1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL NATIONAL INSTITUTE 

FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

MARCH 13, 2018

The Work Group convened by 

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

Time, David Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

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

Review Set 24 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases..... 6

Review Cases from Sets 14-18..................... 93

Review Cases from Sets 19-21.................... 147

Adjourn......................................... 197
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:30 a.m.)

3 Welcome and Roll-Call

4 MR. KATZ: Let's just get going with 

5 the preliminaries. John Poston not being here 

6 makes it easier, but I'll just address the 

7 conflicts of interest instead of you guys, 

8 because he's the one that has more than one.

9 So, this is the Advisory Board on 

10 Radiation and Worker Health, the Dose 

11 Reconstruction Review Subcommittee. David 

12 Kotelchuck, Dr. Kotelchuck, is our Chair. He has 

13 no conflicts. But I should note for the other 

14 Members, Ms. Josie Beach and Ms. Wanda Munn, who 

15 are both on the line as well, and Members, both 

16 of them are conflicted at Hanford. So they will 

17 not be in the discussion on any Hanford cases 

18 that might come up.

19 And Mr. Brad Clawson, the other Member 

20 on the line with us, is conflicted at INL and 

21 won't discuss any cases that might come up. I'm 

22 not sure we have either of those cases coming up, 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but we'll see. 

2 And there's an agenda for today's 

3 meeting, but it's not that informative. But it 

4 does tell you mostly what sites are being covered 

5 today. And that's at the NIOSH website, under 

6 the program, the EEOICPA program, the Board 

7 schedule of meetings, today's date. So you can 

8 go there and see that agenda, if you wish. 

9 And then, moving on from there, let's 

10 do roll call for everyone but the Board. We have 

11 a quorum for the Board, and we expect David 

12 Richardson, who also has no conflicts. He'll be 

13 joining us a little bit later. 

14 (Roll call.)

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. There is some 

16 buzzing and so on, probably from some of the 

17 lines. If everybody would keep their phones on 

18 mute except when addressing the group, that would 

19 probably be helpful. And press *6 if you don't 

20 have a mute button and *6 to come off of mute.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The buzzing has 

22 stopped, at least on my line.
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yeah. And so it's your 

2 meeting, Dave.

3 Review Set 24 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases 

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

5 Well, folks, let's start off with the Set 24 blind 

6 dose reconstruction cases. We're going to look 

7 at three cases today and then the next three at 

8 the next meeting. I gather the next three have 

9 already been done, but we'll deal with them next 

10 time.

11 So, do we want to start out with the 

12 first one that you put on the list, Rocky Flats?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's what I was 

14 thinking. Kathy? 

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I'm ready. Okay. 

16 This is, obviously, as you're seeing on the 

17 screen, this is a Rocky Flats case for an Energy 

18 Employee with a little more than one decade of 

19 employment, as shown in Table 2-1 on page 10. 

20 I'll let Rose get there. 

21 If we move on to -- and we'll come 

22 back to this Table -- but if we move on then to 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Table 2-2, that shows that this Energy Employee 

2 was diagnosed with multiple cancers. And you can 

3 see that list on your screen. 

4 Now, if we back up to Table 1-1, on 

5 pages 7 through 9, this shows a comparison of the 

6 doses that were assigned by NIOSH and calculated 

7 by SC&A. As shown in Table 1-1, for all of the 

8 cancers in all of the exposure pathways, NIOSH 

9 and SC&A estimated nearly identical or extremely 

10 similar doses.

11 If we now move on to Table 2-3, we can 

12 see that there's a close agreement in the doses. 

13 And I'm going to spend a lot of time on this table 

14 because I felt -- let me also back up a second -

15 - the doses and the PoCs were very close and 

16 similar, and, in both cases, NIOSH and SC&A 

17 calculated a total PoC value that was less than 

18 50 percent. So the case would not have been 

19 compensated.

20 I plan on spending time talking about 

21 the similarities and differences in this 

22 particular case rather than going through a lot 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of detail on the derivation of the dose 

2 calculations. However, if there are any 

3 questions at the end or along the way, please 

4 stop me and we can discuss them.

5 To start with, this EE was monitored 

6 externally for photons, electrons, and neutrons, 

7 and both NIOSH and SC&A calculated doses for 

8 recorded missed dose for all three exposures, as 

9 well as unmonitored dose that was based on 

10 coworker models. The reason their values are so 

11 similar is that both used the same guidance 

12 documents. NIOSH did utilize their workbook,

13 which incorporates the Technical Basis Document 

14 guidance which SC&A used.

15 In all cases, NIOSH and SC&A used 

16 identical EF values, energy fraction values, and 

17 also applicable correction factors. Both used 

18 same DCF values but they applied them in a 

19 different way. NIOSH used the triangular 

20 distribution of the Implementation Guide 001 DCF, 

21 and then it used a Monte Carlo method to determine 

22 the uncertainty, where SC&A just used the mode 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DCF value and applied that consistently to all 

2 doses. 

3 And this resulted in some differences 

4 in the dose distributions that were entered into 

5 IREP. Occasionally, when NIOSH uses the Monte 

6 Carlo, that will result in the Weibull 

7 distribution being the best fit. And for SC&A, 

8 we entered the data based on guidance in the TBD, 

9 which is typically normal or log-normal 

10 distribution, so that created a few minor 

11 differences.

12 Other minor differences is that NIOSH 

13 assigned the recorded shallow dose for five years 

14 of employment, while SC&A assigned the recorded 

15 shallow dose they interpreted the records with 

16 and only shallow dose for three years. Also, for 

17 missed photon dose, NIOSH calculated 28 zeroes, 

18 gaps, or less-than-one-half-of-LOD values, and 

19 SC&A counted 25. And that, again, happens 

20 because sometimes the complexity of looking at 

21 the records and interpretation of the records. 

22 Other minor difference is that, for 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coworker dose, there was a slight difference in 

2 the fractions of months assigned, and that's 

3 shown in Table 2-4 on page 16. 

4 Am I going too fast here? 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We are jumping 

6 around a lot. 

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. It's just that I 

8 didn't think it was necessary to go through and 

9 calculate each one of the doses. I just thought 

10 I'd give you an overview and if we want to go 

11 back we can do that. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, that's 

13 fine. The way you're handling it, from my mind, 

14 as one person, is just fine. It's just that the 

15 screen is jumping a lot as you go from place to 

16 place. 

17 MS. BEHLING: I'm giving Rose a hard 

18 time. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Please slow down 

20 your narrative so that the screen can catch up, 

21 if you can.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I will, I will. 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay. We're now on Table 2-4 where, as I said, 

2 again, just a minor difference in the fraction of 

3 months that coworker dose was assigned.

4 If we then leave the photon, neutron, 

5 and electron, the shallow dose discussion, we'll 

6 move on to the occupational medical dose. And 

7 neither NIOSH nor SC&A calculated any 

8 occupational medical dose. And that was based on 

9 guidance in OTIB-79, which states that if the 

10 exams, if the X-ray exams, were performed offsite 

11 they do not get included in the dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 Also, if we go on to the onsite 

14 ambient dose, neither SC&A or NIOSH calculated 

15 any onsite ambient dose, and that is in 

16 accordance with PROC-60 guidance because there 

17 was already missed dose assigned. 

18 Alright. We are ready to move on to 

19 internal, unless there are any questions. I hear 

20 none. So, this Energy Employee, again, was 

21 monitored for plutonium via urinalysis, fecal, 

22 and chest counts. And both NIOSH and SC&A 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concluded that the urinalysis results were the 

2 best method to model the plutonium dose. So both 

3 used the same exposure periods and the same 

4 plutonium mixtures. And this resulted in nearly 

5 identical intake values that are being shown on 

6 Table 2-5 on the screen, on page 18.

7 Both also concluded that Type S was 

8 the most claimant-favorable solubility type. The 

9 only difference is both also considered Type 

10 Super S because we're looking at plutonium. 

11 However, NIOSH didn't make any adjustments to 

12 their doses after considering the Type Super S, 

13 while SC&A did multiply one year's dose by a 

14 factor of four to account for the Type Super S. 

15 And this resulted in SC&A's internal 

16 dose to come to 22 millirem for the first 

17 diagnosed cancer and 25 to 35 millirem for the 

18 remaining cancers, while NIOSH assigned a dose of 

19 7 millirem to the first diagnosed cancer and a 

20 range of 8 to 10 millirem for the remaining 

21 cancers. There was no environmental internal 

22 dose calculated and it wasn't necessary to 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculate that. 

2 So, in summary, doses were very 

3 similar, PoCs were similar. And I think I 

4 described the minor differences, but if there are 

5 any questions, I can take them now and get 

6 assistance from other SC&A participants, if 

7 necessary. 

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't have any 

9 questions. I did learn from your work what a 

10 canthus was, the skin lateral canthus, and I had

11 not heard of that part of the body. And of 

12 course, I went to my dictionary and learned about 

13 it. So, good. Thank you. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert. 

15 I just want to point out, since there was a 

16 question about the Super S and where SC&A applied 

17 it and we did not, I'll address why that is case

18 if you would like me to. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think that would 

20 be good.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. The reasoning is, 

22 as you know, the OTIB-49 factors are set up such 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that you can't actually model Super S and do 

2 projections between the two types of chest counts 

3 and urine counts. Directly you can't do those 

4 comparisons, but there are ways to do projections 

5 out to the chest if you're starting from urine 

6 and vice versa. 

7 And what we did in this case is, as 

8 was mentioned, we started with the urine and made 

9 the assumption it was a Type S plutonium intake 

10 projected out to a chest count. And then when we 

11 made our adjustment for how much would be in the 

12 chest of Type Super S, since it doesn't clear 

13 from the chest and the lungs nearly as quickly, 

14 there's a lot more of the material in the chest 

15 that you would expect to see in a chest count. 

16 We projected out to determine that we 

17 should have seen it in the chest counts, and since 

18 there was no americium detected in the chest 

19 counts that were given for this EE, we determined 

20 that Type Super S was not appropriate and we did 

21 not adjust the doses accordingly. That's the 

22 difference. 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

2 helpful. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. 

4 There's a certain amount of difference in between 

5 that. So which way is the right way to be able 

6 to do it, then? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: I'm not sure I 

8 understand your question, Brad. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, you felt that 

10 there was not a reason to put Type S, correct? 

11 Because you --

12 MR. SIEBERT: Type Super S, that's 

13 correct. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Super S. Well, what 

15 I'm trying to figure out is, well, then which is 

16 the best way to be able to do it?

17 MS. BEHLING: In SC&A's thinking --

18 and someone from SC&A can correct me if I'm 

19 misspeaking here -- but I think our philosophy 

20 was that we were using urinalysis data, and so, 

21 based on OTIB-49, we strictly looked at that 

22 urinalysis data, which would have indicated that 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we should have made an adjustment to at least one 

2 year's worth, which is what we did. It was just 

3 one year's worth of dose, because we went 

4 strictly by the urinalysis data; we did not 

5 factor in the additional information that Scott's 

6 talking about from the chest counts. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: So yours is slightly 

8 more claimant-favorable/overestimating because 

9 you didn't limit it by the chest counts? 

10 MS. BEHLING: Correct. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: And as less than 50 

12 percent, that's --

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

14 Richardson. I got two questions. Can you hear 

15 me? 

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we can hear 

17 you.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So the first 

19 question is, this indirect procedure for making 

20 an adjustment about what type of plutonium it is, 

21 is that documented or is that something which was 

22 developed here in this case? 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we use it in many 

2 cases. It's actually part of the OTIB-49 

3 corrections pool that we --

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: So that procedure

5 is clearly described and has been evaluated? 

6 MR. SIEBERT: I'd say the process is 

7 available, yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MS. BEHLING: That has been evaluated, 

10 yes. 

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I mean, part of my 

12 understanding was, in the in vivo counting 

13 looking for americium, was that the detection 

14 limit was relatively high for that. So you feel 

15 confident saying that, given the absence of 

16 detection of americium in the lung counts here, 

17 regardless of the magnitude of the intake, you 

18 can make a judgment about whether there's Super 

19 S present or not? 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well, yes, if we 

21 determine that, by projection, that you should 

22 have detected it, regardless of the actual 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 detection limit, as long as -- you know, we know 

2 that americium can be detected in the chest, 

3 that's not disputed. Yes, the detection limits 

4 may be relatively high. However, in this case 

5 and the other cases that we projected out to, it 

6 would have been detected in the chest count.

7 Let me point one other thing out that 

8 we do in cases like this, is we also work backward 

9 from the chest counts and compare it to the urine 

10 samples to determine which is a more claimant11 favorable assumption. Which we did in this case, 

12 and Type S is the claimant-favorable assumption, 

13 you know, when you start from the chest count.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm not following 

15 quite what you -- I mean, the "irregardless of 

16 the detection limit" seems like that doesn't make 

17 any sense. I mean, if you don't detect something 

18 and there's a detection limit, then it does 

19 depend on the detection -- so I thought the 

20 committed dose, remind me what it was to the lung 

21 in this case, from this intake. I thought we 

22 were talking in the 10 millisieverts, millirems. 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: No, the actual dose to 

2 the first diagnosed cancer, based on SC&A's 

3 results, was 22 millirem. 

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And based on 

5 NIOSH's, it was 7 or something like that?

6 MS. BEHLING: Yes, 7. 

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And you're saying 

8 for an intake, for inhalation of plutonium of 

9 Type Super S, you could detect that with 

10 reasonable certainty looking for evidence of the 

11 americium signal from that? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I would 

14 just have to comment that when you're talking 

15 about millirem in the quantity of double digits 

16 it's hardly likely that it's going to be a 

17 balancing factor one way or the other with 

18 respect to injury to the patient -- rather to the 

19 --

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm not concerned 

21 about that, Wanda. I'm just concerned about the 

22 logic of the argument. I mean, again, doses in 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that magnitude, I'll defer to one of you, buy my 

2 discussions previously had led me to believe that 

3 it would be an area of uncertainty about using in 

4 vivo counting for finding that type of intake. 

5 But if you all are convinced of that, okay. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Don't say that we're 

7 all convinced. 

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. I would say 

9 this: it's a small effect. I'm actually glad 

10 that we're discussing the process to the extent 

11 that it may be that one of them is better than 

12 the other, even though we understand that neither 

13 will have a significant effect on the PoC. 

14 So I'm happy with this discussion, and 

15 maybe we should continue it if there's any 

16 question about which should have been used. In 

17 general, in comparing the blinds, you know, we 

18 assume that both procedures are perfectly good 

19 and sensible experienced professionals use them, 

20 but it can be that we'll come across something 

21 that one might feel one group really did it, if 

22 you will, the better way.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I'm more than happy to continue 

2 this, if people would like to. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm just looking at 

4 the claimant-favorability, right? You know, we 

5 put a lot of emphasis on getting over the top and 

6 small dose versus what isn't. I'm a firm 

7 believer, if it would have been your dose, those 

8 small doses add up, but I'm just trying to get a 

9 feel for which is really the best way to have 

10 been able to do this. 

11 I understand what Scott's saying, but 

12 some of our monitoring hasn't been that good, and 

13 I just -- I don't know which way is the best way, 

14 but it just doesn't make me feel very good looking 

15 at this that way. But I just wanted to understand 

16 why we were doing what we were doing and why we 

17 came out. And, yes, it's only in the millirems 

18 and stuff, but I'm just wondering why we ended up 

19 so far off. To my eyes, it is a little bit off.

20 DR. MAURO: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

21 John Mauro. I have a simpler question before we 

22 leave this subject. It sounds like we're close 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to leaving it. Apparently there's a convention 

2 in place that I don't recall, regarding the 

3 equilibrium factor between the americium and the 

4 plutonium that's taken in. I assume that's been 

5 standardized and I may have forgotten about it. 

6 But, obviously, in order to use the whole body 

7 count looking at the americium, you have to make 

8 certain assumptions about what the equilibrium is 

9 between the americium and the plutonium. 

10 What's the convention? It's probably 

11 in an OTIB somewhere. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Can someone answer 

13 that? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, the ratio of the 

15 americium to plutonium is given in the TBDs of 

16 interest for the different types of plutonium 

17 mixtures that are prevalent at the site. So, in 

18 this case, this is Rocky Flats, so we would have 

19 dealt with the ratio that's given in the Rocky 

20 Flats TBD.

21 DR. MAURO: And those matters have all 

22 been hashed out as part of the Site Profile review 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 process? 

2 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. 

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you. 

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Shall we go 

5 on, folks? Do we approve the results here? 

6 Approve in terms of, I guess, record, observe, 

7 and accept. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I would 

9 suggest that we do that, again, with applause. 

10 It is an amazement to me that different people 

11 are looking at the same material, and, even with 

12 the individualized approach to some of the finer 

13 points, have an end result that is so remarkably 

14 similar. I don't think we've encountered 

15 anything so far that is more than, what ,perhaps 

16 one, at the most two percent differential between 

17 the final dosages. And that's, in my mind, a 

18 remarkable thing. So, good review, Kathy. Thank 

19 you. 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, we 

21 actually have found some that are a little bit 

22 more than one or two percent. But upon average, 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they're generally within one or two percent. But 

2 what's so impressive about this is that we are 

3 choosing as cases PoCs that are awfully close to 

4 50 percent, and then we're dealing with one in 

5 which we have nine, what is it, nine different 

6 sites, nine different primary cancers. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, we've been 

8 trying not to say the number of cancers in order 

9 to prevent any personalized information --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, very good. 

11 Thank you for saying that. And that's a perfectly 

12 -- that's a sound idea. I had not noted that 

13 before. Anyway, there are many cancer sites and 

14 they're very close to 50 percent, and the two 

15 groups got results that were within a percent or 

16 so from each other. And that is impressive. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

18 I know this will come down as a mark in history 

19 that I agree with Wanda, but all the applause and 

20 all that stuff, we are hitting really, really 

21 close. If these weren't blinds, I would have a 

22 bigger issue. 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. And 

2 that's the reason we're doing blinds.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: But I was just trying 

4 to bring up the point, trying to understand which 

5 way is the best to be able to do this. And you're 

6 right, these are blinds, and that's what I needed 

7 to remember going from there. But I do agree and 

8 I think they've done a great job on it. I was 

9 just trying to understand if there was a 

10 breakdown in the process either way on this. And 

11 both of them sounded sound to me, so I just wanted 

12 to make sure that -- I wasn't finding fault, I 

13 was just trying to understand the process a 

14 little bit better. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And that is 

16 welcome. That is welcome, and I'm very glad you 

17 did. 

18 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro one 

19 more time. It goes more towards the ground rules, 

20 and I'm sorry if this is redundant and you've 

21 already covered this, but let's presume for a 

22 moment that Rocky is still undergoing review and 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we have some outstanding issues, technical issues 

2 on the Site Profile, that sort of thing are still 

3 being discussed. That may or may not be the 

4 cause. 

5 Now we move into a world of 

6 comparison, like these blinds. If there is, in 

7 fact, an issue -- let's say, for example, there 

8 was an issue regarding equilibrium that we're 

9 discussing: how would that be dealt with when we 

10 go to a blind process? Do we explore that at 

11 all, or do we just presume that there are no 

12 issues outstanding with regard to any of the 

13 OTIBs or TBDs that are in place and we just sort 

14 of follow the rules and see if we come up with 

15 the same results, notwithstanding the possibility 

16 that there may be some outstanding issues that 

17 have not yet been resolved. 

18 MR. KATZ: Let me just address that. 

19 It doesn't matter whether they're the blinds or 

20 the regular dose reconstruction reviews. I mean, 

21 whenever we come up with an issue that is 

22 unresolved, you know, we chase it down to the 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 end. That's what we're supposed to do. So, you 

2 know, if this is an item where there's an issue 

3 that's unresolved that may matter for other 

4 cases, then we have to chase it down to the end, 

5 right? 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: I'm not sure what else 

8 you're asking about. 

9 DR. MAURO: That's it. I didn't quite 

10 understand, I just wanted to be sure of what the 

11 ground rules were, whether or not we would 

12 challenge, for example, some of the underlying 

13 premises, either because they have been 

14 previously challenged or during the blind review 

15 process --

16 MR. KATZ: It doesn't matter. It 

17 doesn't matter whether if we haven't previously 

18 challenged them and they come up and it's a real 

19 issue, it's an issue, and that has to be chased 

20 down.

21 DR. MAURO: Good. Okay. Thank you.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. And we 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't -- I mean, when we're comparing blinds, we 

2 assume these are both professional groups and 

3 experienced groups, so we make no choice as a 

4 Subcommittee about which is better. They're just 

5 two different professional groups approaching 

6 difficult calculations together and comparing. 

7 But, as Ted said, if we were to find an error or 

8 that one of the processes used seemed to us to be 

9 incorrect, then we, of course, have to go all the 

10 way back and feed that back into the process of 

11 dose reconstruction. 

12 DR. MAURO: Thank you. Please, I 

13 apologize if I'm hashing over old questions. 

14 Thank you. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Discussion is 

16 always welcome.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, you know, what 

18 John is saying is absolutely correct. And we've 

19 got into this before, John. But at one of the 

20 sites that we have not resolved an internal or an 

21 external issue coming into it, and these blinds 

22 have kind of sat, we've done that before. We 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have gone through the process, but there's still 

2 outlying issues that have not been resolved with 

3 the Site Profile and that creates part of the 

4 problem. And we have had some of these that have 

5 come up that way. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

7 Well, I think we're ready now to go on to the 

8 next case. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, if I can really 

10 quick, I just want to point out the Table 2-3 

11 here. This is different in the 24th Set than was 

12 previously done. At the Board's request, we 

13 simplified this table considerably, so now every 

14 time you see a dash mark here that means that 

15 SC&A and NIOSH did identical things. And that 

16 should make it easier for everyone to view the 

17 differences between the two in the summary table. 

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Certainly, it does. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: Thanks. I was 

20 questioning that, too. I was wondering what that 

21 was, so I appreciate that explanation. This is 

22 Josie. 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So let's go 

2 on to the next blind case, W.R. Grace. 

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Nicole, are you on the 

4 line? 

5 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, I am.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great.

7 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. This is blind dose 

8 reconstruction B-28. And this individual worked 

9 at W.R. Grace for about a 30-year period, which 

10 spanned both the operational period at W.R. Grace 

11 and the residual period. This Energy Employee 

12 was diagnosed with several cancers. And for 

13 anyone following along, the list of the cancers 

14 are on our Table 1-1, which is on page 6 of our 

15 report.

16 Now, this is a particularly 

17 interesting case. In fact, I don't think we've 

18 ever had a blind case quite like this one, and it 

19 definitely sparked a lot of discussion among our 

20 group at SC&A. So I'll start with the end result, 

21 and then we'll just work our way back through the 

22 case.
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH's Probability of Causation for 

2 this case was 51.14 percent, so it was 

3 recommended for compensation. And SC&A's PoC is 

4 49.5 percent, so it came just below the 

5 compensation line.

6 Now, adding a little bit more interest 

7 here, even though SC&A had a lower PoC, for each 

8 of the cancers for this case SC&A actually 

9 assigned a slightly higher dose in comparison to 

10 NIOSH's assignment. It is a relatively small 

11 difference. SC&A's total dose assignment was 

12 only about, depending on the cancer, you know, 

13 I'll say averaged 350 millirem higher than 

14 NIOSH's assigned dose. But like I said, SC&A's 

15 PoC actually came in lower; and not only did it 

16 come in lower, it came right below the 

17 compensation line.

18 So, for this comparison, I'll go 

19 through, you know, as Kathy did, go through each 

20 section. 

21 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Nicole? I'm sorry. 

22 This is Scott Siebert. This is a big enough 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issue, if people don't mind, I'd love to address 

2 that before we got into the specific differences 

3 in the case, if that's all right. 

4 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, yeah. 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Because, obviously, the 

6 biggest issue here is that SC&A's value was less 

7 than 50 percent and ours is greater than 50 

8 percent. I just want to put that to rest before 

9 we move on. The reason -- and SC&A does discuss 

10 this in their report -- is that once we're in 

11 best estimate territory, which is between 45 

12 percent and 52 percent, due to the uncertainty 

13 differences that you get when you run Monte Carlo 

14 calculations, we no longer run IREP just in the 

15 standard manner. The standard manner is 2,000 

16 iterations with a random seed of 99. When we're 

17 outside that range, we all run that and that's 

18 the PoC of record that we send to DOL.

19 Once we're in that range, we have a 

20 process where we actually run IREP 30 different 

21 times with 10,000 iterations, rather than 2,000 

22 iterations, and a random seed for each of the 30 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 runs. So it gives us a much better cross section 

2 of what the PoCs are. We have a range of PoCs, 

3 and we take the average of that.

4 When I took SC&A's IREP files in this 

5 case and ran them through that process, their 

6 overall PoC actually came out over 50 percent, 

7 matching ours relatively closely. So, just the 

8 process involved is a huge reason for the 

9 difference there, taking that additional step to 

10 get the best answer possible in that best 

11 estimate range. 

12 MS. BRIGGS: Okay, alright. Since 

13 you're jumping ahead for me, then I think I'm 

14 going to, if it's all right with everybody -- I 

15 don't know. Rose, how do you want to proceed? I 

16 can jump ahead to our last table and we can go 

17 straight to there, I guess. 

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's entirely up to 

19 you. 

20 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. You know what 

21 then? Why don't we go ahead and do that? We'll 

22 jump ahead to Table 3-2 at the end of our report. 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Thank 

2 you. 

3 MS. BRIGGS: Sure. So, this is a 

4 comparison. We started doing some work-ups. I 

5 think it's very interesting that you came up with 

6 right over 50 using that average -- I'm sorry, 

7 using the 10,000 iterations with the increase in 

8 the 30 runs. When I went into the actual runs 

9 themselves, I guess I didn't find any that were 

10 -- I guess one of my questions, if I had run into 

11 that, none of NIOSH's numbers actually came below 

12 50 percent. So I was just, you know, trying to 

13 figure out, that was one of the things I took to 

14 look at, just to see if NIOSH's numbers can get 

15 below 50 using any of their information, which is 

16 why we sort of brought this up was, well, we're 

17 trying to take a look at all the different 

18 scenarios. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with 

19 -- the way I see it is we're actually sort of 

20 operating at the edge of this program, the fact

21 that we're coming in right at the line above and 

22 below, the difference being about one-and-a-half 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 PoC percentage point. So we really are at the 

2 absolute limits of this program, and it just 

3 happened to be that way for here to show --

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm not worried 

5 about you're trying to see why you folks are one 

6 is above and one is below. The question is, did 

7 each of you do a sound professional, technical 

8 evaluation? I'm not at all 0-- I mean, I'm not, 

9 if you will -- put it his way: I want to compare 

10 two good calculations. Why one is a little above 

11 and one is a little below, it seems to me fits 

12 perfectly in the range of the other blinds that 

13 we've looked at. And the average, as I recall at 

14 the Santa Fe meeting, the median of PoC 

15 differences is 1.5 percent difference. 

16 So I'm not worried about whether one 

17 is near the edge and what could have been done. 

18 We're looking at each independently, and the 

19 question is, in your report, is each one doing a 

20 sound job? And it seems to me you are, but you 

21 could go over the individual components. To me, 

22 the effort to compare them, one to another or 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what would have happened if one of you had used 

2 some other different parameter. No, the question 

3 is, are the parameters used by each one 

4 appropriate in our judgment now, as a 

5 Subcommittee. And it seems to me they are. You 

6 could go over things a little more in detail in 

7 terms of external dose, internal dose. I'd be 

8 happy if you wish to --

9 MS. BRIGGS: That would be great. I 

10 actually have that prepared, so I can work my way 

11 through. You can see all the different elements 

12 of the dose reconstruction.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let's do that.

14 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. 

15 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I don't 

16 mean to interrupt, but, while we're on that 

17 Table, do we want to explore the Table a little 

18 bit more or do you want to wait until we get 

19 through all of the doses? 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would like to get 

21 through the doses. What do other Subcommittee 

22 Members think? 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Because there 

2 still are some questions that we have regarding 

3 the calculation of the PoC, but we'll get to that 

4 at the end.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We'll get to 

6 that later.

7 MS. BEHLING: I apologize if --

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, not at all. 

9 No need to apologize. That's fine. Thank you. 

10 MS. BRIGGS: I just wanted to give a 

11 little introduction to sort of -- because it was 

12 sitting right there, the difference in PoC. So 

13 I wanted to address it right up front and then 

14 sort of go back and go through dose 

15 reconstruction.

16 Alright. So if we go to our Table 1-

17 2, which is on page 7, and that is the comparison 

18 of the SC&A doses and the NIOSH doses broken down 

19 by type. 

20 Now, for this case, the overwhelming 

21 majority of the dose, well over 90 percent of the 

22 total dose, was attributed to external doses. 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the total doses overall, which span both SC&A 

2 and NIOSH's range from about 6.3 rem to about 7.8 

3 rem depending on the cancer. And the difference 

4 between our assigned doses between SC&A range 

5 from 298 to about 367 millirem, which is why I 

6 said, roughly, we're talking about a difference 

7 of about 350 millirem, you know, average per 

8 case, depending on the cancer.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MS. BRIGGS: And to start with the

11 external doses, this was monitored for both 

12 external photon and beta. And for both the 

13 recorded and the missed photon doses during the 

14 operational period, NIOSH and SC&A assigned 

15 identical doses with identical distributions and 

16 use the exact same methodology. 

17 And for the residual period, like I 

18 said before, W.R. Grace is broken into both an 

19 operational and a residual period. Both NIOSH 

20 and SC&A assigned what was an unmonitored photon 

21 and shallow dose using the guidance in the TBD. 

22 Now, here we also have a very small 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference in how the dose was assigned. NIOSH 

2 prorated the doses for about four years of this 

3 individual employment period in order to account 

4 for partial years of employment. And SC&A 

5 assigned for those years actually a full year of 

6 unmonitored dose, and this resulted only in a 

7 difference of about 2 millirem for the 

8 unmonitored photon dose and about 6 millirem for 

9 the unmonitored shallow dose. And for 

10 occupational medical doses, SC&A and NIOSH again 

11 assigned -- the assignments were identical, the 

12 distributions were identical, methodology was 

13 identical. 

14 As I said before, the total eternal 

15 doses that were calculated by SC&A and NIOSH 

16 ranged from about 5.7 to about 6.7 rem. And, 

17 depending on the cancer, the difference between 

18 SC&A's and NIOSH's external dose assignment was 

19 only about 7 millirem per cancer. So they were 

20 extremely close. So this represents the 

21 overwhelming majority of the assigned dose for 

22 this case, and both SC&A and NIOSH are coming in 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially identical.

2 If there are any other questions 

3 regarding the external dose, I can run through 

4 the internal. 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Questions? You can 

6 go on.

7 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. So, let's see, the 

8 internal doses: This individual was monitored 

9 for uranium and plutonium exposure with bioassays 

10 and whole body counts. For the uranium 

11 exposures, NIOSH and SC&A both used the 

12 methodology described in the TBD for the site. 

13 For the operational period, they both assumed the 

14 exposures were from the U-233 reactor fuel 

15 mixture. And for this dose assignment, NIOSH 

16 used what's called the dose and risk calculation 

17 software, the DCAL software program, to fit the 

18 bioassay measurements to -- they defined ten 

19 acute intakes looking at the data. And NIOSH 

20 used that DCAL program instead of the usual IMBA 

21 program based on the guidance in OTIB-28, which 

22 actually states that the dose coefficients using 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the DCAL program are more accurate for internal 

2 dose assessments involving U-232 and U-233. And 

3 NIOSH also calculated the potential missed dose 

4 from a chronic exposure to uranium based on the 

5 one-half of the MDA value. 

6 Now, for each year, the doses from the 

7 fitted intakes were compared to this missed 

8 chronic intake, doses from those missed chronic 

9 intakes, and the higher of the two values was 

10 assigned and used as input into IREP, which in 

11 all cases was the missed dose for all years and 

12 depending on the cancer that NIOSH assigned is 

13 about 218 to 261 millirem from this uranium 

14 exposure. 

15 NIOSH uses a slightly different 

16 method. They use the IMBA program to fit the 

17 bioassay measurements. And they defined about 

18 seven acute intakes based on the data. And they 

19 also used IMBA to assign, again, an underlying 

20 chronic intake from the bioassay measurements 

21 that were below the MDA. 

22 Now, instead of comparing and 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigning the higher of the two, all of these 

2 intakes were used as inputs into the Chronic 

3 Annual Dose Workbook, also called the CADW. And 

4 depending on the cancer, SC&A's uranium dose 

5 assignment here was between 510 and 620 millirem 

6 for each of the cancers, depending on the cancer.

7 So SC&A's annual doses for internal 

8 are roughly, thereabouts, about 300 millirem 

9 higher, which we feel like is most likely due to 

10 the fact that SC&A's assigned doses from both the 

11 acute and the chronic intakes and NIOSH compared 

12 and assigned the higher of the two and assigned 

13 the chronic. 

14 Next, I'll go onto the internal dose 

15 from the plutonium exposure. This individual 

16 only had one plutonium bioassay, which was below 

17 the MDA, so both NIOSH and SC&A -- well, they 

18 used the same assumptions to assess a missed 

19 internal dose from plutonium exposure. NIOSH 

20 used IMBA to calculate the chronic intake and 

21 used IMBA to calculate doses. And depending on 

22 the cancer, NIOSH got a missed dose from 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium which ranged from about 77 to about 97 

2 millirem.

3 SC&A used the IMBA program to 

4 calculate the intake but used the CADW workbook 

5 program to calculate the doses. So SC&A's missed 

6 doses ranged from about 167 to about 213 

7 millirem. And it appears that the difference is 

8 due to the fact that, again, NIOSH prorated the 

9 intakes for partial years of employment, but, 

10 since the CADW program only allows for a full 

11 year, SC&A assessed the plutonium intake for that 

12 entire year. And that added, I think it was, 

13 roughly, about six months of intake. And that 

14 seems about right since SC&A's missed plutonium 

15 doses were just about double, a little more than 

16 double than those calculated by NIOSH.

17 So for one small part of the internal 

18 dose assignment, this individual's employment was 

19 broken up into two periods. Both NIOSH and SC&A 

20 used that same method and assigned a missed dose 

21 from uranium exposure for the latter part of this 

22 individual's employment period separately. And 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for that, they both used identical methods, 

2 identical assumptions, and got identical results, 

3 which is only about 5 to 7 millirem, depending on 

4 the cancer.

5 And just to sum up the internal, our 

6 Table 2-2 on page 15 lists the comparison of the 

7 internal dose totals. And as I said, SC&A doses 

8 are roughly 300 millirem higher, which is fairly 

9 close. 

10 And let's see. Are there any 

11 questions about the internal doses?

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Questions? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: None here. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go ahead. 

15 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Let's see. Now 

16 I'll head back to -- next I was going to start on 

17 our discussion of IREP, but we've already got 

18 that started.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Let me see if I can work 

21 my way back. Let's see. Well, as I said before, 

22 we've got a difference of about 350 millirem, and 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a difference in the PoC of about 1.5 percent, as 

2 we had mentioned. And, you know, we had this 

3 interesting result that we saw which seems to be 

4 coming from the fact that SC&A used a 2,000 

5 iteration method and NIOSH used the 10,000 

6 iteration method. 

7 Our Table 3-2 is back up. So, you can 

8 see even our doses, they're all falling within 

9 the range. What I found interesting was when I 

10 went into NIOSH's report, at the bottom of every 

11 report that was produced using these 30 runs --

12 so the iterations, SC&A used 2,000 iterations and 

13 generated one PoC per cancer; NIOSH did 10,000 

14 iterations and generated 30 different runs. And 

15 the IREP manual guidelines indicate that you 

16 average those 30 and that'll be the final PoC for 

17 each cancer.

18 So what I wanted to do was look into 

19 the range of values of those PoC values, which I 

20 listed here in the last table on Table 3-2. So 

21 I was really wanting to see if SC&A's number was 

22 falling into that range. And sometimes they're 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a little lower, and sometimes they fall right in. 

2 So, as I said, we really are operating at what I 

3 feel like is the edge of the program, you know. 

4 This was like the limit of the IREP program, and 

5 we're really dealing with a very fine structure 

6 here.

7 I know Kathy had mentioned that she 

8 wanted to bring up a question regarding this 

9 table. 

10 MS. BEHLING: Nicole, I thought when 

11 we went through this, when we did the average of 

12 --

13 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Yes, 

14 we were just questioning, when we went in to look 

15 at the bottom of each of the IREP reports -- I'm 

16 sorry if this is getting kind of confusing. 

17 Please stop me if it starts to get kind of 

18 confusing and I can backtrack. 

19 In the case records, NIOSH has an IREP 

20 report for each of the cancers, which lists the 

21 30 runs and has the average on the bottom. We 

22 just noticed that that number was actually not 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the number that we've used to generate the total 

2 cancer using that multiple cancer calculation. 

3 So we just weren't sure where that 

4 number had come from. That's another reason why 

5 I put out all of these numbers in this Table. 

6 You can see that the average that was posted at 

7 the bottom of those reports was actually not the 

8 number that was used in the multiple cancer 

9 calculator. So we weren't sure if there was 

10 another step here that we were missing.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm not following 

12 you completely. 

13 MS. BRIGGS: Yeah, I'll back it up a 

14 little bit. For each cancer, NIOSH will generate 

15 -- and this is according to the guidelines in the 

16 IREP manual -- when you have a PoC this close to 

17 50, you actually run the PoC values, you do 30 

18 runs, so you get 30 PoCs for each cancer. And 

19 then you average that number, and that number --

20 presuming in the cases where you have multiple 

21 cancers, which is true for this case -- you take 

22 that average and put it into the multiple cancer 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calculator program, which is a subset of IREP, 

2 and it will give you the total PoC value. In 

3 this case, it was 51.14 percent.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MS. BRIGGS: Now, when we looked into 

6 those reports and scrolled down to the bottom of 

7 the reports and saw the average PoC for each 

8 cancer, we noticed that those numbers weren't 

9 exactly -- now, we're talking, most of them are 

10 very close, but those numbers weren't exactly the 

11 values that were put into the IREP multiple 

12 cancer calculator.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And what were the 

14 values?

15 MS. BRIGGS: Let's see.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: For example.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. So, if you look at 

18 Table 3-2, let's see, if you look at the first 

19 cancer, say, the average PoC of the 30 runs came 

20 to 1.68, and the PoC that was used in the multiple 

21 cancer calculation was 1.61. 

22 Now, obviously, we're talking about 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hundredths of a percent, and I'm not sure if 

2 that's going to come into play here, but 

3 sometimes it's a little bit more. I guess, Rose, 

4 for some reason I can't get the whole Table on my 

5 screen. 

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

7 Richardson. Could I ask a quick question? 

8 MS. BRIGGS: Yes, sure.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: When you're 

10 talking about the PoC here, you're talking about 

11 the 95th percentile of the distribution from the 

12 IREP run? 

13 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. Actually, I think 

14 it's the 99th percentile. Yeah.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 99th 

16 percentile. And so the procedure is to do 

17 multiple runs with different seeds and to average 

18 the 99th percentiles?

19 MS. BRIGGS: Yes. Correct. Yes. 

20 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And, I mean, for 

21 somebody who worked on the development of 

22 procedures, is there any basis for expecting the 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 99th percentile to be normally distributed?

2 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, I'm not sure. 

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: My thought was the 

4 reason we were doing the whole IREP/MCMC thing 

5 was because we don't have a simple linear 

6 equation and the law of large numbers wasn't 

7 really going to lead to expecting that either the 

8 central -- I would think the 99th percentile is 

9 going to be normal, so that you if do multiple 

10 draws of it, I'm not sure that you would want to 

11 average it. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein.

13 If I can weigh in on this: From my understanding 

14 of statistics, that is a random number that comes 

15 out of a random calculation, I see no reason why 

16 the 99th percentile from repeated runs would not 

17 be normally distributed. 

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, start with 

19 the single distribution. Is it symmetrical? 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, if you do a 

21 repeat run side by side I would think that it 

22 would be symmetrical and normally distributed.
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But the 

2 distribution itself, a single distribution on 

3 2,000 runs, for example, is it normal? 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I haven't actually seen the 

5 plots, but basically any time you have a --

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: If it's just the 

8 95th are they symmetrical around the mean? I 

9 don't think they are. And so we've got an 

10 unstable tail there, because we're generating 

11 something from a complex process now. It's not 

12 doing 1,000 draws from an underlying normal 

13 distribution. It's got all sorts of truncated 

14 distributions on these weird tails. I mean, it's 

15 just a question. What's the justification for 

16 averaging? 

17 I mean, also, when you do MCMC things, 

18 you know you've generated all those chains, why 

19 not sum them and then take the distribution off 

20 combining all the chains? You run it K times, so 

21 you've got K times as many runs. That would seem 

22 where you would get the better 99 percent bound.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. David, I would 

2 just suggest, this is perfectly good to raise 

3 questions about this, but I don't think, unless 

4 Grady corrects me, we have the folks on the line 

5 that were involved in developing this. It seems 

6 like if you want to pursue this you could arrange 

7 for having them on the line at the next meeting 

8 and then you could have a satisfying discussion 

9 of it. But I think it would probably be 

10 frustrating to you if you don't have the right 

11 folks on the line right now. 

12 MR. CALHOUN: That's correct. That's 

13 correct, Ted. We don't have those folks on the 

14 line right now and so --

15 MR. KATZ: Why don't we do that? Why 

16 don't we just --

17 MR. CALHOUN: That's kind of a global 

18 thing, too, you know. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. That's 

20 fine, because we are not going to be able, as a 

21 Subcommittee, to resolve this, so let us get some 

22 more information on this. 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, I would like to start back at 

2 a much simpler question than David and Bob and 

3 others have talked about, and that is: Why is the 

4 PoC used in the multiple cancer calculation, 

5 let's take the top, 1.61, why is that different 

6 than the average of the PoC of the 30 runs? That 

7 is, I would assume, if you went to the average of 

8 the PoC of the 30 runs as dictated, that you would 

9 have used 1.68 for the multiple cancer 

10 calculation. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

12 address that.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could you?

14 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

16 MR. SIEBERT: The reason is because we 

17 did not use that second column, the 1.61 and so 

18 on. Those are the runs that were run with the 99 

19 random seeds for 2,000 iterations to get our 

20 initial PoC to determine if it was in the best 

21 estimate range. 

22 Once that determination is made, we go 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through the IREP 30 runs process, and we did 

2 actually use that second to last column, the 

3 average PoCs. SC&A has reported the incorrect 

4 final PoC, just probably not understanding the 

5 file structure. Everything that's done as the 

6 normal IREP structure is filed, is a normal IREP 

7 file name. Everything we do under the 30 runs, 

8 we actually do that with a version that's called 

9 the "Enterprise Edition" (EE) and there's an 

10 extension of EE on the end of all those files.

11 When you look at the EE files, which 

12 is what those average PoCs come out for in that 

13 last column, you also find there's a combination 

14 of all of them for the final PoC with an EE 

15 extension, and that final PoC is actually -- let 

16 me flip through my pages here -- it's actually 

17 50.99 percent. And that is the final PoC that 

18 was reported to DOL, not the 51.14 which is based 

19 on that second column. That's why there's a 

20 difference.

21 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, okay. Yes, this 

22 actually was our question when we were looking at 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this, because we realized there may have been 

2 something that was missing, that we weren't 

3 seeing with all of these numbers. So, what you're 

4 saying, just to clarify, the second column there, 

5 those values are the PoC values that were 

6 generated from the 2,000 iterations? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

8 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. And then the 

9 average runs, that average PoC, I think I'm a 

10 little confused about. So the final PoC that was 

11 reported to DOL was, you said, 50.99? 

12 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

13 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. And that was used 

14 generating those, I'll say the second to last, 

15 the average PoC for the 30 runs?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. Now, my next

18 question, and this is something that we actually 

19 realized subsequent to publishing this report: Is 

20 the version of IREP that SC&A has access to, which 

21 I guess it's just called IREP Version 5.8, how is 

22 that different from this Enterprise Edition that 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we notice is the title on the IREP reports that 

2 come from NIOSH?

3 MR. SIEBERT: The only difference is 

4 IREP Enterprise Edition does an automation of the 

5 selection of 30 separate random seeds. It pulls 

6 those up, it does a random number generation and 

7 comes up with 30 random seeds, and it automates 

8 getting those and running the 30 and doing the 

9 averaging. 

10 If you take the version that you're 

11 looking at and run it through with the random 

12 seeds that are given at the bottom of the EE IREP 

13 runs, you will get the same answers through the 

14 normal IREP as you get through IREP Enterprise 

15 Edition. You'll just have to run it 30 times 

16 with each random seed.

17 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. And the Enterprise 

18 Edition generates the random seed for you?

19 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

20 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, okay. I guess my 

21 next question is, can SC&A have access to that 

22 version for future blind dose reconstruction? Is 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that an appropriate question to ask? 

2 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I don't 

3 know if we can do that or not. I just don't know 

4 the mechanics of that. 

5 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

6 Also, I see, as Nicole mentioned, you also used 

7 DCAL as opposed to IMBA, and can we get access to 

8 DCAL? Because we haven't used that in the past. 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein. 

10 I can speak to that. I routinely use DCAL. It's 

11 available for download from the ORNL website. 

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me ask folks, 

14 is there are any questions about what NIOSH did 

15 in terms of -- I'm sorry, let me start again. 

16 The question is, did the SC&A report give a proper 

17 evaluation of the PoC? 

18 I'm not worried about if you had run 

19 their programs you would have gotten this. You 

20 ran a set of programs that were supposed to be 

21 correct, right? That was one way of doing it. 

22 Are you at all backing off, in SC&A, on the number 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that you've given of 49.5? Are you thinking that 

2 there's an error or are you just trying to see if 

3 you could get the same thing as the other person, 

4 as the other group? 

5 MS. BRIGGS: Oh, I don't believe --

6 please, any of the SC&A members please jump in -

7 - I don't believe -- we certainly didn't generate 

8 an error. It's just that the nature of the 

9 programs, at least, you know, for the Monte Carlo 

10 where you can get these kinds of differences, 

11 especially if, you know, depending on how you run 

12 it and also the edition, this other edition where 

13 it will give you a random seed and do 30 runs and 

14 that nature. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If each is a 

16 correct procedure, then I don't see a need to see 

17 what would happen if you had used exactly the 

18 same programs.

19 MR. KATZ: Dave, this is Ted. The one 

20 thing that -- unless I missed it, Nicole, and 

21 pardon me -- but the one thing that wasn't correct 

22 about SC&A's approach is they didn't run it as 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the conservative approach with the high number of 

2 iterations that are supposed to be used when the 

3 PoC is this close. And if they had run that, if 

4 they had run that process, then their average 

5 number probably would have come over 50 percent. 

6 There wouldn't have been this difference.

7 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Is that 

8 normal? Will SC&A run that approach if it's close 

9 or is this just something you didn't do on this 

10 one? 

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have never done 

12 that in the past. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But then the 

14 question is, is your procedure not what it should 

15 have been, if you will, is it, if you will, 

16 incorrect, somewhat incorrect, or incomplete, 

17 let's say, in which case you want to run it again?

18 MR. KATZ: Dave, that's the procedure. 

19 I mean, that's why NIOSH has that procedure, to 

20 avoid this issue, to have better certainty about 

21 the results. Or more robust results, I should 

22 say. That's the whole point of that procedure. 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So that is, if you 

2 will, the specified, and, therefore, proper 

3 procedure.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And SC&A did not 

6 use that procedure. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have never used 

8 that in the past. We have always done single --

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, and I'm --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can certainly 

11 modify our procedures to follow this in the 

12 future, but at the time we weren't --

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No fault finding. 

14 I'm not trying to find fault at all. 

15 MS. BEHLING: Yeah, this is Kathy. 

16 It's more of a time issue. Even with all of the 

17 other blinds, as Rose indicated, we only do the 

18 one PoC, and it's just because it takes a very 

19 long time. In fact, I think often NIOSH and ORAU 

20 let it run during the night or something, from 

21 what I understand. So it just was an efficiency 

22 issue, and in the past we haven't run into this, 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is the first time. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay.

3 MS. BEHLING: In fact, we should be 

4 getting some guidance, I think, while we're on 

5 this discussion, does the Board want us to do the 

6 30 iterations going forward? 

7 MS. BRIGGS: Well, Kathy -- I'm sorry 

8 to interrupt -- but, Kathy, it looks like the 

9 Enterprise Edition actually automates this whole 

10 process. Am I correct? It sounds like the 

11 Enterprise Edition will automate the whole 

12 process so you don't have to manually run and 

13 manually assign a new random seed. Is that 

14 correct? 

15 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

16 MS. BRIGGS: Okay. So I guess running 

17 the Enterprise Edition would be, I don't want to 

18 say as simple, but it would be the equivalent of 

19 running one regular IREP run for us. 

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. KATZ: Can I make a suggestion? I 

22 mean, because this is just a resource issue, 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really. If they can get the Enterprise Edition, 

2 of course, then that puts the matter to bed. 

3 If they can't, I don't think -- I 

4 mean, my personal opinion is it's not worth SC&A 

5 spending the -- now that we've sort of flagged 

6 this matter and understand it, it's probably not 

7 worth SC&A spending a ton of extra time just to 

8 have the certainty, because they're not 

9 delivering the report to a claimant and so that 

10 certainly isn't so important. If this arises

11 again, I mean, you'll already have been sort of 

12 primed on what's going on here, and it's probably 

13 not worth a lot of SC&A resource just to ensure 

14 that they get the exact same result. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, it's not a 

16 matter of that. This is what the -- we reviewed 

17 28 blinds, this is the very first one in which we 

18 have a difference in [what would have been the 

19 ]compensation decision. Now, in and of itself, 

20 that doesn't, quote, bother me. That is, we might 

21 expect that when things are really close to the 

22 50 percent PoC level. 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, since this is the first, it would 

2 not have been so had they used the procedure that 

3 now we agree should be used. I am tempted to, as 

4 one Subcommittee Member, I would like to see it. 

5 I'm not necessarily going to suggest that we do 

6 it now, because if we're going to ask people to 

7 come in and talk to us about the basic procedure 

8 and why we're doing it next time, then, you know, 

9 we might want to hold off on requesting this 

10 because it's a resource issue. 

11 But what do other Subcommittee Members 

12 think? I haven't heard too much. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, to me, in the 

14 beginning of this, we had trouble with each side 

15 being able to get the same tools. I don't see it 

16 is that much of an issue because we have gone 

17 through all this and found out what the 

18 difference is, as what Scott has just addressed 

19 to us. I'm not seeing that so much as a problem 

20 as I want all the players that are doing this to 

21 be able to have the same tools to play with 

22 because it's just important there. I'm now 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seeing and understanding better why there was the 

2 difference that there is. 

3 But this is the same thing we've 

4 always got into is different players playing with 

5 different tools, and if one side has got it we’ve

6 got to be able to see if the other one can use it 

7 or whatever else like that so that their 

8 questions are answered. But I don't see too much 

9 of a problem on this now. 

10 MR. KATZ: Certainly, we'll follow up. 

11

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

13 that, Ted. 

14 MR. KATZ: We'll follow up on that. 

15 It's just a question of whether the computer and 

16 the people that protect security can make that 

17 work for SC&A. That's the only question. 

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And we've 

19 worked through issues on that before and stuff 

20 like that. When reviewing this, I was sitting 

21 there going, holy cow, you know, to me it's all 

22 looking the same, but what Scott just explained 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to me now brings better understanding to me of 

2 where we did get a difference. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, we've been 

4 asked essentially do we want to ask SC&A to get 

5 the tools and do the procedure, and I think, Brad, 

6 you're saying it probably is not important to do 

7 so. 

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's just my 

9 personal opinion.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, and I'm 

11 polling folks on the Subcommittee. I'm sorry. I 

12 cut you off. I did. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, go ahead.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, I mean, what do 

15 other folks on the Subcommittee think? 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this is Wanda. I 

17 thought one of the purposes in our exercises here 

18 was to indicate that even if one uses different 

19 but acceptable methods to approach the issue, if 

20 the result was similar, then we had essentially 

21 proved two sides of the issue, and that's what I 

22 see in a case like this. I guess it is -- it 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be nice if everyone did the same thing every 

2 time they added two and two, but everybody 

3 doesn't do the same thing. And if you use some 

4 other method to approach it and you still get 

5 four or a very close proximity thereto, then 

6 you've, in some ways, indicated the strength of 

7 each method of approaching it. 

8 So from my perspective, there's no 

9 reason to belabor this to the point that it's 

10 necessary for SC&A to spend additional time. In 

11 working through the minutiae here, if we have 

12 methods which are not the same but achieve the 

13 same purpose and the end result is not 

14 significantly amiss, then it seems to me that 

15 we've proved what we set out to prove. 

16 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I'd 

17 like to step back -- I understand the IREP 

18 question and where it is. I'd like to move back 

19 to the DCAL question. I think one of the 

20 important things that come out of these 

21 comparisons are: Were there judgments made that 

22 are not in the procedures that would apply here? 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For example, if a fit was done not using IMBA but 

2 was using DCAL, if that's all documented and in 

3 a procedure somewhere when you do that and when 

4 you don't, then everything is fine because you've 

5 got a consistent approach that everyone follows, 

6 but SC&A did not follow it. We went ahead with 

7 IMBA as opposed to DCAL. 

8 So my question is do we have a 

9 potential consistency problem if the DCAL 

10 selection is not -- is that clear when you do it 

11 and when you don't do it? 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Is that 

13 professional judgment, in other words? 

14 DR. MAURO: That's my question, yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott Siebert. 

16 That is not professional judgment. First and 

17 foremost, we do not use DCAL to fit intakes. That 

18 is, all run through IMBA. The reason for DCAL 

19 use -- and, Liz, feel free to jump in if I'm going 

20 off track here -- the reason we use DCAL is IMBA 

21 is not designed with its kinetics for certain 

22 specific radionuclides to give a most accurate 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 answer. We have determined this. We have 

2 documented this. And in those cases, we use DCAL 

3 for best estimate cases to determine -- to ensure 

4 -- that we're using the best tools available.

5 Liz, do you want to --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Could I interrupt with 

7 a question? This is Bob Anigstein. Scott, do 

8 you use DCAL to treat the doses, the intakes as 

9 acute? Because that's what DCAL normally does. 

10 MR. SIEBERT: We're not fitting doses 

11 with DCAL. Are you talking about for dose 

12 calculation purposes? 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, are you talking 

14 about for -- I see, you're talking about how to 

15 relate intakes to urine?

16 MR. SIEBERT: No, we never fit the 

17 bioassay using DCAL. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: How do you use DCAL?

19 MR. SIEBERT: We use IMBA for all 

20 fitting of bioassays to determine intake amount.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And then we use that 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 intake amount to -- we use DCAL from that intake 

2 amount to calculate the organ doses based on the 

3 differences. It's a shared versus independent 

4 kinetics issue that we run into with IMBA and --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But normally DCAL is 

6 used for -- is designed only for acute intake. 

7 IMBA is for chronic.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. There's a 

9 process for actually doing that work. I'm not 

10 the guy to answer that. We have somebody very 

11 specific who runs that for us for chronic intake, 

12 which is the reason -- we actually have those 

13 DCAL calculations in CAD as well, so it doesn't 

14 have to be independently run each time. The 

15 reason it had to be run in DCAL this time is 

16 because we were in best estimate territory, as 

17 well as they're not full years of exposure. We 

18 needed to prorate it.

19 So, as to the process for assessing a 

20 chronic in DCAL, I can't walk you through that. 

21 I'm not the guy who does it. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a way --
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Let me, let me -- this is 

2 Ted. Let me please interject at this point. I 

3 think it would be fine, it is fine, and I'll 

4 actually suggest this related to the Enterprise 

5 question and so on, and SC&A's original 

6 befuddlement with the different results -- it is 

7 fine when you need a technical call to have one. 

8 I think this is level of technical 

9 matter is not really matter for the Subcommittee 

10 to wrestle with unless we find that there is some 

11 issue that the Subcommittee needs to wrestle 

12 with. But let's have a technical call on the 

13 side to go over these kind of things, they're 

14 really not about at the level that they should be 

15 for the Subcommittee to be getting its work done.

16 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John. I'm 

17 not --

18 MR. KATZ: The problem then, 

19 absolutely at that point, you know, bring it up 

20 with the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee.

21 DR. MAURO: Ted, I'm sorry to 

22 interrupt, but I'm not raising a technical 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question when I talk about DCAL. I'm raising 

2 more one of process whereby is it clear that when, 

3 you know, is there a procedure that is --

4 MR. KATZ: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: You understand where I'm 

6 headed?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, it's just the way this 

8 conversation has gone --

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I mean, this 

10 conversation has developed as a result of the 

11 Subcommittee looking at the comparisons of the 

12 two results. I agree that we are moving to a 

13 technical level beyond some of our Subcommittee 

14 Members, and I think it would be useful to have 

15 an internal discussion between NIOSH and SC&A, 

16 and it would be valuable to have someone talk 

17 about the procedure of running -- of why and how 

18 we run the 30 runs, if you will. 

19 And I think that my own sense is that 

20 we are now in an area where I think it would be 

21 wise to have those things happen before the 

22 Subcommittee, if you will, approves or registers 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 its final decision on this, on this blind. So I 

2 don't think we can, if you will, pass on it today. 

3 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

4 Kathy Behling. I believe I can very briefly 

5 answer John's question, because Nicole put that 

6 into this report. There is an OTIB that specifies 

7 that under these conditions you should use DCAL 

8 for the uranium. She even identified it in this 

9 report. 

10 DR. MAURO: That was my question. 

11 MS. BRACKETT: This is Elizabeth 

12 Brackett. Beyond that, the IMBA documentation

13 says that it is not correct for particular 

14 radionuclides, so it cannot be used for that. 

15 And the values in CAD, when you run that, those 

16 are actually from DCAL for the specified nuclides 

17 also. 

18 So it's been incorporated into all of 

19 our assessments, and there's a fair bit of 

20 documentation of how that was done, how DCAL was 

21 done, and that the dose values came from DCAL 

22 rather than IMBA. There's a document that gives 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 specifically which nuclides are not correct in 

2 IMBA also. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Liz. 

4 Let me go back to what you're saying, 

5 though, Dave, about not being ready. The matter 

6 of IREP, that has been in place since the 

7 beginning, and it's a whole -- you know, that is 

8 a policy that is really not even in the province 

9 of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee. And I 

10 would suggest you do not have to resolve that, 

11 which I think has probably been well put to bed 

12 before, but certainly Dr. Richardson has a right 

13 to hear how that matter was addressed. I don't 

14 think it's a matter for the Dose Reconstruction 

15 Subcommittee with respect to putting the case to 

16 bed, because whatever the matter is with that, 

17 it's not a matter of doing the dose 

18 reconstruction case correctly. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I thought I had

20 understood that SC&A used the procedure which it 

21 will not use again when it comes across this 

22 particular kind of problem. 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, that's not 

2 correct.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And what is 

4 correct if it is not? 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It has not been 

6 decided whether or not we can get Enterprise 

7 Edition and even run what NIOSH has done. For 

8 instance, if there was ten cancers, we'd have to 

9 make 300 runs of IREP and then do lots of 

10 averaging, which is probably not the best use of 

11 resources even if we have access to Enterprise 

12 Edition. 

13 DR. MAURO: This is John. I have a 

14 suggestion. When we are in this very unusual 

15 circumstance where we run into this, which this 

16 is the first, why doesn't SC&A just flag it and 

17 say, listen, I think we do have a difference here 

18 and we believe it has to do with this seed and 

19 number of runs related to this enterprise 

20 version, so at least every one is aware that, 

21 yes, we have another one of these circumstances 

22 where that difference makes a difference, and we 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 stop there and just leave it in the hands of the 

2 Board. 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can cut in, this 

4 is Bob Anigstein. We have in-house capabilities 

5 of programming, which are not extensively used 

6 for this project, where we most likely could 

7 create a program, and if we cannot get the 

8 Enterprise Edition, we could simulate it at home 

9 by creating a program which will drive the IREP 

10 program. So, hands-off, the operator would 

11 simply specify, I want to run IREP 30 times, and 

12 go out and have a cup of coffee and the program 

13 will drive IREP to do these runs and collect the 

14 results. We've done this numerous times --

15 MR. KATZ: Let me just interject 

16 again. We can deal with this. We have this on 

17 the table. If they can get Enterprise, they can. 

18 If there's other ways to go at it, we can go at 

19 it once we find out that they can't have 

20 Enterprise if they can't for some technical 

21 reason. But we don't need to spend time on this 

22 right now. It's not important right now, and 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this can be all addressed in technical calls. It 

2 doesn't need to be a Subcommittee discussion on 

3 how to get the right equipment to SC&A if they 

4 need it. 

5 The only matter that I think the 

6 Subcommittee's call is whether the Subcommittee 

7 wants to -- and they might as well wait and find 

8 out first -- whether they want to spend a large 

9 amount of resources if it turns out to be required 

10 for SC&A to duplicate the procedure that's in 

11 place with these close calls for ensuring that 

12 the close call is correct. We don't need to go 

13 over it now.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we'll set up two 

15 separate technical calls, one to discuss the IREP 

16 runs and a second to discuss the DCAL. And it 

17 sounds like, David Richardson, you'd like to be 

18 part of the technical call for the IREP run, is 

19 that correct? 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: David? 

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I'm fine just to 

22 hear what the resolution is. 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And so you would 

3 report back to us next time? 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And any Board 

5 Member that wanted to participate in those calls, 

6 let me know and we can set that up also.

7 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's fair 

9 enough. Then we will return to this next time, 

10 right, after your calls?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And if you 

13 wrote something up briefly, if you could, before 

14 our next meeting, so that the Subcommittee 

15 Members could look at it, that would be fine. 

16 But if you can't or if that's a problem, then 

17 you'll give us a report verbally next time.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We can 

19 certainly do that.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I'm 

21 satisfied with that. Subcommittee Members? 

22 David, you indicated you were okay with that. 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Others, any reason, does that seem okay to you?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

3 fine. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, this is Josie. I 

5 think that's a good path forward. Thank you. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

7 Wanda? 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Sure. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. It is 

10 now, folks, 12:02. It is appropriate to stop for 

11 breakfast or lunch, depending on which coast 

12 you're sitting on. But I think it might be 

13 reasonable to take our break now and then come 

14 back to the third blind at one o'clock.

15 MS. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

16 Behling. Can I just interject one last thing 

17 while we're talking about various software 

18 programs and things like that? One of the issues 

19 that we did get resolved this past day or two 

20 because of David Allen's help, I just wanted to 

21 make the Subcommittee aware, we had been -- SC&A 

22 had not had a version of IMBA that was able to 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 run technetium-99. And David Allen has provided 

2 us with the files that we have loaded into our 

3 IMBA program and so we are now able to run that 

4 technetium-99.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very nice. Okay.

6 MS. BEHLING: Yes, thank you, David.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That's fine. 

8 That is excellent, and that's been hanging over 

9 for a while. 

10 Okay. So, it's a few minutes after 

11 12. Let's take a break and resume at 1:00 Eastern 

12 daylight savings time. Okay, folks? Okay. See 

13 you back at one. 

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 

15 off the record at 12:03 p.m. and resumed at 1:03 

16 p.m.)

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The third case 

18 here. Who will be? --

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I will turn the reins

20 over to Ron.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, Ron?

22 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, so --
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Twenty-four, this is 

3 case B-29. And if we'll go to page 8 of the 

4 report, Rose. Okay, that looks like it. So we 

5 see that this is a EE [employee] who worked at 

6 the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company in St. Louis, 

7 Missouri in the early years. The EE was monitored 

8 by only four film badge exchanges one year. There 

9 were no other records of external or internal or 

10 medical x-ray examinations in the worker's DOE 

11 files. You'll see that both NIOSH and SC&A used 

12 the guidance in the TBD for Mallinckrodt. And 

13 the OTIB-17 for shallow dose and OTIB-79 for x14 rays. And using this guidance, SC&A and NIOSH 

15 both calculated the best estimate of the annual 

16 doses for each of the cancers. And so if we go 

17 up to the previous, page six I believe it is, we 

18 see Table 1-1 which lists the cancers and their 

19 location and date of diagnosis.

20 And so we will then go down to the 

21 next page, seven, to Table 1-2, which is a 

22 comparison of NIOSH's and SC&A's doses assigned 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the cancers. And we see that they're -- the 

2 external dose assigned was recorded 250 keV 

3 photons and greater than 50 keV electrons, 

4 according to the TBD for this site. And we see 

5 that unmonitored dose was assigned for the period 

6 that the worker had no dosimetry results. And we 

7 see we do not assign any medical dose according 

8 to OTIB-79 for this site. If you look at the 

9 doses to those various cancers there on that 

10 page, you'll see that SC&A and NIOSH assigned 

11 exactly the same doses for the recorded doses and 

12 very, very similar doses to the unmonitored doses 

13 -- within 100 rem or so of each other. And we'll 

14 go into a little bit of description of that.

15 See the internal dose. Of course 

16 Mallinckrodt processed uranium so they had to 

17 have an electron dosage from that and both 

18 assigned less than one millirem to each cancer 

19 site. We see that the total PoCs and the 

20 individual PoCs were very close. The total PoCs 

21 ranged from 45 to 50 percent. So with that, we 

22 will move on to -- back to page eight and look at 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Table 2-1 -- just on page eight and nine. And 

2 that's a comparison of the data and assumptions 

3 used by NIOSH and SC&A. And I will just cover 

4 the ones that showed any differences. The 

5 dashes, like we said previously, are the ones 

6 that were in agreement -- used the same 

7 technique. So either used the same technique for 

8 external dose assignment. The only difference 

9 was that NIOSH assigned the external dose as an 

10 acute exposure, and SC&A assigned it as a chronic 

11 exposure in all the external dose assignments. 

12 There was no ambient or medical dose assigned.

13 We see as we go down the table there, 

14 we see for internal dose that -- now this is the 

15 main difference in these two DRs is that NIOSH 

16 used Table A-40 from TBD to assign internal 

17 intake and dose whereas SC&A used two dust 

18 exposure records that were in the worker's DOE 

19 files to calculate the intake in dose. Both used 

20 type M-UT34, assigned it for slightly different 

21 periods -- and we will discuss that when we get 

22 down to that. And because the sources for 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different ways of determining intake -- the IREP 

2 doses were assigned slightly differently. NIOSH 

3 used a constant with no uncertainty and SC&A used 

4 a log normal with a standard deviation of three.

5 So if the -- I won't go into detail 

6 on the recorded photon and shallow dose, which is 

7 showing at the bottom of that page and the next 

8 page, because we assigned exactly the same dosage 

9 using the dosimeter readings. And there was no 

10 missed dose -- there was nothing below LOD over 

11 two, so there was no missed dose assigned. And 

12 so that brings us to the unmonitored dose. So if 

13 we go down to Section 2.1.4, we get one monitored 

14 dose. And we have photon and shallow dose. And 

15 we see that the years that worker -- the worker 

16 was only monitored for one year, so the rest of 

17 the years were assigned unmonitored dose using 

18 Table A-41 for photon and A-42 for electrons. 

19 And we see that we used the same tables, SC&A and 

20 NIOSH, the only difference was that we both 

21 assigned it as triangular distribution, whereas 

22 NIOSH assigned it as an acute exposure and SC&A 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigned it as a chronic exposure.

2 The unmonitored photon dose, we'll 

3 look at that now. We both assigned very similar 

4 doses. The only difference between these, the 

5 unmonitored photon and unmonitored shallow doses, 

6 was that the worker terminated employment in 

7 middle of the year, and so that year --

8 determining how you calculate the number of days 

9 the person worked, the fraction -- it looks like 

10 you could assign a fraction of an annual dose. 

11 Whether you used days or you used months or part 

12 of the year, it comes off slightly differently. 

13 So it came up a few millirems different.

14 And we see if we go down to the 

15 unmonitored shallow dose to the uncovered part of 

16 the body, which had a cancer, then we see that, 

17 again, we assign very similar doses other than 

18 the last year of employment, calculating the 

19 exact partial year of exposure. And same way 

20 with the covered locations. We both used the 

21 coveralls -- two pair of coveralls at 0.85 

22 percent transmission. Of course, [we] didn't 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 apply that to the uncovered area. And assigned 

2 very similar doses, again, that varied slightly 

3 and depended on how you calculate that last year 

4 of exposure fraction.

5 So we looked at the onsite ambient. 

6 Again, there was none assigned through that site 

7 because they had been assigned each year --

8 recorded or coworker dose. And there was no end 

9 dose assigned. Same way with the medical dose. 

10 There was none assigned according to OTIB-75 

11 because all x-rays were taken offsite. We had 

12 agreement on the external doses. Is there any 

13 questions of it before we get into internal?

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't have any.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. We will move on 

16 into internal dose. Now the Mallinckrodt did 

17 have an SEC which stated that it was granted 

18 because of lack of internal monitoring records 

19 through 1958. So you can use records if they're 

20 available. And if they're not, well then you can 

21 assign dose. And so however -- in this case, 

22 NIOSH and SC&A attempted to assign some internal 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 intake. And they used two different methods. 

2 NIOSH used the Table A-40 intakes in the TBD, 

3 which assigns intake for the period 1959 through 

4 '61. This was beyond the employment period of 

5 this worker. We back extrapolated that to prior 

6 years and assigned those intakes to the prior 

7 years of employment and found Type N Uranium 

8 resulted in the highest dose. And so they used 

9 that dose and assigned it to each cancer site and 

10 came out to less than one millirem and put that 

11 as a chronic exposure using a constant 

12 distribution and zero uncertainty.

13 Now SC&A did not use the Table A-40, 

14 but it listed the intakes after the end of the 

15 employment period. And it was after 1959 they 

16 listed intakes. So SC&A did not use those values 

17 and it found two dust data sheets in the workers' 

18 files that were measured during the period the 

19 person worked there. And so what they did was 

20 use that dust information and air sample 

21 information there. And you can see, they go 

22 through the math there and then Table 2-2, it 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lists how to calculate the inhalation and 

2 ingestion intake -- used this in the Chronic 

3 Annual Dose Workbook and to calculate the dose. 

4 And they totaled those for each of the sites --

5 for each of the cancer sites. So it's less than 

6 one millirem, which is similar to what NIOSH got. 

7 However, [it was] assigned in the IREP table as 

8 a log normal distribution with a GSD of three. 

9 So similar results but with using two methods 

10 there for internal.

11 That brings us to the summary. On 

12 page 13 we'll see that Table 3-1 lists the dose 

13 and the PoCs there. And you'll see that --

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Ron, Ron?

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Before we go off of 

17 internal --

18 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes?

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I didn't quite 

20 catch -- it started in two different time 

21 periods. '67 and '69 -- you said you were coming 

22 back to it. But I must not have followed what 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you just said about --

2 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, the -- the table 

3 that NIOSH used was A-40, which covered the 

4 period 1959 through 1961.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: And the worker worked 

7 prior to that period. And so they used that [and] 

8 added to the assigned dose back to the worker 

9 through '49. Okay? SC&A used the dust load air 

10 samples to assign the intake during the period 

11 that the person worked back to the original 

12 employment date.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Got it.

14 DR. BUCHANAN: Which was back further.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. Thank 

16 you.

17 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. And so we see on 

18 the summary, then, [that] what we have for the 

19 total doses are very much the same -- the 

20 external, the internal are very much the same. 

21 And so the total comes out similar. NIOSH had 

22 5.6-something dose and SC&A had 5.6-something, 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just slightly higher. The total PoC for NIOSH 

2 was slightly higher than that calculated by SC&A. 

3 And so we want to go through and look at these 

4 differences and see why they occurred. And we 

5 see that they're very similar -- less than 50 

6 percent. But the slight differences show that 

7 the dose was slightly different for SC&A and 

8 NIOSH because of how you calculate the last year 

9 of employment – the partial year. [This] makes 

10 a few millirem difference.

11 The assignment of the internal dose 

12 was that NIOSH took it from Table A-40 for '59 

13 through '61 and projected that back to the 

14 worker's employment period back through '49, but 

15 not through the beginning of it. And SC&A used 

16 some air sample data to calculate and assign an 

17 intake all the way back to the original start 

18 date.

19 Now the doses weren't large here. But 

20 in the next part, their assignment of combined 

21 PoCs, we see that we had the same external dose 

22 almost exactly. And NIOSH had a PoC slightly 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 greater than SC&A's final PoC. And this occurred 

2 because NIOSH had a shorter latent period because 

3 they had projected it back to '49, which was the 

4 beginning [of an SEC class]. And SC&A took their 

5 air sample back to the beginning of employment, 

6 which was earlier. And so NIOSH had a shorter 

7 latent period than SC&A. So the PoC was slightly 

8 different than for SC&A -- slightly higher. And 

9 I reran some of these and did some exploratory 

10 work to look at this to find out if SC&A had a 

11 shorter latent period, then it increases the PoC. 

12 And so several of the cancers were sensitive to 

13 the latent period. So that concludes my 

14 presentation. Are there any questions?

15 MEMBER BEACH: None here.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: None here.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I just have one, Ron, 

18 when you said you played around with those, did 

19 your numbers get close to what NIOSH had? Even 

20 though I know you're not very far off, I was just 

21 curious.

22 DR. BUCHANAN: There were so many 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 possible different combinations.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 DR. BUCHANAN: Because of so many 

4 cancers. But, yes, I did try it for a couple of 

5 the sensitive cancers and it did come up to very 

6 similar to what they had.

7 DR. MAURO: Ron, this is John Mauro.

8 Since you were above the 45% PoC, did this trigger 

9 the differences in the IREP runs that we talked 

10 about earlier? Where, you know, you're running 

11 of IREP versus NIOSH's running -- did that have 

12 any play here?

13 DR. BUCHANAN: No, It did not -

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, we never run --

15 we never change that. We always did the same.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Now, so I 

17 understand. NIOSH did run their 10,000 

18 simulations 30 times, and 50 average? Is that 

19 what was done here for NIOSH?

20 DR. BUCHANAN: I would have to look, 

21 but I don't think 45% triggers that.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Actually -- this is 

3 Scott. Yes, it actually does. 45 to 52%. And 

4 we did run -- and that is correct. We did run it 

5 the 30 runs.

6 DR. BUCHANAN: Oh, okay. I'd have to 

7 go back and look.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, in theory, that 

9 applies to every blind dose reconstruction 

10 because that's the range we took from.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. So, I 

12 think as a Subcommittee, we should approve --

13 that is to say, we accept both procedures are 

14 appropriate and therefore the comparison is 

15 appropriate. And do we agree on that?

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I'm agreed.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I hear no 

21 other -- so, I will assume we are all in agreement 

22 and we will finish that up, and thank you. Thank 
93 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you, Ron, and thank you folks. We will complete 

2 the other three – and we will return to the second 

3 one, W.R. Grace, next time. 

4 Review Cases from Sets 14-18

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we are 

6 ready to go on to see if we can resolve any of 

7 the 11 cases remaining from Sets 14 through 18. 

8 I am not sure how folks would like to go. Would 

9 you like to start with the AWEs? I just reviewed 

10 them in the order that Rose put them in the file. 

11 But however you would like.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you don't mind, I 

13 will just go down my list, just because it's 

14 easier.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, what 

16 does your list start with?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I notice that 

18 you left the SRS and the INL case off of the 

19 agenda, which I assume is because those cases are 

20 still with other working groups. Is that 

21 correct?

22 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, that's me. It's me 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that did that, Rose. Yes.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, yes. So we have 

3 not -- there is no change for --

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So I will pull 

7 up the DCAS Matrix Search. And the W.R. Grace 

8 case, as far as I know, is still being worked on 

9 by NIOSH. So there are no changes with that. So 

10 we will start with the Westinghouse case, which 

11 is Tab 434, Finding number one.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. And you 

13 reported earlier that 435, Observation One, with 

14 the technetium you can now work on.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, yes. And we will 

16 officially close that out when we get to it.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure, good.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so with the 

19 Westinghouse case, it's been going on for some 

20 time. The finding states that there was an 

21 unsupported method used for determining proton 

22 bursts during the residual period. And NIOSH had 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agreed with us, just to summarize what's happened 

2 so far, that they had not included all their 

3 calculations in the DR files. Those files were 

4 provided to us. We did review them and SC&A put 

5 out a White Paper response to those -- in it we 

6 had four recommendations. And NIOSH responded to 

7 each of those recommendations. And then we went 

8 back and looked at them and with the first one, 

9 intel was provided to us to validate that the 

10 surface concentration values were correct. And 

11 we were able to verify that.

12 The second was NIOSH agreed to revise 

13 the natural thorium activity fractions to 

14 represent secular equilibrium. And that was 

15 done. Third, NIOSH agreed to revise the 

16 resuspension factor, and that was done. And 

17 fourth, we were able to validate the air 

18 concentrations that were used in this case. And 

19 so there was one remaining question after that

20 that we had -- which was why was this case not 

21 included when the PER was wrong? And NIOSH 

22 responded that the claims had already been 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 flagged for rework because the new cancer 

2 diagnosis. And so it was left off the PER cases 

3 because it was already being reworked. And we 

4 verified the dates associated with that match up. 

5 So we recommend closure.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any 

7 question, folks?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, seems clear.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Hearing none, we 

10 will approve and go on.

11 MR. KATZ: And just for the record, 

12 David [Richardson] is back online with us.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good, David. 

14 Thank you.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So the next 

16 finding from the same case, finding number two, 

17 the finding states that the method for 

18 determining occupational external dose is 

19 inconsistent with the information provided by the 

20 EE [employee] in the category report. The EE had 

21 a very firm recall that he was consistently 

22 monitored. And NIOSH has agreed with us and they 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 felt that the records were fairly complete for 

2 this site. But at the last meeting, the 

3 Subcommittee asked NIOSH to go back and look at 

4 the records. The EE had said that their coworkers 

5 were monitored. And so NIOSH did go back and 

6 reviewed the records and did find some of the 

7 coworkers that were mentioned by the EE in the 

8 category report, and they were found to have 

9 smaller doses than were assigned by the ambient 

10 dose. So based on that, we recommend closure 

11 because the ambient dose was, in effect, more 

12 conservative than it would be had this person had 

13 records.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sounds good. 

15 Questions or concerns?

16 (No audible response.)

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, okay. We 

18 will close then on that.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great, okay. And the 

20 next one I have is 435, Observation One.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Four thirty-five, 

22 I -- did I miss that?
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This one was actually 

2 the Brookhaven Case. These are the cases that 

3 Kathy mentioned earlier, that we literally just 

4 got the files -- it was either this morning or 

5 last night -- for running IMBA for this tech-99 

6 issue. This is all very new. I believe we were 

7 just waiting on the software and had already 

8 verified. We were able to verify the results, 

9 but we didn't -- we couldn't use IMBA that they 

10 had. So we've now been provided that. And Kathy, 

11 correct me if I am wrong, but we are -- we have 

12 been able to get the tech-99 to run?

13 MS. BEHLING: Yes, yes we have. I 

14 have. But I haven't done this case.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. But -

17 MS. BEHLING: Yes, we just got this 

18 file -- just yesterday afternoon. But were able 

19 to run that a little -- I haven't done that for 

20 this case yet.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So if it's okay with 

22 the Subcommittee, I would like to just check into 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this issue to make sure that everything lines up 

2 with his observation and then we can close it out 

3 at the next meeting?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Sounds good.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds reasonable.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great. Bob Barton, 

8 are you on the line?

9 MR. BARTON: Yes.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and the next one 

11 is your case, 436.2.

12 MR. BARTON: Okay, let me just --

13 we've had a lot of back and forth on this one. 

14 So I will quickly kind of give the history on it.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I -- just to say, 

16 I am back on the line. I was just cut off 

17 somehow. When I left we -- hello?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: When I left we were 

20 on 435, Observation One. And I started to say 

21 that the technetium case that you're working on 

22 now, right?
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, sorry. We 

2 weren't sure if we'd lost you or not.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. You lost 

4 me. I don't know, maybe it was in on my phone. 

5 Good, I am glad others were okay -- so that is 

6 fine. So we will hear a report on that next time. 

7 Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and so then we 

9 are going to move on to 436.2.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

11 MR. BARTON: Okay, and this is Bob. I 

12 can report out on that. Essentially, this is 

13 another BNL case. And what we encountered was 

14 that for this particular energy employee, they 

15 had a rather unusual external dosimetry reporting 

16 format in their files provided by DOE. What we 

17 basically saw was the EE had a total gamma dose 

18 and a total neutron dose reported by quarter. 

19 However, we know that the site monitored workers 

20 on a monthly basis. So essentially, we only had 

21 summaries. And you have to sort of come up with 

22 a framework to break down -- break up those 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summaries into hypothetical badge exchanges. 

2 Particularly when you're going to calculate mixed 

3 doses, which was really the crux of this matter.

4 And the other question was, we have a 

5 total by quarter for gamma and neutrons, but no 

6 indication of beta. And that exposure source is 

7 important for this energy employee. So our 

8 question was originally, you know, how is shallow 

9 dose really going to be dealt with? So we went 

10 into the IREP file provided with the dose 

11 reconstruction, and we did find that, for at 

12 least one of the quarters, the shallow dose was 

13 assigned. And it appeared to be assigned as a 

14 missed dose for one half of one badging cycle. 

15 As you all probably know, when you assign a missed 

16 dose, you essentially take the MDA, divide it by 

17 two, and assign it to whatever badging exchange 

18 period it needs in this dose. In this case it 

19 was MDA over four, which is -- you know, it looked 

20 highly irregular for us.

21 So our original finding was basically, 

22 we really don't understand how the shallow dose 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is being assigned here. One, we don't see any 

2 record of beta dosimetry in the claimant's file. 

3 And in the dose reconstruction, what's there is 

4 essentially half a missed dose. So what we found 

5 out from NIOSH -- because they have, obviously, 

6 a lot more experience with the BNL dosimetry 

7 records -- was that during this time frame, beta 

8 doses would only have been reported if they were 

9 positive. Or put another way in the explanation, 

10 if the open window of the dosimeter was greater 

11 than the shielded component, then you would have 

12 a positive beta dose, and it would appear in the 

13 record. So the implication is that if you don't 

14 see any beta dose, there is no measured beta dose 

15 and only missed dose is needed to be considered.

16 And so we went through and we did our 

17 own missed dose calculation essentially, and this 

18 is in our response back in September. And we 

19 assumed that, you know, if there's no beta doses 

20 -- measured beta doses reported -- we are going 

21 to assume every single dosimeter was zero. And 

22 that every corresponding gamma dose for each 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dosimeter was either positive or zero, depending 

2 on whatever the total was for that quarter. And 

3 this is sort of how we interpreted the method 

4 that was in OTIB-17. Early on, it's on page six,

5 where it kind of gives you the steps on a generic 

6 method on how to do it.

7 Now since then, NIOSH has clarified in 

8 further responses that the way to interpret these 

9 dose records of BNL is if you don't see those 

10 beta doses, it's assumed your open window is 

11 equal to your shielded for each badging cycle. 

12 Which is a very important assumption, because 

13 once you see that, you can start going into some 

14 of the procedures for other sites, which are 

15 actually contained in OTIB-17, Appendix B, which 

16 provides specific instructions for SRS, Hanford 

17 and the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. And in that 

18 procedure you can see that, well, if you have an 

19 open window measurement that's equal to the 

20 shielded measurement, you do not assign any 

21 missed beta dose in that case. You actually only 

22 assume there's a missed beta dose if your open 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 window is zero and your shielded dose is 

2 positive.

3 So once we had that assumption from 

4 NIOSH, both that you only see beta doses reported 

5 if they're essentially positive. And the way 

6 that the dosimetry system worked at BNL -- if you 

7 don't see any reported beta doses, it's assumed 

8 the open window equals the shielded. Then you 

9 can start applying OTIB-17, like I said, the 

10 procedures for SRS, Hanford and the Gaseous 

11 Diffusions. And also there's a framework for how 

12 you kind of split those out, as a best estimate, 

13 which is in Proc 6. And so once we had those 

14 assumptions in place, we were able to follow the 

15 method and get the same number that NIOSH did.

16 So essentially, I kicked this around 

17 with Ron Buchanan and Doug Farver, because, like 

18 I said, we had done our own calculations that 

19 looked directly at assumed beta and gamma doses 

20 -- and obviously all the betas were zero and the 

21 gammas are either positive or zero. And we came 

22 up with a different value for the missed dose, 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but we really find no technical flaw with the way 

2 NIOSH did it either. So we recommend that that 

3 the finding be closed. However, we sort of have 

4 the caveat that, given the complexity and sort of 

5 unusual nature of these external dosimetry 

6 records, it certainly would be beneficial to 

7 update the Site Profile and DR guidelines to show 

8 exactly how these external dose records should be 

9 interpreted, especially in best case, best 

10 estimate, situations. And given [also] the 

11 unusual format that we encountered in this 

12 specific case and this specific time period. So 

13 I guess that's the long and the short of it. 

14 Certainly love to entertain any questions.

15 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott, to 

16 add that last piece. As you can see, the last 

17 entry is that we state, we have actually updated 

18 the DR guidance document to clarify that. So the 

19 documentation is there as well.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so it sounds 

21 good. So we will close on that?

22 MR. CALHOUN: Hey, this is Grady. Is 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there a chance that that one should be switched 

2 to an observation?

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's a good 

4 question.

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 MR. CALHOUN: Seems like after you 

7 worked through it, we were all right.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Let me think.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like a prime 

10 candidate for observation to me.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any others?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

13 agree.

14 MEMBER BEACH: And Josie, I agree.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we --

16 switch 436.2 to an observation. Okay, so close 

17 -- go to observation. Okay, good. Alright, I 

18 think that does finish all the DCAS ones that we 

19 had left?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That does.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think it does. 

22 Now, 369.3. That's the last one.
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The 369.3, that was 

2 the W.R. Grace one --

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH is still 

5 working on a coworker Pu dose during the 

6 operation period. So that one's not ready. --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. Three 

8 sixty-nine point three. Okay, good.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John Mauro, do I have 

10 you on the line?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am here.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one up 

13 is the Ventron Case that we were talking about 

14 yesterday.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, yes.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, at the AWE 

17 site.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Getting it pulled up 

19 here on the screen. Being a little slow.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That’s okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm hoping we, 

22 obviously, keep power throughout this whole 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting. This storm is pretty bad.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You guys are 

3 getting battered?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, Boston is getting 

5 battered. We are supposed to get 18 inches.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, you'd better 

7 have --

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You'd better have 

10 it shoveled off by this weekend, because I am 

11 coming to my granddaughter's birthday party on 

12 Saturday. And I don't have snow tires.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It will be gone by 

14 then, don't worry. We can handle our snow.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright, now 433 and 

17 we're going to start with finding number three on 

18 that.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright. And the 

21 finding originally stated that it needs to have 

22 a discussion on the appropriateness of using TBD-
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 6000 as the surrogate for calculating external 

2 dose from uranium reduction operations that took 

3 place in the early 1940s. And John, I'll turn 

4 the other... -

5 DR. MAURO: I will get it started. I 

6 think, Scott. You had responded to this yesterday 

7 and I had a chance to look it over. And maybe 

8 the best way to go is to tell -- to explain what 

9 I understand the circumstances are and what my 

10 perspectives are. But if I misrepresent 

11 anything, please help me out.

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott, John.

13 Just to let you know, I believe Dave Allen from 

14 DCAS will be handling this because it is not our 

15 site.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, this is correct. 

18 It's actually Dave Allen's response.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. My mistake, I 

20 just assumed it was Scott.

21 MR. SIEBERT: That is okay.

22 DR. MAURO: Well, I will start. 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Ventron, AWE, it's a uranium conversion facility. 

2 And it has an SEC for the early years. I think 

3 '42 to '48. Okay? So that's sort of like the 

4 setting. And what we have is a case of a worker 

5 where you needed to reconstruct his doses during 

6 the residual period, which is not covered by the 

7 SEC. And the question that I raise is typically 

8 when you reconstruct doses during the residual 

9 period, we need to start -- well what's the amount 

10 of radioactivity deposited on surfaces? And from 

11 there you could estimate the external dose and 

12 you could -- and this is uranium -- and you could, 

13 using resuspension models, estimate the 

14 inhalation dose.

15 The original concern I raised was, 

16 well, if you don't actually have measurements, 

17 what you often do is you resort to one of these 

18 generic AWE guidelines, TBD-6000 and there's TBD19 6001. Now, we know that TBD-6001, which would 

20 apply and used to apply to conversion facilities 

21 -- that has been withdrawn. So we are really 

22 left with TBD-6000 as being a generic approach 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 when you don't have site-specific data. Stay 

2 with me now.

3 And I believe NIOSH employed some 

4 generic information that was in TBD-6000 that in 

5 theory really should only be used for metal --

6 uranium metal handling facilities, and not 

7 conversion facilities. And that sort of 

8 triggered my first concerns: Gee, I see they're 

9 using TBD-6000 protocols, which really don't 

10 apply to conversion facilities. But then David, 

11 I believe -- and correct me if I am wrong -- in 

12 your response that came in yesterday [you] said, 

13 well, really TBD-6000 strategy can be applied 

14 here. In other words, the method that is adopted 

15 in TBD-6000 for uranium handling facilities could 

16 also apply to uranium conversion facilities for 

17 the residual period. And I believe the approach 

18 that was taken was to assume that the airborne 

19 concentration that was responsible -- the uranium 

20 airborne concentration -- that was responsible 

21 for the surface contamination that settled -- I 

22 believe you indicated, you assumed 10 MAC. And 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 justified it on the basis that well, there is 

2 some data, actually, in Table 6-1 in the SEC 

3 Petition Evaluation Report that will support 

4 that.

5 Okay, so that's sort of like my 

6 understanding, David, of your position that, 

7 well, it's okay to use the 10 MAC as your starting 

8 point to reconstruct. 10 MAC, by the way, I 

9 believe is the order of 700. Anyway, I forget 

10 the exact concentration. But, it's a fairly 

11 elevated level of airborne uranium. And that's 

12 the starting point to determine what might have 

13 settled out. From there you could go on to 

14 reconstruct external, internal. And I looked at 

15 that and I said, well, that seems reasonable, 

16 especially since I wasn't quite certain about the 

17 applicability of TBD-6000 to a conversion 

18 facility. But then I said, well, that's really 

19 not the major point here. That may or may not be 

20 -- and I didn't go into enough research into the 

21 degree to which you could use TBD-6000 and this 

22 circumstance for a conversion facility.

23
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But David did point out Table 6-1 of 

2 the SEC Petition Evaluation Report that there was 

3 some data in the early 1940s on the airborne dust 

4 loading of uranium at the conversion facility. 

5 Now, here's where I really bring you something 

6 I'd like to hear a little bit more about: You 

7 have to keep in mind that the SEC was granted to 

8 this facility because there wasn't sufficient 

9 data to reconstruct external or internal. And 

10 now clearly, on the airborne concentrations, they 

11 represent that in Table 6-1 with the airborne 

12 uranium dust loading a limited amount of data. 

13 And it's quite scattered. In other words, the 

14 concentrations that were observed -- I think the 

15 highest number was 7,200 micrograms per cubic 

16 meter, which I believe converts to about 100 MAC. 

17 So what I am getting at is, that we have a bit of 

18 a dilemma. We have some data on the airborne 

19 concentrations, which admittedly was not 

20 sufficient to reconstruct internal doses for 

21 workers and that's why the SEC was granted. 

22 That's a premise I am working on. I believe 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's a correct statement. If I am incorrect, 

2 you can stop me. But at the same time, it was 

3 felt that, but we can use that data to estimate 

4 what might have deposited on surfaces, and 

5 thereby represent the source of contamination 

6 that workers much later, during the residual 

7 period, might have been exposed to.

8 So the thing I'd like to talk about a 

9 little bit is that a reasonable approach to 

10 reconstruct exposures during the residual period? 

11 Namely, using data collected earlier that was 

12 judged insufficient to reconstruct doses, and 

13 thereby, you know, resulted in an SEC being 

14 granted. And in addition, when I look at the 

15 table, there is a broad range of concentrations, 

16 this is Table 6-1, a broad range of 

17 concentrations. And the highest concentration 

18 looks like it was considerably higher than 10 

19 MAC, which is the number that was defaulted to as 

20 the basis for deriving what might have been 

21 deposited on surfaces.

22 So I still have some concerns. I think 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's something that the level at which I 

2 evaluated it yesterday in preparation for this 

3 meeting just to launch a discussion on the 

4 matter. So with that, I'd like to turn it over 

5 to David to see if I fairly communicated the 

6 nature of the issue.

7 MR. ALLEN: I think you have, as far 

8 as how the issue has morphed a little bit since 

9 the beginning. But this particular dilemma is 

10 something that we have -- we've gone down that 

11 road in a number of sites in the past and a number 

12 of SEC evaluations, actually. And we have 

13 reached agreement in the past a number of times 

14 on the residual contamination, you know, any 

15 intakes or external dose from residual 

16 contamination. That contamination is going to be 

17 something more related to the temporal and 

18 spatial averaging of the operational airborne. 

19 It's -- you're not going to find a peak air sample 

20 at one point in time during an operation and 

21 assume the entire area is covered, you know, with 

22 that -- a deposition from that airborne when 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you've got so many others that are low.

2 And in the past we have, as I said, 

3 basically reached agreement that the 

4 contamination levels associated with the residual 

5 period will be based on more than average 

6 operational airborne and in that way you can have 

7 a sparse amount of air sample data during the 

8 operational period -- you might not be able to 

9 really judge how high it could be during the 

10 operational -- but it may still be sufficient for 

11 determining the contamination levels as your 

12 starting point for the residual period. That is 

13 essentially the basis why there's a number of 

14 AWEs out there that have been granted an SEC 

15 during operations and not an SEC during the 

16 residual period, simply because the uncertainty 

17 can have a big effect during the operational 

18 period, but a much lesser effect during the 

19 residual.

20 DR. MAURO: I heard you and understood 

21 what you were saying. Now, the only little twist 

22 in here, and I agree that what's on surfaces 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 represents what I would say -- if you have a 

2 number of air samples that were collected and 

3 they vary widely at a given time. What's 

4 deposited and then available for resuspension 

5 really represents more of an averaging. But I 

6 guess, one of the things that just struck me, 

7 was, if you have a time period where you're 

8 measuring relatively high concentrations for some 

9 period of time, and that that's --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Could I interrupt 

12 you one second?

13 DR. MAURO: Sure.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: My screen is blank. 

15 Are other people's? And if they are, would 

16 somebody look into that while John finishes 

17 speaking?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Mine is showing, but 

19 if it's not, I can reboot it.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Mine is loading, 

21 and --

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, mine is showing. It's 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 showing for everyone else, I think.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, it's showing 

3 for me.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. If you 

5 could, please take care of it. Anyway, John, I 

6 am sorry to interrupt you. I thought we could -

7 DR. MAURO: No, that's okay. The way 

8 I see it, is sort of like a layered question. 

9 Let's say you have an operation going on in the 

10 1940s, and at some period of time you're 

11 measuring relatively high concentrations --

12 airborne. And then at other times, you're 

13 measuring relatively low concentrations. So I 

14 could see how the concentrations could vary over 

15 time. And then you say, okay, but now what I 

16 want to do is estimate what might have 

17 accumulated on surfaces during that time period? 

18 Okay. And I know that you assume that deposition 

19 occurs over some 30 days and that's your 

20 accumulation. Now, wouldn't you say, okay, if I 

21 had some stretch of time in this facility now 

22 where I was observing for that period of time an 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 elevated concentration. And during that time 

2 period, of course, you would have had deposition 

3 and it would have accumulated on surfaces, 

4 reflecting what was airborne over that time 

5 period. Let's say whatever that time period is:

6 a few months or whatever.

7 Then, of course, you have other 

8 measurements -- later or possibly earlier --

9 where the concentrations were lower. So, from 

10 that perspective, so do you really want to 

11 average over time? I could see why you would 

12 average -- at the same time, if you've got a lot 

13 of different measurements of airborne 

14 concentrations over the same time period, you 

15 would say, okay, what's on the surfaces is going 

16 to reflect the average concentration that was in 

17 air over that time period. But if you have a 

18 time period -- and this is what's not really clear 

19 -- where for some period of time you have a high 

20 concentration, wouldn't the activity that is 

21 accumulated on surfaces reflect what deposited 

22 over that time period when the concentration was 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 elevated? That's sort of like my first layer of 

2 question. And I'd like to hear, you know, your 

3 perspective on that.

4 MR. ALLEN: I am not quite sure what 

5 you're saying there, John.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay, let's say we're in 

7 the room you're in right now, okay? And maybe we 

8 will -- we are working with uranium, okay? And 

9 over a two-month period we are doing a lot of 

10 work, and we generate relatively high 

11 concentrations of airborne uranium in the room 

12 you're standing in right now. And over that time 

13 period, that airborne uranium is settling, okay? 

14 And it accumulates on a surface. And it -- you've 

15 got it on your surface now from that activity. 

16 But let's say three months from now, the airborne 

17 concentration is much lower. And the question 

18 is, at the end of operations, which may be three 

19 or four years from now you say, well, what's on 

20 the surface? And now you've entered the residual 

21 period, what's on the surface? What do I assume 

22 is on the surface? Well, one could argue what's 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the surface represents the time averaged and 

2 area averaged concentration? Or, do you say 

3 well, listen, we know we had a stretch of time 

4 when it was relatively high, and that's what's 

5 going to be on the surfaces once you enter the 

6 residual period? Do you see the distinction I'm 

7 making in terms of using average versus using 

8 high end?

9 MR. ALLEN: I think I do. I mean, if 

10 you had a short burst of high airborne, it will 

11 add to your average airborne and it will add to 

12 your surface contamination calculations.

13 DR. MAURO: And I agree with that. I 

14 didn't necessarily say short burst, though. 

15 Let's say that's what was a little uncertain. 

16 But I think that we understand the question. If 

17 it's a short burst, sure. [And] for example, if 

18 you're assuming that what's deposited on surfaces 

19 represents an accumulation that occurred over 

20 several months and then it sort of stabilizes, 

21 you reach sort of what you would call an 

22 equilibrium where the rate of removal is equal to 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the rate of deposition, or in other words, you 

2 don't just keep accumulating year after year 

3 after year.

4 But if there's a stretch of time where 

5 you get deposition, you know, do you use -- and 

6 it's not just a burst. Let's say, one day. -- but 

7 it's really an extended period of time -- and I 

8 will be the first to admit that I can't say for 

9 certain whether that 7,200 micrograms per cubic 

10 meter represents, you know, one air sample taken 

11 at one location at one short time period, or 

12 whether it represents something that might be 

13 more protracted. So therein lies a reasonable 

14 enquiry that I did not look into. And you may be 

15 correct that that high number may be just a 

16 relatively short-term number. And it does make 

17 sense when it's a relatively short-term number to 

18 start the average over, you know, all of the 

19 different numbers.

20 So that's just a question I pose and 

21 like to leave on the table. And whether there's 

22 an answer now for that or not -- but let me pose 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the other simpler question, which I would like 

2 also to put on the table. And that is, given 

3 that the data that's in Table 6-1 representing it 

4 is quite limited and quite variable -- and 

5 certainly not adequate to reconstruct inhalation 

6 doses to workers that were there at that time, 

7 would you want to use that data for the residual 

8 period? And I think you've answered that. You 

9 basically said well, it's not good enough to 

10 reconstruct doses during AWE operations. This is 

11 what I think your answer is. But it probably is 

12 good enough to reconstruct doses during the 

13 residual period.

14 And I'm not entirely sure you know --

15 I am not going to really debate that. But I do 

16 want to put that on the table as a thought problem 

17 for all of us to think about these two layers. 

18 You see the two -- so I have a two-layered 

19 question that I think we'd do well to air out a 

20 little bit because I think it does establish a 

21 precedent and a strategy for dealing with these 

22 circumstances that's not uncommon. You see --
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I will stop in a second -- usually what we 

2 have is we have airborne concentration 

3 measurements that were taken during the AWE 

4 period and represent pretty good numbers for the 

5 end of the operations period. And we'd all agree, 

6 yes, we believe that this concentration is 

7 representative, what was going on during 

8 operations at the end of the AWE period. And 

9 that's our starting point for reconstructing the 

10 doses during the residual period. And that's 

11 something that I agree we've all done. And it's 

12 perfectly in accord with, you know, what would be 

13 considered reasonable and in accord with TBD14 6000. But now we have a little bit different 

15 circumstance. And I am not sure whether this 

16 different circumstance we have right now can be 

17 addressed in the conventional approach that you 

18 have adopted.

19 MR. ALLEN: You know, John, I really 

20 don't understand why this is different than some 

21 of the things we've done in the past. I mean, 

22 for one thing I want to correct you that we didn't 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say this data -- we didn't say either way that 

2 this data was good enough to estimate dose in a 

3 residual period or not. You've got to remember, 

4 we used to model a lot of TBD-6000. And then as 

5 part of this response, we compared it to those 

6 air samples that we do have and showed that 15 

7 out of the 17 air samples are below what we used 

8 in the model. Just essentially saying that it 

9 seems to be representative because their samples 

10 were taken during the operational period even 

11 though that's early 1940s, that was another issue 

12 -- I think you had articulated on this.

13 DR. MAURO: Right.

14 MR. ALLEN: And I think you've already 

15 said that you have agreed in the past that the 

16 averaging is probably more indicative of what's 

17 happening in the residual period. And I am at a 

18 loss for exactly what your issue is and what the 

19 difference is from what we've agreed to and the 

20 Board's agreed to a number of times in the past.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay, I will try to 

22 explain where I see the difference. I think it's 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 one thing to say we've got lots of airborne data 

2 -- concentration data. And it might have a 

3 distribution [of measurements] that were 

4 collected, let's say, during the last year or the 

5 last two years of an AWE operation. So you've 

6 got lots of data -- air sampling data -- and they 

7 may have quite a spread. And I would say the 

8 distribution, representing the variability in 

9 space and time of the concentration that was in 

10 the air at the end of operations period. And 

11 that's what we're going to use to predict what's 

12 on surfaces.

13 The only difference here we have now 

14 is we have a sparse amount of data that's quite 

15 variable. And we then somehow use that data that 

16 was collected in the early 1940s to predict what 

17 was on surfaces that we're going to use for the 

18 residual period. And you correctly point out, 

19 some of those measurements -- I don't see those 

20 as being measurements that are indicative of the 

21 average concentrations that were air. I see it 

22 more as, well, we've got some measurements that 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were quite high and they're sparse and some low. 

2 And it's hard for me to get comfortable with the 

3 idea, geez, why not use the higher end value? 

4 Because in theory, that higher end value might 

5 have been present for an extended period of time. 

6 And that might be what resulted in what was 

7 deposited. And of course, you know, at another 

8 time, you might have had some lower 

9 concentrations, which you could have deposited. 

10 But you do know that it may have been some time 

11 when you had a relatively high, and that's going 

12 to be there on the surface. Do you see the 

13 distinction? It's already settled out. It's 

14 sitting there and it's not going away very 

15 quickly. So I am saying, geez, if you really 

16 want to be claiming favorable, why not go with 

17 the upper-end value of it? Because that might 

18 be, in fact, what was residual once you reach the 

19 residual period.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Isn't the 7,200 

21 micrograms per cubic meter the high value?

22 DR. MAURO: That is the high value, 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but we don't know how long that went on. But 

2 let's say that was there for quite some time. 

3 There was an operational period -

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay.

5 DR. MAURO: And here's where I haven't 

6 checked out -- well, when you use data as the 

7 basis for what is on surfaces, and not the lower 

8 value -- saying, okay, what's the plausible 

9 upper-bound concentration on surfaces? I would 

10 argue, well, it would be the concentration on 

11 surfaces with the airborne levels are relatively 

12 high for a protracted period of time. That would 

13 be what accumulated.

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, John -- go 

16 ahead.

17 MEMBER BEACH: John, this is Josie. 

18 Would that take him out of the 6000 and into 

19 facility data at that point?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes. Now we've left TBD21 6000 now, right? I mean, that's why I say it was 

22 two levels. The first level was, gee, why would 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you use TBD-6000, which does not apply to 

2 conversion facilities? But all the sudden, that 

3 issue goes away, when in fact you have -- the 

4 argument is -- well, we do have some real 

5 measurements that were taken. And granted that 

6 they were limited, but here they are. And 

7 certainly they were not good enough to do any 

8 dose reconstruction during AWE operations, but in 

9 theory, we could use them to place a plausible 

10 upper bound on what might have been on surfaces 

11 later on, during the residual period.

12 And all I am saying is, well, given 

13 that we can use that limited data to predict 

14 what's on the surface -- well, can you really do 

15 that given that it was limited? It was a limited 

16 amount of data and we really don't know what the 

17 distribution was because of the limitations. But 

18 given those limitations, if you were going to 

19 say, let's put a plausible upper bound, let's go 

20 with the higher end value, which is I think 100 

21 MAC. And that's where I am coming out. I am 

22 coming out, geez, if I was doing this right now, 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based on what I know, I think I would go with the 

2 higher number just to place an upper bound on 

3 what might have been on the surfaces during the 

4 residual period. I mean, really conceptually you 

5 can understand where I'm coming from. Now, that 

6 doesn't mean you agree with me. But that would 

7 be my inclination right now -- how I would combat 

8 the problem.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it seems to me 

10 that you have raised a couple of different issues 

11 and NIOSH would need to answer whether OTIB --

12 or, excuse me, TBD-6000 is appropriate for this 

13 application. And then on to the facilities. So 

14 the ---

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: John, this is Wanda, and 

17 I always hate to disagree with your position on 

18 these things because I respect it so highly, but 

19 this is just another type of question that we've 

20 gone over probably 50 times in the last 15 years. 

21 And that is the question of what you 

22 can derive from the information that you have. 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We can't prove what did or did not happen, and 

2 we've based a large portion of this entire 

3 program on you can't prove that didn't happen.

4 And when you can't prove it didn't 

5 happen, then you're putting yourself in the 

6 position of not being able to adequately utilize 

7 the data that you do have. 

8 So, I thought we had, at some 

9 juncture, almost reached the point where we 

10 agreed we have to use the data we do have. 

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: And I follow your line 

13 of reasoning but I'm a little hampered here 

14 because, one, I haven't seen the raw data and if 

15 I haven't seen the raw data, then I'm really 

16 poorly equipped to try to respond to your 

17 question, when I assume you've seen the raw data. 

18 But if one goes the route that you're 

19 thinking, in my mind, what you have to do is make 

20 such a long list of assumptions that it overrides 

21 the number of assumptions you have to make that 

22 had been made in the current circumstances. 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 For example, if you decide that you're 

2 going to go with that highest number you have, 

3 and you have a range that goes from, say, 50 to 

4 700. 

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MEMBER MUNN: And most of the material 

7 that you have gives you a number somewhere around 

8 100 but you say, okay, I'm going with the 700 

9 because that's the most that could have been 

10 deposited. 

11 And then my next question is, 

12 deposited where? We have all agreed that these 

13 air samples depend upon, we started out by saying 

14 they depend upon size, air flow, all kinds of 

15 things. 

16 So am I going to take the highest 

17 number that I've seen, which is significantly out 

18 of the normal range of the others, and say that 

19 is what has been deposited all over this entire 

20 area and what people ten years from now are going 

21 to have to cope with as leftovers? 

22 Now, when we talk about residual 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 periods, we seldom -- at least I haven't seen 

2 come before us a case that would have the absolute 

3 ideal information we'd all like to have had: 

4 Someone go around at the last day of the 

5 operational period and taken swabs off every 

6 available surface and had that neatly recorded 

7 somewhere. 

8 But even if somebody had done that, 

9 the way our world works, in some fury of file10 reducing, probably those records would have gone 

11 out with RIDS 20 years later. And we're now 50 

12 years past that. 

13 So the point I'm trying to make here 

14 is I don't see how we can give any more credence 

15 or any more weight to the single high sample than 

16 we can to the single low sample, simply because 

17 we don't know all of those other pieces of 

18 information. 

19 Even if we knew it, it would be an 

20 exercise in probability still. 

21 So if we haven't decided that we're 

22 going to use the information that we have in the 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 best way that we can do it, then I don't think we 

2 can do what we're trying to do, if that makes --

3 I know, this is not --

4 DR. MAURO: I agree with you 

5 completely. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: This is not good science 

7 but it's common sense.

8 DR. MAURO: And I agree with you 

9 completely. 

10 And I think that the essence of the 

11 difference between what we've done in the past 

12 and the circumstance we're confronted with here, 

13 which is different than anything we've done 

14 before, is in the past, we've always had either 

15 airborne samples, a number of airborne samples or 

16 a number of swipe samples taken toward the very 

17 end of AWE operations. 

18 And that was our launching point. 

19 The difference we have here now, this 

20 makes this site a little different than 

21 everything else we've done before, is that the 

22 data that we do have is represented as quite 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 limited and collected earlier, and it's highly 

2 variable over time, by orders of magnitude. 

3 And now we're basically trying to make 

4 a judgment, given that now the kind of data we 

5 have really represents some earlier years where 

6 the airborne dust loadings were quite variable. 

7 And I'm not quite sure right now to 

8 say that we have a stretch of time where there's 

9 a high level and then a stretch of time where 

10 there's a lower level. 

11 And then we're going to say, well, 

12 somehow we want to use that, even though we know 

13 it's limited and represented as being limited. 

14 But somehow, we would go on to say, 

15 well, look, we do have air data and let's somehow 

16 use that data to predict what might be on 

17 surfaces. 

18 And we want to place a plausible upper 

19 bound on what might be on surfaces later on --

20 several years later when we're into the residual 

21 period. 

22 And I would argue that under these 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 circumstances, which I think I don't recall we've 

2 ever had this before, what is the prudent 

3 strategy? Do we go with the averaging of the 

4 limited data that we do have? 

5 And under those circumstances, if we 

6 all agree that, yes, that's the prudent approach, 

7 and MAC is certainly a good number, which is what 

8 they used as the launching point, then one could 

9 argue, well, under these circumstances, is it 

10 perhaps more prudent to go with the higher-end 

11 value, which is I believe ten times higher, if I 

12 did my numbers right, because of the 

13 circumstances we're in?

14 So I think that's really the essence 

15 of the precedent that we're about to establish, 

16 because I don't think we've had these

17 circumstance before. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Let me ask one more 

19 question. 

20 Well, no, actually, there are two 

21 questions there, one, the first question being, 

22 in the raw data, which is the approximate period 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of time between the data points that we do have?

2 DR. MAURO: I don't know that we've 

3 done enough homework to answer that question. We 

4 may have access to that information, we may not, 

5 I'm not sure. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: And the next question, 

7 which to me would be a critical one, is the 

8 highest value that we have the last value that we 

9 have, or was it in the middle somewhere?

10 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

11 We don't know anything about the 

12 housekeeping, we don't know anything about the 

13 placement of the air monitors. We don't know. 

14 DR. MAURO: Right, and I'm with you 

15 100 percent. There's nothing you're saying that 

16 I disagree with. 

17 Basically, what I tried to deliver to 

18 you was how I, after getting the response 

19 yesterday, gave a little thought to it and tried 

20 to think of what I think the issues are that we 

21 have to come to grips with. 

22 And I think everything you pointed out 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is absolutely correct but I have to say I have 

2 not gone that deeply into the issue. 

3 I know David maybe has more 

4 information available that he could help us with 

5 so that he could help make a judgment of where do 

6 we pick it? Do we go in at the 10 MAC or do we 

7 go in at the 100?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me ask you --

9 Dave again -- John, so what do you suggest? 

10 You're telling us that there's a 

11 problem and that there may be a better approach, 

12 that this is an inadequate approach. 

13 And you're saying, you know, what 

14 would you do and I don't understand, but is it 

15 not incumbent on you to try to make an estimate 

16 based on your best understanding of the data, and 

17 then present it to the group?

18 DR. MAURO: We could do it that way. 

19 I think the path forward that was just laid out 

20 by Wanda is exactly what we should be doing. 

21 And whether we do it or NIOSH does it 

22 -- usually NIOSH does it when we come up with 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 some thoughts, and to a certain degree, they may 

2 have some answers already -- it's mainly, as 

3 Wanda said, you do have a limited amount of data 

4 taken between ‘42 and ‘48, right? 

5 Here are the numbers, they're in Table 

6 6-1. 

7 The question then becomes, as Wanda 

8 properly asked, well, do those numbers represent 

9 short-term samples taken at different locations 

10 at different times?

11 And if that in fact is the case, that 

12 these are short-term measurements taken at 

13 different locations at different times between 

14 ‘42 and ‘48, then I would completely agree that 

15 the 10 MAC approach adopted by NIOSH is certainly 

16 the reasonable strategy to take. 

17 However, I would argue if the 

18 measurements that we're making represent, for 

19 example, the higher-end value represented that 

20 this was across the board throughout the facility 

21 over an extended period of time, let's say 

22 several months, that's a good number. 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, all of the sudden I say, well, if 

2 that 7200 micrograms per cubic meter was taken, 

3 which actually represents a longer-term, area4 wide and time-wide, then I would say, no, you've 

5 got to start pushing up that closer to a higher 

6 value, not the average value. 

7 And so I think that's what I believe 

8 to be the proper path forward. And whether that 

9 information is available to us or not is 

10 certainly a question, but that's what my 

11 suggestion is.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm not clear who's 

13 supposed to do that, whether it's NIOSH's 

14 responsibility or SC&A's to -- you raise an 

15 issue, and it's an issue that we need to come to 

16 grips with. Who should do it? Ted, maybe you --

17 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

18 -- understand procedure better?

19 MR. KATZ: So, normally, yes, NIOSH 

20 would follow up on these questions, questions of 

21 when were the measurements made and over what 

22 period and location. 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Normally, NIOSH would follow up on 

2 that, on issues raised like this. 

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, Ted, this is Grady, 

4 and normally, we do look at some things like this, 

5 but this is really getting into the, you know, I 

6 think there kind of, sort of may be something 

7 that's not quite right. 

8 I think that John needs to go do a 

9 little bit more homework and tell us where we're 

10 wrong. 

11 I mean, he's really laying out a very 

12 generic issue here and it's going to cause us a 

13 lot more work because he already said he didn't 

14 take a look at a lot of this stuff.

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, I'm pointing out 

16 my impressions on the answer you provided on 

17 where I think there might be some weaknesses, and 

18 what type of follow-up investigations will help 

19 close the circle. 

20 And certainly, SC&A would be glad to 

21 follow up on it, but usually, the way these things 

22 have played out in the past in my experience is 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, when we raise an issue like this, usually, 

2 it's something that NIOSH does as opposed to the 

3 contractor. 

4 But I'd be more than happy to do it, 

5 of course I would.

6 MR. KATZ: Grady, I think this is 

7 absolutely ordinary for NIOSH to follow up on 

8 these questions. That's what they're supposed to 

9 do in unusual situations.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad, but I 

11 think John needs to give them a little bit more 

12 direction of whether the issue is at. 

13 I still think John needs to sum this 

14 up and send it to them so they can address it. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Brad, I really 

16 agree with you. 

17 I feel like, John, if it's not clear 

18 to the folks at NIOSH what you're asking them to 

19 do, then you need to talk with them maybe on a 

20 technical call and figure out what needs to be 

21 done.

22 DR. MAURO: We could do it that way. 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I could write it up and send it in. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I would 

3 really like to see you write it up because I'm 

4 following what you're saying on this and I'm 

5 understanding the path forward that you're 

6 looking at. I just need a little bit more 

7 clarification too so that I can put my hands 

8 around what you are looking at. 

9 Because I do think that you've got 

10 something here, I just need a little bit more to 

11 be able to understand fully, and like you said, 

12 you've got a couple of loose ends. 

13 My suggestion would be to write it up 

14 and let NIOSH be able to respond to it.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: How does that 

16 sound, Grady?

17 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, that sounds better 

18 than what we got. 

19 DR. MAURO: Okay, alright, you got it.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then you'll 

21 write something up and we'll talk about this case 

22 next time. It's actually 433.3 and I believe 0.2 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is similar, right? 

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You already said 

4 0.2?

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: John and Dave, if I 

6 could ask one thing, though. I want to fully 

7 understand better why this case is different than 

8 in the past. 

9 That's kind of where I'm unclear on 

10 this. So when you write that up, could you spend 

11 a little bit more time for a simpleton as myself 

12 to help me understand why this is different?

13 DR. MAURO: I will, and the way it's 

14 going to come out is I'll give some examples of 

15 this kind of problem. And really, what it boils 

16 down to is something quite straightforward. 

17 Usually, we have lots of nice airborne sampling 

18 data right at the end of our AWE operations, and 

19 it represents the average distribution. 

20 And we know that that was the 

21 circumstance people were working in. And under 

22 those circumstances, you take the average over 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that last year and say, well, this is the stuff 

2 that was settling out. 

3 But now we don't have that; we have 

4 something else. We're operating in a different 

5 domain now that I haven't come across before, 

6 where you have the --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If I may suggest, 

8 John, you are repeating yourself. 

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm sorry.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's something 

11 you said before at least once or twice. But it's 

12 not clear and somebody has asked you to write it 

13 up.

14 DR. MAURO: I will write it up.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So please write it 

16 up and then we'll go on. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie Beach. 

18 Can I ask something? John, can you please add 

19 the part about using TBD-6000 as well?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think that's 

21 important because that was a new twist for me, 

22 that in this particular circumstance, TBD-6000, 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though written for metal machining facilities 

2 could also be used for conversion facilities. 

3 And that was a new twist, to tell you 

4 the truth, that I was not aware of, and I will do 

5 that also.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you. 

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, all 

8 right, let's go on. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There's only one more 

10 left in this, and actually, I believe that --

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's the uranium 

12 mill?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry, my notes are 

14 all messed up here. The only remaining one is 

15 Finding 432.4.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, good.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that one, I 

18 believe TIB-11 is being revised that we're 

19 waiting on?

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is right, we 

21 are waiting on TIB-11 which is due. They had 

22 indicated summer of '18 so we can't act on it 
147 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 now? 

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we'll 

4 wait.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That takes us into the 

6 19th and 21st sets.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, aren't there 

8 some Sets 14 through 18 left, the INL and NTS?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Those ones that we 

10 discussed, we're still waiting on different 

11 Subcommittee actions.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let's see, I'm just 

13 looking over my notes and you're correct. You 

14 are of course correct. I'm checking and I see 

15 that what you say is so, from my own notes.

16 Review Cases from Sets 19-21 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, so we 

18 are ready to go to Sets 19 through 21. I agree 

19 with you. Sorry, I'm just catching up and trying 

20 to make sure. 

21 Where would you like start with these?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can start on 482, 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Observation 1.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which is in which 

3 file?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is in the 

5 SRS/Hanford.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: SRS/Hanford, yes. 

7 Okay, good, alright. 

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and this one had 

9 to do with glove-box adjustment factor. We've 

10 been going back and forth on this one for a while. 

11 We didn't understand where this 

12 number, 2.19, came from. 

13 And after considerable back and forth, 

14 it turns out that number was actually in error. 

15 Through whatever process, the number 2.19 got 

16 carried through, rather than the number 2.0. 

17 And I thought that maybe it was a 

18 typographical error. They agreed to clarify the 

19 guidance and I believe the template language has 

20 already been revised. 

21 So if that's the case, then we 

22 recommend closure. 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: And that is correct, it 

2 has been updated. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. So, the 

4 problem has been identified, corrected and it is 

5 fundamentally a typographical issue. 

6 Okay, so can we close the set? 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Can I just ask a quick 

8 question?

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Was the number 2.19 

11 being used, or was the number 2.0 actually being 

12 used?

13 MR. CALHOUN: The 2.0 wasn't used. It 

14 was the difference of the 2.19 was actually the 

15 factor itself versus what's being compared. So we 

16 were using 2.0.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So you were using the 

18 correct value, it was just incorrect in the 

19 documentation?

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right. 

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, so we 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can close this, folks, unless I hear some 

2 concerns. Okay, good.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

4 the same case but finding number one. And here, 

5 the finding had to do with missed shallow dose 

6 being omitted, and I believe this is a workbook 

7 error. 

8 The dose reconstructor selected 

9 something in the workbook that they shouldn't 

10 have selected. It's since been updated in the 

11 workbook and the DR Guidance. 

12 If that's the case, we recommend 

13 closure. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, and NIOSH 

15 agrees, does it?

16 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine, then 

18 that error has been corrected and the workbook 

19 has been updated so we'll close on that one unless 

20 I hear other concerns from other Subcommittee 

21 Members. 

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's good, that's 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fine.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, alright, 

3 let's go on.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The only other one in 

5 this one [SRS/Hanford file] is 465.1, and that 

6 has to do with SRS coworker dose, which is still 

7 undergoing discussion in the Working Group. 

8 And then there's 479.1 and .2, where 

9 NIOSH is currently awaiting response from the 

10 site. So we can move on to the next matrix if 

11 that's okay. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, let me just, 

13 if I may, 479.1 through .3.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Point two.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, .2, okay. So 

16 it awaits action. Yes, okay, Hanford. Alright, 

17 fine. Now where should we go?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So we'll move on to 

19 the Oak Ridge [cases] and that should be from the 

20 19th and 21st sets. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the first one is 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 458, Observation 2. This had to do with the 

2 column heading. 

3 It was incorrect in the workbook. 

4 NIOSH agreed that it was incorrect, and they've 

5 agreed to correct the issue.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, and that's 

7 in an observation. Fine, there should be no 

8 problem.

9 Again, I think that should be closed 

10 unless I hear otherwise? Alright, and was there 

11 one more [case] in that?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, this is Tab 500, 

13 Observation 1 and this is kind of a funky one. 

14 And this we made as an observation. We were just 

15 questioning why this case wasn't granted under 

16 the SEC.

17 The cancer appeared to be compensible 

18 and -- or both cancers appeared to be compensible 

19 -- and it appeared to meet all the SEC criteria. 

20 So we were kind of curious as to why 

21 dose reconstruction was needed and we understand 

22 that DOL does make these decisions but it's not 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH. But we did make an observation because it 

2 was so funky to us. 

3 I mean, I saw this was a truck driver 

4 right? And I assume the issue was how much time 

5 did that person spend on site exposed? 

6 But I don't see that we have any 

7 purview over that; that was a DOL decision.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a DOL decision 

9 but we brought it up as an observation. 

10 I'm not saying that NIOSH did anything 

11 wrong, I'm simply pointing out that this was 

12 funky and we did dig into it further, and that 

13 was the EE's occupation and so they were unable 

14 to determine how long the EE was on site.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: To me, that isn't 

16 even an observation. 

17 I could easily understand that I or 

18 some of us, if we understood the DOL decision, 

19 might disagree. 

20 Funky is not to my mind a category. In 

21 terms of the DOL they made a decision, we have to 

22 abide by it, like it or not.
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think that it was 

2 more to point it out to the Board and I believe 

3 this was even highlighted in our one-on-one and 

4 we were asked to keep it as an observation. 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I don't 

6 understand why it's an observation even, 

7 honestly. There's nothing we can say about it. 

8 So, I don't know, do others feel that 

9 way? Maybe an observation is a low enough 

10 category and just leave it in and be done with 

11 it.

12 MEMBER MUNN: I think it is indeed an 

13 observation because, as has already been pointed 

14 out, there's really nothing we can do about it 

15 anyway regardless of what the circumstances are. 

16 But I personally would love to have us 

17 have a funky category. That would be the most 

18 fun category that we had in the entire process. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, others?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Are we discussing the 

21 funky category or the observation?

22 (Simultaneous speaking.) 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: If it's funky, it's 

2 an observation.

3 MEMBER MUNN: By definition.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, right. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: One thing that I do 

6 want to bring up, though, is that I do appreciate 

7 them bringing this up and just seeing it and 

8 bringing it to the Board's attention. 

9 Granted we cannot do anything but it 

10 helps us understand what some of the problems and 

11 the process that both sites ended up going 

12 through. 

13 So I just want to tell them I 

14 appreciate them showing us this, and what I'm 

15 trying to say is I don't want them to not do this. 

16 I appreciate knowing that this is 

17 there and that it is funky or whatever, but it 

18 helps us understand the process.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: In my opinion, you 

20 make a good argument for keeping it as an 

21 observation, and also saying why it is of value 

22 that the Board's attention should be called to 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. 

2 So I'm going to switch my vote to vote 

3 with you and Wanda, and we’ll keep this as an 

4 observation and close it, right? 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds good.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Very good, 

7 thank you. Let's go on now.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I believe that 

9 wraps up this matrix. 

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, it does.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one, 

12 the DOE sites also from the 19th and 21st set. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this one is 453.6. 

15 It's an IOP, SNL, PPG and NTS case. And the 

16 finding had to be with an improper method used 

17 for calculating shallow dose to EE at PPG. 

18 And what it came down to initially had 

19 to do with the guidance in TBD 8-6, which is the 

20 PPG external dose [in the] TBD. 

21 NIOSH agreed to make some 

22 modifications but I'm kind of confused here 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because in 2017, I believe, we said that you would 

2 make the modification --

3 MR. CALHOUN: I can go ahead -- that's 

4 why there seems to be an issue on dates.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

6 MR. CALHOUN: I figured this was going 

7 to come up. What actually happened is our initial 

8 response was written prior to the PPG TBD being 

9 updated. 

10 But it wasn't put into the BRS until 

11 after the PPG TBD was updated. 

12 So our initial answer says we're going 

13 to deal with it in the next version of the PPG, 

14 which was true when we first wrote it, however, 

15 the PPG TBD came out before we actually put this 

16 into the BRS. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's why I was so 

18 confused.

19 MR. CALHOUN: So what it comes down to 

20 is our initial response, and it's actually my 

21 fault. 

22 If I had gone back and re-reviewed it 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 before I put it in the BRS, I would have notably 

2 made the change in the TBD and that would have 

3 been the initial answer as well. 

4 So I apologize for that. 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not a problem, I just 

6 wanted to make sure I understood what was 

7 happening.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, well, so we 

9 can close then.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and the next one 

11 and last one in this matrix is 462.2. This is a 

12 Pantex [case], and this has to do with the NP 

13 ratio for unmonitored worker dose for neutron 

14 dose. 

15 And there's been a little bit of back 

16 and forth on this one. We thought a value of 1.7 

17 should have been used. 

18 I believe NIOSH used a value of 0.8 

19 and NIOSH came back and said that the 1.7 was the 

20 95th percentile, which is correct. 

21 And there's been substantial Pantex 

22 TBD modification since this happened. But I 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe the TBD was kind of -- I don't think the 

2 guidance was very clear. 

3 It was somewhat conflicting, there's 

4 at least 8 points in the old TBD that said use 

5 1.7, and one place it says use .8 and I think 

6 that was where the confusion lay. 

7 It definitely got corrected in the new 

8 revision; actually, I think there's been two or 

9 three revisions since we reviewed this case. So 

10 based on that we recommend closure. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: So is this is an 

13 observation? I'm unclear.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It can be reduced to 

15 an observation. It's correct now with the 

16 current TBD guidance. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so 462 will 

18 become an observation. Okay, and we will close 

19 that. Let's see now, we have --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That closes out this 

21 one. Actually, I can move to my other notes here. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Oh, the AWE 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cases?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, it's fine, 

4 yes, many open cases there. 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have not actually 

6 looked at this matrix yet, so everything is 

7 fresh. So we're actually going to start with the 

8 Type 1 findings. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, well, 

10 Type 1 is good. These are always nice to be able 

11 to start with. 

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: These are the ones we 

13 can easily close out first.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the first one is 

16 471, Observation 1, and this had to do with 

17 electron dose being cited in the Appendix and 

18 IREP entries, but it was completely ignored in 

19 the text of the DR Report. 

20 There's no mention of it. NIOSH does 

21 agree that it was left out of the DR Report 

22 inadvertently. There's no mention of electron 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose anywhere in there. 

2 It was defined correctly; it simply 

3 wasn't mentioned in the report. So, based on 

4 that, we recommend closure, obviously, because 

5 the electron dose should be mentioned in the 

6 report.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, as we'll 

8 do these Category 1, we'll just move straight 

9 ahead and then please, Subcommittee Members or 

10 others, if there are problems, please say so. 

11 Otherwise I'll assume if I hear nothing that 

12 we're fine, we agree. Okay?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Alright, the next one 

14 is 477.1, which is a Bethlehem Steel case. This 

15 one was unusual, it was a CLL case. 

16 We said that the finding has to do 

17 with the inconsistent selection of solubility 

18 type for this type of cancer. 

19 NIOSH assigned it as Type S, which is 

20 not an option at Bethlehem Steel, and use full 

21 years rather than prorated years for dose. 

22 This is our finding. NIOSH came back 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and said, essentially, they were doing an 

2 overestimate. While we understood that they were 

3 doing an overestimate, we didn't realize how 

4 overestimated they were going, I guess. 

5 For CLL cancers, claims are 

6 ridiculously complicated, far more so than any of 

7 the other cancers. 

8 So I completely understand why they 

9 took this approach but it wasn't entirely clear 

10 to us if they were doing an overestimating 

11 approach or if they had selected something that 

12 was incorrect. 

13 So there's nothing wrong with it and 

14 we can recommend closure, and actually the same 

15 thing applies to the next one as well. 

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 MR. KATZ: That would be an 

18 observation? 

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They could be reduced 

20 to observations, yes.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And that's for both 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 477.1 and .2.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one 

4 BWXT, 443.1. And here the workbook lists an 

5 incorrect value for the year 1970 for X-ray 

6 doses. NIOSH applied the 1971 to the 1970. It 

7 results in a slightly underestimated dose. 

8 NIOSH agreed that actually since the 

9 time we reviewed this TIB-79 has been revised. 

10 And actually, no X-ray dose is to be 

11 assigned at BWXT since that revision so the 

12 finding essentially becomes a moot point. 

13 So there was an error but it's no 

14 longer applicable. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we'll say 

16 it was resolved. Okay, 443.1 but it still is a 

17 finding. 

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And a similar logic 

19 applies to the next one, it's the same case, 

20 Finding 2. 

21 NIOSH assigned a three-year scan 

22 without justification. I believe there were not 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 records but the EE recalled being monitored every 

2 year but NIOSH assigned a three-year scan. 

3 Again, BWXT X-rays are no longer 

4 applied so it's kind of irrelevant at this point.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay. 

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, another BWXT 

7 case, Tab 444.1, and actually, the next three all 

8 are related. NIOSH applied a clothing 

9 attenuation factor without justification for 

10 electron dose. 

11 The location of this particular cancer 

12 could be covered by clothing, but it's not really 

13 reasonable to assume that it's always covered by 

14 clothing. 

15 So it was kind of a little gray area 

16 here and NIOSH agrees that they should not have 

17 been assigned. They redid the PoC calculation 

18 without the use of attenuations. It didn't 

19 change the PoC. 

20 And we actually went a step further 

21 and investigated cases that have previously been 

22 done by the CR Reviewer on the 25 cases just to 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 make sure that the same error hadn't occurred 

2 again, and it wasn't an issue.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Based on that, we 

5 recommend closing all three of these issues 

6 because they're the same issue just recorded as 

7 residual electron dose.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's 444, 1 

9 through 3?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the next one 444.4 

13 is actually a similar issue to 443.1, which had 

14 to do with the X-ray value for the year. 

15 In 1970, they were actually applying 

16 the '71 values, which resulted in a slight 

17 underestimate in dose. And then the next one is 

18 actually the same as in the previous case also. 

19 They assume the three-year scan as 

20 justification but in both cases, OTIB-79's most 

21 current revision for June 2017, makes it no 

22 longer relevant because you're no longer 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 assigning every dose. 

2 So we recommend closing both of those 

3 issues.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the Carborundum 

6 case, we said that we --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We're going to hold 

8 that until next time.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so the next one 

10 here is 473, Observation 1. 473, Observation 1.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is the GE 

13 Vallecitos case and the finding said that indium 

14 exposure was assigned to this worker during non15 AWE time periods, presumably based on the premise 

16 that ambient exposures were due to the residual 

17 radioactivity associated with AWE activities. 

18 And NIOSH responded that though the 

19 hot cells are typically heavily shielded, the 

20 support structures and systems share resources 

21 from other hot cells. 

22 Under these circumstances, it's not 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 possible for them to distinguish dose from one 

2 hot cell versus another hot cell during 

3 operational and residual periods. 

4 Thus in the circumstance, the site 

5 ambient dose is determined to be the most 

6 appropriate. Based on that, we accept their 

7 response and recommend closure.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one is 

10 Observation 2 from the same case. This is 

11 actually an unusual observation as well. This 

12 came out of the one-on-one discussion. 

13 This was the only case of GE 

14 Vallecitos that was ever reviewed, and there were

15 a limited number of exposure pathways assigned in 

16 this case. 

17 Since there's no Site Profile and the 

18 only DR methodology guidance for this case is 

19 contained in the DR Report in the form of a 

20 template, the two Board Members that took part in 

21 our one-on-one recommended that SC&A be tasked 

22 with the complete audit of the remaining exposure 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pathways that were not considered in this DR. 

2 That would be an observation. 

3 Essentially, there's no response needed by NIOSH. 

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: SC&A is tasked with 

5 this?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have not been 

7 tasked with this. 

8 This is the recommendation of the one9 on-one conference call that we had and it did 

10 carry through, but obviously we haven't discussed 

11 it yet. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: What other pathways are 

13 envisioned?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'd have to look into 

15 the exact case details here but I believe only 

16 certain pathways were available or applicable to 

17 this particular dose reconstruction. 

18 So the other pathways were not looked 

19 at and likely won't be looked at again because 

20 we're not tasked with an additional review. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm a bit puzzled.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I am too. I don't really 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand what we're concerned with in terms of 

2 other pathways. 

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I think it's not 

4 towards this particular case but other GE 

5 Vallecitos cases, there was the concern that --

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

7 One thing that might help is this 

8 claim was over 50 percent, so not everything in 

9 the methodology, was applied because it was not 

10 needed to be applied. 

11 And I think that's where this is 

12 coming from. 

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: But then why would we 

15 want them to go look at others if it's not 

16 applicable to --

17 MR. KATZ: So I think what's being 

18 said here is that, why don't we look at another 

19 case where Edison is involved so that we get a 

20 more complete evaluation of the methods.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That or simply do a 

22 mini-TBD review of just what document --
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So essentially, 

2 this would have merit in a future case?

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. It wouldn't 

4 affect this particular case but it --

5 MR. KATZ: It's not a finding, it's 

6 just the fact of the matter that SC&A didn't have 

7 an opportunity in this case [to go] into the other 

8 pathways because they weren't necessary here. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I'm satisfied 

10 with that. Wanda, and I hope I didn't cut you 

11 off; I fear I did.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, and it wouldn't be 

13 the first time anybody had ever done that anyhow, 

14 Dave. 

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, there are 

16 even gender-related issues, so please [go on].

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, no, I'm just 

18 wondering how many pathways is it possible for us 

19 to be concurrent with? 

20 Is it an appropriate use of time and 

21 effort to try to identify every pathway, like who 

22 else might have walked in with a suitcase full of 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium? 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I guess it will 

3 come up again if there's another case.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I would think so. 

5 I don't see the immediate relevance, I guess, 

6 that's what I'm saying. 

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, well, we'll 

8 leave it as an observation, again, because it's 

9 not relevant here but it may be elsewhere.

10 MEMBER MUNN: At which time, we can 

11 address it specifically.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we'll have to.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: What this came up 

14 from was in this case, like Scott said, they had 

15 several. They had just these pathways, and when 

16 it went over 50 percent, they stopped. 

17 And the thing was, okay, if it 

18 wouldn't have hit 50 percent, is the process set 

19 up to be able to look at the other pathways? Which 

20 Scott has told us, yes, it was, but we wanted to 

21 make sure that they were being looked at. 

22 This is what the relevance [of this] 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 coming up is. It kind of bothers me in the process 

2 that all of a sudden we hit 50 percent and we 

3 just stop; there's no use going on any further. 

4 Well, I want to make sure that when we 

5 don't hit 50 percent, the process continues going 

6 on. 

7 So, this is one of the ones, if you 

8 remember, we got back into this question, and I 

9 was one of them that raised this. 

10 And our thing was I was just want to 

11 make sure that the template and everything else 

12 are set up. 

13 Because if the templates are set up to 

14 be able to stop after 50 percent, what's to say 

15 that -- what's triggering that? 

16 And this is what it comes down to and 

17 we just what make sure that we're looking at what 

18 the tools are doing, what the process is supposed 

19 to be. 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: On the other hand, 

21 Brad, we are looking at a one percent sample of 

22 cases.
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: Correct. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And Grady and 

3 others are working through the other 99 percent. 

4 And so I don't disagree with them stopping when 

5 they hit 50 percent. 

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I understand 

7 that, but couldn't you also tell me that maybe 

8 we're not stopping too early on another one. 

9 So the thing was to check that this 

10 process is working the way that it's supposed to.

11 MR. KATZ: But Brad --

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: But we've seen 

13 problems with tools before. 

14 MR. KATZ: But Brad, if they don't hit 

15 50 percent, they can't stop, they have to do a 

16 complete dose reconstruction. Otherwise they do 

17 an efficiency method, an efficiency case. 

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: But it's not the template. 

20 If they hit 50 percent, there's no reason to do 

21 any more work is the issue with the case.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right, but if you 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 remember right when we got into this whole side 

2 conversation of this was to make sure the process 

3 was working as it was supposed to. 

4 And Dave, you summed it all up, we're 

5 checking one percent of this and we want to make 

6 sure that the other 99 percent are being done 

7 right.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's true.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is what we've 

10 been tasked to do. That's what it came down to. 

11 It's not that it was wrong in any aspect, the 

12 question was are the tools working the way that 

13 they're supposed to. 

14 Because this was the other question 

15 too, and Wanda summed it up, what other pathways 

16 do we have and so forth? 

17 So that's what it came down to. I 

18 guess you can't guess without someone having a 

19 problem with it.

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MR. KATZ: And you can, in a future 

22 set of dose reconstruction cases, you can just 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ask for us to say include a case from this guide 

2 which didn't make it above 50 percent. 

3 And include that in the set and then 

4 you get to review the full methodologies.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's true, that's 

6 true.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good suggestion. 

8 Are we at the end of this? M&C, Metals and 

9 Controls, we would like to do next time.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, so we just have 

11 a single one here of Texas City Chemicals.

12 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry, this is 

13 Scott. Does that mean we actually closed that 

14 observation?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

16 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I just wanted to 

17 verify that, thank you. 

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. Okay, 

19 we have Texas City?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Texas City 

21 Chemicals, 442 Observation 1.

22 Here, it was not apparent to us why a 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distinction was made between external exposures 

2 associated with phosphate plant operations from 

3 March 31, 1955 through April 1, 1955 and then 

4 again through September of 1955. 

5 There were different doses prepared 

6 and it wasn't clear to us why. NIOSH responded 

7 saying that that distinction was actually an 

8 error. The table didn't mean to have that and 

9 it's since been corrected. 

10 And DCAS has actually created a TBD 

11 for Texas City Chemicals that corrects this 

12 issue, and that was just issued and we're 

13 actually in the process of reviewing that 

14 document now. 

15 And I did confirm that change was 

16 made. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good, so we 

18 close it.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm not sure if that 

20 would be a finding now if they were assigning the 

21 incorrect dose based on something that was 

22 correct in the template. 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, if it's incorrect 

2 dose, it's a finding. 

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The table is in 

4 error?

5 MR. KATZ: It's an error. If it's 

6 being used by NIOSH, then it's an error in the 

7 dose reconstruction. 

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, not the 

9 labeling of the table, the table itself, the 

10 numbers in the table?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think that's true 

13 so that we'll have to close it. But 442 or 

14 whatever, there may be others. 

15 I don't know if there are other items 

16 in 442. And where are we at this point?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We would get to the 

18 Type 2 findings but there's only a few.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, are we 

20 prepared for them?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We could certainly go 

22 over them. I'll have to switch to the matrix 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 again. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, well, if 

3 we're moving to the last few, unless --

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can certainly hold 

5 them off until the next meeting. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, it's nearly 

7 break time. Maybe we can just go through these, 

8 not take a break but go through these and finish 

9 up? 

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, folks?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, fine, let's do 

13 it.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's go.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Let me just get this 

16 pulled up here.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Type 2. It seems 

18 like you've gone through this process before. 

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Just give me one 

20 second here, I've got to get my notes pulled up 

21 on my other screen.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, if you can't 

2 tell, I spend a lot of time in the BRS. Alright, 

3 and the next one here is an ALCOA case and this 

4 is 471, Observation 2. 

5 Okay, and this one has to do with the 

6 text in the DR Report in the case of the pre7 employment X-ray. 

8 And I believe an annual X-ray was 

9 assigned in each year, but there was no 

10 corresponding annual dose. 

11 And here the disagreement comes down 

12 to the interpretation of TIB-6. NIOSH 

13 interpreted it to mean that only a pre-employment 

14 X-ray should be assigned to the first year of 

15 employment.

16 But SC&A interpreted it to mean that 

17 a pre-employment and an annual X-ray should be 

18 assigned in the first year of employment. 

19 It would not have a significant impact 

20 on the case obviously, but we should get it 

21 established: which is the appropriate 

22 interpretation?
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott, I can 

2 tell you we're right at the moment in the midst 

3 of updating Procedure 6 and we have added 

4 verbiage to clarify that specific assignment. 

5 So that's coming. 

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, and 

8 what is the clarification?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If a pre-employment 

10 examination should be included with an annual

11 scan during the first year of employment or if 

12 just a pre-employment scan is sufficient without 

13 any additional annual scan during that year.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Aha, that is to say 

15 whether it is actually, the question is, is there 

16 a first-year X-ray?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, okay.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So based on that, do 

20 you want to keep it open so we can verify this, 

21 which would be putting it in abeyance until OTIB22 6 is issued? Or do you want to close it based on 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that?

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: OTIB-6 is not 

3 completed yet, although it's in process, right? 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's undergoing 

5 revision according to them.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would say let's 

7 keep it open until it's done and confirmed. I'm 

8 sure it will be done.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So in abeyance then?

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: What do you think?

11 MR. KATZ: Well, we don't normally do 

12 that with observations, particularly if the 

13 answers -- I didn't hear from Scott, well, what 

14 is the correct answer to this? 

15 What is the procedure? Is it to 

16 assign both or just to assign the pre17 employment?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Sorry, I'm digging 

19 through the update. I reviewed it like a month 

20 ago and so it's not off the top of my head. 

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: So I'm looking through 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the one we're working on right now. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: I had forgotten there 

3 was an observation.

4 MR. SIEBERT: I did too.

5 MR. KATZ: If you don't have the 

6 answer ready, there's no problem with keeping 

7 this over. But I thought this was already 

8 understood. 

9 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

10 MEMBER MUNN: -- No problem in closing 

11 it either.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I found it, the 

13 update is it's assumed that the annual is taken 

14 a year after the pre-employment. So the first 

15 year of employment would only have one.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, that 

17 makes sense.

18 MR. KATZ: I think we can close this.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think we can 

20 close it.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, we closed all the 

22 other ones.
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, good.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one goes back 

3 to the GE Vallecitos case, 473.2. 

4 And here, the finding had to do with 

5 we questioned the on-site ambient dose, whether 

6 or not it was calculated appropriately.

7 John Mauro, are you still on the line? 

8 We might have lost him.

9 When we did this calculation, or when 

10 we did this review, John went through and 

11 calculated background exposures and ambient dose. 

12 And I compared them and it appeared 

13 that background exposure was being included in 

14 that. 

15 NIOSH took a quote from my report and 

16 interpreted it one way. John disagreed with the 

17 way they interpreted it and so we performed our 

18 own analysis that is documented in our report. 

19 And we request NIOSH to provide additional 

20 documentation to support their position. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. We're 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 working on that right now. 

2 I just want one piece of 

3 clarification, so what SC&A is saying in their 

4 finding is the fact that background was included 

5 but should not have been. 

6 Am I interpreting that correctly?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe so but can 

8 I get back to you with John's input on this? 

9 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it would really be 

10 helpful to us if John wrote an additional 

11 response clarifying exactly what he's asking so 

12 we could respond to it in a timely manner. That 

13 would be helpful. 

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: He can absolutely do 

15 that.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Awesome, thank you. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good, so 

18 that's in progress.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and just one 

20 more, it's not the Metals and Controls or 

21 Carborundum, it's actually the Texas City 

22 Chemicals, which is Tab 442 and it's Observation 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 2. 

2 And this states that SC&A is 

3 requesting that NIOSH explain how their 

4 inhalation rate for uranium-238 was derived and 

5 why it differs from SC&A's value. 

6 We got 46 and they got 39 or vice 

7 versa. And NIOSH came back and said that our 

8 dose had been calculated per work day and theirs 

9 was calculated per calendar day, which got us to 

10 talking internally because I focus mainly on dose 

11 reconstruction and I don't really see all the 

12 procedures-review aspects. And we're concerned 

13 that perhaps [that] might dilute dose. 

14 So if you were assuming for a day and 

15 you're dividing by 7 instead of by 5 in that week, 

16 then we would ask some additional questions about 

17 that. 

18 According to NIOSH, IMBA and the CADW 

19 -- this is all new as of last week so that's why 

20 I'm a little off my guard here -- require chronic 

21 intake to be specified on a cumulative basis 

22 rather than an annual basis, rather than the 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calendar-day basis. 

2 So, they don't think inhalation dose 

3 is necessary. I think we'd like a little bit 

4 more time to look into this one now. 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's just 

6 keep this in progress.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and that wraps 

8 up everything. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, for the next 

11 meeting we'll have just a handful and then the 

12 Carborundum and the Metals and Controls. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. So now 

14 I think we just think about time for the next 

15 meeting. 

16 We missed a meeting. On the other 

17 hand, we're pretty well up to date. You folks at 

18 SC&A have Set 25, right, that you're working on 

19 now?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, we're in the 

21 process of doing that. We have about three and 

22 a half, four months to deliver that and we're on 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 track. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's good. So 

3 our next Board Meeting is in April and we need at 

4 least two months, right, to get notice in the 

5 Federal Register? 

6 So, if this is March, we're going to 

7 have to go through into May, late May or early 

8 June. Right, Ted?

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

10 I think the question is when Rose and 

11 Grady think they'll be ready to button up the 

12 issues on the table, which is the lines in these 

13 other cases?

14 Not counting the ones, of course, that 

15 have been parceled out. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and I'm 

17 not terribly worried about us getting done but my 

18 schedule is a bear beginning May 19. 

19 So I'm off the whole week from the 

20 19th to the 26th, then it's Memorial Day weekend 

21 on the 28th. I'm back for three days, 29th, 30th, 

22 31st, then I'm gone again from the 1st to the 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 9th. 

2 Then I'm back for four days, and then 

3 tentatively, we have a workshop in Albuquerque 

4 the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st of June. 

5 So, the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th of June 

6 works for me, the 14th, 15th, 16th of May works 

7 for me, 29th and 30th of May works. 

8 And, yes, we're going to have to get 

9 later into May just to get the notification out, 

10 right? 

11 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

12 Twenty-ninth, 30th of May, the week of 

13 the 11th of June, and then after the 25th of June. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: How about that week 

15 in June, the week of June 11th?

16 MR. CALHOUN: That one works for me. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I mean something 

18 like the 12th, 13th, 14th? Ted, how does that 

19 sound? 

20 MR. KATZ: Let me just check my 

21 calendar quickly, but otherwise, while I'm doing 

22 that, why don't Board Members also check that? 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so we'll do 

2 it that time of year on Tuesday or Wednesday or 

3 Thursday.

4 MR. KATZ: So, Wanda, Josie, and Brad, 

5 the 11th to the 14th, that week, how does that 

6 look?

7 MEMBER BEACH: That's not great for 

8 me.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is not?

10 MEMBER BEACH: No.

11 MEMBER MUNN: We're getting around 

12 graduation time. 

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, sure. 

14 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

15 MEMBER BEACH: What's that?

16 MR. KATZ: Okay, so the 11th to 14th 

17 of June does not work I just heard?

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay so when in July?

20 MR. CALHOUN: I was going to say the 

21 25th of June, that week works. 

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, how about that?
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: That works for me.

2 MR. KATZ: That would be on the 26th, 

3 we have a telecon for the Board, but otherwise, 

4 the rest of that week is wide open. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Which week are we 

6 talking about?

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The week of the 

8 25th of June.

9 MEMBER MUNN: The 25th of June I 

10 expect to be in Scotland for a medical school 

11 graduation. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And you'll be away 

13 that week?

14 MEMBER MUNN: I expect to be away for 

15 two weeks. I'm not going to Scotland and coming 

16 back in less than a week. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we're into 

18 July. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: The May dates are okay 

20 for me.

21 MR. KATZ: The May dates don't work so 

22 we're into July. 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: July, luckily, is the 

2 health physics meeting, but that first week is 

3 July 4th so I don't think we're going to do 

4 anything there. 

5 I'm only going to take off a day. 

6 MR. KATZ: That probably won't work.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And next week, 9th, 

8 10th, 11th and 12th, but a lot of us leave for 

9 the health physics meeting on the 13th. 

10 How about early in the week, like 

11 Tuesday the 10th or Wednesday the 11th?

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's okay for me.

13 MR. KATZ: Tuesday is July 10th?

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

15 MR. KATZ: Is that good for everyone 

16 on the call?

17 MR. KATZ: Can I ask, I am leaving 

18 town on July 11th. 

19 MR. KATZ: But this is July 10th we're 

20 talking about. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I thought you 

22 were leaving on July 13th.
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: I apologize, I had both 

2 dates, I just wanted to point that out. 

3 MR. KATZ: July 10th, is that a 

4 problem?

5 MR. CALHOUN: That's workable for me, 

6 sure.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, and do I have Brad 

8 and Josie there?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Sure, I can change some 

10 things around for that one. 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've just got some 

12 stuff I've got to change around but I'll work on 

13 that. 

14 MR. KATZ: How about David Richardson, 

15 are you on the line? Okay, well, I'll check with 

16 David. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: What about John 

18 Poston?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, and if not July 10th, 

20 what about the following week? The week of July 

21 16th is health physics, you're saying? 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

2 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 MR. CALHOUN: We have to go to the 

4 23rd. 

5 MR. KATZ: So, not the 10th but it's 

6 the 23rd, the week of the 23rd? 

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, let me ask 

8 you, what about July 9th, Monday July 9th? 

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We don't normally 

11 meet Monday or Friday in the summer, but if we 

12 need a fallback.

13 MR. CALHOUN: That's okay with me. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: July 9th won't work 

15 for me. 

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, then we'll 

17 go to the 23rd, week of the 23rd?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, how about the 24th, 

19 how's that?

20 MEMBER BEACH: That's good.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Again a Tuesday. 

22 Okay, 7/10 with 7/24 backup. 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, the 10th or the 24th. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good.

3 MR. KATZ: And then the other thing, 

4 Dave, to keep in mind as we get down towards the 

5 end of these sets or case reviews, and at the 

6 next meeting we'll have put to bed the blinds as 

7 well. 

8 We should probably start thinking, and 

9 you might want to talk to the Board about this, 

10 about another report to HHS. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Another HHS report?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

13 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: What do you think 

15 the occasion is?

16 MR. KATZ: Well, the occasion is that 

17 you've done a whole bunch of sets since then, and 

18 if you recall the discussion at the Board 

19 Meeting, led particularly by Paul Ziemer, is that 

20 really we could do reporting a little more 

21 frequently than we are, which is once every ten 

22 years or something like that, or eight years, or 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whatever it is. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, how about 

3 once every four years?

4 (Laughter.) 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's a lot of work, 

6 plus, right now, as far as I know, we don't have 

7 a chair. 

8 MR. KATZ: Well, I know, but that'll 

9 get resolved. But anyway --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I was just saying 

11 Jim was very helpful. I couldn't have done the 

12 report without referring back to Jim a whole lot. 

13 MR. KATZ: Right, but we also learned 

14 a lot from doing that report.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We did.

16 MR. KATZ: And it'll make the next 

17 one, I think, easier because it's a pretty good 

18 template we have now. 

19 So I don't think the next report will 

20 be nearly as difficult as the last report was to 

21 do. But anyway, that's up to you, I'm just 

22 raising the issue. 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and let's 

2 see, now we actually turned in the report last 

3 year, that is to say we turned in our last report 

4 on January 16th, did we not?

5 MR. KATZ: That sounds right. I don't 

6 know what the date was but that sounds right.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we will raise 

8 this, I mean this is a Board issue and we'll talk 

9 about it. 

10 MR. KATZ: I just don't recall if Paul 

11 said -- Paul was thinking more like a yearly 

12 report would be good. 

13 I don't think it really needs to be 

14 yearly per se when we've done significantly more 

15 work and you guys have done that. 

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay, well, 

17 we will do that. You will help remind us as we 

18 develop agendas. If we could do it during the 

19 conference call?

20 MR. KATZ: In the face to face meeting 

21 we can talk about this.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright, 
197 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ladies and gentlemen, it's a quarter after three. 

2 We have our dates set and we have good things 

3 ahead. We will all see each other in April. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: We will.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good.

6 Adjourn

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Thank 

8 you all for today's good work. Bye-bye, 

9 everybody.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 went off the record at 3:14 p.m.)

12 

13 

14