1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 29, 2014

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight 

Time, Wanda I. Munn, Acting Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Acting Chair

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, 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

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

RAY COOPER

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

MARY ANN JACOBS

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

SCOTT SIEBERT, 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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

Welcome and Roll Call

by Mr. Ted Katz...................... 4

Case Reviews Issue Resolution, Sets 10-13

by Mr. Doug Farver................... 6

Adjourn

by Acting Chair Munn............... 145
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 (10:30 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: I'm going to start roll 

4 call. For Board Members I'm just going to run 

5 through your conflicts so that you don't have 

6 to remember them and I know you're all in 

7 attendance now and I don't expect other Board 

8 Members. But I'll check.

9 (Roll call.)

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. The agenda for 

11 the meeting is on the NIOSH website under the 

12 Board section today's date. And I think we can 

13 begin then. And Wanda is, just for everyone's 

14 awareness then on the line, Dr. Kotelchuck is 

15 out with a family emergency.

16 So Wanda is chairing for today. 

17 And we'll have an abbreviated session today 

18 because we lose our quorum around 1:30 this 

19 afternoon. Wanda, it's your meeting.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very 

21 much, Ted. I think all of you are as familiar 

22 with the agenda as I am. I am sorry we're 
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 having to do without Dave today, but we'll do 

2 the best we can and hope him good wishes and good 

3 results with his problems.

4 I have spoken with David about how 

5 to proceed here and have had some 

6 communications with Doug. I think the general 

7 consensus is that since we have a couple of 

8 outstanding issues with a couple of the 

9 matrices that we have for today's meeting, it 

10 would probably be a wise idea for us to begin 

11 our deliberations with those two matrices where 

12 we have only a small number of outstanding 

13 issues that we need to close, namely the Hanford 

14 and ORNL matrices.

15 So if there's no concern with our 

16 taking that direction I think we'll start with 

17 those two and then go on to the other remaining, 

18 outstanding issues that we have with the 10-13 

19 sets. David Kotelchuck had indicated that it 

20 was his desire that we do as much as possible 

21 to try to close out those 10-13. So if you have 

22 any objection to that please let me know now.
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: I think that's a 

2 great idea, Wanda.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay, not 

4 hearing any then let's proceed with, Doug, I 

5 believe you have the conn.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well let's 

7 start with the Hanford matrix first. And there 

8 is only one outstanding finding in that matrix. 

9 And for Rose, who is going to be doing the Live 

10 Meeting for me, it's on Page 17. It's Finding 

11 242.1.

12 Let's see, and just while she's 

13 bringing that up I'll try to recap it. The 

14 initial finding said incorrect accounting of 

15 recorded photon dose. And it has to do with a 

16 positive 1947 dose that should have been 

17 included in the final dose.

18 And we've had previous discussions 

19 about this finding. And what it amounted to 

20 was the last action was in April of 2014. NIOSH 

21 was reviewing the workbooks to determine the 

22 extent of any problem and will produce a written 
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 report.

2 We had some issues about the 

3 workbook and how it was summing things and so 

4 forth. Is that on the screen now?

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I can't tell 

6 you for sure because I'm just coming up myself.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think I have it up 

9 there, Doug.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. So NIOSH's 

11 action was to go back and look at it, see if 

12 there's a problem and produce a written report. 

13 In June they did that and they sent a file for 

14 review, which I did.

15 Their response: historical claims 

16 were reviewed and then only two were impacted 

17 by the tool issue. So it's not a big problem. 

18 Anyway, I reviewed the file that they sent. 

19 And I agree with what they have in their error 

20 calculation file.

21 So I have no problems with closing 

22 this issue. It's been looked at. It was 
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 determined not to have a huge impact on other 

2 cases.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

4 move to close it then.

5 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just 

6 another thing I do want to point out and thank 

7 you, Doug, that was great. This claim that was 

8 done, it's a 2006 claim. So there is the 

9 question about the QC on the tools. This was 

10 prior to many of the discussions we've had on 

11 our QC process, QA/QC process on the tools.

12 I just wanted to point out it was an 

13 earlier claim so that we're all aware of that.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Although we'll 

15 have to admit given the material we've been 

16 looking at in past meetings, 2006 wasn't that 

17 long ago. Does anyone have any concerns that 

18 have not been covered by our discussions? 

19 Anyone have any objection to our closing this 

20 item?

21 If not then let's do consider this 

22 closed. And do I understand correctly that 
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 takes care of the Fernald/Hanford cases?

2 MR. FARVER: I believe that closes 

3 that matrix. I didn't see any other 

4 outstanding issues.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Very good. 

6 That's good news. Alright. Then if we've 

7 taken care of that matrix, let's see if we can 

8 do as well with Oak Ridge.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, let me finish up 

10 then with this matrix. I'm closing it. And 

11 the next one will be the 10-13 Oak Ridge sites.

12 And there are, I think, actually 

13 four findings. But we'll probably close all of 

14 them hopefully. The first one being 247.1.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I have that on 

16 Page 7 of this matrix.

17 MR. FARVER: 2.1, okay.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Incorrect 

19 exposure period.

20 MR. FARVER: Right and this had to 

21 do with how the exposure period was prorated. 

22 And it was prorated incorrectly. And from 
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 April it was still open pending NIOSH to look 

2 at it. In June they provided a response, 

3 application of all corrections discussed from 

4 this claim resulted in the final PoC of 49.25 

5 percent.

6 The question was since with all 

7 these changes in the prorating, you know, how 

8 would this affect the PoC? And so they went and 

9 looked at that and they came back with their 

10 answer so we can, what we suggest is closing 

11 this.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any concerns, 

13 any comments?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

15 Brad. Do you remember what the PoC was before?

16 MR. FARVER: No, but I can find it.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's all right. 

18 I was just wondering how much of a change we had 

19 from --

20 MR. SIEBERT: If I remember 

21 correctly it was around 48.5, this is Scott.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Thanks.
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 MR. FARVER: Yes, because it was 

2 close to 50 and the concern was it might go over 

3 50.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's what I 

5 recollected. I just didn't remember what it 

6 was on that.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any other 

8 concerns or comments? If not we accept SC&A's 

9 recommendation to close.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Close it.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Sorry, what was 

12 that?

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I said, this is 

14 Brad, we can close it.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thank 

16 you, Brad.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. The next one is 

18 247.2.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Inappropriate 

20 methods used to determine the model photon dose 

21 at Y-12.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, and --
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: The 

2 documentation has now been reviewed, I trust?

3 MR. FARVER: Right and the reason 

4 the finding originated is because a different 

5 spreadsheet was included with this work package 

6 that we had not seen before, and it was not like 

7 the usual calculations we would see for 

8 coworker data. Anyway, NIOSH's action 

9 was to prepare a package that we could review 

10 explaining, you know, the worksheet. And they 

11 did so and we did so. And so now we understand 

12 that worksheet and --

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And we can 

14 close the item.

15 MR. FARVER: Yes.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any comments, 

17 any concerns? If not then the Subcommittee 

18 accepts the recommendation of SC&A to close 

19 this item.

20 PARTICIPANT: Is there a procedural 

21 process?

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Is there a 
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 procedural process for what?

2 MR. KATZ: Wanda, I think that was 

3 someone who should be muted who was speaking.

4 PARTICIPANT: I will hit mute, 

5 sorry.

6 MR. KATZ: Correct, thanks.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay, that takes care 

8 of those two. And next we go to 248.1, Page 12.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Incomplete 

10 accounting of recorded dose.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is the 

12 ORNL dosimetry card issue. We've discussed 

13 this in the past where there are some 

14 handwritten numbers on the cards and sometimes 

15 those numbers are, well anyway, it was a matter 

16 of how they were interpreted because we'll have 

17 two findings here that we looked at for 

18 different cases. There was one way they were 

19 interpreted in one case and in another case they 

20 were interpreted a different way.

21 But we've talked about that. But 

22 the action was for NIOSH to go back and look at 
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 this dosimetry card interpretation and kind of 

2 give us a better explanation on that.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And they've 

4 given us a White Paper on this.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes, they did.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Doug, I'm 

7 assuming that all of the Subcommittee Members 

8 have seen the White Paper and had an opportunity 

9 to see for themselves some examples of those 

10 dose cards. If not they are available through 

11 you. Any questions, any problems, otherwise 

12 the Subcommittee will accept SC&A's 

13 recommendation to close this item.

14 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John 

15 Mauro. I just have a process question.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, John.

17 DR. MAURO: As we go through the 

18 process of the White Paper's response, the give 

19 and take regarding particular issues we're 

20 discussing, in some cases one of the things I 

21 was thinking about is the degree to which these 

22 types of concerns and how they were resolved, 
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 that they need to be reflected in let's say a 

2 next revision of a Site Profile or are these so 

3 unique to this worker, for example, that they 

4 really do not have any impact on the Site 

5 Profile. But the degree to which it may have 

6 applicability a little more broadly, it may not 

7 be currently addressed in the Site Profile.

8 I don't know if that applies to any 

9 of the items we just discussed but I thought I 

10 would just pass those thoughts on to the 

11 workgroup, the Subcommittee.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott 

13 Siebert. John, you read my mind. I was just 

14 about to say this. This one is entirely the 

15 case. Yes, this is a generic issue for the data 

16 for 1956. All the dosimetry cards have the same 

17 issue.

18 The data all looks identical with 

19 these "D" doses. So what I was going to mention 

20 is we have updated the dose reconstruction 

21 guidance document for ORNL. So that 

22 information is now in there for the dose 
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 reconstructors to be handling this 

2 consistently.

3 It pretty much repeats what this 

4 paper is saying to you, the D doses in lieu of 

5 the third and fourth quarters. It has also 

6 been given to the data entry folks and they have 

7 updated their data entry aids to address the 

8 situation so that they will include the data 

9 consistently that they see in that year as well.

10 DR. MAURO: Wonderful. Thank you.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And, John, from 

12 the 30,000 foot viewpoint, as you probably 

13 remember, we've encountered this same 

14 discussion in the other Subcommittee from time 

15 to time and my personal assessment is that our 

16 only option in cases like this is to make the 

17 judgment call at the time as to whether or not 

18 it has broader applicability.

19 DR. MAURO: Right. And that's why 

20 I brought it up because it's certainly 

21 something I think as we go through the process 

22 we're going through right now.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. It's 

2 worth bringing the issue up each time it appears 

3 that it might be generic. Thank you, John. 

4 Any other discussion with respect to this item? 

5 I believe we've already said that it's closed.

6 MR. FARVER: Wanda, I just want to 

7 make sure I've got the wording right for this. 

8 I've included that NIOSH provided a White Paper 

9 to the DRSC, revised the DR guidelines and the 

10 information will be included in data entry, in 

11 the data entry technical guide.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Technically it has 

13 already been included in the guide for the data 

14 entry folks.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay, and it’s 

16 included.

17 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It’s now 

18 included, yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, thank you.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: You bet, thank 

21 you.

22 MR. FARVER: Next is 249.1 on Page 
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 15. And it is the same issue. This is the same 

2 White Paper.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any problems, 

4 any comments? This is one of those fortunate 

5 cases where we can kill two with a blow. 

6 Hearing no concerns one way or the other I think 

7 we can duplicate the same wording on this one, 

8 Doug.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And the 

11 Subcommittee accepts SC&A's recommendation to 

12 close this.

13 MR. FARVER: And that will close 

14 out that matrix too.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: The Oak Ridge 

16 matrix closed, 10/29/14. That's great. The 

17 Chairman of the Subcommittee will be so 

18 pleased. Now then our next move then is to the, 

19 I'm sorry, I'm groping for the right --

20 MR. FARVER: You can either go 

21 through the remaining sites which is --

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well I thought 
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 we would go through remaining sites. But we 

2 haven't really and truly addressed them, have 

3 we?

4 MR. FARVER: It's a little 

5 confusing. There's DCAS sites and then 

6 there's remaining sites. Remaining sites is 

7 what we worked on the last meeting and we didn't 

8 get finished. It looks like about 11 pages to 

9 go.

10 And the DCAS sites we haven't even 

11 started.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, yes, but 

13 we did start the remaining sites. You were 

14 correct about that. So let's do that. And 

15 that starts with --

16 MR. FARVER: It starts with Finding 

17 244.1, which should be on Page 61 at the very 

18 bottom.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's way down 

20 there.

21 MR. FARVER: And while this is 

22 getting put on the screen I can just give you 
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 a little background. This is --

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Annual intake 

3 underestimate, right?

4 MR. FARVER: Right. And it has to 

5 do with the environmental intake workbook 

6 that's used. And at the time we did our audit 

7 we did not understand the workbook and how it 

8 changes the intake values from year to year but 

9 that's internal in the workbook.

10 So we wrote this finding. This is 

11 similar to a finding we wrote and talked about 

12 the last meeting for a different site. And 

13 this goes back, you know, three or four years 

14 since we've done the 11 set.

15 The issue has been addressed. We 

16 addressed this in, gosh, the Subcommittee 

17 meeting in Cincinnati one time, I believe. So 

18 it's been addressed. We understand it now. 

19 But at the time we did not.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It has been 

21 discussed.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, yes, years ago.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And what I'm 

2 hearing is that SC&A is now accepting of the 

3 explanation that NIOSH has given and unless 

4 there is some comment or concern outstanding 

5 from the Subcommittee can we accept this 

6 recommendation to close? Hearing no objection 

7 the Subcommittee accepts the recommendation. 

8 This item is now closed.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda, this is Scott 

10 again. Just one minor comment. We jumped all 

11 the way down to 244. There was one that was 

12 still open prior to that.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

14 Let's make sure we have this one closed and then 

15 we'll go back, Scott.

16 MR. FARVER: You're correct. 

17 It's, let's see --

18 MR. SIEBERT: 265.1.

19 MR. FARVER: Actually let's just go 

20 back and I can give you an update. We had three 

21 actions on SC&A's part. We'll go back to 228, 

22 Observation 2, this is where we, I'll try to get 
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 you a page number real quick.

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: 228. I 

3 thought we started --

4 MR. FARVER: Well we officially 

5 closed it but we had an action too and I'm trying 

6 to get it. It's an observation to the finding 

7 or finding to an observation and reissue the 

8 report. We had three of these.

9 And the changes have been made and 

10 the reports have not been issued. So when the 

11 reports are issued or reissued again, I will go 

12 back in here and make the appropriate changes. 

13 For example, 228, Observation 2 is to change 

14 that to a finding.

15 So when that becomes a finding it 

16 gets a finding number. It gets criteria from 

17 Table 2 and if there's any other updates I need 

18 to do to change the finding numbers in that 

19 case. And I just go over to 291.1 to change a 

20 finding to an observation.

21 So I went back to the report. Had 

22 to, you know, change a little wording, deleted 
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 the finding and made it an observation. Then 

2 we'll reissue that, and I'll go back and change 

3 it to the numbering in the findings matrix. 

4 And 234 was another issue where we had to change 

5 an observation to a finding.

6 So when all that gets finalized and 

7 the reports are issued I will come back to this 

8 matrix and put in the appropriate finding 

9 numbers and categories.

10 MR. KATZ: Doug, I'm sorry to 

11 interrupt. But there's some background noise 

12 and someone was shouting “no, no”. Please 

13 everyone who doesn't have a speaking role,

14 please mute your phones. If you don't have a 

15 mute button press star six, that will mute your 

16 phone.

17 But please mute your phones and if 

18 you need to leave the call at some point hang 

19 up, don't put the call on hold because that will 

20 also cause problems. Thank you. Okay. Go 

21 ahead, Doug, sorry.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. So we had those 
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 three changes and when the reports get reissued 

2 I'll go back and update the finding numbers if 

3 I need to because I know some of them it affected 

4 all the findings, the numbers changed. And 

5 what Scott was referring to is 265.1.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Page 35.

7 MR. FARVER: Page 35. Okay. The 

8 finding number, ambient doses may not be 

9 claimant-favorable.

10 MR. KATZ: Doug, can you state the 

11 site please?

12 MR. FARVER: The site is Mound.

13 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

14 MR. FARVER: 265.1.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Ambient doses 

16 may not have been claimant-favorable. Okay. 

17 Did submit urine samples.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. Scott, would 

19 you like to explain the White Paper a little bit 

20 that you wrote or the response to this because 

21 it will probably help explain it a little 

22 better?
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 MR. SIEBERT: Sure, no problem. 

2 The background on this is there was a year for 

3 this individual where they had two samples for 

4 polonium, urine samples, but they did not have 

5 any external monitoring.

6 And what we pointed out is 

7 originally there was no external dose assigned 

8 during that year because the TBD is very clear 

9 that people were monitored if they needed to be 

10 so if there is a period where an individual does 

11 not have badging, ambient is to be assigned 

12 because it's appropriate.

13 This individual, as pointed out as 

14 I said, had two bioassay urine samples during 

15 the same year that he was unmonitored or he or 

16 she, I actually don't remember, was unmonitored 

17 with a badge. So it's an unusual situation 

18 someone would be monitored for internal and not 

19 for external.

20 So what the Subcommittee asked us to 

21 do is to review that a little bit further and 

22 determine if that's a larger problem or if it's 
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 a really unusual case for this specific claim. 

2 We went back and we looked at it.

3 And the fact that the site expert 

4 who deals with the claims also is owner of the 

5 TBD as well as some of the other dose 

6 reconstructors that do many of the Mound 

7 claims, they said in their recollection this is 

8 the first time they had seen that issue where 

9 there was actually urine bioassay during a time 

10 frame that there was no external monitoring.

11 Not to say that it never occurred, 

12 but it did not, none of them recalled, for 

13 emergent events that they had seen. So looking 

14 back at it, we've determined it seems to be an 

15 unusual circumstance and we agree that in this 

16 case it's a reasonable assumption to backfill 

17 that unmonitored time frame with adjacent 

18 cycles since there is no coworker for Mound 

19 based on the fact that, as I said, the TBD states 

20 that people were monitored, they were monitored 

21 when they needed to be.

22 So in this very unusual 
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 circumstance it seems reasonable to use the 

2 adjacent cycles to actually assign an 

3 unmonitored dose for this individual rather

4 than ambient. So I've also included in here 

5 suggested wording that's going into the Mound 

6 TBD presently in process.

7 There's going to be an update to the 

8 TBD. If you see the red wording at the end of 

9 that section before the references it's just 

10 clarifying for the dose reconstructors [that] 

11 here is a rare case where you make the 

12 unmonitored dose such as internal monitoring 

13 where there's no external monitoring and that 

14 can be reasonably filled with adjacent cycles.

15 MR. FARVER: Scott, is this the red 

16 wording? Is that the change?

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, that's just 

20 inserted into what is presently going into the 

21 new TBD.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any comments or 
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 concerns? If not I think we're good on that 

2 one. Thank you for the explanations. And if 

3 we have one remaining one on this group.

4 MR. FARVER: Let me finish updating 

5 and I will check it out.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. I'm 

7 going through this again very quickly. 234 is 

8 one of the observation changes. TBD update on 

9 Simonds. And otherwise I don't see anything 

10 else that's highlighted. Have we missed 

11 anything?

12 MR. FARVER: No, those were the 

13 ones that we had actions on, those four issues. 

14 And --

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Can we now 

16 close --

17 MR. FARVER: There was one TBD 

18 update.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We have a 

20 couple of those with that in terms of our 

21 actions here. I don't see anything else on 

22 this matrix unless I'm missing something.
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 MR. FARVER: No, those were the 

2 only ones there were actions on.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We 

4 can call the remaining sites for the 10-13 sets.

5 MR. FARVER: No, no, no. We have 

6 to go back to 244; there's an observation. So 

7 that's at Page 62.

8 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: But I thought 

9 only those, the only two outstanding I saw were 

10 --

11 MR. FARVER: Those were the ones 

12 that we had gotten to in the past and we had 

13 actions on. There are still several pages of 

14 findings that we have not even discussed yet.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Page --

16 MR. FARVER: Top of Page 62 there's 

17 an observation, which really is the same as 

18 Finding 244.1. It has to do with the 

19 environmental intakes changing over the years 

20 and the workbook. So that was really the same.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We're still 

22 talking about Observation 244, right?
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 MR. FARVER: Right. It's the same 

2 as 244.1. The reason it was not made a finding 

3 is because there's no dose. The dose is --

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Right. Right.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any concerns 

7 with that? I don't see any need personally.

8 MR. FARVER: No, it falls under the 

9 same as 244.1.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And you've 

11 already said that it's understood and accepted.

12 MR. FARVER: Right.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: So --

14 MR. FARVER: So next we move on to 

15 Case 313, but there are no findings. There is 

16 just one observation. And really the 

17 observation has to do with --

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Doug, can you 

19 name the site when you start the case?

20 MR. FARVER: The site, SLAC, 

21 Stanford Linear Accelerator.

22 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Doug.
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 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

2 uncertainty factor changing from 1.3 to 1.2 in 

3 the middle of, for '72 and later. And we 

4 thought it could be better documented in the 

5 dose reconstruction report. That was all.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay. No real 

7 --

8 MR. FARVER: No real action.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I see no reason 

10 why that should remain on our list of concerns. 

11 Does someone else have any concern with that? 

12 We've already said no response is needed. So 

13 I think we're good with that one without hearing 

14 any comments to the contrary.

15 MR. FARVER: The next case is W.R. 

16 Grace 315.1. NIOSH did not include the 

17 dosimetry correction factor of 1.3 to convert 

18 measured dose to organ dose. And this goes 

19 back to the technical basis document that says 

20 you should include an uncertainty of 1.3.

21 And then in the NIOSH's response, I 

22 believe the basis for their response is it was 
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 using OTIB-17 for the skin cancers. You don't 

2 use dose confirmative factor of one therefore 

3 you don't use the uncertainty of 1.3. John 

4 Mauro, I don't know if you have any comments. 

5 This is one of your AWE cases.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, for skin cancer 

7 the dose, the standard practice is just using 

8 the one and not the 1.3. I agree with that.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any concerns, 

10 any comments? Otherwise we're closing the 

11 W.R. Grace 315.1.

12 MR. FARVER: Excuse me. 315.2, 

13 the dose construction underestimates the 

14 shallow dose. NIOSH's response is rather 

15 lengthy.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Doug, can you go ahead 

18 and summarize it please?

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It's fairly 

20 complex. Concerns about the beta dose.

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

22 Basically the bottom line is the records at W.R. 
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 Grace switched the way they reported shallow 

2 dose in the 1969 to '70 time frame. The TBD is 

3 pretty clear that it was at about '70.

4 This was an unusual case, the claim 

5 we're looking at in these records actually 

6 switched over for this individual in '69 how 

7 they changed it as opposed to in '70. So it was 

8 an unusual situation we haven't seen before.

9 So the dose reconstructor, if I 

10 remember correctly, actually addressed this 

11 with the new methodology as they should have 

12 dealing with the new type of data. And what 

13 we've done is we've also updated the W.R. Grace 

14 guidance to give the dose reconstructors a 

15 heads up that this is a possibility they can see 

16 in 1969 and how to handle it. Did I just say 

17 that to everybody muted?

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: No.

19 MR. KATZ: No, it was beautifully 

20 clear. Thank you, Scott.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We got it. 

22 Thanks and the notation we have says that is 
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 understood. It says roger and out here but we 

2 are still carrying it. It looks like we can 

3 close that unless I hear comments to the 

4 contrary. I believe SC&A has recommended that 

5 we close it, correct?

6 And I believe the explanation is 

7 acceptable. Hearing no comment to the 

8 contrary, the Subcommittee accepts the 

9 recommendation to close for 315.2.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. In 315.3 NIOSH 

11 responded, addressed all missed shallow dose. 

12 And I believe this is, well let's see, it's 

13 similar, but it has to do with data changing 

14 between '68 and '70 and how the data is 

15 interpreted.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: But it's 

17 explained here and appears to have been 

18 acceptable to SC&A. The contractor accepts 

19 this and recommends that we close. Does the 

20 Subcommittee have any other comments or 

21 concerns? If not we accept the explanation and 

22 the recommendation. 315.3 is now closed.
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 MR. FARVER: 315.4, NIOSH did not 

2 receive all the requested or available data 

3 regarding the bioassays. Give me a second, I 

4 want to call up the original finding.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It looks as 

6 though the TBD describes this adequately.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, it has to do with 

8 some information within the CATI report where 

9 the worker states that he was restricted at 

10 times for waiting for the count to come down 

11 where this might be an indication of 

12 restrictions due to bioassay results that 

13 implies that records may not have been found or 

14 turned over to NIOSH. So that's the basis for 

15 the finding.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: TBD default 

17 intakes were used. And they were 

18 overestimating the responses. That being the 

19 case I'm sure that's the basis on which the 

20 contractor indicates that he's understood and 

21 accepted the explanation. If there is any 

22 comment or concern from the Subcommittee please 
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 speak now.

2 Hearing none the Subcommittee 

3 accepts the SC&A recommendation to close this 

4 item, 315.4. It is now closed.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. The next one is 

6 an observation at the bottom of the page where 

7 we believe that NIOSH shouldn't assign a 

8 minimal occupational internal dose.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And there's an 

10 SEC covering that and the individual's 

11 employment date?

12 MR. FARVER: So we are unable to 

13 because of the SEC.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any concerns or 

15 comments from the Subcommittee? If not we 

16 accept the contractor's statement that the 

17 explanation is acceptable. Observation 1 of 

18 315 is closed.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay. Next we move on 

20 to Westinghouse, Case 316.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That template 

22 has been updated so that won't occur again.
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 MR. FARVER: Right, this was air 

2 monitored internal doses based on their samples 

3 that were taken in '71 and '72. But we couldn't 

4 verify it because the documents were not 

5 referenced in the DR report.

6 We could not verify the model that 

7 was used. We updated the template for 

8 Westinghouse to include these references, 

9 which is good. So we have no concerns over that 

10 now.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: This is 

12 acceptable to SC&A and their recommendation is 

13 to close. Any comments from the Subcommittee? 

14 Hearing none, 316 is now closed.

15 MR. FARVER: And that will move us 

16 to Case 322.

17 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Weldon.

18 MR. FARVER: Which is Mallinckrodt 

19 and Weldon Spring case. And for the first 

20 finding, NIOSH used a dose equivalent, dose 

21 conversion factors instead of the correct 

22 exposure factors.
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 I believe NIOSH is agreeing here 

2 that they should have used the other correction 

3 factors or different correction factors.

4 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct, 

5 Doug.

6 MR. FARVER: And there was a PER?

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. There was 

8 a Mallinckrodt PER that was conducted in August 

9 of 2012. And then we went back and looked at 

10 that and they did use, I guess, a correct DCS 

11 in the PER assessment and there was no change 

12 in compensability.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. But the PER 

14 wasn't for the dose conversion factor?

15 MR. SIEBERT: No, it [was] for the 

16 update to the Mallinckrodt TBD.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. So given that 

18 the TBD has been updated and the PER was 

19 conducted to take care of those changes we 

20 suggest closing it.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Do I hear any 

22 concerns or comments? If not the Subcommittee 
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 accepts the recommendation to close and

2 Mallinckrodt Weldon Springs, Item 322.1 is now 

3 closed.

4 MR. FARVER: And 322.2 is the same 

5 thing, it's for the mixed photon dose I believe.

6 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

7 MR. FARVER: So it's the same 

8 issue, same response.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any concerns 

10 from the Subcommittee? If not we accept the 

11 recommendation. It's now closed, 322.2.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. 322.3.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Incorrect 

14 organ used.

15 MR. FARVER: Yes, they used the 

16 gall bladder instead of the urinary bladder to 

17 do the dose on the prostate. I think that's it.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Would not have 

19 changed the decision.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. If 

22 the Subcommittee has any comment with respect 
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 to the response and the acceptance by SC&A? If 

2 not we can close that item. 322.3 is closed.

3 MR. FARVER: Now this looks like, I 

4 don't know, is this something we call a QA 

5 concern because they used the wrong organ?

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

7 would agree.

8 MR. FARVER: Do you want me to, 

9 right now we don't have QA concern anywhere in 

10 this finding, do you want me to put it 

11 somewhere?

12 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that's 

13 reasonable.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Just for clarity, Doug, 

17 aren't all of these three findings QA?

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Pretty much so.

19 MR. FARVER: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

21 MR. FARVER: So, I probably should 

22 include it somewhere. You want me to include 
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 it under the action at the very right or do you 

2 want me to put it under --

3 MR. KATZ: I mean aren't the 

4 findings classified as QA? I mean isn't that, 

5 don't you have that covered already?

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Isn't that what 

7 the category is?

8 MR. FARVER: These categories are a 

9 little different. They're not all the same. 

10 It looks like there's --

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I see 

12 they've changed. I never can have the category 

13 list in front of me to identify exactly what 

14 that --

15 MR. FARVER: Because at the time 

16 that we categorize the finding we don't always 

17 know whether it's a QA or not a QA.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Right, I'm just saying 

20 at this point don't we categorize it as a QA?

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Yes, we could or we can 
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 just put QA in or do both.

2 MR. KATZ: Well whatever works for 

3 when you do your accounting for reports. So 

4 however you need to do it for that, that's what 

5 I think would be useful.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That seems to 

7 be the key.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: To be labeled 

10 to pick it up.

11 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: When you roll 

13 it out.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, I will.

15 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Doug.

16 MR. FARVER: I'll add it to each of 

17 the findings. Okay. That will take care of 

18 Case 322. The next case is Pacific Proving 

19 Grounds, Case 325.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Point one: 

21 failure to properly account for all recorded 

22 photon dose.
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 DR. H. BEHLING: Can I interrupt? 

2 This is Hans Behling. I think I should take 

3 this, Doug.

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, you should 

5 because it says to discuss and I'm not one to 

6 discuss this case.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. This was a 

8 special case here. It involves an individual 

9 who served two tours of duty at the Pacific 

10 Proving Grounds in the early 50's and then in 

11 the late 50's.

12 And I reviewed that particular case 

13 because of my familiarity with the Marshall 

14 Island work that I did. And I realized that 

15 this particular dose reconstruction was based 

16 on a TBD that was issued in 2006 and that TBD 

17 had really never been reviewed by SC&A.

18 And I identified a total of seven 

19 findings. And most of those findings were 

20 really targeting the actual TBD that was used 

21 for the dose reconstruction. And it was half 

22 on because of the concerns that the TBD had 
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 never been reviewed and then in, let's see, in 

2 2012 SC&A was authorized to review the PPG Site 

3 Profile separately.

4 And there are identified nine 

5 findings which truly affect this particular 

6 case. And we have discussed this I think on 

7 several occasions and also there were a series 

8 of memos that were exchanged between NIOSH and 

9 SC&A that involved this particular case and the 

10 TBD that was used.

11 And the conclusion was that the TBD 

12 was going to be revised significantly and that 

13 was in response to my concerns that I raised. 

14 And I guess on May 20th of this past year NIOSH 

15 responded to each of these nine findings and in 

16 looking at the findings they were all tied to 

17 this particular case.

18 So at this point I think what is 

19 likely to happen is that upon the revision of 

20 this particular PPG Site Profile, there may be 

21 or at least I'm projecting that there will be 

22 a PER that will be issued that will address all 
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 of the changes that will be incorporated in the 

2 revision of the TBD and as a result this case 

3 will probably be subject to reevaluation among 

4 the cases.

5 By the way this particular case 

6 involves a melanoma, which is not included in 

7 the SEC. And so I suspect that if a PER is 

8 issued in behalf of the revisions through the 

9 PPG Site Profile, these cases will be affected 

10 and I would at this point assume there would be 

11 little or no purpose in addressing the findings 

12 that are initially identified.

13 And unless somebody has a change in 

14 heart here, I would recommend that we put this 

15 on the back burner until we have a chance to 

16 review the revised PPG Site Profile and perhaps 

17 subsequently to that the PER that may come to 

18 pass and would involve not just this case but 

19 many other cases as well.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, 

21 Hans. That’s certainly an excellent 

22 recommendation. It seems to have great merit 
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 from my perspective. Comments from the other 

2 Subcommittee Members?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

4 agree with Hans.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Brad. 

6 It does seem to me that addressing this right 

7 now is getting our cart before the horse a 

8 little bit.

9 MR. KATZ: So may I make a 

10 suggestion, which is given the discussion you 

11 just had that these just be left in open, right, 

12 or in progress I guess in effect. But I don't 

13 think you need -- my suggestion to the 

14 Subcommittee, and I guess we should wait until 

15 we have the Chair and all too, is that the report 

16 that's going to be prepared, the roll out 

17 report, you probably don't have to hold that 

18 hostage to this because I don't know when this 

19 will get resolved.

20 But you can probably just parcel 

21 this out from that bullet report.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I would think 
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 we're not ever going to be in a position where 

2 every single item has been closed. And, yes, 

3 I certainly agree there would be no reason to 

4 withhold any report and we could carry this as 

5 a continuing open item in progress.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda, this is Scott. 

7 And I don't know if it's my place to even mention 

8 this. But when I look through these I believe, 

9 as Hans said, almost all if not all of these are 

10 issues with the TBD as opposed to the claim 

11 itself.

12 It looks like the dose 

13 reconstructor used a TBD and used it 

14 appropriately, it's just the issues were on the 

15 TBD. My question becomes can you close these 

16 out or transfer them over to the new Working 

17 Group rather than carrying them along if --

18 MR. KATZ: No, Scott, this is Ted. 

19 I understand what you're saying perfectly. 

20 But at the end of the day the dose 

21 reconstruction sort of review process for case 

22 review will need to reflect these being closed 
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 and how they were closed and on what basis.

2 So it needs to be closed out 

3 properly within the Subcommittee once the 

4 issues are resolved. I know that the PPG Work 

5 Group and the Site Profile will be addressed 

6 there but this ultimately needs to be settled 

7 here in terms of where there were errors, what 

8 kind of errors they were and so on.

9 MR. SIEBERT: No problem. I just 

10 wanted to bring it up. Thanks, Ted.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, thanks.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I appreciate 

13 that. This procedural issue with respect to 

14 how to address these is always confusing and 

15 it's well worth addressing again whenever a 

16 question arises in our minds.

17 MR. FARVER: What wording would you 

18 like me to put in there?

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I think you 

20 need to identify this as being in process 

21 pending the completion of the Work Group's 

22 review of changes to the TBD. That would be my 
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 suggestion.

2 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

3 Yes, we had a perfectly analogous situation 

4 which has closed the loop related to a number 

5 of AWE Site Profiles where it was acknowledged 

6 that this was a TBD-6000 issue.

7 The issue remained in progress but 

8 the notation was this issue, this goes back now, 

9 is being dealt with by Paul Ziemer and the 

10 TBD-6000 Work Group. And you may have noticed 

11 in my recent e-mail all we really need to do is 

12 close that loop.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Close that 

14 loop.

15 DR. MAURO: Exactly. So this is a 

16 perfectly analogous situation except in the 

17 case of TBD-6000 we're done. We just need to 

18 close that loop. In this case we have to await 

19 the course for the resolution of the issues of 

20 Pacific Proving Grounds.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And we just 

22 simply have to await the actions of the Work 
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 Group.

2 DR. MAURO: Right.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Until they have 

4 closed out their TBD issues we can't move on 

5 this. So, yes, it remains in progress for us 

6 and is that approximate wording acceptable to 

7 other Members of the Subcommittee? If not 

8 speak now and if so --

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've talked 

10 about this. This is Brad. We've talked about 

11 a lot of stuff. So what is the exact wording 

12 that we were going to use I guess is my question?

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: What I had 

14 suggested is that Doug include wording here to 

15 say that this item will be maintained open, in 

16 progress, for the Subcommittee until the PPG 

17 Work Group has completed its work on the TBD.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So that's 

19 what we're tying everything to is to finish this 

20 out. I just wanted to make sure. We talked 

21 about a lot of different stuff there. So I have 

22 no problems with that.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thank 

2 you, Brad. Anyone else?

3 MR. FARVER: And I will add that to 

4 all the findings there.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank 

6 you, Doug.

7 MR. KATZ: And, Doug, just again, 

8 just don't let us forget this when we do roll 

9 up, any of the cases that in effect, we're 

10 leaving out from the roll up so we can address 

11 that.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Doug.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, that takes care 

15 of those seven findings for case 325.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: 325. Now we 

17 move to --

18 MR. FARVER: Now we move to Case 

19 328. It's Sandia National Lab in Albuquerque. 

20 And let me call up the case here because I looked 

21 at this earlier and it's not real clear from the 

22 finding as it's written.
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 In the previous Sandia Technical 

2 Basis Document, I believe there were medical 

3 X-rays in 1953. This employee had two exams: 

4 an exam in 1951 and 1952. In our finding we 

5 explain that the TBD doesn't really explain 

6 what to do for exams before 1953.

7 And we would say to be 

8 claimant-favorable they should have included 

9 these two PFG exams. So that was what the 

10 finding was. In NIOSH’s response the TBD has 

11 now been changed.

12 There's a section has been added to 

13 the table with dash one that addresses the time 

14 period before 1953. And it, I'm going to let 

15 Scott explain this because it has to do with 

16 requesting documents from Los Alamos.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we/you don't 

18 get, directly, information from Sandia. The 

19 information is coming from LANL records. So 

20 it's kind of convoluted how you have to request 

21 records when we don't have this information.

22
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 So basically, as we said in the 

2 updated TBD, first we request, from LANL 

3 records, for any employment predating 

4 Sandia-Livermore because they were 

5 administered by the same people. I believe it 

6 was the University of California --- I could be 

7 wrong, but that seems to stick in my mind, so 

8 that if they are available, LANL could give them 

9 to us. And if LANL doesn't have any then we can 

10 make the assumption there were no X-rays or the 

11 dose reconstructor has the option of if the dose 

12 reconstruction PoC is less than 45 percent 

13 rather than doing an additional data request 

14 and slowing down a response to the claimant, we 

15 can just use default values from LANL and assign 

16 those per the table that we stated.

17 And as long as it's less than 45 

18 percent it's considered an overestimate and you 

19 get an answer to the claimant. And as we said, 

20 the TBD has been updated to be very specific 

21 about this process now and down the road there 

22 will be a PER scheduled for the update to the 
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 TBD.

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, that 

3 helps.

4 MR. FARVER: I checked the TBD this 

5 morning and they did make the updates. I will 

6 admit, though, it's still a little confusing 

7 about the LANL stuff, but that's okay.

8 At least it's specified now. 

9 That's good. But we would suggest now that the 

10 times have been added to close this finding.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Certainly 

12 sounds appropriate to me. Any comment or 

13 concern from the Subcommittee?

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Scott, this is 

15 Brad. So you're telling me that you're getting 

16 the information for Sandia through Los Alamos?

17 MR. SIEBERT: I believe for the old 

18 records that's how that information was kept. 

19 Like I said, I'm going from my memory on this. 

20 But I believe that is the case.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think the labs 

22 were the same labs. Sandia was part of LANL.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, we're just 

2 talking about the earlier case then, correct?

3 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I know we're 

5 having problems with Sandia and information and 

6 stuff. But I was just trying to understand the 

7 flow chart of this.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Right. This is the, 

9 for any information pre-'53, early days.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Then that 

11 takes care of that. I have no problem with 

12 that, Wanda.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thank 

14 you, sir. Anyone else? Hearing no other, the 

15 Subcommittee accepts the recommendation of 

16 SC&A to close this item. Sandia Albuquerque

17 Finding 328.1 is now closed. And that brings 

18 us to 328.2.

19 MR. FARVER: 328.2. NIOSH may not 

20 have considered all the information from the 

21 CATI report and, Rose, would you like to talk 

22 about this? I believe it was one of yours.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I certainly can. 

2 Let me look here.

3 MR. FARVER: Apparently the 

4 employee was a buyer but the CATI report 

5 describes that he made deliveries to various 

6 laboratories around Sandia. And that's what 

7 the concern was based on, I believe.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't think this 

9 one is mine.

10 MR. FARVER: Pardon.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't think this 

12 one is mine. I have a similar case.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. That could be. 

14 But anyway, there's not much time he spent 

15 inside the laboratories or other facilities 

16 where they could have been exposed to 

17 radioactive materials. That was our concern.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: But he did have 

19 one recorded dosimeter cycle, right?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes. After looking 

21 at this and reading NIOSH's response, I 

22 understand what they did. You know, in 
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 hindsight I would probably, would have gone 

2 back and made this an observation because, I 

3 think it has some merits, but --

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's 

5 understandable.

6 MR. FARVER: -- it's one of those 

7 iffy ones if it ranks to a finding or not. I 

8 probably would have made it an observation had 

9 we done this today.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: But in any case 

11 the explanation is adequate --

12 MR. FARVER: It is.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: -- to me. SC&A 

14 finds it acceptable as do I. Other 

15 Subcommittee Members? Hearing no concerns the 

16 Subcommittee accepted the recommendation to 

17 close Finding 328.2, which brings us to the end 

18 of this matrix, I do believe.

19 MR. FARVER: That's correct. And 

20 it looks like the only thing that's going to be 

21 open in this matrix are the PPG issues and there 

22 was some up around Page 240 which has to do with 
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 Simonds Saw, a TBD update.

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: So those will be the 

4 two issues that will remain open for this 

5 matrix. It has to do with TBDs.

6 MR. KATZ: But, Doug, the Simonds 

7 Saw is not a finding that's left open, right?

8 MR. FARVER: I thought it was.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there's 

11 one, 240.8.

12 MR. FARVER: There's four of them, 

13 240.1, 240.2, 240.8, and 240.9.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think 

16 that's true. And the others, the West Valley 

17 stuff, were observations. That's all I see. 

18 Excellent.

19 We are going to consider that one 

20 closed out for our purposes. That's great. 

21 We're not going to stop very often during this 

22 session. But it seems to me that this is an 
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 appropriate time before we undertake the new 

2 matrices, which will be the ones we haven't seen 

3 at all yet, right?

4 MR. FARVER: Correct.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We'll be 

6 starting them completely -- the DCAS sites 

7 grouping.

8 MR. KATZ: Do you want a five minute 

9 comfort break?

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Let's have a 

11 five minute comfort break and we do mean five 

12 minutes. Let's not dawdle here if we can avoid 

13 it. And we'll see you back in five minutes.

14 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

17 matter went off the record at 11:46 a.m. and 

18 resumed at 11:52 a.m.)

19 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda, this is Scott. 

20 I have one other comment for you on the 

21 remaining sites matrix.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay.
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: I did some digging 

2 over here while we were on the break and [for] 

3 Simonds Saw and Steel we have completed the TBD. 

4 It is presently in ADC review. So that should 

5 be available within the next week or so is my 

6 guess.

7 So whatever the next step is, I 

8 believe it would be SC&A is going to review the 

9 new TBD against the old findings that should be 

10 available very shortly. I just wanted 

11 everyone aware of that.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Great.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Scott, for 

14 reminding me. Actually, yeah, so SC&A is 

15 actually already tasked with reviewing that as 

16 soon as it's through with its review. And 

17 they're just reviewing it to make sure that the 

18 agreed upon changes are as they are, as they 

19 should be.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's 

21 wonderful. Then with any luck at all, by the 

22 time the Subcommittee meets again, that review 
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 will have taken place and we can remove that 

2 item from our list. We'll try to remember that 

3 for the agenda next time, to check to make sure 

4 that's occurred.

5 I'm sure they will keep us on point 

6 with that. Thank you very much. And that 

7 being the case, any other comments about the 

8 work we've done so far? Are we ready to take 

9 over the DCAS Site Matrix?

10 MR. FARVER: Yes, let me -- I'm 

11 going to go back to that matrix and put a little 

12 note in there about Simonds Saw, because 

13 otherwise I might forget.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, let's do 

15 give ourselves a couple of seconds here for Doug 

16 to take care of his administrative burden.

17 (Pause.)

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. That will take 

19 care of it. That will remind me.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Great. Thank 

21 you very much. It looks like our first item is 

22 from the 10th set, General Steel, 220.1, 
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 correct?

2 MR. FARVER: Correct. And the 

3 first one is Case 220, General Steel. The 

4 issue is [that] occupational medical dose 

5 should have included PFG exams. 

6 If you remember, a long time ago we 

7 were still concerned that AWEs may have had PFG 

8 exams. And since then, we have discussed this 

9 and have put it to rest. And I believe it's 

10 even in the documentation now that they are not 

11 to be included for AWEs. I know it is. I've 

12 read it before. But I can't quote it to you off 

13 the top of my head. So this is an old issue that 

14 was really addressed long ago.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. The 

16 Subcommittee has long ago made its 

17 determination in this regard. This is just an 

18 outline that we need to agree upon, and if you 

19 have any comments or concerns, please express 

20 it at this time. As Doug has already said, 

21 we've done this long, long ago. 

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We 
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 accept the SC&A recommendation to close General 

2 Steel, Finding 220.1. This item is now closed.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. The next one is 

4 220.2.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: CATI report 

6 concern.

7 MR. FARVER: I'm going to ask John 

8 Mauro if he has any input on this General Steel 

9 case.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Are you there, 

11 John? Are you with us?

12 (No response.)

13 MR. FARVER: He may not be.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It looks like 

15 we may have lost him.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. In any case, it 

17 has to do with some information in the CATI 

18 report about the Betatron area. And in the 

19 response from July, the issues have been 

20 evaluated by the Work Group and there's an 

21 agreement in principle that the methods used in 

22 the dose reconstructions adequately addresses 
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 possible breakdowns in controls over 

2 management of the radium source.

3 So it was handled in the Work Group. 

4 And based on the work that was done in the Work 

5 Group, I believe they have put this issue to 

6 rest.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It has been 

8 discussed at great issue, at great length. And 

9 it has been agreed that was the general process 

10 and there is no outstanding issue in this 

11 regard, to my knowledge, in the Work Group.

12 If there are concerns from the other 

13 Subcommittee Members please express them now, 

14 otherwise we will accept the SC&A 

15 recommendation to close. 

16 (No response.) 

17 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Hearing none, 

18 Finding 220.2 for General Steel is now closed. 

19 And we move on to Observation 1.

20 MR. FARVER: Observation 1. When 

21 we reviewed TBD-6000, Appendix BB, we weren't 

22 real happy with the external exposure rate,
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 [that it] might not be claimant-favorable. 

2 The Work Group has completed their review, and 

3 the new Appendix BB has been drafted and 

4 approved. 

5 Well, we should have reviewed that 

6 by now. It says that, "until we've had an 

7 opportunity to review the Site Profile."

8 Now, just for my general 

9 information, is that something we would do as 

10 part of the Work Group, our person on the Work 

11 Group, you know, would be assigned to review the 

12 profile?

13 MR. KATZ: Doug, I mean, it would be 

14 helpful actually to get John Mauro on the line 

15 for these. But I can just tell you that, yeah, 

16 I guess this was written -- this is sort of --

17 I don't know when this was written, the SC&A 

18 response. But it's old.

19 MR. FARVER: It's old?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's the problem. 

21 So that work has all been done. The TBD 

22 Appendix for this site has been updated and 
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 there were many changes to it. So, I mean, 

2 these were substantive changes to methodology. 

3 So that's how these things were resolved.

4 MR. FARVER: Right. And, you 

5 know, it's my fault. I didn't have this marked 

6 as an SC&A action, probably because it's under 

7 observation. But I should have and I hope we 

8 don't come across any findings that I messed up 

9 like that.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

11 unlikely.

12 MR. STIVER: Doug, this is Stiver. 

13 Bob Anigstein just got finished up reviewing 

14 the latest revision to GSI and I think it's now 

15 in NIOSH's hands to try to resolve some of this 

16 stuff.

17 So it's the kind of thing that our 

18 review was just recently -- I believe it was an 

19 action that was taking place last month.

20 MR. KATZ: No, Bob's review is not 

21 out and published yet.

22 MR. STIVER: It's not -- excuse me, 
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 it's not published yet but it's kind of in the 

2 process of being finalized.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. It will be out 

4 soon, I expect. But it's not out. 

5 MR. STIVER: Let me see if I can get 

6 John Mauro back on the line here. Hang on just 

7 a minute.

8 MR. FARVER: I'm putting a note in 

9 here that we need to, that SC&A needs to review 

10 this per these issues.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Both 

12 observations are -- this is well underway.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, yeah, I mean, 

14 right. Let's wait, I guess, to see if we can 

15 get John on the line.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, it would 

17 be helpful.

18 MR. FARVER: Because I see, for the 

19 next case, it's a finding that to close it out 

20 we need to review the TBD.

21 MR. KATZ: Yeah, in effect, all of 

22 these, I think. John will tell you all of these 
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 findings were related to substantive issues 

2 with the TBD that were then addressed by the 

3 Work Group and resolved by the Work Group and 

4 resulted in very substantive changes to the 

5 TBD.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they were 

7 and are substantive.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And we will --

10 the PER is a given.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'm going to 

12 put it in there. It's going to show up as a 

13 couple of findings that I'm still going to keep 

14 open, pending an SC&A review, which we should 

15 have done before but we will do --

16 MR. KATZ: Well, yeah, I'm not sure 

17 that you're going to leave these open actually

18 here, because the review of the methodology 

19 related here has already been done by the Work 

20 Group. But let's wait for John.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, and --

22 DR. MAURO: I'm here.
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 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay.

2 DR. MAURO: This is John. The 

3 reason I was off is I was having a little trouble 

4 getting on Live Meeting and I was trying to get 

5 some help with Laurie Loomis and for some reason 

6 I'm being blocked.

7 So I do have the files in front of 

8 me, the two of them, one called "Remaining Case 

9 Files" and the other called "DCAS Sites." So 

10 I have those matrices in front of me, but I'm 

11 not on Live Meeting with you. But I think I 

12 should be able to follow along.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks, John.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: John, we're 

15 working on the "DCAS Sites" and we've completed 

16 the other matrices. And we're now in the DCAS 

17 sets and we are dealing with the first items 

18 there that are involved with General Steel.

19 And those GSI items, starting with 

20 the 239, are referencing the activities in the 

21 Work Group with respect to Appendix BB and where 

22 we are with that. And that's what the 
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 questions are arising from here.

2 MR. KATZ: Wanda, this is Ted. I'm 

3 sorry. But can we go back? I think, really, 

4 why don't you let John address, starting with 

5 220.2.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Fine.

7 MR. KATZ: Because I think that 

8 could use John's explanation.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

10 DR. MAURO: 220.2.

11 MR. KATZ: Right, right. The very 

12 beginning, John.

13 DR. MAURO: I'm right there at the 

14 very beginning. It starts with 220.

15 MR. KATZ: 220.1 is PFG and that 

16 Doug handled ably. But 220.2 is sort of, would 

17 be much easier for you to handle than --

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. I noticed that 

19 we have an SC&A suggested action to close on my 

20 matrix.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And we 

22 actually have said that we would do that but 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we’re concerned with the lack of complete 

2 explanation here. And we're asking you for a 

3 little more enlightenment.

4 DR. MAURO: I'll do the best I can. 

5 I did call Bob Anigstein, who was really the 

6 author of all of this, to see if he would join 

7 us. In fact, probably the smart thing to do, 

8 quite frankly, is for me rather than try to fake 

9 it --

10 MR. KATZ: John, if you look, if you 

11 just give it a look. I mean, this is, you were 

12 there for the whole, you know, all that work on 

13 GSI. And this is --

14 DR. MAURO: I have been.

15 MR. KATZ: It just needs some 

16 explanation for the Board Members who aren't on 

17 the Work Group [so they] can follow along.

18 DR. MAURO: I'm reading real quick. 

19 Give me a second. Because I've been over this 

20 before, but I can tell you I didn't look closely 

21 because I thought it was closed and I thought 

22 that we were going to be moving on. But let me 
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 see what I can do.

2 Yeah, there was quite a bit of 

3 extensive discussion regarding the radium lost 

4 sources. There's no doubt about it. And the 

5 way it was put to bed was it was judged, first, 

6 there was no explicit information that there 

7 was in fact this radium source.

8 It was through interviews with 

9 workers that they believed that there was a 

10 source that was mishandled. And there was some 

11 indication that was in fact a real scenario. 

12 And the agreement was that, well, granted that 

13 there may have been such an incident. What do 

14 you do with this, when you have a word-of-mouth 

15 position, and that maybe it occurred, maybe it 

16 didn't occur? And the way in which it was left 

17 is that, you know -- that, of course, would be 

18 for a particular worker -- a couple of things 

19 were done.

20 One was to say that, well, you know, 

21 unless we have a real worker, where we know 

22 there was an incident and he was involved, we 
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 really can't address it. And, you know, until 

2 we actually have a case where we're going to try 

3 reconstruct the doses because of this 

4 mishandling. That would be for the worker that 

5 would have, in theory, have taken the source 

6 away and brought it home with him.

7 So that was one aspect of it. It 

8 was agreed that until we have to deal with the 

9 real worker that was in fact in his CATI or there 

10 was some evidence that was the case. 

11 The other side of it had to do with 

12 the mishandling of radium sources in general, 

13 whereby they may have been left open, there may 

14 have been inadequate barriers while the radium 

15 source was used for non-destructive testing.

16 And both Bob Anigstein and Dave 

17 Allen both set up models to say, okay, let's 

18 postulate that such mishandling occurred. It 

19 was left out without adequate control. And 

20 they simulated, and there was agreement by the 

21 Work Group with Paul that, well, yes, we'll 

22 assume that the workers were working in the 
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 vicinity may have crossed over and walked by 

2 this open source without adequate controls of 

3 somewhat of a barrier around it.

4 So it was part of a simulation. And 

5 the doses were calculated. And it was found 

6 that those doses did not contribute, were 

7 considered in the scenario that was used to 

8 reconstruct the doses. Because, as you know, 

9 all doses at this facility are based on, 

10 basically, simulations of external exposure 

11 and internal exposure. There are no, during 

12 certain time periods, during the radium period 

13 where this issue has come up, there are really 

14 no dosimetry records of any type. So 

15 everything is based on these simulations.

16 And this issue with the Work Group 

17 with Paul has been closed. That is, it was 

18 decided that both the issue for the person 

19 himself who might have handled that would be 

20 dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

21 And second, other people that might 

22 have been in the vicinity of, let's say, an 
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 inadequately controlled radium source and 

2 those doses were taken into consideration 

3 through the modeling effort that was done 

4 independently by both SC&A and NIOSH.

5 So that's where that issue stands. 

6 Now, that all being said, that was in 

7 discussions that were held during the TBD-6000 

8 Appendix BB Work Group meeting. Now, where we 

9 stand as of today, is that NIOSH has in fact 

10 issued an Appendix BB revised that reflects 

11 five years’ worth of work.

12 SC&A, Bob Anigstein, has reviewed 

13 it, has completed his review and we're probably 

14 a day away from delivering our review of this 

15 revised Appendix BB. And so NIOSH hasn't yet 

16 seen, we do have some comments. Now, the 

17 degree to which I reviewed that, this issue is 

18 not an issue in the latest version of Appendix 

19 BB.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

21 DR. MAURO: That's the best I can 

22 do. I wish I could do better.
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 MR. KATZ: No, no, that was 

2 helpful. And I think the point you make, that 

3 should be clear, is that the methods have been 

4 changed as a result of this extensive review.

5 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

6 MR. KATZ: So that's how this 

7 finally gets put to bed.

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah. And, of course, 

9 I think that, certainly to close the loop again, 

10 some type of note perhaps from Paul to this 

11 effect, because that was agreed upon and it's 

12 actually in the transcripts of the meeting.

13 But I could tell you, from reading 

14 the report, the latest review, I can say that 

15 I don't recall seeing this particular question 

16 explicitly addressed in the latest version of 

17 Appendix BB. But, of course, I could always 

18 take another look at it. But it certainly is 

19 in the transcripts.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

21 probably all we need, John.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you very 

2 much. And we have taken the action to identify 

3 that particular finding 220.2 as closed.

4 DR. MAURO: That's what I would say 

5 is the reason it was closed. And I think that 

6 rationale still holds.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, I think 

8 we're clear on that. Thank you for the 

9 elucidation. It's very helpful. 

10 Now we're on to Observation 1, I 

11 believe.

12 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

13 Observation 1 has to do with the default 

14 external exposure rate for non-Betatron 

15 workers. John, do you know if this has been --

16 DR. MAURO: Oh, now we're getting 

17 into the -- they're getting a lot easier now. 

18 All of this has been revised. 

19 Let's talk with Observation 1, regarding this 

20 .72 mR per hour. This whole issue has been 

21 reviewed, revised. It is now addressed 

22 explicitly in Appendix BB. The issue has been 
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 resolved in principle. We do have some 

2 comments, which I would consider to be of 

3 marginal importance in terms of just 

4 clarifying, which you haven't seen yet. You 

5 will see that within a week, I would imagine. 

6 When I say you, I mean NIOSH and the Work Groups. 

7 So this is a Site Profile issue that 

8 I believe has been resolved in principle. And 

9 you're really just waiting to see through the 

10 issues resolution process out of Appendix BB. 

11 The plan hasn't changed. All this .72 mR per 

12 hour business, you know, has been revised. And 

13 the whole Appendix BB approach has been 

14 substantially revised.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Fine. Thank 

16 you, John. The response that we have is that 

17 the item is in abeyance until the Site Profile 

18 review is available. And we're hearing, I 

19 think, that's going to take place imminently.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And my 

22 observations on this observation, and 
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 Observation 2 as well, is that these will be 

2 resolved by the actions that are going to be 

3 forthcoming between now and the next meeting of 

4 this Subcommittee. I’m assuming that we can 

5 leave these two observations as they are, 

6 pending our status at the next meeting will have 

7 changed, I think, most of these.

8 Is there any suggestion that we 

9 proceed in any other fashion? 

10 (No response.)

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, then 

12 let's move on to the next finding, number 239.1.

13 DR. MAURO: Same thing.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: This is 

15 modeling of photon doses to the personnel.

16 DR. MAURO: I mean, we're dealing 

17 with, again, a complete rewrite, revision, 

18 except for the item that’s closed, the second 

19 one where it deals with PFG. Of course, we can 

20 close that for the same reason we closed it 

21 previously.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Correct.
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 DR. MAURO: But everything else, I 

2 believe, is still in a state of -- in abeyance, 

3 agreed in principle, you know, and we're 

4 waiting on the close out of any residual issues 

5 as a result of SC&A's review of the latest 

6 version of Appendix BB.

7 MR. KATZ: John, I think, actually, 

8 these things can be closed for the DR 

9 Subcommittee. The reason why I think that is, 

10 regardless of what further discussion there may 

11 be on the revised Appendix, what is agreed upon 

12 is that the old methods were not adequate and 

13 were changed.

14 DR. MAURO: Right, right.

15 MR. KATZ: And that's a fact. And 

16 that can be dealt with, right?

17 DR. MAURO: And I'll take it a step 

18 further. I would say all the issues have been 

19 resolved during the Work Group meetings. And 

20 the only thing that's sort of still to rub is 

21 that, when getting down to the final version of 

22 Appendix BB where we were asked to look at it, 
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 there was some language in there and there are 

2 some issues that are discussed in manner that 

3 we still want to sort of like polish the apple 

4 a little bit.

5 MR. KATZ: But I guess my point for 

6 Wanda and the Subcommittee to consider is, as 

7 far as the Subcommittee is concerned, these 

8 cases are reviewed. They are effectively

9 reviewed by the results of the TBD-6000 Work 

10 Group work as well. And the findings hold that 

11 there were problems with these methods. So 

12 that's not going to change by any -- what John 

13 is talking about -- any cleaning up of the final 

14 issued TBD.

15 And so I think this Subcommittee is 

16 through with these, because it did find what it 

17 found and that holds up.

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

19 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

20 DR. MAURO: Absolutely.

21 MR. KATZ: So we don't need to hold 

22 up -- I'm concerned, I don't want to hold up the 
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 roll up for these things that are in abeyance 

2 when really they're all closed.

3 DR. MAURO: I’ve got [to] say, I 

4 agree that these have all been resolved. And 

5 the testament to that is contained in the 

6 transcripts of the Work Group meeting.

7 The only thing you really don't have 

8 is, you know, this process where the Work Group 

9 meeting then closes the loop.

10 MR. KATZ: No, I know. But you 

11 have an updated TBD that changes these methods, 

12 which in and of itself indicates the methods 

13 were adequate.

14 DR. MAURO: Correct. Very good.

15 MR. KATZ: That's why I'm just 

16 suggesting to the Subcommittee that it actually 

17 close these so that these don't be left out of 

18 that roll up report.

19 DR. MAURO: I understand. And I 

20 agree.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And let me make 

22 the comment that these items run through Page 
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 10 of this particular matrix that we are 

2 observing now. And with only one or a few 

3 exceptions, the statements that we had been 

4 making here are broad enough to cover virtually 

5 all of these items and the wording in our SC&A 

6 response column pretty closely reflects that.

7 There are only one or two exceptions 

8 to that. And I would suggest that we take a 

9 couple of minutes here and let the Members of 

10 the Subcommittee go through these individually 

11 and take a look at the summary of findings and 

12 the current SC&A response and point out any 

13 items that you feel need specific addressing 

14 here beyond what we have done already.

15 Let's take just a couple of minutes 

16 to do that, through Page 10, please.

17 MR. FARVER: Wanda, for this 

18 Finding 239.1, it's a finding. So what I’m 

19 writing in there is the Work Group has revised 

20 the TBD. The Subcommittee agrees to close the 

21 finding. But SC&A will -- well, we've reviewed 

22 the TBD but I'm going to go back and add the date 
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 of the review when we’ve actually issued a 

2 report.

3 So it's closed. But SC&A has got 

4 the action of going back and including the data 

5 in the report. Is that adequate?

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It is from my 

7 perspective.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. And similar 

9 wording will probably follow most of these 

10 findings, and I'll add the title and the date 

11 even to the observations just for completeness.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's 

13 appropriate. Let's give the other Members an 

14 opportunity to read through these briefly.

15 DR. MAURO: I suspect that there 

16 will be a PER after this Appendix BB and any 

17 final cleanup of the issues resolution, which 

18 should occur very quickly. Then there will 

19 certainly be a PER and a lot of cases will be 

20 reviewed.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I would 

22 anticipate that.
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 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 (Pause.)

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I'll give you 

4 another 30 seconds or so, then we'll roll this 

5 up. 

6 (Pause.)

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. This 

8 discussion that we've had takes us through the 

9 end of Page 10. If there is anyone on the 

10 Subcommittee who has any concern with our 

11 dealing with these items in this way, please 

12 just let us know. Anyone who feels rushed and 

13 wants more time, please let us know. 

14 (No response.) 

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Hearing none. 

16 Yes, Doug, please proceed as we have indicated. 

17 And we will consider, for purposes of this 

18 Subcommittee, that the GSI items shown on this 

19 matrix through Page 10 are now closed.

20 That brings us to Finding 221.1, 

21 Hooker. Exposure period may exceed 5 percent 

22 of the worker's time.
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 DR. MAURO: This is John. I could 

2 help out again here.

3 MR. FARVER: John, before you do 

4 that, I just want to -- again, this more 

5 bookkeeping -- but if you go to the top of Page 

6 9, there's one General Steel finding about the 

7 photon doses, and it was because a file was not 

8 included, a NIOSH file.

9 We reviewed the file. Everything 

10 is fine. This is a little different. We're 

11 just going to close this one. I would suggest 

12 closing this one. But it's a little different. 

13 It's not a TBD issue.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's 

15 correct. It is different. This is very 

16 specific to this claim itself and we should 

17 address that separately. Thank you, Doug.

18 DR. MAURO: Doug, this is an 

19 observation number you're looking at right now?

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: No, it's 310.1.

21 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: General Steel, 
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 from the 13th set.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yeah, okay.

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And the 

4 contractor has suggested that this action is 

5 complete and can be closed. Do I hear any 

6 concern or comment with respect to that 

7 suggestion? 

8 (No response.)

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not then the 

10 Subcommittee accepts the recommendation of 

11 SC&A.

12 MR. KATZ: Doug, was that a QA, are 

13 you saying? A QA issue?

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It looks like 

15 it is.

16 MR. FARVER: I'll have to go dig up 

17 the case. I mean, I've got it here. You just 

18 have to --

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It says 1966 

20 correction, one year alone was -- it looks as 

21 though the run was made and no change.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay, yeah. I 
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 probably would classify this as a QA error. It 

2 was, "used value listed in Appendix BB for year 

3 1966 and divided it by two to account for the 

4 fact that the employee left GSI in the middle 

5 of the year. However, the values listed for 

6 that year already account for the fact that the 

7 contract ended in June." 

8 So they divided by two when they 

9 really weren't supposed to divide by two. They 

10 didn't need to.

11 So, yes, I would probably classify 

12 that as a QA concern. I will put that wording 

13 somewhere in there.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you for 

15 catching that from the suggestion.

16 MR. FARVER: Now, I believe that's 

17 the only other outstanding finding that's 

18 different than the other issues we’ve talked 

19 about. In which case, I'll go back and add that 

20 wording to the findings and observations, but 

21 I won't take the Subcommittee's time now to do 

22 that.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, 

2 Doug. That’ll be great. Thank you much.

3 MR. FARVER: That would take us to 

4 Page 10, Page 11. Well, Hooker. Tenth set, 

5 Hooker, 221.1.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And I believe 

7 John said he has something to contribute here.

8 DR. MAURO: Yeah, there's an 

9 overarching matter, and then we can go through 

10 each item quickly to decide whether they could 

11 be closed notwithstanding the overarching 

12 issues. 

13 The Hooker process has some 

14 history. The last deliverable by SC&A to 

15 address the Site Profile for Hooker was dated 

16 March 2013. And we have a number of findings. 

17 For example, the very first item we're looking 

18 at, 221.1, deals with the time period. It's 

19 basically saying that in the original, in this 

20 dose reconstruction, there was a worker at 

21 Hooker and they based it on the assumption that 

22 he was exposed to this residue for five percent 
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 of his time.

2 And, you know, we did our work and 

3 we found that probably is an underestimate. 

4 And there were these types of things, these and 

5 the concentrations of radionuclides in the 

6 slag. So there were a number of issues that go 

7 toward the reconstruction of the doses to 

8 individuals, such as this particular case.

9 But these are all Site Profile 

10 issues, as indicated in the column called SC&A 

11 Response. You'll note in that column, the very 

12 last sentence in this box says, "however, we 

13 concur that these are Site Profile issues and 

14 not DR issues."

15 So there certainly are Site Profile 

16 issues. We have identified this particular 

17 one as a Site Profile issue and we have our 

18 comments on why we have concerns. That's all 

19 contained in a report that we've submitted 

20 dated March 2013.

21 And I believe -- now, please help me 

22 if I'm wrong -- I don't believe NIOSH has yet 
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 prepared a response to our report regarding 

2 these matters. So, you know, I'm a little 

3 behind the curve on this one. But I think that 

4 this still, this particular report that SC&A 

5 wrote with its various findings, one of which 

6 deals with this five percent issue, has not yet 

7 been resolved.

8 MR. STIVER: John, this is Stiver. 

9 You're absolutely correct that our findings 

10 haven't been discussed in the TBD-6001, the UR 

11 AWE Work Group yet. And so that's still very 

12 much in play.

13 MR. KATZ: Yeah, this is Ted. I'm 

14 not sure that it's true that NIOSH hasn't 

15 responded. I think it hasn't come before the 

16 Work Group. But it may be that -- I vaguely --

17 I think NIOSH has responded to these and I think 

18 it's up to the Work Group to take this up.

19 MR. CALHOUN: I'm checking on that, 

20 Ted. I'm not sure.

21 MR. STIVER: To tell you the truth, 

22 it's been a while. I don't remember if they 
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 have responded or not.

2 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I know, it's been 

3 a while. And the thing is I think that [the] 

4 Work Group has a number of sites with sort of 

5 small matters for several sites to deal with and 

6 it hasn't pulled them all together to meet yet. 

7 I think that's sort of the situation.

8 DR. MAURO: You know this actually 

9 might be the AWE Work Group.

10 MR. KATZ: It is. It’s the Uranium 

11 Refining Work Group.

12 DR. MAURO: Right, the refining 

13 one, right.

14 MR. KATZ: Exactly. That's the 

15 case. But I know that NIOSH has actually 

16 responded to a number of the action items on the 

17 table for that Work Group for different sites, 

18 but the Work Group hasn't taken them up yet. 

19 Anyway, that leaves you in the same place 

20 because the Work Group hasn't resolved these 

21 matters.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And I don't 
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 believe there’s anything that we can do here in 

2 the Subcommittee right now. I think we do have 

3 to wait for TBD-6001. That's not the right 

4 name anymore, is it?

5 MR. KATZ: No, it's the Uranium 

6 Refining AWE Work Group.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: The AWE Work 

8 Group, better terminology. We'll have to 

9 await their action. So this will be in 

10 abeyance for awaiting the Work Group's action, 

11 not only 221.1 but that would also be 221.2. 

12 And --

13 MR. KATZ: But I think these are 

14 then in progress but not really in abeyance 

15 because --

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I guess that's 

17 true.

18 DR. MAURO: .3 is a little 

19 different.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, it is a 

21 little different.

22 DR. MAURO: And I think I agree with 
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 answer. In other words, what's being said 

2 here is that, you know, this goes back to the 

3 old resuspension factor issue, which has all 

4 been resolved under Paul's Work Group, the 

5 TBD-6000 issues and how to deal with 

6 resuspension factors and residual periods and 

7 that sort of thing.

8 And there's always a question of 

when do you use 10-6 9 per liter and when to use 

10-5 10 ? And this goes back also to the OTIB-70. 

11 The argument made here, in my mind, regarding 

12 this particular issue and this particular 

13 resuspension factor as applied here, this idea 

14 that outdoors and rain, I think is a reasonable 

15 argument.

16 Now, this hasn't come before us 

17 before. And what I mean by that is as a generic 

18 issue whereby are there are circumstances 

19 where, you know, if it's outdoors and, you know, 

20 the stuff could have been washed away, is it 

reasonable to resort to 10-6 21 ?

22 You know, we haven't talked about 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this generically. Whether you want to resolve 

2 this here on this particular case is certainly 

3 a judgment call. But I consider that argument 

reasonable. See, the point is that you use 10-6 4

5 per meter when you have reason to believe that 

6 largely the removable material that's on the 

7 surface is really no longer there. Anything 

8 that's readily removable has cleaned away for 

9 whatever reason. Most of the time it's because 

10 it's gone through a D&D cleanup operation. And 

11 if there is any residue, and often there is, 

12 it's not readily removable and therefore you 

13 could use a very low resuspension factor, like 

10-6 14 .

15 The argument being made here is 

16 that, well, this is outdoors for a long period 

17 of time and it's reasonable to believe that you 

18 wouldn't have very much of a resuspension 

19 factor.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, it’s the 

21 natural D&D process.

22 DR. MAURO: Exactly, the natural 
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 attenuation, if you want to call it that. So, 

2 in my opinion, I think that's a reasonable

3 argument. Whether it's appropriate, though, 

4 because it is sort of like a generic issue that 

5 has applicability perhaps elsewhere, you know 

6 how to deal with that, you know, however you’d 

7 like to deal with that.

8 MR. KATZ: John, I don't think just 

9 because the NIOSH guidance on this doesn't 

10 address outdoor, rained on environments or 

11 whatever, I mean, the principles that you just 

12 covered have been addressed. So I think you 

13 guys can make a decision on this here.

14 DR. MAURO: I mean, I would 

15 recommend closure, in my opinion, because I 

16 think it's reasonable. But of course the rest 

17 of the Work Group would have to concur.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I have no 

20 problem at all with the explanation that's been 

21 given. And it seems appropriate to me that we 

22 might be able to close it.
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 But I'll leave that to the 

2 discretion of the other Subcommittee Members. 

3 If you have concerns and prefer that we not 

4 close this, please let me know.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, Wanda, I 

6 want to just make sure, because we've gone a lot 

7 of different places on this. We're saying that 

8 we can close this why, John? What was --

9 because I guess, you know, we kind of went 

10 around and I wanted to make sure I was 

11 understanding what you were telling us.

12 DR. MAURO: Yeah, when it comes to 

13 the residual period where you have residual 

14 contamination on surfaces, there's been a long 

15 history of discussion, and that go towards 

16 OTIB-70 and what is the appropriate 

17 resuspension factor. So you have residual 

18 activity on the floor.

19 Initially, originally, NIOSH 

employed a resuspension factor of 10-6 20 per 

21 meter. It's a relatively low resuspension 

22 factor and we had lots of discussions 
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 regarding, you know, under what circumstances 

2 that is a good number or not.

3 And the general consensus, and it's 

4 been closed out and resolved, that the only time 

5 you really could use a resuspension factor of 

10-6 6 is when there's a reason to believe that 

7 the facility has undergone some 

8 decontamination where readily removable 

9 contamination on the surfaces has been removed.

10 In fact, this goes back to an NRC 

11 NUREG. And NRC recommends that if you're going 

12 to do any post-cleanup dose assessment to see 

13 if you comply with their criteria for clearance 

of a structure, you can use 10-6 14 resuspension 

15 factor for any residual activity that might be 

16 there because it's not readily removable, okay?

17 However, if you have not undergone 

18 decontamination and there is residual activity 

19 that is loose and can be resuspended fairly 

readily, you wouldn't use 10-6 20 . In fact, the 

21 agreement, I believe, is that now, under the new 

22 OTIB-70, they would use something closer 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

10-5. And I also saw 5 times 10-5 1 in one 

2 instance.

3 So that being the background 

4 information on this subject, now we're 

5 confronted with an unusual circumstance. We 

6 have an argument that, well, you know, this is 

7 outdoors where any residual contamination that 

8 might have been present outdoors was 

9 experiencing what we would call natural 

10 attenuation, where it's raining and it's being 

11 washed away.

12 So, in effect, one could argue that 

13 you really would not expect relatively loose 

14 contamination outdoors to remain for very long 

15 periods of time when it's been exposed for 

16 extended periods of time to weathering, like 

17 rainfall and wash-off. And so would you think 

18 that -- you know, what do you do in those 

19 circumstances?

20 In my opinion, you know, you're 

21 effectively saying that, well, you know, it 

22 really has undergone -- it's unlikely that 
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 there still remains relatively loose 

2 contamination that could have a high 

3 resuspension factor. So I have, you know --

4 and this is more of a judgment call -- I would 

5 say that, under these circumstances, it's 

6 equivalent to as if it was cleaned up and 

therefore a resuspension factor of 10-6 7 is not 

8 unreasonable.

9 And that's the position -- this is 

10 my sense of the matter -- and that's exactly the 

11 argument that's being made here by NIOSH. And 

12 I'm willing to accept that argument.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: And one can 

14 point out with great validity, I believe, that, 

15 absent an enclosure of any kind, resuspension 

16 as we think of it is not likely to occur. 

17 There's nothing new.

18 DR. MAURO: It would go away. It 

19 would go up and go away.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

21 DR. MAURO: And for those of you, 

22 outdoor resuspension factors have been studied 
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 extensively, for example, at the Nevada Test 

Site. And numbers on the order of 10-9 2 are not 

3 unusual.

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Much, much 

5 lower --

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, much lower. You 

7 know what happens very quickly -- and we're 

8 talking about soil now -- what happens 

9 relatively quickly is the -- you'll start off 

10 at a -- this is from the Nevada Test Site --

11 start off at a relatively high resuspension 

factor, perhaps as high as 10-4 12 .

13 But quickly -- this is all 

14 Anspaugh's work. You’ll remember Lynn 

15 Anspaugh joined us for quite some time a few 

16 years ago. And he has shown, and he has 

17 published widely on this, that the outdoor, the 

18 residual activity outdoors, is washed away and 

19 stabilized, migrates downwards.

20 In other words, it gets into a form 

21 that makes it relatively difficult to 

22 resuspend. So his model actually, the way it's 
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 structured is, within the matter of a year or 

2 two, on that order, your resuspension factors 

reduce all the way down to 10-9 3 per meter.

4 So, once you’re outdoors it really 

changes the whole scenario. And a 10-6 5

6 resuspension factor in this case seems to be 

7 reasonable.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well, I 

9 just -- we've talked about so many different 

10 stuff the last few minutes so I just wanted to 

11 make sure what I was speaking on. I have no 

12 problem with closing that, Wanda.

13 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, 

14 Brad. I appreciate that. Anyone else? 

15 (No response.)

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, then I 

17 believe we can safely say this issue has been 

18 addressed in numerous venues. And corrections 

19 and additions have been made to the appropriate 

20 documentation. On that basis, this 

21 Subcommittee has closed this item effective 

22 this date. Is anyone not amenable to that 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 solution? 

2 (No response.)

3 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, then, 

4 Doug, if you will do that.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We will close 

7 out 221.3.

8 MR. FARVER: And we move on to 

9 221.4, CATI report indicates additional

10 cancers. And we've seen this in the past. And 

11 I understand NIOSH's response. In the CATI 

12 report, it mentions additional colon and larynx 

13 cancer.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It's been dealt 

15 with appropriately given the procedural 

16 applications that are necessary in cases like 

17 this.

18 MR. FARVER: Right. I mean, I 

19 understand we can close this. But for future 

20 cases, you know, how would you like us to 

21 proceed when we come across something like 

22 this? Would you like us to note it as an 
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 observation?

2 I think we need to mention it just 

3 so that they are aware that there is a little 

4 difference. I mean, I don't know that we need 

5 to make it a finding every time, because we've 

6 come across this before and we've talked about 

7 it in this Subcommittee. But I still think it 

8 needs to get mentioned somewhere, maybe an 

9 observation.

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

11 appropriate. Certainly for the record it 

12 needs to be shown that this issue was recognized 

13 and was addressed. But since it is a policy and 

14 procedure issue, which the Subcommittee cannot 

15 change, then it appears to be appropriate, from 

16 my perspective, that it be an observation.

17 Does that meet the concerns of 

18 others or would you prefer it to be handled in 

19 a different way?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it's an 

21 observation. We've run across these -- this is 

22 Brad by the way. I think we've run into this 
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 many times.

2 MR. FARVER: And the one 

3 circumstance I don't want to miss is when these 

4 dose reconstructions on new cancers are added

5 the dose reconstructions are revised and you 

6 get different versions. Let's say somehow we 

7 don't get the latest revision of the dose 

8 reconstruction where they've added three more 

9 cancers. Somehow the file doesn't get 

10 included. But now we come across this in the 

11 records where there's three more cancers. I 

12 think we need to point that out. And that's my 

13 thought. I don't want to miss it.

14 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: No, no, it does 

15 need to go on the record. But it seems that the 

16 appropriate method for getting it on the record 

17 is to list it as an observation.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Any other 

20 concerns?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 

22 Brad. Don't you feel that would be the best way 
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 to do that? I just want to make sure that we're 

2 addressing what your concern is too. I 

3 understand about not wanting to miss this, but 

4 do you feel comfortable this will be addressed 

5 properly?

6 MR. FARVER: Well, if we make an 

7 observation it’ll get talked about anyway in 

8 this Subcommittee. You know, NIOSH's reply 

9 might be, "oh, we forgot to include the most 

10 recent dose reconstruction." That's okay. 

11 But at least it's brought to light. I have no 

12 problem making it an observation because over 

13 the years we have discussed this and the 

14 Subcommittee is aware that sometimes we find 

15 things that are not included in the dose 

16 reconstruction because it has to go through 

17 DOL.

18 So we’ve talked about this specific 

19 instance. I just want to make sure we don't 

20 miss it in the future for some other reason. An 

21 observation is fine with me.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. I 
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 don't hear any argument from other Subcommittee 

2 Members. I think you can accept that as a 

3 template to go forward with.

4 In the future, we will address this 

5 type of thing as an observation since it's a 

6 policy matter that we can't address. 

7 Now we can go to Observation 1 of 

8 Finding 221.

9 MR. FARVER: Observation 1.

10 DR. MAURO: I can help out a little 

11 bit again here.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 DR. MAURO: If you’d like. Our 

14 March 2013 report -- this goes back now to our 

15 review of the latest version of the Site Profile 

16 for Hooker -- has a number of findings, six 

17 findings, some of which are new, have new 

18 information.

19 And I do believe they do have direct 

20 bearing, namely, how those issues are resolved 

21 have direct bearing on Observation 1 and 

22 Observation 2. So these are certainly TBD 
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 issues. They’re TBD issues that have not, I 

2 don't believe, been resolved, been discussed 

3 and resolved.

4 And they go toward, really, 

5 concerns we have on the concentrations of the 

6 residue -- the concentrations of radioactivity 

7 in the residue which would affect both 

8 Observation 1 and Observation 2 having to do 

9 with external radiation fields. And so I think 

10 that these are items that really need to await 

11 resolution by the AWE Work Group.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I agree with 

13 John's assessment, personally. And that 

14 applies to both Observations 1, 2 and 4.

15 MR. FARVER: What type of wording 

16 would you like me just to include there? Just

17 something simple.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: The statement 

19 that it needs to be addressed by the AWE meeting 

20 is appropriate, I think, for Observation 1 and 

21 Observation 2, because really what we're saying 

22 here is that these Hooker issues are still 
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 outstanding in the Work Group. Observation 3 

2 is different.

3 MR. FARVER: You closed that one, 

4 yes?

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, we want 

6 to close that. It was recommended in July but 

7 I don't think we got to this last time we were 

8 looking at it. And so I've asked the 

9 Subcommittee Members to take a look at 

10 Observation 3 and see if we can close that this 

11 time.

12 MR. KATZ: Does someone want to 

13 state the observation?

14 MR. FARVER: "The basis for the 

15 median exposure rate of 0.376 mR per day for 

16 contaminated surfaces was not apparent in 

17 TBD-6001. SC&A performed a corroborating 

18 calculation resulting in a value of .026 mR per 

19 calendar day, a value lower than was used in the 

20 dose reconstruction."

21 And the last sentence of NIOSH's 

22 response is, "the TBD since has been revised." 
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 Or did I read the wrong observation?

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: No, but you're 

3 reading Observation 2 and I had thought that we 

4 were covering that with our statement that the 

5 Work Group still had something to do. But --

6 DR. MAURO: The Observation 2, 

7 there's a process we're going through here 

8 where, at the time, we looked at it, checked 

9 some numbers. But that was before, you know, 

10 we came up with this new set of findings related 

11 to the Hooker Site Profile.

12 So we have a whole new set of 

13 findings with new information that could have 

14 a bearing on this that we, I think, need to wait 

15 to see how that unfolds before we could close 

16 out Observation 2, even though the argument is 

17 made here that, you know, that the methodology 

18 is actually an overestimate.

19 That needs to be reconsidered in 

20 light of the new information that we now have 

21 provided NIOSH with in our March 2013 review of 

22 the Hooker Site Profile.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: So we are 

2 carrying this forward. There's still work to 

3 be done both by the Work Group and by SC&A, 

4 correct?

5 DR. MAURO: I agree.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So 

7 that's carried forward. 

8 MR. FARVER: Well, this is an 

9 observation. We don't usually track these as 

10 being open and closed.

11 DR. MAURO: Yeah, we do have an 

12 interesting dilemma, I have to admit. I would 

13 have thought that these would have been 

14 findings.

15 In other words, at this point, at 

16 this stage in the process, perhaps something 

17 that previously we considered to be an 

18 observation, in light of the new work that was 

19 done where we may very well find that we don't 

20 agree with the assumption regarding exposure 

21 times, the five percent exposure time, nor do 

22 we agree with the concentrations of uranium in 
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 the residue, and we have our reasons for that, 

2 which really changes all Site Profile issues, 

3 of course. 

4 Now, what do you do with that now 

5 that we're dealing with real cases that were 

6 based on a previous Site Profile, a previous set 

7 of assumptions, and now we know -- at this point 

8 in the process, it's the Site Profile that we 

9 had issue with and we think needs to be 

10 reconsidered.

11 And let's say NIOSH agrees that 

12 you’re right, we agree that those comments 

13 you're making regarding exposure times and 

14 concentrations of uranium in the residue are 

15 legitimate, and then you'd have to take a look 

16 at that point to see the effect that it might 

17 have or might not have on this particular dose 

18 reconstruction.

19 I'm not saying it would have a 

20 substantial effect, but it does mean that you 

21 have to take a look at that. Is that an 

22 observation, that kind of situation?
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, this 

2 issue comes up almost every meeting of the 

3 Subcommittee, I think. And when we get into a 

4 situation like this one, which we will have 

5 consistently in every meeting from now on when 

6 we are looking at items that have not been 

7 covered by the Subcommittee before, we're going 

8 to have the same issue arise again and again and 

9 again.

10 It would behoove us, I think, to 

11 make some general guidelines for how we're 

12 going to approach these things, because it's 

13 obvious the same issue is going to arise 

14 repeatedly. 

15 And we thought we knew what we were 

16 doing when we decided what was going to be an 

17 observation and what was not. But as John 

18 points out, the circumstances change, as do the 

19 data that we have to rely on as time goes 

20 forward. So I'm at a loss, personally, to know 

21 how to proceed with this. I personally think 

22 that observations serve a good purpose just 
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 being observations. But there's certainly an 

2 argument to be made from time to time that 

3 they've risen to the level of a finding. And 

4 I don't know of anything that we can do other 

5 than address these on a case-by-case basis. 

6 But we still would be well advised, I think, to 

7 give some consideration to what guidelines 

8 we're going to apply.

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I would 

10 suggest you just leave this open, because 

11 whether this deserves to be a finding or an 

12 observation will also, I assume, get resolved

13 when you get resolution of the findings on the 

14 Site Profile review.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That will help. 

16 As long as we are awaiting the work from the 

17 applicable Work Group, it seems reasonable to 

18 leave them, as Ted suggests, open.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Observation 3, 

21 however, falls in an entirely different 

22 category. That's back to the PFG question. 
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 And we have a similar recommendation to the one 

2 that we have worked with before that recommends 

3 closing the issue.

4 That would be my recommendation as 

5 well, even though, as Doug points out, we have 

6 not been in the business of opening or closing 

7 observations. But if we're going to carry them 

8 and address them individually it seems that we 

9 need to have a process for closing. And I would 

10 recommend our saying that this is closed.

11 DR. MAURO: I agree. This goes 

12 back to this PFG business that across the board 

13 we're closing. You notice in the last set when 

14 we talked about Appendix BB, GSI, we closed

15 these issues, because we can. That issue has 

16 been resolved for some time now. And I don't 

17 see keeping this open for any purpose.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Unless I hear 

19 negative comments from the other Subcommittee 

20 Members, we're going to close this. 

21 (No response.)

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Hearing none, 
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 Doug, would you please indicate the 

2 Subcommittee closed this?

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: As of this 

5 date. 

6 Now, when we get down to Observation 

7 4, we're back to the business of just leaving 

8 it open because there are documents coming that 

9 may change it. Any problem with that?

10 (No response.)

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's more of 

12 the airborne concentration issue. Observation 

13 5.

14 MR. FARVER: Observation 5. SC&A 

15 questions the assumption that the airborne 

16 concentrations remain constant during the 

17 period of residual radioactivity. This is 

18 especially true since the slag handling with 

19 attendant dust deposition and resuspension 

20 occurred out of doors. However, the 

21 assumption used in the dose reconstruction is 

22 claimant-favorable. That sounds like the 
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 outdoor resuspension issue.

2 DR. MAURO: I would go a step 

3 further, though. Certainly resuspension is at 

4 play here but so is the concentration in the 

5 residue. And I believe we're going to find 

6 that this concentration in the residue is at 

7 play in light of our work. So I'm not sure we 

8 can close this.

9 In other words, I think that, you 

10 know, in the issue before we were talking about 

11 resuspension factors and it was a narrower 

subject. There was no problem there; the 10-6 12

13 seemed to work. But remember here now we're 

14 talking about the combination of the 

15 resuspension factor with the residue.

16 And do we agree that the concentration of the 

17 uranium, the residue, is in fact a good number? 

18 I know that from our work on the Site 

19 Profile issue we have some concerns with that. 

20 And so I don't know, I think this falls into that 

21 same category where we have to await the AWE 

22 findings, the Work Group findings.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: So may we add to 

2 the SC&A response there that poses a question? 

3 Can we answer the question and, whether we can 

4 or cannot, we will be leaving this open 

5 apparently. But should we respond to the 

6 question?

7 I would assume that it does, that 

8 the response does apply to the residual period, 

9 since the observation questions residual 

10 radioactivity period. Is that not correct? 

11 The response does apply to the residual period.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, it does. And what 

13 the concentrations are -- but I think it's a 

14 residual period question but it's still an 

15 issue because, embedded in the model of 

16 resuspension and internal exposure, is what is 

17 the concentration in the residue?

18 And I think that we still might have 

19 to have some discussion on that subject with the 

20 AWE Work Group.

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah. And the 

22 Subcommittee, I think, would recommend that the 
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 slag issue be covered in the Work Group. And 

2 I'm assuming that they have that on their plate 

3 already, although I don't guess we can assume 

4 that completely.

5 There's no Member of that Work Group 

6 on the Subcommittee is there? I'm not aware of 

7 it. Do any of you have an assignment to the AWE 

8 Work Group? 

9 (No response.)

10 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I do not. I 

11 don't think we have representation from that 

12 Work Group here.

13 So, Doug, may we just add an item to 

14 this, to the response, or to the Subcommittee's 

15 response that we will assume that the Work Group 

16 will address the slag issue in its 

17 deliberations.

18 MR. FARVER: What I put under 

19 SC&A's response was, "the issue does apply to 

20 the residual period, however, the 

21 concentration determination is an AWE Work 

22 Group issue."
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Excellent.

2 MR. FARVER: And then I have it 

3 open. I keep it marked as being opened.

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Sounds good to 

5 me. Any comment or any concern from other 

6 Subcommittee Members? 

7 (No response.)

8 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, then 

9 we'll leave that in that condition and we'll go 

10 on to Bethlehem Steel, the 11th set.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Bethlehem 

12 Steel, it's 238.1. And the finding is that the 

13 DR report should explain why no doses are 

14 assigned for the post-1952 residual period.

15 DR. MAURO: Perhaps I could help 

16 out a little bit here. Again, this goes toward 

17 the -- let me set the stage. I'll try to be 

18 brief. As you know, all the Bethlehem Steel 

19 issues really were addressed very early on in 

20 this project and they all were addressed within 

21 the context of the SEC, which was granted.

22 A new Site Profile was issued that 
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 addressed all the matters that were of concern. 

2 Now, however, you're going to have to help me 

3 out a little bit here. I don't know if SC&A 

4 ever reviewed the final version of the Site 

5 Profile. You know, all issues were resolved in 

6 principle around the SEC petitioned Evaluation 

7 Report. There's plenty -- the record goes on 

8 forever. And, you know, that's all been taken 

9 care of. 

10 Then there was a revised Site 

11 Profile that came out. And I have to admit I 

12 don't recall reviewing it. And it would have 

13 been something that I would have reviewed. 

14 Anybody in the room, Scott, do you recall 

15 whether we've been through this? Did we 

16 actually review it?

17 Now, that being said, whether we've 

18 gone through that process or not and the issues 

19 have been resolved or not, the argument made 

20 here, though, for this particular item is 

21 valid, made by NIOSH. Namely, as you may 

22 recall, while AWE activities, machining 
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 operations were going on at Bethlehem Steel for 

2 uranium -- that was done on weekends. And then 

3 they would resume during the week to go back to 

4 their steel operations, which put down loads of 

5 steel residue on top of the uranium. 

6 I would agree just, you know, the 

7 heuristic argument, that you're really not 

8 going to have very much potential to resuspend 

9 the relatively small amounts of uranium that 

10 might have been deposited during the weekend 

11 once you get started on the steel operations, 

12 which move into a lot larger quantities of 

13 material.

14 So, I mean, the argument made here 

15 is reasonable. Now, that's all within the 

16 context of, did we talk about this already? 

17 And, you know, it's part of the review of the 

18 revised final Site Profile which came in after 

19 all of the SEC business was taken care of.

20 And I have to admit that I'm at a 

21 loss. I really don't recall reviewing the 

22 final Site Profile, although, you know, I'm not 
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 sure.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, John, this is Ted. 

3 I can't tell you whether you reviewed the final 

4 Site Profile or not. I don't recall. But 

5 there was definitely a whole lot of 

6 conversation about this issue.

7 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah.

8 MR. KATZ: That definitely was 

9 discussed by not just SC&A but by the Board as 

10 well.

11 DR. MAURO: Yeah, yeah.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: But I don't 

13 think that discussion took place necessarily in 

14 this Subcommittee. I'm unaware of a lot of 

15 that conversation going on here, but certainly 

16 in other venues of the Board it was discussed.

17 DR. MAURO: Yeah, this particular 

18 issue is kind of unique to Bethlehem Steel. It 

19 is not something we would have encountered 

20 elsewhere, where you have, you know, these 

21 other operations just dwarfing the uranium 

22 operations that occur on the weekends.
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 I know we talked about this issue 

2 and I have to say that it'll take a little 

3 homework perhaps either on my part or NIOSH's 

4 part to go back and to see, you know, where, how 

5 did this all end? In other words, are there any 

6 remaining Site Profile issues with Bethlehem 

7 Steel that yet need to be resolved?

8 You know, I'd have to check that out. I'm not 

9 sure.

10 MR. STIVER: John, this is Stiver. 

11 I was going through my records and I'm not 

12 finding any indication that we ever reviewed 

13 the May 23, 2013, update.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay, yeah, because I 

15 don't recall doing it. But that doesn't mean 

16 we didn't. Okay, thanks, John. So it sounds 

17 like we do have a situation where maybe there's 

18 some merit to putting that to bed. Because, you 

19 know, there have been cases in the past where 

20 we would take care of all the hot button SEC 

21 issues and never really get back to the Site 

22 Profile issues.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. STIVER: Yeah, some of those 

2 have kind of fallen off the radar screen, 

3 unfortunately. This may be one of those cases.

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, it 

5 appears to me that, the SEC notwithstanding, 

6 SC&A needs to be directed to review last year's 

7 NIOSH review on residual contamination at 

8 Bethlehem. Is there any alternate or opposed 

9 recommendation?

10 (No response.)

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, it 

12 seems appropriate to me that SC&A be instructed 

13 to review that document and hopefully apply it 

14 to this finding and see if we can close this out.

15 MR. STIVER: Okay, we will take 

16 that action.

17 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you much, 

18 John. 

19 Move on to Finding 238.2. NIOSH 

20 elected to assign occupational medical dose on 

21 the basis of a claimant-unfavorable 

22 assumption. And the NIOSH response: This is 
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 another PFG issue. SC&A has concurred and 

2 recommends closing.

3 Do I hear any concern with this 

4 closure? 

5 (No response.)

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Then I'm going 

7 to indicate that the Subcommittee agrees with 

8 the recommendation to close this issue and it's 

9 closed.

10 That will move us to Item 238.3, 

11 which has been paid through an SEC.

12 Recommendation to close it. Speak now if you 

13 have opposition. 

14 (No response.)

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: If not, the 

16 Subcommittee recommends the closure of 238.3.

17 MR. FARVER: Wanda, just for my 

18 information, the SEC covers prior to '52, or '52 

19 and before, or some period before '52. Is that 

20 correct?

21 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I would have to 

22 go back and look at it. Can someone answer that 
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 question specifically?

2 MR. FARVER: I believe that's why 

3 this one is covered under the SEC, because of 

4 the time period.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Correct, I think it's 

6 '49 to '52, but I would have to check.

7 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct, 

8 Grady.

9 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Covered quite a 

10 chunk.

11 DR. MAURO: I've got an interesting 

12 question. Bear with me. Though this is an 

13 issue, it is really no longer an issue because 

14 everyone agreed that while you really can't 

15 reconstruct doses during this time period and 

16 the SEC was granted -- now, stay with me.

17 Now I recall the reason the SEC was 

18 granted had to do with cutting these cobbles. 

19 No, no, it was a cutting -- there was a cutting 

20 operation going on, yes. And there was a 

21 specific reason why the SEC was granted.

22 But there were other aspects of 
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 exposures that it was agreed that could be 

2 reconstructed, some of the rolling operations, 

3 placing a plausible upper bound. Some of the 

4 external exposures, placing a plausible upper 

5 bound.

6 But it was this actual cutting of 

7 the cobbles, using a torch, where I remember 

8 standing up in front of the full meeting 

9 discussing this issue and the idea that 

10 surrogate data, in that particular case, was 

11 strained. And everyone agreed.

12 You know, it was difficult to figure 

13 out what the dust loading would be to these 

14 people involved in cutting the cobbles with a 

15 torch. And I think a lot of the SEC decision 

16 rested with that particular issue.

17 Now, that being the case, one could 

18 argue that if you have a worker who has a type 

19 of cancer that's not covered by the SEC and he's 

20 working during this time period and, you know, 

21 you're sort of obligated to say, okay, we're 

22 going to do a partial for this person, as best 
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 you can.

2 If there are still issues, this 

3 brings us back to the Site Profile, if there are 

4 still Site Profile issues at play, that may bear 

5 on how you would do a partial for a person who 

6 is not compensated or covered. Now, in this 

7 case, I don't know if we're dealing with a 

8 person who has been compensated under the SEC 

9 or not.

10 But let's say he's a person that was 

11 not compensated.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, it says, 

13 this statement says this claim was paid.

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. Then I take 

15 that back. Okay, well, you see where I'm 

16 headed with this.

17 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, yeah, and 

18 I follow your argument absolutely. And in a 

19 generic sense, you're absolutely correct. But 

20 of course, in these cases we're looking 

21 specifically at this claim and no other.

22 DR. MAURO: And he's closed.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

2 DR. MAURO: And absolutely you're 

3 right. If he's compensated, that's the end of 

4 the story.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Right.

6 MEMBER POSTON: Wanda, this is 

7 John.

8 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

9 MEMBER POSTON: I hate to be a party 

10 pooper but in about ten minutes I'm going to 

11 have to go to class.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, I know, 

13 you got to do what you got to do, John. We will 

14 miss you, and please tell us when you're signing 

15 off specifically so that we will shut things 

16 down.

17 And as a matter of fact, with the 

18 warning that you've given us before you go the 

19 one thing we would like to try to take a look 

20 at, I think, is when our next meeting is going 

21 to be. If you have your calendar there, and the 

22 other folks are available as well, it will save 
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 us some grief if we can define a range of dates, 

2 at least, in which we can move forward.

3 Now, bear in mind that we have, 

4 gosh, how many, we're almost finished with --

5 this is not a lengthy group that we have in this 

6 matrix. But this only gets us through 10 

7 through 13, correct? And we have all of the 

8 other response sets from 14 through 18 that we 

9 need to deal with.

10 So I am quite sure that your 

11 Chairman would want to schedule another full 

12 day of meeting. And we need to know when an 

13 appropriate time would be for that. There is 

14 some concern about getting through this sooner 

15 than later.

16 So my recommendation would be to 

17 begin by thinking in terms of about a month from 

18 now. Please tell me if everybody feels that is 

19 too soon, if we need to be looking at December 

20 or whether we can look at something either the 

21 last week of November or --

22 MR. KATZ: No, Wanda, you can't --
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: That's

2 Thanksgiving Day, you can't do that.

3 MR. KATZ: No, Wanda, this is a 

4 Subcommittee. You can't meet without Federal 

5 Register notice and so on.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. You 

7 have to have 30 days for that. Which puts us 

8 into December no matter what.

9 MR. KATZ: You can't even think 

10 about it before, I would say, the week of, let's 

11 see --

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: December 8th?

13 MR. KATZ: I would say the 

14 beginning of -- let's see, hold on.

15 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We have the 

16 Test Site in Cincinnati on the 3rd.

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think we'd be 

18 okay the week of December 8th and forward.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: But also we have two Board 

21 Members who aren't on the line either. So 

22 whatever we do right now is tentative.
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 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It's tentative. 

2 My suggestion would be the week of the 8th.

3 MEMBER POSTON: That's a great 

4 time. That's a great time for me. Monday and 

5 Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday there are no 

6 classes.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Super. 

8 Alright. So John is available. Let's say 

9 Tuesday through Thursday?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Monday through 

11 Thursday.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm 

13 sorry. I'm going to be a pain. I'm available 

14 Monday that week but I'm on travel the rest of 

15 the week.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: How mean.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. 

19 Well, we do the best we can. I have no 

20 objection to Monday meetings but I know some 

21 people do.

22 MEMBER POSTON: That would be fine 
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 with me.

2 MR. KATZ: How about David?

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that's 

4 okay.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, let's come 

6 up with a second date at least, because our 

7 other two Members aren't on the line and that's 

8 cutting it close in terms of the Federal 

9 Register notice. So what about the 15th, 16th 

10 or 17th?

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: I would be 

12 available any one of those three.

13 MR. KATZ: How about everybody 

14 else?

15 MEMBER POSTON: I think I could 

16 make 15th, 16th, 17th, yeah.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'd be good with 

18 it. This is Brad.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, Brad. And David?

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's 

21 December?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes. December 15th, 
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 16th or 17th.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yeah, that 

3 works.

4 MR. KATZ: Any of those? Okay. 

5 That's a good number of dates actually to run 

6 by the other two Members.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, that's 

8 great.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you. 

10 Thanks for that.

11 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you. 

12 We're good to go now, John, I think. Thank you 

13 for your help.

14 MR. KATZ: And John has to leave in 

15 five minutes.

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah. We'll 

17 give ourselves another five minutes. Maybe we 

18 can get through 238 here and then we'll assume 

19 you'll be gone after that.

20 Now then, 238.4 is a similar thing. 

21 It's paid through the SEC. Unless I hear from 

22 the contrary, the Subcommittee is going to 
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 close that per the recommendation of SC&A.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: What's the 

3 flag of M, mean?

4 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: What's the 

5 what?

6 MR. KATZ: Code M.

7 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Oh, I don't 

8 know. That's the coding that -- I was saying 

9 I'm always remiss in not getting that coding in 

10 front of me when we're looking at them. I'm not 

11 certain what that category is.

12 DR. MAURO: I might make a guess at 

13 it. In our scorecard in our DR reports in Table 

14 2, we assign the importance of the finding as 

15 high, medium or low in terms of the significance 

16 to not only the dose reconstruction for the 

17 person but also to the program in general. And 

18 I'm guessing that's what this means.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Oh, really? I 

20 had thought we had an entire -- but you could 

21 be right.

22 DR. MAURO: I'm making a wild guess 
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 here.

2 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Well, no, we're 

3 only seeing H and L and that's -- you're 

4 probably right. But, golly, I had thought that 

5 there all kinds of letters involved there. But 

6 maybe you're right.

7 In any case, we can't give you a 

8 definitive answer. It is to be seen on some of 

9 our older matrices.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes, that stands for 

11 Medium.

12 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: So that was important. 

14 And there was a time period where we 

15 experimented with a new way of categorizing 

16 people or issues into five different 

17 categories, such as QA, internal dose, external 

18 dose and things like that into five categories.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah.

20 MR. FARVER: But that's a different 

21 code than this. And --

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It's a 
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 categorization method, one of several that we 

2 use. That's the bottom line.

3 MR. FARVER: And we probably should 

4 go back to include that in here if that is the 

5 way we want to start categorizing in addition 

6 to the high, medium and lows of our table. It 

7 can get a little confusing, though.

8 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: It does get 

9 confusing, yeah. And let's don't take time to 

10 debate that. I will put that on my list of 

11 things to talk about and suggest that go on the

12 agenda next time. I'll suggest that to Dr. 

13 Kotelchuck. 

14 And that being the case, are we 

15 shortchanging you with that, David, or will 

16 that do for your concern?

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I was just 

18 wondering if we were tracking QC issues.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yeah, we are 

20 tracking QC issues. Yes, we are. And Doug's 

21 very cautious about trying to make sure that 

22 happens.
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: I would like to have us 

2 go to one method, though, of categorizing, just 

3 for bookkeeping. I mean, it's a little easier 

4 if we just have one code in there than putting 

5 two codes for each finding.

6 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it 

7 certainly would be. Would it be appropriate 

8 for me to suggest that, Doug, you and the folks 

9 who deal with this at SC&A give some thought to 

10 how we ought to address this categorization 

11 issue and give us a little suggestion before our 

12 next meeting so that Dr. Kotelchuck will have 

13 a suggestion from the folks who are on the 

14 ground doing it as to how to proceed? That

15 would be helpful I think for us.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. We will do 

17 that.

18 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thank you 

19 much. I do appreciate it.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay, Wanda, I do 

21 believe it's time to adjourn.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. 
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 We've lost our people and there's --

2 MEMBER POSTON: So long.

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you, John, for 

4 hanging in there.

5 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: We really 

6 appreciate it. Bye-bye.

7 MR. KATZ: Take care, everybody.

8 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We're 

9 going to stop right there where we are. We left 

10 off at 238.3. And my guess is that's probably 

11 where we'll take up in December, whenever that 

12 is.

13 MR. KATZ: And, Wanda, thank you 

14 for chairing. I appreciate that.

15 MR. FARVER: Did we close it?

16 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. So we're going 

18 to start with 238.4.

19 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

20 MR. KATZ: Take care. Thank you, 

21 Doug. And thank you, John Mauro.

22 ACTING CHAIR MUNN: Thanks to all. 
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 We'll see you soon. Bye-bye.

2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

3 matter went off the record at 1:25 p.m.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18