NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

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

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

MAY 21, 2013

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., David Kotelchuck, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member*

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member*

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS*

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team*

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Discussion

Items Related to NIOSH 10-Year Review

DCAS "Blind" Dose Reconstruction

Quality Control Case Reviews.... 5

SC&A DR Review Findings Checklist &

Blind Case Selection ..................... 42

Case Reviews Issue Resolution

Sets 8 - 9 ......................... 136

Sets 10 - 13 Savannah River Site ... 314
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 9:00 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board of Radiation Worker Health Dose 

5 Reconstruction Review Subcommittee, and let us 

6 begin with roll call. We're speaking to a 

7 number of sites; but, for all these sites 

8 we're speaking to, we don't have any Members 

9 with conflicts so we don't need to address 

10 their conflicts for this. 

11 So let's go with beginning with 

12 Board Members in the room first.

13 (Roll Call.)

14 MR. KATZ: Let me check and see do 

15 we have any members of the public on the line? 

16 (No response.)

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. The agenda 

18 is posted on the website and should have been 

19 circulated to all of you staff and Members. 

20 Just a slight amendment. In addition for the 

21 second set of items, which is SC&A DR review, 

22 etcetera, findings checklist, in addition to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 the blind case selection discussion, we also 

2 will talk briefly about Set 17, doing case 

3 selection for Set 17. And then that's the 

4 only change for the agenda. The rest will go 

5 as it's indicated, I think.

6 And, Grady, you're on.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Yes, I didn't 

8 get that assessment put into the folder until 

9 this morning. However, I did email it to 

10 everybody with a CDC email address yesterday. 

11 And, basically, what we've got is we didn't 

12 make a whole lot more progress on these. We 

13 only completed six since the last time we 

14 talked. 

15 Basically, just an overview of 

16 what we've got in the pipes. We've got 97 

17 selected for review. We've completed 32 blind 

18 DRs. That leaves 65 that we have in other 

19 various stages of completion. The number of 

20 DRs that we've found where there was actually 

21 a switch in compensation decision in that 

22 ORAU's determination was wrong, we did have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 one of the six where our DCAS HP came up with 

2 a compensation decision that was different. 

3 The follow-up few, a review of those found 

4 that our guy was wrong and he erred in his 

5 internal dose calculation, and ORAU dose 

6 reconstruction was correct.

7 The big thing that we're finding, 

8 and we're actually getting stuck and you guys 

9 touched on it a little bit last month, is the 

10 tools. We've had some real difficulties 

11 getting the tools that ORAU uses available to 

12 us. And, oddly, the issue was computer 

13 security, and NIOSH and maybe even CDC was 

14 having issues with not only the Monte Carlo

15 type programs that we were using but the way 

16 the programs were accessed.

17 We believe we've got that one 

18 solved. Last -- not last week because I 

19 wasn't here last week. Two weeks ago, I 

20 believe, we started receiving the tools over 

21 on our side, and we're in the process of 

22 testing them and make sure that they can be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 run from our side. Once that happens, we're 

2 going to have a training program, so we get 

3 trained on the same as ORAU is, and we're 

4 going to make that available to people here 

5 that are doing blind DRs, as well. 

6 So it's in process right now. But 

7 I think that we've got the biggest hurdle 

8 handled, as far as getting the tools over to 

9 our side.

10 MR. KATZ: So will you just notify 

11 us when -- I mean, I'm assuming, Doug, you'll 

12 want this training.

13 MR. FARVER: Well, we'll just have 

14 to discuss how we're going to work it out with 

15 the blinds. You know, we've talked about 

16 several different ways, so I guess when we get 

17 to that --

18 MR. CALHOUN: And I would hope, 

19 you know, and I may be wrong, but I would hope 

20 you would be able to access that remotely. 

21 There was some initial talk that we would only 

22 be able to set up stand-alone PCs or laptops 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 at our facility, but I think that they've 

2 overcome that, but we'll see and I'll 

3 certainly let you know. 

4 MR. FARVER: That would be great. 

5 And even if you just want to load a laptop 

6 with them, that's fine, too. However it 

7 works, I'm pretty --

8 MR. CALHOUN: One of the bigger 

9 issues was that the way the tools work is they 

10 go out and, you know -- Scott, you can speak 

11 up if I'm talking out of school here -- but I 

12 believe they'll go out and grab what's the 

13 most current version. And so that's one way 

14 that we get version control, and stand-alone 

15 may not be able to do that as well. But that 

16 was one of the big security issues is they 

17 don't want you simply go out and grab 

18 something, I guess. And I'm not smart enough 

19 about that kind of thing to even know that 

20 that's an issue, but I'm pretty sure that was 

21 it. 

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well, we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 work something out, either we can do it 

2 through the CDC network or if I come up there 

3 for a day or two. I figure I just want all 

4 the workbooks --

5 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

6 MR. FARVER: -- all the cases, 

7 then go back, so . . . 

8 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we'll figure it 

9 out. And I don't think it's going to be, you 

10 know, months. You know, I don't think -- I 

11 think it's going to be sooner than that. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. Because months 

13 would be a problem because SC&A has through 

14 December to get these six blind dose 

15 reconstructions done. 

16 MR. FARVER: So it's easier just 

17 for me to close here and run the workbooks.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, just keep us 

19 abreast of whatever will end up being most 

20 expedient, and SC&A will jump on it as soon as 

21 they can. Oh, welcome. Come in and set up. 

22 You're covered on the phone right now. And 
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

1 then as soon as you're ready, let us know and 

2 we can trade horses. 

3 For the court reporter on the 

4 phone, so your colleague is here in the room, 

5 but he needs to set up. 

6 COURT REPORTER: I'll hang on for 

7 a while. 

8 MR. KATZ: Thanks. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: That's all I have as 

10 far as update. 

11 MR. FARVER: You mentioned the one 

12 case that your numbers were significantly 

13 different than the ORAU numbers. 

14 MR. CALHOUN: They were. 

15 MR. FARVER: Could you talk about 

16 that case? Because I think you were 18 

17 percent PoC, and they were at 57 percent PoC. 

18 That's a pretty significant error.

19 MR. CALHOUN: It is. It's a very 

20 significant error, and I don't have all of the 

21 details, other than, because there was very 

22 little written down here in this form. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 just from talking to the people, it just 

2 appears that they were actually positive for 

3 missed internal doses recorded in his 

4 dosimetry reports that were just not entered 

5 somehow. 

6 MR. FARVER: See, that's the one 

7 that bothers me because if you can be at 18 

8 percent and not really know that you're that 

9 far off, actual PoC is 57 percent, that's a 

10 big difference.

11 MR. CALHOUN: I'm with you. And 

12 the deal, too, is that we don't have, like 

13 ORAU does in the normal process, we don't have 

14 the multiple layers of recheck. And in this 

15 one, we had the one comparison of the two, and 

16 our second person said that's wrong. You 

17 know, we've talked about putting a second 

18 layer in there, but we just don't want to do 

19 that. It's too time consuming to have another 

20 person do another DR on top of that. So I'm 

21 hoping that the tools may help this, but I 

22 just don't know if it will or not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 MR. FARVER: I noticed it on some 

2 of the other cases.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I got that 

4 written down as an observation, too. I can 

5 tell you what they were, though. 

6 MR. FARVER: The numbers are four 

7 and five percent.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Right, right. I got 

9 those down here, and I went through. And 

10 that's an issue, too, and I don't know if the 

11 timing of that -- you know, we just added that 

12 block in the QA form to list the total PoCs 

13 for both cases, and I don't know if these were 

14 completed before that was added or not but 

15 that's irrelevant. Let me find out here.

16 MR. FARVER: Because for the ones 

17 that the PoC is listed, it's like one person 

18 is at 4.6 percent and another is at 4.9. They 

19 seem to be relatively close, except for that 

20 one case where it's 18 to 57. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Let me tell 

22 you here. Hold on. Okay. I'm not going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 list case numbers, but one, ours was 12.12. 

2 Theirs was -- and this isn't, this is one that 

3 wasn't listed. Theirs was 37.77. One was 4.9 

4 and one was 4.66, like you said. One was 

5 4.17, and one was 5.32. Another one, we got 

6 16.48 and they got 4.96. And another 

7 overestimate was 28.45, and they got 0.52. 

8 That's something that we'll make sure that our 

9 guys start adding that to the QA form 

10 afterwards. The person who does that review 

11 can make sure that that's added into there.

12 MR. FARVER: You mentioned the one 

13 was about 12 percent and the other was 33 

14 percent.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: That's also quite a 

17 range.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Is there any kind of 

20 trigger in there that if it's such a large 

21 spread you say, maybe we should go back and 

22 look at this? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 MR. CALHOUN: I'd have to look at 

2 that one in particular, but not so much 

3 because it's just a degree of overestimate, 

4 you know.

5 MR. FARVER: By someone or 

6 underestimating by someone.

7 MR. CALHOUN: The only time it 

8 really bothers me is if there's something 

9 that's close to 50 percent or one is a 

10 different compensation decision than the other 

11 one.

12 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

13 Behling. Can I also ask a question? 

14 MR. KATZ: Sure. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Please do, Kathy. 

16 MS. BEHLING: I'm wondering are 

17 you finding that this random selection process 

18 for these cases is working well for you? 

19 Because what I'm seeing also on the report 

20 that was sent out yesterday, a lot of the 

21 cases, as you said, are the lower PoCs, and 

22 I've questioned if, you know, we do know that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 we can easily screen based on cancer, job 

2 description, and years of employment, and 

3 you're likely to identify cases that will 

4 require a best estimate approach, as opposed 

5 to maybe an overestimate or an underestimate. 

6 And the reason I would hope that you're going 

7 to capture all of those different approaches 

8 is because, depending on the approach used, 

9 you're going to be using different protocols. 

10 For example, if you are, if you're 

11 overestimating a case, likely, for your 

12 internal, you're going to use something like 

13 an OTIB-2, which would be your hypothetical 

14 internal intake, versus using an IMBA or CADW 

15 program. Same with external. Perhaps, like a 

16 case that I thought would come up somewhere 

17 around 4 percent, I know, for me, I would 

18 likely use, perhaps, for the external an OTIB19 8 or OTIB-10 procedure, which is your external 

20 overestimate for film and/or TLD versus using 

21 an OTIB-12 procedure, which is Monte Carlo. 

22 And so to ensure that you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 looking at all of the different procedures and 

2 all of the different approaches used, I'm 

3 still wondering if you couldn't go to 

4 something of a screening process to look at 

5 these blinds.

6 MR. CALHOUN: We could. I don't 

7 think that we're considering it at this point. 

8 I think we're happy with the random selection 

9 and what we're doing right now. I don't think 

10 that that's on anybody's radar as having, 

11 wanting to change that because they're all 

12 important, not just the ones closer to 50 

13 percent. But they're all important, so this 

14 gives us a flavor of everything and all the 

15 different cases and all the different sites.

16 MS. BEHLING: And I agree with 

17 that, provided this selection process is 

18 identifying some of the best estimate cases 

19 because, obviously, they don't make up a large 

20 percentage of the cases that are out there. 

21 And I just want to, I would hope that this 

22 random process is going to select enough cases 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 that you will get to look at, as I said, all 

2 of the different approaches, not only the 

3 overestimate and the underestimate but the 

4 best estimate approach, too, just because of 

5 using the different protocols associated with 

6 those approaches.

7 MR. CALHOUN: It certainly will. 

8 Only -- you know, and they'll be, I guess 

9 theoretically, in the same proportion as the 

10 number done. The only ones that we are, I'll 

11 say intentionally, I won't say screening out 

12 but avoiding, I guess that's screening out, is 

13 if there's more than, like, ten cancers, we're 

14 not going to do those just because it's just 

15 too time consuming. That may change once we 

16 get the tools in place, but right now it just 

17 takes up too much time.

18 MS. BEHLING: I understand. One 

19 other question. I wondered if you're thinking 

20 about, and, again, the random selection 

21 process would likely capture this, but I would 

22 assume that you wouldn't want a blind that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 looks at each, for each member of the ORAU 

2 dose reconstruction team so that you know 

3 you've looked at all the dose reconstructors 

4 out there, you've done a blind against all of 

5 those. I mean, for example, I know if I saw a 

6 case that Scott Siebert's name was on for the 

7 internal, I'd want to look real close at that 

8 one. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: Well, actually, our 

10 goal is not to look, our goal is to look at 

11 the process, not at the individuals. So 

12 that's certainly not in any of our plans.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. 

14 I'll totally ignore that, Kathy. 

15 MS. BEHLING: I hope you know I'm 

16 just --

17 MR. SIEBERT: Another point is, 

18 remember, DCAS is selecting these claims 

19 before they even come over to us, so they have 

20 no idea what dose reconstructors are going to 

21 do to the claim. 

22 MR. CALHOUN: Good point, yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 MS. BEHLING: I didn't realize 

2 that. I thought I read differently. Okay. 

3 And one last question on this. And I guess 

4 you're probably doing this, setting up some 

5 type of spreadsheet so that you will 

6 ultimately compare all of the blinds that have 

7 been done, and I'm saying this because SC&A 

8 has only done two blinds so far and I'm the 

9 person that has done the comparison. We 

10 actually at SC&A have two different people 

11 using totally different approaches for doing 

12 the dose reconstruction, and then we compare 

13 that to the ORAU NIOSH dose reconstruction. 

14 And even in just those two cases that we've 

15 looked at, when I compared element by element, 

16 I found it interesting in such as the aspect 

17 of medical doses. In both cases, all 

18 approaches used the same, the same procedure 

19 and they came up with very different doses and 

20 it was just because of assumptions made. And 

21 it made me say, well, this is a really great 

22 approach to saying perhaps we could go back 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 into that procedure and maybe be a little bit 

2 more specific, not give as much professional 

3 judgment to people, if that's possible. But 

4 it would be a way of going into that procedure 

5 and looking a little closer and saying can we 

6 tighten this up a little bit so that these 

7 doses are more comparable when everyone is 

8 using the same procedure, and I assume that 

9 you're making these types of, you will make 

10 the comparison as best you can when this whole 

11 process is done or during the process. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we will. And I 

13 don't know when we'll do that, but I see a lot 

14 of value in that, as well. Certainly, we do 

15 the little assessments in between each DR 

16 Subcommittee meeting or two, but I think once 

17 we get, you know, a hundred DR blinds or 

18 whatever underneath us, and I just pulled that 

19 number out but I think it's a good number, 

20 then we need to go back and look and see if we 

21 see any trends between everything.

22 Now, right now, the only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 spreadsheet I've got going is just the overall 

2 PoCs between, between ours and theirs. But 

3 the QC form is searchable by our computer 

4 folks, so we should be able to compile 

5 something like that, too. Now, certainly, the 

6 text that's entered may be difficult and it 

7 may take some time, but I do see the value in 

8 doing that to see if maybe we need to increase 

9 or even decrease the frequency in which we 

10 select these blind DRs. So I agree with you, 

11 Kathy. 

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Very good. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. KATZ: Let me just interrupt 

15 for a second. We're ready to switch hands 

16 between court reporters, Brandon. So, 

17 Brandon, you can disengage at this point.

18 COURT REPORTER: Okay, thank you.

19 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

20 went off the record at 9:21 a.m. 

21 and went back on the record at 

22 9:22 a.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 MR. KATZ: And our new court 

2 reporter will start, and let me just 

3 introduce, for people in the room at least. 

4 This is Grady Calhoun, he's with NIOSH; Doug 

5 Farver, SC&A; David Richardson, he's one of 

6 the Board Members; Brad Clawson, another Board 

7 Member; Dave Kotelchuck, he's the Chair. And 

8 then on the line, we have Mark Griffon, 

9 another Board Member; and John Poston, another 

10 Board Member; and Wanda Munn, another Board 

11 Member. And others will introduce themselves 

12 as they speak; and I'm Ted Katz, I'm the 

13 Designated Federal Official.

14 Alright. We're ready to continue. 

15 Sorry for the interruption.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. So 

17 where are we on the blinds? Are we pretty 

18 well finished? I'm having trouble on my 

19 computer, so I've been a little bit diverted. 

20 I just had it repaired and had to send it 

21 in, and it got reconnected and I'm having a 

22 bit of trouble outside of my home connection.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 So are we ready to go on to the --

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this is Wanda. 

3 I have a question. It's difficult, of 

4 course, I think, anytime for people who don't 

5 do reconstructions on a regular basis to 

6 sometimes follow these discussions, even 

7 though we're trying very hard to understand 

8 the specifics of what's being said. 

9 The discussion was very well 

10 accepted. I, however, do not have a clear 

11 vision yet of why these obvious significant 

12 differences in results are occurring from the 

13 different approaches that are taken. And it's 

14 not clear to me whether there may be more than 

15 one source for those differences or whether 

16 it's not yet clear to the people who are doing 

17 the audits of the dose reconstructions what 

18 these differences are. Am I missing something 

19 in that discussion, or is it so obvious to 

20 folks who do those all the time that I'm just 

21 gilding the lily here by asking the question? 

22 MR. CALHOUN: No, no, you're not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 There's a lot of or at least there's a fair 

2 amount of judgment that goes into these when 

3 you come to overestimating and underestimating 

4 cases. And, you know, a huge, huge number of 

5 the dose reconstructions, and I don't know 

6 what the number is off the top of my head, but 

7 I would say probably in the 90 percent range 

8 are overestimates or underestimates.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: And then there's 

11 always, there's a degree of overestimating or 

12 underestimating that you can do.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And those are valid, 

14 and professional judgment is valid. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: And so what happens 

16 is, the degree of overestimate causes 

17 significant differences in the Probability of 

18 Causation, and we're not that concerned about 

19 that, as long as the Probability of Causation 

20 doesn't switch over or under 50 percent or 

21 does not get into the 45 to 52 percent where a 

22 best estimate is required.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Now, the one case 

3 here that concerns us, concerns you and us as 

4 well, is one where our initial dose 

5 reconstructor appeared to have erred in the 

6 assignment of internal dose. And the dose 

7 that ORAU assigned was significantly higher 

8 than the dose our guy assigned. 

9 As it turned out, when our second 

10 reviewer, basically a peer-review-type thing 

11 when we compared two cases, when he looked at 

12 it, he determined that our dose reconstructor 

13 had erred and that the ORAU dose 

14 reconstruction was correct. And it all hinged 

15 on the assignment of internal dose, and I 

16 believe that that internal dose was actually, 

17 the uptakes were recorded in the dosimetry 

18 files.

19 Now, I can't tell you the details 

20 as far as: was it something like a solubility 

21 error or was it just the total intake error? 

22 I don't know that from looking at what was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 written down here. But that --

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's better for me 

3 now that I understand this is one of those 

4 issues of judgment and having two people with 

5 similar backgrounds and understanding of the 

6 realities. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: And I would say that 

8 this one was more of an error than a judgment.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Right, okay. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask a 

11 question? 

12 MR. CALHOUN: Sure. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: When we, when 

14 we first thought about this, and perhaps this 

15 is still the case, but when we first thought 

16 about this, I envisioned the NIOSH evaluation 

17 as a gold standard, and we were doing a random 

18 draw from the pool of claimant cases. We 

19 would put them against the gold standard and 

20 look for errors. So we were flagging out 

21 potential problems in the process. 

22 You've described a process where, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 in many cases, you appear to be flagging out 

2 errors in the NIOSH reconstruction, which, you 

3 know, upon re-review, you have a second, and 

4 you, finally, by consensus reach what you're 

5 calling your gold standard and saying that the 

6 initial evaluation by NIOSH wasn't what was 

7 desired. And I can see that. I mean, these 

8 are kind of human judgments that are being 

9 made.

10 We're not so much interested, I 

11 mean here I think, we're not so much 

12 interested in finding problems with NIOSH's 

13 review. It's almost like we're interested in 

14 that final conclusion that you reach, and we 

15 don't probably need to spend much time talking 

16 about situations in which NIOSH initially had 

17 some problems which, upon reevaluation --

18 because, really, we're interested in the truth

19 and the product being delivered and how is it 

20 performing in terms of fidelity to the truth. 

21 So that seems to be one observation, which is 

22 sort of just for efficiency of our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 communication.

2 The other part that I was struck 

3 with is when there's a noisy truth, which is 

4 that NIOSH is having problems and there's a 

5 noisy product being delivered, a product that 

6 which may suffer some error as well, one way 

7 that that's sometimes summarized is by some 

8 sort of scatter plot or forest plot. And I 

9 was trying to imagine what that would look 

10 like right now when you were describing those 

11 probabilities, the differences between 

12 [unintelligaible] -- it sounded to me like, my 

13 expectation would be that, in some cases, 

14 NIOSH would overestimate ORAU's job and in 

15 some cases would underestimate it and we would 

16 have noise around zero if they were both --

17 there would be a problem if, inherently, NIOSH 

18 was less claimant-friendly than ORAU or, vice 

19 versa, was more. We would say, well, we're 

20 running a program, we're bumping it up against 

21 something where you're always over, you know, 

22 being too generous and the contractor is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 looking like they're doing the problem2 solving.

3 I wasn't sure. It sounded to me 

4 like, in most of the cases, if we would 

5 subtract those two conclusions, NIOSH was 

6 coming out with the lower probabilities. 

7 There wasn't --

8 MR. CALHOUN: Not in general.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No? Was that 

10 not the case? 

11 MR. CALHOUN: No, no, no. And I 

12 believe that, based on what Kathy was telling 

13 us or what we had talked about, that overall 

14 review of this will help us, will help us in 

15 this regard. And I know that it is not --

16 give me a second here. I know that it's not 

17 statistically significant at this point, but 

18 let me just do --

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. It 

20 can't be. I'm just trying to think about how 

21 we want to, I guess, audit it. And in a 

22 sense, we want the best, we want the truth, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 but we also don't want a situation where we 

2 say, if everything hinges on getting above 50 

3 percent, then we need to be conscious of the 

4 different --

5 MR. CALHOUN: And I agree with 

6 you. And even though with just six cases 

7 here, if I look at these six cases, the PoCs 

8 that we came up with, four of the six were 

9 under, two of the six were over. So we're one 

10 off 50/50. And like I said, I know that's not 

11 statistically significant, but when we get a 

12 hundred of these or whatever, we can run 

13 through and we can compare. And I agree with 

14 you. You know, we should be falling on both 

15 sides of theirs and, hopefully, it should be 

16 pretty close. And I believe that, once we 

17 implement the tools, I believe that we'll come 

18 a little closer to that because there won't be 

19 as much, there will be selections that you 

20 make through the tools. I don't know that but 

21 maybe we are capturing that, and I think that 

22 that's a good thing -- I would be concerned, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 too, if we were consistently under. That's 

2 not good, you know. If we're consistently 

3 over, that's not good either, but it's not as 

4 bad.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: As of the 

6 last meeting, it seemed to me that, as we were 

7 going through the cases, things seemed to be 

8 okay. And I viewed, as of the last meeting, 

9 things were, you know, scattered in both

10 directions, if you will, above and below NIOSH 

11 or NIOSH was -- the blind reviews were above 

12 and below NIOSH. So this is just, to me, 

13 another case. I'm not ready to get worried 

14 because I don't think we're in that zone. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well -- and this 

16 is Brad speaking. For me looking at it, with 

17 the way I was looking at it is that these 

18 blind cases are doing what they did. Come to 

19 find out that NIOSH did not have access 

20 because, as you said, David, we were holding 

21 that they should be the gold standard that we 

22 were going to be comparing ORAU to, and we've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 come to find out that NIOSH doesn't have all 

2 the tools, if I'm correct on that, Grady, that 

3 they have. And you're correcting that problem 

4 now. So --

5 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And they're 

6 automated tools, and it just makes their job a 

7 lot easier, and we'll have access and so will 

8 --

9 MR. FARVER: But you're still 

10 supposed to be following procedures --

11 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely.

12 MR. FARVER: -- and OTIBs and 

13 everything --

14 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely, 

15 absolutely.

16 MR. FARVER: -- just like they 

17 would.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely. 

19 MR. FARVER: They still are 

20 supposed to be following the documentation. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: And that's why, 

22 overall, the compensation decisions have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 turned out, all of them may have been correct, 

2 once we had their second review. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: So, you know, in 

4 my opinion, we are just starting out on this. 

5 We've done what? Six? 

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that was just -

7 - yes, we've done, I think -- oh, you guys or 

8 us? 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: You guys.

10 MR. CALHOUN: We have done, I 

11 believe, I want to say thirty-something total. 

12 Let me look. I've got that in the summary.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You said 32.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, 32.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. And we 

16 found significant problems with one or two? 

17 MR. FARVER: Well, I'm not 

18 concerned if it's, say, 4.3 to 5.2, if that's 

19 the PoC range. Someone's different. That 

20 doesn't bother me. It's when we're 12 and 33 

21 or 18 and 57.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: There was one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 that was 28 and 0.5; is that right? Or were 

2 those the estimated --

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, 28 and 0.5.

4 MR. FARVER: Those are the types 

5 that bother me, because you're supposed to 

6 have two people interpreting the same 

7 documentation the same way, and they should 

8 come out similar numbers. And then for that 

9 one case, it was the 18 to 57 percent. ORAU 

10 did an underestimate. They just did a 

11 partial. They didn't even do external dose. 

12 And, you know, under the NIOSH side, they said 

13 they did an overestimate.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: And how did that 

15 affect -- that's the question.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Well, right. And 

17 what you've got to remember is, and I know 

18 that we strive, we want all of our DRs to be 

19 perfect or as close to perfect as we can, but 

20 when you do a dose reconstruction on our side 

21 or their side, a real dose reconstruction and 

22 not a blind dose reconstruction, is that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 ORAU team is going to have, you know, the 

2 initial dose reconstruction, a peer dose 

3 reconstruction, and then, ultimately, a third 

4 approver. Then we look at it, and then we 

5 look at it again, so it gets at least five 

6 levels of review.

7 This one got one, you know. One 

8 guy did it. And then our second guy that 

9 reviewed it said, uh-uh, this is wrong. So 

10 that was built into it.

11 We have other folks that do dose 

12 reconstructions besides ORAU on our side. 

13 It's another contractor, but it's a small 

14 contractor that typically does AWE type cases 

15 and it's the same thing. We've got a dose 

16 reconstructor who does it. We've got a peer 

17 reviewer. We've got an OCAS or a DCAS 

18 approver, and then we've got a final tech 

19 review. So we've got four levels of review in 

20 that.

21 And we've thought about putting 

22 another level of review in the blind DRs, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 we just really don't want to do that. It's 

2 just too much time. We're having a hard time 

3 keeping up right now. 

4 MR. KATZ: But, as David pointed 

5 out, for the one case where it flipped the 

6 decision and then your second reviewer, in7 house, realized it was a mistake, I mean, 

8 those, I think those should be, those 

9 shouldn't be reported with the wrong results 

10 because you caught it yourself, just as ORAU 

11 has its own peer review. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: But for us, I need 

13 to record that because I want to know.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. Now, I mean, 

15 that may be important internally but, again, 

16 it goes back to what David is saying for the 

17 Board. The Board wants to know the gold 

18 standard question --

19 MR. CALHOUN: But you have access 

20 to everything, you have access to everything 

21 we do. And I don't want to -- it's valuable 

22 to me to know because then I can say, hey, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 Fred, what happened here, you know. 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I see that 

3 almost from a management perspective from your 

4 part. You want to get these done well and 

5 done quickly without catching lots of 

6 problems. So that's all with the aim of you 

7 coming up with the truths upon which we're 

8 making the determination.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Right. But it's 

10 valuable to you to look at my check sheets. 

11 And if I was to not report that, then I don't 

12 know if it would be as valuable to you. I 

13 mean, I'm all for telling you guys that 

14 everything we found is great, but --

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: We have to see 

16 the problems because that's, in my opinion, 

17 that's what we're doing this for, to make sure 

18 that we're going through them, and if we're 

19 seeing issues with this, we need to understand 

20 how we got there.

21 MR. FARVER: But, see, DCAS didn't 

22 catch that error. You didn't catch that error 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 until you compared it to the ORAU report. 

2 That's what it says in your report. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. 

4 MR. FARVER: So you didn't catch 

5 it on your own, you were reviewing --

6 MR. CALHOUN: We don't do another 

7 review between those two. 

8 MR. FARVER: I'm just saying you 

9 didn't catch it anywhere in the DCAS side. 

10 You caught it when you reviewed the ORAU 

11 report, and you saw this huge difference.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And then 

13 they said okay, but they identified what was 

14 wrong. 

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Wasn't that 

16 standard procedure? 

17 MR. CALHOUN: And if it was 

18 correct, if we were correct, we would have 

19 caught that, too.

20 MR. FARVER: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: And we would have 

22 flipped the case. We would have asked for a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 rework. Well, no, we wouldn't have because it 

2 was common.

3 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

4 Can I raise a question here, also? 

5 MR. KATZ: By all means, John. Go 

6 ahead. 

7 DR. MAURO: I assume that, 

8 eventually, when you complete, let's say the 

9 100 cases or whatever number you pick, you'll 

10 be doing a root cause analysis to sort of 

11 track down the reasons for places where the 

12 PoCs are different. The only thing I'd like 

13 to, I guess, question is very often you may 

14 get the same PoC because you got the internal 

15 dose right, you both did it right, and that 

16 was what's driving the Probability of 

17 Causation. 

18 But are you going to -- even 

19 though you may have, I guess, even though you 

20 may be fairly close in your blinds when you 

21 compare PoC results, are you going to look a 

22 little deeper to see if there's any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 differences in the way in which you've done 

2 some of the elements of the dose 

3 reconstruction that might have been 

4 substantially different but did not affect the 

5 PoC?

6 So looking for root cause, not so 

7 much the PoC difference, that's certainly 

8 primary and I understand why that's your goal 

9 to get close on PoCs, but is part of your 

10 mandate also to see if we're using protocols 

11 that are being interpreted consistently, data 

12 sets that we're drawing upon consistently, so 

13 that you don't have a breakdown in quality? 

14 Even though it may not affect the PoC, but 

15 that breakdown could be important to 

16 understand. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. And 

18 the reason I say that is I don't know how 

19 we'll be able to track that. It's all written 

20 down, like, in text, so we may be able to look 

21 at that.

22 Now, if it's something other than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 the degree of overestimate or underestimate, 

2 certainly it's important. But until we get to 

3 a point where, and I don't think we'll ever 

4 get to a point where we're doing a 

5 significantly higher percentage of best 

6 estimates, I don't think we'll get to 

7 something where that's all that meaningful. 

8 But we'll look once we get all this 

9 information together, and if something jumps 

10 out at us we'll certainly look at that.

11 Now, on a case-by-case basis, we 

12 are looking at the individual entries and what 

13 could have been an issue and what was, you 

14 know, determined to be an issue and what 

15 wasn't. Overall, I don't know. I haven't 

16 looked at it yet. I don't know how laborious 

17 that will be. It may not be bad. I just 

18 don't know, John. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda, you 

21 asked the initial question. Are you --

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think I have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 a better feel for -- the answer is, no, there 

2 isn't anything specific there or several 

3 things. And, yes, I can see how they would 

4 develop. It's much clearer. Thank you, all.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

6 shall we go on? So we're down to the SC&A 

7 review findings checklist and our blind case 

8 selection, and let's go to that. Brad and I 

9 both made sets of choices. I think there were 

10 12 cases and we selected five, each of us 

11 selected five. I wrote down a more extended 

12 rationale for why those five were chosen. 

13 Brad, I'm sure you had a rationale, but you 

14 just said this is what I chose. We agreed on 

15 two, I believe, of the five. But since we're 

16 just trying to get a representative sample, 

17 who's to say one is better than another? But 

18 now the whole group needs to join us in making 

19 this selection, and then we can go ahead.

20 MEMBER MUNN: And, David and Brad, 

21 if I may insert a comment here.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, David, 

2 for your presentation of your rationale. I 

3 wish I had some way of comparing your choices 

4 with Brad's. I have not had access to the O: 

5 drive or to anything that has been posted only 

6 on the CDC internet for about five weeks now. 

7 Now that I have my new computer, I was online 

8 for a little over an hour yesterday trying to 

9 get it up and running properly, and I was told 

10 they'd get back to me immediately and I've 

11 just been contacted this morning saying any 

12 time I want to attack this again they're ready 

13 for it. 

14 But the bottom line of all that is 

15 I have not had access to the material that I 

16 needed in order to make those choices. I was, 

17 again, very thankful for your rationale, 

18 David, and I could see no problem with any of 

19 that. And since I had no way of comparing it 

20 with Brad's choices, I guess I'm prepared to 

21 say I have no problem with the choices that 

22 Dave outlined. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think the 

2 spirit of, I mean the driving force, the sort 

3 of first selection was really to look at the 

4 different kinds of cancers in those 12 cases -

5 -

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- noting 

8 that seven of them were skin cancers only, two 

9 were skin and other, and three were lung 

10 cancers, and so I chose from each of those 

11 three categories. The one thing I did not do, 

12 and I wondered if Brad did it, was to look at 

13 the type of work that the individuals did. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, I 

15 didn't, I'll be honest, I didn't want to put 

16 down too much because I didn't want Jenny to 

17 beat me up that I was divulging too much 

18 information on the cases, and that's why I did 

19 mine, that's why I did mine the way that I 

20 did. But part of what I was looking at was 

21 the facilities, the person, and what the 

22 person did, and that's kind of how I based 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 mine in my ratings.

2 I apologize I didn't go into the 

3 detail you did, but I didn't know where 

4 Privacy Act started and everything else. And 

5 that's why I did them the way I did them. But 

6 I looked at them from, nearly from the years 

7 of work, also the work they did, and also what 

8 they ended up with, and that's kind of how I 

9 rated them.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

11 right, okay. After I did the selections based 

12 on the types of cancers, then worked, I did 

13 some slight shifts to get the geographic 

14 distribution pretty broad and also having 

15 several major DOE sites so that three out of 

16 the five were major DOE sites and one was the 

17 steel company and one was the chemical plant.

18 So I don't know how to quite 

19 proceed. I think, in a way, there's no gold 

20 standard here. I mean, it is a selection of 

21 five. I suppose we could have been biased and 

22 chose all skin cancers. That would have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 a poor selection. That is, it wouldn't have 

2 been representative of the 12. 

3 But I'm not quite sure how to 

4 proceed. I mean, we could, if you will, trade 

5 or we could, at one level, just accept what we 

6 have. And I don't have any vested interest. 

7 I suppose I wrote something more down. 

8 I suppose for others who are 

9 looking at it for the first time, Dave, 

10 yourself, I don't know if you had seen this 

11 before because I think you're new on the 

12 Committee. You're new on the Dose 

13 Reconstruction Subcommittee.

14 MR. KATZ: Well, not as new as 

15 you.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, no. 

17 I mean, you have served on it before, but I 

18 didn't realize you were on this, you have been 

19 on this committee.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. My 

22 error. What do some of the other Members 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 think or some of the staff folks who are here? 

2

3 MR. FARVER: I've got no say in it 

4 --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

6 MR. FARVER: I've got no say in 

7 it, the blind.

8 MR. KATZ: Mark, did you, did you 

9 review the cases? Mark Griffon? I think 

10 Mark's not on the line right now. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

12 MR. FARVER: I mean, if you want 

13 to talk about it, it's okay. Just don't 

14 mention PoC.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, no, 

16 absolutely not. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Others are 

18 looking at it, well, so others may have looked 

19 at it before, so what would you suggest?

20 MR. KATZ: I have one thought 

21 about one of them. One of them is Bethlehem 

22 Steel, and that, I thought, is, more or less, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 a one-size-fits-all model, and I don't know 

2 how useful that is to do a blind review of a 

3 one-size-fits-all model. It doesn't give you 

4 a lot of insight really, I don't think, in 

5 that case. 

6 So I sort of question whether you 

7 want to choose that case based on there not 

8 being a lot of sophistication applicable to 

9 that, I mean, there's sophistication in the 

10 models that they developed but they're not 

11 applied with great, there's not a lot of 

12 variables to apply to those cases, as I 

13 understood it. Is that true, Grady? 

14 Bethlehem Steel?

15 MR. CALHOUN: It's a tool.

16 MR. KATZ: It's a tool, and it's, 

17 basically, one-size-fits all.

18 MR. CALHOUN: It's prescriptive. 

19 Yes, it's prescriptive.

20 MR. KATZ: So the amount of years 

21 that the person is there and so on --

22 MR. CALHOUN: That's all that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 matters, really. Well, you know, the age of 

2 diagnosis --

3 MR. KATZ: The cancer and all 

4 those.

5 MR. CALHOUN: As far as the dose 

6 assigned, it's just going to be time on the 

7 job.

8 MR. KATZ: So I'm not thinking 

9 that's very useful as a blind case.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

11 helpful.

12 MR. KATZ: But that was my only 

13 thought. I just wanted to --

14 MR. CALHOUN: But we don't have a 

15 ton of those that are as prescriptive as 

16 Bethlehem Steel.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. No, I 

18 understand.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

20 That's in the middle Atlantic. That is --

21 let's see. Bethlehem Steel was the skin and 

22 male genitalia. Let's take a look at another 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 one. So that was the one with skin plus 

2 other. There were two with skin plus other. 

3 That was the case 2. There was also case 12. 

4 What was case 12? Let me see. I don't have 

5 it written down. We'll go onto the --

6 effectively, my computer is down, so I'm going 

7 to -- if somebody has it in front of them, the 

8 last one on the list. 

9 MR. KATZ: Do you have the list of 

10 potential cases, Grady? 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I had it on 

12 my machine at home yesterday and was looking 

13 at it.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Did Stu send those? 

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, I distributed it -

16 -

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's on the 

18 O: drive.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, is it on the O: 

20 drive right now?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's on the 

22 O: drive under -- I don't think it was the DR 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 Subcommittee. I think it was, there were --

2 MR. KATZ: Well, Brad, it would 

3 have been emailed to your --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Government, my 

5 other government address, which I can't access 

6 from here.

7 MR. CALHOUN: It had to be under 

8 ABRWH. How about DR Subcommittee probably?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There were 

10 two places where today's materials were. One 

11 was DR Subcommittee. The other was something 

12 --

13 MR. FARVER: Something like 

14 documents for Board approval. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it was, 

16 it was -- Stu sent it and did not put it on DR 

17 Subcommittee.

18 MR. FARVER: Sometimes he puts it 

19 in that other one. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Is it the 16 Set? 

21 MR. KATZ: No.

22 MR. CALHOUN: What set is it? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 MR. KATZ: It should be --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually, 

3 it's 17 Set. 

4 MR. KATZ: It's not. No, it's 

5 not. It's blind dose -- blind case selection. 

6 I don't know what the title is. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me go --

8 since I looked at it yesterday. Here we are. 

9 Excellent. So the 12 case was -- I have my 

10 reading glasses, I've got to get close, and 

11 they're new reading glasses, so -- Hanford, 

12 Grand Junction Operations Office. And so 

13 that's --

14 MR. KATZ: That would be better. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would 

16 be better. So it will mean that we have two 

17 in the northwest. But the geographic doesn't 

18 matter this much. After all, we're dealing 

19 with the same human beings and the same 

20 radiations, if you will, at different places. 

21 And the year -- let's see. Work decade in 

22 the 1970s was `74. That's reasonable. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 MR. CALHOUN: To `96.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So let 

3 us move that. So we'll take out the number 

4 two for Bethlehem, which was 45.012, and move 

5 it to 46.398. 

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: So let's just get the 

9 complete list so that that information can be 

10 pulled for SC&A. All he's hearing is the 

11 facility. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: Well, and the PoC.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, great. 

14 MR. FARVER: But I didn't hear 

15 what the facility was so I don't --

16 MR. KATZ: So if you just want to 

17 give, Dave, the complete list by number of 

18 cases for 6, and then we can get SC&A working 

19 on these. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, you want 

21 to do for 6, you want to add that on, rather 

22 than take one off. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 MR. KATZ: A total of six cases. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We 

3 had each selected five, so this is just adding 

4 another case, if you will.

5 MR. KATZ: We need a total of six 

6 cases.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

8 In which case we will just add that on, and I 

9 will, I have my, I will add the choices --

10 MR. KATZ: So we have two that are 

11 in common with Brad.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Two, 

13 eight -- wait a minute. Oh, I'm using his, 

14 the code numbers, right? 2, 7, 9, 10, 13.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. You're saying in 

16 order of the list cases?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, in 

18 order of the list cases, but, but --

19 MR. KATZ: Two, seven -- go ahead.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 2, 7, 9, 10, 

21 13. Thirteen would be -- wait a second. I'm 

22 sorry. I'll have to check because 13 was the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 last one. Oh, they're right. I am --

2 Bethlehem, Allied. Excuse me. Bethlehem was 

3 two. We are dropping two. Yes, selection IDs, 

4 but there's some -- Brad's choices, my 

5 choices. Hanford, Hanford was on the list. 

6 I'm terribly sorry, but Hanford was on my 

7 list. That one was on my list, and I don't --

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. So you can pull 

9 one of Brad's --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: -- to fill in.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Away with Brad's.

13 MR. KATZ: Well, no, we're adding.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

15 That's what we should do. So 2 and 13. Wait 

16 a second. Yes, you've got it. And I don't 

17 understand why, as we were talking -- oh, I 

18 see. In the end, oh, 2 and 12, 2 and 12. Two 

19 we don't want, and I had put 12 was the

20 Savannah River Site, hold it, just all male 

21 genitalia. I don't -- we wanted to pull 

22 Bethlehem. Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 And, ah, okay, I see what my 

2 mistake was. If we didn't pick, if we didn't 

3 pick -- we were talking about Hanford, but we 

4 should have been talking about 12, which was 

5 Dana Heavy Water Plant, Savannah River Site, 

6 which was the other case of skin plus other.

7 Okay. So we'll pick, we'll drop 

8 Bethlehem or -- right, we'll drop Bethlehem, 

9 and we'll add 12, which is 019. We dropped 

10 Bethlehem. That's five.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: David, which one 

12 -- are you using these numbers for the --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. 

14 MR. KATZ: Let's go with the 

15 simple numbers, okay? Just list them in the 

16 order they're given, the simple numbers, as 

17 opposed to these.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 

19 selection ID you mean? 

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, because you 

21 don't -- I was just trying to figure out your 

22 12 on that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 12, I 

2 just used these. Talk about simple numbers. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It didn't 

5 matter to me what those other numbers were. I 

6 just translated back to get to you. But the 

7 question is this: if I take out Bethlehem and 

8 I put in case 019, then that's fine. I only 

9 selected five, so that still leaves us with 

10 five. We want six, so we want to add on one 

11 of yours, Brad, right? Even --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, can we just 

13 go down which ones we've got chosen, I guess? 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. And 

15 we'll use those, if you will, the selection 

16 ID.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I had 

19 selected or I now select 008, 013, 016, 019, 

20 and 021. That's five. Those are five. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. And one more 

22 from Brad. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

2 Since we dropped steel, which is middle 

3 Atlantic, that doesn't matter much. Since we 

4 had a larger number of skin only and I 

5 selected only two of those six, let's just 

6 take another one with skin cancer --

7 MR. KATZ: Wait. Do you have 

8 multiple skins already? 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I have two 

10 skin, but skin, remember, was 7 out of the 12 

11 cases.

12 MR. KATZ: I know, but don't you 

13 want more diversity? Because if you do skin, 

14 you're only dealing with certain --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MR. KATZ: -- radiation exposures.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

18 question was representative versus diversity, 

19 and I said I want a representative sample of 

20 the 12, and that's where one could argue that 

21 one should give more --

22 MR. KATZ: But the 12 is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 representative of the universe at all, so I 

2 would just go for diversity because that's 

3 going to --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Then 

5 if we go for diversity, then we have the two 

6 skin plus other, and there are three cases of 

7 lung cancer of which, I believe, we have 

8 selected one.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've selected 

10 one already. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

12 let's take another --

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, if I was to 

14 do any, I would do these two.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 003 

16 and 004.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: One of those --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- because both 

20 of these, that was a problem in these sites.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: So either one you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 want to pick.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Now, 

3 both of those, no, both of those are, you're 

4 looking at 003 and 004?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, both of --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, but he's 

7 suggesting, and I think it makes sense, that 

8 we not pick another skin and that we pick from 

9 the three lung over here. That is 008 --

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've already got 

11 13.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I've got 13. 

13 Eight or ten --

14 MR. KATZ: We've got 8 already.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: You've got, 

16 you've got 8, and you don't want Bethlehem, so 

17 you've got all of the lung cancers --

18 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: -- are taken care 

20 of.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, so then 

22 we would not add the Rocky Flats, which was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 the one not picked, the one -- right. And 

2 let's see.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: We could do --

4 you've already got 13. You picked 13, you 

5 picked 8.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, okay, so 

7 we have the two skin plus other. The truth is 

8 we only have skin left.

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

11 that does it. And we were looking, we were 

12 looking at 3 and 4 for skin.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'd go with 4.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go for 4. 

15 Okay. 004. So reading back now, 004, 008, 

16 013, 016, 019, and 021.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay, done.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, okay. 

19 Thank you.

20 MR. KATZ: So, Doug, do you need 

21 files sent to you on these from DCAS, or is 

22 this something that you can go in and grab on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 your own, or how does this work? 

2 MR. FARVER: I would prefer if 

3 they put them out with the O: drive. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's right, 

5 because --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: -- we don't want any of 

8 the information that you shouldn't see.

9 MR. FARVER: So we don't have to 

10 go into NOCTS and see a DR that's been 

11 completed.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. KATZ: So can you handle that, 

14 Grady? 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

16 MR. FARVER: It's going to be 

17 probably what? A DOL information and --

18 MR. KATZ: DOE.

19 MR. FARVER: -- some DOE records, 

20 and there's going to be a file from where you 

21 input the data, your data entry people, 

22 because that's going to be the file that gets 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 loaded into the workbooks. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we've done 

3 this before, right? And so do I know exactly 

4 which cases we have by ID number? MR. 

5 KATZ: Yes. You want me to repeat them? 004, 

6 008, 013, 016, 019, and 021. And then if we 

7 can get that within at least a couple of weeks 

8 at most, then that would be great because then 

9 they can get going. 

10 MR. FARVER: That's going to be 

11 looking at middle of June. 

12 MR. KATZ: Well, even sooner. 

13 You'll get them even sooner, it looks like.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And, Wanda, 

15 apologies. As we first started this 

16 discussion, I went down and I looked at, when 

17 we were talking about, right after we talked 

18 about Bethlehem Steel, I went and I took a 

19 look at the table and I went to the wrong 

20 number, if you will. And so there was 

21 confusion, and I had to go back and clarify 

22 it. We have it clarified. On the other hand, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 it may be very confusing over the phone, for 

2 which I apologize. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's all 

4 right. I'm just sorry that my systems did not 

5 allow me to get the information so that I 

6 could contribute, but the discussion is 

7 helpful. I thought it was helpful.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: David can feel 

10 your pain.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

12 right. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I've been 

14 assured by ITSO that this week I will be able 

15 to access the network. I'll believe it when I 

16 see it. 

17 MR. KATZ: Let me just note, 

18 Wanda, for you but for everyone, in terms of 

19 Board Members, when you can't get access, we 

20 can, we can FedEx you hard copies of 

21 materials. So if we'd known that you still 

22 didn't have access, we could have FedEx'd 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 these things to you, but we need to know to do 

2 that. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I expected 

4 right up until last Friday that I wouldn't 

5 have a problem because --

6 MR. KATZ: I just want you to be 

7 aware that that's --

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- but didn't work 

9 out that way. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think that 

11 we're always thinking that hope springs 

12 infernal --

13 MEMBER MUNN: I'm afraid so.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- because I 

15 have the same thing. I essentially feel like 

16 I have a brand new machine. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: I do have a brand new 

18 machine.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: After I got 

20 it back, my account, my password, everything 

21 has changed. I'm happy that I can work on it 

22 at home. I have access to the O: drive. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 went over everything. And then I show up here 

2 in Cincinnati this morning, and I can't get 

3 onto the computer. I'll do it at lunchtime, 

4 probably with help from my more skilled 

5 colleagues at this computer access.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it kind of 

7 depends on who you get on the phone, Dave. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

9 Yes, it does. Shall we do case reviews? 

10 MR. KATZ: We have checklist first 

11 we want to talk about. 

12 MR. FARVER: Well, I want to talk 

13 about the blinds, though. I mean, once we get 

14 the files out there, we still have to work out 

15 the issue on the tools, on how we're going to 

16 get access to the tools and --

17 MR. KATZ: We discussed that 

18 earlier. 

19 MR. FARVER: I understand. So 

20 you're going to --

21 MR. CALHOUN: I'll let you know 

22 when I know, but, yes, it will be soon. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 MR. FARVER: It will be soon.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Well, at least I'll 

3 give you status very soon. 

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. Because we 

5 have a time frame we need to get started on, 

6 and if we're not going to make that time frame 

7 we need to come up with another plan. That's 

8 all. 

9 MR. KATZ: Grady, just please copy 

10 me with the communications so I know what's 

11 going on.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Also, the rest of 

13 our group so we kind of understand what path 

14 we're going. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. About the 

16 checklist discussion.

17 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 

18 Behling. If you'd like, I can lead that 

19 discussion.

20 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Kathy.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I believe 

22 that Ted sent everyone a file on the 16th of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 May, and it was just something of a 

2 hypothetical case where we introduced this new 

3 checklist. And let me back up a little bit 

4 because I want to give you an explanation as 

5 to why we're suggesting, in the future, to 

6 perhaps make some minor changes to our current 

7 checklist, which is Table 2 of our report.

8 During the last Dose 

9 Reconstruction Subcommittee meeting, I was 

10 listening to a talk about an observation that 

11 had to do with, there were different results 

12 from different versions of the CADW program, 

13 the Chronic Annual Dose Workbook. And it was 

14 identified as an observation, and I know 

15 we've, in the past, had a lot of discussion as 

16 to what should be observation and what should 

17 be a finding, and there have been times where 

18 I felt that that particular observation should 

19 have been a finding.

20 And we had some internal 

21 discussion on this topic, and Doug said, well, 

22 where should we put that into this checklist? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 And so, therefore, I'm suggesting that we add 

2 one element into Section A, which is review, 

3 it's currently review of data collection, and 

4 I want to add into that heading review of data 

5 collection and DR tools. 

6 Quite honestly, I guess, when Hans 

7 and I developed this initial checklist, this 

8 was early on and we were not even really aware 

9 that there were all of these tools out there, 

10 so it didn't get put in. And we're suggesting 

11 that we add an element A3 that allows us to 

12 say worthy, appropriate, and accurate DR tools 

13 were used for the case and were all the input 

14 data correctly entered into those tools. And 

15 so those types of issues can become a finding, 

16 rather than an observation. So that's really 

17 the major element that we would like to add. 

18 Then while we were talking about 

19 making these changes to the checklist and also 

20 the fact that I know NIOSH is trying to work 

21 on putting all of this data, eventually, into 

22 a database, we thought it might be worthwhile 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 adding a third page to this table, which we 

2 can make modifications to this but we're 

3 initially calling this an addendum to the 

4 review. And it's the third page of this Table 

5 2 from the file that was sent to you --

6 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Kathy. Can 

7 you maybe talk a little closer to the phone 

8 receiver or whatever it is you're using? 

9 Because we can hear you, but it's a struggle.

10 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm sorry.

11 MR. KATZ: Much better.

12 MS. BEHLING: Is that better?

13 MR. KATZ: Much better. Thanks.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I'm sorry. 

15 If you need me to repeat anything, I'm --

16 MR. KATZ: No, you've been okay.

17 MS. BEHLING: All right. So we 

18 decided, also, internally that we may want to 

19 add this third page to Table 2, which is, I 

20 initially called it an addendum. John Mauro 

21 maybe suggested that maybe this could be the 

22 next section H. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 But what we wanted to do here is 

2 just identify issues that we didn't want to,

3 I'll use the term "grade" or say that the 

4 impact of these, what the significance was, as 

5 we do on page one and two, because these are 

6 things that the dose reconstructor likely 

7 wasn't even aware of or it wasn't part of --

8 well, he did the dose reconstruction, he 

9 probably did it fine based on the TBDs, as 

10 they currently existed. These are issues such 

11 as those that we identify in Section 1.3 of 

12 our report that says there are Site Profile 

13 issues that are still being discussed that may 

14 impact this case. We discuss it in the text, 

15 but we've never added it into the checklist. 

16 And we thought this might be an appropriate 

17 place to identify, as you, hopefully, will 

18 have this in front of you, the third page of 

19 the table that says what is the document type, 

20 and for the first example, it's from the TBD. 

21 And it's currently SC&A's finding number 

22 three from our review of the TBD, and that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 particular finding may have an impact on this 

2 particular case at some point down the road.

3 The other thing that I added to 

4 this is what we normally consider as 

5 observations are things such as the PER 

6 issues. I took a case, this particular 

7 hypothetical case, and I introduced elements 

8 such as this case should have been reviewed, 

9 should be re-reviewed, reworked because of 

10 PER-0012, which is the highly insoluble 

11 plutonium issue. And I also added a second 

12 PER issue, which it just so happens I tried to 

13 introduce a worker who was a construction 

14 trade worker, so this particular case should 

15 also, in the future, be re-assessed based on 

16 PER-0014, which is the construction trade 

17 worker PER. 

18 We're adding this third page more 

19 as a means of, ultimately, maybe having a 

20 tracking system. Once, as I said, NIOSH has 

21 all the information in a database, it would 

22 just be a means of tracking and, perhaps, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 Subcommittee would like us to go back at some 

2 point in time and say, all right, have all 

3 these issues been caught? Maybe we would go 

4 back and look at a re-worked case, as we have 

5 done in the past.

6 So those are the, like I said, 

7 somewhat minor changes. The main portion, 

8 we're just adding the Section 8.3, which is to 

9 allow us to capture any DR tool issues that we 

10 might find. And then, lastly, this third 

11 page, which is just capturing the TBD issues 

12 and any observations associated with the PERs. 

13 And we're just suggesting this and wondering 

14 if it's something that you might want to 

15 consider in making a change. 

16 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Kathy. 

17 MS. BEHLING: You're welcome. Are 

18 there any questions?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is there a 

20 response? I would say I don't have any 

21 response.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 Kathy is saying. I think it would be 

2 beneficial for us. They're the ones that work 

3 with that more than any of us, but, for us to 

4 be able to review it, I think it would be 

5 helpful.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Anybody? 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right now, are 

8 these tables only embedded within the report 

9 documents, or do they exist also in a kind of 

10 a database structure? Because they have kind 

11 of the feeling of a database, and you're 

12 talking about, well, we may want to dig back 

13 into them or cut through them. Are they 

14 searchable that way? 

15 MS. BEHLING: Currently, they are 

16 only in our report. We initially did develop 

17 an access database that incorporated this 

18 checklist in it. However, we never populated 

19 all of the cases. And then when we started to 

20 discuss about doing a database, NIOSH 

21 recommended that they compile, and it's not 

22 going to be an Access database. I guess it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 a Sequel database or whatever. 

2 So they're working on that at this 

3 point. And during our database design 

4 meeting, we talked about incorporating this 

5 checklist. 

6 MR. FARVER: Internally, we have 

7 talked about loading up some of the findings 

8 from maybe the 8th or 9th set forward into our 

9 Access database so that we could search them 

10 until we get this other one online.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Because the 

12 findings that are in the proposed new table, 

13 which I think is, I mean, I find it useful to 

14 kind of summarize a lot of the text and just 

15 get it into a -- basically, it's a bullet list 

16 now of what the key findings are. The 

17 information is actually in the text of the 

18 report, also. 

19 MR. FARVER: Yes, a lot of that is 

20 a repeat of Section 1.2 and 1.3, and do you 

21 need to have Section 1.2 and 1.3 if we have 

22 this table? I don't know. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 MS. BEHLING: In addition, 

2 obviously, anything that we have marked as a 

3 finding from this checklist is obviously in 

4 our matrix, so we track all of these in the 

5 matrix. But this specific table is not 

6 necessarily captured, but it becomes a finding 

7 in the matrix. 

8 MR. KATZ: So if I could just 

9 editorialize a bit, Kathy, on part of your 

10 proposal, which I think makes sense, the 

11 appendix, I think that's what you called it, 

12 that covers the TBD matters that are relevant 

13 to the case, live TBD matters, ongoing TBD 

14 matters, that, in effect, is, I think, 

15 responsive to addressing Dr. Melius' concern 

16 that there be full crosswalk between the dose 

17 reconstruction case review and the other 

18 procedural reviews through Site Profile. And 

19 I think that makes a lot of sense to help 

20 ensure that -- because it's a better check on, 

21 then, how well is the case review catching 

22 what it should be catching? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 MS. BEHLING: Exactly. 

2 MR. FARVER: It's not going to 

3 include an outcome of those findings. It's 

4 just going to include what the finding is for.

5 MR. KATZ: Exactly. But it notes 

6 that that was a recognized issue at the time 

7 that the review was done.

8 MR. FARVER: Yes. And that 

9 already had in Section 1.3 --

10 MR. KATZ: I know, but it's a 

11 narrative. So I'm just, I'm concurring with 

12 you, Doug, that I think that that makes a lot 

13 of sense to have that there.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

15 MS. BEHLING: And as I said, I 

16 also decided to add in issues such as PER 

17 issues, and if we ultimately track this, as I 

18 mentioned, at some point in time, maybe the 

19 Subcommittee will want to go back and pull 

20 some cases and say, let's go back and see if 

21 these cases were re-reviewed and if they were 

22 appropriately done for both PER-0012 and PER-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 0014. It gives us another avenue to go back 

2 and check to make sure all of these issues 

3 were caught for this particular case. 

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So I have one 

5 little design question. You have a 

6 hypothetical, it's called -- everything is 

7 labeled Table 2, actually. It's got findings 

8 that are numbered for deficiencies, I suppose, 

9 like A1 through G5, and then H is just a bold 

10 section for deficiencies. And this last thing 

11 is, which is an appendage, an addendum, hangs 

12 on there without any numerical indexing in the 

13 same way. Is that intentional or --

14 MR. FARVER: Yes, because it's 

15 already a finding. It's not something that we 

16 want to track as something because it's a Site 

17 Profile finding, and it should be handled by 

18 the Site Profile Work Group. 

19 MS. BEHLING: I mean, I guess we 

20 could go in, and I know, when we were having 

21 internal discussions, John Mauro had suggested 

22 that maybe, rather than making this just an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 addendum, we can make this a separate section, 

2 like this Section H, but I felt we needed to 

3 separate it because I just didn't want to make 

4 it look as if it was, we were grading anything 

5 or we were trying to identify these by some 

6 level of the impact associated with it. I 

7 just wanted to identify that these issues 

8 exist out there, but I didn't want to grade it 

9 in any way, if I'm terming that appropriately.

10 MR. FARVER: I guess where it says 

11 document type, you could put document number 

12 and have the number of the document.

13 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

14 Maybe I could jump in a little bit here also 

15 because there's some history here. Some of 

16 you may be aware of it, some of you may not. 

17 And I think this decision on the structure of 

18 the checklist is important because it goes to 

19 whether or not a given case is going to get a 

20 good review or a bad review in Table 2. 

21 Right now, the way we structured 

22 ourselves for DOE sites, and I'm not talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 about AWE sites. Let's put those sort of in 

2 the parking lot for a minute. What we're 

3 really doing here with the current checklist 

4 is saying, listen, did NIOSH follow its 

5 procedures faithfully? Were any errors made 

6 regarding loading the data? Did they use all 

7 the data? Did they use it correctly in 

8 accordance with their procedure?

9 So the procedures, what I mean by 

10 procedures, I mean the Site Profile and all of 

11 the OTIBs that apply. So we, you know, you 

12 have to follow those procedures. So it 

13 becomes more of a quality assurance checklist, 

14 Table 2. Did they do the work in accordance 

15 with their own guidelines in a consistent way?

16 And one of the internal 

17 discussions we've had is whether or not --

18 now, we all know that there are many Site 

19 Profiles and perhaps procedures that are 

20 undergoing review or even haven't even entered 

21 the review process yet where SC&A has 

22 commented on a Site Profile, for example. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 we may have some concerns with the procedures. 

2 Our internal discussions went toward the 

3 question, well, when we complete a DR review 

4 and let's say we come up with no findings; 

5 however, we do have lots of concerns, let's 

6 say, at the same time with the Site Profile 

7 upon which it's based or the issues are 

8 undergoing active discussion by a Work Group. 

9 Do we want to somehow capture that in the 

10 scorecard for Table 2 or not? That's really 

11 something that should not be part of the 

12 scorecard. 

13 So we've ended up coming to a 

14 place, what we're offering now for your 

15 consideration is -- and, Kathy, I think I have 

16 it right, but if I'm saying something that's 

17 incorrect, please correct me. What we're 

18 doing now is we're creating a vehicle where we 

19 don't score the DR negatively if there happens 

20 to be a Site Profile issue that we have found 

21 or that is under active discussion because, 

22 you know, we have the information in the new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 checklist, it's there, but the heart of the 

2 review, Table 2, there will not be any 

3 negative findings because we have some 

4 concerns with the Site Profile upon which the 

5 DR is based.

6 This is the product that would be 

7 generated now as part of the DR process. So, 

8 you know, we would not be making any negative 

9 statements about a DR because there might be 

10 some Site Profile issues that we're still 

11 considering. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. So that 

13 was useful. I mean, my recollection of Dr. 

14 Melius' concern was that we've evolved into a 

15 process that's very detail-oriented and 

16 relates to quality assurance issues, quality 

17 control issues, and are people following 

18 procedures correctly? And, I mean, I'll take 

19 as much responsibility as anybody for that. 

20 I'm sure it's been what, you know, has been 

21 most and has continued to flag me as an 

22 obvious problem, which, you know, we want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 focus on. But if I recall 

2 correctly, and, Ted, maybe you can correct me, 

3 he was encouraging us to think about larger 

4 scientific issues of scientific validity, as 

5 opposed to just proper implementation of 

6 procedures and numerical problems or data 

7 entry problems, any of those. 

8 And I see this, I see what you're 

9 proposing as a step towards formalizing that, 

10 and I think it's, I mean, it's useful on your 

11 part. I think what we're struggling with is 

12 how to, how we don't still let this 

13 information just get buried back into this 

14 report, but we have a process in place for 

15 both identifying and then, basically, passing 

16 on things that we think are important 

17 scientific issues for a larger discussion and 

18 tracking them. 

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thanks for saying 

20 that, David, because now the piece that may be

21 missing from this, John Mauro and Kathy, that 

22 I think is worth discussion is I think this, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 as you have it planned, captures, so long as 

2 this stuff can be pulled out and tracked, the 

3 issues that already have been identified 

4 because there have been TBD reviews, you know, 

5 whether a Site Profile or TIB reviews or what 

6 have you, where those issues are live issues 

7 or whether, maybe they're not already being 

8 discussed by the Board, like you said. 

9 So that's good for that piece. 

10 The element that might be missing from what 

11 you propose, though, that would belong there 

12 if it is missing is where you find an issue 

13 that should be in a TIB/TBD discussion but 

14 hasn't made it there, but you've identified it 

15 by doing the dose reconstruction case review. 

16 And you would want to capture those. Those 

17 are really a different category because 

18 they're newly caught. They may not have been 

19 recognized when you were doing the TBD review, 

20 the TIB review, but you recognize them now 

21 that you're looking at this specific case. 

22 And we would certainly want those somewhere in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 this to be caught, and they're especially 

2 important because they're not sitting with the 

3 Work Group right now or with the Procedures 

4 Subcommittee. Does that make sense? 

5 MS. BEHLING: Yes, yes, it does. 

6 And, Doug, you can correct me if I'm going to 

7 make an incorrect statement here, but I 

8 believe that when we do identify those types 

9 of things, such as something in an OTIB that 

10 we feel is incorrect, we somehow get that into 

11 the first two pages of our checklist as a 

12 finding because it has to do, usually, with a 

13 dose that was calculated incorrectly. So it 

14 ends up in either, you know, A through G. 

15 So I think, generally, it's 

16 captured, and we make every effort to capture 

17 it at that point. And I, well, I'm even 

18 thinking, you know, we toyed with the idea of 

19 making an A.4 for that type of thing. And 

20 then we decided, no, we'll put it into the 

21 addendum. So, Doug, am I correct in that? 

22 MR. FARVER: Well, I don't know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 because, let's say there's a problem with an 

2 OTIB. It should have been caught when it went 

3 through the Procedures Review and should have 

4 been addressed under that review because, 

5 typically, when we do these dose 

6 reconstructions, we don't review an OTIB. We 

7 just see if they're following it.

8 But let's say something is 

9 blatantly obvious and it's missed and it comes 

10 out. If they follow the OTIB as written, it 

11 may not make it into one of our findings. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, and I 

13 remember you saying this before. You'll say, 

14 "Well, they followed it, but I think it was a 

15 little screwy," or, you know -- I mean, I have 

16 to go back to the record and see if you 

17 actually said that.

18 MR. FARVER: It sounds like 

19 something I would say. But it may get missed. 

20 We might make it an observation or something, 

21 which I think we've done before.

22 MR. KATZ: But so our point here 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 is that these are important, actually, because 

2 the OTIB or whatever has already been reviewed 

3 and stamped as good now. We want to identify 

4 these specially and send them back to wherever 

5 they belong, whether it's a Procedures Review 

6 or it's a Site Profile review that's already 

7 been done but then we have this new issue. 

8 These are especially important, and that is 

9 the rest of, the balance of what Dr. Melius is 

10 concerned about.

11 MR. FARVER: But now you want to 

12 track that. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I like that.

14 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I do, too. And 

15 like I said, in fact, internally, when I sent 

16 around my checklist, I had an A.4 in there to 

17 capture that. And then during that 

18 discussion, we sort of came to the conclusion 

19 that, oh, we started to put too much into that 

20 element. So we can easily introduce an A.4 to 

21 capture those situations where we might find 

22 an OTIB or a procedure that we realize maybe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 should be changed.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, I mean, 

3 I think that that's, that scorecard, as John 

4 called it, is useful. And that's the 

5 scorecard for thinking about quality assurance 

6 issues. I mean, you've got another table here 

7 which has a really good heading on it. Were 

8 there any TBD/OTIB procedures, et cetera, 

9 issues of concern identified during the 

10 review, and it sort of seems like we want a 

11 bottom line there like you have a bottom line, 

12 row H, which is in bold which says kind of the 

13 total number of findings just on that next 

14 addendum table. And that's, that's kind of 

15 maybe the trackable ones that we want: are 

16 there issues of concern that need to be 

17 tracked somehow?

18 MR. FARVER: Newly identified 

19 issues.

20 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver, 

21 if I could jump in for just a second. I 

22 believe during our discussion, we decided 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 against the A.4 for the same reason that we 

2 decided on introducing this third page was 

3 that we didn't feel it was fair to DCAS to 

4 grade them down on something that might be 

5 related to an OTIB issue, whereas we would 

6 want to capture that and have it available for 

7 information but not necessarily grade them on 

8 it. Correct me if I'm wrong, Kathy, but --

9 MR. KATZ: No, you're right. And 

10 that's consistent with what you're hearing 

11 from David.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, I like what I'm 

13 hearing -- this is John, and let me weigh in a 

14 little bit. What we are saying, Ted, and I 

15 agree completely, is that we may learn as 

16 we're doing a case that they followed the OTIB 

17 or they followed their Site Profile, and so 

18 they're not going to get scored down on that. 

19 But what we may have learned, what I'm 

20 hearing is we may have learned something that 

21 there are additional problems that need to be 

22 addressed with respect to that OTIB or that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 Site Profile that we did not capture before. 

2 That's something, that's another dimension 

3 that I agree helps to break down the stovepipe 

4 where things are separated. And I don't think 

5 right now we've got that. 

6 In other words, please, correct me 

7 if I'm wrong, but that feedback loop whereby 

8 this particular case has yielded insights 

9 because -- that does happen, by the way. For 

10 example, I've seen it happen with regard to 

11 TBD-6000 where we did a case and we said, 

12 jeez, you know, when we did this case, we 

13 really had to get into the bowels of TBD-6000, 

14 and we started to realize that, even though 

15 we've closed all the issues on TBD-6000, we 

16 uncovered something new that we never thought 

17 about before while doing this review, and that 

18 would be a do loop, another loop back.

19 Now, of course, it's a little 

20 stressful because, very often, you say, well, 

21 we reviewed that TBD and everything was 

22 closed, and it's fine. And then all of a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 sudden we're saying, well, hold the presses, 

2 we just realized from doing this case that 

3 there still are some things that we have to 

4 talk about on TBD-6000 and re-open it again. 

5 And that's what I'm hearing, Ted, you're 

6 saying. Am I capturing this correctly? 

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's correct. 

8 And that's just continuous improvement. It's 

9 okay that it's already been looked at. If 

10 it's an issue to someone, it should be looked 

11 at it again, right? 

12 DR. MAURO: And I don't think our 

13 current format -- and, Kathy, please, correct 

14 me if I'm wrong, and Doug -- goes there. 

15 MS. BEHLING: Let me ask this: if 

16 we were to include this A.4 for these types of 

17 things that we're talking about, the OTIBs or 

18 procedures where we find something, we could 

19 keep it in this main checklist and maybe 

20 checkmark it as under review so it doesn't 

21 appear like it's obviously something -- it 

22 wasn't something that the dose reconstructor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 did wrong but it's something that we checkmark 

2 as we need to review this. I don't know. 

3 Does that make sense? 

4 MR. STIVER: Kathy, this is John. 

5 I believe that makes perfectly good sense to 

6 me. I believe that's one of the reasons that 

7 we had that selection option to begin with was 

8 for these types of situations that don't 

9 really fit nicely into any of the categories.

10 MS. BEHLING: Would the 

11 Subcommittee agree to an A.4 where, if we do 

12 have to identify something associated with 

13 procedures or the OTIB, our auditors would 

14 know to mark that as an under review type of 

15 concern?

16 MR. FARVER: Kathy, during our 

17 recent Board calls, one-on-one calls, we've 

18 had issues that have come up where the Board 

19 Members have questions and really don't want 

20 to wait two years or so until it comes up as a 

21 finding in this Committee. I think this would 

22 be a good spot for them in that addendum to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 Table 2, which would also fit well if we 

2 identify a new issue that needs to be 

3 addressed.

4 MS. BEHLING: That's great.

5 MR. FARVER: And then we just take 

6 this addendum table and we just, we can just 

7 send it off to NIOSH separately. Well, I 

8 guess it's part of the report, but they could 

9 then learn to address these quicker.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, we don't want to 

11 score down. In other words, we don't want to 

12 score down the DR because we have learned 

13 something where a Site Profile or an OTIB or 

14 any other of the procedures, we're saying, 

15 hmm, there might be a deficiency there. What 

16 we're really doing here is we're saying, we're 

17 not really criticizing the DR. What we're 

18 saying is we've learned something that needs 

19 to be fed back to the AWE Work Group or the 

20 TBD-6000, you know, one of the Work Groups or 

21 one of the Site Profile Work Groups that needs 

22 to go on their agenda. That's all that we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 really saying here. 

2 MR. KATZ: Right, right. And so 

3 everybody understands. I think everybody is 

4 on the same table now, okay? So I think we're 

5 good with going forward. The one thing that 

6 we need as part of this machine, if you want 

7 to call it that, is we need then actually 

8 there to be a communication when we have one 

9 of these items that's not already under 

10 review. We need a communication that comes 

11 either through me or what have you, but so 

12 that we can get a communication to the right 

13 Work Group or the Subcommittee so they're 

14 aware, whatever the finding, how it came 

15 about, and they can look at that. So we need 

16 that to happen so that these findings that are 

17 important potential concerns don't sit on the 

18 shelf for two years because we're not caught 

19 up with our case reviews in the Subcommittee 

20 here.

21 DR. MAURO: Ted, could I add a 

22 little bit to that? I think that this do loop 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 going back, the loop going back, really has 

2 two dimensions to it -- one is we have a case 

3 that we just finished and that we gave it a 

4 good score. Let's say it's perfect, no 

5 negative scoring. But I think it's important 

6 that if there are many issues in this other 

7 addendum table, let's say, but there are a lot 

8 of things that work right now that either have 

9 been addressed or have not yet been addressed 

10 or are being addressed that could have a very 

11 big effect on this case. And in my mind, we 

12 need to inform, there's got to be a vehicle to 

13 alert the Procedures Committee or the Site 

14 Profile Work Groups that these are turning out 

15 to be pretty important because they're 

16 affecting cases.

17 Now, you have another dimension 

18 that you've added that, oh, by the way, we 

19 also have identified additional issues that 

20 you need to add to your agenda. So this 

21 feedback I think goes a long way to resolving 

22 a lot of the stovepipe issues that Dr. Melius 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 brought up, and I really like it. 

2 MR. KATZ: Right, right. Anyway, 

3 I don't want to eat up more of the 

4 Subcommittee's time right now, but I think, 

5 John and SC&A, we need to put into place some 

6 machinery so that we get these communications 

7 happening in real time as these issues are 

8 found through case review so that, again, 

9 other parts of the Board that are involved in 

10 those reviews are notified of what was found, 

11 the details, and they can then take it up.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So one, just 

13 one to hopefully wrap this up. But Dr. Melius 

14 has asked for something. We're proposing to 

15 put into place something which would be useful 

16 if we had a mechanism to, at the end of when a 

17 report is finished, communicate it to them in 

18 the form of a memo and see if you can assign 

19 it to a Work Group.

20 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, there may 

21 be a Work Group already. It just depends on 

22 what the issue is. But we do need a memo to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 come out, basically, or some sort of 

2 communication to come out when we have a 

3 finding in a case review that has importance 

4 for a procedural document, whether it's --

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it gets it 

6 sort of off of our plant and onto his.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. And onto the 

8 right plate.

9 DR. MAURO: One of the vehicles --

10 this is John again. One of the vehicles, you 

11 know, when we deliver a package, for example 

12 when the 15th Set comes out where, you know, 

13 we've finished the 15th Set, our reports come 

14 out. We always have text, and Kathy usually 

15 prepares this or Doug, we always have some 

16 text that sort of summarizes what we found 

17 out. What we're really saying is we have a 

18 new section in this report that when we put 

19 out our package on this set of reviews that 

20 goes towards this issue. So it would be 

21 captured in the executive summary or in some 

22 of the discussion points that come out in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 work product that we put out.

2 Now, the degree to which we create 

3 machinery where, I mean, there may be other 

4 ways in which we can communicate this. 

5 MR. KATZ: No, that's fine, John. 

6 So make it its own section, though, in the 

7 report so that it's clearly called out, and 

8 that will work.

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And just one 

10 final question. So we have decided not to 

11 include the A.4? We're going to put 

12 everything into this addendum, and then that 

13 will get forwarded on?

14 MR. KATZ: Doug is nodding his 

15 head yes. 

16 DR. MAURO: I agree.

17 MR. FARVER: I would call it Table 

18 3, which is a separate table. 

19 MR. STIVER: We can make it a 

20 separate table. 

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. And everyone here 

22 is agreeing with that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 MS. BEHLING: Very good. 

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

3 DR. MAURO: Thank you. 

4 MR. KATZ: Does anybody need a 

5 comfort break? 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I was going 

7 to say it's a quarter of 11. I think we 

8 should take a little break and get back at 

9 five of. A short break.

10 MR. KATZ: Ten-minute break?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A ten-minute 

12 break. 

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

14 matter went off the record at 10:43 a.m. and 

15 resumed at 10:56 a.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: So we're back. Let me 

17 just check and see, do I have --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's a 

19 good idea.

20 MR. KATZ: -- Mark Griffon, are 

21 you on the line? And John Poston, are you on 

22 the line? And Wanda Munn?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda, I'm 

2 here. 

3 MEMBER POSTON: John's here.

4 MR. KATZ: And I heard John, too. 

5 Great. Mark? Maybe not Mark. I did get an 

6 email from Mark saying he's good with the case 

7 selection for the blind reviews. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Okay, 

9 good. 

10 MR. KATZ: So thanks to Mark for 

11 that. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Appreciate 

13 that. Then I guess we're ready for case 

14 reviews.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, we're actually 

16 not. We have one other item that I sent you 

17 an email about that we wanted to discuss 

18 briefly, which is Set 17, before we get to 

19 that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 

21 right, right, right. Okay. 

22 MR. KATZ: So let me, I think I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 can give you a --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I didn't 

3 follow it quite, because it has to do with --

4 MR. KATZ: I can give you a 

5 thumbnail, let me give you a thumbnail.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

7 MR. KATZ: And then, by all means, 

8 John Stiver can add to what I have to say 

9 here. So right now SC&A is still working 

10 through Set 16 and still actually wrapping up 

11 a bit of 15. And SC&A has a contract through 

12 December, so we have room to add some more 

13 cases to Set 17, a shorter Set 17, to keep 

14 them busy on dose reconstruction case reviews 

15 through the end of the year.

16 So that's our aim. Given the way 

17 we've done this normally, we're going to have 

18 to do a different kind of procedure to do 

19 this, more or less how we've done this blind 

20 case review, which is, rather than, we have in 

21 the past pre-selected cases, brought those to 

22 the full Board, the Board has had a chance for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 input, and then we've gone to final case 

2 selection at the Board level. I've 

3 communicated with Dr. Melius and he's going to 

4 communicate with the rest of the Board, but 

5 he's fine with just us handling this 

6 administratively so we're not hostage to when 

7 we can meet as a Subcommittee, nor when the 

8 Board meeting is because the Board meeting, 

9 there's a lot of time between the next Board 

10 meeting and the following one. So we can 

11 handle this administratively and get these 

12 cases selected for this next set. A few 

13 administrative meetings, meaning I think we 

14 can do a lot of communication by email and 

15 then have a teleconference to discuss case 

16 selection that's an administrative one. It 

17 doesn't have to be a Subcommittee meeting that 

18 has to be noticed and all that. So I think 

19 that's the path forward to getting cases 

20 selected.

21 The other two issues, one I'll 

22 cover first is the number of cases that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 can get done because they have to get these 

2 cases completed, including the Board input, 

3 the individual Member input into these cases, 

4 before the end of the year. The pace they've 

5 been doing these cases, you know, I'd 

6 estimated they could get about eight done. 

7 John Stiver came back and said, looked at this 

8 resource, and said we think we can get ten 

9 done. I mean, part of the issue that's 

10 difficult is getting the Board Members' input 

11 at the end because we're talking about getting 

12 your input in the November - December time 

13 frame, which is not the friendliest time frame 

14 in terms of when people have other commitments 

15 and so on. 

16 So it's going to take cooperation 

17 from the rest of the Board to get these done 

18 in time, and they have to do this under this 

19 contract. So I think ten is the maximum 

20 number that we'd want to select.

21 Then the third element of this 

22 that needs to be discussed here is how to do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 that selection. And John Stiver sent you a 

2 suggestion for only selecting for a certain 

3 number of sites. It looks like for eight or 

4 nine different sites. These are all, it looks 

5 like, AWEs. I don't know if you want to do 

6 that, change horses and that's not the 

7 procedure that's been used for case selection 

8 in the past, and we don't have Board input on 

9 doing that, sort of focusing on these eight 

10 sites. But John gave you some rationale as to 

11 why these are of interest doing cases for 

12 these. It's not a large number of cases, but 

13 you all need to discuss what you think of the 

14 suggestion or, if not, we'll follow the normal 

15 protocol of selecting a set. It will just be 

16 a smaller set.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is there any 

18 contractual restraint on the size of the set? 

19 You said --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, there is. I mean, 

21 they have to get these cases done this year, 

22 so that's the issue. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But 

2 if he had come to us and said I can only do 

3 six, and we thought that was okay, that would 

4 be okay? That would --

5 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. No, no, no --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- still be 

7 fulfilling their contract?

8 MR. KATZ: Basically, so, 

9 basically, the number is not an issue for this 

10 Subcommittee --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

12 MR. KATZ: -- because it's what 

13 they can get done is what is allowable.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

15 Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: So the only issue is 

17 how to do the case selection. That's the real 

18 issue. I mean, we have a procedure for how to 

19 get it done, but what cases you want DCAS to 

20 pull for you to select from, that's the only 

21 issue. And, again, there's a standard method 

22 for that that could be applied, or John Stiver 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 has proposed focusing on these nine different 

2 sites. And he's given you some information 

3 about that, and I circulated that to everyone. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Have I got the 

5 right one, or is there ten? 

6 MR. KATZ: Well, it may be ten. 

7 Maybe I --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, there is 

9 nine. There's nine. 

10 MR. KATZ: Nine sites. But, 

11 anyway, so why don't you all discuss that 

12 issue? Because that needs to be sorted out. 

13 And before you discuss it, John Stiver, by all 

14 means, jump in on the issue of why you propose 

15 what you proposed.

16 MR. STIVER: Okay. Yes, this is 

17 John Stiver. This is one of the situations 

18 where we've been doing a lot of these Site 

19 Profile and SEC reviews, a lot of them for 

20 sites that have had SECs awarded, yet we have 

21 this issue. How about workers who fall 

22 outside the SEC by virtue of the 250-day limit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 or because they are skin or prostate cases, 

2 and the SEC petition will make a statement. 

3 There was an excerpt from the Joslyn petition 

4 that says that, you know, while we recognize 

5 that we can't do reconstructions for a 

6 particular set of reasons, we will, 

7 nonetheless, do partial dose reconstructions 

8 for people who are not included within the SEC 

9 using the data that are available.

10 And so we've seen this come out 

11 quite a bit. You know, like I said, I gave an 

12 example of about nine different sites that 

13 we've done, recently done reviews for where 

14 the same type of an issue comes up. This 

15 isn't something we've really focused in on the 

16 past, and some of these cases, you know, it 

17 was certainly obvious from NUMEC and General 

18 Atomics that NIOSH is really, they're going 

19 the extra mile to do everything they can to do 

20 dose reconstructions for these partial 

21 reconstructions for these other people.

22 And so we thought wouldn't it be, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 it might be, you know, in the interest of the 

2 Board to take a more focused look at the 

3 situation and maybe select a few cases for 

4 review in like one of the upcoming sets, 

5 which, in this case, is the last set under 

6 this contract cycle. And because it is going 

7 to be kind of a contracted set due to time 

8 limitations, as Ted explained, we thought, 

9 well, maybe it might be good to just focus in 

10 on this particular group of claimants for this 

11 particular set of reviews. You know, it's a 

12 suggestion to put out there. It is a little 

13 bit outside of the usual process, but I 

14 thought it was worthy of bringing up for 

15 discussion at this meeting.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

17 Brad. The only question I have is you've got 

18 Apollo and Parks down here, and I've just, I'm 

19 reviewing SC&A's Site Profile. We haven't 

20 even got that completed on those, have we? I 

21 know that SC&A just put out a Site Profile 

22 review for Apollo and Parks. Is that going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 affect in our review?

2 MR. STIVER: Really, these would 

3 be cases that are -- it's kind of like what we 

4 discussed earlier under the idea of the 

5 addendum. I mean, there will always be, you 

6 know, changes, and these are living documents. 

7 So, you know, when you take a case, you're 

8 doing a snapshot of time on the basis of, you 

9 know, what the guidance is at that particular 

10 moment when that case was selected. 

11 So to answer your question, yes, 

12 there probably will be some changes to how 

13 doses are reconstructed for that particular 

14 site. Like I said, I didn't say these are the 

15 ones that we actually have to select from. 

16 These are kind of examples of some of the most 

17 recent Site Profile and SEC reviews that we've 

18 done, but that's a point well taken. I mean, 

19 we certainly may want to consider that in 

20 selecting cases. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I've been 

22 doing the review of that Site Profile, and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 just noticed that, you know, SC&A had several 

2 issues with it that, basically, would come in 

3 at Site Profile. But, you know, what you're 

4 saying about what we talked about earlier may 

5 take care of that because it would be pushed 

6 over to the Site Profile Group or whatever. 

7 But I just wanted to make sure that it 

8 wouldn't create a problem as we're going 

9 through these because myself, personally, I'd 

10 like to be able to see a couple of, have a 

11 couple of these Site Profiles or dose 

12 reconstructions from these actually done to 

13 see how it does affect it, but that's my 

14 personal --

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, it might be a 

16 good time to showcase the changes that we're 

17 proposing to the checklist and, you know, if 

18 new issues come up or issues that are 

19 currently not captured in a particular 

20 reconstruction, that would go into the 

21 executive summary and also into this Table 3.

22 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 Behling --

2 MR. STIVER: But I think we have a 

3 mechanism for dealing with that.

4 MS. BEHLING: Sorry, John. This 

5 is Kathy Behling. The other thing I will make 

6 mention of --

7 MR. KATZ: Kathy, can you speak 

8 closer to the phone? 

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

11 MS. BEHLING: Is that any better?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I will make 

14 mention that I went down through this list and 

15 identified how many cases we've done so far 

16 for these. I don't think we have any for 

17 Joslyn and we didn't do any for Baker 

18 Brothers. And there have been for NUMEC 

19 Apollo, one for Parks, one for General 

20 Atomics, two for W.R. Grace, and three for 

21 Hooker, at least based on my, I may not have 

22 captured everything in there. But just to let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 you know that this seems to be a good 

2 selection because we have not done a lot of 

3 cases associated with these sites. 

4 MR. KATZ: And what do you have 

5 for Electro Met?

6 MS. BEHLING: Electro Met, I had 

7 one. 

8 MR. KATZ: One.

9 MR. STIVER: You have one for 

10 Electro Met? Okay. Thanks, Kathy. Thanks 

11 for reminding me. I know you were going to go 

12 look into that. Bob Barton had pulled 

13 together a list of pages, as I indicated in 

14 the email, based on the criteria of the PoC 

15 list. 

16 MR. KATZ: So three for Hooker and 

17 three for Huntington Pilot. Did I hear that 

18 right? 

19 MS. BEHLING: Correct. 

20 MR. KATZ: Considering the size of 

21 those compared to others, that's not so bad, 

22 right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 MEMBER MUNN: No, I don't think 

2 it's really bad, personally. This is Wanda. 

3 I found the suggestions interesting, but, 

4 quite truthfully, I don't see any real reason 

5 to change the process that we've established 

6 up to this point. At least at this immediate 

7 juncture, I don't see any need for that. 

8 We've taken into account many of the aspects 

9 that David mentioned in his criteria that he 

10 had used for selections in our earlier blind 

11 dose cases are the general kinds of things 

12 that we have traditionally taken into 

13 consideration when we make these choices. And 

14 they seem to be broad enough in scope and well 

15 thought out enough over preceding years to 

16 have served us pretty well. They've changed 

17 from time to time because of the universe that 

18 we're dealing with at each time, but, by and 

19 large, the criteria seem to be functioning 

20 well and I can't see any real reason right now 

21 to change that for this particular group.

22 It seems that the standards that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 we've used previously would serve just as well 

2 for these, but perhaps I'm missing something. 

3 I haven't really looked at the group of 

4 claims that closely.

5 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

6 I agree that the protocol for case selection 

7 has been, you know, in place for quite some 

8 time, ten years. And it generally, you know, 

9 focuses in on sites, types of cancers, PoCs.

10 MEMBER MUNN: You know, well, we 

11 thought about it a lot.

12 DR. MAURO: And you did. But let 

13 me add that I think that we, I mean, I've been 

14 thinking about this, also, and I think that 

15 that should not change. But there are other 

16 aspects that certainly have started to appear

17 as being of value, in terms of should be given 

18 some consideration. And I think this is one 

19 of them. That is, partial dose 

20 reconstructions. It seems that, certainly, 

21 we've captured some, but it happened through 

22 the process and we did get some where we ended 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 up doing partials. I think that's important.

2 I also started to notice that, 

3 besides site and PoC and organ, one of the 

4 things that's becoming apparent to me that the 

5 places where -- and this goes for the 

6 selection not only of DR reviews but also for 

7 blinds. It seems to me the places where there 

8 often is a struggle is with neutron dosimetry 

9 and internal dosimetry to some of the more 

10 exotics. In fact, very often, those are the 

11 things that result in the SECs, but, in some 

12 cases, they don't. 

13 And what I'm getting at is that we 

14 have our selection criteria, but I've noticed 

15 that there are certain places that could be 

16 challenging that we're not specifically 

17 looking for when we're picking our cases, 

18 whether they're for DR or they're for blinds. 

19 And this is one example of a dimension that we 

20 haven't looked at before. It only emerged 

21 recently while we were reviewing some of 

22 these, for example NUMEC was the real place 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 that triggered this. There was a fairly 

2 sophisticated approach to doing DR reviews for 

3 non-compensated cancers. They had data, they 

4 had an approach. And even though there was an 

5 SEC granted for that time period, they still 

6 did quite a nice job in attempting to do the 

7 DR, but there was a lot of judgment that had 

8 to be made. They sort of fall into a category 

9 that's interesting because you're trying to 

10 sort of squeeze as much information out of the 

11 data set that is available that will allow you 

12 to assign at least something to these people 

13 who have a prostate or skin cancer.

14 So I just, I think that what we're 

15 trying to do here is alert, I guess, the 

16 Subcommittee to some of the case selection 

17 issues that really have not been right in 

18 front of us and the aspects to it and the 

19 degree to which you find as valuable, you 

20 know. That's our intent. Just --

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: John, a 

22 question. John and John. I'm looking at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 message, and the thing that struck me was the 

2 criteria involved claims with the PoC less 

3 than 50 percent among people who had worked at 

4 least 250 days in an SEC period but did not 

5 qualify for the SEC. And I agree it's an 

6 interesting problem. 

7 Why was it less than 50 percent, 

8 as opposed to some values that were near 50 

9 percent? 

10 DR. MAURO: Well, this --

11 MR. STIVER: This is John. Yes, 

12 it was kind of, in a way, not really arbitrary 

13 but we just decided to take a look at those 

14 that would have been below 50 percent. I 

15 mean, we could have included up to 52 or some 

16 other number, but we just kind of want to get 

17 it as, basically, kind of a first 

18 approximation sampling of the types, the 

19 number of cases for the different sites that 

20 were out there. We can certainly modify that. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The reason I 

22 ask is because I imagine the distribution of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 Probabilities of Causation among people who 

2 are claimants that don't qualify for an SEC to 

3 be highly skewed towards zero. And the reason 

4 I would think that is, you can tell me if I'm 

5 wrong, I would believe that the list of 

6 cancers which are covered for the SEC would 

7 involve the more radiogenic cancers, and the 

8 list of cancers which are not covered would be 

9 those for which the radiation risk 

10 coefficients tend to be very, very low. 

11 Secondly, the range of doses which 

12 can be reconstructed is, in some cases, 

13 limited by the definition of the SEC so that 

14 you can only do partial dose reconstructions. 

15 And under those two conditions, I would 

16 think, if we are looking at cancers like 

17 prostate cancer for which the doses get, in my 

18 recollection, again, get, you know, up to the 

19 radiotherapeutic range before you can get a 

20 Probability of Causation of 50 percent, we're 

21 going to have, we're looking at kind of dose 

22 reconstruction problems that are, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 following off this conversation we had earlier 

2 today, very hard to imagine scenarios in which 

3 the decision, if it's a binary decision where 

4 they compensated appropriately or not, is 

5 going to be really hard to find a situation in 

6 which that was the case, that something 

7 happened so erroneously that it involved 

8 differences on the order of grade.

9 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

10 Your point is well taken, especially as 

11 concerning prostate. You know, we did not 

12 look at the distribution of PoCs, and we can 

13 certainly do that. But I think in the 

14 situation of skin that we might still have a 

15 situation where there's value to be had by 

16 looking at these partials because, for 

17 example, John Mauro can probably jump in and 

18 has a better understanding of some of these, 

19 say, for NUMEC and Joslyn since he was heading 

20 those review efforts, exactly what the issues 

21 were there.

22 However, I would think if it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 an SEC granted on the basis of an inability to 

2 reconstruct an internal exposure, for example, 

3 we'd still, you know, know the external 

4 exposures and direct deposition, skin 

5 contamination. Those types of things would 

6 certainly bear on the reconstruction of the 

7 skin doses, which could possibly have PoCs 

8 that were approaching 50 percent. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: Another thing to 

10 think about, and this is Grady, is that, 

11 generally, our SECs are granted because of the 

12 inability to do internal dose, right? And, 

13 generally, the non-SEC cancers are your 

14 prostate cancer and your skin cancer where 

15 your internal dose is almost, it doesn't have 

16 much of an impact because you don't give much 

17 dose to those organs on the point of intake 

18 because they're not metabolic.

19 So the PoCs, if you can actually 

20 do a full external dose reconstruction on a 

21 non-SEC cancer, they may not be that much 

22 different than had you been able to do the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 internal or assign internal dose to those 

2 organs because they're non --

3 MR. FARVER: Well, Grady, let's 

4 say there's an SEC that says you cannot do 

5 internal doses, and then you get a case where 

6 you're going to do a partial one, like for 

7 skin. You're going to do a skin dose 

8 calculation. And let's say that person has 

9 bioassay data. You will calculate based on 

10 those. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: Absolutely. The 

12 only time we wouldn't is if the SEC is granted 

13 because of falsification of internal --

14 MR. FARVER: I just want to make 

15 that clear, that even if the SEC sometimes 

16 says they cannot reconstruct the dose, if the 

17 person actually has data, whether it be 

18 external or internal, they will apply the 

19 data. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: And the one thing, 

21 Jim, you know, the other one, the cases that 

22 are most often affected that you don't think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 about so much are the less than 250 days. And 

2 if they have less than 250 days and do have 

3 some bioassay, if it's a leukemia or it's 

4 something that doesn't require a lot of dose, 

5 you know. We always think of lung cancer as 

6 being one of those but it's not. It's like 

7 prostate cancer. You need 60 - 70 rem to get 

8 comped. The problem is that it's easy to get 

9 that much dose to the lungs when you internal 

10 an insoluble compound. Just to confuse 

11 things. 

12 MR. KATZ: No, that's helpful. 

13 DR. MAURO: I think the dimensions 

14 that you are bringing up are all something 

15 that I agree with. I mean, the fact that skin 

16 and prostate are so prevalent naturally, I 

17 mean, requires such a high dose to turn a PoC 

18 of greater than 50 percent. That's a very 

19 good point. 

20 When I was looking at NUMEC, I 

21 wasn't thinking in those terms. I was 

22 thinking more in terms of the dose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 reconstructor is now in a position that's a 

2 little different than he is when it's not a 

3 partial. And it seems that a considerable 

4 amount of judgment has to be made with regard 

5 to using the limited data that are available. 

6 And, therefore, how that's done, especially 

7 among different sites and different dose 

8 reconstructors, you know, in making these 

9 interpretations of how best to make use of 

10 partial data is something that is different 

11 than what we were looking before. 

12 But you're correct. When I was 

13 thinking about NUMEC, I wasn't thinking in 

14 terms of the prostate and the skin as being 

15 something that requires very high doses. And 

16 it's unlikely that we're going to get greater 

17 than 50 percent. You know what? That 

18 probably is still true, but I wasn't looking 

19 at it from that perspective. I was looking at 

20 it from the perspective of it's a different 

21 kind of dose reconstruction than we usually 

22 see.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 MEMBER MUNN: And this is Wanda 

2 again. I guess I'm still not convinced that 

3 because it's a different kind it would not be 

4 captured or well incorporated by this same 

5 process that we've used in the past. I mean, 

6 that's the only point I'd like to make. I 

7 just see that each universe of cases that we 

8 have is likely to have different circumstances 

9 surrounding it, especially now at this 

10 juncture in the program. But I don't see that 

11 this extension of different kinds of cases 

12 that we didn't see six years ago doesn't 

13 really change the validity of the criteria, as 

14 I see them. I just don't see a compelling 

15 reason to change our process. We would 

16 undoubtedly discuss this very kind of thing as 

17 we're looking at each new set of potentials, 

18 at least we always have in the past, unless we 

19 intend to change the way in which we present 

20 potential claims to the Committee, to the 

21 Subcommittee for selection. I haven't heard 

22 any reference to that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thoughts by Mark or for 

2 John on the line? Did you have any thoughts 

3 on this, about criteria?

4 MEMBER POSTON: I don't have any 

5 substantive comments.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Mark, 

7 are you there? Maybe you're on mute. Okay. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, before you 

9 start off, I understand what Wanda is saying 

10 on this, but I think we're also up against an 

11 NRSD situation. What SC&A has done out here 

12 has given us some sites that don't have that 

13 many. And, basically, it falls back a little 

14 bit on this Committee that it takes us so long 

15 to be able to make these decisions going 

16 through it. 

17 My personal feeling is I don't see 

18 an issue at this time of calling these out and 

19 kind of focusing on two of them. But I'm 

20 along with Wanda that I don't, I don't want to 

21 see this as a normal process, but I think 

22 we're also up against the wire to be able to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 keep SC&A working forward and also make it so 

2 that they can complete their contract by the 

3 given time, too. 

4 I don't think that we're saying 

5 that the way we've done it is wrong or 

6 anything else compelling that way. I just 

7 think there's some little caveats that would 

8 help the process go into it and get the 

9 contract done. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So 

11 you're just saying this is an end to the 

12 contract issue and we'll --

13 MR. KATZ: Well, that doesn't need 

14 to, I mean, the end of the contract doesn't 

15 need to affect this at all. I mean, you needa 

16 set number of cases, up to ten cases, to get 

17 selected. So this is a separate issue from 

18 the fact that it's the end of the contract. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we should 

20 just accept what you're saying. Are you 

21 saying that we should --

22 MR. KATZ: I'm not saying that --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- that they 

2 said they could do ten, and the question is --

3 MR. KATZ: The question is --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- is this a 

5 reasonable selection for ten?

6 MR. KATZ: Right. Do you want to 

7 change your current procedure for how you 

8 select the cases? That's the only question on 

9 the table, so, I mean, I think the three of 

10 you have to decide do you want to change your 

11 selection procedure? Otherwise, we just tell 

12 DCAS to do the normal thing, and they'll 

13 select whatever, 25 or 30 cases from which you 

14 guys will select ten. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: If it's being --

16 this is Brad. If it's being put just that 

17 way, then, no, I don't think that we should, I 

18 don't think we should go from our normal way 

19 of picking out the process. You know, we've 

20 got a wider selection than the other one. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't want 

22 to do a permanent change. I don't see any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 reason to. And implicit in what you're 

2 saying, Ted, is that this is a change in 

3 procedure that might carry on for the future. 

4 MR. KATZ: Well, I'm not saying 

5 that you would have to carry it on in the 

6 future. I'm just saying it's a change from 

7 the procedure you've used heretofore. That's 

8 all. And the procedure you've used, I mean, I 

9 think you guys have room to do this. I mean, 

10 it would be preferable if you could actually 

11 consult the rest of the Board since your 

12 procedure that you're standing on right now is 

13 one that you developed with consultation with 

14 the whole Board. 

15 But, again, it's only ten cases 

16 anyway, so it's not the end of the world 

17 however you want to handle this. It's just, 

18 you just need to make a judgment as to how you 

19 want to handle it so that we can get DCAS 

20 working on selecting a larger set of cases 

21 from which you guys can choose because the aim 

22 is to get these cases selected as soon as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 possible, certainly by sometime in August, so 

2 that they can get to work on these cases. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but we 

4 do have to go around the Board, if you will. 

5 That is, this would normally come before the 

6 Board. No, it would not normally come before 

7 the Board.

8 MEMBER MUNN: No.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's 

10 standardized by Board decision.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we're 

13 saying we're going to do this through 

14 committee in this case.

15 MR. KATZ: And I'm saying you can 

16 if you want to. If you want to change things 

17 up, I'm not too worried about that for this 

18 small sample. But it's not going to disrupt 

19 the world.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

21 Maybe it's worth repeating, John Stiver, why 

22 we want to do this this way. I know you said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 it in your email, but the issues are a little 

2 sharper now. 

3 MR. STIVER: Yes. This is John. 

4 And, also, what John Mauro had said, I mean, 

5 it represents a kind of a new type of case. 

6 The sites are somewhat underrepresented, as 

7 Kathy described. Those are really the two big 

8 reasons that we thought it might be of 

9 interest to not necessarily replace the 

10 existing process but just maybe consider this 

11 in addition to. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. And I 

13 think the counter-argument is, if the sites 

14 are underrepresented, then we, you know, we 

15 try and sample to kind of get a representative 

16 coverage of the sites.

17 MEMBER MUNN: We do, to make the 

18 proper decisions. 

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And Wanda, I 

20 think, has posed a question of whether the way 

21 these are handled is, in fact, unique or new. 

22 In practice, what's done looks more similar 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 to other problems of dose reconstruction. And 

2 that latter point, you know, I think is 

3 debatable. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What is the 

5 crisis that occurs for, what is the problem -

6 let me use the more neutral term. What is the 

7 problem that occurs if we continue with our 

8 old process? 

9 MR. KATZ: There's no problem. 

10 And the other thing I would just point out is 

11 some of these are not underrepresented. Some 

12 of these actually are doing better than the 

13 sampling for other larger sites, for example, 

14 given the total number of claims. Because 

15 your sampling rate right now is one percent or 

16 something, right? So some of these are 

17 actually doing better than other sites. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Given the variety of 

19 criteria that we apply, that's something that 

20 you could be expected to see. We don't choose 

21 on site alone. You know, we sort by a half22 dozen different criteria, and that makes it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 likely that we're going to see that some will 

2 be overrepresented, some will be 

3 underrepresented, but the ideal statistically 

4 is not necessarily the ideal from our 

5 oversight viewpoint in any case. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So could I 

7 propose a suggestion? For the time being, we 

8 continue drawing the cases the way we've been 

9 drawing them and that we keep this issue of 

10 claimants which are within facilities covered 

11 by SECs but their claim is not covered by SEC 

12 kind of on the horizon. If a case can be made 

13 that we're really not doing them justice, then 

14 I think that's an important thing for us to 

15 think about. But right now it's not clear how 

16 best to evaluate that problem. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: That would be my 

18 suggestion, and I personally would be very 

19 pleased to make a motion to that effect if we 

20 feel a motion is necessary. 

21 MR. KATZ: You don't actually need 

22 a motion. We just need to ask DCAS to pull 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 the cases, and I think that's a great approach 

2 because if you see a case or two that sort of 

3 addresses this you can pull that from the 

4 cases that are selected for review.

5 MEMBER MUNN: We can easily 

6 incorporate whatever we choose.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. So if we're 

8 aiming for approximately ten to come out of 

9 the process, then I think it would be good to 

10 have at least a ballpark of 35 cases. Doug, 

11 does that sound about right to you in terms of 

12 proportion from past experience? 

13 MR. FARVER: I guess. That's 

14 three to one. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Thirty-five cases. 

16 MR. KATZ: About 35 cases pulled.

17 MR. CALHOUN: What other criteria? 

18 So we'll be talking about a lot of stuff 

19 here.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, the normal 

21 criteria that you've been applying for the 

22 past couple of sets, apply those same criteria 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 which relate to --

2 MR. CALHOUN: There's nothing to 

3 change.

4 MR. KATZ: Nothing has changed.

5 MEMBER MUNN: No.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: It's just a new set of 

8 35 cases and as fresh as possible, in terms of 

9 cases. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: And what?

11 MR. KATZ: As fresh in terms of 

12 adjudication as possible.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And other 

14 Board Members, anybody want to comment on 

15 that, in addition to Wanda, particularly those 

16 on the phone? 

17 MR. KATZ: I think we only have 

18 Wanda on the phone. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I thought 

20 Dr. Poston was on the phone. 

21 MR. KATZ: Well, we just asked for 

22 him a moment ago, and he didn't answer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 MEMBER POSTON: I did answer, Ted. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, you 

3 did. I'm glad you said that because I'm 

4 saying to myself what did I think I heard? 

5 Yes, you said you didn't have an opinion at 

6 that point. 

7 MEMBER POSTON: I didn't have a 

8 substantive comment.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

10 Good, good. No, there was a mistake. That's 

11 fine. You did speak, and I'm right. I'm glad 

12 I'm right because I'm saying, am I hearing 

13 things? 

14 So do you or Brad, do you have 

15 comments? 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I'm good with 

17 it. We'll get it done as soon as --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right. 

19 And I'm good with that as well. So I think 

20 that we have decided and we're --

21 MR. CALHOUN: The only other 

22 criteria was 45 to 52, was that right? PoC, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 is that what we were doing? 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

3 what we have done. Yes, we have. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: All covered by 

5 SEC.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: Not covered. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it was 

9 not covered by the SEC.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we wouldn't 

11 have a DR if it was, unless you're talking 

12 about one that was redone. So you don't want 

13 one that was pulled after the DR was done. 

14 Yes, that would be worthless, wouldn't it? 

15 Okay. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

17 it's about 11:30, a little after 11:30. I 

18 think we should go to our case resolutions. 

19 And we have a couple of issues left over from 

20 cases 8 and 9, Sets 8 and 9. Excuse me. 

21 Well, we'll go to them and --

22 MR. FARVER: I believe everything 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 is in the attachments, all the new material? 

2

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is.

4 MR. FARVER: Scott provided a 

5 file. And I believe the first one is 

6 Attachment 1, Finding 3. Attachment 1, 

7 Finding 3 of Set 8. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: And NIOSH has 

10 submitted a paper about routine uranium skin 

11 contamination. And this is the Bridgeport 

12 Brass facility. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. One 

14 moment. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: What's the title of 

16 the attachment you're looking at? 

17 MR. FARVER: 30 case matrix, I 

18 believe. March 25th.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. And then what 

20 finding number?

21 MR. FARVER: Attachment 1, which 

22 is the very bottom, Finding 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

138

1 MR. CALHOUN: That's what confused 

2 me. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now let's 

4 see what NIOSH said. Where are we, so what 

5 does that --

6 MR. FARVER: Are we all on the 

7 finding, Attachment 1, Finding 3? 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is this 149.1? 

9 Is that the --

10 MR. FARVER: Where it begins?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: I believe so.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. This 

14 relates to the upper 95th percentile of 

15 external dose? Is that the --

16 MR. FARVER: No, no, no, we're at 

17 the very bottom of that. We're in the 

18 attachments on Bridgeport Brass.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

20 MR. FARVER: There's three 

21 attachments.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 MR. SIEBERT: In that file -- this 

2 is Scott. In that file, it should start on 

3 page 97 --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it, 

5 okay. We were looking at the wrong --

6 MR. FARVER: Scott sent a file, 

7 NIOSH sent a file that discusses Bridgeport 

8 Brass Finding 3, discussion on uranium 

9 particulate skin doses.

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Wait. I'm 

11 still not finding this. Page 97 doesn't have 

12 that.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Do you have the date 

14 of that transmission handy? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: It's the beginning 

16 of the finding. You'll see the green on page 

17 98. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

19 MR. FARVER: I believe, Scott, you 

20 sent that on Friday. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: That went on Friday, 

22 correct. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 MR. CALHOUN: And it's also in 

2 the, I believe it's in the folder. Stu sent 

3 it over, I think --

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, well, yes, but 

5 for those of us who can't get to anything that 

6 has CDC on it, that's -- all I have is what 

7 went out in February. Okay. I'll do without.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Attachment 2, 

9 Finding 3? 

10 MR. FARVER: No, Attachment 1.

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Here we 

12 are. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Take 

14 a look at it again. Right, right, right. 

15 NIOSH, ORAU notes from 12/11 meeting indicated 

16 will conduct initial review on this finding. 

17 And what is your comment? Is that the one in 

18 blue? 

19 MR. FARVER: Scott sent a file. 

20 It's called SCA BB number 3, HAR number 4. So 

21 it covered Bridgeport Brass and Harshaw. It's 

22 called routine uranium skin contamination 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 where they discuss, they provide their 

2 discussion on the uranium particulate skin 

3 doses. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did somebody 

5 go off or --

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Here you go.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

8 thanks. Oh, yes, okay. Time for some of us 

9 to read this over. Take a few moments.

10 MR. FARVER: And then when you're 

11 ready, we'll have Scott or someone present the 

12 discussion and then someone from SC&A who's on 

13 the line, hopefully, will be able to answer.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Is it Scott 

16 that's going to --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Someone on that side 

19 of the house.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Scott, are 

21 you ready to talk? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, does everybody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 have it up? 

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, good. This is 

4 very easy for me because I'm going to turn 

5 this over to Mutty Sharfi, who wrote this for 

6 us. So, Mutty, do you want to take it away? 

7 MR. SHARFI: Sure. Can everybody 

8 hear me? 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes. Thank you, Mutty. 

10 MR. SHARFI: Okay. For the 

11 Bridgeport Brass, the conceptual question was 

12 about extremity dose and it kind of blew into 

13 about contamination, routine contamination of 

14 the skin and was there a skin dose associated 

15 with just generic kinds of contamination from 

16 general work being done. 

17 So what we did was I kind of 

18 looked at how we generally model deposition of 

19 material from the air to any kind of surface 

20 and modeled, basically, a daily deposition of 

21 the, you know, using the air concentration 

22 during the operational period and had it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 deposit equally on the skin just like it would 

2 deposit on any surface. 

3 We assumed that the unexposed skin 

4 would have been your head, neck, and hands, 

5 which accounts for about 14 percent of your 

6 overall skin surface. Based on that, we used 

7 some generic dose per unit activity. Assuming 

8 it was all uranium-238, because that would be 

9 a worst-case scenario, so assuming a 40 

10 millirem per 10,000 dpm per centimeter 

11 squared. You could calculate then the dose to 

12 the affected skin area, and then you would, 

13 based on OTIB-17, you would adjust that to the 

14 total skin, and OTIB-17 gives you a procedure 

15 on how to convert from affected area to total 

16 skin dose.

17 And doing that, based on the air 

18 concentrations that were described in the TBD 

19 in Bridgeport Brass, we got a fairly small 

20 dose, I think about 10 millirem, to the 

21 overall skin that would be assigned per year. 

22 And then if you really get into more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 realistic scenarios, it actually gets to less 

2 than 1 millirem.

3 So that's a general overview of 

4 what we assessed. If you want me to get more 

5 into the details of the calculation, I can. 

6 But I'll let you ask me how detailed you want 

7 me to go into. 

8 MR. CALHOUN: I think they're all 

9 reading here, Mutty, still. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, we're 

11 not reading, we're discussing. We have two 

12 theories for the head, neck, and hands. One 

13 relates to the sites in which skin cancers 

14 tend to arise. The other relates to pathways 

15 of exposure. So what's your, what was the 

16 motivation for selecting those parts of the 

17 body, as opposed to other parts of the body 

18 that are covered with skin? 

19 MR. SHARFI: You mean, 

20 specifically, the head, neck, and hands as my 

21 assumption? 

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 MR. SHARFI: Okay. Well, I'm 

2 assuming that most people work with coveralls 

3 and stuff like that. You're not going to --

4 you'll have deposition on the coveralls, but 

5 you're not going to have it directly on the 

6 skin of the, you know, the chest or the back. 

7 And since we're talking about uranium, you're 

8 not talking about, you know, penetrating dose 

9 through the coveralls, really, for beta 

10 exposure. 

11 So really the dose of the skin is 

12 going to be unexposed areas. I'm also 

13 assuming that they're not wearing gloves 

14 because if they were in gloves then you 

15 probably could remove another five percent of 

16 the, you know, what is exposed skin.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Mutty, this is 

18 Brad. I understand what you're saying. 

19 You're calling it out just like that. But 

20 many of the places, I don't know how you can 

21 hold that to a total standard. Slather 

22 anything else like that would spread it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 throughout the body down the back or anything 

2 else like that, increasing your body mass. 

3 But then you'd have to be covering. I really 

4 question where you come up with 14 percent of 

5 that because --

6 MR. SHARFI: Fourteen percent is a 

7 standard. If you go into any, like, burned 

8 skin victim adjustment, they generically 

9 identify what percent of the head, the neck, 

10 and the hands represented the total body 

11 surface area. Fourteen percent is what those 

12 three areas generically represent for total 

13 body skin area. 

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I believe 

15 what he's saying is he questions the 

16 assumption that the skin that is potentially 

17 exposed is limited to the skin of the head, 

18 the neck, and the hands. 

19 MR. SHARFI: Well, you're talking 

20 about what total contamination goes down. All 

21 the sweat would do is maneuver activity from, 

22 let's say, the neck to the back. But, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 know, you're still talking about the same 

2 amount of area that it's being deposited on. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There is no 

4 question that the person was wearing some sort 

5 of skin protection? They were wearing 

6 clothing. Right, okay. 

7 MR. SHARFI: So we're talking 

8 about exposed skin that has ability for direct 

9 material to be deposited on. Remember, this 

10 is a hypothetical. We're not, we're not -- if 

11 you gave me a specific scenario, then I may 

12 assess differently. If a claimant says, no, I 

13 was wearing tank tops, okay, well, then maybe 

14 your whole arms then would be exposed, too. I 

15 mean, or they always wore short sleeves or 

16 whatever, I mean, you know, or they worked in 

17 shorts. I made a generic assessment based on 

18 the majority of people that worked in a, you 

19 know, in an area are going to wear at least 

20 long-sleeved shirts and pants and shoes. You 

21 know, and they're not going to have anything 

22 covering their head. You know, if you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 working in a metal foundry, you're probably 

2 going to have a face mask, at least for the 

3 heat, you know, a face shield or something 

4 like that. So I'm not accounting for anything 

5 like that --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, this is Bob 

7 Anigstein. I just called in. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

9 MR. FARVER: The original finding 

10 said exposures to localized parts of the body, 

11 such as the hands and forearms, from non12 penetrating radiation for some workers could 

13 be missed by film badge monitoring and, as a 

14 result, the exposure matrix may not be 

15 claimant-favorable for some workers for 

16 Bridgeport Brass. So that's what the finding 

17 was based on, using the film data.

18 MR. SHARFI: Yes. And the initial 

19 discussion was, I know on an extremity basis, 

20 we handle extremities on a case-by-case basis. 

21 And then I believe John got into a 

22 discussion, well, what about just generically, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 if you're having, you know, your extremities 

2 being, you know, having contamination, are you 

3 routinely seeing exposure that would not be 

4 accounted for by the badge but would, you 

5 know, then be talking about just generic 

6 contamination and is that something that we 

7 need to address? I mean, this got expanded 

8 into -- and that's why this particular 

9 assessment was done was there an issue with 

10 generic contamination to the extremities that 

11 would cause unaccounted for skin dose?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

13 that just suggests that that is not a problem.

14 MR. SHARFI: Correct. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

16 MR. FARVER: John or John, do you 

17 have any comments? 

18 DR. MAURO: John, do you want to 

19 start this or could I start it? Whatever 

20 you'd like to do. 

21 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

22 Yes, John, you've been working, you and Bob 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 Anigstein. I would like to talk about this 

2 because you both have been dealing with this 

3 idea of, you know, the deposition of 

4 relatively large flakes of uranium and the 

5 localized dose that might result from it and 

6 also the, you know, the consistency with NRC 

7 and DOE approaches that we talked about quite 

8 a bit yesterday, so you guys --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, let me unpack 

10 this a little bit because I think I really was 

11 triggered by some of my concerns about small 

12 uranium particles falling on the face, neck, 

13 and ears. That's really what triggered this 

14 concern because I run into a lot of dose 

15 reconstructions at AWE sites where the 

16 exposure includes a person exposed to a beta 

17 radiation from external sources because 

18 they're standing close to, let's say, a slab 

19 of uranium, and you'd get a readout on the 

20 open window of the badge. And that would be 

21 your classic example that, you know, NIOSH 

22 performs all the time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 But there is this other scenario 

2 that I run into when I work on AWE sites 

3 where, in addition to being externally exposed 

4 nearby, to a nearby source of a beta emitter, 

5 such as uranium with its short-lived progeny, 

6 I have seen many cases where a person was 

7 working in an environment where there were 

8 flakes of uranium being generated from 

9 grinding and other operations on the metal 

10 where the circumstances, where his exposure to 

11 his skin, especially his neck and head, 

12 include, of course, the direct beta. I would 

13 call it that external, I mean at a distance, 

14 beta at some distance, which would show up on 

15 your film badge, theoretically, that you wear 

16 on your lapel, for example.

17 And I think that, to a large 

18 extent, Mutty just described an approach, but 

19 please bear with me because it's a conceptual 

20 thing that I want everyone to be on the same 

21 page. My concern is that, well, if a person 

22 has, and I see these all the time, cancer on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 the neck or the ears or the forehead, now, we 

2 all know that these kinds of skin cancers are 

3 very common from exposure in the sun. But, at 

4 the same time, these workers are in these 

5 places where -- and they're not all places, 

6 but I do see a lot with the old AWE sites --

7 where these particles are generated and could 

8 very well have fallen on a person's skin and 

9 be there for some relatively short period of 

10 time before he, let's say, goes home and 

11 showers. So maybe over an 8-hour or 12-hour 

12 period, he may have this particle on his neck.

13 Now, I bring this up, I'm not 

14 saying there's a major issue here, but it's a 

15 dose to the skin that has not, in my opinion, 

16 ever been explicitly addressed. And I bring 

17 it up because, very often, we'll see a person 

18 who worked at an AWE site. They may have been 

19 granted an SEC, and they do a partial dose 

20 reconstruction as best they can. But one of 

21 the problems is the skin cancer is not 

22 covered.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 So I ask myself -- so what I'm 

2 getting at is here we have a lot of cases 

3 where we have skin cancers on the face and 

4 neck and ears, and it happened to be that the 

5 worker was working in an environment where 

6 there was a good possibility that these small 

7 flakes could have landed on his skin. And 

8 that goes toward, that's what really triggered 

9 the question how is NIOSH dealing with that. 

10 And Mutty just described one approach. What 

11 he said, as well, the way you would do it is 

12 you could estimate how much radioactivity is 

13 falling on the skin based on what I call the 

14 classic settling approach where what they do 

15 is they say we know the airborne dust-loading 

16 and, let's say, in micrograms per cubic meter 

17 or becquerels per cubic meter and we know the 

18 rate at which it settles and we agree with all 

19 this. And these are typically 5 micron AMAD 

20 airborne particles, very small particles, and 

21 they do settle at a known velocity, and they 

22 will settle on the skin, on the face, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 neck, and they settle on the clothes. 

2 And as Mutty pointed out, if it's 

3 on the clothing, you get a fairly nice 

4 attenuation of the data. But if they fall on 

5 the neck and face, you don't.

6 Now, that scenario and the 

7 approach Mutty described certainly seems to be 

8 a reasonable way to get at the deposition of 

9 very fine airborne particulates, like 5 micron 

10 aerosols or particles that settle out. But 

11 that wasn't really my concern. My concern was 

12 more a large particle that would fall, let's 

13 say, on the neck and stay there for some time 

14 period. It may be, you know -- that's a tough 

15 one to say. But I would agree that, in all 

16 likelihood, sometime during the day the person 

17 is going to take a shower and, you know, 

18 there's a good chance that it will be washed 

19 off at that time.

20 So, now, here's the difference 

21 between how Mutty is thinking about it and how 

22 we are thinking about. We're saying that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 well, if it's a particle that's, oh, a 

2 centimeter or a half a centimeter, but it's a 

3 flake, you know, like snow. And it has some

4 thickness. It will be thin. It will be a 

5 flake. Now, that's a lot different than this 

6 very, very fine 5 micron AMAD particles that 

7 are settling uniformly over the exposed skin, 

8 and I think that the doses underneath the 

9 particle could get fairly high, in the order 

10 of hundreds of millirem per hour, maybe up to, 

11 I think, a max of 230. I mean, if you had a 

12 fairly large particle, which may be unlikely, 

13 but we're talking about fairly high localized 

14 dose rates right underneath the flake that may 

15 be, let's say, 50 millirem per hour, or 60 or 

16 70, in that order. And then, of course, the 

17 number of hours, that's another question. But 

18 it's a lot different scenario than the 

19 scenario Mutty just looked at. 

20 And I think there's still some 

21 ambiguity regarding how you calculate that 

22 dose. That is, do you assume that scenario 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 that I just described and when, under what 

2 circumstances would you think that's a 

3 plausible scenario, that is a large flake 

4 could fall on a person's neck? And, second, 

5 if you do do that, how do you calculate the 

6 dose? Oh, it gets to the basal cell 

7 epithelial tissue, which would be, you know, 

8 where you're concerned with. And, finally, 

9 how do you derive the Probability of Causation 

10 associated with that dose? And I still think 

11 that we haven't really heard an answer to 

12 that, but, you know, maybe it's embedded in 

13 OTIB-17 in some way, but I think that question 

14 is still on the table.

15 MR. CALHOUN: John, this is Grady. 

16 I'd like to address this a little bit. We've 

17 routinely and, I guess, historically only 

18 dealt with these on a case-by-case basis. And 

19 you've got to really think of what the 

20 potential this is, this has of happening. 

21 You're almost talking about a hot particle 

22 type piece of uranium that is transported 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 through the air somehow and lands on an 

2 unclothed portion of the skin. That's not a 

3 super likely scenario. 

4 I mean, I don't know if you've 

5 been around uranium machining, and I guess 

6 that would be the most likely situation. It's 

7 typically done under coolant, and you don't 

8 have a bunch of particles flying around. We 

9 certainly didn't -- I didn't see that a lot 

10 where I worked at the uranium facility. 

11 But I think you almost get down to 

12 a point that, if we do it that way, you're 

13 either assuming that everybody who worked at a 

14 uranium facility and has exposed skin was 

15 exposed to uranium particles in an assigned 

16 dose or you don't and you base it on any kind 

17 of contamination incidents or something 

18 documented. And I realize that at some of the 

19 AWEs we don't have great documentation of 

20 personnel contamination incidents.

21 We do assign such doses when we 

22 know that there were issues, and we do assign 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 them uniformly to skin contamination. I 

2 believe it's either Idaho or Hanford that we 

3 do that, but those are based on documented 

4 releases of material that was not uranium, it 

5 was reactor type material.

6 So when you look at, in my mind, 

7 if you look at the potential of what you're 

8 talking about happening, I think it's fairly 

9 low. And the only way to deal with it is just 

10 assume that everybody was exposed to hot 

11 particles, and then how far do you go with 

12 those types of assumptions? You can just keep 

13 going and going and going. 

14 DR. MAURO: Well, I agree with 

15 you. I think that this is certainly a 

16 Pandora's box. But at the same time, you 

17 know, I live in the AWE world where I'm doing 

18 dose reconstructions to workers in the 1940s 

19 and early `50s. And I've looked at Bethlehem 

20 Steel and Simonds Saw where we had detailed 

21 descriptions of the environment in which they 

22 were operating. And even the early years of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 Fernald where there was, the actual visibility 

2 was affected by the airborne particulates. I 

3 mean, you have stories told of the types of 

4 activities that were taking place were not of 

5 the type that you or I would have ever 

6 experienced working at a licensed facility, 

7 DOE facility or NRC-licensed facility. 

8 Clearly, that's not the case.

9 But at these old AWE sites, from 

10 just reading about it and not having any 

11 personal experience, it sure sounded like the 

12 potential for generating these flakes was 

13 real. And it's not that complicated. I mean, 

14 I just read that and I said, gee, it seems to 

15 me that it's not impossible. It seems very 

16 likely that some people were contaminated by 

17 flakes, as opposed to the settling of these 5 

18 micron AMAD dust particles that come down. 

19 And if that's the case, you know, 

20 then this scenario that I just came up with, 

21 you know, seems real to me. But, you know, if 

22 there's reason to believe that, no, it's not a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 real scenario, that is people just don't 

2 really experience that, that's fine. I'm glad 

3 we're talking about it now because I haven't 

4 heard that answer yet. The answer you just 

5 gave, that is, it really doesn't happen, is 

6 the first time that's been said, I believe, 

7 you know --

8 MR. CALHOUN: I can't say that it 

9 doesn't happen. I can say that, from what I -

10 - I don't believe it's something that's 

11 rampant, and it's somewhat speculative. And 

12 one of the things that I've looked at based on 

13 past AWEs in particular but uranium machining 

14 in general is that a coolant was always used, 

15 even back in the old days. And that was to 

16 prevent fires, for the most part.

17 DR. MAURO: They do see lots of 

18 sparks, though.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Sure, sure, sure. 

20 MR. SHARFI: So, John, can I --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, sure, help.

22 MR. SHARFI: John, this is Mutty. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 I can also add that, if you're looking at the 

2 total skin dose, also, as you get to smaller 

3 metal flakes, the affected surface area goes 

4 severely down. So the adjustment for total 

5 skin dose really is more a factor of having 

6 larger contaminated skin areas than it would 

7 be having hot particles or, you know, really, 

8 flakes. So the total skin dose, if you're 

9 just talking about -- since the dose per unit 

10 activity of uranium is like -- like at 

11 Hanford, you're talking hot particles of, you 

12 know, mixed fission products, so the dose per 

13 unit hot particle is much, much higher than 

14 uranium.

15 So when you make adjustments to 

16 total skin dose for uranium, you're not seeing 

17 the same kind of overall skin dose that you'd 

18 see from, like, a hot particle from mixed 

19 fission products in Hanford. 

20 DR. MAURO: I agree with that 

21 completely, but I think that we just changed 

22 subjects. Bear with me, please. I think that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 the first question is: is the scenario I just 

2 described something that is considered 

3 plausible and should be somehow explicitly 

4 addressed? Now you're saying that, even if we 

5 were to explicitly address it, the doses would 

6 come in very low because it would be a small 

7 particle on a small localized area, and when 

8 you use the -- you would then dilute that over 

9 the 18,000, I believe, centimeters squared.

10 So what I'm getting at is: so 

11 there's two phases to the process. One is: 

12 what is the scenario that we're trying to 

13 reconstruct, and is it a plausible one? And, 

14 two, given that it is plausible, how do we do 

15 it? I don't know if we've gotten to that --

16 and I do have some issues and questions 

17 regarding how you would do it because I think 

18 that I have some idea of what it is you would 

19 do if you were going to do that calculation. 

20 But that's a different subject.

21 I mean, I think it's important 

22 that some consensus is, we converge on whether 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 we consider this, I'll call it the flake 

2 scenario, and not of the type at Hanford where 

3 it's a true hot particle. I've only brought 

4 this up from the perspective of uranium oxide 

5 flakes being generated during the machining of 

6 uranium at old AWE facilities, and I'm not 

7 bringing it to the -- so it's a whole special 

8 circumstance, but it turns out it's a common 

9 circumstance. That is, we have lots of, you 

10 know, dose reconstructions that I've looked at 

11 from AWE facilities where this was, where the 

12 skin dose, cancer of, you know, basal cell, 

13 squamous cell carcinoma of the face and neck 

14 and ears is a common one and none of those 

15 were ever assessed from the perspective of a 

16 flake falling on them and being responsible 

17 for, possibly being responsible for that 

18 cancer.

19 Now, if that scenario is not a 

20 real scenario, I'm fine, I mean, if that's the 

21 case. But it seemed to me to be a plausible 

22 scenario for these old AWE sites. And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 we've got to get to a point where either we 

2 agree that it is a plausible one or it's not. 

3 If we get to the place where we're saying 

4 it's not plausible, then we're done. But if 

5 we say it is plausible, then we go to the next 

6 stage which you just brought up which has to 

7 do with how do you do the dose reconstruction 

8 and how do you do the Probability of 

9 Causation? That's the back-end of the 

10 discussion. But I'd like to close out the 

11 front-end of the discussion to see if there's 

12 agreement on this scenario. 

13 MEMBER POSTON: John, this is John 

14 Poston, if I could just get a word in 

15 edgewise. I tend to agree with Grady. I 

16 think most of the particles that would be 

17 generated would be taken out in the coolant. 

18 It seems to me that those particles that 

19 somehow are released into the environment 

20 would be pyrophoric, and that changes the 

21 whole scenario.

22 When we looked at hot particles 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 and talked about fuel fleas and stuff like 

2 that, what we found out, even with calculating 

3 in doses, that hot particles were equivalent 

4 to, roughly, a paper cut in terms of their 

5 harm to the individual. And unless you can 

6 give me data, and I would really like to have 

7 data, if you can give me data that shows that 

8 these workers had depositions in their ears 

9 and so forth, then I might look at this in a 

10 different view. But I think that's not, to 

11 me, that's not a plausible. There may be 

12 other sources of radiation exposure. I 

13 certainly have a face to show that I've been 

14 exposed to radiation, but it wasn't from tiny 

15 little particles. So I just, I have 

16 difficulty accepting that as a plausible 

17 situation, but I'm also smart enough to know 

18 that you never say never. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob

20 Anigstein. I thought I'd weigh in on some of 

21 my own observations. We did a -- I don't know 

22 if this was mentioned, we did a parametric 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 study using MCNP of different-sized particles 

2 with hypothetical landing on the skin, and we 

3 got doses, at that time we simply took the 

4 average exposure directly under the particle. 

5 We did not average it over a larger area, and 

6 we got doses, if I remember, as high as 230 

7 millirem per hour.

8 So if you say that that, you know, 

9 this could have lasted, the worker could have 

10 gotten it sometime during the day, early in 

11 the day, maybe he doesn't shower until the 

12 next morning, you have a possibility of a 24-

13 hour exposure. And I've even some references 

14 that said that sometimes it doesn't come off 

15 in the shower. Maybe eventually it does, but 

16 it doesn't immediately necessarily come off.

17 But I was thinking more, because 

18 John Mauro and I had a discussion about this, 

19 more about it. One way to philosophically 

20 approach this is, in statistics, it's called 

21 the null hypothesis. And the null hypothesis 

22 in this case would be that the radiation of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 the hot particle did not cause the cancer. 

2 And to prove the null hypothesis, you have to 

3 show that it can't happen. And the only way 

4 to approach this would be to simply assume 

5 that the particle landed on the cancer site 

6 and calculate the dose just over that area 

7 and, you know, and run IREP. And if IREP 

8 tells you that it's not sufficient, that, even 

9 then, the Probability of Causation is less 

10 than 50 percent, then you're done. 

11 But until that's established, the 

12 argument that says, well, it's a small dose, 

13 we don't have to consider it or it's an 

14 unlikely scenario, it's not an unlikely 

15 scenario because it's also unlikely that 

16 somebody gets cancer, period. Not everyone 

17 gets skin cancer. So if they do have a 

18 cancer, then, right away, something unusual 

19 has happened. 

20 Yes, I know cancers can be caused 

21 by some exposure in other things, but I've 

22 just, you know, I've been in the sun a lot, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 I've been around a long time, I've been 

2 exposed to the sun for a very long period of 

3 time, very long periods of time, I never got 

4 skin cancer. So not everyone gets skin 

5 cancer.

6 So that's the approach. It 

7 doesn't mean, it doesn't presuppose that the 

8 cancer was caused by the hot particle. It 

9 just gives the worker the benefit of the 

10 doubt. We put the particle there, see what 

11 the dose is, run IREP, and then nobody can 

12 claim that the worker was not given, the 

13 claimant was not given the chance. 

14 It's a claimant-favorable 

15 approach. It's not scientifically 

16 implausible. And, again, I'm not saying that 

17 it's necessarily that the particle landed 

18 there. But since he got the cancer, it's a 

19 claimant-favorable assumption to say that's 

20 where the particle landed. 

21 I'll just wind up in a couple more 

22 sentences. If you assume, if you dilute it by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 18,000, then what you're really saying is that 

2 there's no correlation between the radiation 

3 dose from the particle and the skin cancer, 

4 that the particle can land on the head and the 

5 cancer can be on the toe. And that just, that 

6 is not plausible. I'm done.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is 

8 Dave. Dave Kotelchuck. But the evidence that 

9 was brought, I mean, the question, to me, gets 

10 back to the evidence. Early on in the 

11 discussion, John, I think it was John Mauro 

12 said that you had read in previous accounts 

13 that there were, back in the `40s and `50s, 

14 that there were people working with lots of 

15 dust flakes around so you could hardly see. I 

16 mean, did you see that, how often did you see 

17 that, or were there a number of cases in which 

18 you saw that? I mean, that, to me, is 

19 evidence. 

20 DR. MAURO: The answer is no. The 

21 answer is no. It happened in Bethlehem Steel. 

22 I'm not sure whether or not Simonds Saw. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 But, I mean, you're absolutely correct. This 

2 is something that seemed to be a plausible 

3 scenario. But if it's not, you know, it's 

4 not.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

6 Brad. I guess I've got to go back to some of 

7 the interviews we've been involved with. 

8 Grady may remember this one, and he talked 

9 about the machining of it. But you also 

10 brought up grinding and so forth. That, you 

11 know, I could see a little bit more because 

12 when we were in Kansas City we were talking to 

13 a machinist that had been machining that 

14 uranium, and we talked about the pyrophoric 

15 aspect of it, and he spoke of the fire that 

16 had happened. He wasn't involved with it but 

17 the fire -- but, also, he talked about the 

18 pieces would pop off, you know, and it would 

19 burn you on different spots because they're 

20 popping off. That's when we were talking 

21 about the pyrophoric part of it, but he talked 

22 about these pieces.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 You know, they did have coolant on 

2 them, but some of them did pop off and land on 

3 their hands and their head and so forth like 

4 that, and they just, it kind of burned them a 

5 little bit. And that's what the contents of 

6 the whole thing was was the burning of it, not 

7 as a hot particle. I did not look at it in 

8 the context that you're saying, John.

9 So I just wanted to make sure that 

10 you realize that we have seen and discussed 

11 situations like this, but I don't know how you 

12 would, how you'd cover this. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, let me add one 

14 more thing. One of the scenarios at Bethlehem 

15 Steel that generated most of the airborne 

16 particles was the rolling operation and 

17 dragging the rods over from one location to 

18 another where they describe lots of sparking 

19 and flaking and oxidation. So it's not only 

20 the grinding which is done on the oil, the 

21 drilling which is often, you know, where -- so 

22 there were a lot of activities that took place 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 working with metal uranium where flakes and 

2 sparking and flakes were generated. I mean, 

3 that's what the flakes are, in effect. 

4 They're sparks come off, and that's basically 

5 the oxidation. Uranium is chipping off, 

6 oxidizing, and becoming an airborne particle 

7 that then eventually settles out. The size of 

8 the particle could be very fine or it could 

9 be, as best I can tell, also a flake.

10 So it's not -- and, Brad, I agree. 

11 So there are many ways in which you could say 

12 that you could get this airborne particle, and 

13 the size of the particle, of course, is 

14 uncertain. And, really, we're back to the 

15 scenario again. Whether this is a plausible 

16 scenario, for at least the early AWE years 

17 where they were rolling uranium and machining 

18 it and doing these --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, 

20 there should be --

21 MR. STIVER: If I could jump in 

22 for just a second. This is John Stiver.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

2 MR. STIVER: Something that John 

3 just brought up, which I was ready to jump in 

4 right when you started, in 2010, Bob Barton 

5 and I and Sam Glover went up to upstate New 

6 York and we talked to some of the workers at 

7 Simonds Saw and actually toured the facility. 

8 And some of these guys described exactly what 

9 John was saying. 

10 Reading, also, the descriptions 

11 and the Site Profile and some of the other 

12 source documents, these flakes of uranium 

13 oxide were really coming off mainly during the 

14 rolling operation. It's also where you found 

15 the, based on the DWE work that HASL did, the 

16 highest concentrations were right around those 

17 rolling mills. And there were, these guys 

18 would talk about just dust piling up there. 

19 They would take brooms and sweep it out of the 

20 way and, eventually, they'd put some steel 

21 latticework down there to help control this 

22 build-up of dust. We're not just talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 about this airborne invisible 5 micron or very 

2 small respirable particles, but there were

3 huge amounts of this material coming off, and 

4 the guys were either rolling this, dragging it 

5 down, bringing it back. Sometimes, they'd 

6 roll them seven or eight times until they got 

7 the right dimensions. They'd talk about just 

8 getting covered in this stuff. 

9 So, to my mind, in my mind, that 

10 is a viable scenario for exposures. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In my mind, 

12 it sounds like there is evidence or not in the 

13 worker interviews over the years in AWE 

14 facilities and perhaps others, and I don't 

15 know how one goes back and looks at that 

16 because people were interviewed at different 

17 facilities. But there would be evidence there 

18 if somebody were to go through the worker 

19 interviews, and that, to me, would be hard 

20 evidence. Particularly, we were not focusing 

21 on that in terms of the dose reconstruction, 

22 but the workers, undoubtedly, would describe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 those things. And I would be much more 

2 comfortable adding, if I thought there were a 

3 number of cases where workers have reported 

4 this.

5 It is absolutely plausible -- not 

6 only plausible -- well, I haven't been in on 

7 those interviews, so let me not say what's 

8 plausible to me. But there were certainly 

9 sites, I would think, where you had dust 

10 accumulation in different parts of an 

11 industrial plant where things were just 

12 sitting around and then, sooner or later, 

13 somebody walked by and disturbed them or 

14 somebody tried to clean them up and this went 

15 on people's bodies.

16 But that would, but those worker 

17 interviews have information that could 

18 convince me one way or the other that this is 

19 not only plausible but happened. And then I 

20 would decide based on that. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Can I ask a 

22 somewhat more general issue, which ties in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 with dose reconstruction or dose to the skin, 

2 regardless of whether we're talking about a 

3 fine particle or a flake. And this would get 

4 to, I think, part of the implementation, 

5 regardless of, again, the size of the particle 

6 or whether, in fact, you would say it's beyond 

7 what you'd typically call a particle.

8 The target organ right now for the 

9 dose reconstruction, if I'm understanding this 

10 correctly, is calculating the mass of 

11 deposited material and deriving from that a 

12 dose rate from the skin and viewing the target 

13 organ as the total skin. And that's kind of 

14 analogous to the way we treat other organs. 

15 And the scenario that John is describing 

16 involves kind of an individual, it would be a 

17 story that might be told about individual 

18 causation in which there's a probability of a 

19 deposition to a small area of skin, and he's 

20 concerned about the joint probability of not 

21 just a particle falling anywhere on the skin 

22 but the particle falling onto the area of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 skin in which the tumor has arisen. And you 

2 could imagine then that the Probability of 

3 Causation, John, that you're talking about is 

4 the probability of radiation-induced cancer, 

5 the risk coefficient times the dose times the 

6 probability of the particle falling onto 

7 exactly where the tumor for that individual 

8 case arose, and that's a story about 

9 individual causation.

10 That's a really difficult thing 

11 for us to think about, but what I was trying 

12 to get back to was the bigger issue of 

13 averaging the deposition on the exposed skin 

14 over the total body to get the average dose to 

15 the total skin for a claim in which you know 

16 that the tumor arose either on exposed skin or 

17 unexposed skin. I mean, has there been a 

18 consideration, which I think is partly getting 

19 towards what you're talking about of 

20 partitioning out that organ into two parts. 

21 There's an area of exposed skin, which has a 

22 dose delivered to it, and there's an area of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 presumed covered skin which is, perhaps, 86 

2 percent of the volume of the target organ, if 

3 you wanted to think about it that way. And 

4 you would like to assign different doses 

5 depending on whether the claim involved the 

6 cancer which arose on exposed of the face, 

7 neck, ears, or hands, versus elsewhere.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. I mean, that's 

9 the question.

10 MR. SMITH: This is Matt Smith of 

11 ORAU Team. The subject of averaging the skin 

12 dose is in OTIB-17, as Mutty pointed out. I 

13 had it up a moment ago. I believe it's around 

14 page nine in that document.

15 Another thing for reference that's 

16 been spoken of this morning or afternoon, 

17 depending on where you're at, is a situation 

18 at Hanford where ruthenium flakes were 

19 airborne in the outside atmosphere. And to 

20 deal with those, we're fortunate enough to 

21 have the data in terms of probability of 

22 encountering those flakes and then, from that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 data on residence time. And then from that, 

2 we have OTIB-17 that allows us, that are the 

3 possible distributions of that dose over the 

4 skin.

5 With respect to what Bob said, you 

6 know, what we do is if we don't know exactly 

7 where that particle landed on the skin, we 

8 give that dose a distribution. Rather than 

9 give all the dose to the discrete location of 

10 the cancer, in other words assuming that with 

11 a 100 percent probability that that flake 

12 landed on that cancer site, that's not, in my 

13 mind, correct either. It's some kind of 

14 distribution. To come up with all these 

15 parameters for this situation seems highly 

16 unlikely. 

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the 

18 question is a simple one: is that distribution 

19 a uniform distribution over the entire mass of 

20 the skin or is it a conditional distribution 

21 based on whether the skin is exposed or not? 

22 MR. SMITH: It would be uniform.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. And so 

2 that, I think that's just one little 

3 transition point, which sounds --

4 MR. SMITH: Well, it affects how 

5 IREP does the calculation, though, IREP, in 

6 terms of using the dose coefficients, I mean, 

7 the assumption is the whole skin is the organ.

8 MR. SMITH: Yes, that's, I mean --

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: We don't have 

10 an option of telling IREP to partition the 

11 skin. There's no option to tell IREP, oh --

12 MR. SMITH: We don't tell IREP --

13 you want to derive a dose estimate to enter 

14 in. And all of this, we're in the world now 

15 of -- well, I mean, of Bayesian statistics. 

16 We want, we have information about where the 

17 cancer arose. We have prior assumptions about 

18 whether the skin in that area was exposed or 

19 covered, and we want to integrate that into 

20 the best posterior distribution for the 

21 Probability of Causation that we can get. And 

22 we don't need to pretend that we're naive to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 the fact about whether the person was naked or 

2 clothed in the workplace. And IREP is a tool 

3 to help us. It shouldn't be telling us.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, again, 

5 we can't partition it within IREP. We cannot 

6 tell IREP to consider only a portion of the 

7 skin.

8 DR. MAURO: This is John. Let me 

9 step in a little bit. The way I understand --

10 and I think we're getting to the place that I 

11 was hoping we'd get to. Right now, we're 

12 having a conditional discussion. That is, 

13 assuming that we find and agree that this is a 

14 plausible scenario, then you're saying that, 

15 well, the way you'd do it is the procedure 

16 laid out in OTIB-17 where you prorate based on 

17 the fraction, let's say it's a one centimeter 

18 squared area that you want to postulate as a 

19 real scenario and that you would say, okay, 

20 let's say you calculate 230 millirem per hour 

21 underneath that flake. That's to the skin 

22 right underneath the flake. But now you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 saying you're going to divide that by 18,000 

2 because you're going to make it as if it was 

3 uniform over the whole body. And I could 

4 understand why you would say that because the 

5 risk coefficient, the risk per rem, let's say, 

6 that is if there's uniform exposure of all the 

7 skin -- this is my understanding -- to a rem, 

8 you know, here is your lifetime risk of cancer 

9 per rem exposure to all the skin.

10 Now, this is a little bit of a 

11 brainteaser and I can't say I have the answer 

12 to this. And I believe that's what IREP does. 

13 It says, okay, here's the risk per rem when 

14 all the skin of your body experiences that 

15 dose, like a whole-body dose.

16 Now we're saying but, no, that 

17 didn't happen. The rest of the body got 

18 nothing or a relatively small dose, but we've 

19 got this little spot that, theoretically, we 

20 don't know where it is. We're going to go 

21 with the upper bound number, which is a fairly 

22 large flake, I guess, but it's, you know, it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 another plausibility question. 

2 But we'll agree to the upper 

3 bound, no doubt, for this localized dose 

4 underneath the flake would be 230 millirem per 

5 hour. There's no doubt that that places an 

6 upper bound.

7 Now, what I'm a little bit -- and 

8 somehow you've got to go from IREP which uses 

9 a risk coefficient for risk per rem from 

10 uniform whole-body exposure, in this case 

11 skin, now we're saying but, you know, what do 

12 you do when you've got a localized dose? And 

13 you're saying, well, you dilute it down by the 

14 18,000 square centimeters, and that has a 

15 geometric mean, I think it is, of a 

16 distribution that has a very large standard 

17 deviation, which would capture this upper 

18 bound 230 number. 

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: John, you're 

20 sort of off the rails a little. The radiation 

21 risk estimates are agnostic to the part of 

22 body that's exposed. I mean, you can imagine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 in a setting a claimant with exposure to a 

2 particular limb who files a claim for cancer, 

3 and they'll say what's the probability that 

4 that cancer was caused, and they're just going 

5 to use a risk coefficient and plug in the 

6 dose.

7 DR. MAURO: Well, no, no, I 

8 understand that but IREP --

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the 

10 coefficients are not tied to an assumption 

11 about a certain amount of skin being exposed, 

12 and there should be no problem with putting in 

13 a dose estimate and running it through IREP 

14 for a partial-body exposure. 

15 MR. STIVER: Dave and John, this 

16 is John Stiver. I was just looking at the DOE 

17 guidance from 10 CFR 835. And a minute ago, 

18 we were talking about this idea of a joint 

19 distribution. We have the uniform whole-body 

20 exposure, and then you have this other 

21 increment of a localized exposure. And both 

22 the NRC and DOE actually take that into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 account. DOE has three different conditions, 

2 one for an area irradiated, let's say, 100 

3 square centimeters. And in that situation, it 

4 recommends averaging the non-uniform dose 

5 equivalent over that area and then adding that 

6 to any uniform equivalent dose. 

7 And they do the same type of thing 

8 for an area from 10 to 100 and then less than 

9 10, as well. But it's kind of being factored 

10 in, and I believe NRC basically recommends 

11 averaging that dose over a 10 square 

12 centimeter area for a non-uniform exposure.

13 So I think this is the kind of 

14 thing that's been debated and analyzed and 

15 actually codified at different agencies at 

16 this point. And we're kind of struggling with 

17 that same type of thing here right now. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me ask 

19 you -- it's 12:30 -- whether we are near a 

20 conclusion, I mean, we started out this 

21 discussion before 12, or whether it might make 

22 sense to stop now and come back to it and have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 a chance to think over some of what we have 

2 just talked about and maybe even, over 

3 lunchtime, come up with some further thoughts.

4 But I think maybe we should just 

5 take our lunch break now and come back and 

6 return to this issue.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I'm thinking that 

8 this is not a case-specific issue. I think 

9 this is an overarching issue that's going to 

10 have to be addressed. I would recommend that 

11 we push it in that direction and not come back 

12 to it after lunch and just hit the individual 

13 issues. 

14 MR. KATZ: Well, and it's already 

15 identified as an overarching issue. And the 

16 other thing I would just note for this 

17 afternoon is we're still way behind on case 

18 resolution, and I hate to see a whole day lost 

19 to this, given where we are. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So this is one 

21 we want to punt to Melius. 

22 MR. STIVER: We should go to Jim 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 Neton's overarching issues. 

2 MR. KATZ: Well, it's already, I 

3 mean, it has that --

4 MR. CALHOUN: It's the same thing.

5 MR. STIVER: Hot particles is on 

6 there, but not those particular nuances.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, no, I 

8 disagree because the hot particles we're 

9 talking about are like down in Nevada Test 

10 Site where they have the rover reactors and 

11 stuff like that that blew out --

12 MR. KATZ: No, but Jim has both of 

13 these because we've talked about --

14 MR. STIVER: I think that would be 

15 the proper venue for --

16 MR. KATZ: We've talked about it 

17 at Procedures Subcommittee, too, and it's 

18 already been, I mean, Jim, Jim Neton has noted 

19 that there's a distinction between hot 

20 particles and the uranium issue. He has both 

21 of them in that, whatever, parking lot place.

22 MR. CALHOUN: And, basically, it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 an assumption -- the whole decision is going 

2 to be: do we assume that everybody was exposed 

3 to them or not? And that's it. That's what it 

4 comes down to because, once you decide they 

5 were exposed to them, determining a dose isn't 

6 hard.

7 MEMBER MUNN: It is in the 

8 overarching issues database. 

9 MR. KATZ: Right. That's right. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then it's 

11 overarching. Then we're going to conclude 

12 it's overarching and finish.

13 MR. FARVER: Go to lunch and think 

14 about it and come back and make a decision.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I think 

16 it's pretty well decided because it's already 

17 in the overarching issues. 

18 MR. FARVER: So we're going to 

19 close that finding --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

21 right. I think that's true. We will close it 

22 because we're just going to come back, and if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 we do five minutes of overarching, we've 

2 essentially done it. And I feel that way. 

3 This is not something we're going to answer, 

4 so we'll come back, we'll do the rest of Set 8 

5 because we really do have to get 8. I mean, my 

6 feeling is even I, who have only been here for 

7 about a year, notice that we've been working 

8 on 8 and 9 for a long time. And there are 

9 many, many people who we need to decide on 

10 compensation or help assign dose 

11 reconstructions we need to do. 

12 Okay. I'm going to make a short 

13 lunch. 1:15, right? We'll do that, 45 

14 minutes. Can we do that? 

15 I'm willing to consider an hour.

16 MR. KATZ: Let's try to reconvene 

17 at 1:15. We'll do our best to do that.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And if there 

19 is a problem, we will wait for a few moments.

20 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

21 went off the record at 12:34 p.m. and went 

22 back on the record at 1:23 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon, 

2 everyone. This is the Dose Reconstruction 

3 Subcommittee, Review Subcommittee. And we're 

4 just getting started after lunch. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

6 shall we go through the list of who's 

7 available?

8 MR. KATZ: Well, let me just check 

9 for Board Members. My Board Members on the 

10 line, Mark, John, and Wanda, are you on the 

11 line? Wanda, are you on the line? Okay. Not 

12 Wanda right now. How about Dr. Poston, John? 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I wouldn't 

14 be surprised if --

15 MR. KATZ: I don't think they --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- with an 

17 hour, they can't quite make it back. 

18 MR. KATZ: And, Mark Griffon, are 

19 you on the line? 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

21 MR. KATZ: That's three of the 

22 five that we lost. I think we had 15 before.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. We 

2 had 13 and we're down to 10. 

3 MR. KATZ: We're down to 10.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. They, 

5 I suspect, will come in within the next five 

6 or ten minutes.

7 MR. KATZ: Well, we actually don't 

8 have a quorum, so we can't begin without them.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. While 

10 we are waiting, I'm not on the O: drive.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. So I'm going to 

12 just put the phone on mute until -- and I'll 

13 check again.

14 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

15 went off the record at 1:25 p.m. 

16 and went back on the record at 

17 1:27 p.m.)

18 MR. KATZ: Let me check again for 

19 Board Members on the line. Do we have Mark, 

20 John, or Wanda on the line? 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm here. 

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful. 

2 We have a quorum.

3 MR. KATZ: That makes a quorum. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we're 

5 prepared to begin. Okay, thank you. 

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Wanda.

7 MEMBER MUNN: You bet. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I 

9 suspect others will come later, I hope.

10 MR. KATZ: Sure, sure. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we 

12 have more of 8 and 9. 

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, we finished 

14 Attachment 1, Finding 3 or so. So now we're 

15 going to move on to the next attachment. 

16 That's our next open item is Attachment 2, 

17 Finding 3. This has to do with radon exposure 

18 at the Harshaw Plant.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: And this is also one 

21 of the files, I believe, that Grady sent.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 looking for 8 and 9. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: I've got 8. I'm 

3 going to send you 9 here in a second. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

5 Good. Great. 

6 MR. FARVER: This is one that I 

7 believe Scott sent last Friday. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it's in the 8 

9 matrix. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

11 MR. KATZ: Scott, while we have 

12 you, can I just ask you did you also send 

13 responses for Set 9? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: There were no 

15 changes to the 9th matrix, so I did not send 

16 one out. It's still the same as the version 

17 that Doug sent out for the March 25th meeting 

18 after that. 

19 MR. KATZ: Is that, is that 

20 because there were no more responses needed?

21 MR. SIEBERT: There were no more 

22 responses that I or the ORAU Team could give. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 MR. KATZ: But does that mean --

2 MR. SIEBERT: There's a few more 

3 findings, but I believe a couple of them have 

4 to do with NIOSH and I, specifically, can't 

5 speak to those. And another few have to do 

6 with PERs that we've discussed that we will 

7 do, and there's not really much more that we 

8 can do until we either agree to close them 

9 because we're going to determine the PER at 

10 some later point or leave them open until a 

11 PER happens, which that's up to the 

12 Subcommittee. 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Scott just 

14 wasn't in a position to answer that. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, I 

16 have not gotten 8 since you sent it.

17 MR. CALHOUN: You haven't gotten 

18 8? I thought you were just looking at 8. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: If anyone is sending 

21 out any additional or if they're duplicating

22 anything that's been sent out previously, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 appreciate having a copy of that on my, on my 

2 NIOSH CDC.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Send 8. Can I 

4 assume that you can't get to the O: drive from 

5 here? 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

7 right. I'm at the point, Wanda, that, also, 

8 I'm on email. I can't get to the O: drive. 

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. But I've emailed 

10 these things to your email addresses, too. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

12 MR. KATZ: Not just now. I did 

13 this previously before coming here. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Today? 

15 MR. KATZ: Before today. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I'm --

17 I've gone through --

18 MR. CALHOUN: I'm going to send 

19 some here. Hold on. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Grady is mailing 

21 some out. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, I know 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 you had sent them out long ago, and that's the 

2 issue. I don't think--

3 MR. SIEBERT: For the 8th Set and 

4 the attachments that go along with it, Stu 

5 sent them out on Friday at about 12:54 Eastern 

6 to everyone on the --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, okay. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, my AOL account 

9 doesn't show anything for me. 

10 MR. KATZ: Well, he would never 

11 send them to your AOL account because this is 

12 PII data. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's what I 

14 thought. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

16 right. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: So I can't see them. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

19 right. And, actually, that may be why it's 

20 not coming through here. 

21 MR. KATZ: So you should have it 

22 on your CDC, Dave. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I see it right 

2 here. The title is "Files for May 21st DR 

3 Subcommittee Meeting."

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

6 Friday, right? 

7 MR. CALHOUN: Friday the 17th.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Some were sent 

9 May 20th. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: But the 8th Set is 

11 the 17th. 

12 MR. KATZ: Right, I've got that. 

13 Yes, 12:54 p.m. You got them? 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

15 MR. KATZ: 12:54, May 17th? Okay. 

16 I just forwarded it to you again. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know 

18 what? I was working off of CDC, and I, 

19 undoubtedly --

20 MR. KATZ: Deleted them?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I 

22 didn't. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 MR. KATZ: I'm sending it to you 

2 again.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

4 Right, okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: And I'm sending you the 

6 one on the 21st, too, again. Okay. So those 

7 should be popping on yours presently. And I'm 

8 going to send--

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. Attachment 2, 

10 Finding 3 has to do with radon metals, radon 

11 levels model at Harshaw and just progressed 

12 through. It was really we agreed with what 

13 NIOSH initially did, and Mark requested more 

14 time, needs additional time, and DCAS will 

15 provide determination on the radon surrogate 

16 data. And so on the -- so NIOSH issued a 

17 response --

18 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, if you want me 

19 to, this is Scott, I can cover that. 

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Go for it.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Like Doug was 

22 saying, we actually have already resolved 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 almost everything on this back in 2009. And 

2 then Mark just wanted some surrogate data. 

3 With such a hot topic, he wanted some more 

4 time to look at it. At the last meeting, I 

5 went back into the transcript, which I'd like 

6 to compliment having those, by the way, once 

7 again, because that is a huge help for all of 

8 us, that DCAS will provide determination on 

9 the radon surrogate data. 

10 What it really came down to is can 

11 we look at that with the latest 

12 recommendations from the surrogate group as to 

13 using surrogate data? And when I went back to 

14 the 2009 review that SC&A did on this, they 

15 actually used the draft surrogate data 

16 criteria that was already in place at that 

17 time, and they put their report together based 

18 on those four criteria as well. And it agreed 

19 with all four of those criteria in their 

20 report, that they were met. 

21 So I believe the bottom line is 

22 the original report said that. It also falls 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 in the same line as OCAS-IG-1, the criteria 

2 that's in that, as well. Since they agreed 

3 with the criteria in the report, I don't 

4 really see how there's much more else for us 

5 to resolve. 

6 MR. FARVER: John or John, do you 

7 have a response?

8 MR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

9 agree with that supposition because I took a 

10 look at that material again, as you did, and 

11 we found favorably before and our position 

12 remains the same. Using that Mallinckrodt 

13 surrogate data in the way they did seem to be 

14 fine. 

15 MR. STIVER: Yes, this is Stiver. 

16 I just read through our report, and what John 

17 says is correct. I don't have any problems 

18 with it either. 

19 MR. FARVER: No further action, 

20 and we can close that issue. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so. 

22 Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 MR. FARVER: Wow. We closed two 

2 now. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Two. Don't sell

4 ourselves short here guys. 

5 MR. FARVER: Now we'll move on to 

6 Attachment 2, Finding 4, guidance on extremity 

7 doses. And this is the second-half of the 

8 document that we reviewed earlier for 

9 Bridgeport Brass. At the bottom of that page, 

10 it talks about the Harshaw finding number 

11 four. 

12 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. 

13 This is the identical issue, so I'm guessing 

14 the resolution is, it's going to be the same. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Transferred to 

16 overarching issues and closed.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is 

18 just what we talked about earlier before 

19 lunch. This is just dealing with the uranium.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

21 right, right. 

22 MR. FARVER: I believe it is. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, this is Scott. 

2 Once again, it's the same kind of thing. We 

3 talked about it at the last meeting and 

4 resolved the specific extremity stuff but then 

5 expanded onto the idea that this was the same 

6 thought process as the uranium at Bridgeport, 

7 and that's why we answered, basically, the 

8 same question again. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. So no further 

10 action. We can close that issue. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 Moving right along. 

13 MR. FARVER: Attachment 2, Finding 

14 5, and I think this goes on for a couple of 

15 others. Well, no, it's just Finding 5. And 

16 this is Harshaw, the beta doses from film 

17 badges at Harshaw, and SC&A to provide a 

18 written review of this issue before the next 

19 meeting. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: I think, didn't you 

21 just do that? 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, there's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 a Harshaw --

2 MR. FARVER: I know there's one 

3 somewhere. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I don't think 

5 we've done anything since you sent it to us. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: Well, Grady, 

7 actually --

8 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, good. Scott, go 

9 ahead. Sorry. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: And I don't know if 

11 you sent this out, but, as of yesterday at 

12 6:42 in the morning, I sent you our response 

13 to this additional SC&A write-up. I don't 

14 know if that got forwarded or not.

15 MR. KATZ: I think so. I think I 

16 remember forwarding that. Let me look.

17 MR. SIEBERT: It's separate from 

18 the rest of the matrix.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. I'm pretty sure 

20 I sent it forward. I'll look. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: What's it called? 

22 MR. SIEBERT: The subject of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 email is "8 Set Harshaw Finding Number 5." At 

2 least that's what I sent it to you. I don't 

3 know about getting forwarded from then. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I certainly 

5 saw it. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, we've got a 

7 technical on radon, but that's from SC&A. 

8 MR. CALHOUN: 8th Set Harshaw 

9 Finding Number 5? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: I did not forward 

12 that, I don't think, because it's just an 

13 email. There's no attachment.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. The 

15 resolution is actually in that email. I 

16 wasn't sure how you wanted to handle that. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: I'd say go ahead and 

18 tell us about it. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Let's see 

21 here. Mutty, did you end up being the one who 

22 wrote this one up? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 MR. SHARFI: Yes. 

2 MR. STIVER: Would you mind, if 

3 you have it in front of you, would you mind 

4 covering that real quick? 

5 MR. SHARFI: Sure. Basically, 

6 this is a question about the beta gamma or 

7 beta response function, I believe, based on 

8 the type of dosimeters that they may have 

9 used. So there isn't a lot of documentation 

10 on the Harshaw program in totality, but, from 

11 what you can tell, the Harshaw dosimetry 

12 program was provided by the University of 

13 Rochester. 

14 So when you go into the University 

15 of Rochester stuff, during the time period of 

16 Harshaw's program operational period, we found 

17 both the 1947 letter talking about their 

18 dosimetry services. This happens to be one 

19 that they're offering to Columbia University, 

20 but they're describing their dosimetry program 

21 in general. And in that case, they talk about 

22 their calibration and that they're calibrated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 to uranium metal. 

2 In addition, there's a later 

3 letter from Mallinckrodt that also used a 

4 similar program. And this is in 1956, so it 

5 kind of balanced the entire operational period 

6 of Harshaw. And in that case, they talk also 

7 about that their film badges are using uranium 

8 slabs to calibrate their dosimetry factor. 

9 So there's two different 

10 incidences within two, you know, during the 

11 beginning and towards the later part of the 

12 Harshaw operating period where similar 

13 programs using similar dosimetry are using 

14 uranium slabs to calibrate their dosimetry 

15 program for beta, and that should indicate 

16 that the Harshaw dosimetry program was well 

17 calibrated for the uranium betas and not using 

18 some, you know, other programs, other beta 

19 calibration. There should be a good response 

20 function for the beta exposures using the 

21 Harshaw dosimetry. That's the generic summary 

22 of the argument. Questions? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 MR. FARVER: I'll defer to John or 

2 John. They're my AWE people.

3 MR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

4 could give you, we actually brought aboard a 

5 fellow, Joe Zlotnicki, to look into this issue 

6 of calibration of beta and what are the 

7 complexities. And I think the bottom line is 

8 that there certainly could have been -- we're 

9 glad to hear that the film badge is calibrated 

10 using uranium betas because that's, in fact, 

11 what you were dealing with. So that gets us 

12 halfway home.

13 And the other half, I don't know 

14 if there's anything that could be done. That 

15 has to do with -- this fellow, Joe, who was 

16 with Teledyne for many, many years, and he 

17 pointed out that one of the practices that was 

18 commonplace in those years, the early years, 

19 was to place the dosimeter inside some type of 

20 packet to prevent it from getting 

21 contaminated. It was kind of strange when you 

22 think about it. And as a result, there was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 degree of attenuation of the beta. I mean, to 

2 me, it sounds kind of strange that you would 

3 do that, where you put it in an additional 

4 packet, because of concerns regarding damage 

5 and contamination. And as a result, there was 

6 attenuation of the beta, and your readout was 

7 lower than what it should be.

8 But, you know, we don't have any 

9 evidence that, in fact, that was the practice 

10 that occurred at Harshaw. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: John, I could 

12 actually answer that. 

13 MR. MAURO: Oh, great. Thank you. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: There are actual, 

15 some of the Harshaw dosimeter reports that 

16 talk about contaminated badges, and there's no 

17 indication that they ever directed Harshaw to 

18 individually bag the workers because you 

19 continually see it, but they do actually tell 

20 them when they're shipping them to make sure 

21 that they bag individual workers to separate 

22 them from the shipping of other workers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 because, in order to prevent cross2 contamination of dosimeters. 

3 MR. MAURO: Oh, I see.

4 MR. SIEBERT: So it doesn't seem 

5 that there's ever any indication that they 

6 were having individuals individually bagged to 

7 control the contamination of their badge. 

8 They were just trying to prevent cross 

9 contamination of badges.

10 MR. MAURO: Got you, yes. Well, I 

11 tell you, that's it. I mean, that was our 

12 only concern. We thought you wouldn't be able 

13 to get any information on this. It was sort 

14 of how we're going to deal with this. I hate 

15 to raise an issue that really -- but it sounds 

16 like you answered the two parts of it. One, 

17 they used uranium, which is the right energy 

18 distribution; and, two, there's evidence that 

19 they did not have this extra bag while they 

20 were wearing it that would further attenuate 

21 the field.

22 So, I mean, that being the case, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 don't know if anyone else has any feedback on 

2 this, but that sounds like it addresses our 

3 issues. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

5 Brad. It's interesting because it's not in 

6 our RWPs, but that's a commonplace practice 

7 today that you bag them. 

8 MR. MAURO: I couldn't hear you, 

9 Brad. 

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I say that is a 

11 commonplace practice now to bag them when you 

12 go into a contaminated area still today. 

13 MR. MAURO: To today. Okay. 

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But when they 

15 were describing -- and there may be two 

16 different things between what the, what was 

17 being described as having the film in a packet 

18 versus bagging a contaminated dosimeter before 

19 transporting it to prevent cross20 contamination. I think film packets were 

21 sometimes used to control fogging of the film 

22 by humidity or other conditions. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 So, I mean, again, I'm not sure 

2 how far we want to go with this, but that 

3 would seem to me kind of more likely kind of 

4 the concern that maybe was being raised, were 

5 the films encased in a packet which would 

6 attenuate the beta response.

7 MR. MAURO: That was really the 

8 issue, besides what the issue was was it 

9 calibrated in the same circumstances that it 

10 was actually used for the worker, that is 

11 including any over-packing for this problem of 

12 contamination, as Brad pointed out. If they 

13 were calibrated under the same circumstances, 

14 then everything is fine. But if they were 

15 calibrated without it and then used with some 

16 type of extra, that might have attenuated the 

17 beta radiation. And then, of course, we've 

18 got ourselves an underestimate that needs to 

19 be adjusted for. But, I mean, that's about as 

20 far as we could take it. 

21 MR. FARVER: So is there any 

22 further action that we can take on that or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 MR. CALHOUN: I just forwarded all 

2 of you that email, by the way. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't seem 

4 reasonable. 

5 MR. MAURO: It sounds like that 

6 they did not use this over-pack when they were 

7 issued the badges. Do you actually have some 

8 records that said that, that the over-pack was 

9 only used in returning the badges? That's 

10 what I understood you described.

11 MEMBER MUNN: In the absence of 

12 contrary information, it would appear to be 

13 taken care of. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I beg to differ 

15 on that. Basically, with no proof saying yes 

16 --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Do you have 

18 experience with this, Brad? 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, very much 

20 so.

21 MEMBER MUNN: They do that 

22 routinely in Idaho now? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: It's been that 

2 way for 25 years. When I go into a Zone 3, 

3 which is very high contamination, I bag my 

4 TLD, and then I put it inside of another bag 

5 along with my ED so that I can read it. So 

6 now I've got a double bag on it and then come 

7 out.

8 But I go into a Zone 1, which is a 

9 low contamination area, our badges have to be 

10 worn on the outside and they have to be 

11 bagged. All that is is for contamination 

12 purposes. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Does that lead us to 

14 believe that this is what transpired at 

15 Harshaw, even though we have information that 

16 it was used, that the process was used for a 

17 different purpose? 

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I think it 

19 doesn't come out right and say -- well, let's 

20 ask the question. Was it Mutty that did, that 

21 said this? 

22 MR. SHARFI: Yes. Their specific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 letter says that some of these badges are 

2 actually being coated with green salt. So if 

3 they're being coated with green salt, they're 

4 obviously not bagged.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

6 MR. SHARFI: To the extent that 

7 the badge readings have little meaning, these 

8 badges also tend to be contaminated with clean 

9 badges and are in the same package. 

10 Therefore, you wrap the following badges 

11 separately each week when shipping. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So --

13 MR. FARVER: We can close that 

14 one. 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: So when they 

16 calibrate it, do they bag it? 

17 MR. SHARFI: So they're not 

18 wearing them bagged. They're just, when 

19 you're shipping them, please bag them so you 

20 don't cross-contaminate. 

21 MR. MAURO: Hey, Brad, do you know 

22 what, I mean, notwithstanding our discussion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 here, do you know that your vendor that 

2 supplies you with your service, do they 

3 calibrate your badges with the extra --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, they do not. 

5 MR. MAURO: They do not. So --

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: But our vendor is 

7 actually ourselves. We have our own dosimetry 

8 program between the two, but I know that 

9 they're not done that way. 

10 MR. STIVER: Brad, this is John 

11 Stiver. Do you know if they make any 

12 corrections for the additional attenuation 

13 from the bags? When you, do you have to 

14 notify them that you bagged the badges --

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, I can't 

16 really get into that. All I'm trying to say 

17 is that, from my experience, because for me to 

18 talk about that, I'm conflicted in that area 

19 so--

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It seems to me 

21 like putting a bag over the dosimeter to deal 

22 with the problem that the dosimeter results 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 may not be interpretable if it's covered with 

2 salts or anything else maybe would, it seems 

3 to me like that's a -- the attenuation by the 

4 bag is less of an important problem than the 

5 question if they did not bag it and the open 

6 window and shielded window are both covered 

7 with salts, the attenuation by that could be, 

8 would seem like -- well, in general, the 

9 interpretation of the dosimeter under those 

10 conditions is really questionable. 

11 MR. FARVER: It's shielding out 

12 the low level.

13 MR. CALHOUN: By the uranium salt 

14 itself? 

15 MR. FARVER: I mean, if you're 

16 attenuating anything, it's going to be the low 

17 energy, which is going to get attenuated by 

18 your coveralls, which are probably double PCs 

19 or something. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I thought they 

21 were having a problem interpreting the 

22 dosimetry results was the quote that was read.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 MR. FARVER: Which one? From 

2 Mutty? 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: That was because it 

5 was contaminated with green salt.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

7 MR. FARVER: Yes. But I'm saying 

8 if you bag it to prevent that --

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: -- then even what 

11 you're shielding out is getting shielded out 

12 by what you're wearing anyway. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Right. Oh, 

14 yes, yes. So the bag --

15 MR. CALHOUN: We're not bagging it 

16 there. It sounds like what --

17 MR. FARVER: Right.

18 MR. CALHOUN: -- here is if the 

19 badges got contaminated they weren't bagged.

20 MR. FARVER: But even if you're 

21 bagging it now, it's not like you're missing 

22 anything --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, but I'm 

2 asking about use of those dosimeters that were 

3 not bagged and were--

4 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know that. 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: How do you 

6 interpret --

7 MR. CALHOUN: It would have to be 

8 super, super caked for there to be any 

9 meaningful attenuation of low-energy betas, I 

10 would think, especially when you've got those 

11 whopper betas coming off of uraniums, you 

12 know. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, it's more 

14 like the film gets dark, right? 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And that's why 

17 --

18 MR. CALHOUN: They would count it 

19 as a higher dose.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, I think 

21 they would say it was not readable or 

22 something.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought the 

2 question on this was the calibration, if they 

3 were bagging these when they wore them or did 

4 they calibrate without it? So I thought that 

5 was where we got into the question.

6 MR. FARVER: Well, they weren't 

7 bagging it, Harshaw. And they weren't bagging 

8 it, or calibrating it with the bag because 

9 they were not bagging it when they were 

10 wearing it. It didn't matter. And what I was 

11 saying was it really doesn't matter with you 

12 now because whatever is going to be shielding 

13 out is going to get shielded out by your 

14 coveralls and your anti-C clothing anyway. A 

15 plastic bag is not going to attenuate any more 

16 than going through PC, double PCs.

17 So I believe we can, we're done 

18 with that. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so. 

20 Okay. Where can we go next? 

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

22 Since we did also talk about the bagging 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 issue, Doug, I'll send you a little 

2 clarification in what the SRDB references on 

3 that whole memo on the bagging so that you can 

4 put it in the matrix to be complete.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let me make a 

6 note of that or I'll forget. 

7 Attachment 2, Finding 7. So this 

8 will be Harshaw still, and it has to do with 

9 urine sampling, Monday morning urine sampling 

10 could result in underestimates. And the 

11 action was NIOSH will provide analysis related 

12 to how different solubilities may be affected 

13 by this type of sampling. And I believe there 

14 is a document somewhere. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I believe 

16 that's one that Stu sent on. 

17 MR. FARVER: I don't remember the 

18 name. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'll tell you. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: It's called "SCA HAR 

21 Number 7 White Paper, Harshaw, Monday Morning 

22 Samples, NIOSH, May 2013." 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 MR. FARVER: Short name. 

2 MR. SIEBERT: I tried to describe 

3 it in the name of the file as much as 

4 possible. And once you guys are ready, just 

5 let us know and Liz Brackett is going to be 

6 handling this one for us. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

8 -- that's my problem. 

9 MR. FARVER: Do you have the 

10 document up? 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Getting 

12 there. I'm working there. So just do go on, 

13 folks.

14 MR. FARVER: No, we'll wait for 

15 you, and then Liz will tell us about it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

17 see. Okay.

18 MR. CALHOUN: It should be page 

19 106. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm not 

21 there yet. Please, do go on. I'm embarrassed 

22 holding you all up. Okay. And we're on 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

222

1 Okay. Finally, I'm here. And we are looking 

2 at -- there we go. Okay. We're on 8 and case 

3 matrix --

4 MR. FARVER: Yes, down at the 

5 bottom. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of page? 

7 MR. FARVER: Oh, around 105. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

9 MR. FARVER: Attachment Number 2, 

10 Finding Number 7. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Attachment 

12 2, Finding -- okay. 

13 MR. FARVER: NIOSH provided the 

14 White Paper called "Harshaw Monday Morning 

15 Urine Samples." 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. All 

17 right. Indeed. NIOSH will follow up. Okay. 

18 MR. FARVER: Are we ready?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Go ahead, Liz. 

21 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. Well, the 

22 issue is the collection of a Monday morning 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 sample for uranium. That was done at some 

2 types to clear out anything over the weekend, 

3 the insoluble portion, so that they could see 

4 actually what was taken up into the body.

5 A valid practice. The issue comes 

6 in where we assume a chronic intake for most 

7 people, and you get a different result if 

8 there's actually a break of two days before 

9 you assume the sample was collected and you 

10 underestimate the results, the intake, if you 

11 have just a single Monday morning sample, 

12 assuming that the intake occurred all the way 

13 up until the time of the sample, versus having 

14 stopped two days prior to that.

15 So what I looked at here was the 

16 actual distribution of the cases. This is a 

17 co-worker study that we're looking at, and so 

18 we use all of the samples that were collected 

19 by the site to do this assessment. And in 

20 looking at the distribution, there are many of 

21 them collected on Mondays but not the 

22 majority. If you look towards the end of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 paper, the first several pages are kind of a 

2 background description of this whole issue. 

3 The last two pages show the specific data for 

4 Harshaw, and you can see that the Tables 1, 2, 

5 and 3, the first three columns are the same. 

6 The rest of it is just by the different 

7 material types because it's going to be 

8 different values, depending on the material 

9 type that you have.

10 But you can see Monday samples, 32 

11 percent of the total number of samples were 

12 collected on a Monday. The rest of the days 

13 had fewer relatively, but they were still 

14 distributed over time. On the weekends, it 

15 had the lowest amounts, 3 percent and 6 

16 percent for Sunday and Saturday, and then 

17 pretty much evenly distributed throughout 

18 Tuesday through Friday.

19 And so when you take this into 

20 account that the samples were distributed 

21 throughout the week, you can see Table 4 gives 

22 the relative difference between assuming a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 constant chronic intake that is spread evenly 

2 over the seven days, as opposed to a five-day 

3 work week, which is what we assumed that would 

4 have been occurring at the site.

5 For Type-F, we're probably about 7 

6 percent low by assuming the constant chronic 

7 intake relative to if it had been a five-day 

8 week. And Type-S, S as in slow, some of these 

9 get confused on the transcript, so let me say 

10 that again. Type-F, as in fast, we come up 

11 with 93 percent relative to what you would get 

12 if it was a five day week and S, for slow, 98 

13 percent, so almost the same thing that you 

14 would have gotten with the five-day week.

15 I don't know if you want more of a 

16 description or you have specific questions on 

17 this. 

18 MR. FARVER: So the point is the 

19 solubility really doesn't matter.

20 MS. BRACKETT: Well, it makes a 

21 little bit of a difference -- right. Not huge 

22 amounts.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 MR. FARVER: Right.

2 MS. BRACKETT: Not when you have 

3 this many samples. I think if you had fewer 

4 samples, you know, and if it were weighted 

5 more heavily towards Monday, then it could 

6 make a difference. But with this particular 

7 distribution, then it doesn't make a large 

8 difference. And the seven-day versus five-day 

9 is really what we're looking at because that's 

10 what these numbers are. It's relative, you 

11 know, the chronic over seven days versus 

12 chronic over five days is what we're looking 

13 at. 

14 And it looks like we have possibly 

15 a slight underestimate but not a large 

16 underestimate. And then each of these would 

17 be, the distributions would be assigned with a 

18 GSD, and I don't have those in front of me, 

19 but it would be a minimum of three assigned to 

20 each intake. 

21 MR. MAURO: Liz, this is John 

22 Mauro. One of the factors that contributed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 this being a, you know, negligible difference, 

2 even for the Type-F, fast, is that you do have 

3 a number of samples that are carted off 

4 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, 

5 because I was expecting to see a bigger 

6 difference for Type Fast, and it probably 

7 would have been if they were all on Monday.

8 MS. BRACKETT: Yes --

9 MR. MAURO: Do you have any idea 

10 of how big a difference it would have been if 

11 they were all on Monday? 

12 MS. BRACKETT: Let's see. Well, 

13 what you can do is look at, well, in Table 1, 

14 you see the IRF. If you look at the 5-7 IRF 

15 relative to the 7-7 IRF, that would tell you 

16 what the difference would be. So, let's see, 

17 0.0894 divided by 0.273. I think it's, I was 

18 thinking it was around a factor of three.

19 MR. MAURO: Okay, okay. Because, 

20 intuitively, I was expecting a bigger 

21 difference, and it would have been if they 

22 were all on Monday.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

2 MR. MAURO: But, so, I mean, the 

3 fact that it's spread out the way it is, 

4 bringing it down to only a 7-percent 

5 difference for F, and, of course, we're not 

6 dealing only with F. That's part of it only. 

7 And you go from what, 93- to 98-percent 

8 difference.

9 MS. BRACKETT: Right.

10 MR. MAURO: Okay. And then you 

11 have this big standard deviation that you're 

12 assuming, also. You said a factor of three?

13 MS. BRACKETT: Well, no, these 

14 would be assigned as a log-normal 

15 distribution, and for a co-worker study the 

16 minimum GSD is three.

17 MR. MAURO: Is three. That's a 

18 multiplier. Right, okay. 

19 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

20 MR. MAURO: All right. Yes, okay. 

21 Thank you. 

22 MS. BRACKETT: You're welcome. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds acceptable to

2 me. 

3 MR. FARVER: Any other questions 

4 or comments on that? 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. So we'll --

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. In 

8 the Harshaw TBD, the GSDs range from three to 

9 about four. 

10 MR. FARVER: Thank you. No 

11 further action, finding closed; is that okay?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Moving on. 

14 We'll talk about Attachment 3, which is 

15 Huntington Pilot Plant. Attachment 3, Finding 

16 3. I don't know if we have anything on that 

17 or not, Scott. Do we have anything on that, 

18 Attachment 3, Finding 3? 

19 MR. SIEBERT: I can't speak to 

20 Huntington because that --

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

22 MR. STIVER: I think Grady, that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 your guys'.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Which one? 

3 Attachment 3--

4 MR. FARVER: Finding 3.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Finding 3. NIOSH 

6 will follow up on source data, and we will 

7 continue to follow up on source data because I 

8 haven't gotten any response from that one.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

11 it's okay, just keep it, as they say, keep it 

12 to a dull roar. Keep it limited. Okay. Next 

13 one.

14 MR. FARVER: Next one should be, 

15 well, Attachment 3, Finding 5, but that's the 

16 same as Finding 3, so I'm assuming that we'll 

17 just --

18 MR. CALHOUN: And this one will be 

19 the same. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 

21 MR. FARVER: Unless you can think 

22 of a new answer real quick.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 MR. CALHOUN: I can't. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well, now, before we 

5 go too far away from all that dust-loading

6 business, was there, was there a response, was 

7 there a later response to Finding 3 than we 

8 saw in February of this year when NIOSH re9 evaluated the dust data and provided a more 

10 claimant-favorable approach to allow for 

11 uncertainty? Do we have something more recent 

12 than that? 

13 MR. CALHOUN: I don't --

14 MEMBER MUNN: I guess that infers 

15 to me that we, although we didn't say closed, 

16 it sounds as though the February presentation 

17 by--

18 MR. CALHOUN: It looks like there 

19 was something that we said we did in February, 

20 but then on 3/25 SC&A believes that the issue 

21 needs to be discussed further. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. But they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 weren't specific. All we know is just discuss 

2 further?

3 MR. CALHOUN: That's all I know at 

4 this point but--

5 MR. FARVER: We have to go back 

6 and look at the transcripts probably to get to 

7 the heart of it. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, it 

9 appears to me that we need to be more 

10 specific. If there's still an outstanding 

11 question, it doesn't appear in what I'm 

12 reading. I guess that's --

13 MR. FARVER: Well, no, we don't 

14 put all the details in the matrix. You put 

15 down the --

16 MEMBER MUNN: No, I know. But 

17 what I see says that NIOSH has provided a more 

18 claimant-favorable approach, and it refers us 

19 to Section 5.1 of the OCAS document. But then 

20 I guess my real question is, bottom line 

21 question is what is it, what other thing is 

22 SC&A looking for? I'm assuming the action is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 the report.

2 MR. FARVER: The action was, I 

3 don't recall what we talked about at the last 

4 meeting, but the action was determined that 

5 NIOSH will follow up on the source data. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Very good. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

8 we're, three and five are still up in the air, 

9 and did we cover --

10 MR. FARVER: We should be down to 

11 seven. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Okay.

13 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

14 survey data used at Huntington Pilot Plant, 

15 and SC&A is currently performing an 

16 evaluation. And I believe we did, and I've 

17 got my Huntington people on the phone, I'm 

18 sure. 

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, this is Steve 

20 Marschke. I performed an independent 

21 evaluation of the calculation that was done in 

22 the revised Site Profile, and we're in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 final stages of putting together that report. 

2 And, basically, the gist of the evaluation, 

3 we didn't find any showstoppers or anything 

4 like that, any findings. And we think that 

5 this could be, there's a unit conversion thing 

6 that makes no difference, but, other than 

7 that, we agree with the evaluation that was 

8 done. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So that's 

10 forthcoming. 

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

13 Anything further? 

14 MR. FARVER: I don't believe so on 

15 that one. Let me--

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: So are we just leaving 

18 that open for next time? 

19 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, we're going 

20 to close that one, I believe. We can close 

21 that because we agree. I'm just trying to get 

22 everything --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 MR. CALHOUN: Is that number 

2 seven? 

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

4 MR. KATZ: But you guys are still 

5 issuing --

6 MR. FARVER: Well, he's making 

7 some minor edits to his report. He had his 

8 report out, and I don't think it's going to 

9 change its substance. Is that correct, Steve?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct. 

11 We're not changing that portion of the report 

12 at all. 

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, okay. Finding 

14 8.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the same 

16 situation. The only question that did arise 

17 on these direct dose evaluations are we 

18 noticed that, in the revised Site Profile, 

19 NIOSH is using 20-gallon drums, putting the 

20 residue in 20-gallon drums, as opposed to 

21 using, in the previous Site Profile they were 

22 using these birdcages. And we investigated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 that a little bit, and we found out that, 

2 basically, the revised Site Profile is more 

3 consistent with the documents that were 

4 produced back in the 1950s, and it looks, 

5 again, reading the original Site Profile, it 

6 looks like it was, the use of the birdcages 

7 were assumed, as opposed to documented. Use 

8 of the 20-gallon drums, there is documentation 

9 for that. So we kind of, I guess, at this 

10 point, we agree with that change. 

11 MR. MAURO: Could I add a little? 

12 This is John Mauro. Is it true, though, that 

13 they did not use -- in other words, we were 

14 under the misconception at the time we did our 

15 review. When I say misconception, at the time 

16 that the original work was done, the birdcages 

17 are special devices to store enriched uranium, 

18 pure enriched uranium, not like residue mixed 

19 with nickel, pure enriched uranium in a way 

20 that precludes criticality.

21 It sounds like that, and this is 

22 where we could use a little clarification, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 sounds like that, in revising the Site 

2 Profile, you've moved away from the birdcage 

3 idea where the uranium is purified, pure, and 

4 stored in this non-critical mass 

5 configuration, but it really was just a 

6 residue of uranium that the products at the 

7 end, after they went through the process -- I 

8 forget the name of it. It was a carbon 

9 monoxide or carbon dioxide separations 

10 process. The product was a residue of where 

11 you separated the nickel in one place, and you 

12 have this uranium residue in another place, 

13 which was not of concern from a criticality 

14 perspective. And so the birdcages weren't 

15 used. 

16 That was our, we're assuming 

17 that's the case. Is that what happened here? 

18 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know.

19 MR. MAURO: Because, you know, you 

20 did move away from the birdcages as your 

21 source of external exposure and the old one to 

22 now your source of external exposure are these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 20-gallon drums containing residue. And 

2 that's fine if that's, in fact, what happened. 

3 So we're assuming that the birdcages are no 

4 longer in play. And, Steve, am I correct that 

5 the external exposures associated with the 

6 birdcages, they were higher? 

7 MR. MARSCHKE: They were slightly 

8 higher. But, again, there's no, I mean, I 

9 went on and looked in the site database there 

10 where all the reports, and, you know, there's 

11 150 reports for Huntington. And, you know, 

12 you search for birdcage, and it doesn't show 

13 up in any of them. So I think the use of the 

14 birdcage in the original Site Profile was 

15 probably a conservative assumption, and now 

16 we're going with these 20-gallon drums, which, 

17 again, these do show up in some of the 

18 documentation, so I think it's going to more -

19 - reflecting more of reality than, you know, 

20 than the previous Site Profile. 

21 MR. MAURO: I think in our report 

22 we're going to just point out that we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 surmising that this is what happened and why 

2 you moved away from birdcages to 20-gallon 

3 because it's really not discussed in your new 

4 work. And you'll see in the report that Steve 

5 is finalizing as we speak that we'll probably 

6 just simply like a little clarification of why 

7 you moved away from the birdcages.

8 I don't know if it made that much 

9 difference in the dose. I think the birdcages 

10 did give higher doses.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Slightly higher but 

12 not significantly. They weren't significantly 

13 higher.

14 MR. MAURO: Yes, okay.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: And, again, if the 

16 birdcages are not used, you know --

17 MR. MAURO: Oh, yes, yes, right. 

18 I agree. 

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could you, 

20 just as a point of clarification for me in 

21 understanding how to read and interpret the 

22 Site Profile documents, I guess. I tended to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 view them as sort of basis documents where if 

2 there was really sort of worst-case scenario 

3 speculation that was made very explicit but a 

4 lot of it was described and there was factual, 

5 are you saying that there was a description of 

6 a scenario which you have no empirical basis 

7 for or you can find none at this point? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: In the old version 

9 of the document, the original version of the 

10 document, they used these birdcages and I

11 couldn't find any reference in any of the 

12 Huntington documents where they mention 

13 birdcages. I think --

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So who wrote 

15 that, who wrote the original version of the 

16 document?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: I think it came 

18 from Oak Ridge. Now, when the new version, 

19 the new version of the Site Profile that we're 

20 actually verifying now, they are using these 

21 20-gallon drums which are documented in the 

22 reports that were produced back in the 1950s.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 MR. CALHOUN: I'm asking the 

2 question. I can find an answer to that. I 

3 just don't know off the top of my head. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, what did 

5 Huntington, to what percentage did they 

6 enrich?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: They didn't 

8 actually enrich. What they did was they got 

9 material, contaminated nickel from the 

10 diffusion facilities, and they separated the 

11 nickel from the uranium and anything else that 

12 was contaminating the nickel because their 

13 goal was to return to the AEC, at that time I 

14 guess it was AEC, nickel. And they had this 

15 residue then, what they call residue, which 

16 was, you know, everything that wasn't nickel 

17 goes into these, in these residue containers. 

18 And then they also get -- and as you can 

19 imagine, a lot of that is uranium. And it's 

20 at enrichment levels, which, you know, I guess 

21 for the Site Profile they're using a nominal 

22 two-percent enrichment. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 MR. MAURO: But the fraction of 

2 the residue that's uranium is relatively small 

3 as compared to birdcages where it would be 

4 assumed that it's pure uranium. 

5 MR. STIVER: John, this is John 

6 Stiver. I'm thinking that the reason they may 

7 have assumed birdcages in the last time 

8 around, remember they're also assuming that 

9 there's a 36-percent enrichment.

10 MR. MAURO: Yes, yes.

11 MR. STIVER: Based on that, they 

12 would have assumed a little bit of a 

13 criticality issue --

14 MR. MAURO: That's a good point.

15 MR. STIVER: -- birdcages. It's 

16 conjecture, but that could be the reason for 

17 it. 

18 MR. MAURO: I think that's a good 

19 -- I mean, we're all sort of speculating on 

20 the reason for this change. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: I'm going to find 

22 that out so--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 MR. MAURO: Yes. And it will be 

2 good to have -- you'll see. I mean, it will 

3 be helpful to close the loop, close the circle 

4 on this story. 

5 MR. MARSCHKE: John, I think the 

6 reason for the change is the documentation 

7 indicates that it's a 20-gallon drum and not a 

8 birdcage.

9 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And so, I mean, 

11 that's the reason for the change. Now, you 

12 can ask the question why did they use the 

13 birdcage back in the previous iteration.

14 MR. MAURO: Yes. 

15 MR. MARSCHKE: But that, you know, 

16 I mean, we didn't really try and track that 

17 down. But, I mean, the reason for the change 

18 is, you know --

19 MR. MAURO: No, I understand and I 

20 agree. I mean, you know what it is? I was 

21 the original reviewer back, way back when, and 

22 we looked really carefully at the birdcage 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 dosimetry and everything. All of a sudden, 

2 the birdcages are gone, and I was just 

3 surprised to see that. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I'm looking at 

5 Rev 0. I guess we had an initial one. Maybe 

6 it was called something different, but Rev 0 

7 doesn't have the word birdcage in it at all. 

8 It is completely 20-gallon and says this is 

9 what happened. So I imagine that that's, you 

10 know, but I'll see if I get any tribal 

11 knowledge on why it's changed because, I mean, 

12 this is `08. It was changed to 20 gallons. 

13 This is how old this thing is. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: The original one, 

15 when I'm referring to the original one was, 

16 it's an Oak Ridge and ORAU-TKBS-0004, as 

17 opposed to an OCAS-0004, and it was, had an 

18 effective date of January, January 16th, 2004.

19 MR. MAURO: Yes, I think that's 

20 the one I reviewed.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: And that's the one 

22 that's got the bird -- and it's a Revision 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

245

1 but, again, it's --

2 MR. CALHOUN: Right. But we 

3 switched, we switched it from ORAU to us --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

5 MR. CALHOUN: -- out in the 

6 document.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: And went back to 

8 Revision 0. It still has the same TKBS 

9 number. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: We'll follow up. 

11 I'll try to find something out on that, you 

12 know. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Does that 

14 have to come back to the Subcommittee? 

15 MR. CALHOUN: I mean, if you guys 

16 want it to, if you need to know that before 

17 you close it out.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

19 think we do. What I'm hoping is that you can 

20 just get that corrected internally and close 

21 it.

22 MR. MAURO: I think we're raising 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 this -- Steve, you're raising this as an 

2 observation. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: We're going to 

4 raise this as an observation. It's something 

5 we would like to know and not as a finding or 

6 anything like that, yes. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I just want to 

9 know how crazy stuff ends up in this document. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: It's just an 

11 assumption, probably worst-case assumption. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right, 

13 right.

14 MR. CALHOUN: As birdcages were, 

15 you know, they were used. There's a lot of 

16 different things called birdcages, you know. 

17 MR. MAURO: You know, I think John 

18 Stiver's -- and maybe we're beating a dead 

19 horse. At that time, also, you were assuming 

20 that the uranium was 36-percent enriched --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

22 MR. MAURO: And maybe creating a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 circumstance where there was a possibility, 

2 and the assumption was that you would use 

3 birdcages, even though perhaps they weren't. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And the 

5 whole point of birdcage was criticality 

6 control. 

7 MR. MAURO: Yes. 

8 MR. STIVER: In this case, it 

9 sounds like it was an assumption that was 

10 later disproved when the actual documentation 

11 was located. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Shall 

13 we go on? Attachment 3, Finding 8. 

14 MR. FARVER: Attachment 3, Finding 

15 8. Isn't that the one we were just on? Okay, 

16 that's closed.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Sorry. Okay, yes.

19 MR. FARVER: Attachment 3, Finding 

20 11. Residual surface contamination exposures. 

21 I mean, this is going to go back to Steve 

22 again. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Actually, it goes -

2 - okay. I can tell you -- it actually goes to 

3 John Mauro. John Mauro issued something back 

4 in, on March 21st where he, of this year. And 

5 if you look at that document, he basically 

6 agreed with the NIOSH. "We agree that the new 

7 approach by NIOSH is bounding and an 

8 improvement over the original strategy. 

9 However, there remains a need to discuss 

10 whether such a strategy is consistent with the 

11 provisions of the statute and its implementing 

12 regulations." That's the quote from the 

13 report that was issued by SC&A back on March 

14 21st of this year.

15 MR. MAURO: And if you give me a 

16 minute, I got to refresh my memory because I 

17 remember when I put that mini-report out that 

18 was what eventually, triggered Steve's work on 

19 that issue. You may want to move on while I 

20 just check what I was saying there because I 

21 have to say I don't remember what the concern 

22 was. I'll just need a minute to take a look 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 at that report. 

2 MR. FARVER: If we move on to the 

3 next one, it also needs discussion. 

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, basically, 11 

5 and 12 are the, yes, they're both handled in 

6 the same -- actually, in that report, March 

7 21st report, they were both lumped together, 

8 and then the same statement that I read 

9 applies to both. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

11 while he's looking that up -- that is the last 

12 one.

13 MR. FARVER: For the 8th Set.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't want 

15 to go to another set. 

16 MR. FARVER: Next, we go to 9th 

17 Set. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the 9th 

19 Set, they said there was no, there were no --

20 MR. FARVER: They didn't have any. 

21 We've got a couple.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 MR. FARVER: If you want to close 

2 out a couple of findings.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but I 

4 don't want to go to the 9th Set until we --

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- finish 

7 up. I don't want to go, switch back and forth 

8 sets.

9 MR. FARVER: Do you want to take 

10 five or--

11 MR. KATZ: John Mauro, do we need 

12 to take five? 

13 MR. MAURO: Yes, I'm almost there. 

14 I'm reading it right now. I have it in front 

15 of me. It will take me a second. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. We 

17 can chat on the record. 

18 MR. KATZ: Does anybody need a 

19 comfort break while we're waiting? 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we do. 

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Why don't we just 

22 take a quick five-minute break? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 MR. KATZ: Yes. John, while 

2 you're looking, let's just take a five-minute 

3 comfort break --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Five 

5 minutes. Okay. 

6 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

7 went off the record at 2:30 p.m. 

8 and went back on the record at 

9 2:41 p.m.)

10 MR. KATZ: We're back. Let me 

11 check and see, Wanda, do we have you back? 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you do. 

13 MR. KATZ: Great. And let me just 

14 check and see if I have any other Board 

15 Members on. Dr. Poston? 

16 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston is 

17 here. 

18 MR. KATZ: Great. And how about 

19 Mark Griffon? 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I guess he's 

21 gone for the afternoon. He indicated that he 

22 might not be able to stay on all day. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 So, John Mauro, have you resolved 

2 the issue or found the information you were 

3 looking for? 

4 MR. MAURO: Yes, I did. I just 

5 needed to refresh my memory from that report. 

6 If you're ready to proceed, I will be glad to 

7 give you the 30-second sound bite. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do it.

9 MR. MAURO: Okay. We'll knock 

10 this off. In our original review back in 2004 

11 or whatever of the Site Profile, we were 

12 concerned that the method that was being used 

13 to reconstruct the doses depended on data that 

14 was collected after decontamination. So in 

15 other words, decontamination at the facility 

16 took place in about 1978 - `79, and then they 

17 had some data in 1980 of the residual amounts 

18 of radioactivity that were there at that time. 

19 And in that old, old Site Profile, they used 

20 that data to reconstruct data pre21 decontamination, which we felt was 

22 inappropriate. And, apparently, NIOSH agreed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 with that. And in the revised Site Profile, 

2 what they did was say, okay, we have, we're 

3 going to use the exposures associated with the 

4 operations period and apply that to the later 

5 periods, you know, after operations 

6 terminated, including the remediation period 

7 which is `78 - `79 time period. 

8 So the new approach simply says, 

9 okay, we're simply going to conservatively 

10 assume that the exposures, as derived, such as 

11 the 20-gallon drum exposures we talked about 

12 earlier and there's also the airborne 

13 exposures from inhalation, that were 

14 constructed during operations, which we find 

15 favorably with, we're going to apply those 

16 same assumptions to this non-operational time 

17 period. And in my mind, of course, that's 

18 bounding. And so my perspective, it's 

19 bounding, but it's unusual in that, you know, 

20 you would not expect the doses during the 

21 standby period or during the post-operational 

22 period and the remediation period to be as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 high as it was during operations but certainly 

2 bounding. And that was why I felt that this 

3 was a bit unusual because, usually, the 

4 exposures at post-operations at facilities 

5 like this, AWE facilities like this, if this 

6 is an AWE, I believe it is, would use what's 

7 called the OTIB-70 approach for residual 

8 radioactivity. And so this is the first time 

9 I've seen where they've used the actual 

10 operational exposures and just assumed those 

11 same exposures occurred during these later 

12 time periods, and that's why I felt it was a 

13 little unusual.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments? 

15 MR. FARVER: So, John, are we okay 

16 with --

17 MR. MAURO: I mean, I only wanted 

18 to bring it up to the attention of the 

19 Subcommittee because it is, you know, they 

20 didn't use OTIB-70. They did something much 

21 more conservative. And as far as I'm 

22 concerned, you're certainly giving the benefit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 of the doubt to the workers. It's just a 

2 different approach that is being taken here 

3 than we're usually used to seeing, but it's 

4 more than bounding. 

5 MR. STIVER: John, this is John 

6 Stiver. To me, it really gets more to the 

7 issue of sufficient accuracy because, 

8 remember, you have a period during the 

9 operation period up to `62, we have this 

10 material and these drums, these 20-gallon 

11 drums and on-site and in whatever 

12 configuration they happen to be in. And then 

13 you have this standby period from `63 to `77, 

14 but, essentially, nothing is going on anymore. 

15 And then, finally, the D&D period is, what, 

16 `78 to `79.

17 MR. MAURO: Right. 

18 MR. STIVER: And so, presumably, 

19 all the sources, those drums have been removed 

20 from the building and, essentially, you don't 

21 have the sources of exposure there at that 

22 point. So it's certainly bounding. Now, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 it, does it meet the criteria for sufficient 

2 accuracy? I guess that's something that the 

3 Board needs to decide.

4 MR. MAURO: John, you nailed it. 

5 That's exactly what I was, I mean, surprised 

6 to see, such as a simple but certainly 

7 bounding approach, which, perhaps, could 

8 border on unrealistic. You would not, like 

9 you said, you would not expect these 20-gallon 

10 drums with residues to still be there when 

11 they were doing the work in 1978, the 

12 remediation period.

13 MEMBER MUNN: So this was the 

14 question that was outstanding from the 

15 presentation in February then? 

16 MR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: The real bottom-line 

18 question here is, we have a bounding 

19 situation, and the question is, is it 

20 scientifically accurate, adequately so? And 

21 SC&A doesn't have a position on that as yet. 

22 MR. MAURO: Our position is that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 it's highly unlikely that the exposures would 

2 come anywhere near the exposures that are, 

3 that they plan to use or they are using for 

4 the operations period. It would be much 

5 lower. It's claimant-favorable, but I don't 

6 think it's realistic.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So the 

8 current position of SC&A is this is 

9 unrealistic? 

10 MR. MAURO: Yes, I guess so.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

12 MR. STIVER: I guess that would 

13 sum it up in the sound bite. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: I guess we're going 

15 to have to have something that says that to go 

16 into the matrix, right? 

17 MR. MAURO: It's really a matter 

18 of whether, I mean, from my perspective, you 

19 know, you would be certainly bounding the 

20 doses by doing this. Now, whether or not the 

21 Subcommittee finds that this approach being 

22 unrealistic, you know, is acceptable or not. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 It's certainly not OTIB-70. 

2 MR. KATZ: Well, do we need DCAS 

3 to respond as to why we're not using an OTIB4 70 approach? Do we need more information 

5 here? 

6 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure OTIB-70 

7 was written in 2008.

8 MR. KATZ: No, no, I know. That's 

9 the case. But, I mean, now that we are where 

10 we are --

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, if they tell us 

12 it's unrealistically high, then we're going to 

13 have to address that, I guess. 

14 MR. KATZ: That's sort of the 

15 question. But, I mean, the dose 

16 reconstruction rule itself does not prevent 

17 you from being more coarse in any circumstance 

18 where that's the best, the most information 

19 you have. So the SEC rule doesn't come into 

20 play. It's the dose reconstruction rule, and 

21 that does not have any proviso that prevents 

22 you from being overly conservative.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 But the issue is, more to the 

2 point, I think, is, now that we have OTIB-70, 

3 if that's a more precise approach, is that the 

4 approach that should be applied here? 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So do you 

6 think that the upper bound is bounding but 

7 it's too high? The lower bound is zero, 

8 right? 

9 MR. MAURO: Sure. 

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And what's the 

11 magnitude of the upper bound?

12 MR. MAURO: Well, those are the 

13 doses that you would get. I don't have them 

14 before me. Maybe, Steve, you have it 

15 available. The external exposures are the 

16 derived doses from the material contained in 

17 these 20-gallon drums, and they were --

18 MR. CALHOUN: `56 to `79, the 

19 annual dose is 65 millirem. 

20 MR. MAURO: Okay. Oh, so you're 

21 talking about very small doses anyway. 

22 MR. KATZ: Tiny. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So I've been 

2 struggling with this sort of plausibility of, 

3 I mean, sufficient accuracy and bounding 

4 problem. And how it -- I mean, sufficient 

5 accuracy gets to this issue of plausibility. 

6 And it seems like there's something about the 

7 -- let's see if I can get this -- I had it 

8 figured out at one point in my head. It 

9 related, it relates to, it relates pretty much

10 to variants of this distribution that you want 

11 to assign to, and we can say that it's, in 

12 your case, you're saying it's bounding but 

13 it's --

14 MR. MAURO: It really doesn't 

15 represent the reality --

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- it's 

17 implausibly high and its variances, we're 

18 talking about values in which we want to lay 

19 in a range between zero and 65 millirems.

20 MR. MAURO: Yes, yes. I mean, 

21 we're really --

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So I'm not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 sure in this case that I, you know, whether we 

2 move that stake slightly, that I would have as 

3 much concern about plausibility of upper 

4 bounds as I would in a case where we're 

5 assigning several rem to a worker. 

6 MR. MAURO: Good point. 

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: When we looked at 

8 this, we're looking at this as an overarching 

9 and we got into this in many sites, and I 

10 agree with what you're saying that this one, 

11 it really is not going to amount to that much. 

12 But the stake that we have put in the ground 

13 is that you've got to be able to do, with some 

14 significant accuracy, be able to do these. 

15 I'm fighting the same issue at Fernald and 

16 several other ones. And this one --

17 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

18 Also, as a word of caution, you look into Los 

19 Alamos and some of the other, some of the 

20 accelerator-produced materials, which result 

21 in very low doses, but it became an issue, an 

22 SEC issue as to whether they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 reconstructable. We may be kind of up against 

2 the same kind of an issue. It's not really 

3 the magnitude of the dose but can it be 

4 reconstructed. 

5 MR. MAURO: Well, let me see, in 

6 my mind, I was expecting to see, okay, we know 

7 what the airborne levels of nickel are during 

8 operations, as we discussed all this before, 

9 and, therefore, the levels of uranium. And, 

10 in theory, I was expecting to see a post11 operations model that said, okay, we're going 

12 to, we're going to assume that there are no 

13 longer any barrels there containing the 

14 residue. They've cleared that out, you shut 

15 down operation. But you can have residual 

16 radioactivity from the settling of the 

17 airborne dust onto surfaces.

18 And then you go through the 

19 classic OTIB-70 approach where you get your 

20 external and your internal exposure, you know, 

21 after termination of operation based on the 

22 accumulation of settled material. Then that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 declines at that 0.0067 -- what is it -- per 

2 day rate of decline. That's your classic 

3 OTIB-70 approach. 

4 So it's not that we have a 

5 circumstance where you can't reconstruct the 

6 doses. Basically, I guess because OTIB-70 

7 wasn't around at the time, you took a simple 

8 approach, which was certainly bounding, and it 

9 wouldn't be, and what I'm hearing is and the 

10 doses you're going to be giving them are still 

11 very low because the operational doses are 

12 low. 

13 MR. STIVER: Hey, John, it sounds 

14 like it's a matter of going back and kind of 

15 retooling using OTIB-70 --

16 MR. KATZ: But, John, John Stiver, 

17 it's not worth it is what I think is being 

18 said here. The difference isn't worth the 

19 trouble. So they're getting a higher dose 

20 than they would under OTIB-70, but it's still, 

21 what I just heard was it's a relatively 

22 trivial dose anyway, and so why bother? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But there 

2 was a discussion that this happens elsewhere 

3 and it may not be so low. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, but, in that case, 

5 you're dealing with those cases and talk about 

6 it there. Why are we spending time here? 

7 We're trying to make progress. Why are we 

8 spending time here on a more generic issue 

9 about other sites where the doses in play may 

10 be higher. Deal with that where the doses are 

11 higher.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And we've had many 

13 conversations about the need to look at each 

14 of these sites, each of these facilities on 

15 its own merit without assuming that we're 

16 establishing precedent that covers across the 

17 broad spectrum, unless we've stipulated such. 

18 MR. STIVER: And I believe that 

19 kind of language is in OTIB-70. 

20 MR. KATZ: And the Board, the 

21 Board and, excuse me, Dr. Melius has spoken 

22 about this specifically, this issue of where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 the doses are higher and it's a bigger issue, 

2 we have a different standard to apply. But 

3 why apply a tight standard to a no, never mind 

4 dose? 

5 MEMBER MUNN: True. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. As 

7 long as we're not setting a precedent, that is 

8 we're looking at a case at a time, this is a 

9 non-issue. 

10 MR. MAURO: The only reason I 

11 brought it up is not that I had a finding 

12 here. In fact, you may have noticed that I 

13 don't have a finding, but I did feel it was 

14 appropriate to point this out to the 

15 Subcommittee so that we could have this 

16 conversation. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, you did 

18 exactly what we've expected you to do. 

19 MR. KATZ: There's no complaint 

20 with raising the issue. 

21 MR. MAURO: Okay, thank you. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 But the issue is resolved now. 

2 MR. KATZ: Right. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Now we need to 

4 derive a statement and incorporate it into the 

5 matrix and close the issue, all of them that 

6 are covered. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

8 So that leaves, I believe, two findings 

9 outstanding on 8, right? We're finished with 

10 --

11 MR. KATZ: That's correct. 

12 MR. FARVER: What type of warning 

13 do you want me to put in there, Wanda? 

14 MEMBER MUNN: We just need to say 

15 that SC&A agreed that the new approach was 

16 bounding and the Subcommittee agreed, and we 

17 closed it. 

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. So we reviewed 

19 the TBD and found it to be bounding, no 

20 further action, finding closed. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Do we need to put 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 in, do you feel that we need to put anything 

2 in there addressing that this was before OTIB, 

3 or do you think we've covered OTIB? 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: As long as 

5 we understand it's not a precedent, which I 

6 did not until it was raised. Okay. Then 

7 we're ready to go to 9, folks. We have a few 

8 issues to go with 9. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Give some of 

11 us a few moments to get to 9.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We can go to 

14 9 on the O: drive. That's where we should go, 

15 right? Correct? Okay. And it is under --

16 MR. CALHOUN: Wait. I don't know 

17 if Stu sent that or not. Let's see. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, because 

19 a lot of us said we haven't seen --

20 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes, that's the 

21 old one, yes. We didn't send a new one. 

22 You'd have to go back to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 MR. FARVER: I've sent one 

2 probably after our last meeting, and that 

3 would have been --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So is 

5 that on DR Subcommittee? 

6 MR. FARVER: No, it would have 

7 been in your email. Yes, I mean, probably the 

8 first couple of weeks of April or so. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Okay. 

10 For better or worse, I have it. Okay. For 

11 better. So let's see what was the first one? 

12 Because I have something on the first one, on 

13 79.1 C11, but it says NIOSH to review. You're 

14 saying that there are, there are things for 

15 SCA --

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. Go down to Tab 

17 185. I think that's where we start.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Give 

19 me a page number. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Nine of 

21 seventy-three. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 you. Yes, sorry. 

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is 

3 another Huntington Pilot Plant case. The good 

4 news is that, based on Steve's report and what 

5 he wrote up, we can close a lot of these in 

6 this case, in this, yes, this tab, 185. This 

7 specific one is about the model photon doses 

8 were based on an appropriate method. So they 

9 went back and the new technical basis has a 

10 different method. And let's see if I can 

11 describe it. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, this is, 

13 essentially, the same -- this is Steve again. 

14 This is, essentially, the same as the 8th 

15 Set, Finding Number 7 of the 8th Set. And, 

16 again, we were able to match the NIOSH values 

17 to our satisfaction. 

18 MR. FARVER: So we can go ahead 

19 and close that one, unless you have any 

20 questions. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: Is that 185.1? 

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. A lot of these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 are going to be repeats of the Attachment 3 

2 findings. And the second finding, once again, 

3 has to do with the model photon doses. And in 

4 this case, Steve didn't use the MCNPX 

5 calculations. He used Microshield, and he 

6 found them to be very similar to the NIOSH 

7 values. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: That is correct. 

9 MR. FARVER: So we can go ahead 

10 and close the second finding, also. The third 

11 finding, questionable assumption used to 

12 derive exposure post-operations and prior to 

13 decontamination. 

14 MR. MARSCHKE: This had to do with 

15 the finding, the period `64 to `77. 

16 MR. FARVER: Oh, this is when it 

17 wasn't even an AWE.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: It's not an AWE 

19 during that period.

20 MR. FARVER: Not covered during 

21 that period. Therefore, the finding is moot. 

22 Okay. We're moving along now. 185.4, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 assumption is the beta exposure scenario is 

2 limited to two hours per day, it's not 

3 justified. Okay. This is where I'm going to 

4 defer to somebody to talk about shallow dose 

5 and the new Technical Basis Document.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we looked at 

7 the shallow dose methodology. Actually, 

8 that's one of the reasons why we pulled, we 

9 were almost ready to issue it and we pulled it 

10 back because it was pointed out to me that I 

11 didn't give this enough attention. 

12 And so we looked at it, and we've 

13 looked at what, basically, was done was there 

14 was a document produced by Oak Ridge back in 

15 `58 which presented some beta doses and/or 

16 presented a beta dose, a maximizing beta dose. 

17 And then using the numbers from that Oak 

18 Ridge document, we were able to match the 

19 numerical values that are shown in Table 6 of 

20 the report. So we think, you know, basically, 

21 at this point, we basically agree with the 

22 doses that are, the annual doses that are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 presented in Table 6 of the report.

2 That said, there are a number of 

3 what I'll call typographical errors in Section

4 6.2 with the numbers that are in Section 6.2, 

5 which makes trying to track how these were 

6 calculated kind of difficult. So what we're 

7 going to do is, what I'm leaning on doing at 

8 this point is, basically, saying the bottom9 line numbers in Table 6 on annual dose from 

10 the, or annual shallow dose are correct. But 

11 the document itself needs to be corrected. 

12 These typographical errors need to be 

13 corrected because anybody who reads these 

14 wouldn't be able to, would have a very 

15 difficult time following it. They would have 

16 to go back to the Oak Ridge document and so on 

17 and so forth.

18 And so that's where we are at 

19 this, on this one. Did you understand me, 

20 Doug? 

21 MR. CALHOUN: And we're going to 

22 get a report of where the typos are. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 MR. FARVER: Is that going to be 

2 in your report, Steve?

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Pardon?

4 MR. FARVER: Is that going to be 

5 in your report where the --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it is. Yes. 

7 That's what I was working on when you guys 

8 were talking about other things. 

9 MR. FARVER: This 185.4, right? 

10 The one thing that stuck out to me is the 

11 assumption of the enrichment of the uranium in 

12 that. And then it changed based on the new 

13 references. What were we meaning? I'm sorry. 

14 Go ahead, Steve.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: The document that, 

16 this document, what they did was they didn't 

17 use enrichment, per se. What they did was 

18 they actually started with a beta dose rate, a 

19 contact beta dose rate on an infinite slab of 

20 normal uranium. So, basically, they started 

21 out with 240 millirems per hour. And then

22 they said the concentration in this residue is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 going to be about 1/1000ths of that. It's 

2 going to be one-thousand parts per million. 

3 So they came up with then a beta 

4 dose rate of 0.24 millirems per hour. And 

5 then they, well, then there's a -- that's from 

6 an infinite slab. And then they say, 

7 basically, that, because the residue 

8 concentrates all the uranium into this, into 

9 the residue, you start out with a 4,000-pound 

10 batch, and the residue is 50 pounds of that. 

11 So all the radioactivity ends up in the 50 

12 pounds. All the beta activity from the 4,000-

13 pound batch ends up into the 50 pounds. So 

14 you end up with a beta dose rate of 20 

15 millirems per hour. It's 0.24 times 80 or 

16 4,000 divided by 50. And that's, basically --

17 so they're saying that the dose rate, contact 

18 dose rate on these 20-gallon drums is 20 

19 millirems per hour. And this was --

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is part of 

21 my question. So we really don't, we don't 

22 have -- are we guessing at this enrichment, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 is this just an overall--

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, let's see. 

3 What would be, what would be -- you'd have to 

4 calculate, I didn't calculate what the 

5 enrichment would be with a thousand parts per 

6 million. Well, no, I don't even know what --

7 no, it's --

8 MR. MAURO: Could I take a shot at 

9 this?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, go ahead.

11 MR. MAURO: It sounds like that 

12 the calculation is, listen, we know what the 

13 contact dose is for pure uranium, not enriched 

14 uranium, okay. And we know that pure uranium, 

15 by mass, is virtually all U-238, which has 

16 progeny thorium and protactinium, which have 

17 strong betas.

18 Now, so if you're saying, well, I 

19 have this many parts per million, as Steve 

20 pointed out, of uranium. Now, if it's natural 

21 uranium, you get all these betas. If you have 

22 them at the same number of parts per million 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 of uranium but it's enriched uranium where 

2 there's a lot more U-235 and U-234, and here's 

3 where I'm speculating and, certainly, you guys 

4 could help me out here, I think that the beta 

5 dose goes down because you don't have these 

6 big-bang beta emitters coming from the U-238 

7 progeny. I'm sort of standing out on a limb 

8 right here speculating --

9 MR. CALHOUN: No, I think you're 

10 right and that gamma dose goes up.

11 MR. MAURO: The beta and the gamma 

12 dose goes -- I didn't follow you.

13 MR. CALHOUN: No, the beta dose 

14 goes down and the gamma dose goes up because 

15 of the 185 keV photon.

16 MR. MAURO: Oh, okay, okay. Well, 

17 then it becomes an issue, right? 

18 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we're just 

19 talking about beta dose at this point. 

20 MR. MAURO: Oh, if we're only 

21 talking beta, then what they did sounds like 

22 it's okay. If we're talking gamma, what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 hearing is, well, maybe there is a problem 

2 with gamma because, you know, if it's enriched 

3 uranium, that's at that thousand parts per 

4 million, as opposed to regular uranium, you 

5 may have a higher --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we're not 

7 talking gamma.

8 MR. MAURO: We're not talking 

9 gamma. Okay.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: No, we're talking 

11 beta.

12 MR. MAURO: Only beta. All right. 

13 So all I'm doing is putting out onto the 

14 table, listening to this, why I think maybe 

15 the beta dose, by assuming it's natural 

16 uranium because that's where you get that 240 

17 millirem per hour number, that's the natural 

18 uranium, why, if it was not natural uranium 

19 but enriched uranium, the beta dose would 

20 actually be lower. I can't say how much, but 

21 I --

22 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 would be significantly lower because that 

2 first actinium beta grows in awfully quickly 

3 off the 238, unless you got a significant 

4 enrichment. But, like you, John, I'm not 

5 going to go out on that limb. I just know 

6 that --

7 MR. MAURO: Yes, I'm just saying 

8 that maybe -- yes. I'm trying to help work 

9 with Brad on this. Brad, you bring up a good 

10 question. That is, we're not dealing with 

11 natural uranium, we're dealing with enriched 

12 uranium. The question is does it make a 

13 difference? 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, to me it 

15 sounds like we don't know what we're dealing 

16 with. It could be enriched or it could be 

17 clear down to not. But, you know, if it's 

18 coming out, if it's coming out of the gaseous 

19 diffusion plants, it's got to be enriched.

20 MR. CALHOUN: We've got a report 

21 in the TBD that talks about the enrichment, 

22 but it's given in grams per pound, and I can't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 do that math right now here. But it's 0.00875 

2 grams per pound, and that's an AEC report from 

3 1958. So we know what the enrichment was. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Which isn't very 

5 high. 

6 MR. CALHOUN: The average 

7 enrichments of one to two percent.

8 MR. MAURO: Yes, that was in the 

9 report. I remember reading that in the 

10 original report. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, yes. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: And anything as high 

13 as 40 percent would be really unique and 

14 extremely unlikely. 

15 MR. CALHOUN: Right. That's in a 

16 TBD, as well. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, all 

18 right. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess, Steve, 

20 what you're suggesting to the -- I was reading 

21 a little bit more into it, possibly, than 

22 there was. But your report that you just gave 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 to us is that there was some typographical or 

2 typos in there. 

3 MR. MARSCHKE: There's some typos 

4 in there, but the bottom line, you know, we 

5 were able to match their numbers. Now, you 

6 bring up some points about, you know, if we 

7 look at this, we could do a parametric study 

8 and look at this from, you know, see what the 

9 effect of enrichment would have on the beta 

10 dose and see whether or not, you know, it's 

11 going to be any, how significant it would be. 

12 But right now the report is basically saying 

13 we were able to match the NIOSH numbers when 

14 we make these corrections to the typos, and 

15 so, you know, I was satisfied with it. Let's 

16 put it that way. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

18 believe we're going to down to 185 --

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: But the closure 

20 is for those typos to be taken care of and 

21 that's a --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 185.5?

2 MR. FARVER: 185.5 is similar to 

3 the third finding where this is outside of the 

4 AWE period, and I believe it's already closed.

5 MR. CALHOUN: That is closed, yes. 

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 

8 closed. Okay. 

9 MR. FARVER: Finding 6 and Finding 

10 7, we suggest they remain open, and Steve is 

11 going to tell us why, I hope. 

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Which one is which? 

13 Finding 6, Finding 6 is the airborne dust14 loading, yes. We went back and we looked at 

15 the -- NIOSH got both of the dust-loading from 

16 a report prepared by Enterline and Marsh, and 

17 there's a table in there, Table 8 of the 

18 Enterline and Marsh document, and the Table 8 

19 contains different airborne concentrations for 

20 different areas of the plant, and it's a 

21 combination of measurements that were taken

22 during the operating period and concentrations 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 which were taken later. 

2 And our concern was, you know, the 

3 concentrations that were taken later, we 

4 didn't think they should be used when you 

5 calculate the 95th percentile calculation 

6 because we felt that they would probably be 

7 lower than what would be the concentration 

8 during the operational period. We did look at 

9 Enterline and Marsh. They do talk about this. 

10 They do state that they made an attempt to 

11 adjust the modern data based upon process 

12 knowledge and environmental controls that were 

13 implemented over the years, but they do warn 

14 that the historical exposures, even so that 

15 the historical exposures would probably be 

16 greater, of greater magnitude, which, for what 

17 Enterline and Marsh was doing, was 

18 conservative but for what we're doing would be 

19 not conservative. So we felt, that's one of 

20 the reasons we feel that, basically, this 

21 finding should stand.

22 The other reason, again, if you go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 to this Enterline and Marsh report and you go 

2 to the very beginning of the report, you know, 

3 way before Table 8, they give some nickel 

4 concentrations in the, I guess the crusher, 

5 the area where the crushing and the grinding 

6 and handling occurs and around the calciners. 

7 And the concentrations that they, the nickel 

8 airborne concentrations that they give at the 

9 beginning of the report in these areas, are 

10 significantly higher than any of the values 

11 that are given in Table 8. 

12 So, basically, we're just 

13 wondering, you know, why these numbers were 

14 not included in the 95th percentile 

15 calculation and, you know, should they be 

16 included in that calculation? So, really, 

17 there's two, in the new report there's two 

18 kinds of phases or two parts to this finding, 

19 one is we don't think we should be using the 

20 new data from Table 8. You should, basically, 

21 only use the historical data. And, secondly, 

22 you know, this information on airborne nickel 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 concentration that Enterline and Marsh present 

2 at the beginning of their report, you know, we 

3 think that that should be somehow factored in 

4 or discussed somewhat. And if you decide not 

5 to use it, give a reason why it's not used.

6 So that's the reason why, like 

7 Doug said, this one, we recommend it still 

8 stay open.

9 MR. FARVER: And you speak of this 

10 in your report under Finding 5 and 6 of your 

11 report?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we do. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: Do we have that one 

14 yet?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: No, that's the same 

16 report that we're finishing up right now.

17 MR. MAURO: You may recall at our 

18 last meeting, I pointed out that if you use 

19 just the old data, the older data, you come up 

20 with a higher 95th percentile value, maybe ten 

21 times higher. But I was troubled by that 

22 because, in that old data, I believe, I forget 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 how many measurements there were that 

2 represented the old data, there was one 

3 outlier that was this 5 milligram per cubic 

4 meter number. And I remember we had a little 

5 discussion about what do you do when you have 

6 an outlier, and that was sort of, like, where 

7 we left things off that, you know, we didn't 

8 make any conclusions about it when we have 

9 just a single value that is driving the upper 

10 95th percentile value quite far. All the 

11 other values were in line with everything 

12 else.

13 However, now Steve doing a more 

14 definitive analysis and going into the source 

15 documents in the SRDB, he's finding that the 5 

16 milligrams per cubic meter does not appear, 

17 necessarily, to be the highest value. There 

18 are other values that are up there, I think 

19 one as high 20 milligrams per cubic meter, and 

20 --

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, one ranges, 

22 from one area they range from 20 to 350.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 MR. MAURO: Okay.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So, yes, if you go 

3 and look at these concentrations that they 

4 give at the beginning of the report, Enterline 

5 and Marsh give at the beginning of the report, 

6 in one area they have a range from 20 to 350 

7 milligrams of nickel per cubic meter and, in 

8 the other area around the calciners, they have 

9 a range from 5 to 15 milligrams of nickel per 

10 cubic meter. So both these ranges, the lower 

11 end of both these ranges, is at the upper end 

12 of the Table 8 values. 

13 MR. MAURO: I'll just point out 

14 that when you start to get into the hundreds 

15 of milligrams per cubic meter, it's not 

16 respirable. I mean, a person can't work in 

17 that environment. You know, I'm not too sure 

18 where they're at actually at a toxic level 

19 with nickel; that's a different question. 

20 But, I mean, just in the point of view of 

21 nuisance dust.

22 So we have a couple of confounding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 problems here is that we really still need to, 

2 NIOSH, I guess, needs to look into whether the 

3 numbers that they use that they ultimately 

4 picked, this 95th percentile from that set of 

5 measurements, as Steve pointed out, should 

6 they have also included these other 

7 measurements that are well above the 5 

8 milligram highest value that was reported in 

9 Table 8? I think we need to hear a little bit 

10 more about that. 

11 MR. FARVER: So what would you 

12 like the action to be? 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, as soon as 

14 we get that report, I guess NIOSH will have to 

15 respond to it. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: That's what I'm 

17 thinking. 

18 MR. KATZ: Right. 

19 MR. FARVER: Since it's identified 

20 as findings in that report, we'll have to 

21 respond to that. We're not going to have any 

22 further action. We're going to close this. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 MR. CALHOUN: How can you close 

2 it? 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Can't close it 

4 until we get their response. 

5 MR. CALHOUN: I'd love for you to 

6 close it but--

7 MR. KATZ: We're waiting on their 

8 response after they get your report. 

9 MR. FARVER: And telling myself to 

10 keep opening and closing in the same sentence. 

11 MR. MAURO: Could I ask a process 

12 question? This report that we're putting out 

13 which would contain a lot of these 

14 commentaries on the Site Profile, now, of 

15 course, these affect the dose reconstruction. 

16 When you get this report, the Huntington Site 

17 Profile Review, is that going to stay within 

18 the DR Subcommittee or is that something that 

19 will be moved out and go over to, let's say, 

20 an AWE workgroup? 

21 MR. KATZ: Well, there is no 

22 workgroup, other than the TBD-6000 and 6001. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 MR. MARSCHKE: John, remember that 

2 Huntington started out as an AWE and is now 

3 classified as a DOE site. 

4 MR. MAURO: Oh, this is -- oh, 

5 okay. This is a DOE site.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: So there really 

7 isn't a workgroup --

8 MR. MAURO: That's right. You 

9 told me this last time and I forgot about 

10 that. Yes, yes, there is no Workgroup. Okay. 

11 MR. KATZ: Right. So we'll try to 

12 resolve this stuff here. 

13 MR. MAURO: Okay. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, somehow 

15 we ought to capture that, too. That's going 

16 to have to be addressed here because a lot of 

17 times it's easy. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's nice. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm 

20 scrolling down and going a long way. Hey, 

21 finally, on page 22 I think I see something. 

22 MR. FARVER: Oh, did we go over 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 185.7? 

2 MR. MARSCHKE: 185.7, that 

3 basically says they only considered -- what 

4 was the value? Considered radionuclides other 

5 than uranium. Well, if you look at the new 

6 Site Profile, they considered two 

7 radionuclides other than uranium. They 

8 considered plutonium-239 and neptunium-237. 

9 But, again, we still feel that the finding 

10 stands because, if you look, Huntington was 

11 getting the nickel from the three gaseous 

12 diffusion plants. And if you look at the Site 

13 Profiles for the three gaseous diffusion 

14 plants, for example, they have a whole suite 

15 of radionuclides: americium, different 

16 uraniums, thorium, technetium-99 in 

17 particular. And, basically, I think, you 

18 know, some of the gaseous diffusion plants, 

19 when they talk about these radionuclides, they 

20 mention specifically technetium-99 as being a 

21 concern from a dosimetry standpoint for 

22 recycled uranium. And because the Site 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

291

1 Profile is missing technetium-99, as well as 

2 some of these other radionuclides, we think 

3 that that's, you know, that that's a finding 

4 and needs to be resolved. 

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. And you also 

6 mention this as Finding 1 in your report; is 

7 that correct? 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Finding 1 

9 in our report, yes. 

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. So it's also 

11 addressed in your report?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That's correct.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. So that takes 

14 care of 185. I think we go down to 194 --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ninety-five, 

16 195. 

17 MR. FARVER: Let's go down to 194 

18 point something. I'll be there in a second.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Doug? 

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, sir. 

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you need me 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

292

1 anymore?

2 MR. FARVER: Nope.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you. 

4 MR. FARVER: Thanks, Steve.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll log off then, 

6 if that's okay. 

7 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Steve. 

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you. Bye9 bye.

10 MR. STIVER: Doug, I think you had 

11 a question about observation three in 194, if 

12 I recall correctly. 

13 MR. FARVER: Oh, that is one 

14 question, but we had one before that I just 

15 wanted to close out. 194.2. It never says 

16 it's closed. It says something like SC&A will 

17 provide a follow-up response. Just to give 

18 you a brief update of what this is, what it 

19 amounts to is the DR report said that they are 

20 going to assign an X-ray exam annually, based 

21 on the Site Profile. Okay, common wording. 

22 They said they used the actual employee 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

293

1 records. The employee had 17 X-rays. I 

2 believe five of them were for, like, broken 

3 fingers and things like that. So they used 12 

4 of them. 

5 It turned out that it wasn't for 

6 every single year. Okay. I think there were, 

7 like, three years where there was no annual 

8 chest X-ray. But what they did, they used the 

9 employee records instead of an assumed 

10 frequency. So I don't have a problem with 

11 that after looking at it closer. It was just 

12 the wording. The wording was incorrect. I 

13 just want to close that out.

14 And if we go down to observation 

15 three of 194, let's just finish up with that. 

16 Observation three. Let's get the right one. 

17 Observation one of 194. That's the right 

18 one. This is where we had some reason to 

19 believe that they may have used PFG exams at 

20 Fernald in the earlier years, `51 through `58. 

21 In talking with John Stiver, I'm not sure 

22 that this has even been talked about from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

294

1 Fernald Workgroup. Where did we see that 

2 dialogue, John? It was in one of the 

3 transcripts from early on, the one in the 

4 Workgroup meeting or somewhere, that --

5 MR. STIVER: I believe this one 

6 was from, oh, gosh, I want to think November 

7 2011 or 2010. It wasn't a Workgroup meeting. 

8 It was a Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee 

9 meeting, and it was an idea, the question 

10 being had it actually been transferred and was 

11 it being handled in the Fernald Workgroup. 

12 The answer being is that it's in queue with 

13 all of the other Site Profile issues, pending 

14 resolution of the SEC issues.

15 MR. FARVER: The last I could find 

16 on it, the action was Elyse was going to go to 

17 the records and see if she could find actual 

18 exams, films, and you could probably tell if 

19 it was PFG exams by the size of the film, if I 

20 remember right what I was reading. I don't 

21 believe it's officially been taken up by the 

22 Fernald group. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

295

1 MR. STIVER: No, it has not.

2 MR. FARVER: I don't know how we 

3 make that happen. 

4 MR. KATZ: Well, John said he can 

5 put that on his --

6 MR. STIVER: Yes, I'd be the first 

7 to say I'd love to address that. There are 

8 quite a few outstanding Site Profile issues 

9 that are kind of in a holding pattern until we 

10 resolve the SEC issue. And, you know, once 

11 that happens, why, then we'll re-baseline the 

12 matrix and go after the Site Profile issues. 

13 But that has not happened yet. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, this is 

15 Brad. Would you make sure that we get this 

16 put into the matrix, the --

17 MR. STIVER: Absolutely. I 

18 believe it's Finding 30 out of the 33 of the 

19 original Site Profile Review from back in 

20 2006.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

22 MR. FARVER: So do we need any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

296

1 further action?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Just that it was 

3 turned over to the Workgroup. 

4 MR. STIVER: I have indication 

5 that it's been transferred. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda? 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, transfer it. 

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's not even 

10 really being transferred. It's being handled 

11 there, right? It's on their list so--

12 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So it will be 

13 resolved there. 

14 MR. KATZ: Right, exactly.

15 MR. MAURO: Do you close these 

16 here, or do you keep these in abeyance or 

17 something like that? 

18 MR. KATZ: Close it here.

19 MR. MAURO: You close it here? 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'll 

21 put that in. 

22 MR. FARVER: No further action. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

297

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 MR. FARVER: Now we're going to 

3 jump down to 195. And let me see what it is. 

4 Oh, 195.1 was NIOSH agrees to the reviews 

5 situation determined PER is required. So 

6 that's still in Grady's ballpark. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: What site is this 

8 one? 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, this is Scott. 

10 This isn't a site. This is the idea of not 

11 using AP and instead using rotational and 

12 isotopic. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes, okay.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. This is the 

15 kind of one, and this is a question on how the 

16 Subcommittee wants to handle this. I think 

17 NIOSH and ORAU are already discussing how to 

18 be dealing with this PER and exactly how to, 

19 you know, whether we roll it into a different 

20 PER and things like that, but that's not a 

21 discussion that will be completed in the near 

22 future. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

298

1 MR. CALHOUN: We're in the process 

2 of revising the DCFs, I guess, according to 

3 what ICRP, the revised ICRP 116; is that 

4 right? It just came out. And there's going 

5 to be, there's no doubt there's going to be a 

6 monster PER that comes out because, as it 

7 turns out, some of the DCFs are going to go 

8 down and some of the DCFs are going to go up.

9 MR. KATZ: So does the 

10 Subcommittee want to hold this open or simply 

11 reference that this is going to be addressed 

12 in this PER -- 

13 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, it's definitely 

14 going to be addressed in the PER. 

15 MR. KATZ: -- and close it? 

16 MR. CALHOUN: But it's not going 

17 to be for months.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But the 

19 question is if we close it that means the 

20 action on this is, does it await PER, the new 

21 PER, or --

22 MR. KATZ: The action is that it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

299

1 will be addressed in the new PER. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, each individual 

3 dose reconstruction will be reviewed that is 

4 non-comped based on the changes of the PER. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

6 that's how you'll go over all the --

7 MR. FARVER: This is a finding 

8 that comes up over and over in our reviews. 

9 That's why I call it standard findings since 

10 they have not been applying what has been 

11 written in there. I guess it's IG-001, 

12 current revision. 

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So when they 

14 update them, they cannot apply those? 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good. 

16 Okay. We've closed that then. 

17 MR. FARVER: Yes, so we close it 

18 because my guess is, just because there's such 

19 a lag, you're going to see this finding again 

20 in one of our other reports.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: We're going to see 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

300

1 it later today if we get that far. 

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

3 MR. KATZ: Right. And in the 

4 future, if it's the same thing and it's being 

5 addressed the same way, you can put the answer 

6 with the finding because, otherwise, we're 

7 wasting time. 

8 MR. FARVER: Yes. What we'd 

9 normally do is, in the future, if we find a 

10 case where it's not addressed, we would write 

11 it up as an observation on that point and say 

12 this has been previously identified. 

13 MR. KATZ: And it's being 

14 addressed.

15 MR. FARVER: And it's being 

16 addressed by --

17 MR. KATZ: Blah, blah, blah.

18 MR. FARVER: -- by somebody, by 

19 Ted. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Being addressed by 

21 the PER. 

22 MR. KATZ: Exactly. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

301

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 Addressed by the PER. 

3 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Yes, this is 

4 Kathy. Does this have to do with that Table 

5 1.4B or whatever that we routinely identified 

6 that they -- because, as we always say, the 

7 implementation guide is one of those documents 

8 that was supposed to be the overarching or, 

9 you know, more of a guidance document. And I 

10 don't know how often, and I may be wrong here, 

11 but how often the dose reconstructors go to 

12 that specific table. I'm just trying to 

13 understand, are you saying that this will be 

14 incorporated into a PER once you change the 

15 DCF values? Because this is a little bit 

16 different. It's a table that was introduced 

17 into the implementation guide. Am I wrong? 

18 MR. FARVER: No, it's a table. It 

19 just has to do with applying different 

20 geometries, dose conversion factors for 

21 different geometries, and when --

22 MS. BEHLING: Right. And we had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

302

1 pointed out a long time ago that the AP 

2 geometries are the only ones that should be 

3 used, and then this Table 1.4B was introduced, 

4 and we recognized that the dose reconstructors 

5 will go to an OTIB or to a procedure or to a 

6 Technical Basis Document quicker than they 

7 will go to the implementation guide, but there 

8 is specific guidance in this table that is not 

9 being followed.

10 MR. FARVER: Correct.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I just, 

12 we see this so often, and it just points to me 

13 that there should be a PER for this. And I 

14 just want to be sure that adding a new 

15 appendix to Implementation Guide 1, that this 

16 will be incorporated into that. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: Any changes to any 

18 of our documents, whether they're IG, TBDs, 

19 TIBs, whatever, that result in an increase in 

20 dose will result in a PER. 

21 MS. BEHLING: And that's been the 

22 question all along. Why hasn't there been a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

303

1 PER for this particular issue, this Table 

2 1.4B, which increases the dose for certain 

3 types of cancers because you're changing your 

4 geometry? 

5 MR. CALHOUN: It may be, and I'm 

6 guessing here, it may be on the list. We've 

7 got many, many, many PERs on our list to get 

8 done. Any new DRs that are done are done to 

9 the current standards, but we also have a 

10 backlog of PERs that we are going to get done, 

11 and that may be the answer. I was thinking it 

12 was just relative to IG-001 Rev that hasn't 

13 happened yet but they're in the process of 

14 doing that now. So I would guess that it's 

15 just in the process. 

16 MR. FARVER: I mean, from this 

17 point, it's not a matter of reviewing it. 

18 It's a matter of you're not following what's 

19 already written. 

20 MS. BEHLING: Right. And what I'm 

21 --

22 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, so it's just an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

304

1 error. 

2 MR. FARVER: You're just not 

3 following the guidance in IG-001.

4 MS. BEHLING: Correct. And what 

5 I'm concerned about is that, even when you 

6 make a revision to the implementation guide, 

7 this is not going to get caught. And I just 

8 want to be sure that any changes made, because 

9 you may make a change to the implementation 

10 guide that says that now that the DCFs in 

11 appendix are going to change and that's all 

12 you're going to look at. But this table is in 

13 there, and it's not, they're not using it. As 

14 I said, and I understand how the dose 

15 reconstructor can sort of, because it's not in 

16 a typical procedure or OTIB that they would 

17 use routinely, it's buried in some revision 

18 of the implementation guide, and there was 

19 never a PER for it, and I just want to be sure 

20 that when there is another revision that this 

21 does get caught. 

22 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

305

1 going to have to look because if this is 

2 somewhere other than IG-3 or other than IG-1 -

3 - are you saying that this table is someplace 

4 else? 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, it's Table 

6 4.1.9 of IG --

7 MR. CALHOUN: Of IG-1.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: -- 001 

9 Revision 3. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes, yes. And the 

11 dose reconstructors are not using this. 

12 They're not applying this. And this is what 

13 I've been saying for several times now. It 

14 applies to only specific cancers, and I just 

15 felt there should have been a separate PER for 

16 this issue and we see it routinely on the dose 

17 reconstruction.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Well, then I guess 

19 we'll go back to NIOSH agrees to review the 

20 situation and determine if a PER is required, 

21 and we have an open item then. 

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. That makes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

306

1 more sense to me. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's 

3 appropriate, given the fact that it keeps 

4 coming up in both subcommittees and we have 

5 this DCF factor and whether or not it's an 

6 appropriate place in the implementation guide. 

7 We seem to discuss it a lot, and so far we 

8 don't seem to have any consensus. It moves 

9 back and forth between the discussions. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Agreed. But I am 

11 afraid, based on what I just heard, that this 

12 will not become part of a PER even when 

13 there's a revision to the implementation 

14 guide. I think this issue has to be looked at 

15 separate. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. We'll have a 

17 response next time. 

18 MS. BEHLING: And the other thing 

19 that Wanda is just bringing up, also, is the 

20 fact that perhaps that table needs to be in 

21 something that the dose reconstructors use on 

22 a more routine basis. They're not always 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

307

1 going to go to the implementation guide for 

2 very specific issues such as this. And so 

3 that's why we're finding, we're seeing it so 

4 often in our audits. 

5 MR. FARVER: And just for clarity, 

6 it's Table 4.1.A, not 9. And this is the case 

7 where there's two tables with the same number.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Right, yes. That's 

9 supposed to be corrected. That's one of the 

10 things that correct this --

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 MEMBER MUNN: -- in the next 

13 revision.

14 MR. FARVER: To confuse the matter 

15 more. 

16 MR. KATZ: So it sounds like we 

17 need clarification from DCAS as to how this is 

18 even being used currently, let alone whatever 

19 comes with respect to PER. 

20 MR. FARVER: How they're 

21 implementing the guidance in Section 4.4. 

22 MR. KATZ: Exactly. Did you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

308

1 capture that, Doug?

2 MR. FARVER: I will.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hello? 

5 Somebody is trying to talk. 

6 MR. KATZ: Is that Wanda? 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. 

8 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. I still 

9 can't hear.

10 MR. FARVER: NIOSH to follow up on 

11 how they're implementing Section 4.4. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

13 MR. FARVER: And that's the 

14 exposure geometry. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

16 third one we're coming back to? 

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

19 third one. 

20 MR. FARVER: Yes, we'll come back 

21 to that at some point. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

309

1 much else. Page 63, 215, observation four. 

2 That's the next one I see that's shaded in. 

3 MR. FARVER: There's a 195, 

4 observation one, I believe. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I missed 

6 that somehow. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: That's because it's 

8 an observation. It's not highlighted. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

10 yes. 

11 MR. FARVER: And this is --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I really 

13 just looked at the highlights. 

14 MR. FARVER: Real briefly, this 

15 has to do with, a lot of it comes down to 

16 reading handwritten records. And sometimes we 

17 looked at them, and I just looked at them 

18 here, and they're difficult to read and 

19 sometimes you come up with small discrepancies 

20 in numbers. I think that's part of it in this 

21 case. And the other part is if you sum up 

22 just the numbers that are in the records, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

310

1 you'll come up with one number. If you sum up 

2 the numbers that NIOSH used for the photon 

3 doses, you come up with another number. Now, 

4 why is that? Well, one reason is because some 

5 of those recorded values were greater than 

6 zero but less than the LOD. So NIOSH equated 

7 those to equal or to zero and didn't count 

8 those in their total. So, therefore, we will 

9 get a larger total by totaling the records 

10 than you would by just totaling their photon 

11 doses. What that allows them to do is 

12 calculate a missed dose for those years. So 

13 that's what it came down to after looking 

14 through everything. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

16 understand why, if it's below the LOD, why you 

17 don't just write LOD divided by two.

18 MR. FARVER: Well, that's what 

19 they'll do. They'll use that calculate missed 

20 dose, but, under the recorded dose, it goes 

21 into the zero. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

311

1 MR. FARVER: So that was the 

2 difference, so no further action on that one.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

4 MR. FARVER: I thought there was 

5 another one. Finding 4. I'm not sure what 

6 there is to say about Finding 4. I thought it 

7 was resolved with NIOSH's answer. Basically, 

8 what we point out is we're not disagreeing 

9 with what they did in their intakes. It's the 

10 numbers that are in the one report do not 

11 match what is in the IMBA calculations. And 

12 NIOSH points --

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

14 Scott. What finding are you working on now? 

15 MR. FARVER: It's observation four 

16 from 195. 

17 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, thank you. 

18 MR. FARVER: And what it comes 

19 down to is, yes, the numbers don't match and 

20 the doses are far less than one millirem 

21 anyway, so they weren't counted with either 

22 dose. Whether you used the high dose or the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

312

1 lower dose, it didn't matter because it was 

2 all less than one millirem. 

3 Once again, it comes down to 

4 what's written in the report versus what's 

5 actually done, which is why it was an 

6 observation to begin with. 

7 MR. KATZ: Does that take care of, 

8 is that --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, not 

10 quite because I know there's something way at 

11 the end. 

12 MR. FARVER: There is? 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, there 

14 is. Down at page 63, there's something shaded 

15 in 63.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: That completes 

17 195, doesn't it? 

18 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it 

20 certainly does. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: There are several 

22 after it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

313

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, here. I 

2 see. Let me see what it is. It's 215, 

3 observation four. NIOSH will evaluate 

4 further.

5 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. We'll just 

6 put that down again. Okay. And I believe 

7 that is all from the 9th Set. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 That's all from one set for today. That's all 

10 for today in the 9th Set. 

11 MR. FARVER: Or we could just say 

12 it's all for today, but I don't think I could 

13 convince anyone of that.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, not 

15 quite, although you have an early plane to 

16 catch but that's another matter. What time do 

17 you need to leave for 6:00.

18 MR. FARVER: It depends how 

19 security is in there today. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's pretty 

21 quick. 

22 MR. KATZ: You certainly need to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

314

1 be out of here by five. 

2 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'd be more 

3 comfortable before five.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, a 

5 quarter of five? 

6 MR. KATZ: Ten to five? 

7 MR. FARVER: Yes. After 4:30 but 

8 before 5.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A quarter of 

10 five, roughly. Okay. So we are now ready to 

11 go to 10, right? 

12 MR. FARVER: It will be the 10 

13 through 13, Savannah River. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. FARVER: And I think we have 

16 some things there. 

17 MR. KATZ: We do. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And they 

19 would be on the O: drive, perhaps.

20 MR. KATZ: Well, they were sent to 

21 you by email, as well.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

315

1 MR. KATZ: But, yes, they would be 

2 on the O: drive. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Quite 

4 frankly, if they're sent by mail -- I can find 

5 them on email. You mean you just sent them to 

6 me --

7 MR. KATZ: No, no, they weren't 

8 just sent. I think the SRS ones, I don't know 

9 when they were sent, but they were sent at 

10 some point. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

12 MR. FARVER: But they were ones 

13 you forwarded yesterday from Grady.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

15 MR. FARVER: And the other ones I 

16 sent on April 19th. 

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, but I forwarded 

18 also LANL and Rocky Flats. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 10 to 

20 13, SRS. Good. Okay. We've been through a 

21 few of these before, right? 

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

316

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 11th Set, 

2 257.1. The RSC action. 

3 MR. FARVER: Well, it was NIOSH 

4 checking to having an automated notification 

5 closer to real-time. Okay. And this has to 

6 do with records arriving after the initial 

7 records. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

9 right.

10 MR. FARVER: But prior to the 

11 final decision. Oh, that is kind of

12 difficult. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. This case, 

14 what I can tell you is that -- let me make 

15 sure I'm not lying. We actually did re-review 

16 that one. It was completed on 12/2/11. When 

17 was this review done, do you know? When did 

18 you guys finish yours? I'm trying to--

19 MR. FARVER: I don't know. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Because if it 

21 was prior to 12/2/11, is that possible that 

22 the 10th Set was done prior to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

317

1 MR. SIEBERT: It was done prior to 

2 that, I'm sure. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Well --

4 MR. SIEBERT: Which claim number 

5 are we talking about? 

6 MR. FARVER: Tab 257. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, yes. Scott, 

8 what I've got here is I'm looking at the PADs, 

9 and those are post-approval dosimetry reports 

10 I talked about a while ago. And on 12/2/11, 

11 we reviewed the additional dosimetry that came 

12 in for that case which could include X-rays, 

13 and the actual PoC went down --

14 MR. SIEBERT: This claim was done 

15 in 2007. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: -- three percentage 

17 points. 

18 MR. FARVER: The concern is that 

19 the, you know, the dose reconstruction was 

20 done with the records they had available. It 

21 got sent over to DOL, and, in between that 

22 period, more records arrived and nobody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

318

1 notified each other that, hey, these records 

2 arrived, you might want to put a hold on that 

3 decision letter or anything like that. And 

4 that's the notification process we're talking 

5 about. 

6 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And we don't 

7 have anything that's approaching real-time, 

8 but, you know, when we do get new records, we 

9 do have a process in place that evaluates 

10 them. So if the compensation decision flips 

11 to positive, we'll recall that case and have 

12 it redone. 

13 MR. FARVER: But, I mean, once you 

14 get records in, do you notify DOL that you've 

15 got records in and they might want to hold? 

16 MR. CALHOUN: No, we notify DOL 

17 after and only if we do a, only if the 

18 evaluation we do flips it to comp. There's no 

19 sense having them redo a case to send out a 

20 lower Probability of Causation. 

21 MR. FARVER: Well, it's not a 

22 matter of redoing a case. It's a matter of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

319

1 them holding up a month on their final 

2 decision letter until they have time to look 

3 at the data. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: We don't have that 

5 in place. I'm not sure, logistically, how 

6 easy that would be or if we're ready to do 

7 that. I mean, we've got something in place 

8 that fills that gap. 

9 MR. FARVER: Do you typically get 

10 records in after your dose reconstruction is 

11 completed?

12 MR. CALHOUN: Typically? No.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 MR. CALHOUN: But we do, and we've 

15 done, I can tell you, we have done a lot of 

16 these. We've reviewed over 2300 cases in this 

17 manner.

18 MR. FARVER: Where you've gotten 

19 data in afterwards?

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: And you've looked at 

22 the data and redone the case?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, yes. And that 

2 data can come from a variety of ways. It can 

3 come from, let's say, hey, you know, this site 

4 is not giving us all the medical X-rays, for 

5 example, you need to start getting those and 

6 they'll send them. It can happen from data 

7 capture efforts. It can happen from 

8 requesting and getting an electronic database. 

9 And what happens is these hard 

10 documents are OCR'd, if possible. And if 

11 other recognition is required, we link the 

12 Social Security number and other identifiers 

13 to cases and, periodically, not continually, 

14 periodically, we'll run a, I'll call it a 

15 program that checks to see if we've got new 

16 data in prior to or after a dose 

17 reconstruction has been approved. If the dose 

18 reconstruction has not been approved, that 

19 data is automatically linked, so we'll have it 

20 when it's time. And if it is after the dose 

21 reconstruction is approved, they'll review it 

22 and they'll send the information out and every 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

321

1 week I get a report of the new PoC versus the 

2 old PoC. 

3 MR. FARVER: And that's in a 

4 procedure somewhere on how you handle --

5 MR. CALHOUN: No, it's just 

6 something that we do. We don't have a 

7 document that, I don't have a procedure that 

8 requires that. I don't know if ORAU does. 

9 It's just something we thought was a good idea 

10 and we started doing it and we do it routinely 

11 now. It's not haphazard. It's something 

12 that's done routinely.

13 MR. FARVER: I just was wondering 

14 why it wasn't done --

15 MR. CALHOUN: It was.

16 MR. FARVER: No, it wasn't.

17 MR. CALHOUN: It was. It was done 

18 in, we got the information in `11. 

19 MR. FARVER: No.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Then we're talking 

21 about two different things then. 

22 MR. FARVER: We're talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

322

1 the medical X-rays that were provided after 

2 the dose reconstruction was done, so I'm 

3 assuming the dose reconstruction was done 

4 prior to February of 2008. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: The final decision 

6 from DCAS forwarding it onto DOL happened in 

7 December of 2007. 

8 MR. FARVER: No, the final 

9 decision letter went out in April 21st of 

10 2008. 

11 MR. CALHOUN: But the final 

12 decision letter versus our final DR are very 

13 different, and sometimes we never get that. 

14 I'd say, more often than not, we don't get the 

15 final determination letters. 

16 MR. FARVER: But when you reviewed 

17 this case, you guys didn't even look at this 

18 new medical data. That's my point. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, what you're 

20 saying is three months before we received the 

21 data we didn't look at it. 

22 MR. FARVER: That's correct. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

323

1 saying there's nothing in the file saying you 

2 looked at it. That's correct. And there was 

3 nothing in the file we got saying that you 

4 looked at it, but the data was there, the 

5 final decision letter was there --

6 MR. CALHOUN: But the new data was 

7 not. 

8 MR. FARVER: The new data was 

9 there.

10 MR. SIEBERT: The new data was 

11 there when you did the review. However, --

12 MR. FARVER: That's correct.

13 MR. SIEBERT: -- you did the 

14 review against [unintelligible] did not have 

15 that information. 

16 MR. FARVER: That's the point. 

17 MS. LIN: Okay, Doug. This is 

18 Jenny with HHS. So, basically, you're saying 

19 that the data that came after the dose 

20 reconstruction that has already been completed 

21 by DCAS, DCAS should have recalled that case 

22 and do a dose reconstruction based on the new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

1 information? 

2 MR. FARVER: No.

3 MS. LIN: So what's your concern 

4 for this line of conversation? 

5 MR. FARVER: My concern is that, 

6 once you get data in that could potentially 

7 affect the case, you should at least notify 

8 DOL saying we have new data, it just arrived, 

9 we haven't had a chance to evaluate it, so 

10 they don't go issue a final decision later

11 hastily. That's all. 

12 MS. LIN: So DCAS looked at this 

13 new information and determined whether it 

14 would impact the case? 

15 MR. CALHOUN: We did, Jenny. And 

16 here's the deal is that we've got well over 

17 2,000 cases that we've reviewed, and there's 

18 only been three or four that have impacted the 

19 decision. So us telling DOL that we got new 

20 data and having them put the brakes on 

21 something for instances that are so 

22 infrequent, it's not a, I don't think it's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

325

1 good idea. It's not a good idea to halt the 

2 dose reconstruction answer that we're getting 

3 to the claimant from DOL, and the mere fact 

4 that we have a process in place to make sure 

5 that these are evaluated is sufficient, in my 

6 mind.

7 MS. LIN: Right. And so what I'm 

8 hearing is that Doug is dissatisfied with this 

9 procedure in place. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: He wants something 

11 that's more real-time. 

12 MS. LIN: I -- okay. Well, the 

13 agency has a procedure in place, and I think 

14 that's the end of it, I mean, unless the 

15 Workgroup has a different recommendation to 

16 make to DOL, as well as DCAS. We'll take it 

17 under consideration. 

18 MR. KATZ: Well, yes, how 

19 frequently is, the procedure in place, how 

20 frequently do you review cases? 

21 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know that. 

22 Scott, do you know how often they run that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

326

1 SPEDELite.

2 MR. SIEBERT: SPEDELite is run on 

3 an every month basis. As to updating the PADs 

4 list, that's on a basis, I believe we worked 

5 that out with you that we do it on -- it's 

6 relatively, I can't tell you a specific, 

7 there's not a frequency that it's set on, but 

8 I believe it's every, like, six months or so, 

9 something like that. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: But we get updates 

11 and reworked cases every week.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there is a list 

13 of PADs that we are working through, as we 

14 speak. This one, actually, as Grady was 

15 saying, I'm looking at the form for it that we 

16 did it in December 2011. We reviewed this 

17 additional data and determined the impact on 

18 the decision. We do that periodically with 

19 additional data, as time permits.

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I have a 

21 question. If DOL sends out what's called a 

22 final decision letter and then they find that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

327

1 their final decision is not really final, are 

2 there, what are the consequences of that? Are 

3 there administrative obstacles, barriers --

4 MR. CALHOUN: No, in these cases, 

5 and it happens for other reasons, it's similar 

6 to a final decision issued and then a new 

7 cancer is identified, although they end up 

8 finding that. But anytime we find an issue 

9 that needs to have the case reopened, we 

10 contact DOL and they send it to us, and it's 

11 never been an issue. 

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so, and do 

13 you contact the claimants? 

14 MR. CALHOUN: That's up to Labor.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So what you're 

16 saying is you move along at a pace determined 

17 by information at hand. You make a 

18 calculation of the Probability of Causation. 

19 That goes to the Department of Labor. They 

20 issue a letter, which is called their final 

21 letter, and if you get new information you'll 

22 send them back an updated calculation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

328

1 MR. CALHOUN: Correct. We'll send 

2 them an information, we say we've got new 

3 information that could possibly affect the 

4 Probability of Causation, send us a new case. 

5 And they'll reopen that case and send it to 

6 us.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, so, in 

8 a sense, that's as close to real-time as, I

9 mean, you're working in real-time with --

10 MR. CALHOUN: But we do have a 

11 backlog of these. There's no doubt. I'm not 

12 going to tell you that if we go to a 

13 repository last month and we find new data for 

14 Bob that we get a PAD done in the next two 

15 months. I don't know the period --

16 MR. KATZ: Scott said, he said 

17 it's probably six months. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. 

19 MR. KATZ: And so that's the 

20 issue, there's an issue for the program. It's 

21 six months. 

22 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And it will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

329

1 become quicker because we were working off a 

2 backlog, but right now we've got, you know, we 

3 just started doing this maybe, maybe two years 

4 ago maybe. But it's something that is very, 

5 you know, consistent. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: But, Grady, isn't 

7 this also where we, I'm looking at this from a 

8 Board Member because we get a, a claimant gets 

9 up and they tell us, yes, I got my final 

10 letter and then a year later I got that they 

11 found new information and my dose, my 

12 causation went down. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: No, because if it 

14 goes down we won't even tell Labor. 

15 MR. KATZ: They wouldn't, they 

16 wouldn't, they wouldn't institute this process 

17 on a case where it goes down. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, a 

19 person might say you haven't made your mind 

20 up. You said final, and now you say, well, 

21 maybe, but, on the other hand, I feel like 

22 it's more important to say that change might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

330

1 happen. It reopens possibilities for that 

2 person that they may be compensated. They 

3 will be very upset when they find out, 

4 initially, that they weren't.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just know that 

6 we've had troubles in the past that they've 

7 gotten us and then got a letter and their 

8 causation is a lot lower. I guess my question 

9 is, Doug, what did you feel that we needed on 

10 this? 

11 MS. LIN: I think, before we move 

12 forward in proposing any kind of change in 

13 this protocol, this isn't something that NIOSH 

14 can unilaterally initiate. I mean, we can 

15 inform DOL or whatever whenever we think is 

16 appropriate, but it seems like the reaction is 

17 what you guys are expecting, which is coming 

18 from DOL. Even if NIOSH informed DOL that we 

19 have new information, it doesn't mean that DOL 

20 is going to put a case on hold. 

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, Jenny. I really 

22 don't think there's any matter here really. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

331

1 mean, the only issue is the programs issue, 

2 and it is how much time it will take before 

3 they reduce this periodicity if they have a 

4 backlog from six months to whatever it ends up 

5 being in a, you know, steady state. But I 

6 don't think there's really anything else to 

7 discuss here. I mean, it's just --

8 MS. LIN: No, I don't believe so 

9 either. And reducing the backlog, that's 

10 management's goal. And so I think NIOSH is 

11 working on that. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And, actually, 

13 I'd rather hear, it's really awesome to hear 

14 that you've got a process in place like that 

15 that goes back and deals with issues, you 

16 know. It's a really good thing that we've got 

17 going here. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

19 have to point out that this issue of whether, 

20 how claimants react when their cases are 

21 reviewed afterward and changes are made was 

22 something that we spent a great deal of time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

332

1 on five years ago. We spent a great deal of 

2 time on this, and the Board, as a whole, did 

3 everything that was humanly possible to make 

4 sure that claimants could be as aware as they 

5 could be made aware of the fact that their 

6 cases might be reviewed and their PoC might 

7 change. And we revised the way we said 

8 things, the way we communicated with people to 

9 try to make sure that at least the truth was 

10 known by the claimant at the outset, that if 

11 their claim was reviewed it was possible that 

12 their PoC could get smaller because there was 

13 more precise calculation being made. 

14 MR. KATZ: Right. But, Wanda, 

15 this is actually a completely separate case. 

16 That is, there we're talking about new cancers 

17 being added and so on and an efficiency 

18 process. This is a case where they don't 

19 notify DOL if it's not going to have a 

20 positive impact on the dose reconstruction, so 

21 the claimant wouldn't even need to be notified 

22 unless this is going to affect the case.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

333

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I understand 

2 that this is a different procedure. What I'm 

3 trying to get across, the point that was 

4 brought up a few minutes ago, which is is this 

5 the same thing that we've done before? I'm 

6 trying to say, no, this is not the same thing 

7 that we've addressed before.

8 MR. KATZ: Right, exactly. 

9 MR. FARVER: If it were me and 

10 I've got new information in to a case that 

11 I've recently completed and sent on to DOL, I 

12 would, at the very least, just fire off a memo 

13 saying we've received new information and have 

14 not yet had time to evaluate it, and they can 

15 do with what they want because they might have 

16 something ready to send out that day that they 

17 might want to wait on, but it would just be a 

18 courtesy. It's not, that's so we don't send 

19 things out unnecessarily because you don't 

20 know what the data says until you look at it. 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That would be 

22 -- I propose we move this --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

334

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Move on, 

2 yes. Let's move on. 

3 MR. FARVER: So how do you want me 

4 to write that up? 

5 MR. CALHOUN: NIOSH is doing a 

6 great job with the plan in place. 

7 MS. LIN: I happen to concur. 

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'll make 

9 something up then that's more realistic. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: NIOSH has a 

11 system which consists of --

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, you could 

13 say NIOSH currently makes decisions based on 

14 the information at hand.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I'd also like 

17 to capture that NIOSH does have a process that 

18 when new information is going in that they 

19 are, they are adding this because that's, that 

20 has been a big battle for a lot of years, and 

21 they've taken to heart what we have said and 

22 they are, they're--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

335

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So be 

2 it. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Are we on 

4 276.1? 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do go ahead. 

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let me see the 

7 next one. 276.1 and 276.2.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We just 

9 finished, we finished 257.1.

10 MR. FARVER: Right. And the next 

11 one I had was 276.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see 257. 

13 276, right. 

14 MR. FARVER: Point one and two. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

16 Sorry. 

17 MR. FARVER: And then we move on 

18 down to 277.1. This is about a --

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Did 

20 we skip 276 or --

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is there a 

22 NIOSH response to that? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

336

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There is. 

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Where? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, we have a 

4 response for point one and point two. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 

6 absolutely. 

7 MR. FARVER: Where? Oh, sorry. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. 276.1. I 

10 thought I copied that in there. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 

12 Inappropriate assignment of neutron energy for 

13 those years.

14 MR. FARVER: Oh, yes, this had to 

15 go with the tools and the action was to review 

16 and compare and report back, and they compared 

17 the EDCW tool and further discussion in a 

18 file. 

19 MR. CALHOUN: Is this 276.1? 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, 276.1. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: It's point one and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

337

1 point two. It's the same issue. The question 

2 at the last meeting, we already agreed on the 

3 first portion that the dose reconstruction 

4 report table was incorrect. It didn't have 

5 the right breakdown of energies and DCFs and 

6 so on. So what was outstanding for this 

7 meeting was SC&A had said they couldn't find 

8 the spreadsheet that we used for dose 

9 calculations. And when I went back into it, 

10 actually, it was in the EDCW tool that they 

11 had. It just, it's buried so deeply in there, 

12 it's not surprising they couldn't necessarily 

13 tease it out. 

14 So what we did was we wrote up 

15 this additional response that, for simplicity, 

16 we gave you what the table, and this is the 

17 additional file that's called "SCA 276.1 and 

18 .2 NIOSH Response May 2013." At the top, we 

19 gave an update as to what the table should 

20 have looked like based on the years and the 

21 facilities that were actually used in the dose 

22 reconstruction. The rest of the writeup is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

1 pointing out exactly where in the EDCW best 

2 estimate tool each of the cells, the pieces, 

3 parts are, where the dose reconstruction for 

4 neutrons is calculated.

5 Once again, this is Monte Carlo 

6 calculation, so it's not going to match up 

7 exactly. But if you do the hand calculation, 

8 you're going to get in the ballpark. 

9 SC&A's initial report, they did an 

10 example calculation for 1976. So after 

11 pointing out where the specific pieces are in 

12 the EDCW tool, we also did the same example 

13 for 1976 and compared it. 

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. And this is 

15 one of the files I didn't have a chance to 

16 review last night, so the action is going to 

17 be SC&A to review. And this is for 276.1 and 

18 276.2. 

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

21 going on.

22 MR. FARVER: Going on. I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

1 it's 277.1.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sorry. I'm 

3 just diddling with this because -- there we 

4 go. 

5 MR. FARVER: And --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What was the 

7 number --

8 MR. FARVER: 277.1. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank 

10 you. 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think this is 

12 the same issue we had earlier.

13 MR. FARVER: It sure does look 

14 like it, doesn't it? 

15 MR. SIEBERT: And we discussed 

16 this type of issue and closed some out at the 

17 last meeting. This one, I don't know why we 

18 didn't close this one out. This is 

19 specifically that the less than 30 keV DCFs in 

20 IG-1, there are also separate less than 30 keV 

21 DCFs when you're talking about plutonium and 

22 plutonium facilities. And we clarified that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

1 we did update the template to specify that 

2 information, now that it's clearly pulled out. 

3 And we're going to be putting it in the TBD so 

4 it's clear that the less than 30 keV photon 

5 DCFs for plutonium are actually the 20 keV 

6 DCFs. So this winds up with the same finding 

7 in 280.2, which we actually did close. 

8 MR. FARVER: So you're basically 

9 just going to update the TBD? 

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. The Savannah 

11 River TBD is presently being updated, so the 

12 TBD author has that on his plate to add in 

13 there. But as I said, the template already 

14 has it instituted in it, so it's clearly being 

15 defined the difference between them in each 

16 case that uses them. 

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good. 

19 MR. FARVER: I'm good with it. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So let's go 

21 on.

22 MR. FARVER: 302. 302.1. Why 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

341

1 does this look familiar? Is this the same 

2 one, Scott? 

3 MR. SIEBERT: It's not the same 

4 thing, but it's familiar because we have 

5 discussed it before. 

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is the one 

8 where the TBD has the specific 25/75 percent 

9 split, which is, it's a discussion of the 

10 metal filtration on the SRS dosimeter. We've 

11 discussed this many times and determined that 

12 the way we are assessing it is correct. It's 

13 just the TBD hasn't caught up to documenting 

14 that as it is in TIB-6. And we've responded 

15 in saying, once again, we're updating the TBD 

16 to reflect that. 

17 We actually had the same issue 

18 back in grouping A of 10 through 13, and we 

19 closed it on 6/6/12. As I said, this is 

20 really nice having these transcripts. So 

21 we've already closed this for comparable cases 

22 in grouping A. We've just got to get the TBD 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

1 updated to reflect it. 

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: So this is 

4 another tool? 

5 MR. FARVER: No, this is an 

6 inconsistency between a TIB-6 and a Savannah 

7 River technical basis. It's not that they're 

8 doing it wrong. It just says one thing one 

9 place and another place something else. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And which is 

11 it? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: TIB-6 is the more 

13 recent document that controls this, and what 

14 we need to do is back-correct the TBD to 

15 reflect that, as well, so there's no 

16 inconsistency. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And that is exactly 

19 what we're doing with the Savannah River TBD.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. 

21 Okay. 

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Shall we 

2 continue? 302.2? 

3 MR. FARVER: 302.2, is that the 

4 same? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: It is. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, same. 

7 I got 329.1.

8 MR. FARVER: Right away, we have 

9 some progress, and now you're pushing me. 

10 Okay. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Page 20. 

12 Well, I find out that I'm leaving the same 

13 time as you. I was, my memory failed me. I 

14 have a 6:00, as well, although that doesn't 

15 really enter into this. 

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. Failed to 

17 assign unmonitored photon dose for two years. 

18 It looks like it's a judgment call. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: NIOSH 

20 responded in May. It's not routinely 

21 monitored. 

22 MR. FARVER: I'm going to punt on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

344

1 this one because I haven't had a chance to 

2 look at this one. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: Some of these I can 

5 look at and pretty much tell. In others, 

6 they're going to take some time.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Do you have 

8 a colleague on the phone, though? Or would 

9 you like us to go on?

10 MR. FARVER: Oh, no, it's just 

11 going to take some looking into the files and 

12 some digging on this one.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 MR. FARVER: So SC&A will --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is left 

16 open, and SC&A will--

17 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: SC&A will 

19 look at the NIOSH response of 3/25/2013, 

20 right?

21 MR. FARVER: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

345

1 next one --

2 MR. SIEBERT: Doug, if you want me 

3 to cover the next one, it's the X-rays pre4 employment, if you want me to. 

5 MR. FARVER: Sure. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and 

7 we've seen this. Yes. 

8 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Yes, we had 

9 an extensive discussion on this last meeting. 

10 And what it came down to is there were pre11 employment and actually post-employment X-rays 

12 that some of the pre-employment were included 

13 and some were not. And the question was why 

14 were they and why were they not and what time 

15 frame should we include them? We landed on 

16 that it's presently a year prior to 

17 employment, unless there's additional 

18 information. And the question was should it 

19 be added into Procedure 61, and I remember 

20 this one clearly because about two minutes 

21 after we finished up with this response I 

22 found it in 61 that it's already in there. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

346

1 So Procedure 61, and I pulled a 

2 quote out of it, the general philosophy for a 

3 best-estimate approach is to assign dose from 

4 all eligible X-ray procedures under the 

5 EEOICPA for each site where the energy 

6 employee worked. However, some X-rays should 

7 be excluded from best estimate. For example, 

8 pre-hire and re-hire procedures more than one 

9 year before DOL verified employment should not 

10 be included. And then it goes on to say if 

11 there's additional extenuating records that 

12 show that they probably should be, then you 

13 can go up to two years. 

14 So that process is already 

15 documented in Procedure 61. We looked at this 

16 one a little bit, I looked at it a little bit 

17 closer, and there was a pre-employment that 

18 was only seven months before employment in 

19 1954, which was less than one year. So we 

20 agreed that one should have been included, 

21 there was also another pre-employment the week 

22 before he started in `55. So we should have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

347

1 included two pre-employments, one in `54 and 

2 one in `55. But we all agree that the 1996, 

3 if I remember correctly, should not have been 

4 included and was not. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I 

6 remember that, too.

7 MR. FARVER: I think we knew that 

8 or very much thought it was included 

9 somewhere, but we just couldn't find it at the 

10 last minute.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Right. We just 

12 couldn't put our finger on it. And as I said, 

13 about two minutes later, I found it and I 

14 didn't want to interrupt. 

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. So we can 

16 close that finding. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

18 MR. FARVER: Good. And then the 

19 next would be --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Didn't we, 

21 did we, oh, we didn't skip one. You just said 

22 we'll come back to it at a later time in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348

1 future. 

2 MR. FARVER: 329.1 is where --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 329.1 

4 is deferred.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes, I will have to 

6 evaluate it and I'll get back to you at the 

7 next meeting. 

8 MR. KATZ: So let me, before you 

9 go on, it's 4:30. And, Dave, you want to be 

10 out of here --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. At a 

12 quarter of five --

13 MR. KATZ: And we ought to, 

14 briefly at least, touch on issues of 

15 scheduling and the mode of meeting the next 

16 time, too.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: So do you want to at 

19 least cover that now?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

21 that's a very good idea.

22 MR. KATZ: We already lost John. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

349

1 John had to sign off. He sent me an email.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

3 Alright.

4 MR. KATZ: And I don't think Mark 

5 is with us still. So we can't, we can't 

6 schedule exactly until, I'll have to get their 

7 input before we can settle on a date, but we 

8 can check with a few of us and Wanda on the 

9 line as to what a possible date is. And I 

10 want to raise, given we've had this experience 

11 now today with half the people involved being 

12 remote, what do the Members think about doing 

13 the next one, which would be easier to 

14 schedule by phone with the addition of Live 

15 Meeting, so you can all be looking at the same 

16 document, as opposed to doing it in person. 

17 What are you feelings about that? 

18 Let's ask that first because that will affect 

19 also how soon we can schedule. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. My 

21 feeling is the fact we have such a backlog 

22 that I feel like I'd like to meet more often. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350

1 To do that, I think we really should go to 

2 conference calls, if we can or if it's 

3 acceptable. 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm willing to 

5 give it a try to see how it works out. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

7 MR. KATZ: Dave? David? 

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think, yes, 

9 I certainly think we should give it a try. I 

10 can imagine it working fairly well with, if 

11 it's not a phone conference call but a --

12 MR. KATZ: Phone plus Live 

13 Meeting?

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Phone plus 

15 Live Meeting so we can share documents. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda, and I 

17 think I've made my feelings pretty clear about 

18 this already. But just for those of you who 

19 haven't heard me, I'm opposed to relying so 

20 heavily on what we call conference calls or, 

21 quote, Live Meeting, end quote, simply because 

22 one single mechanical disruption or electrical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

351

1 disruption with anyone out in the boondocks 

2 creates an irreversible and immeasurable 

3 difficulty that simply can't be overcome. 

4 Having been on the receiving end of that, I'm 

5 here to tell you that it's not fun and it's 

6 extremely frustrating. You really can't be 

7 involved to your fullest and best extent, and 

8 I don't believe that you get the same kind of 

9 interaction amongst the, especially amongst 

10 the Board Members, that you get in a face-to11 face discussion.

12 So I don't have any objection to 

13 doing that on occasion, but I do believe that 

14 such heavy-duty reliance on the assumption 

15 that all people with all equipment levels of 

16 expertise are going to be equally empowered 

17 when we're working with these things is a 

18 fallacious argument, and we've seen evidence 

19 of that in my own personal experience. So I 

20 would much prefer to see us do at least the 

21 bulk of, certainly, our Subcommittee work on a 

22 face-to-face basis. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

352

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For me, as 

2 someone new, my feeling is can we look at it 

3 as a temporary measure until we get farther 

4 along into our backlog? But the problem is I 

5 can't define right now how far along we would 

6 go, other than to say that, if we get 

7 interrupted from one of these calls or more 

8 than one, then we'll decide to agree with you 

9 that, hey, there's just, we just can't do it 

10 and we have to go back to face-to-face 

11 meetings. 

12 But it's hard for me to see why we 

13 shouldn't try this now in the hopes that our 

14 experience will be better in the future than 

15 in the past. And in that regard, maybe Live 

16 Meeting, to the extent that it doesn't rely on 

17 each of our individual computers, might be --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, but it does. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- a better 

20 try.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, but it does. 

22 MR. KATZ: Well, it doesn't to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

353

1 same extent because, it doesn't to the same 

2 extent because if you're just in viewing mode, 

3 all you have to do is tie into Live Meeting 

4 and you can see everything and you don't have 

5 to worry about whether you're having problems 

6 with pulling up the right document yourself.

7 So, I mean, all in all, it makes 

8 for less computer problems than the current 

9 situation where every time we meet we have 

10 individuals who are having problems with their 

11 computer. Dave has today, but it's always 

12 someone or multiple people having trouble with 

13 their own computers. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, when I don't 

15 have my computer, when I have my government 

16 computer and it is operating, that doesn't 

17 change the fact that I still have to have a 

18 carrier that's up and running. And even 

19 though my carrier is up and running 99 percent 

20 of the time, it's that three-hour gap that 

21 they're down. For this six months happened to 

22 be the three-hour gap, as it was for me the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

354

1 last time I tried this. Then it's just beyond 

2 frustrating. 

3 But I can understand I'm fighting 

4 a losing battle. That's the way we're going 

5 to do it and that's the way we'll do it. 

6 I would like to point out to 

7 David, however, Dave, our frequency, our 

8 ability to meet frequently is not necessarily 

9 delineated by just our simple schedules. It 

10 seems fairly obvious that the availability of 

11 staff, both for SC&A and for NIOSH, is the 

12 really limiting factor for us. So for us to 

13 simply say that we're going to take care of 

14 our backlog by meeting more often is a lofty 

15 goal, but I have some reservation about how 

16 successful we can be with that. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is a 

18 well-taken point. 

19 MR. KATZ: But we do have, we do 

20 have a lot of material that's ready to go, 

21 that was ready for today that we haven't 

22 gotten to. So in the short-term, we can make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

355

1 progress by meeting sooner until at least we 

2 exhaust the stuff that's already been ponied 

3 up and it's just waiting for our attention. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

5 right.

6 MR. KATZ: So speaking of dates, 

7 if we're going to go for the next meeting as a 

8 teleconference Live Meeting meeting, then we 

9 can do it sooner than we would otherwise. The 

10 soonest we could do it because I need 30 days 

11 for a Federal Register notice for a 

12 Subcommittee to meet, so the soonest it could 

13 be would be the June 24th through 28th to pick 

14 up where we've left off here, that time frame. 

15 I don't know if that works with any of you.

16 MR. CALHOUN: I may be in Idaho. 

17 There's an INL workshop going on. I have not 

18 been tagged for that yet for sure, but I do a 

19 lot of those. 

20 MR. KATZ: But you're a key 

21 staffer, so we can't book it for when you're 

22 not--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

356

1 MR. CALHOUN: I'm trying to not be 

2 so key. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the next 

4 week is July 4th. 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: As a 

6 clarification, if we were doing this by phone, 

7 they have phones in Idaho. 

8 MR. CALHOUN: Good point. It is. 

9 But I'm usually instructing. It's a 

10 workshop. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: For the whole 

12 week.

13 MR. CALHOUN: It's only three 

14 days.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: And if we want to 

17 try to do it that week, I'll find out if I 

18 have officially been tagged. And if not, I'll 

19 get out of it. 

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. Why don't you 

21 send us an email about that. I just want to 

22 just sort of at least pencil in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

357

1 possibilities right now. July 1st and 2nd, is 

2 that no good, that whole week no good for any 

3 --

4 MR. CALHOUN: I can do that.

5 MR. KATZ: So that's the beginning 

6 of that July 4th week. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: July 1st and 

8 2nd, I could do that. But, but let me ask 

9 you, Grady, if you do three days a week, three 

10 days the previous week --

11 MR. CALHOUN: It looks like the 

12 27th and 28th --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are the 

14 likely days --

15 MR. CALHOUN: -- are days that I 

16 won't, that I'll be here. For sure, Friday 

17 I'll be here.

18 MR. KATZ: There's travel time.

19 MR. CALHOUN: But I don't know if 

20 I'll have to travel on the 27th or not. I 

21 just the 24th, 25th, and 26th marked off right 

22 now. I can solidify that here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

358

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could folks 

2 do the 28th? Could any folks do the 28th, 

3 Friday? 

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: I can do the 

5 28th. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I can. That 

7 would be far better than the 1st or 2nd, 

8 certainly. 

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. June 28th is one 

10 possibility. We're going to hear back from 

11 Grady on whether that is a real one or not. 

12 If we can't do that --

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: How long are 

14 we scheduling this call for? All day? 

15 MR. KATZ: So, basically, the day. 

16 We can make it, I mean, I've actually found 

17 that it's easier to be at home and on the 

18 computer and on the phone than it is to be 

19 here. I found it sort of more comfortable. 

20 So if we can do a day here, I think we could 

21 do a day there. But, of course, we have 

22 flexibility because it's by phone. If you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

359

1 want to do it for less hours in a day, we can.

2 It actually, if we can't do it in 

3 this time frame, then we're pushed all the way 

4 into August, which is okay. And the first 

5 opportunities I have in August are August 7th 

6 through 9th. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: I think sooner is 

8 better, as much as I hate to say it. I just 

9 think we need to knock these things out. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Me, 

11 too.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. I mean, I 

13 completely agree. But how is everybody August 

14 7th through 9th, if we end up there?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did you say 

16 August 7th --

17 MR. KATZ: Seven through nine. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't, I 

19 don't know. Yes --

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good with any 

21 of those dates in August there. I just need 

22 prior knowledge so that I can take off of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

360

1 work. 

2 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think that's 

4 possible for me. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, no, 7th 

6 through 9th would work. I'm sorry. 

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we're going 

8 to hear back from Brady. Our preference is 

9 June 28th. And, Wanda, this is you, too, 

10 right? June 28th? Is that a possibility? 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Very okay. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: You don't need to 

13 hear from me. June 28th will be good. 

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, it is good. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 24th through 

16 27th --

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then why don't 

18 we just, let's say June 28th, unless we have a 

19 problem with Poston and/or Griffon. And if 

20 not, August 7th through 9th. The sooner the 

21 better; is that for you, David? 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

361

1 fine. 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we'll follow 

3 back with everybody. I'll send out an email. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: And we need to wrap now 

6 because --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We certainly 

8 do.

9 MR. KATZ: -- your plane. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

11 right. 

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So thank you, 

13 everyone, on the phone. Much thanks. 

14 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

15 was concluded at 4:41 p.m.) 

16

17

18

19

20

21

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

362

1

2