged but they are part 

16 of the load -- they're in our way, too -- so that 

17 we can get back to initiating additional case 

18 reviews.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: So, to me, the consistency 

21 discussion, certainly it's not the most important, 

22 but really, it will relate to new cases that we 
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 assign, not to cases that we are already looking 

2 at so much.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct.

4 MR. KATZ: So, to me, it's a bigger 

5 priority to get as much of the backlog cleared as 

6 soon as possible because that means we can get new 

7 cases in.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's a good 

9 argument. Administratively -- and I noted that we 

10 yesterday received the blinds from set 23.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, if that is 

13 helpful, then I am more than open to doing the blind 

14 case reviews next. How about how do other Members 

15 feel? Okay?

16 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

17 certainly agree with Ted has to say, for yet another 

18 reason as well. Our discussion and deliberation 

19 with respect to consistency is one that we can 

20 actually do, to some degree, offline. If those of 

21 us who are looking at it feel strongly about 

22 something and would like to add or create specific 
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 direction for the discussion, we can do so by 

2 communication with the entire Subcommittee through 

3 email.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's true.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And we just simply can't 

6 do that with the cases that we have to do with the 

7 full committee.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Good. 

9 Further argument, further support for going on with 

10 the blind cases for Set 22.

11 So, any objection? Okay, let's do the 

12 blind case reviews.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Kathy, do you 

14 have a preference on which one goes first?

15 MS. BEHLING: No, not at all. The one 

16 I was going to do, which was the SNL case, Sandia 

17 National Lab, is going to be very quick.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could I suggest 

19 something? Before we do that, let's all take a 

20 look at the table again, just to refresh ourselves. 

21 If you'll show us the table, and then we will go 

22 on to the SNL.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sure.

2 MS. BEHLING: Do you have that 

3 available, Rose?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I just pulled it 

5 up.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, there it is. 

7 And the first scan through, as I'm sure all of us 

8 noticed, was that the results are consistent with 

9 SC&A and NIOSH in terms of compensability. In 

10 particular, the two cases were above 50 percent, 

11 according to NIOSH, and they are still, according 

12 to SC&A.

13 And also, NIOSH, for those that were not 

14 compensable, three out of the four from NIOSH had 

15 a greater PoC than SC&A did, which, again, might 

16 reflect NIOSH's -- the importance to NIOSH, and to 

17 all of us, of being -- deciding in favor -- when 

18 uncertain deciding in favor of the claimant, being 

19 claimant-favorable.

20 So, any comments on the table or 

21 anything anyone wants to say before we begin going 

22 over the individual cases?
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 MEMBER MUNN: No, nothing more than to 

2 just comment, again, that this is enormously 

3 helpful to be able to see this kind of comparison.

4 Blind Case Reviews from Set 22

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It sure is. And by 

6 the way, now we're into cases, I believe -- is this 

7 the 20th through the 26th case, the blind case that 

8 we have looked at? Or is this 14 through 20?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe this is 20 

10 through 26.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think it is, yes, 

12 which is great. We still, just to comment, we 

13 still have the one case from Allied Chemical & Dye 

14 that has to be resolved.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe we've 

16 resolved that case.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Have we? That was 

18 not -- I mean, in the blind review and the table 

19 that we are sending in, it still says referred.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I believe we did 

21 that after, while the letter was still in draft. 

22 It didn't make sense to keep updating the letter.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I understand. 

2 Okay. And has that ever -- that has not come before 

3 the Committee. So -- and if it is decided --

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, the Subcommittee 

5 discussed it. I believe that was in the Spring 

6 meeting, maybe a March meeting or April.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Do other -- I don't 

8 recall that and I don't remember seeing it in the 

9 transcript. Do other Committee Members? Did we 

10 discussed Allied Chemical & Dye as a blind case?

11 MEMBER MUNN: We've discussed Allied 

12 Chemical a lot. I haven't looked at the --

13 MR. KATZ: Is that a John Mauro site?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I thought we had 

16 referred it to the Work Group.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's what I 

18 thought.

19 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

20 thought I had added a summary row to each of the 

21 blind cases, and I think I even went back into the 

22 transcripts to confirm that we had closed that out. 
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 But I have to tell you, I maybe should look at that 

2 again.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That would be good. 

4 What we'll do is we have our six cases. That's 

5 fine. Next time, if you would bring that -- if 

6 you'd check it out and then next time report back 

7 to us. And if we have not discussed it as a 

8 Subcommittee, we should do that and put it on the 

9 agenda.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, I do know that it 

11 was discussed. I just didn't know if there were 

12 any outstanding issues associated with it, because 

13 it was a long discussion. I think we discussed it 

14 at several meetings, but I will confirm that.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, we discussed 

16 the issue, and then later we discussed it at great 

17 length. But, eventually, Dr. Melius suggested 

18 that we had not -- it had to go to the Work Group 

19 or another Subcommittee, and then it had to be 

20 reconsidered and then come back to us. And I want 

21 to make sure it came back.

22 So, anyway, folks will check this and 
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 we will have the answer next time, or you'll email 

2 me if we have not gone over and approved it as a 

3 Subcommittee.

4 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright, 

6 good. And if it was not approved, we will put it 

7 on the agenda for the next meeting.

8 Alright, let's go, and did I hear you 

9 say you wanted discuss the SNL case first?

10 MS. BEHLING: I can do that, if 

11 everyone agrees. It's just because I think that 

12 this will be rather brief.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

14 Sandia National Laboratories

15 MS. BEHLING: I know I usually like to 

16 talk, but, unfortunately, this one isn't going to 

17 allow me to do that.

18 (Laughter.)

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. BEHLING: But, anyway, this 

21 particular blind case, the Energy Employee 

22 obviously worked at Sandia National Lab in 
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 Albuquerque. And there were [identifying 

2 information redacted] cancers. And if you look at 

3 -- do you have that case up on Live Meeting, Rose?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it's pulled up on 

5 the screen.

6 MS. BEHLING: Okay, for some reason, 

7 I'm still seeing the agenda. That's fine. I'll 

8 go through this. And I'm going to be brief and be 

9 careful about what I say here, but this particular 

10 case, as I said, there were [identifying 

11 information redacted] cancers. And if we look at 

12 Table 1-2 on page 7, it shows you a comparison of 

13 the NIOSH and the SC&A doses for each of the various 

14 categories. 

15 And as you can see, we were nearly 

16 identical with the doses. And both NIOSH and SC&A 

17 had a combined PoC of greater than 50 percent and 

18 would have compensated this case.

19 If we move on, then, to page 8 and to 

20 our comparison table of data and assumptions, Table 

21 2-1, here, again, NIOSH and SC&A made all the same 

22 assumptions. They used the DOE records. They 
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 used all of the same guidance documents. 

2 And one of the things that Ted had 

3 recommended, and we will do in the future, which 

4 will certainly make things easier for the reader, 

5 when NIOSH and SC&A agree and have done exactly the 

6 same approach, or used the same approach, in the 

7 SC&A column we will put in there "no difference" 

8 or "same assumptions," or something along those 

9 lines, so that it is much easier for you to see where 

10 there are differences.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

12 MS. BEHLING: So, if you go through the 

13 table, both NIOSH and SC&A, as I said, used all the 

14 same assumptions, used the same guidance 

15 documents. The only thing that was different is, 

16 under the occupational environmental dose, NIOSH 

17 assumed a DCF, an isotropic DCF that was associated 

18 with the exposure DCF, where SC&A used the 

19 isotropic ambient dose equivalent DCF. And that 

20 resulted in NIOSH calculating a little bit higher

21 dose than SC&A.

22 The only other thing that was different 
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 in this is, for some, for one of the cancers, NIOSH 

2 determined the uncertainty based on a Monte Carlo 

3 approach. And so the data then was entered, in 

4 some cases as log-normal and in cases as a Weibull 

5 distribution, with a little bit different, when 

6 it's a log-normal, a little bit different GSD value 

7 than SC&A. Typically, we use the mode of the DCF 

8 value and enter that in as a log-normal 

9 distribution with a GSD of 1.52 for this type of 

10 doses.

11 So, I can go through each of these 

12 categories, but if you've read through the report, 

13 there really were no differences. Everything was 

14 very consistent.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I don't know 

16 that we need to go through it in any more detail. 

17 What do other Members think?

18 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I just 

19 want to clarify the difference on the DCFs in 

20 environmental.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Did I misspeak?

22 MR. SIEBERT: No, no, you were exactly 
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 right as to what the differences were. I just want 

2 to point out the reason we did it the way we did 

3 it is based in Procedure-60, Section 6.3 for best 

4 estimates. It specifically directs you which DCF 

5 to use in that specific circumstance.

6 MS. BEHLING: Okay, thank you.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

8 Alright, I think my own feeling would be that we 

9 should approve as this discussion stands. Do I 

10 hear other suggestions?

11 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's entirely 

12 appropriate. We've seen the document. We've 

13 seen the comparison. Kathy has led by the hand. 

14 And I see nothing for us to discuss, other than to 

15 say good job, again.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

17 MS. BEHLING: Thank you. One other 

18 question, while I am thinking about it. When we 

19 get through the other two blinds, the discussion 

20 of those today, provided there's no outstanding 

21 issues, I assume that you do want me to continue 

22 to update this table with a comments or a summary 
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 type of statement that discusses where there were 

2 some differences so that we can finalize the 22nd 

3 set blind after this meeting.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Always helpful to have 

7 that on what turns out to be a historic document, 

8 if it's referenced again.

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay, very good. Thank 

10 you.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good. 

12 Alright, what is the next one that you'd like to 

13 go through?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: How about Grand 

15 Junction?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Grand Junction, 

17 alright.

18 Grand Junction

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, that's mine. 

20 This is Ron Buchanan. 

21 And the blind on this one was for the 

22 dose reconstruction for an EE who worked at the 
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 Grand Junction operation office in Grand Junction, 

2 Colorado. In most of the period, in the 1980s, was 

3 a janitor and laborer. I need to say that because 

4 that play into the dose assigned. They had a 

5 number of skin cancers in the 2000s.

6 The EE had no internal dosing and very 

7 limited external dosimetry recorded. If you look 

8 at Table 11-1, we see that we had very similar dose 

9 assignments, identical for the recorded. There 

10 was a little bit of difference in the missed dose, 

11 and we'll discuss that.

12 Unmonitored dose was very similar for 

13 all categories. Internal dose was similar; very 

14 small, of course, for skin cancers. Total doses 

15 were very similar. And the PoCs were very similar 

16 at around 48 percent.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 DR. BUCHANAN: And so we see that if we 

19 compare the methods used in Table 2-1, they are the 

20 same. There's a slight bit of difference in the 

21 unmonitored and modeled photon dose there, that the 

22 NIOSH dose reconstructor used supervisory data and 
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 we used the interpolation of the data from 1980 and 

2 1984. They were similar but slightly different 

3 values, but it was nice to see that using two 

4 different methods came out to similar values.

5 And the only other difference with the 

6 internal dose was that NIOSH used some values based 

7 on tables from 1980 to 1990 and assigned a 

8 log-normal and constant distribution. SC&A based 

9 theirs on maximum permissible concentrations and 

10 assigned dose only after the SEC expired in '85. 

11 And so we assigned it only for '86 through '90 and 

12 assigned it as a log-normal distribution. And so 

13 those are the two major differences.

14 On the recorded dose, we see, on page 

15 11 of my report anyway, at Section 2.1.1, no 

16 differences. So I don't really need to go through 

17 that. We just used the recorded dose and 

18 appropriate values.

19 Missed dose, there were some 

20 differences there. And we both assigned nine 

21 missed doses. SC&A assigned one shallow missed 

22 dose and NIOSH assigned two shallow missed doses.
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 And you'll see that the missed photon 

2 doses, the difference, we both assigned nine, but 

3 we used the LOD of 0.02 millirem that's given in 

4 the Grand Junction guidance, and came out, of 

5 course, we have outlined there in Table 2-2, as 0.09 

6 rem.

7 NIOSH used the same nine missed doses, 

8 but it used an LOD of 50 millirem. And, of course, 

9 we both used a dose conversion factor of one for 

10 skin cancer. And, of course, arrived at a larger 

11 dose because of the larger LOD value they used of 

12 0.225 rem. And this was outlined or summarized in 

13 Table 2-3.

14 And so we find that we used the LOD of 

15 20 millirem, and they used the LOD of 50 millirem, 

16 and that was the difference in the assigned doses 

17 there, the missed dose.

18 The missed dose, missed shallow dose, 

19 we both applied --

20 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, Ron?

21 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes?

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I just 
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 want to clarify, since we are hitting a point where 

2 there is a difference.

3 We agree that the 20 millirem LOD is 

4 what should have been used. The dose 

5 reconstructor made an error in this issue and used 

6 the wrong LOD. So, I just want to point out that 

7 was the difference.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you for 

9 clarifying that.

10 And so that brings us up to missed 

11 shallow dose and we both applied a clothing 

12 attenuation factor of 0.855, because it was on 

13 their clothing, a dose conversion factor of one and 

14 assigned it as a 30 to 250 keV missed shallow dose. 

15 We both assigned it that way. However, again, the 

16 LOD value of 20 versus 50 comes into play. And so 

17 they assigned a greater dose than we did. We 

18 assigned 9 millirem. They assigned 43 millirem. 

19 And we both assigned it with a log-normal 

20 distribution. So, that, again, same reason for 

21 the difference there.

22 Okay, we have unmonitored photon dose. 
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 This is Section 2.1.3. There was periods when the 

2 worker was not monitored in the early 1980s, and 

3 there were some gaps in the late 1980s, the second 

4 half of the 1980s. And so we used the -- Grand 

5 Junction doesn't have a TBD per se. They have a 

6 dose reconstruction template. And so what we --

7 SC&A used somewhat of a different approach, as 

8 outlined there, for 1980 to 1985, looked at some 

9 of the workers data and used a workers data plus 

10 a missed dose, came out with 80 millirem per year. 

11 And the value for 1985 in Grand Junction was given 

12 as 90 millirem. 

13 So, this is what SC&A thought those were 

14 fairly close and used those values and assigned it 

15 for about five years and assigned a total of 2.433 

16 rem.

17 For the gap period, SC&A used, again, 

18 the values given in the template and had a total 

19 gap there in the later 1980s of two years where the 

20 person didn't appear to be monitored or the records 

21 weren't available or whatever. And so they 

22 assigned 0.134 rem there in that gap period in the 
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 later '80s.

2 Now, looking at NIOSH, they assigned an 

3 unmonitored period and they used the Grand Junction 

4 template and assigned it as an operator-laborer 

5 category and they assigned a total dose of 2.529 

6 rem. And so the doses were very close. When you 

7 add them up, we assigned a total of 2.567 for the 

8 whole period and they assigned 2.529. So, using 

9 two different methods, we came up with very similar 

10 doses.

11 Now, Section 2.1.4, unmonitored 

12 shallow dose, in this case SC&A assigned one missed 

13 dose. NIOSH assigned two. And we both assigned 

14 them as greater than 14 keV electrons because it 

15 was skin cancer. And so it came out that we 

16 assigned 3.292 and they assigned 3.244 rem. And 

17 so there's a slight difference, and this is 

18 discussed in the previous sections for why there 

19 were slight differences there.

20 Okay, so, neutron dose. Okay, the 

21 worker was not -- this is Section 2.1.5 -- was not 

22 monitored for neutrons. And so, according to the 
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 Grand Junction template, it has your assigned 

2 neutron dose during this period and with a 

3 weighting factor of 9.91. And we did that and came 

4 out with very close doses of 1.292 and 1.286. And 

5 mainly, this dose difference was due to how you 

6 calculate fractions of the year and rounding as you 

7 put them in the IREP table. So, we both assigned 

8 those as constant distribution. So, there is very 

9 little difference there.

10 Section 2.1.6 is an occupational 

11 medical dose. And since the worker did not work 

12 at a covered facility that did it onsite, it did 

13 it offsite, so it wasn't assigned by either SC&A 

14 or NIOSH.

15 And Section 2.2 is occupational 

16 internal dose. Now, this is where we kind of went 

17 in different paths to get to the same approximate 

18 answer.

19 There was no internal bioassay 

20 dosimetry data, and so NIOSH and SC&A, as described 

21 here, SC&A assigned internal intake from uranium, 

22 and then in the next section from thorium, and 
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 mainly used -- we assigned internal dose only after 

2 the SEC expired in '85. So, it was '86 through '90.

3 And so we assigned that based on maximum 

4 permissible concentrations, and it shows the 

5 calculations there how we derived the intake. 

6 That would be the maximum. The estimate on the MPCs 

7 were exceeded and we applied the fraction of the 

8 uranium for inhalation to that, come up with one 

9 times ten to the minus three microcuries per year. 

10 And also could have been ingestion. We followed 

11 OTIB-9, calculated that intake.

12 And we used these intakes, as shown in 

13 Table 2-4 in the Chronic Annual Dose Workbook, and 

14 to derive the internal uranium dose to the skin, 

15 and found that Type F provided the largest dose, 

16 and that was 4 millirem. Of course, very low for 

17 skin doses.

18 And then we move down to the next page. 

19 We looked at the thorium. And then on the thorium, 

20 we used the same method. We looked at the MPCs and 

21 there had been some time studies, time-weighted 

22 average studies done. And so we used that 
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 time-weighted value of 307 MPC hours, instead of 

2 the 520 for the uranium that we had used before 

3 which should be the maximum. And we did the same 

4 thing as we did for uranium and calculated the 

5 intake. 

6 And Table 2-4 there lists the total 

7 uranium, radon -- radium -- uranium, radium, and 

8 thorium intakes. And this, then, led to an 

9 assignment of 0.042 rem for Type M thorium and 

10 radium. So we add that to the 0.4 for the total 

11 intake for the internal dose.

12 Now, NIOSH used a different approach. 

13 They used some tables in the Grand Junction DR 

14 template and used the supervisor category to apply 

15 to the third quarter of 1986. The laborer category 

16 applied to the fourth quarter of 1986.

17 And so you see Table 2-5 lists their 

18 intakes and how they based those. And the total 

19 they assigned, then, was 0.053 rem. So, fairly 

20 close to us, but two completely different methods, 

21 so to speak, to arrive at it.

22 And so we assigned 0.046 rem. They 
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 assigned a total of 0.065 rem. So, there was a 

2 slight difference but two completely different 

3 methods to derive it.

4 This brings us to the summary in Section 

5 3. And we see, if we look at the total external, 

6 very close; total internal, fairly close; total, 

7 fairly close; and the PoC was fairly close. And 

8 we see that the slight difference in assigning 

9 doses was mainly due to the LOD value selected and 

10 one versus two missed shallow doses. And then for 

11 internal, it was mainly due to the overall 

12 methodology used to assign that. The rest of the 

13 external doses were fairly close and agreed with 

14 each other.

15 So, that's a summary of that. I'll 

16 open for any questions.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just one 

18 other clarification. The difference in-between 

19 here was, I noted that SC&A applied the SEC that 

20 was effective in mid-2015, which is exactly 

21 appropriate, how they should have done it. We, 

22 however, did the claim prior to the SEC being final. 
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 So, we actually assigned internal during an earlier 

2 timeframe, where they did not because the SEC tells 

3 you not to.

4 So, once again, just like Ron was 

5 saying, a slight difference but I just wanted to 

6 point out that is why there was one difference 

7 there.

8 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you.

9 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy. I 

10 also wanted to point out that it just so happens 

11 that the Grand Junction template has been reviewed 

12 by SC&A, because there was a change that was issued 

13 under a PER and SC&A has reviewed that template.

14 (Pause.)

15 MR. KATZ: Dave, are you with us?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, wait a minute.

17 MR. KATZ: I heard you for a moment. 

18 Maybe you just put yourself on mute again.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry. I was 

20 on mute. Thank you for catching me.

21 I was going to ask about the 

22 occupational medical dose. They were assigned to 
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 positions and measurements offsite. Right? And 

2 those are not compensated because they are not --

3 right, as I remember?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They are not covered.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: They are not 

6 covered. Remind me. We've talked about this a 

7 number of times before, but I'm still -- is that 

8 decision based on the legal analysis of the law that 

9 was passed? Right? That's a legal 

10 interpretation.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, because if we 

13 normally on -- it seems to me workers' 

14 compensation, not this federal law, but in state 

15 compensation, the medical dose measurements are 

16 required by the worker. The federal government 

17 required those measurements of people but they 

18 didn't count them. Now, we don't have any data or 

19 we may not have any data.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Generally, we have the 

21 data but we just can't use it.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Well, 
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 that's -- okay, I -- I --

2 MR. KATZ: Dave, the law requires us 

3 to, and only allows us, to reconstruct doses that 

4 incurred at the facility.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. I abstain 

6 from further comment. Let's say that, on the 

7 record. Because there seems to me to be issues 

8 that claimants may have. However, this is a legal 

9 decision and the law is the law and I'm not a lawyer. 

10 And I, therefore, have nothing more to say.

11 Let's go on, okay, for the next case.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I believe the 

13 last case is RFP. Doug, are you on the line?

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You say the last 

15 case. Have we --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, at the last 

17 meeting we covered three cases.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Yes, sure. 

19 Right. Okay.

20 MS. BEHLING: In the table that you 

21 received today, that was submitted today, that was 

22 for --
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Twenty-three. 

2 That's right.

3 MS. BEHLING: -- haven't started 

4 really reviewing and talking about those.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

6 Sure. Okay, let's go on to that.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is Doug on the line? I 

8 wonder if he got disconnected.

9 MS. BEHLING: I will email him.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you, Kathy.

11 MR. KATZ: Who are you looking for? 

12 John?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Doug.

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, Doug. Okay. Yes, he 

15 was on earlier. While we are looking for Doug, is 

16 there any reason not to proceed into the other 

17 blind, the most recent set of blind cases?

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we haven't had 

19 a chance to review -- the Subcommittee hasn't had 

20 a chance to review them.

21 MR. KATZ: Oh, you mean you haven't 

22 read them. Oh, okay.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I haven't read the 

2 reports.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay, got you.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I looked at the 

5 tables.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Since 

7 we're discussing that, if we start on those on the 

8 next meeting, could I get a list of which ones? If 

9 we're going to do all six, that's fine. If we're 

10 going to do a subset, that's fine, too. Just if 

11 we could know which ones so that we can prepare in 

12 a timely manner as well, that would be helpful.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. So, 

14 let's see what we have for the next time, because 

15 the next time we have the remaining cases in Sets 

16 14 through 18.

17 While we are waiting, on Set 23, how 

18 many blinds?

19 MR. KATZ: There are six cases.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: There are six cases 

21 that are completed?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

2 So, I mean, the question is whether we do three or 

3 six.

4 MR. KATZ: Yeah. And so, again, along 

5 with -- related to my concerns I expressed earlier 

6 about wanting to get through the backlog, I just 

7 would, I guess, urge you to consider just keeping 

8 it to three so we can spend more time on these 

9 regular DR reviews, getting through those.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And that 

11 was my inclination, not expressed. And you 

12 expressed them. So, I agree. So, we will do 

13 three. I mean, it seems to me three cases would 

14 be plenty.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, Rose, if Rose 

16 would just -- Rose, you folks can just go ahead and 

17 select three that makes sense for whatever reason.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And inform 

19 --

20 MR. KATZ: Right, notify Grady and 

21 Scott.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, we can certainly 
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 do that.

2 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Rose.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, we're 

4 still waiting. What is the Set 22 case we're 

5 waiting on? I forget.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The RFP case.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

8 MR. KATZ: Rocky Flats.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Rocky Flats. 

10 Okay, that's it.

11 MR. KATZ: Doug, have you joined us?

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: So, someone was calling 

15 Doug. Is that what I understood?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Kathy is contacting 

17 him.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. Maybe, 

19 everyone, should we just take a ten-minute comfort 

20 break?

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, I was 

22 going to take it a little later but that sounds like 
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 a good idea. It is 2:20. See you all back at 2:30.

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

3 went off the record at 2:20 p.m. and resumed at 2:31 

4 p.m.)

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, please begin.

6 Rocky Flats

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let's see. We've 

8 got the comparison table up on Live Meeting.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hm.

10 MR. FARVER: So we can see that now 

11 we're looking down on the RFP line.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. So, we can see that 

14 there's not too much difference between the 

15 external dose, the internal dose, or the total 

16 dose. 

17 I think it works out to be a total 

18 difference between the total dose of maybe three 

19 percent, and less than one percent between the 

20 internal doses, and a little higher between the 

21 external dose, but we could talk a little bit about 

22 that. But that's the most difference. All in 
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 all, it's pretty close all around the line.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. So, 

3 let's go. Here we are, Table 1.1.

4 MR. FARVER: Table 1.1. Now, do you 

5 want me to go through everything or just the ones 

6 that are significantly different? Because we can 

7 look at this table, we can talk about each one, but 

8 you're going to see there's not going to be much 

9 difference between most of them.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Why don't 

11 we go over them and then agree to talk about the 

12 ones that are a bit different? So, let's start out 

13 with the first --

14 MR. FARVER: And we can look at the 

15 photon dose, recorded dose. And if you look at the 

16 30 to 250 keV photons, there is almost no 

17 difference, a difference of 10 millirems or so, 

18 less than 10 millirems.

19 And then the shallow dose, less than 30 

20 keV, that's a little higher, but it's at 23, 24 

21 millirem. There isn't a whole lot of difference 

22 between the two.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, I don't 

2 think that we need further explication. 

3 MR. FARVER: Okay, really if you just 

4 look down, just quickly scan down the recorded 

5 neutron dose on both sides, you can see that there 

6 is not much --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. FARVER: -- difference in the 

9 recorded dose.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

11 sounds good. So, let's go --

12 MR. FARVER: You are going to see the 

13 most significant difference between the missed 

14 dose and on down here we will get into the coworker 

15 dose.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That sounds okay.

17 MR. FARVER: So, that is where you are 

18 going to see the difference on the external side.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's talk 

20 about those.

21 MR. FARVER: Well, we can talk about 

22 the missed photon dose.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. FARVER: And so we have a 

3 difference of gosh, not too much between on the 30 

4 to 250 keVs. It works out to be about 15 percent 

5 difference. And on the missed photon dose, it is 

6 double, basically.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. FARVER: 15 millirems. And I call 

9 up -- I'm trying to look at what is on the screen 

10 and also what I have.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. You know 

12 the previous, when Ron was doing it, we actually 

13 had a table that -- this has the discussion in the 

14 text, which is fine. There we go. It is easier 

15 for us to compare visually.

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. Go down and look at 

17 the missed photon doses.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: You can see the difference 

20 there is going to be the number of zeros.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: This is what we see a lot 
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 when we look at these dose reconstructions. It is 

2 how you interpret the number of zero readings. And 

3 in this case, NIOSH interpreted 75, and we 

4 interpreted 52. And that is the difference, other 

5 than there is going to be a slight difference 

6 between us and them when we do the Monte Carlo 

7 calculation. But essentially, the big difference 

8 is going to be for the missed photon doses and then 

9 the number of zeros.

10 MEMBER MUNN: That is the specific 

11 information I would like to hear, personally. I 

12 like to know exactly why the two are not -- when 

13 there is a brief difference in approach or a 

14 specific reason why the figure is different, that 

15 is important for my little brain to absorb.

16 MR. FARVER: And while we are looking 

17 at that table there, if we could just look up a 

18 little bit on the recorded photon doses, you notice 

19 there wasn't much difference in the recorded photon 

20 dose.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. FARVER: That is because 
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 everything was the same except they used the 

2 Weibull distribution and the Monte Carlo 

3 calculation.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. FARVER: I don't see a whole lot of 

6 difference.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But for missed 

8 photon doses, there is, and the question is why.

9 MR. FARVER: Why, which was the number 

10 of zeros interpreted differently by two different 

11 people.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine. Very good.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Were you going to go into 

14 the difference between what you did, we did, and 

15 why in the coworker, or were you going to cover that 

16 later, or how are we going to do that?

17 MR. FARVER: Well, we are going to just 

18 go down the table and get to the coworker, I 

19 imagine.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Because both of those 

21 pieces actually tie together.

22 MR. FARVER: They do.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, would 

2 you suggest that we keep going and then keep this 

3 in mind?

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, we will just keep 

5 going, and then we can get to the point that Scott 

6 wants to talk about. Rarely, when you get into a 

7 missed photon dose, the missed doses and the 

8 coworker dose, a lot of it is how you interpret the 

9 data.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha, okay.

11 MR. FARVER: Do you assign a missed 

12 dose where you have a zero dosimeter reading, or 

13 do you assign it as a coworker time period.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay, then.

15 MR. FARVER: So, if we move down to the 

16 next page -- well, we can look for the unmonitored 

17 photon doses right next to it, which is right on 

18 the bottom.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. FARVER: Well, we can see that one 

21 of the main differences is going to be the time 

22 period assigned for the coworker dose or the 
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 unmonitored dose. And you can see there is a 

2 difference in the months interpreted. 

3 And I think this is one of the things 

4 that Scott was talking about is it depends on how 

5 you interpret these time periods and then what you 

6 assign as missed dose or unmonitored dose.

7 And when you combine the two, that is 

8 where you might see differences in individual ones, 

9 but when we look at them combined, we don't see that 

10 much of a difference.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: What gives you -- in 

12 your analysis, what gives you the -- what 

13 determines for you when you are going to go for 

14 coworker and when you are going to go for missed 

15 dose? Because there are differences.

16 MR. FARVER: And I think I would like 

17 to let Scott address this because he is more 

18 familiar with this.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. It really comes 

21 down to what you consider an unmonitored short 

22 period and how to address it. The IG001, which is 
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 the external dosimetry IG, gives some information 

2 as to short-term gaps and whether we should 

3 actually assume that they were unmonitored and you 

4 should use coworker, or they were unmonitored or 

5 potentially unmonitored, and we should average out 

6 the information if we have dose information on 

7 either side of the gap.

8 We have, Rocky Flats, being as it is and 

9 so complex when it comes to their external 

10 dosimetry, we have put into the TBD as well as the 

11 DR guidance document pretty clear steps as to how 

12 to consider those short-term gaps, and that is 

13 really the difference we are seeing here. 

14 Whenever we saw a short-term gap, which is 

15 generally less than three months, less than a 

16 quarter, we interpolate the values between the 

17 external dose values, badges on either side of that 

18 short-term gap. That is directly coming out of 

19 IG001.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Ah.

21 MR. SIEBERT: And I know 1990 actually 

22 is a really good example, when you look at this 
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 table. Because, if you notice, we have no periods 

2 where we are dealing with it, and SC&A had almost 

3 five months.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

5 MR. SIEBERT: And the difference is, if 

6 we actually looked at the data for 1990, which I 

7 have it in front of me, there are results pretty 

8 much every other month, pretty close. So, we never 

9 had a time period that was greater than three months 

10 during that whole year. So, we used the gap-fill 

11 methods for that whole year for the time frame for 

12 the very short gaps in-between monitoring time 

13 frames.

14 When we do that, we are going to 

15 interpolate between the actual data that we have, 

16 whereas, Doug correct me if I am wrong, I believe 

17 SC&A took that chunk of time and called that 

18 coworker instead.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MR. SIEBERT: And that right there is 

22 the basic difference of the interpolation of the 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 short-term gaps.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is very 

3 helpful. And that also explains, as I am looking 

4 at the first years, the '85 through '89, the numbers 

5 we are talking about, how the beginning and the end 

6 of the period, that many of the numbers from NIOSH 

7 are a fractional bump beyond what SC&A gave.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: For 1989, 11 versus 

10 11.7; 4.47, et cetera. Okay, good. That is --

11 Wanda, that clarifies it for me, and I trust for 

12 you.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well, that pretty 

16 much covers any missed photon dose and the coworker 

17 or unmonitored photon dose.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. We go right next 

20 down the line is recorded shallow dose. We saw a 

21 little bit of a difference, and that is just the 

22 number of years. One result -- it looks like NIOSH 
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 assigned it for three years and then SC&A assigned 

2 it for two years.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. FARVER: But it is still a very 

5 small difference. And then the missed shallow 

6 dose, you can see looking at the exact number of 

7 zeros.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. FARVER: It's what we talked about 

10 before. It is how you interpret the time period.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: And then to the 

13 unmonitored or coworker shallow dose, you see the 

14 same thing.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

16 MR. FARVER: The covered time period is 

17 different, how you interpret that as opposed to a 

18 missed dose.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: And to the recorded 

21 neutron doses, we can talk about it; they're pretty 

22 much the same. Well, essentially the same except 
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 for the Monte Carlo and the Weibull distribution.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: They applied the glove box 

4 factor for the same year. And then the missed 

5 neutron doses, once again, number of zeros. NIOSH 

6 interpreted them as 81, and SC&A at 56. Everything 

7 else was essentially the same. So that will give 

8 you your difference between your missed neutron 

9 doses.

10 And then the coworker neutron doses is 

11 what we just talked about before. It comes down 

12 to time period. The method of the calculating of 

13 the dose is the same. It is the interpretation of 

14 the time period that is different.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I will say that the 

16 NIOSH folks said that their interpretation was 

17 based on the written instructions, right? And I'm 

18 not -- why didn't SC&A follow those?

19 MR. FARVER: There is an averaging 

20 method described in IG001. And a lot of it depends 

21 on how you interpret the safe periods and what you 

22 -- whether it is quarterly or monthly or biweekly.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm not going to 

2 pursue it further. Obviously, what I have in my

3 mind, in the back of my mind and therefore coming 

4 out in these questions, are issues of consistency 

5 that we are going to be talking about later today. 

6 But that is --

7 MR. FARVER: And when I was reading 

8 over the memo, this is one of the items that came 

9 to mind, whether it is the number of zeros that we 

10 interpret or the time period. Because I believe 

11 in the memo it talks about facilities we worked at.

12 I think this is another example, 

13 especially the number of zeros. We have seen this 

14 before in our comparison of dose reconstructions 

15 where you interpret the number of zeros differently 

16 depending on what exchange frequency you assume and 

17 things like that. And the time period is just 

18 another method.

19 I am not that familiar with the time 

20 period averaging method in IG001. I believe I have 

21 looked at it before, and I don't know if it is a 

22 consistency problem or not.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, we will think 

2 about that. And since things are really quite 

3 similar, I don't want to belabor this. 

4 MR. KATZ: But just on this point, 

5 Dave, on consistency, the consistency we are 

6 concerned about is consistency at NIOSH, not 

7 between NIOSH and SC&A, if SC&A is using a different 

8 approach.

9 MR. FARVER: That is what I mean, Ted. 

10 I don't know if they are consistently applying it 

11 the same way or not.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I will 

13 tell you we are, because Procedure 6 covers this, 

14 IG001 covers this, as well as I mentioned, the DR 

15 guidance document for Rocky Flats is very 

16 prescriptive as to how to deal with these 

17 short-term gaps as well.

18 So, from our side of it, we are 

19 following all that written guidance.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

21 MR. FARVER: I know their DR guidance 

22 document is very prescriptive about exchange 
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 periods and time periods.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay and this is Kathy, 

3 if I can ask one quick question. So, because I am 

4 not as familiar with the Rocky Flats TBD, there is 

5 no real specific guidance in the TBD, the Rocky 

6 Flats Technical Site Profile. Is that correct? 

7 You are pretty much relying on your DR guidance 

8 notes?

9 I'm sorry, I am probably confusing 

10 things.

11 MR. SIEBERT: No, it is a valid 

12 question. There is a lot of information in the 

13 TBD. The reason I am slowing down as I am answering 

14 that is I am looking furiously to see the most 

15 recent version of the TBD. 

16 Okay, this is what I thought and I 

17 wasn't positive about. It hasn't been updated 

18 since 2010. So, yes, there is information in it, 

19 but it is not as prescriptive as the DR guidance 

20 document. And the assumption would be the next 

21 time we do a TBD, external TBD update for Rocky 

22 Flats, we will incorporate all of that information 
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 into the TBD itself.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yes, because I 

3 have mentioned before, often, we considered a TBD 

4 as a document that we would refer to maybe quicker 

5 than a guidance document that is not formally 

6 published. But I just wanted to have some 

7 clarification. I know the Rocky Flats Site is very 

8 complex.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's do go 

10 on, Doug.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Gosh, we are 

12 talking about the unmonitored or coworker neutron 

13 doses. We talked about the time periods, how they 

14 are different. So, that accounts for the huge 

15 difference between -- well, it is not a huge 

16 difference -- the difference between the SC&A and 

17 the NIOSH values for coworker neutron doses.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Other than that, the 

20 medical doses, those are essentially the same. 

21 There is not much difference. I think it comes 

22 down to SC&A assuming one other exam than NIOSH did. 
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 I believe that is the only difference, but they are 

2 still very close.

3 What is interesting is when you look at 

4 the totality of all of this, it is amazing that 

5 everyone is so close on everything, even though 

6 maybe individually you will see what you think is 

7 a wide difference. It all kind of evens out in the 

8 end.

9 But, you know, external ambient dose 

10 was not assigned. And then we get into the 

11 internal doses. Now, the internal doses for, 

12 let's see where we can see, for the plutonium, 

13 americium, uranium, the -- let me see if I can get 

14 the right ones here. Everybody assumed the same 

15 type materials, S, Super S, and plutonium, 

16 americium, uranium Type S.

17 The difference you are going to see in 

18 the doses is as we go down and look individually 

19 for the missed uranium doses, you are going to see 

20 a difference of a millirem between the two methods.

21 The americium, you see a difference of 

22 -- well, you don't see a difference between the 
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 americium doses. The missed plutonium and 

2 americium, a difference of 20-40 millirem. It is 

3 surprisingly equal. And the coworker plutonium 

4 and americium are the same exactly.

5 They did get essentially the same on 

6 both sides. And the doses show that. That is why 

7 the total difference between the internal doses is 

8 27 millirem, 19.724 to 19.697.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is not on our 

10 screen, by the way.

11 MR. FARVER: Those are tallies that I 

12 tallied up.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MR. FARVER: It would be -- it's in the 

15 final table.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we are moving 

17 toward that.

18 MR. FARVER: If you get to the final 

19 table on page -- gosh, it is going to be down towards 

20 the end.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Here we go.

22 MR. FARVER: I mean I can go through 
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 each one individually but --

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no.

3 MR. FARVER: -- it is kind of -- they 

4 did the same thing.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: I'm looking for the final 

7 table. I don't usually have one.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This one is, I think, 

10 Doug.

11 MR. FARVER: I don't see it there. 

12 Okay.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, we can go up 

14 to the first table, then, where it was all 

15 summarized.

16 MR. FARVER: The total internal dose 

17 for NIOSH was 19.724 rem. The total for SC&A was 

18 19.697 rem for the internal dose.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: There is about 0.01 

21 percent difference.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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 MR. FARVER: It was surprisingly the 

2 same.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I hope not 

4 surprisingly, but it was close. And it was close, 

5 and they both showed that there should be 

6 compensation.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, they did.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And that is 

9 important. Okay, good.

10 Are there any comments, further 

11 comments? I talked a fair amount. Are there any

12 further comments about this regard?

13 MEMBER MUNN: No, it is just enormously 

14 reassuring, the end results.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes, I don't 

16 think we have done too many over 50 percent earlier 

17 in the first earlier sets of the blinds. I think 

18 mostly we took ones that were in the high 40s and 

19 had agreement.

20 I don't recall whether we had any other 

21 ones that were above 50 percent, and they both came 

22 in above 50 percent. We had one or two, perhaps, 
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 in the first 20 cases.

2 MEMBER MUNN: We have always focused on 

3 noncompensable.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right because that 

5 is so important, but also, that once we were in that 

6 range so close to 50, that we come in the same in 

7 terms of decisions. It's important.

8 Okay, should we accept this folks? Am 

9 I right in saying this is now accepted?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I think so, Dave.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

14 Doug, thanks.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay, thanks.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, we have 

17 finished now all six of the 22nd Set blinds. We 

18 will now next time go on to three of the next six 

19 blinds for Set 23.

20 And I think we are ready to talk about 

21 the memo on improving consistency that SC&A 

22 developed. And I must say, developed pretty close 
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 to -- let's see, they developed it in March of this 

2 year. So six months ago or more. More than six 

3 months ago.

4 Well, Rose, would you like to 

5 summarize? Now, we have all read it, I trust. And 

6 I hope we have thoughts that we want to express, 

7 but I think it would be good if we start out having 

8 Rose outline the arguments and the position that 

9 she made, briefly, if you can, assuming that we have 

10 all read it.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I will do my best.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 Begin Discussion on Improving Consistency in Dose 

14 Reconstruction (SC&A Memo 3-11-16)

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, this idea came up 

16 actually in the Methods Review Work Group meeting 

17 in November of 2015. So, about a year ago. And 

18 Dr. Melius was concerned that the Board isn't 

19 adequately targeting consistency issues. And 

20 what I mean by consistency issues would be issues 

21 where professional judgment is involved. 

22 So, if two NIOSH dose reconstructors 

23 were to do the same case, would they reach the same 
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 compensation decision? And they asked us to 

2 explore ways that the Board could target this 

3 issue, which -- and this will be very challenging 

4 to target. But we did a lot of brainstorming, and 

5 I think we came up with some ways that might work.

6 Historically, everyone knows that we do 

7 two types of dose reconstruction-related reviews.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could you speak 

9 just a little louder, please?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have our normal dose 

13 reconstruction review, where SC&A reviews 

14 previously completed cases done by NIOSH, and we 

15 compare them against the guidance documents, when 

16 we find -- we identify technical and QA errors of 

17 findings. And then we also have our blind dose 

18 reconstruction reviews, where SC&A independently 

19 creates the dose reconstruction on the case, and 

20 then we compare our dose reconstruction to NIOSH's. 

21 Now, that method doesn't identify findings. We 

22 don't pass judgment. It is simply how well two 
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 independent dose reconstructors interpret the same 

2 data and come to what conclusion.

3 And so based on historically, we think 

4 that a non-blind approach would make more sense in 

5 doing a dose reconstruction. And in order to do 

6 that, we would, of course, have to modify our 

7 selection criteria to target consistency-related 

8 issues. And if we were to use this approach, we 

9 would have to select a number of cases from the same 

10 site. They would need similar employment history. 

11 And we actually suggest targeting sites without 

12 formal TBDs. The sites without formal TBDs tend 

13 to have less prescriptive approaches, and there is 

14 more room for professional judgment in those case. 

15 But there is also a drawback to that in that the 

16 cases without formal TBDs or the sites without 

17 formal TBDs, there is generally less of them, less 

18 claimants working at those sites. And so we would 

19 have less of an impact in consistency.

20 And we got to thinking we didn't love 

21 that approach, but that is one possible way to 

22 pursue this issue.
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 The other thing we came up with would 

2 be to do a partial review or a focused review. So, 

3 something similar to what we do for the PER 

4 Subcommittee, where we would select a single issue 

5 in multiple cases and look at just a focused aspect 

6 of that particular review. And that would allow 

7 us to look at a larger sample of cases without 

8 spending the resources on doing the full dose 

9 reconstruction when we are only targeting a single 

10 issue.

11 This, again, would be if we wanted to 

12 target a specific issue of consistency, we would 

13 have to select the correct issue or an issue that 

14 we wanted to pursue.

15 SC&A, we did come up with some ideas of 

16 areas where we think there may be consistency 

17 issues, and this is not an exhaustive list by any 

18 means, but it is based on institutional knowledge. 

19 We didn't go back through our cases and base this 

20 on real data, but these are things in the back of 

21 our mind that we have always wondered if this is 

22 being done consistently.
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 I won't go through them all in-depth. 

2 But areas of coworker dose, selecting the correct 

3 percentile; for skin cancers, is the same method 

4 in an X-ray dose always being applied; is use of 

5 in-vitro and in-vivo data properly identified; 

6 construction trade workers; Use of glove box 

7 correction factors; exposure area criteria; and 

8 handling the Oak Ridge Sites.

9 And if we were to do those, proper case 

10 selection is extremely important and very 

11 challenging. The cases would have to have similar 

12 exposure histories, similar work location, 

13 employment dates, and they would have to be 

14 completed within similar time frames because 

15 guidance documents change, and in order to see if 

16 they are being applied consistently, we have to use 

17 the same documents. And also, they would have to 

18 be near the 50 percent threshold. So, 

19 best-estimate, once you get into the maximizing and 

20 minimizing cases, consistency is really a lot less 

21 important because it is not impacting the 

22 compensation decision.
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 And so those are just some ideas we 

2 threw out there.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And there 

4 are a couple of other ones that you didn't discuss, 

5 the last few, right?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I didn't go into 

7 depth about the difference.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. So, 

9 let's begin talking. It does seem to me that the 

10 notion of the partial analyses does seem to me to 

11 make sense, and certainly, the coworker dose hit 

12 me initially as one that has always been a matter 

13 of concern. 

14 But I do think that there is more 

15 information in the blinds. I think we have done 

16 enough blinds that in fact there is some 

17 information there that will help us spot areas of 

18 inconsistency by looking at --

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think it is 

20 important, Dave, to point out that the blinds 

21 locate consistency between SC&A and NIOSH, and that 

22 is not really what we are targeting. You really 
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 want to target between NIOSH and NIOSH.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Actually, yes, you 

3 are right. Good point. Okay.

4 Anyhow, other folks, what are your 

5 takes? What are your first impressions?

6 MEMBER BEACH: I guess -- this is 

7 Josie, Dave. Does NIOSH have -- and I don't want 

8 to say list, but is there ways that they can come 

9 up with something where we are using professional 

10 judgment more than not in different cases?

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good question, 

12 since it is the NIOSH consistency that we are 

13 talking about.

14 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and my 

15 first reaction is that typically, I can't say on 

16 a site, you know site-by-site where we would use 

17 it more, but typically we use that more when there 

18 is no dosimetry.

19 And just another thing, not on that 

20 exact question, though, but she mentioned, you 

21 know, trying to get close to the 50 percent. We're 

22 already tapping that well pretty dry because just 
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 the total percentage of cases that are out there 

2 are very, very low that are between the 48 and 52. 

3 And I think that we have actually seen that when 

4 we have had to expand that range. So that is just 

5 a thought based on what she said before.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You are saying that 

7 professional judgment is most common where we don't 

8 have Site Profiles?

9 MR. CALHOUN: No, where we don't have 

10 dosimetry. Like for example, let's just say 

11 somebody worked at XYZ Site, and we may have a giant 

12 Site Profile for it, and we don't have dosimetry. 

13 Maybe we have to decide whether or not the guy 

14 should have been monitored or not. That is usually 

15 the hot topic.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which would then 

17 manifest as coworker assignment?

18 MR. CALHOUN: Potentially.

19 MR. KATZ: I mean, Dave, so coworkers, 

20 sort of part of the issue is it may or may not be 

21 coworker, and that is part of the consistency 

22 issue.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Others?

2 MEMBER BEACH: I wonder if it would be 

3 possible to do like a sampling using a couple of 

4 different methods that SC&A suggested here just to 

5 see, to go forward and see what we did, what our 

6 dose reconstruction --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. In fact, yes, 

8 I agree. In fact that was the spirit of the comment 

9 that, well, why don't we compare blinds. But of 

10 course, you are -- correctly, I was corrected to 

11 say, yes, but we are interested in looking only at 

12 the NIOSH reconstructions.

13 So, yes, it would be very helpful if we 

14 are able to kind of get a sense of sample. I'm not 

15 quite sure how to do it, to determine which of these 

16 different kinds of cases or other ones should be 

17 looked at of the seven that were recommended by 

18 SC&A.

19 Grady, is that something? I don't know 

20 quite how to do it.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I'm struggling with 

22 that, too. I mean, since we provide the cases 
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 based on what you want to look at, we would have 

2 to have some kind of, I don't know, a fairly 

3 descriptive set of parameters that you want for us 

4 to try to go in and find these specific types of 

5 cases. I can't think of anything off the top of 

6 my head, at least that would be less laborious than 

7 going case by case and digging into them, which I 

8 don't particularly want to deal with.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, and I 

10 understand. Also, you have plenty of other things 

11 to do. So, in this --

12 MR. KATZ: Can I suggest Dave --

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: -- one thing that might be 

15 useful that I was thinking about as this was coming 

16 up was, I mean, this is sort of catching Grady and 

17 company cold, because they weren't really asked the 

18 question. SC&A was asked the question. But I 

19 just wonder if they would, if Grady and company and 

20 Scott would sort of put their heads together and 

21 maybe just give some thought as to what has been 

22 suggested by SC&A and whether they have better 
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 ideas for how they might go at this question from 

2 their own purposes as to where they might feel their 

3 consistency is a vulnerability and then how to get 

4 at that.

5 And if they can give some thought to 

6 that and get back to the Subcommittee, that would 

7 be helpful to have that, their perspective on that.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It would be. And I 

9 was also thinking, because it is clear there is a 

10 lot of detailed, thinking and detailed discussion 

11 to do, I must say I was also thinking about a 

12 Subcommittee of the Committee to think about that.

13 Well, I mean it is hard to get our teeth 

14 into it. I mean first, Grady, do you think, and 

15 Scott, do you think that you could, would you be 

16 willing to get together and think about how you 

17 might, based, sort of taking off from SC&A's memo, 

18 how you might be able to do a sampling?

19 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. Yes, I can -- we 

20 will think about it. That's easy to do.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I don't 

22 -- I am hesitant to say that the rest of the 
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 Subcommittee does nothing on this until we hear 

2 from you at the next meeting, which is a few months 

3 off.

4 And maybe I'm worried. Ted, you talked 

5 initially about how about let's see what we can do, 

6 that the Board would like to see this maybe in six 

7 months or so. It does seem to me there is a good 

8 chance that we won't even get this resolved for more 

9 like a year. Is that a problem?

10 MEMBER MUNN: If ever.

11 MR. KATZ: Wanda.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If ever? Yes. 

13 No, you are absolutely right.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it is one of those 

15 things. I am going to try to keep my comments 

16 halfway professional here. And it is very hard for 

17 me to do because I cannot see, personally, the real 

18 value in what we are being asked to do or why we 

19 are being asked to do this.

20 Starting from the premise that there is 

21 some accuracy in the old adage that consistency is 

22 the hobgoblin of small minds, one has to try to 
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 figure out what are we trying to do here, other than 

2 to show in some way that professional judgment has 

3 no place in the kind of activities that we are doing 

4 and that there must be some magical way so that we 

5 can make sure that every case is approached with 

6 the same rigor or with the same formula.

7 Given the complexity of what we have had 

8 to do, it seems almost impossible for me to do this. 

9 And that being the case, I think we are given a 

10 directive -- and I'm not sure. Did we direct 

11 ourselves to do this?

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No. Apparently, 

13 this came from the Methods.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, and I think, Wanda, 

15 just to sort of make it a little more open or less 

16 of a hammer than I think you might be painting it 

17 as, I think what the interest is is just seeing how 

18 well, how consistent are we in dealing with matters 

19 that involve judgment. And seeing that just to see 

20 whether there are opportunities to tighten that up.

21 I don't think there was really a 

22 critical perspective behind or a negative 
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 perspective behind the recommendation that we take 

2 a look at this. But I think it was to see well, 

3 how well do we do in applying judgment in a 

4 consistent way when we have to apply judgment. 

5 And again, we may find that we do as well 

6 as we can, or we may find that there are 

7 opportunities to tighten things up.

8 MEMBER MUNN: To me, it sounds like a 

9 very nice idea. But the truth of the matter is, 

10 it is catch-22. There is no way we can assess the 

11 value of professional judgments and the use of 

12 professional judgments without using our own 

13 professional judgment.

14 You know, I don't see any way out of that 

15 cycle.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, you know, I 

17 think implicit in that is that the dose 

18 reconstructors have a range of professional 

19 skills. I'm not sure they have the experience that 

20 the Board has. I do see that there may be -- I 

21 don't know all the dose reconstructors. I don't 

22 know many of them. But I'm not sure that the level 
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 of knowledge that they bring in, the level of 

2 professionalism, I just don't know.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, is that our 

4 purview? Is that what we are being asked to do is 

5 evaluate the professional capabilities of the 

6 people who are doing that? Because that is really, 

7 from one perspective, that is what this comes all 

8 down to.

9 And well, I am going to stop because, 

10 as I said, I am going to try to address this in a 

11 professional manner, if I can. But suffice it to 

12 say, I think it is obvious I have real reservations 

13 if there is a point to this or that there is any 

14 legitimate value we can add.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I appreciate 

16 your comments, and, actually, I guess your -- I was 

17 not ever a part of the discussion about 

18 consistency. I was told that we had, apparently, 

19 and I thought it was at a Board meeting, been asked 

20 to do this.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, it has been discussed 

22 at a Board meeting, but I mean I think it was 
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 discussed at one of the Work Group meetings for the 

2 Methods Group.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: And just, again, Wanda, you 

5 have been around a long time, and so have the people 

6 that are on the Methods Work Group been around for 

7 a long time. And you guys, in addition to the 

8 Subcommittee here, you guys pair up and review 

9 cases before they get to the Subcommittee. And Dr. 

10 Melius, among others, has seen many, many, many 

11 cases over these years. 

12 And so it is just a fair question. I 

13 think the question probably started with Dr. 

14 Melius, maybe not just with Dr. Melius, but that

15 he has seen a lot of cases, and just the question 

16 is present to him that: are these sort of issues 

17 of judgment being handled in a consistent manner 

18 to the extent that they can be?

19 I just think it is a fair question to 

20 ask. And until you look, you can't really have any 

21 judgment as to whether there is any there -- any 

22 meat to analyze there in terms of differences. If 
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 it is all matters of just sort of as you are 

2 constructing, Wanda, if it is all matters simply 

3 of good professional judgment without a tightrope 

4 or without guidelines, but it is where you have to 

5 just apply your own personal, professional 

6 judgment, that may be all good. But there may be 

7 instances where professional judgment is being 

8 applied where more of a template could be 

9 constructed or more guidance to address certain 

10 matters.

11 Just until you go there, I guess you 

12 can't know.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, but I do -- I 

14 mean I am troubled by the underlying implication, 

15 which I wandered into myself of: are we questioning 

16 or trying to evaluate the professionalism of the 

17 dose reconstructors with our professional 

18 experience on the Board? And that is a little 

19 troubling.

20 And I am certainly going to think more 

21 about it, having opened up having all of us entered 

22 into this discussion.
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 I will say, I mean our blinds, the blind 

2 cases that we are doing, it seems to me right now 

3 are absolutely the best thing that we can use to 

4 determine consistency because it takes the entire 

5 range of decisions and prescriptions that we have 

6 made and puts them all on the line, if you will. 

7 And so far, our results have been really quite 

8 gratifying.

9 So, could we do better? Well, I don't 

10 know. I think back now, even from this brief 

11 discussion, wanting to say to myself -- asking 

12 myself what will we gain from this. 

13 Let's say we would like to be more 

14 consistent. We can always say that. But what 

15 would we be judging on consistency? Would we be 

16 evaluating the dose reconstructors? I think it 

17 is, by the way. I think that is what we would be 

18 doing, like it or not.

19 MEMBER POSTON: Well, the solution to 

20 making sure that everybody is consistent is, in the 

21 absurdity, is to have only one dose reconstructor.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right.
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 POSTON: And in my -- I seem to 

2 remember, and I may be wrong, please correct me, 

3 but way, way back when we started this program, it 

4 was my understanding that these people had peer 

5 reviews, that there were people in ORAU or 

6 somewhere who looked at every dose reconstruction 

7 that was submitted, especially when you are working 

8 with a new person who is learning the ropes.

9 So, is that still the fact? Is there 

10 sort of a quality assurance check that is done on 

11 people, or once they reach a certain point, do you 

12 just let them go? What are the answers to that?

13 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I will 

14 give you -- and Scott may be able to add. But 

15 certainly, you have the dose reconstructor. You 

16 have a peer reviewer. That is from ORAU. Then it 

17 comes over here to DCAS. You have an HP over here 

18 that reviews it and signs it. And then you have 

19 what we call a Tech Reviewer over here that just 

20 kind of looks at big picture items to make sure that 

21 nothing slipped through.

22 So, there is a lot of levels of review 
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 here.

2 Now, one thing that I -- and we are going 

3 to do whatever you would like to do, and we will 

4 try and put our heads together. But I would try 

5 to think this through to the end. And what I am 

6 thinking is that, well, we used our professional 

7 judgment on this case, and this is what we decided 

8 to do. And someone over there says, you know, I 

9 would have done something different. Well, where 

10 do we go? You know? I don't know. And like Dave 

11 is saying there, I don't know what the end game is 

12 here. It is a little confusing to me. I'm afraid 

13 we are going to end up in a big shouting match at 

14 the end of some of these. But I guess it can't hurt 

15 to look.

16 MEMBER POSTON: Well, you have a 

17 reviewer reviewing a reviewer. I mean where does 

18 it stop? The question that I always like to ask, 

19 if it ain't broke, why are we trying to fix it? Is 

20 or is not the system that is in place acceptable 

21 to get consistency?

22 MR. KATZ: I would encourage the 
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 Subcommittee, given this nature of discussion, I 

2 mean sooner than later, I mean we have a Board 

3 meeting next week, as part of Dave's report out, 

4 I think you can reflect some of these concerns and 

5 get more input from the people that were on that 

6 Methods Work Group and the rest of the Board. This 

7 is a good time to sort of tap them up front to get 

8 more thinking about this.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that becomes, 

10 frankly, virtually an agenda item, because you 

11 don't open it up by me giving a two-minute report 

12 on what I think we said or best as I can summarize 

13 what we have said, because other people will speak. 

14 It would be a substantial discussion and it would 

15 be good.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, there is nothing wrong. 

17 I don't need to add an agenda item for this. The 

18 DR Subcommittee reports out like all the Work 

19 Groups. It is not like we have spent hours 

20 discussing this. I mean this is really a few 

21 minutes of discussion, in terms of content we have 

22 here. 
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 But I mean I think it is a good idea to 

2 get more input early, as opposed to the 

3 Subcommittee churning on this without more input 

4 from folks that have sort of instigated this.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well, that 

6 is --

7 MEMBER POSTON: The problem is it is 

8 doubtful -- I have forgotten now all this, but it 

9 is doubtful that I could sit down and do a dose 

10 reconstruction. And I would challenge anybody on 

11 the Subcommittee that they probably can't either.

12 MR. KATZ: I absolutely agree.

13 MEMBER POSTON: So, what are we trying 

14 to answer here, and what kind of effort are we 

15 putting into something that perhaps doesn't need 

16 to be done? Don't we have the checks and balances 

17 already in place?

18 MR. KATZ: That is all part of that, 

19 again, what you could raise if Dave raises this in 

20 part of his report, John, that is a thought to 

21 contribute to the discussion.

22 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I hope I will be 
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 on the phone because I am not traveling.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, when we do our 

4 Work Group reports, we can certainly open it up. 

5 I don't think other people, in fact I 

6 am quite sure other people have not seen the report 

7 that SC&A developed. Right?

8 MR. KATZ: I mean, I think at one point 

9 it was sent to everyone, but I can certainly 

10 distribute that. I can distribute that to 

11 everyone with the rest of the batches I send out 

12 before each meeting.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Why don't 

14 you? Why don't you? Because if we are going to 

15 talk about it at all, that was an opening shot in 

16 the discussion.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. And if we are ending 

18 up being tight on time, and there isn't really much 

19 time to even get into it at all, Dr. Melius will, 

20 I am sure, let you know that, and we can put this 

21 on for the next meeting.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
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 MR. KATZ: A teleconference, for that 

2 matter.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I am leaving 

4 with the thought, again, which several folks have 

5 raised now, what is the end game? Because I am not 

6 clear what the end game is. And I haven't decided 

7 in my own mind what we could reasonably come up 

8 with.

9 If I may respond, John, to your comment, 

10 if it ain't broke don't fix it, if I am focusing 

11 on what is really broke, it is not our method of 

12 calculation. It is the absence of data that might 

13 have or should have been collected on the exposures 

14 of people over the years, and there is not a thing 

15 we can do about that.

16 MEMBER POSTON: I agree completely.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I mean 

18 sometimes we get into such details about a small 

19 amount of exposure when the big problem is that we 

20 are missing loads and loads of measurements that 

21 we don't have that we should have had.

22 MR. KATZ: Alright, well, without it a 
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 lot of SEC Classes --

2 MEMBER POSTON: I mean, we all know 

3 that. I have been in the business since 1957, and 

4 I know that a lot of the records are not available. 

5 They are in terrible shape. You can't read them, 

6 all those kinds of things, but we have to do the 

7 best we can.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And that is what we 

9 are doing.

10 MEMBER POSTON: But I am talking about 

11 the dose reconstructors. I mean, we have a method, 

12 a review method already in place. If someone has 

13 a reason to do this, I guess we ought to do it, but 

14 I don't see any justification for doing it. These 

15 guys and gals are professionals. I respect them 

16 all; I know most of them.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, can I make a 

18 suggestion?

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER BEACH: I know that the Dose 

21 Reconstruction Methods Work Group discussed this 

22 on November 5, 2015. It may be important for some 
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 of us that have a question about why we decided they 

2 needed to ask SC&A this question is maybe to review 

3 the transcript from that meeting. That might 

4 clear up some of this.

5 And I still think the spirit of the 

6 question is professional judgment. I have heard 

7 professional judgment being mentioned my whole 

8 time on the Board, and I think that it is the 

9 question we want answered. The checks and 

10 balances are in place, but a lot of times the end 

11 answer is, it is professional judgment.

12 So, I think it is just we are looking 

13 for consistency.

14 MS. BEHLING: Dave, this is Kathy 

15 Behling.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

17 MS. BEHLING: Is it appropriate for me 

18 to just ask a question or interject something?

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I just am curious. 

21 And I'm not sure if I am going in the right direction 

22 here, but there was a period of time where NIOSH, 
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 they were doing internal blinds. Would this 

2 consistency issue be answered by that process? 

3 I'm not sure that that is being done anymore, but 

4 what was done in the past, could that shed light 

5 on any of these consistency issues?

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Grady?

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, this is Grady. We 

8 have not done any of those for a long, long time.

9 I don't think it would because we are 

10 really just doing exactly what you guys are doing. 

11 We were picking up cases that had already been 

12 completed and just doing a dose reconstruction 

13 according to the current documents that are out 

14 there.

15 But what you are looking at is you, at 

16 least what I believe you say you want to look at 

17 is let's just take two people with lung cancer that 

18 work at Savannah River Site from 1975 to 1983 in 

19 the same relative area and don't have dosimetry. 

20 One assigned coworker data; one didn't. I mean 

21 that is kind of what I am thinking you are looking 

22 for. Am I wrong?
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but if you did 

2 those internal blinds, you did them years ago. So 

3 much has changed since then --

4 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: -- because we are 

6 always upgrading our procedures, which is for the 

7 good, I mean to the point that we are able to get 

8 now lots of cases of blinds in which we have strong 

9 agreement between at least NIOSH and SC&A.

10 I don't see that those would be helpful 

11 to us today.

12 MR. CALHOUN: I don't think so either, 

13 Dave. And I think that the issue is that in my 

14 mind, I believe you are going to have to get at least 

15 two but probably more cases that are very, very 

16 similar in a lot of ways. And certainly at the same 

17 site and certainly with the same occupation and 

18 where they worked, really, and trying to make a 

19 determination if the same assumptions were made on 

20 two, three, four of those cases, and if not, why. 

21 That seems to be what they are looking for, I think.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Grady, I think you're right.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think -- am I on?

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. One thing 

5 that possibly that could be done, you are right, 

6 Grady, that we have to look at cases where between 

7 45 and let's say 55 percent, going back to the old 

8 criteria, there aren't that many cases. And I 

9 don't know whether they have to have -- well, I 

10 guess they have to have similar cancers. Right?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No. I'm wondering 

13 whether -- I mean, we can find out the body of 45 

14 to 52 percent, right? I mean we have actually been 

15 over that body. No, we have been over it in the 

16 reviews. We haven't been over it, excuse me, yes, 

17 in the Subcommittee reviews. But that is still, 

18 what is it 8 percent of all of the cases?

19 MR. CALHOUN: Something like that.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and then 8 

21 percent of what, 30,000 cases? Right.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So --

2 MR. CALHOUN: Some 46,000 in-house 

3 already.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. CALHOUN: But a lot of those we 

6 didn't do because of the SECs and whatnot.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, we have 

8 30,000 -- 2,400 cases, roughly, at 8 percent.

9 I mean is there data that we -- are there 

10 enough cases that we can, with similar occupations 

11 and the same plant, right?

12 MR. CALHOUN: And the same era.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, that we can 

14 compare. And the same era, right.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I can give you a one-word 

16 answer for that now.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think I know what 

18 your answer is. Go ahead.

19 MEMBER MUNN: No.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No. And we could 

21 tabulate that. We could tabulate that, which is 

22 already a task for somebody, and answer with data 
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 that the answer is no. I mean, right? Your 

2 experience, Wanda, says the answer is no.

3 MEMBER MUNN: No.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I suspect you 

5 are right. Were we to amass a table of data of the 

6 cases that were done with best estimates by site, 

7 by occupation --

8 MR. KATZ: By era.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: -- by era.

10 MR. KATZ: And it is more than 

11 occupation because it is very different 

12 prophecies, right, even for a single occupation.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: You are talking about people 

15 who work side-by-side, basically, you want to look 

16 at.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. CALHOUN: The same location and the 

19 same job.

20 MR. KATZ: Of a point, right.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, it may be that 

22 the data isn't there to do consistency. And that 
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 would put the whole thing to rest.

2 MEMBER MUNN: One still has the 

3 question, and to what end?

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Once you have answered 

6 the question, is it possible to answer the 

7 question, if it is possible to answer the question, 

8 well, so what?

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: By the way, you are 

10 absolutely right. To what end? We haven't been 

11 --

12 MEMBER MUNN: So we have been 

13 consistent; we have not been consistent. Yes.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. But even if 

15 we could come up with an end, and that is something 

16 that I certainly, and I think others, will want to 

17 think about now, is to what end do we want this? 

18 We may come up with the fact that even if we can 

19 figure out a proper end, that we don't have the data 

20 to check it out.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, basically, 

22 underlying my position is the fact that we are 
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 fooling ourselves into trying to believe that we 

2 are pursuing the scientific method here. And even 

3 if we are accurate in pursuing the quote scientific 

4 method, given the what ifs and other inclusions 

5 that we have added into or subtracted from the 

6 process, that we permitted to go on here, that still 

7 does not change the fact that scientific method 

8 tells us repeatedly, you can follow a method in 

9 doing a thing and still expect to have differing 

10 professional judgments on how to pursue this kind 

11 or any kind of scientific approach to anything.

12 If there were agreement in -- if there 

13 were absolutely concrete professional judgment 

14 agreement that one could reach, then none of us 

15 would be struggling with any of the issues we 

16 struggle even in daily life.

17 MR. KATZ: You know what I am going to 

18 suggest? I think, because you have all raised very 

19 interesting perspectives, I think what, instead of 

20 -- I had recommended to you that you might raise 

21 this at the next Board meeting, but I think you guys 

22 have enough material to chew on, or perspectives, 
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 which, again, are very interesting, that Work 

2 Group, the Methods Work Group can meet again. And 

3 you guys who are not on it, some of you are, can 

4 join it, and have this more full discussion of the 

5 whole concept. I think that would be a good thing 

6 to do.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's a thought. 

8 I mean, of us sitting in on the Methods Work Group 

9 discussion, I had not thought about that.

10 MR. KATZ: Dave, I think you are on it 

11 already.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, I'm not.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Hmm, okay. I'm 

14 surprised at that. But, yes, so you could all join 

15 it.

16 The Work Groups are not exclusive. As 

17 long as we don't end up with a quorum of the Board, 

18 we are fine.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. When does 

20 the Methods Group meet?

21 MR. KATZ: Well, it doesn't have a 

22 meeting scheduled, but there is not a problem with 
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 doing that. So, we can certainly -- I can talk to 

2 Jim, and we can certainly -- he is the Chair of that 

3 group, and we could certainly have a meeting. It 

4 seems like it would be a very useful thing to do.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It sounds like it 

6 would be. What do other Board Members think?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is Brad. 

8 You know I have been sitting back and listening to 

9 all of this. I think we all need to realize where 

10 to tie it all back to, and that is where 

11 professional judgment started to come in. And 

12 then coworker data started to come in.

13 You are right. Everybody's right but 

14 there is a lot of data out there that we are not 

15 going to be able to have or be there.

16 I think we need to take it back to the 

17 people that asked the question, that told us where 

18 we were headed and then put us into the middle of 

19 the problem.

20 The Methods people is where I think this 

21 really -- which way do they want to go? Because 

22 you are right; this is very hard to be able to figure 
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 out. But also when you start using professional 

2 judgment as a catch-all, too, that raises 

3 questions. And I think that is where the crux of 

4 this whole thing comes down to. And this is just 

5 my personal opinion.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I would 

7 certainly be happy to sit on Methods.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Dave, you are a 

9 Member of that Work Group.

10 MR. KATZ: I thought so.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No.

12 MEMBER BEACH: I just pulled it up. 

13 Dr. Melius is Chair, myself, and --

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry. 

15 That was the Methods Group to develop the report.

16 MR. KATZ: No, it is the Methods Group 

17 for Dose Reconstruction Reviews.

18 MR. KATZ: Dave --

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: You are on it.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I am thinking 

22 of the Procedures Subcommittee, I guess.
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 MR. KATZ: No, that's right. That is 

2 a different group.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. No, 

4 no, you are right. And I certainly have sat in, 

5 and I have participated in those discussions. I 

6 guess I viewed that group as writing the report, 

7 and now that the report is written --

8 MR. KATZ: Well, they were actually 

9 assembled not really to write the report. They 

10 were assembled to think of the other matters of how 

11 to go forward.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You are right. You 

13 are right. Because we suggest in the report that 

14 we are going to try and continue to improve.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, anyway, as long as 

16 I don't have a quorum of the Subcommittee at that 

17 Work Group or a quorum of the Board at the Work 

18 Group, we are good. Which means I can take as many 

19 as three out of the Subcommittee to that Work Group 

20 to join that Work Group.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: The Work Group already 
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 has Josie and both Daves on it. So there is three.

2 MEMBER BEACH: And Dave. And also 

3 Dave Richardson.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Dave Richardson, 

5 correct.

6 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I said, both 

7 Daves.

8 MEMBER BEACH: And maybe we should go 

9 and review the transcript from the meeting when we 

10 discussed that.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, I can tell you, though 

12 Josie, that discussion wasn't nearly as rich as the 

13 one you just had.

14 I think this is very useful thoughts to 

15 add to that discussion.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, this has 

17 been.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have got the page 

19 numbers written down --

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- where this 

22 discussion happened in the transcript, and I can 
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 forward that to you.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, Rose, if you would do 

3 that. Just send the Members that transcript 

4 reference. That would be great.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sure.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. That sounds 

7 like a proper way to go. I will report to the Board 

8 that we had this discussion. That will open it up 

9 a little bit for the Board. And then I do think 

10 that Josie, your idea that we get together as the 

11 Methods Subcommittee and continue this discussion 

12 sounds good.

13 MR. BARTON: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

14 Bob Barton. Could I make a quick comment here?

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

16 MR. BARTON: Okay. I mean, there has 

17 been a lot of discussion about what sort of what 

18 the end game would be and what are we really going 

19 to derive from this.

20 I can give somewhat of a more 

21 simplistic, or I guess macro example of it. And 

22 Brad, you will be seeing this in short order, but 
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 it was related to our review of the Nevada Test Site 

2 Site Profile. 

3 One of the things we did is we actually 

4 went in and said alright, well, how are these 

5 environmental doses actually being implemented and 

6 applied? Now, at NTS there were a couple different 

7 ways we could do it. There is OTIB-18, which is 

8 their facility air sampling program. There is the 

9 actual TBD. And then there is also a TBD for 

10 Tonopah, which had different intake rates 

11 entirely.

12 So, what we found was that among 

13 best-estimate cases, sometimes we did see 

14 variations on which methods were being used, and 

15 it wasn't entirely clear why.

16 And NIOSH took a look at it. And our 

17 comment there, and kind of came back, and the end 

18 result was we said yes, you know we should really 

19 almost set up like an itemized list of procedure 

20 and put that in the TBD. In this case, you are 

21 going to assign Tonopah intakes. In this case, you 

22 are going to assign the NTS TBD intakes.
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 So, that is what I see as the end game. 

2 Now, maybe that is a simplistic example, but that 

3 was an area where we were in agreement that we could 

4 tighten the ship just a little bit here. So, I 

5 wanted to offer that up.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, thank you.

7 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Bob.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Thoughts? 

9 And particularly, you are talking about -- no, is 

10 it that we are talking about professional judgment 

11 in sites where we don't have Site Profiles?

12 MR. KATZ: No, at NTS we have a Site 

13 Profile and all.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

15 MR. KATZ: It is just a question of how 

16 much latitude there is in which method you are 

17 applying for certain exposures, it sounds like from 

18 what Bob is talking about.

19 So, I think also in that Work Group, I 

20 think let's get the transcript from this Work Group 

21 to share, for the Subcommittee to share with that 

22 Work Group, that portion, so that they can be 
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 familiar with how this discussion has gone.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Well, 

5 folks, this has been useful and interesting, both, 

6 and thought-provoking, which is always good.

7 So, I think we have come to the end of 

8 this. And I think we have come to the end of 

9 today's discussion.

10 Next Steps/Future Meeting Date

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. Do we want to try to 

12 schedule?

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. And again, the 

15 driving thing is how much we can get done when, so 

16 that we can have -- so, I will just ask Rose and 

17 Grady about time frames. Is two months going to 

18 give you -- I mean considering we have the holidays 

19 in-between us, how much time do you want before a 

20 meeting where you can turn to a lot of cases?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If we are going to do 

22 our three blind cases at the next one --
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If we also focus on 

3 three blinds for the next meeting, from the 23rd 

4 Set --

5 MR. KATZ: Yes and we wanted to get into 

6 Type 2 cases and so on. We want to get a block of 

7 cases.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- I only need a week 

9 to put that together.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, don't worry about 

12 me. I can meet any schedule.

13 MR. KATZ: So, Rose, are you basically 

14 just saying -- I mean you have to get back -- once 

15 Grady's folks give responses, you have to be able 

16 to review those responses, too, right?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have responses for 

18 everything, I believe, in the remaining AWE Sites 

19 Matrix.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay and is that Type 2 

21 cases, too?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Those are Type 1 and 
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 Type 2.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay and then what about for 

3 other, the additional set?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have nothing -- I 

5 don't have anything in the 19th and 21st Sets.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have entered it into 

8 the DR. I am just waiting.

9 MR. KATZ: My question is for the sets 

10 you have already in hand, you are saying, you have 

11 responses, is that already a whole meeting's worth 

12 of cases?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: Aha. Okay. So, then there 

15 is no prep work to be done by -- other than preparing 

16 for the blind cases, NIOSH has already done its 

17 work, and you are ready to address that. That is 

18 what I am hearing.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, super. Then we can 

21 schedule it for as soon as is practicable, really.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which would be 
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 mid-January, yes?

2 MR. KATZ: Let me pull up a calendar 

3 because I have to get a Federal Register notice out.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: That also gets slowed up 

6 over the holidays.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But the Federal 

8 Register is published every day.

9 MR. KATZ: It may published every day. 

10 It doesn't get cleared through the Department every 

11 day, though.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

13 MR. KATZ: The publishing part is not 

14 the problem.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, so -- yes, because 

17 there is about two weeks in December, beginning of 

18 January that there are not many people around in 

19 the federal government who aren't using use or 

20 lose.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: There is quite a bit of it. 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I would say we start looking at dates after --

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Martin Luther 

3 King's Birthday?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, after Martin Luther 

5 King's -- exactly. That is exactly what I am 

6 looking at on my calendar.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is what I am 

8 looking at.

9 MR. KATZ: From the 17th forward, we 

10 can look at dates.

11 MEMBER BEACH: We have a Board call on 

12 the 25th.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: On the 25th?

14 MR. KATZ: The 25th is a Board call, 

15 yes.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let me make 

17 sure I have it. Sure.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Let's just look at the 

19 17th and see if it is possible to do. Can we do 

20 the 17th?

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The 17th, did you 

2 mention?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's good for me.

6 MEMBER BEACH: It's good for me.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, it works for me.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, so I have heard two of 

9 you.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You know what? Is 

11 the 18th possible?

12 MR. KATZ: No.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: At a personal 

14 level.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, it works for me.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: How is the 18th? 

17 My wife is having a cataract operation on the 17th, 

18 and I would like to be with her.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely, right.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But it is not 

21 necessary but if we can. So, is the 18th okay, 

22 Wednesday the 18th?
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I have a class but I can 

2 change it. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If that were 

4 possible, that would be good. It sounds like 

5 Wednesday the 18th.

6 MR. KATZ: I haven't heard -- I have 

7 only heard you two. How about Wanda and Brad?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Now, 

9 if we do it on the 18th, I can only be there until, 

10 it would be 3:30. I have a meeting on that day, 

11 but I can work up until then.

12 MR. KATZ: Is that 3:30 your time or our 

13 time?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Your time.

15 MEMBER BEACH: What about the 24th? 

16 Does that work for anybody?

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let's see.

18 MR. KATZ: The 24th is wide open for me.

19 MEMBER MUNN: The problem with that is 

20 we have a Board call the next day.

21 MR. CALHOUN: The week with the 24th in 

22 it is the HPS Midyear.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha. I really --

3 MR. KATZ: What about the 19th?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Or for that matter, you 

5 know, it is probably a wiser idea to say away from 

6 the 19th and 20th. Does everybody go ape if we 

7 suggest a Monday?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which day?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Could we survive doing it 

10 on the 16th?

11 MR. KATZ: Well what --

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: On the 16th?

13 MR. KATZ: No, we cannot. It is Martin 

14 Luther King Day.

15 What is the trouble with the 18th?

16 MEMBER BEACH: No trouble. Oh, Brad 

17 had a --

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, Brad has a conflict at 

19 3:30. We are normally -- okay.

20 Okay, how about the 23rd? That is a 

21 Monday that is okay.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: That's good.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The 23rd.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Once again, I will be at 

4 the HPS meeting.

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, sorry. I forgot. I'm 

6 sorry.

7 MR. CALHOUN: That's alright.

8 MEMBER MUNN: The other option, of 

9 course, is doing it the preceding week, like on the 

10 12th.

11 MR. KATZ: No, it is getting too soon, 

12 given the Department's --

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

14 MR. KATZ: How about the 30th?

15 MEMBER MUNN: That works.

16 MEMBER BEACH: That works.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me see. Let me 

18 try that, the 30th. After the call -- the 30th 

19 works well for me.

20 MEMBER MUNN: It's okay here.

21 MR. KATZ: Brad?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: The 30th would be 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fine.

2 MR. KATZ: And John Poston? John, are 

3 you still on?

4 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I'm here.

5 MR. KATZ: How is the 30th? It is a 

6 Monday.

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, any day.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, so it sounds like --

9 Josie, did you say the 30th is okay for you?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

12 MR. KATZ: And it is good for Grady, 

13 right?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Excellent.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, so let's pen in the 

18 30th. I will ask David.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MR. KATZ: But we have a quorum in 

21 either event.

22 You want to pick another -- the 31st, 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is that just as good, in case Dave needs some 

2 flexibility?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think it is. Let 

5 me just check. One second. Yes, the 31st is fine.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Is that a Tuesday or a 

7 Thursday?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's a Tuesday. 

9 That is going to be hard for me. I have class on 

10 Tuesday and Thursday.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: What about February 1st? 

13 That's a Wednesday.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I could do that.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I could do 

16 Wednesday.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, is that good everyone, 

18 February 1st, if necessary?

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: As a backup.

20 MR. KATZ: Backup.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ted, I have a meeting 

22 just like John does, he has -- every Wednesday, I 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have a lock-in meeting I have to do. But like I 

2 say, it is just at the very end of it there.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, so that is fine. We 

4 will do it as a backup and ending an hour earlier 

5 won't be the end of the world.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, exactly.

7 Okay, so the 30th of January.

8 MR. KATZ: The 30th or February 1st if 

9 the 30th doesn't work for Dave.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

11 Sounds good.

12 MR. KATZ: Sounds good. Okay.

13 Adjourn

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you all.

15 MEMBER MUNN: You bet.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

17 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everybody.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Happy Gobble Day.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right, 

20 Happy Thanksgiving.

21 MR. KATZ: Absolutely. Take care.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye, everyone.
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

2 went off the record at 3:50 p.m.)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12