NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

APRIL 14, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened telephonically at 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, David 

Kotelchuck, Chairperson, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairperson

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON

JAMES M. MELIUS

WANDA I. MUNN

JOHN W. POSTON, SR.

DAVID B. RICHARDSON
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

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

MARK FISHBURN, ORAU Team

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ROB WINSLOW, ORAU Team
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Welcome and Roll Call

 Ted Katz .................................... 4

Preliminary Matter

SC&A's strategy for clearing the backlog of 

outstanding findings

 Kathy Behling ............................... 8

Case Reviews Issue Resolution

 DuPont Deepwater Works

 John Mauro ................................ 27

 Pacific Proving Grounds

 Hans Behling ............................. 37

 Discussion of remaining cases (Sets 10-13).79

Continuation of Blind Case Reviews

 Kathy Behling ............................. 95

 Allied Chemical blind case (Set 17)

 Kathy Behling ...........................115

 Rocky Flats blind case (Set 17)

 Ron Buchanan.............................177

 Fernald blind case (Set 17)

 Doug Farver..............................228

Adjourn
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 10:30 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Welcome. This is the 

4 Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health, the 

5 Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review. 

6 For everyone on the line, who might be 

7 on the line, the agenda for this meeting is posted 

8 on the NIOSH website under the Board section, under 

9 meeting, today's date. So you can follow along 

10 with the agenda there. Basically all of the 

11 materials that you have here, most are privacy 

12 protected. There are some that have been cleared, 

13 but they're not that helpful without all the 

14 privacy information, so I don't believe there are 

15 any documents that are posted for the public to 

16 follow along in that respect, but you can follow 

17 along with the conversation.

18 So let me also as a prerequisite run 

19 through -- I don't need to do roll call, but I'm 

20 going to address conflict of interest myself 

21 because it's easier to do it that way. For the 

22 Board Members who are on the line, we have the 
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 Chair, Dr. Kotelchuck, Brad Clawson, Wanda Munn and 

2 Dr. Poston, John Poston. 

3 Do we have any other Board Members on 

4 the line?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it's Jim 

6 Melius.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, welcome. And Dr. 

8 Melius, Chair of the main committee. 

9 Any others? Do we have David 

10 Richardson on the line?

11 (No response.)

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. So let me just cover 

13 then conflicts of interest for the Board Members 

14 we have on here, because I know at least one case 

15 we're discussing, or may be discussing, a case 

16 where a conflict comes into play, and that's Wanda 

17 is conflicted at Hanford. And we have a blind Dose 

18 Reconstruction case for Hanford. 

19 So for other conflicts that may arise, 

20 I don't believe they will, but they may because they 

21 may be in the set, Brad Clawson has a conflict with 

22 INL. Dr. Melius has a conflict with NUMEC sites. 
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 I'm not sure if we're going to discuss any 

2 specifically today. And Dr. Poston has conflicts 

3 for ANL, BWXT, ORNL, which is X-10, Sandia, LANL, 

4 Y-12, Lawrence Livermore and West Valley. So 

5 that's on the record and those Members will recuse 

6 themselves if we discuss sites for which they have 

7 conflicts.

8 And with that, that covers my issues. 

9 Please, everybody who's not speaking, when you're 

10 not speaking, mute your phone for audio quality. 

11 If you don't have a mute button, press *6 to mute 

12 your phone and then press *6 again to take your 

13 phone off of mute. And, please, no one put the 

14 phone on hold at any point, but hang up and dial 

15 back in if you need to leave the meeting at any point 

16 for quality of phone.

17 And, Dr. Kotelchuck, it's your meeting.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

19 folks, first, are there any additions to the agenda 

20 or issues that people want to raise later?

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just for the 

22 record, this is David Richardson.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David, welcome.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Welcome, David. 

3 And David has no conflicts whatsoever.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good.

5 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. I 

6 just got on, too, a couple minutes ago.

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I ran 

8 through the Board Members and I left everybody else 

9 out. Let's get the attendance for NIOSH/ORAU. 

10 Sorry.

11 (Roll call.)

12 MR. KATZ: Okay. And sorry for doing 

13 that in two parts, but it's back to you, Dave.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

15 good. So let's go ahead with the agenda, unless 

16 I hear anything.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Dr. Kotelchuck?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

19 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling 

20 and I was just wondering if I can briefly just touch 

21 on one relevant topic before we begin the agenda.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you. I 

2 just want to mention that I'm a little bit concerned 

3 that we may not have clearly presented our strategy 

4 for clearing the backlog of outstanding findings. 

5 And I wanted to explain that nothing that we were 

6 recommending is really much different than what 

7 we're doing, with one exception, and that is we 

8 would really like to work with NIOSH to expedite 

9 generating a completed matrix well before these 

10 meetings. 

11 We realize that often, for various 

12 reasons, the matrix was only available maybe a day 

13 or two prior to the meetings. And we also realized 

14 that this has handicapped the Subcommittee Members 

15 by putting them in a position that they have to make 

16 decisions, shall I say real-time. You haven't had 

17 a chance to look over that matrix prior to the 

18 meetings. 

19 And therefore, if we could get a 

20 completed matrix into your hands to provide you 

21 with sufficient time to review the findings, 

22 NIOSH's responses and our recommendations, then 
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 during the meeting perhaps the findings closeout 

2 process could be done in -- could proceed much 

3 quicker than it has in the past. 

4 In fact, I would actually like to see --

5 I think it would benefit the Subcommittee if we were 

6 to highlight or even group those findings in the 

7 matrix in a fashion that would draw to your 

8 attention those that appear that they could be 

9 resolved with maybe little or no discussion such 

10 as QA-type findings and observations.

11 And it also appears to me that this is 

12 pretty much or similar to the approach that is 

13 consistent with the manner in which Wanda handles 

14 the Procedure Subcommittee meetings with regard to 

15 issues such as PERs. Prior to the meeting, SC&A 

16 reviews and summarizes the salient elements of a 

17 PER and provides a memo with our recommendations 

18 as to whether we believe it's necessary to conduct 

19 a review. And then during the meeting all the 

20 Members are aware of the recommendations. Wanda 

21 queries the Subcommittee Members and determines if 

22 they agree, and the appropriate tasking decisions 
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 can be made quickly. 

2 And I believe that's what we were trying 

3 to suggest for the Dose Reconstruction 

4 Subcommittee. And I'm not sure if we clearly made 

5 our point.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, we have the 

7 findings matrix, for example, for Sets 14 to 18. 

8 And what you're saying is that you would like to 

9 fill in the column NIOSH agrees or disagrees in 

10 advance? Is that it? We have the finding matrix, 

11 which always has a last blank column until we talk 

12 about it. Is that what you're suggesting?

13 MS. K. BEHLING: What I'm trying to 

14 suggest is that I would like for us to have the NIOSH 

15 responses, SC&A's recommendations and as complete 

16 a matrix as possible with sufficient time for the 

17 Subcommittee Members to be able to look that over 

18 and be familiar with the findings and our 

19 recommendations so that during the meeting you're 

20 not just -- because sometimes I realize that in the 

21 past we haven't gotten the matrices into your hands 

22 with sufficient time for you to maybe look over 
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 everything that we're --

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right. 

4 First, NIOSH folks, I mean, what's your response 

5 first?

6 MR. CALHOUN: Well, we can certainly --

7 we'll respond. As we get the matrices in our 

8 hands, we'll respond. As far as getting more, a 

9 greater number done, then we got to think of what 

10 we're not going to do over here. But as far as 

11 getting the same number done in a -- more timely 

12 between meetings, that seems like something we 

13 could look at, and we'll certainly try. The sooner 

14 we get them, the sooner you can get them.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. How 

16 about other Board Members? Other Subcommittee 

17 Members, I should say.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, Dave, this is 

19 Brad. I'm looking at this as -- basically this is 

20 just getting the information to all of us, because 

21 no matter if it's SC&A or if it's NIOSH, when we 

22 leave the last meeting, each side has certain 
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 responses that they're supposed to get back with.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: The sooner they get 

4 them to us, the more time we have to be able to 

5 better understand them, the better off we're going 

6 to be.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, the further down 

9 the road that we've gotten in terms of numbers of 

10 cases we're looking at, the more complex the 

11 business of the matrix has become. We're in a 

12 position now where we have so many sets and so much 

13 of a backlog that I certainly appreciate what Kathy 

14 is saying in terms of trying to group our action 

15 items a little bit more effectively. We do spend 

16 a lot of airtime during our meetings just getting 

17 to the next item on our action agenda.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: And it would really be 

20 extremely helpful, I think, if we could pull those 

21 action items that we know we're going to address 

22 forward in some way so that it was a little easier 
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 for everybody concerned to get to them quickly. 

2 And it's enormously frustrating to know the week 

3 before we're going to have a meeting that we can't 

4 tell whether anything has transpired in terms of 

5 updating the matrix or not.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MEMBER MUNN: So, yes, I certainly 

8 think there are some mechanical things that we 

9 could do to make the material that we're going to 

10 deal with in each meeting more easily identifiable 

11 to us. Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

13 certainly having a deadline of a week in advance 

14 gives all of us on the Subcommittee a chance to 

15 digest and consider what's happening and what 

16 should be happening and what the agreement or 

17 disagreement is. 

18 MR. CALHOUN: Something that might be 

19 helpful, and she touched on this, is that, really 

20 define what we want to do in regards to 

21 observations. When we started out observations 

22 were observations, but now we treat observations 
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 no differently than we treat findings and whether 

2 we want to say that we've got truly a procedural 

3 non-compliance or not. That's just something to 

4 think about. 

5 And the other thing that seems to take 

6 a lot of time is when we get into basically TBD 

7 reviews for a DR. I don't know if we could become 

8 more focused on actually reviewing just the DRs and 

9 if need be push the TBD-type reviews into the 

10 Procedures Subcommittee. Sorry about that, 

11 Wanda. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, thanks a whole bunch, 

13 yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. CALHOUN: -- get more focus.

17 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I mean, I 

18 think this is just a scheduling matter. I mean, 

19 so long as we know and are clear about what's to 

20 come for the agenda for the next meeting and we 

21 schedule ourselves appropriately, I don't -- it's 

22 just a scheduling -- in terms of setting that 
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 meeting out far enough that people can get their 

2 work done according to the resources they have. I 

3 just think it's -- it would probably be helpful to 

4 have clear deadlines. When are we going to have 

5 the NIOSH response and then when are we going to 

6 have the SC&A response to the NIOSH response ready, 

7 which is usually how we button up the matrix for 

8 the next meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. KATZ: So if we have clear 

11 deadlines that are agreed upon, and everybody gets 

12 their work done in time and we'll have these in 

13 advance.

14 I mean, Grady, your suggestion about 

15 the sort of mini-TBD reviews that occur for some 

16 of these, I mean, those are related to sites for 

17 which there isn't already a Work Group that's 

18 relevant, the site is very small, the circumstances 

19 are special. And I think they are really actually 

20 appropriate here in this Subcommittee. But I 

21 mean, obviously they could go to the Procedures 

22 review, but adding another sort of body, 
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 organization into the mix, if anything, is just 

2 going to slow things down, I think.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Typically what happens 

4 though is that you get this stuff earlier, but it's 

5 been a long time since we've quit a meeting because 

6 we haven't had enough responses from either side. 

7 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, I don't think we 

8 have done that any time in recent memory for that 

9 matter.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not while I've 

11 been Chair.

12 MR. KATZ: So it's not that we don't 

13 have enough work to do during the meeting. I am 

14 sympathetic to Kathy's comment basically, and I 

15 imagine the Board Members are, that really the 

16 matrices are coming in a just-in-time mode, and 

17 really they should be coming in at least a week in 

18 advance so that people can digest --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right.

20 MR. KATZ: -- and think about it. I 

21 think that's a good point.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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. KATZ: I think we should schedule 

2 to accommodate that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MEMBER MUNN: There are two additional 

5 points that have been made, though, that do need 

6 to -- they really need our consideration, I think, 

7 one being the possibility of clustering the data 

8 that we're going to address in a more quickly 

9 accessible manner so that we can see at a glance 

10 exactly what we're going to be addressing.

11 And the second item has to do with our 

12 consideration of observations. I'm certainly 

13 sympathetic to the fact that we've changed our 

14 horse in the middle of the stream with respect to 

15 how we look at observations. And if we decide that 

16 we are going to give them the same consideration 

17 that we do a finding, then that's I suppose 

18 acceptable, although in point of fact there was a 

19 reason why we made that decision early on, and those 

20 reasons, more than one reason actually -- and those 

21 reasons are as sound today as they were at the time 

22 we made them.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I feel that I was 

2 looking forward to having a discussion about 

3 observations in the special Work Group that was set 

4 up at our last Board meeting, which I volunteered 

5 to be on, among others, and among other folks here. 

6 So I think I would recommend that we hold the 

7 discussion of observations and how we handle them 

8 to that group. And that group was supposed to 

9 report at the Idaho Falls Board meeting.

10 However, having the week in advance 

11 seems very useful. And perhaps the clustering --

12 I'm not as clear how much that will help, but I'm 

13 open to the NIOSH and SC&A people trying to do that, 

14 say, for our next meeting, for example.

15 But I would say that getting the 

16 materials one week in advance is definitely a plus. 

17 And apparently it's used elsewhere and works well. 

18 So would folks be agreeable to just saying that we 

19 have decided this? 

20 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. We've always 

21 wanted that. The sooner we get that information, 

22 the more time we have to be able to digest what's 
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 actually there.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Any 

3 objections, maybe I should ask, from Subcommittee 

4 Members?

5 (No response.)

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then why 

7 don't we consider that done? That is to say that 

8 whenever we set the next meeting, a week in advance, 

9 we will expect to have the materials available to 

10 us.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, this seems like a 

12 good time to segue that we do have the BRS up and 

13 running now for the DR Subcommittee. And that 

14 should greatly expedite the way we are able to 

15 interact with NIOSH, because they can instantly see 

16 our finding responses once we upload them.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have it uploaded here 

19 on the screen and you can see --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- it's ordered in a 

22 fairly easy-to-follow manner.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER GOGLIOTTI: So I do have the 

3 first matrix set up already in the system and this 

4 is how it works. We can go forward using this from 

5 now on.

6 MR. KATZ: Rose, and another thing that 

7 I think would expedite and make it easier for NIOSH 

8 to respond is if you upload as you go and not really 

9 in big batches. But I don't see any reason why you 

10 couldn't upload sort of as you make progress and 

11 then they would have those cases in hand to respond 

12 to as soon as possible. That would expedite their 

13 work and the ease of their managing their resources 

14 to get their responses done.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Absolutely. I think 

16 that's going to be a source of --

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Another aspect 

19 of getting things done in advance is, I would like 

20 the group to consider the possibility that we have 

21 scheduled meetings for the next year, scheduled 

22 meetings at a regular time. We basically have them 
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 quarterly, but we've had problems. We've set up 

2 dates when we had people not able to make it. And 

3 I know things come up, as they have for me, but 

4 that's something that if we had scheduled long in 

5 advance, often it will help us in setting up our 

6 schedules. 

7 And I want to consider that because 

8 we're always backlogged. I mean, at least as far 

9 as the time I've been on the Subcommittee, there's 

10 never been a time when we're not the problem that's 

11 causing the delay in -- that is, we have a backlog, 

12 I should say. We always have a backlog and 

13 hopefully we always will. I mean, we are the last 

14 step before final decisions are made.

15 So I would like to think about that. I 

16 don't think we need to decide this now, but I want 

17 to throw this out so that maybe people will consider 

18 this for the next meeting. 

19 Are there any thoughts on that? I know 

20 that we do not have an annual schedule for our Board 

21 meetings, but --

22 MR. KATZ: Well, we do actually, Dave. 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We do have an annual schedule for the Board 

2 meetings, and so that's how far we've scheduled out 

3 for the Board meetings. And I think it's perfectly 

4 fine if the Board Members feel like they can do that 

5 and commit to dates further out to not just the next 

6 meeting. I'm happy to do that kind of scheduling. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What do our 

8 Subcommittee Members think? You think we could do 

9 that?

10 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. Yes, I do 

11 believe so. And I have two comments to make --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

13 MEMBER MUNN: -- with respect to having 

14 the BRS up and running for the Dose Reconstruction 

15 Subcommittee. The first comment is hallelujah. 

16 And the second comment is thank you so much to Rose 

17 and anyone else who had an active part in getting 

18 us there. It will make a big difference in how we 

19 approach our work.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Agreed.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Other thoughts 
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 about future scheduling? Go ahead.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think that's great. 

3 I think that's good. Move them far enough in 

4 advance. Some of us may not have that big of a load 

5 that -- so, it's nice to be able to have those dates 

6 picked out and know that we've got something out 

7 there.

8 MR. KATZ: David Richardson, is that 

9 workable for you, or does it get very unpredictable 

10 for you further out?

11 (No response.)

12 MR. KATZ: Maybe we lost David. Or 

13 you're on mute.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We'll wait a 

15 second.

16 MR. KATZ: I'm just thinking I know his 

17 academic -- is that him?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. KATZ: I know his academic, anyway, 

20 sort of, duties are hard to manage at times, so I 

21 don't know whether he's in a pinch compared to 

22 others on this one.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, let's 

2 just -- I don't want to spend too long on the 

3 discussion because we have cases to review. 

4 So can I suggest to Board Members -- and 

5 there seems to be general approval.

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi. Can you hear 

7 me?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, David?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I'm sorry. 

10 I --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David, we 

12 couldn't hear you, no.

13 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I said, yes, 

14 in general it helps for me to try and block it off. 

15 I mean, things certainly come up, but it's better 

16 to have it on the calendar than not. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Excellent. So we're in agreement on that. I will 

19 ask people to look over their calendars for the next 

20 Subcommittee meeting and be ready to give us some 

21 thoughts about what would be good dates, or 

22 probably first months and day of the week, 
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 something like that. 

2 And, Ted, maybe you and I can talk and 

3 we'll see about sending out some emails in advance 

4 of that meeting to try to get a sense from the 

5 various Subcommittee Members.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, let me just do this the 

7 way I normally do it. And I will send out sort of 

8 date ranges for folks for quarterly, a year out, 

9 and then they can respond to me. We don't need 

10 to --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 MR. KATZ: -- for me to do.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. I 

15 guess I was thinking more of the second Monday of 

16 the third month, or something like that. But 

17 that's right. We can just do on specific dates as 

18 we do for the Board meetings. So, Ted, you'll do 

19 that?

20 MR. KATZ: I'll handle that after the 

21 meeting.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fine.

2 MR. KATZ: Sure.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I'd have 

5 one request with respect to your doing that.

6 MR. KATZ: Sure.

7 MEMBER MUNN: If at all possible and 

8 it's agreeable with the other Members of the 

9 Subcommittee, I would appreciate your looking at 

10 the dates toward the end of the month rather than 

11 toward the beginning of the month. I don't know 

12 about other people's calendars, but it seems to me 

13 that so many of the meetings that I have routinely 

14 are scheduled the first or second week of each month 

15 and that clutters up the calendar very badly. The 

16 tail end of the month and especially on Tuesdays 

17 for some reason seem to be more open for me --

18 (Simultaneous speaking)

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

20 good. Yes, that's agreeable. And let's see what 

21 we can do then, Ted.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

2 move ahead, folks, on the case reviews issue 

3 resolution. And we have in front of us the DuPont 

4 Deepwater Works. Who would like to speak to this? 

5 There was a meeting of the AWE Work Group. 

6 Actually there was one in --

7 MR. KATZ: January.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- January.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we resolved 

11 this. 

12 MEMBER STIVER: Dave, John Mauro is 

13 probably the closest to this in SC&A. Maybe he 

14 might want to say a few words. But, yes, it was 

15 the January 22nd meeting that all these issues were 

16 closed out. 

17 But, John, if you have anything else you 

18 want to add?

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John. Real 

20 quick. Yes, during that meeting -- I went through 

21 the transcript and everything was resolved. But 

22 even more importantly during the Richland meeting 
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 on March 25th, Dr. Anderson gave a summary of the 

2 issues and they in fact all have been resolved. 

3 They have all been closed. In the slide 

4 presentation itself each issue was identified and 

5 how it was -- the finding and also how it was 

6 resolved. 

7 And I went back and looked at the 

8 matrix. I have it in front of me, and I went 

9 through each one of the items that we have in 

10 yellow, which are open, and every one of those have 

11 been closed because the Site Profile issues have 

12 all been closed. 

13 So I'd like to say that we're in very 

14 good shape here and I know SC&A could recommend that 

15 all of these items are closed as a result of the 

16 January meeting, and more explicitly as a result 

17 of the March 25th meeting in Richland where that 

18 was formally presented to the Board.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So this is 

20 closed, right, folks? Well, it is up to our group 

21 to say it is closed. All the outstanding issues 

22 are closed. Is there any comment from a 
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 Subcommittee Member who wants to say anything 

2 further about that? Otherwise, it is closed.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, can I just --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Let me just --

6 a process matter. I mean, what you're trying to 

7 do here is close your Dose Reconstruction cases now 

8 that that's done. And I think you just have to 

9 address for the Site Profile resolution, which of 

10 those applied to findings on the cases. Right, 

11 John?

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'd be glad to do that.

13 MR. KATZ: I mean, I think that's the 

14 critical issue because you're going to have to 

15 characterize, right, for the Secretary's report, 

16 the findings, how they came out, right? And so 

17 you're going to have to characterize the findings 

18 for these cases and those should relate where they 

19 do or where they might to those Site Profile 

20 resolutions.

21 DR. MAURO: I'd be glad to do that and 

22 move through them with you, if you'd like to move 
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 through each one of the items that are in yellow 

2 on the matrix that's before everyone, and we'll go 

3 through each one, one by one. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: If you'd like to proceed, 

6 I will do that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

8 DR. MAURO: The first one and the 

9 second one, which I guess is called 1A and 1B, have 

10 to do with the -- this goes back a ways, that there 

11 was at one time TBD-6000 to TBD-6001 whereby the 

12 reference was made back to a number of tables in 

13 TBD-6001, and whereby we had some problems with 

14 that. That was the umbrella document that covered 

15 all of these uranium works facilities. And that 

16 TBD-6001 was withdrawn. The TBD for DuPont was 

17 subsequently completely revised and all of the 

18 tables that were at issue that were in the umbrella 

19 document, TBD-6001. And you could notice that the 

20 first three actually speak to that on the matrix. 

21 With the elimination of TBD-6001 and the 

22 replacement of that with a stand-alone DuPont 
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 Deepwater Site Profile that issue goes away.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. John, I'm sort of 

3 handicapped because I can't see Live Meeting, but 

4 can I just explain? I mean, what we need to do here 

5 is apply findings that were relevant to the case 

6 review findings. And that's what we need to 

7 discuss, right? If there was a finding on 

8 resolving DuPont --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: -- the Site Profile, that 

11 actually came up in the case.

12 DR. MAURO: I got you.

13 MR. KATZ: That's what we need to 

14 address --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: -- so that that case, any 

17 issues with that case are resolved.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes, and let's go --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's scroll 

20 down on Live Meeting.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. I'm looking at it in 

22 front of me right now, and I'm just looking at the 
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 yellow items.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

3 DR. MAURO: And what I want to try to 

4 point out is that; you're right, the first three 

5 actually were not even addressed as findings in the 

6 last Work Group meeting because they were issues 

7 that were resolved long ago because TBD-6001 was 

8 eliminated. But there are some findings here that 

9 have specificity. For example, I'm looking at --

10 there is one here, F3 --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: -- and F3 is a very specific 

13 issue that remained with us. And it had to do with 

14 when the air sampling data were collected and 

15 whether or not the surrogate data that was used in 

16 the Site Profile which was collected in later 

17 years, the late 1940s -- whether or not that data 

18 could be applied and used as surrogate data for the 

19 early 1940s. 

20 And this is one of the issues that was 

21 alive and well up until its recent resolution 

22 whereby NIOSH explained that the reason why they 
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 felt the late 1940 data can be applied to airborne 

2 dust loadings for the early 1940 time period was 

3 the early 1940 time period -- and we confirmed this 

4 -- was really a matter of a shakedown period where 

5 there was some very limited amount of work done. 

6 And the more intensive uranium work was done later 

7 when there was good data basically from airborne 

8 dust loadings from later research done. So NIOSH 

9 made the case. And this would be -- I think it was 

10 item F3.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: And item F3. And because 

13 of that, there have been circumstances in the past 

14 where there were problems, where we had good 

15 information for the late 1940s, but we did not have 

16 good information for the early 1940s and SECs were 

17 granted up to certain dates like 1944. But in this 

18 case a demonstration was made that there was good 

19 reason to believe that the kinds of things that were 

20 going on in the early 1940s at DuPont really did 

21 not have a very significant potential for 

22 generating airborne uranium. And as a result, the 
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 surrogate data in the late 1940s was prudently 

2 conservative or bounding as applied to the early 

3 1940s. 

4 And this is one of the issues -- if we 

5 go back to the slide presentation in fact that Dr. 

6 Anderson gave -- mentioned. I don't have the exact 

7 number here, but I read it earlier. So that's the 

8 reason why we believe F3 can be closed. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, so does that apply to 

10 a specific -- again, I'm flying blind here. Are 

11 you looking at a specific Dose Reconstruction case 

12 and saying that --

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes.

15 MR. KATZ: -- was applicable to this 

16 case?

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes? Okay. Thanks.

19 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. Bear with me. 

20 I'm looking at the matrix. It's 260.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes.
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: For the record.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have the matrix in 

3 front of me. It's case Number 260. And the normal 

4 numbering system is here. In effect, what I just 

5 covered fairly quickly was the first three, which 

6 was 1A, 1B. 1A and 1B were really closed long ago 

7 because TBD-6001 was resolved. And it wasn't even 

8 something that was on the agenda for issues 

9 resolution.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: But then when we get to F3, 

12 which is the next item, we actually talk about an 

13 issue that had technical teeth, so to speak --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 DR. MAURO: -- whereby as I mentioned 

16 had to do with whether you could use later data, 

17 late 1940s data, as a surrogate for earlier data.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 DR. MAURO: And that has been resolved 

20 in that yes you can. So that's the reason that item 

21 was closed. 

22 Let me see, there's one more. There's 
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 a last one, B4. Let's see what we have here.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's scroll up 

3 to that. Thank you.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, and that's the very 

5 last item on the list for DuPont.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, this one's 

7 already closed.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, that has already been 

9 closed. There you go. 

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes, I'm looking at 

12 it right now. So that's not even on the agenda.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So we 

14 have closure on all of them. Thank you for 

15 addressing those. 

16 And is there anything further that we 

17 need to do for the Work Group, or any concerns that 

18 Work Group Members, Subcommittee Members want to 

19 raise?

20 (No response.)

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So all of 

22 those four are closed. Hearing no objection, 
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 that's done.

2 And in terms of the remaining cases, 

3 we're ready to go to Pacific Proving Grounds, which 

4 had a meeting in January of this year to try and 

5 resolve some issues that we gave to them.

6 DR. H. BEHLING: I believe that's going 

7 to be my case and it's going to be relatively 

8 quickly resolved hopefully. The case --

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, who is 

11 speaking? Excuse me.

12 DR. H. BEHLING: This is Hans Behling.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hans, how are 

14 you? Okay.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: This particular case 

16 was given to us back in 2011. And when I reviewed 

17 that, I submitted my audit findings and I believe 

18 there were a total of seven findings. And just as 

19 a quick review, the individual at the time was in 

20 the station at the Pacific Proving Grounds at the 

21 Enewetak Atoll in the early years of the 1950s and 

22 then a second time back in 1958. And our audit of 
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 this particular case identified seven findings, 

2 and most of these issues were based on insufficient 

3 data and the use of surrogate data. And one of the 

4 more important significant findings that I was able 

5 to identify was the beta to photon ratio that was 

6 used.

7 Anyway, we did in fact discuss this 

8 particular case in a one-to-one meeting way back 

9 in that time frame, probably still in 2011. And 

10 then it was subsequently discussed in the 

11 Subcommittee.

12 But one of the key problems that we had 

13 with this particular case involving PPG was the 

14 fact that we had never been asked to review the PPG 

15 Site Profile which occurred subsequent to this 

16 particular audit. And when I looked at the PPG 

17 Site Profile, I realized that there were a number 

18 of findings that were directly related to this 

19 particular case. 

20 And as you mentioned, we had previously 

21 discussed the PPG Site Profile audit that SC&A did, 

22 and we also had discussions about some of these 
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 findings that we had identified, and NIOSH 

2 responded to our findings. And subsequently what 

3 happened was that the Subcommittee was asked to go 

4 backwards in time and establish a committee for the 

5 PPG Site Profile that would then provide some 

6 oversight in the revision of the PPG Site Profile 

7 and the findings that were identified. 

8 At this point I believe the revision of 

9 the PPG Site Profile is still undergoing some 

10 changes. And so SC&A at this point has not seen 

11 the revisions to the Site Profile and therefore I 

12 believe the idea of resolving many of these 

13 findings that involved this particular case in 

14 question is really academic because many of the 

15 findings I identified on behalf of our audit of the 

16 PPG Site Profile directly affect this particular 

17 individual's case because of the fact that he was 

18 there early on when there were such things as cohort 

19 badging and missing badges and incomplete 

20 monitoring. And some of the additional data that 

21 became available in the DNA report that would allow 

22 us to assess more accurately the actual exposures 
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 that would be considered occupational exposure 

2 when in fact it was really fallout that might in 

3 other instances be considered as environmental 

4 exposures.

5 So at this point I believe we had 

6 discussed previously this particular case, but I 

7 believe what is going to happen is that when we 

8 finally get to the point where the revisions of the 

9 PPG Site Profile become available to us, we will 

10 be in a position to look at the revisions, assess 

11 the issues that we had identified in our findings

12 of the original Site Profile, determine whether or 

13 not these revisions accommodate the issues that we 

14 raised, and then in context with that, there is 

15 possibly going to be -- and I'm speculating -- an 

16 issue of a PER, which then we'd obviously include 

17 revising many of the affected Dose Reconstructions 

18 that occurred. 

19 So at this point my recommendation is 

20 to put this particular case in abeyance because the 

21 issue will probably be resolved at some later time 

22 when a PER is issued. And many of these cases, 
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 including this one, may have to be revisited and 

2 reevaluated, and there's at this point no real 

3 reason to spend a lot of time on something that's 

4 subject to revision at a later time.

5 MR. KATZ: Hans, this is Ted. Can I 

6 just engage you a little bit on this, because I 

7 think it's a little bit different -- I mean, all 

8 the findings at PPG are in abeyance, and I agree 

9 with that. But having gotten them to abeyance in 

10 that Work Group there were agreements made. I 

11 mean, that's why they're in abeyance. Essentially 

12 they're resolved, but we need to see the new 

13 product. But the issues were resolved. And there 

14 was agreement about some of your findings in 

15 getting to that abeyance and those findings, I 

16 believe, like you were saying, pertain to this

17 case, or these cases. 

18 So I think the Subcommittee can, even 

19 though they don't have a new Site Profile for PPG, 

20 since there was agreement between NIOSH and SC&A 

21 and the Work Group about those findings that got 

22 them to abeyance -- I think those findings 
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 already -- you already know the outcome as far as 

2 this case is concerned, right? Because like 

3 Findings 2, 3 and 4, those all apply because they 

4 agreed with you about your findings and how they 

5 need to be resolved. And you know then what is 

6 right or wrong about these cases. Not correct?

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I'm not sure we 

8 went to the level of detail that we subsequently 

9 went to in our review of the Site Profile. Like 

10 I said, one of the most important aspects of that 

11 is the beta to photon ratio, which I'm not sure was 

12 probably discussed at the time. One of the things 

13 that occurred during this particular Dose 

14 Reconstruction case in question was the assignment 

15 of a one to one ratio, which I think was only during 

16 the discussion with the PPG Site Profile personnel, 

17 that they recognized that that particular ratio 

18 could not be applied here because it applied to a 

19 value that was purely derived from data that was 

20 NTS data between 1963 and '87. And we realized 

21 those things did not apply.

22 But it's a little complex. And I would 
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 say at this point we can probably assume that most 

2 of the issues can be -- if we feel abeyance is not 

3 correct -- we can say they're resolved, but they 

4 will ultimately be resurrected when we --

5 MR. KATZ: Let me explain, Hans. So 

6 for example, Finding 3 from the PPG review, NIOSH 

7 agreed that they would use the 95th percentile.

8 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: And that was the resolution 

10 for skin contamination.

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: So I think the issue is, for 

13 the cases you have before you, these Dose 

14 Reconstruction cases, did they use the 95th 

15 percentile? If they didn't, then that's the 

16 resolution; they should have, and you can close out 

17 that finding.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, they used the 

19 50th percentile because --

20 MR. KATZ: Right.

21 DR. H. BEHLING: -- that's really what 

22 the PPG Site Profile at the time specified. 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 it was only our review of that that they --

2 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. So what 

3 I'm trying to say is that that's then -- to resolve 

4 that finding in these cases where that applies, 

5 that's the finding. They used the 50th. In 

6 reality after scientific review, they should have 

7 used the 95th. I'm not saying they didn't follow 

8 their prescription, their form or procedures, but 

9 they really should have been using the 95th because 

10 they've agreed that they should have used the 95th. 

11 And that's the finding. That's how you resolve and 

12 close out that finding for this case.

13 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. That's all I'm 

15 saying is that I think you can put them to bed in 

16 these cases even though you don't have the new 

17 product from NIOSH because they have clear 

18 agreements about that. Same, Finding 4. They 

19 said they should have used the 95th percentile for 

20 un-monitored doses for Finding 4. If that applies 

21 to any of these cases, then you can close out the 

22 finding in these cases. And maybe then you can 
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 close out all the findings in these cases even 

2 though you don't have a new NIOSH Site Profile 

3 document yet.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Ted, if this is what 

5 is the expedient thing to do here, let's just close 

6 them all out.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that --

9 DR. H. BEHLING: -- the need for 

10 discussion if in fact those cases would ultimately 

11 be reevaluated anyway.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we would 

13 very much like to resolve this. This is the single 

14 outstanding case for Sets 10 through 13. We have 

15 to get a report in. So we want very badly to get 

16 a report in to the Secretary. So if you're saying, 

17 Hans, that can we can resolve it here and now, then 

18 let us do so.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the group 

21 has met. I certainly looked over the transcript 

22 of the group meeting and it seemed to me that issues 
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 were all resolved. There are things you're 

2 waiting for, but they're not relevant to this case, 

3 as I understand it.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It appears that all we 

5 need to do is actually look at each one of these 

6 findings just momentarily. Yes, this applies. 

7 Yes, this applies. Yes, this applies. And in 

8 each case simply make the notation to that effect 

9 on the matrix and move on from there.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

11 agree. Let's do that. So let's look at 325.1 

12 that's up on our screen. 

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. As I said, I 

14 didn't really expect to do this, but if you choose 

15 to, we will have to do it obviously at this point. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: It appears to me that 

17 that applies.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. During the time 

19 of greenhouses is one of the key events that I 

20 discussed during my review of the Site Profile. 

21 There was a tremendous amount of fallout at various 

22 locations. If you recall, I showed fallout maps 
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 in the time frame for each and none of these were 

2 ever applied here. I think this individual was 

3 issued a 60-millirem dose, environmental dose from 

4 fallout that turned out to be based on more recent 

5 DNA data to be somewhere in the range of anywhere 

6 between 1 and 4 rem depending on the duration and 

7 location where the individual was. So clearly 

8 that would have to be revised. And I believe NIOSH 

9 has accepted the fact that the assignments of 

10 fallout doses were inadequate.

11 MEMBER MUNN: All we need to say I 

12 believe is that the Work Group's finding and 

13 closure are applicable. 

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I mean, on my 

15 matrix it says finding remains open and in process 

16 depending on completion of the Work Group review 

17 of the TBD. 

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: I don't know what that 

20 means, but as I said, this predates the whole issue 

21 of the PPG Site Profile review.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Well, I 
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 mean, we are looking at the process. And if NIOSH 

2 agrees to do what you folks have recommended, then 

3 it is closed, and NIOSH will do it. 

4 DR. H. BEHLING: And I don't believe that this 

5 particular matrix really addresses the concessions 

6 that NIOSH made with regard to review of the Site 

7 Profile. In particular, this particular first 

8 finding is addressed in much more greater detail 

9 in our audit of the Site Profile. In NIOSH's 

10 response it says, yes, we need to make that change. 

11 So that the action and the response of NIOSH for 

12 this particular case really predates the PPG Site 

13 Profile where certain concessions have been made 

14 in a more definitive --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: -- manner than it is 

17 right here. And this is why I didn't think it was 

18 really that important to go through this.

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, but, Hans, it is. 

20 That's the point.

21 DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, okay.

22 MR. KATZ: I mean this is how you're 
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 putting them to bed. And that's all good. So I 

2 think Wanda's right. And you're good, Hans, with 

3 your finding. Your finding did apply. It was 

4 correct. And that finding can be closed.

5 MEMBER MUNN: All that appears to be

6 necessary for us to do is to identify the correct 

7 wording here. It appears that the wording needs 

8 to say something to the effect that the Work Group 

9 has resolved this issue by agreeing that the 95th 

10 percentile is applicable in all these cases. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And the change will be 

13 made, period. The change will be made. This case 

14 is now -- our finding is in abeyance.

15 MR. KATZ: It's closed.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Closed. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, it's closed. 

18 Yes, or else it's in abeyance for the Work Group.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

20 folks, this is up on the screen. And I agree. And 

21 unless there is any further comment by a 

22 Subcommittee Member, then we're closed.
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 (No response.)

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on to 

3 325.2. 

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, the second one 

5 again involves a very critical issue regarding the 

6 beta to photon dose. And as I said, the most 

7 significant deficiency I identified in review of 

8 this Dose Reconstruction report really involved 

9 the assignment of a one to one ratio. As I said, 

10 that particular approach is based on empirical data 

11 at the NTS site that post-dates the Atmospheric 

12 Testing Program and involves empirical dosimeters 

13 that were available between '63 and '87 and on the 

14 assumption that those values -- the beta to photon 

15 ratio is not really applicable to fresh fallout for 

16 the people who were stationed on Enewetak. NIOSH 

17 obviously rescinded that issue.

18 But along with that there were tables 

19 in the NTS Site Profile, both in the body of the 

20 Site Profile as well as in the appendices, that 

21 provide a very different beta to photon ratio that 

22 in the lowest ratio of 10 to one extends all the 
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 way to 60 to 1 based on the age of the fallout. 

2 And for case No. 2, that was again a 

3 statement that involved an assigned number, 

4 because there are no empirical data on behalf of 

5 this that was issued for this individual. And if 

6 we take the actual proposed information that was 

7 contained in the Site Profile that says you may use 

8 that ratio as a minimum of ten to one and as high 

9 as sixty to one depending on the age of the fallout, 

10 then the value that was assigned initially for this 

11 individual would have been significantly greater.

12 But again, these were by and large 

13 guesstimates and assumed values that, as I said, 

14 [were] modified based on the age of the most 

15 previous tests that would have had a much higher 

16 beta to photon ratio. Again, when this particular 

17 DR is reevaluated, they may completely change this 

18 whole issue. It was one of those things that it 

19 seemed claimant-favorable by assigning, but it was 

20 still the wrong assignment based on the duration 

21 of time that had elapsed between the most recent 

22 detonation and the potential assumed exposures, 
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 that was not necessarily monitored, and the 

2 assignment of a beta to photon ratio that would have 

3 been more appropriate had the actual data been 

4 confirmed. 

5 So it's hard for me to say whether we 

6 can resolve this issue other than if they followed 

7 their own protocol, they might have ended up with 

8 a higher dose estimate for that particular --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What did the 

10 NIOSH people say in response to the concern that 

11 was raised?

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Well --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe the 

14 NIOSH -- Grady, or somebody might --

15 MR. CALHOUN: I wasn't at the Work 

16 Group meeting. I wasn't involved in that one for 

17 the actual Procedures Work Group meeting.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. CALHOUN: So I don't know what was 

20 discussed there. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And --

22 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Maybe 
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 I can help a little bit. And this is more of a 

2 process question. Since they were all placed in 

3 abeyance, the implications are that there was 

4 agreement that in fact, yes, there is a need for 

5 a revision to the Site Profile to address that 

6 particular issue, and there was agreement on how 

7 that issue would be resolved. And given that, in 

8 effect -- and as described by Hans what the issue 

9 was -- and clearly there Hans and NIOSH came to 

10 agreement on the best way to resolve that issue, 

11 and that's why it's in abeyance. So I guess I would 

12 argue that on that basis the item could be closed. 

13 What would be interesting I guess, as 

14 a quick aside, is to close the circle it certainly 

15 sounds like -- and this for PPG -- it sounds like 

16 there's going to be a revision to the Site Profile 

17 to address these various issues. And of course 

18 there would be a PER and that this case may or may 

19 not be picked up and have to be redone. There's 

20 a process there.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 DR. MAURO: Interestingly enough, by 
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 the way, as a quick aside, under DuPont I'd like 

2 to hear -- maybe NIOSH would say something to this. 

3 The issues were of such a manner that there was very 

4 little that needed to change except for where we 

5 agree there was a -- I'm bringing this up. You'll 

6 see why. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I hope so. 

8 Because right now we've closed --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, you know what it is? 

10 It's something I call it closing the circle. In 

11 the case of PPG, it's self-evident that there's 

12 going to be a need for a PER. In the case of DuPont 

13 it's not self-evident because of the nature of the 

14 issues and how they were closed. And I would like 

15 to get a sense of how are we going to close the 

16 circle on these things.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 DR. MAURO: And once we're done with 

19 going through to closure, there are places where 

20 it's clear that there is a need to revise the Site 

21 Profile, perhaps substantially. In other cases 

22 there really is no need. We've come to agreement 
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 what the issue was. 

2 And I guess I just have a question for 

3 NIOSH. Is there any plan to reissue the Site 

4 Profile for DuPont? I'm sorry I'm bringing that 

5 up again. I know we closed it all, but --

6 MR. KATZ: But that's not Grady's 

7 charge, because --

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, I understand.

9 MR. KATZ: But let me cut to the chase. 

10 What does matter that's sort of tangential to what 

11 you said, John, is SC&A is going to have to -- when 

12 they write up the report, right, the findings, 

13 they're going to have to characterize each finding 

14 in terms of its significance, right? So in effect, 

15 I think what John is saying that's relevant here 

16 is, when SC&A does it for the DuPont case, it may 

17 not have much dose-significance. And that affects 

18 how they characterize the finding for the DuPont 

19 case. And with PPG they're going to have to do the 

20 same thing. They're going to have to characterize 

21 for each of these findings -- you know, we have 

22 these qualifiers on each finding. They're going 
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 to have to put the correct qualifier depending on 

2 its significance for -- potential significance for 

3 dose.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: So that's the only thing I 

6 think that really matters for this now.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's why I raise it.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, I understand 

9 that. So I think, Hans, you'll have to interact 

10 with Rose to -- or -- and actually it would be 

11 helpful if you -- but, yes, to get the right 

12 characterization on that. And NIOSH probably 

13 needs to see that characterization, too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: And I think we can also 

18 state NIOSH has agreed that, with this PPG case, 

19 they're going to have to rework this. And so, each 

20 one of these findings will be addressed. 

21 And I do like John's idea that there's 

22 obviously going to be a PER that comes out as a 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 result of the revision to the PPG because it's a 

2 major revision. And then it would be nice during 

3 our, maybe, sub-task portion of that where we look 

4 at some cases. Maybe this could be a case we look 

5 at. 

6 But I think we can assure ourselves this 

7 case will be reworked and each of these findings,

8 whatever wording we want to put in there, will be 

9 addressed under the revised PPG Site Profile. So 

10 in my mind that means we can close all of these at 

11 this Subcommittee meeting.

12 MR. KATZ: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it seems to 

14 me we can, yes. 

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, and I had made 

16 that assumption, and I accept Ted's concerns here 

17 about going through each and every one of them, but 

18 at the point when we were trying to obviously 

19 expedite issues, I didn't think we should take this 

20 much time as will probably be needed to go through 

21 each of the seven findings when in fact we've pretty 

22 much come to the conclusion that they will be 
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 resolved when the PPG Site Profile becomes 

2 available in each of --

3 MR. KATZ: I think you need -- for the 

4 record you need to go through the findings. I 

5 mean, you can do it in a cursory way. And again, 

6 you're going to have to characterize each of those 

7 findings in terms of its importance for the dose 

8 estimates.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I think we 

10 are, I would say, under administrative -- I don't 

11 want to say pressure. That's not the right word. 

12 But we're under -- we feel a mandate to try to close 

13 what we can close now even understanding that at 

14 some point when there is a revised PER, we'll --

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's a separate 

16 matter. It just doesn't have a bearing on this 

17 case review.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I believe we 

19 can close this --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- on Finding 2.

22 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, Dave, this is Jim 
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 Melius. You are under pressure.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

3 Fine.

4 MEMBER MELIUS: Don't have to dance 

5 around it.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

7 good. Fine. That sounds good. 

8 So let's close this, unless I hear other 

9 concerns or objections from other Members of the 

10 Subcommittee.

11 MEMBER MUNN: No, that's what we need 

12 to do.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

15 supportive.

16 MEMBER MUNN: It appears the only real 

17 concern is the wording identifying where the 

18 closure occurred, since it didn't occur here.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Could 

20 you suggest some wording?

21 MEMBER MUNN: The wording that we had 

22 for the previous one was ideal I think with respect 
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 to the things that are closed in the Work Group.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, it's closed for the 

3 case here.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly. And as long as 

5 we identify where --

6 MR. KATZ: The Subcommittee closes it 

7 based on the review that was done by the Work Group.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly. Exactly.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MEMBER MUNN: But the review that was 

11 done by the Work Group identifies where this issue 

12 was discussed and closed. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

14 Okay. That's going up now, and that's fine.

15 Let's go to 3. I don't have this right 

16 in front of me. How many findings do we have here, 

17 by the way? We're on 3. Is this the last 

18 finding --

19 DR. H. BEHLING: No.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- for this 

21 case?

22 DR. H. BEHLING: This one was the 
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 failure to identify a dose that was in the record. 

2 And I believe the response from NIOSH was one that 

3 it is not a failed dose, but it may be a missed dose. 

4 And I'm not sure. This is an area -- this is one 

5 particular finding I'm not going to stand hard on. 

6 It's a very minor dose that was identified as a 

7 missed dose, meaning that we would assign a dose 

8 of -- for a zero dose of LOD over two. So we're 

9 talking about 20 millirem.

10 But then again, the question arises if 

11 it is a truly missed dose, and that's a photon dose, 

12 a potential dose of 200 millirem could be or even 

13 greater assigned for the beta component. And 

14 since this is a skin cancer, the real critical issue 

15 is: I come back over and over again, for all the 

16 different things that were identified as findings, 

17 it's open that the question of identifying the 

18 correct beta dose which is a driver for the 

19 potential dose of the skin cancer that will either 

20 make or break this case.

21 So Finding Number 3 may be an issue that 

22 has limited value, but if it turns out to be -- from 
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 what I gather, I had identified one of the earlier 

2 records and it was another missed dose that was not 

3 recognized. And it would only be a question of a 

4 20-millirem photon dose. But when converted into 

5 a skin dose, it could potentially be, as a minimum, 

6 a factor of 10 higher.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And am I 

8 understanding that you're suggesting that this 

9 will change when we get the new PER?

10 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, it probably will 

11 be changed because of the fact that among the key 

12 elements is the issue of using the right beta to 

13 photon ratio that applies not only to --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: -- the empirical dose 

16 data, but also assumed exposures, as well as missed 

17 doses. Each time you have a photon dose 

18 assignment, you also have to convert that to a beta 

19 component --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 DR. H. BEHLING: -- that is, a minimum 

22 factor of 10 or more greater.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

2 MS. K. BEHLING: But I also think --

3 this is Kathy -- that based on what I'm reading here 

4 on NIOSH's response that NIOSH I guess looked 

5 pretty closely at the detail of records and is 

6 wondering if our interpretation of those records --

7 I mean, sometimes looking at this data, it's 

8 difficult. And I believe what I'm reading; and 

9 maybe Scott can -- I'm not sure if it's Scott --

10 can correct me here, if I'm wrong, but that perhaps 

11 when we look closer at the data maybe there was not 

12 a missed dose.

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, it's subject to 

14 interpretation.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy, this is Scott. 

16 You are correct. That's our response, that we 

17 addressed the number of zeros for this specific 

18 portion accurately based on the records as they 

19 exist. And we gave more detail as to how to read 

20 the records. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then that should 

22 resolve it.
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 MS. K. BEHLING: I think so.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I move for 

3 closure.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, this is not 

5 necessarily -- this particular finding is not 

6 necessarily something that will be discussed with 

7 the Work Group, but I do think it's looking at the 

8 records a little closer.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

10 Any objection to closure on this?

11 MEMBER MUNN: No.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

13 Subcommittee Members, let's close it. We can use 

14 the wording that we used above. 

15 MR. KATZ: Well, Dave, it doesn't sound 

16 like the wording from another is appropriate here. 

17 Here NIOSH contested the reading and you just 

18 concurred with NIOSH.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: That's correct.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. You're 

21 right.

22 MR. KATZ: This is a different 
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 situation.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

3 Okay. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: In which case, the 

5 wording simply says NIOSH concurs with --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: SC&A.

7 MEMBER MUNN: SC&A concurs with the 

8 NIOSH position?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right.

10 MEMBER MUNN: The Subcommittee has 

11 closed the -- just the Subcommittee closes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Any 

15 further comments by Subcommittee Members?

16 (No response.)

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

18 Is that the last one? Again, I don't have --

19 DR. H. BEHLING: No.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 DR. H. BEHLING: The next one is really 

22 the nature issue here, and that goes to the issue 
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 of the one to one beta to photon ratio.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: And that was --

4 MR. KATZ: What number? 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 325.4.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: And for this 

8 particular case there were multiple options that 

9 could have been used inclusive of a table that was 

10 identified in the body of the NTS Site Profile and 

11 more definitive values that could have been used 

12 that were defined in one of the appendices, 

13 including the Niels Bohr data, which is a much more 

14 defined approach where you actually -- in addition 

15 to a ratio at one meter, you define it in terms of 

16 the actual height above the contaminated ground. 

17 So there were multiple options. And that was 

18 accepted by NIOSH and will be revised in the future 

19 revision of the Site Profile. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it's 

21 accepted by NIOSH. Then that resolves the 

22 conflict. And that indeed is what we had 
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 previously.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly. Yes, the 

3 wording for the previous --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually it's 

5 NIOSH accepts in this case --

6 MR. KATZ: Right. Right.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- SC&A's 

8 recommendation --

9 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- as opposed to 

11 SC&A findings.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But there is

14 agreement. Good. Thank you. Putting that up 

15 now. Good.

16 Okay. Let's go on.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, the next one is 

18 325.5. And again, it goes back to the same thing. 

19 They used ORAU's OTIB-0017 when in fact the ratio 

20 of beta to photon dose should be defined, that it's 

21 uniquely limited to fresh fallout rather than 

22 OTIB-0017.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

2 DR. H. BEHLING: And so I assume that 

3 NIOSH agrees with that, too. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's see. 

5 Missed doses. Right. Right. I'm not quite 

6 clear. 

7 And how was this --

8 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I think that 

9 this one -- and you might as well incorporate the 

10 next one, 325.6, because they address the same 

11 issue, the use of ORAU OTIB-0017.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe the Work 

14 Group -- this is Kathy -- the Work Group has 

15 indicated that they are going to be more specific 

16 in the PPG Site Profile in getting direction or 

17 guidance for how to calculate these shallow doses 

18 and --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: -- doses. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we've got --
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: They'll be resolved 

2 through the revision of the Site Profile. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For all 

4 purposes, this is a closure in terms of process.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And essentially the 

6 wording appears to be the same as the first one 

7 where we said this was resolved in the Work 

8 Group --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: -- and closed for our 

11 purposes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

13 MS. K. BEHLING: And the same with the 

14 next one, Number 6.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right. 

16 Good.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Same type of issue.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So let's 

19 go ahead with that. And last?

20 DR. H. BEHLING: The next one is, I 

21 think -- I'm only looking at the matrix. I wasn't 

22 really prepared to look at the original folders in 
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 the Dose Reconstruction, but I believe that refers 

2 to the CATI report --

3 MR. KATZ: Sorry. What number?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, again the number.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 325.7.

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. That the Work 

7 Group identified a second melanoma in the CATI 

8 report that was addressed. If it turns out -- and 

9 again, there should be a record in the file, in the 

10 DOL file that would potentially verify the 

11 diagnosis of the second melanoma. And right now 

12 the box that I have where all this data are stored --

13 I didn't really prepare to see if in fact I actually 

14 had a record or made even an attempt to get that 

15 record. But it's strictly since item that was 

16 identified in a CATI report that was not 

17 acknowledged in the DR.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. Is that 

19 something you could look up during the break? Is 

20 that something that's available to you to take a 

21 look at and report back to us?

22 MR. KATZ: Or can NIOSH respond to 
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 this?

2 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. I 

3 actually think that this goes back to DOL. I'm not 

4 sure that this was in the CATI report. It may have 

5 been in the DOL files. However, as NIOSH is 

6 correctly responding, they only can address 

7 cancers that the DOL indicate are --

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, apparently the 

10 DOL actually regarded the second cancer as a 

11 metastatic cancer, which to [my] mind of thinking 

12 is very difficult. It's like saying if you're 

13 exposed to radiation exposure involving the whole 

14 body skin or to sunlight the potential exists, as 

15 we've observed over the past, that an individual 

16 may end up having multiple skin cancers, a squamous 

17 cell carcinoma, et cetera, that are not going to 

18 have metastatic cancers but potentially two 

19 independent cancers that just happen to be the same 

20 type of cancer. So I wasn't really sure how that 

21 was resolved. 

22 When you have a solid cancer and then 
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 you have a subsequent cancer and you find out that 

2 a secondary metastatic cancer identifies the same 

3 cell line, which is easily done, you can easily 

4 then quantify the -- or qualify the second cancer 

5 as a metastatic cancer. But when you have two 

6 melanomas, they could easily occur independent. 

7 So the question is, were they independent or do 

8 melanomas -- when a melanoma cancer metastasizes, 

9 the second cancer is usually a bone cancer 

10 someplace in another location as opposed to the 

11 skin.

12 MR. KATZ: But, Hans, the important 

13 matter here is NIOSH has to live with the DOL's 

14 determinations on these. So the case is done 

15 correctly if they apply the DOL determinations 

16 here. Now they can raise issues about that. 

17 That's independent of this, though. But you can't 

18 find them wrong for having applied the DOL 

19 determinations.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. And, Ted, 

21 you're right. I didn't have that information at 

22 the time I wrote my findings. All I really 
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 identified initially, just go back to the initial 

2 record, is that there was a CATI report that 

3 identified second melanomas that were not even 

4 identified in the DR report. Whether or not they 

5 are in truth metastatic cancer based on DOL 

6 assessment was not really the issue for identifying 

7 it as a finding. It was strictly --

8 MR. KATZ: I think in the future the 

9 thing to do with these is to specify them as 

10 observations, because you can't have a finding 

11 where they've done it correctly. But you can have 

12 an observation and we can follow up on this with 

13 DOL in cases like this. 

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I mean that's 

15 okay. I mean, strictly sometimes we identify a 

16 finding when a CATI report was either -- is in 

17 conflict with what was stated in the Dose 

18 Reconstruction report or is even just simply 

19 ignored as an issue. So if you want to convert such 

20 cases, such instances to an observation, that's 

21 fine, too.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We are looking 
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 at our process. DOL may report things correctly 

2 or, in our judgment, not correctly, and may be 

3 revised, but if we're asking are NIOSH and SC&A in 

4 agreement, then -- and then NIOSH has done what they 

5 were supposed to do based on that diagnosis.

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I'm not even 

7 contesting you. You're correct. My original 

8 finding simply stated that there was no reference 

9 to the CATI report where the individual claimant 

10 had identified other melanomas. And it was 

11 strictly whether or not they were metastatic or 

12 whether they were two independent melanomas was not 

13 the issue.

14 MEMBER MUNN: These things do fall in 

15 the same category, I think, it’s our problem with 

16 ICD-9. That designation is often -- is they appear 

17 to be wrong, but it's not our job. It appears that 

18 all we can do in cases like this is to identify that 

19 these -- that it would appear wise for us to call 

20 it to DOL's attention. But as far as our activity 

21 here in the Subcommittee is concerned, this is not 

22 an issue that we can address. 
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 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I just 

2 also want to point out that during the CATI, if the 

3 claimant brings up additional cancers or things 

4 like that, we do instruct them at that time to 

5 contact DOL with that additional information, 

6 since they are the correct authority for dealing 

7 with that issue.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So to my mind 

9 this could be closed because NIOSH carried out its 

10 responsibilities based on the diagnosis of that it 

11 was given. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, the only question is 

13 whether it should be called to the attention of DOL, 

14 just pointed out to them our --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Ted, you 

16 were at the PPG meeting. I thought that they did 

17 say that they were going to bring it to DOL at the 

18 end of the meeting. I just happened to look at the 

19 transcript before this meeting.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, whatever -- the 

21 follow-up with the DOL, I did that. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright.
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 DR. MAURO: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

2 John Mauro.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Just real quick. I 

5 noticed something interesting here. We just went 

6 through a number of findings and observations for 

7 DuPont and for PPG. This is a perfect example of 

8 if we could have had this information in the 

9 Subcommittee's hands a week ago or so where these 

10 were described just the way they were described 

11 here, I think that that would have expedited the 

12 issues resolution. Because these are exactly the 

13 kinds of things that if we could have before the 

14 Board -- before the Subcommittee in writing well 

15 before the meeting, I think there's where we get 

16 a little bit more expedient. Because we spent 

17 about an hour or so --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

19 DR. MAURO: -- doing this. So I'm just 

20 raising this to say I think this is where we're 

21 going to buy some time --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great, and --
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 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 DR. MAURO: -- [with] the new method.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. And 

4 that's appreciated. Let's buy some time by 

5 closing this out --

6 (Laughter.)

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- and getting 

8 on to our blind reviews, folks.

9 It's a question of what's the wording 

10 for the closure? I'm open to suggestions.

11 MEMBER MUNN: This is another one of 

12 those situations where it was addressed in the Work 

13 Group, and for our purposes closed.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: Well, I think the wording 

16 here is -- I mean, the specification of the melanoma 

17 doesn't need to be addressed in the DR report. So 

18 that's how you close this. It didn't need to be 

19 in the DR report, and it wasn't, and that's fine.

20 MR. BARTON: Ted, could I make a 

21 comment here? This is Bob Barton.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes.
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 MS. BARTON: Because I think we all 

2 agree that the dose reconstruction was done 

3 correctly in that correct cancers were 

4 reconstructed. I think really what Hans was 

5 saying is that all the information that you gather 

6 in the CATI report, it would be nice if that was 

7 all reflected in the actual DR write-up so that from 

8 the claimant's perspective they know that all the 

9 information that they're providing is --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MR. KATZ: Well, I understand that in 

12 general and I agree totally in general. In this 

13 matter, though, which is not a dose exposure 

14 matter, but their cancer. If they're told in their 

15 interview if you have another cancer, go -- that 

16 doesn't have to be reflected in the Dose 

17 Reconstruction, that they should go to DOL for 

18 another cancer. So I mean, I don't think that 

19 belongs in the Dose Reconstruction report. I 

20 totally agree with you when it comes to where they 

21 discussed exposures, other exposures they had and 

22 all that, but this is something where they get told 
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 if you have another cancer, go to DOL. They don't 

2 have to write that up in the report. 

3 MR. BARTON: Okay. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It was properly 

5 evaluated according to DOL report. Closed.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good. Okay. 

9 Confirmed cancer. Closed.

10 Folks, this closes it out and this 

11 closes out Sets 10 through 13. We spent --

12 MEMBER MUNN: Who has the champagne?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Not 

14 quite. We have -- Kathy, did you want to say 

15 something?

16 MS. K. BEHLING: There are actually 

17 several DCAS cases that are still open in that 

18 matrix. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A-ha. 

20 MS. K. BEHLING: We have two for Hooker 

21 that are awaiting Work Group action and --

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: -- two for IMC Corp. 

3 and two for Koppers that are --

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Two for -- would 

6 you please repeat that? I just want to take it 

7 down. Two for Hooker.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: IMC Corp.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Two open findings and 

11 four observations for Hooker.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: As well as two open 

14 findings for Koppers Co.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: And two for IMC Corp.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Two for IMC 

18 Corp. Okay. Thank you.

19 Now, folks, it's 11:50 East Coast time. 

20 We would normally work until around 1:00 unless 

21 there's a call for a comfort break. We could take 

22 a comfort break if people want for a couple of a 
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 minutes, or we can --

2 MR. CALHOUN: I'll speak up and say a 

3 comfort break would be nice.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

5 all that's needed. We will take six minutes, 

6 folks, and get back at 12:00 and we'll work through 

7 1:00 on the blind reviews. Okay? And then we'll 

8 stop for lunch. How does that sound?

9 MEMBER MUNN: Good.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. 

11 Closed until noon.

12 MR. KATZ: That's sounds good.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you, 

14 folks.

15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

16 went off the record at 11:54 a.m. and resumed at 

17 12:02 p.m.)

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, why don't we 

19 just move on. I'll get to that question. I mean, 

20 that's separate, really.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I know I 

22 really --
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 MR. CALHOUN: Grady is on the line.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. I was just trying to 

3 follow up with this issue that Rose raised that 

4 there was --- Hooker I can understand. For some 

5 reason, my thinking is, is that the Work Group can't 

6 meet on Hooker, because they don't have ---

7 materials aren't ready for Hooker.

8 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Do 

9 you want this transcribed?

10 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, yeah. You're on 

11 the record again. Sorry, Charles.

12 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

13 MR. KATZ: Thanks. But then these 

14 other cases that Rose raised, two for Koppers Co. 

15 and one -- two for IMC, Grady, do you have those 

16 on the list to get responses for?

17 MR. CALHOUN: I do.

18 MR. KATZ: What happened there?

19 MR. CALHOUN: I'll do the IMC one, 

20 because that one is easy.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. Carry on.

22 MR. CALHOUN: First of all, I'm not 
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 sure that --- well, let's just say it's like DOL. 

2 The operational period is the operational period. 

3 Okay.

4 If you look at the DOE website, it goes 

5 to 1961. Okay. And the finding is that we 

6 assigned dose through 1961 and that we shouldn't 

7 have. We should have stopped in 1959.

8 First of all, I'm not --- I don't 

9 believe that that's very questionable, but I'll 

10 explain this further.

11 The point was made that the pilot plant 

12 stopped operations in 1959. And I've got the DOE 

13 website open right now. And, in fact, it did. But 

14 what happened is after 1959, commercial extraction 

15 process moved into there.

16 And what we do with the residual 

17 contamination study, which again I'll say I don't 

18 believe is subject to the review of this 

19 Subcommittee, is that when we can't determine that 

20 commercial contamination or radiation dose is ---

21 if we cannot determine that the contamination is 

22 distinguishable from AEC contamination, we have to 
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 assume that the dose is required to be assigned for 

2 that whole purpose.

3 So the residual contamination, in fact, 

4 the period starts in 1962. We assign dose through 

5 1961, because there was dose through 1961. So 

6 that's the end of the story, really.

7 Do you understand that?

8 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: That's absolutely correct 

11 as far as I know --

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: -- in terms of policy and 

14 regulation. Right.

15 MR. CALHOUN: I mean, really, if you 

16 just look at the DOE website, it says that it's an 

17 AWE through '61.

18 Now we can assign less dose based on 

19 what they were doing in 1961, but we can't assign 

20 no dose because we say that we think that the 

21 operations stopped.

22 The only way that can happen is if we
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 change the residual contamination period.

2 MR. KATZ: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This should be 

4 dealt with. We don't know if this is the right time 

5 in the meeting to try to deal with this, but ---

6 MR. CALHOUN: There's nothing to deal 

7 with it.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, you can close this 

9 finding, Dave. What Grady is saying is correct and 

10 I think SC&A ---

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It does sound 

12 correct, but I --- fine.

13 MR. CALHOUN: It doesn't seem that this 

14 should be open anymore.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. What 

16 case is that? What case number?

17 MS. ROLFES: 281, Finding 1.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? 281.1.

19 MS. ROLFES: One.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I ---

21 okay. Do we close that, folks?

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine.

2 MEMBER MUNN: As long as we have 

3 agreement from SC&A. That's all we have to do ---

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: I think that sounds 

6 reasonable.

7 MEMBER MUNN: -- as long as SC&A says 

8 that's correct.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it does.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: And, in fact, it would 

11 be claimant-favorable either way to assign more 

12 dose.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right.

14 And for the others, let's handle them 

15 ---

16 MR. KATZ: Well, I thought Rose said 

17 there was a second finding for IMC.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe there is.

19 MR. CALHOUN: They're the same, I 

20 think.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go 

22 ahead.
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, the findings are 

2 both the same for IMC, basically. It's just that 

3 we didn't use dates that matched the residual 

4 history of the facility, but, in fact, we did.

5 MR. KATZ: So, what is the number of the 

6 next finding?

7 MR. CALHOUN: 281.2-G3.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay.

9 MR. CALHOUN: The first one was 

10 281.2-F3, is what I have.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute. 

12 Both of those Hooker cases ---

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MR. CALHOUN: IMC.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, we're on 

16 IMC, but 281 was Hooker, I thought. The first 

17 281.1 we just finished.

18 MR. CALHOUN: No, that's IMC. 281 is 

19 International Minerals Corporation.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: IMC, okay. 

21 We've raised a whole new item on the agenda and I 

22 would like to get back to the agenda.
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 MR. KATZ: Our position is closing out 

2 your sets 10 through 13, no?

3 MEMBER MUNN: We can close it.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: I mean, if you want to get 

6 to the Secretary's report, I would close it.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is Brad. 

8 I think these right here we can take care of 

9 relatively fast and close out this whole set.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

11 the case and I'll --- so be it. Then could someone 

12 summarize for me then what cases we have closed?

13 The 281.1 that we talked about a few 

14 minutes ago, I thought that was Hooker.

15 MEMBER MUNN: No.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That was the 

17 extension of Hooker. I'm wrong. It was IMC.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I think IMC.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And the 

20 next one we talked about or were talking about?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are still talking 

22 about IMC.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: And it's exactly the same 

3 situation, it sounds like.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

5 that's 281 point ---

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Two.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go ahead 

8 with the next one.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There also are two 

10 remaining open in Koppers.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, the ones with 

13 Koppers I don't know. Those are kind of weird. I 

14 don't know how we close those out, because 

15 basically there's not a TBD for those. And the 

16 comment basically is that you couldn't --- we 

17 couldn't figure out how we did the DR.

18 So I don't know if you want us to give 

19 you a step by step of how the DR was done, or what 

20 to do.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Apparently more detail 

22 was needed.
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 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think that the 

2 course forward would be for SC&A to get the 

3 procedure that was applied for the DR.

4 MR. CALHOUN: There wasn't one.

5 MR. KATZ: No, but there must be --- you 

6 did a DR. You must have followed some methods.

7 I'm not saying you have a published 

8 procedure, but they need obviously the details of 

9 the methods so that they can consider and resolve 

10 them.

11 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Yeah, 

12 I was involved in Koppers. I think this goes back 

13 to the TBD-6001 issue.

14 And of course they withdrew TBD-6001 

15 and they did this case. And I believe as just was 

16 pointed out, there was no Site Profile for Koppers. 

17 And I don't think that we were in the position to 

18 be able to review what was done.

19 I didn't, quite frankly, I did not 

20 research this in preparation of the meeting, but 

21 I believe that we left it off that in light of that 

22 circumstance that there was no --- unlike DuPont 
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 that had a new Site Profile after they withdrew 

2 TBD-6001, I don't believe Koppers did.

3 And as a result, SC&A was at a loss to 

4 be able to review it. And I see by my notes here 

5 that NIOSH indicated that they would take a look 

6 at this to see if they could explain this for the 

7 case.

8 So, I mean, that's all I can offer at 

9 this time.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. No, so all I'm 

11 saying is as to proceed, but we don't need to spend 

12 more time on this, but, Grady, if you folks can 

13 provide ---

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, we'll get 

15 something out there.

16 MR. KATZ: -- information to them so 

17 they can do that review, then we can get that done.

18 MR. CALHOUN: And how we failed in this 

19 one is that when we do these, we intend to make the 

20 DR itself detailed enough so that you can tell 

21 exactly what we did, but obviously we did not do 

22 that very well.
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 MR. KATZ: Right. Right.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

3 you'll talk with each other.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I will.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

6 there were two more?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, there was another 

8 Koppers here.

9 THE COURT REPORTER: Speaker, please 

10 identify yourself.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Same thing, I think.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is it more of what did 

13 you do?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Pretty much.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Rose, I think Charles 

16 may need you to identify yourself to make sure we 

17 have the right person.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is Rose Gogliotti 

19 with SC&A.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, both of these 

21 basically are the same thing. That would be 

22 282.1-C21 --- this is Grady, by the way -- and 
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

1 282.2-F3. Both of them are basically saying that 

2 it's lacking -- at a loss for evaluating NIOSH's 

3 response.

4 MEMBER MUNN: And we don't have the 

5 exposure matrix that -- for Koppers that was 

6 available in TBD-6001.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. So we're good, Dave.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

9 thought there were a total of six.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is also one 

11 observation open here. 314, Observation 2. And 

12 then the two open Hooker and four observations for 

13 Hooker.

14 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. 314, 

15 what facility? What site is that?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is ---

17 MR. CALHOUN: What is it? I can't see 

18 that either.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe it is 

20 Bridgeport.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Bridgeport Brass. 

22 That's what it says.
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 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. This is 

2 Scott. 314 is the uranium mill in Monticello.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, it says right above, 

5 yeah.

6 MR. CALHOUN: I remember this one. I 

7 got to get back with you on that one. That's that 

8 crazy radon one.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

10 MEMBER MUNN: And, again, observation, 

11 not finding.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Keep in mind.

14 MR. KATZ: Right. So we don't have to 

15 put that to bed, but we do need to put the Hooker 

16 --- so, Dave, what's remaining there now is the 

17 procedure for finishing out Koppers. So we can't 

18 get those two cases.

19 And then Hooker, and I'm not certain 

20 about this, but I think the Work Group can't proceed 

21 because the Site Profile work hasn't been completed 

22 yet related to Hooker or something.
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 I'm not sure about that, but I'll follow 

2 up on that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If you would.

4 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

6 let's go to the blind reviews. We have resolved 

7 some of them. We've resolved the two IMC.

8 We have something ongoing for Koppers 

9 that SC&A and NIOSH will talk. And we're waiting 

10 for the Site Profile on Hooker, which Ted will 

11 follow up on.

12 On the blind reviews, we're coming back 

13 to it after a long time. Kathy was kind enough to 

14 talk about summarizing where we have been and where 

15 we are on that.

16 Kathy.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Rose does have 

18 the summary table that I compiled, on the screen. 

19 And I'll just briefly go through where we are to 

20 date.

21 We have been assigned since the 

22 beginning of this project, 14 blind cases. The 
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 first two that I have listed there, I think it was 

2 under the first contract period, the blinds were 

3 actually assigned in 2009 and 2010. And we had 

4 submitted the comparison report of those blinds. 

5 The first one there, Portsmouth, was 

6 submitted in November of 2012. And actually 

7 during the November 27th, 2012 Dose Reconstruction 

8 Subcommittee meeting, we did have an opportunity 

9 to present our findings or just to present the 

10 comparison report.

11 However, we thought that since that was 

12 a fairly long time ago and not all of the current 

13 Board Members were probably part of the 

14 Subcommittee at that time ---

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: -- we would give you 

17 just a sort of brief overview or summary of that 

18 today.

19 The second blind during that period was 

20 X-10. We have not discussed that comparison 

21 report, which was sent out to you in January of 

22 2013.
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 And thereafter as part of the 17th set, 

2 we were assigned six blinds as you see on this list.

3 And I do have to apologize. I 

4 recognized today, actually this morning, I put in 

5 some incorrect PoC values under the Savannah River 

6 Site, the very last one there on the first page.

7 All of those PoCs were greater than 50 

8 percent. And I'll discuss that in further detail 

9 once we get to that, but they were all greater than 

10 50 percent. All three methods determined that 

11 that would have been a compensable case.

12 And I also will go back --- the original 

13 two blinds that we were assigned at that time, NIOSH 

14 --- or SC&A was asked not to assess a PoC value. 

15 So, that's why you see NC, not calculated, for those 

16 first two blinds, but thereafter we have done our 

17 doses and then followed up with a resultant PoC.

18 Then finally this 20th set, again under 

19 the 20th set, we were assigned six blinds. To 

20 date, we have --- and some of these were just 

21 recently like yesterday we got the comparison 

22 reports.
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 And there are two blind comparisons. 

2 We've completed all of the blinds in the 20th set. 

3 We have changed our methodology a little bit on this 

4 20th set where in the first eight cases we did a 

5 Method A --- SC&A did a Method A, which is trying 

6 to duplicate what NIOSH does using all the same 

7 tools and guidance documents.

8 And we also did what we call a more ---

9 I don't want to say practical health physics 

10 approach where -- a Method B where we don't use the 

11 workbooks and we make a comparison.

12 Then on this last set, the 20th set, we 

13 were instructed only to do the Method A, which is 

14 more of a direct comparison to what NIOSH does in 

15 their adjudicated cases. And that's what you see 

16 there on the second page.

17 We have completed all of the blinds. 

18 And what we have been instructed to do is once we 

19 complete those blinds, we send out a memo.

20 Prior to this 20th set, we used to 

21 actually send out a formal blind report. But as 

22 was mentioned, it doesn't really say a lot to you 
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 if you don't know what --- we don't make a 

2 comparison.

3 So with this 20th set and I assume in 

4 going forward if we're assigned any additional 

5 blinds, we'll simply inform you via a memo saying 

6 these were our total doses, this is our resultant 

7 PoC. 

8 And then once you get that memo and you 

9 are convinced that we've done our blind, we will 

10 go ahead and start the comparison to our blind 

11 compared to NIOSH's blind --- or NIOSH's 

12 adjudicated case. And that's what we have done for 

13 the 20th set.

14 We're still working on the comparison 

15 report for two of these six blinds under the 20th 

16 set.

17 Now, what we thought we would do today 

18 if you're in agreement with this, is go through ---

19 and I will try to prepare you. When we go through 

20 these blinds, it's a fairly detailed explanation 

21 that we have to provide in order --- especially when 

22 we see that there are significant differences in 
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 dose and perhaps in PoCs.

2 So it's going to be like almost a 

3 one-on-one process for the dose reconstructions 

4 where we're going to walk you through step by step 

5 what we did and between, you know, our two methods 

6 initially and then what NIOSH did, where there were 

7 similarities, where there was differences and why 

8 those differences existed, if you're prepared to 

9 hear all that today.

10 Are we okay with that? We will try ---

11 we understand that we have a lot to go through. And 

12 what we were planning on doing between Doug Farver 

13 and Ron Buchanan and myself, we were going to take 

14 turns going back and forth and walking you through 

15 these various cases.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: If you're in 

18 agreement.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

20 Wanda.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I'd like to before we 
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 even start talking about this, I really want to 

2 thank SC&A and I suspect that this is Kathy's work 

3 we're looking at, for getting this table of metrics 

4 to us.

5 This is the crystal clear difference 

6 comparison that I personally, me, can see. And it 

7 was great.

8 I was astonished when I first saw it, 

9 but as I started going through it item by item I 

10 realized what an excellent comparison it is.

11 My suggestion would be that before the 

12 Subcommittee begins going through this in a 

13 case-by-case fashion, and I don't see any other way 

14 to get through it, personally, it appears to me that 

15 it would be wise for us to consider establishing 

16 what we consider a significant enough difference 

17 in the metrics that we see to pursue.

18 In other words, we are going to be 

19 looking at total doses as viewed by each of the 

20 methods that were used.

21 And do we consider less than a hundred 

22 millirem worthy of consideration, or are we talking 
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 about doses of one rem and above as being worthy 

2 of our time to discuss the differences?

3 If we don't make some distinction here 

4 as to how large a variation we want to spend time 

5 looking at, then we can spend a lot of unnecessary 

6 time thinking about each of these.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well taken. 

8 Thoughts, folks?

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, this is Brad. 

10 You know, I understand the dose of it. But when 

11 we start taking a look at dose, a little dose here, 

12 a little dose there, it all adds up, or do we need 

13 to take a look at the end process what the PoC comes 

14 out?

15 You know, to me, that's the end result 

16 is what the PoC comes out. We can have a lot of 

17 little doses and they can add up, or do we want to 

18 take a look at the end?

19 But it's just my opinion, Wanda, but, 

20 you know, I guess my thing is looking at the end 

21 process, what got us to that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I really concur 
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 with you, Brad, that I think first let's look where 

2 the PoCs differ -- or where the decision differs, 

3 in fact, not even the PoCs. The decision differs.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right. And I agree 

5 wholeheartedly with Wanda that, you know, the 

6 little doses, you know, what a big difference.

7 But what I am saying is, yeah, we can 

8 have -- well, they can be off a little bit here and 

9 there on doses, but it seems like, you know, it goes 

10 back and forth who has it and what I am just saying 

11 is I wanted to take a look at the end result.

12 Wanda is absolutely right. We can 

13 argue all day about how they come up with that, but 

14 the end result is what I'm more focused on.

15 And maybe that's wrong, but, you know, 

16 that's kind of how I ---

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

19 Kathy and I'll just throw this out for 

20 consideration.

21 When I went through these comparison 

22 reports, I found it very interesting and it's 
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 something that I did try to point out in the report.

2 There were times that the doses were 

3 very close, but the methodology to get there was 

4 different.

5 I saw cases where each method used the 

6 same table from the same TBD and came out with very 

7 different doses because of professional judgments 

8 regarding should you use the 50th percentile, how 

9 do you classify this worker? Is he an admin 

10 worker? Is he a laborer? Is he a supervisor?

11 So it was interesting to me to see those 

12 types of differences. And so you might see doses 

13 that look almost identical, but the approach to 

14 getting there in some instances was very different.

15 If I can just --- and, you know, one of 

16 the things as we were preparing to have this 

17 discussion today, Rose had made a comment that 

18 perhaps going forward we would want to deal with 

19 these blinds on --- as we do with the one-on-ones 

20 because they are complex.

21 And from my perspective now especially, 

22 like I said, since I've gone through most of these, 
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 I've done most of these comparisons, it's very 

2 interesting to see what you --- the outcome.

3 And, like I said, it's not always just 

4 the dose. It's just the approach and how we get 

5 there.

6 Now what we were trying to do today was 

7 keep it --- even though we have to work through it 

8 all -- keep it as clear and simple and only point 

9 out to you when there are significant differences 

10 either in methodologies or in doses.

11 And sometimes doses can be fairly 

12 similar. But because of uncertainty factors as 

13 how these data were entered into IREP, the PoCs will 

14 be very different even though doses are the same.

15 So I would just caution you a little bit 

16 for not letting us walk through these.

17 Now, perhaps that's not something 

18 you're willing to do today and maybe we do want to 

19 think about doing our one-on-one-type thing in the 

20 next week. I don't know. 

21 MR. KATZ: This is Ted, Kathy. I mean, 

22 I agree. I'm not sure about the one-on-one even 
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 what you're meaning, because I don't think doing 

2 this just with an individual Board Member or two 

3 is really the way to go at all. It's not really 

4 informative for the larger --

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: I do think we invest a lot, 

7 Dave, and the rest of you Subcommittee Members, in 

8 doing these blind reviews. We've invested a lot 

9 of resources, effort, and I think that there is a 

10 lot of insight to be gained by going through these 

11 sort of the way Kathy is saying, irrespective of 

12 where the PoC comes out or what have you.

13 So I would really hate for the 

14 Subcommittee to give short shrift to this sort of 

15 pretty major effort that I think has the 

16 possibility of, you know, at least raising some 

17 useful discussion, insight and understanding of 

18 how dose reconstructions are done currently and 

19 differences and how to think about what's needed 

20 down the road in terms of case reviews. So that's 

21 my pitch.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I respect 
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 that that would be very interesting. But if I may 

2 comment overall with it, I am impressed at how close 

3 the PoCs are. They're all within about two percent 

4 with one exception on the 20th set.

5 That's the one I certainly want to focus 

6 in on, or put it this way: I want to find out when 

7 there is a difference of decision or if those are 

8 the things that we need to look at most actively. 

9 That's to say those are my --- I would say that's 

10 a priority issue.

11 I'm also wondering --- I received ---

12 Ted, you sent me Kathy's report from February 2015 

13 on Rocky Flats blind dose reconstruction. I 

14 didn't see that here.

15 Kathy, did you mention that or did we 

16 hold on that before? Did I miss it?

17 MR. KATZ: It's covered in the report 

18 I saw.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe you're 

20 talking about under the 20th set lines on the second 

21 page of my summary table. There is the 

22 third -- fourth case down is at Rocky Flats plant.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is 

2 that -- that's a different number than I have. I 

3 have [identifying information redacted].

4 There it is. There it is. Okay. We 

5 hadn't scrolled down enough.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry. 

8 It's the 17th set. We were looking at the 20th.

9 That was another one that was very 

10 concerning, because the decision was fundamentally 

11 changed depending on which approach [was taken].

12 I would only say that those represent 

13 priorities, in my mind, for the first ones I want 

14 to go over.

15 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I'm not disagreeing 

16 with you at all, Dave, on that.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

18 MR. KATZ: I just was, again, pitching 

19 that we really give consideration at the end of the 

20 day to all of them.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

22 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that's all.
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 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I think, 

2 yeah, I think that's alright. I think that maybe 

3 we need to make sure we go into this with a very 

4 open mind, because the -- I've got this feeling that 

5 we're not going to close any of these out with this 

6 method.

7 And although I hate to volunteer it up, 

8 I mean, maybe we need to -- maybe we're going to 

9 ultimately need to provide written response back 

10 on all these so that that can be reviewed before 

11 the meeting.

12 I'm all for trying to do it the way you 

13 want to do it. I just -- I have a tendency to 

14 believe that this is going to be very, very 

15 complicated and very long and cumbersome, but I'll 

16 be open-minded and see how it goes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: And I'll also point 

19 out, this is Kathy again, that we did not make any 

20 findings as you are used to seeing in our dose 

21 reconstruction reviews.

22 We simply laid out the three 
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 methodologies that were used at least prior to the 

2 20th set, and then the two methodologies, the SC&A 

3 and NIOSH.

4 We didn't really identify any specific 

5 findings. We just laid out this is how one 

6 reviewer -- the approaches that they took, the 

7 decisions that they made, and this is how another 

8 dose reconstruction auditor viewed that same data.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: So there's no specific 

11 findings that can be addressed. Now, as Grady is 

12 saying, there will be -- and one of the things that 

13 I tried to do when I was writing up these comparison 

14 reports and, in fact, the Allied Chemical is a very 

15 good example, I tried to explain why if there was 

16 certain data that was used or there was 

17 percentages, in fact, in that particular case, 

18 NIOSH used a percentage of data in a generic TBD 

19 --- or, no, OTIB, their justification for doing 

20 that and that will become a discussion point during 

21 that particular blind.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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 MS. K. BEHLING: I did try to explain, 

2 you know, their justification for doing what they 

3 did and why SC&A maybe did not make that decision.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Right. 

5 And I ---

6 MS. K. BEHLING: The other thing that 

7 I will make mention of is one of the other things 

8 --- and, again, here we do have to apologize because 

9 we didn't get all of these comparison reports into 

10 your hands.

11 Some of them from the 20th set 

12 especially just came in within the last few days, 

13 although you have had the other eight comparisons 

14 for some time.

15 One of the things I really tried to do 

16 was make it very, very clear, lay out the report 

17 in a very clear fashion.

18 And if there are any changes that you 

19 would like to see in this comparison report, let 

20 us know, but I think that the approach that we took 

21 in writing this up, I tried very hard to make it 

22 very concise and clear so that you could compare 
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 apples to apples.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm going to 

3 repeat what Wanda said before, which is to say I 

4 really appreciate the clarity of these tables. 

5 And although you stated that we all had 

6 these before, I do not feel that I had those before. 

7 And I must say I was -- I spent part of the day 

8 yesterday trying to look up what we had done under 

9 the 17th set. And even going into the transcript, 

10 I could not follow it with any clarity.

11 So this is, in a way, other than two that 

12 we discussed in our Subcommittee meetings, this is 

13 the first time, if you will, I've seen them in a 

14 set.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. You're 

16 correct. The 17th set were all -- comparison 

17 reports were all sent out by the end of February. 

18 They came in, in the December, January, February 

19 time period of this, you know, 2014-2015.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: So, you're correct 

22 there. And, again, my apologies with that.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

2 appreciate going -- we're going forward now and I 

3 appreciate having clarity now to move forward.

4 How should we -- let me, perhaps, may 

5 I hear from other Subcommittee Members about 

6 how -- their sense of how we should proceed?

7 Brad and I and Wanda have spoken. John 

8 or David, might you have some comments for us about 

9 what's your sense to how we might go forward?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I've been 

11 sitting here listening. And since I didn't have 

12 anything to disagree with, I didn't think it was 

13 necessary to repeat anything. I agree with what's 

14 been said so far.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Which is 

16 to say focus in on -- I don't want to put words in --

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: David, this is Brad. 

18 I'm going to tell you the truth. I think we've got 

19 to first get into them and see what -- be able to 

20 figure out a path forward for what's relevant and 

21 what isn't.

22 I think we've got to be able to start 
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 into them and start evaluating them. And to tell 

2 you the truth, I've been sitting back looking at 

3 all this information, what it's given me, you know.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Well, I 

5 think that sounds like a sensible approach unless, 

6 David, did you want to say something? Did I cut 

7 you off?

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: No, you didn't cut 

9 me off. Yeah, and I think Grady's concern is 

10 possibly well founded. I think we'll have to get 

11 into it and see, but potentially [it] could be 

12 pretty complicated.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, that's 

14 what I'm worried about, too. On the other hand, 

15 maybe we should do one, as Brad suggested, in 

16 detail. And then after that, see how, based on 

17 that discussion, how we might move ahead more 

18 rapidly.

19 I would just say as a priority, I would 

20 take one where the PoC, the decision was flipped.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. In fact ---

22 this is Kathy again. I was going to suggest the 
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 same thing.

2 Can we perhaps start with the Allied 

3 Chemical from the 17th set, the first one listed 

4 under the 17th set? I'm prepared to discuss that 

5 and I'll try to keep it brief enough that we can 

6 get that done before lunch.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, my goodness. 

8 Oh, yes. Fine. I'm impressed that you think we 

9 can finish it before lunch.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Well ---

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But be that as it 

12 may, I think that's a good --- I concur. How do 

13 others feel? Good? Shall we go ahead with that 

14 one?

15 You're ready to talk about it and --

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I am. And, in 

17 fact, I believe it was Doug and John Mauro who they 

18 initially did --- Doug, I believe, did SC&A's 

19 Method A, and John Mauro did Method B.

20 And then I as an independent, I reviewed 

21 everything, peer reviewed and then put together the 

22 comparison report.
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 So if during my discussion John and Doug 

2 want to jump in, please don't hesitate. And I see 

3 Rose has this particular case up on LiveMeeting.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: I'll start as we do 

6 with our dose reconstruction audits. This 

7 particular case was obviously an individual that 

8 worked at Allied Chemical.

9 If we go to Page 7 of the report, we put 

10 together on Table 1.1 a comparison of Method A's 

11 dose, Method B's dose as I did similar in our 

12 overview ---

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MS. K. BEHLING: -- and NIOSH. And as 

15 you can see, there are significant differences in 

16 dose primarily in the internal dose.

17 And the other thing that was 

18 interesting with this is that SC&A's Method B did 

19 a partial dose reconstruction and only considered 

20 the radon component. And we'll talk about that in 

21 a little bit more detail.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Kathy. I'm sorry. 
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 This is Scott Siebert. I just want to clarify for 

2 some that there are multiple Allied Chemicals out 

3 in the complex.

4 This specific claim is dealing with 

5 Allied Chemical and Die Corporation in Delaware.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Probably not the Allied 

8 Chemical that most people think of when we say 

9 Allied Chemical. 

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you. And I 

11 should have clarified that. But if we go now to 

12 Page 8, this is Allied Chemical and Die of North 

13 Claymont, Delaware.

14 This individual worked at that facility 

15 from [identifying information redacted] through 

16 [identifying information redacted]. And then 

17 there was a year break and started again in 

18 [identifying information redacted] through 

19 [identifying information redacted].

20 The individual was a [identifying 

21 information redacted]. There were no monitoring 

22 records. And there is no Site Profile or survey 
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 data or Technical Basis Document for this Allied 

2 Chemical site. The individual was diagnosed with

3 a [identifying information redacted] cancer in 

4 [identifying information redacted].

5 Now, since there was no monitoring data 

6 and there's no TBD, I've listed there the various 

7 guidance documents that were used by the three 

8 different methods.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy, pardon me 

10 for interrupting. Could somebody scroll to that 

11 page you're talking about, Page 8?

12 MS. K. BEHLING: Page 8.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you.

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Yeah, there we 

15 go. And if we scroll down a little bit further, 

16 we can see that the type of documents were used, 

17 there is a generic OTIB out there, OTIB-43, that 

18 seemed appropriate for this particular case.

19 Also, they used Battelle TBD-6000 for 

20 portions of the doses. OTIB-70, residual 

21 radioactivity at the AWE sites was used. And for 

22 one of the methods, they used surrogate data from 
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 the Blockson Chemical Company, which is the 

2 TKBS-0002 that you see.

3 And then finally for the radon data, 

4 they used the Florida Institute of Phosphate 

5 Research report for assigning the radon dose, which 

6 we'll discuss in just a brief time.

7 If we move on to Page 9, Table 2.1, this 

8 is where I try to lay out a comparison of the data 

9 and assumptions used by the different methods.

10 As you can see, I'm not going to go into 

11 detail on this, because we'll go into detail as we 

12 go through the report, but I try to summarize the 

13 different, like I said, approaches that were ---

14 and data that were used for each of the dose 

15 elements, but we'll get into more detail as we go 

16 through this.

17 If we can move on to Page 10 and we'll 

18 discuss the external dose and how photon doses 

19 during the operational period were calculated.

20 Now, NIOSH and SC&A's Method A used 

21 OTIB-43 for assessing this particular dose. The 

22 only thing is, their approach to doing this was a 
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 little bit different.

2 There is a Table 4.1 --- yeah, 4.1 in 

3 OTIB-43 that provides upper bound doses and also 

4 a geometric mean exposure rate.

5 What NIOSH determined they would do is 

6 take 10 percent, use 10 percent of that upper bound 

7 external exposure of 220 millirem per year from 

8 Table 4.1 to calculate the 30 to 50 and greater than 

9 250 doses.

10 And I'll explain a little bit later why 

11 they did that once we get into the internal dose 

12 at least based on communications that I had with 

13 David Allen from NIOSH, because it wasn't clear to 

14 me in the dose reconstruction report why that was 

15 done.

16 They also used a DCF value. They used 

17 the exposure to organ DCF value. And you can see 

18 if you scroll down a little bit, I actually did a 

19 calculation. I did one of the calculations for one 

20 of the years for you as an example.

21 Now, Method A, this method used the 

22 geometric mean value from OTIB-43. Same table, 
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 but different decisions being made here. This is 

2 what I wanted to point out.

3 And, like I said, this 10 percent issue 

4 was something that NIOSH looked at the maximum 

5 value applied at 10 percent where we -- where SC&A's 

6 Method A just used this geometric mean value.

7 As I indicated up front, so you're not 

8 confused by the fact that I'm not talking about 

9 SC&A's Method B, that method only looked at the 

10 radon dose and felt that that was enough --- the 

11 radon exposure was enough to put this individual 

12 over the 50 percent. So they did a partial.

13 If we go on then to Section 2.1.2, which 

14 is on Page 11, this is photon dose during the 

15 residual period which begins in 1970. And this 

16 individual obviously worked throughout the 

17 operational period.

18 And at least up until 1975 of the 

19 residual period, I think the residual period goes 

20 out to '77, again NIOSH used the same methodology. 

21 They calculated based on a 10 percent of this 

22 maximum value.
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 SC&A, now is where SC&A picked up 

2 OTIB-70 and looked at the adjustment factors to 

3 account for depletion of the source term based on 

4 methodology in OTIB-70.

5 And if you scroll down a little bit, our 

6 Table 2.2 shows residual doses and based on the 

7 adjustment factors that were pulled out of OTIB-70 

8 for calculating the photon doses during the 

9 residual period.

10 We'll go on and I do provide a little 

11 comparison table there, Table 2.3 of the photon 

12 doses calculated by each of the methods. And you 

13 can see in this particular case with the externals, 

14 the differences are not real significant. They 

15 get much more significant when we start talking 

16 about internal doses.

17 Occupational medical, again, Method B 

18 did not consider occupational medical. Both NIOSH 

19 and SC&A's Method A calculated occupational 

20 medical doses.

21 They assigned annual doses for the 

22 operational --- yeah, here was the difference. 
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 They both used same documents. The only thing is 

2 that NIOSH signed the occupational medical only for 

3 the operational period while SC&A's Method A 

4 assigned annual occupational medical dose for both 

5 the operational and residual period.

6 So, that's why you'll see in Table 2.4 

7 a little bit of a difference there in dose. That's 

8 why the SC&A dose is a little bit higher.

9 Okay. Going on to the internal doses 

10 now, Page 13. Now here is where I'll try to explain 

11 NIOSH's rationale for, again, they calculated 

12 internal doses during the operational period using 

13 10 percent of a maximizing intake value from Table 

14 4.3 of OTIB-43.

15 And they based that on the fact that 

16 they said due to the fact that this was a bench scale 

17 operation going on at the Allied Chemical and 

18 OTIB-43 is based on a large scale production, they 

19 felt that the assumption of 10 percent was 

20 appropriate. So that's why they made that 

21 decision.

22 While we're at this point, and I'm going 
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 out on a limb here a little bit, but the only 

2 question that I did have in my mind that I'll just 

3 put out there is do --- and I didn't go back to 

4 verify this. I'm wondering with this particular 

5 case or with this particular site, do all dose 

6 reconstructors use this 10 percent value?

7 And just as I was working through this, 

8 I wondered if there might even be, and NIOSH could 

9 probably answer this for us, they often have these 

10 guidelines or notes, as we used to call them, that 

11 help to guide the dose reconstructors to all make 

12 similar decisions.

13 And in this particular case it just 

14 struck me, was this a professional judgment that 

15 was used just by this dose reconstructor, or do all 

16 dose reconstructors maybe know that this is an 

17 option they should consider using this 10 percent?

18 And we can go on, and then, NIOSH, I 

19 don't think they're probably in a position to 

20 necessarily answer that question today, but I go 

21 through some calculations here as to how they went 

22 about doing their internal dose calculations.
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 Now SC&A in this case for the 

2 operational internal dose, this is where we 

3 decided, well, we're going to use surrogate data.

4 And so, we went into the Blockson 

5 Chemical site TBD and made a list of assumptions. 

6 I think Doug has about eight different assumptions 

7 here -- if we scroll down between Page 13 and 14

8 -- as to what went into calculating the internal 

9 doses. And I summarize those for him in Table 2.5 

10 at the bottom of that page.

11 So, again, two different methodologies 

12 and approaches to calculating internal dose for the 

13 operational period.

14 As you can see, NIOSH used the OTIB-43 

15 and Doug used a combination of Blockson and OTIB-43 

16 in his assumptions.

17 If we move on to inhalation doses during 

18 --- oh, and as you can see, okay, one other thing 

19 I wanted to point out -- let me see if I did this 

20 right.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon me.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I'm sorry.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What is 

2 Blockson?

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Blockson Chemical is 

4 another Site Profile that deals with 

5 phosphogypsum. So it's a similar ---

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I hadn't 

7 been aware of the existence of ---

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, a very similar 

9 process and almost identical. We dealt with it at 

10 great lengths prior to your arrival on the Board.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Several years ago.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

14 Okay. Well, thank you.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: And I just want to 

16 point out I'm trying to go through this quickly. 

17 So I'm missing some of my notes here.

18 The inhalation dose that was assigned 

19 for the operational period by NIOSH was a little 

20 bit over 15 rem. And then based on SC&A's approach 

21 we determined the inhalation dose to be 93 rem. So 

22 you can see the obviously significant difference 
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 there.

2 The inhalation dose then for the 

3 residual period, again NIOSH based this on the 

4 operational period. I give you an example of a 

5 calculation and they applied settling and 

6 resuspension factors shown on Page 15.

7 Are we there?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And the doses 

10 associated with the residual period as calculated 

11 by NIOSH ended up being 88 millirem.

12 They looked at the uranium and thorium. 

13 They compared the different solubility types and 

14 rem. CADW to come up with that 88 millirem where 

15 SC&A's Method A for the residual inhalation dose, 

16 they used again the OTIB-70 average depletion 

17 values as is shown in Table 2.6.

18 And that dose ended up being calculated 

19 as 24.6 rem for the residual period. So, again, 

20 significant difference between the two methods and 

21 their doses.

22 If we move on to Page 16, the inhalation 
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 dose, only NIOSH calculated a dose associated with 

2 the inhalation pathway. They used guidance in 

3 their OCAS-TIB-009 TIB and again used a 10 percent 

4 value of the OTIB-43 values, as I describe there.

5 And I provide you with an example of the 

6 calculation that they used for the operations and 

7 the residual period. And as I said, neither of 

8 SC&A's methods calculated an ingestion dose.

9 Now, we'll go on to the radon and here 

10 to do the radon exposures, again NIOSH used a 10 

11 percent of the maximum OTIB-43 values that were 

12 cited in Table 4.4 of OTIB-43.

13 Again, as we described, they assumed 

14 that because of the difference in --- the 

15 differences between how OTIB-43 was designed and 

16 what was going on at Allied Chemical, they felt that 

17 that 10 percent was appropriate.

18 SC&A used best estimate value from 

19 Table 4.4 here again using same tables, same OTIBs, 

20 but selecting different values. They pulled 

21 out -- or we used the best estimate value of 0.036 

22 working levels per year for that table. 
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 And then lastly this is where Method B 

2 came in and they used EPA guidance and, again, as 

3 I mentioned, the Florida Institute of Phosphate 

4 Research data to assign exposures to radon based 

5 on a four picocurie per liter limit, which, as we 

6 showed here, translates to a 0.235 working level 

7 months per year at a 50th percent equilibrium.

8 This method also only assigned that 

9 exposure for nine years of the employment rather 

10 than throughout the entire employment. And I 

11 think I've summarized then the comparison of 

12 internal doses in Table 2.7, as you can see.

13 And the summary conclusions on Page 18, 

14 again you can see the total doses, you can see the 

15 total radon exposures. And in both the SC&A cases 

16 --- the SC&A's methodology resulted in a PoC of 

17 greater than 50. And with NIOSH, the PoC was 45.9 

18 percent.

19 So there it is in a nutshell and all 

20 before one o'clock. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, very good. 

22 We need to chew on this over lunch.
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 MR. CALHOUN: Well, let me add my 

2 little two cents before we chew on it.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Because mine is 

5 short and sweet and it's exactly what she said is 

6 that TIB-43 is based on an operational production 

7 level uranium extraction phosphate plant.

8 Allied Chemical and Die, which Scott 

9 pointed out, which should not be confused with 

10 Allied Chemical, was a very small pilot scale 

11 operation that only processed a few pounds of 

12 material and assigning somebody a dose consistent 

13 with a production level facility is just not 

14 appropriate.

15 And we believe that a 10 percent 

16 assigning of that dose of internal and external was 

17 certainly claimant-favorable based on the type of 

18 facility, and even the job classification of the 

19 individual, that one really didn't come into a 

20 whole lot of play, but you can't imagine that given 

21 the fact that this was a pilot scale operation that 

22 a [identifying information redacted] would be 
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 involved in.

2 So that's really the crux of the 

3 difference with the whole dose reconstruction. 

4 And that's our explanation as to why they were 

5 different.

6 MEMBER MUNN: There is one piece of 

7 information that no one mentioned. A question in 

8 my mind, because I have not gone back and read 

9 everything there is to read about this particular 

10 small operation, this was, I believe, a wet 

11 process, correct?

12 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: It is the same wet 

14 process that we're accustomed to seeing in these 

15 phosphate extraction plants. Minor differences, 

16 but for all intents and purposes it's a wet, small 

17 laboratory almost --- just beyond laboratory 

18 production of a very small amount of radioactive 

19 material over a long period of time in a wet 

20 extraction process. Just wanted to make sure that 

21 I have that correctly.

22 MR. CALHOUN: Right.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Because that's my 

2 personal reality check about these.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: The only other thing 

4 that as I mentioned earlier --- Kathy again --- is 

5 there any --- since there is no TBD and no specific 

6 information associated with the Allied Chemical 

7 and Die Company in doing the dose reconstruction, 

8 is there some instruction out there that would tell 

9 all dose reconstructors who are going to do these 

10 types of cases to use that 10 percent?

11 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know that and 

12 you're right that I wouldn't be prepared to talk 

13 of that one. I just looked quickly and we haven't 

14 comped a single case from that site.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And I'm not 

16 disagreeing with using the 10 percent. That 

17 sounds reasonable to me. However ---

18 MR. CALHOUN: I'm going to check on 

19 that, though. 

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

21 MR. CALHOUN: There's 18 cases total. 

22 I wouldn't be concerned at all if they didn't use 
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 a fraction of that for something like a prostate 

2 cancer, but I'm interested in determining if 10 

3 percent was consistently used for the metabolic 

4 cancers.

5 And I also agree that there should have 

6 probably been more discussion in the body of the 

7 DR as to using a fraction of it and why. I think 

8 that could have been clearer.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, it was not 

10 explained in there and I had to actually contact 

11 David Allen, as I mentioned. And I've included the 

12 memo in our references in order to determine why 

13 that was done.

14 But, like I said, what really stands out 

15 in my mind is a consistency issue and to ensure ---

16 because as you can see, I mean, SC&A, we've reviewed 

17 a lot of cases and we used data that was available 

18 to us, as you did.

19 And if the dose reconstructors, the 

20 ORAU and NIOSH dose reconstructors aren't all given 

21 consistent data, are they aware that 10 percent is 

22 appropriate in this particular case?
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 And I agree with that. I'm just saying 

2 they all need to be aware of that.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, it is 

5 just after --- I may --- could we perhaps go on, 

6 if people would agree, until 1:15 so that Board 

7 Members can ask questions when this is fresh in 

8 front of them?

9 So, unless I --- do I hear some 

10 objection to going for another --- until 1:15?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, not if people have 

12 questions.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I think we ought to 

15 postpone discussion, but, yeah, questions should 

16 ---

17 MEMBER POSTON: Dave, I've got another 

18 meeting at 12:30. 1:30 your time, but I'll stay 

19 as long as I can.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You have a 

21 meeting at 12:30. 1:30 our time. 

22 MEMBER POSTON: Yeah, it's about a 
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 15-minute drive.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. So you 

3 will come back later after the meeting -- actually, 

4 John, no need, I mean, you need not in terms of a 

5 quorum. We have a quorum even if you were to leave.

6 So you will leave ---

7 MEMBER POSTON: In about five minutes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then in 

9 which case --

10 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy again. 

11 I'm sorry.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Can I just be sure 

14 that, if you don't mind, asking Doug and John Mauro, 

15 did I explain things to your satisfaction? Is 

16 there anything that you would like to add?

17 DR. MAURO: Yeah, this is John. I'd 

18 like to add just one point that's really 

19 fundamental. No one talked to each other.

20 In other words, when I worked on Method 

21 B, I did not communicate with the folks at SC&A 

22 doing Method A. And of course we never saw NIOSH. 
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 So this whole process is extremely interesting, 

2 because what we really have is three -- truly blind. 

3 How would you come at the problem?

4 And even within SC&A we did not talk to 

5 each other. And so it's very revealing. And what 

6 I would like to bring to the attention of everyone 

7 concerned is that what's really interesting here 

8 is the judgment calls that are --- and it's truly 

9 appropriate to leave a degree of discretion, you 

10 know.

11 You can't turn a crank. So you have to 

12 leave a degree of discretion to the dose 

13 reconstructor on how he's going to come at the 

14 problem.

15 And the differences that we see here in 

16 many respects have to do with these kinds of 

17 judgments.

18 And in this case it's particularly 

19 interesting, because the judgments made actually 

20 make a difference between compensation and not 

21 compensation.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, there --
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 MEMBER MUNN: Not just compensation.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There are a 

3 hundred rems of difference. This is huge.

4 DR. MAURO: Yeah, this is ---

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And upsetting, 

6 in fact.

7 DR. MAURO: This is an astounding case 

8 and this is one that I think that's really worthy 

9 of ---

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, since John 

11 has to leave in a couple of minutes --- that's 

12 Poston --- we will have to come back to this later.

13 And maybe can I give the last word? 

14 John Mauro, you spoke. I hope you finished, or do 

15 you need a little bit more time to finish, and John 

16 Stiver? Did you want to comment, either of you, 

17 on Kathy's presentation?

18 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. I 

19 just kind of ---

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, it was Doug 

21 Farver. Excuse me. It was Doug who I should have 

22 asked because --
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 MR. STIVER: I'd just like to say that, 

2 you know, I think the main value for these is that, 

3 you know, we can see where these decision points 

4 are where professional judgment comes in. And 

5 that's, I think, probably the most valuable aspect 

6 of these blinds especially in a situation where you 

7 can actually flip the decision, the compensation 

8 decision.

9 Anyway, Doug wants to go ahead and add 

10 something.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do, yeah.

12 MR. FARVER: Yeah, this is Doug Farver. 

13 I just wanted to point out I think it's very 

14 interesting if you look at the big difference in 

15 the internal dose that NIOSH started with assuming 

16 10 percent of the value.

17 So, if you multiply theirs by 10 or the 

18 SC&A divide by 10, you come up with something much 

19 closer, but the methods were just entirely 

20 different, the whole process, and I find that 

21 interesting.

22 It's probably not 10 percent, it's not 
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 a hundred percent, and there's probably some 

2 percentage here in the middle where it really is. 

3 Maybe it's five percent. I don't know, and that's 

4 the tricky part. What percentage do you pick?

5 At some point their 45 percent is going 

6 to go over 50. And our 85 percent is going to come 

7 under 50. Now, what percentage is that? I don't 

8 know. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: But common sense tells 

10 you in a wet process with a source term that small, 

11 it's not going to be over a hundred rem. Common 

12 sense would tell you that.

13 You couldn't get a hundred rem if you 

14 were drinking the mix.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's not go

16 there.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Let's not.

18 MR. KATZ: Can I just check, Dr. 

19 Poston, are you coming back after your meeting or 

20 whatever it was?

21 MEMBER POSTON: I can't. It's a 

22 two-hour meeting.
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 MR. KATZ: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

3 David, you'll be back?

4 MR. KATZ: That's David Richardson.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David 

6 Richardson. Correct. I just want to assure that 

7 we have a quorum.

8 MR. KATZ: Exactly. Maybe you're on 

9 mute again, David.

10 (Pause.)

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, you know what? I'll 

12 send David an email right after we break just to 

13 make sure he's going to rejoin us.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: John, also I'm 

15 sorry to say this as the last word, but I had 

16 understood that this was a day that you were 

17 entirely free. And I thought that that was part 

18 of setting the date as we did.

19 I do hope we can set a date where we are 

20 all --- where we are free.

21 MEMBER POSTON: No, I tried to, but, 

22 you know, I have a real job.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I understand 

2 and I'm not --- yes, alright. Let's leave it at 

3 that. Alright. Folks, it's 10 after 1:00.

4 And, look, John, thank you for being 

5 here as long as you have been. And we do have a 

6 quorum. We will continue.

7 I also hope we'll get another Member 

8 soon and we'll be -- it will be easier to achieve 

9 our quorum.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Alright.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So it's now 10 

12 after 1:00 eastern time. Let's take an hour and

13 see you all at 10 after 2:00 Eastern time.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And we 

16 will continue discussion of this.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you, all. 

19 Bye-bye.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Bye-bye.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

22 went off the record at 1:09 p.m. and resumed at 2:16 
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 p.m.) 

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Dave? 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright, folks. 

4 Well, we really are now going to start discussion 

5 on 0370690, Allied Chemical and Die case. 

6 Hopefully, why don't we put up -- there we go --

7 the comparison. And let's see. Let's see. 

8 There we go, Table 1-1.

9 Well, I mean, well, first, I have a few 

10 questions. I wondered how, if we knew how 

11 sensitive the choice was to taking 10 percent due 

12 to the lab work, [why not] 15 percent, 5 percent? 

13 In other words, it seems as if that may -- I looked 

14 through it, and I just feel like, as a number it's 

15 arbitrary. I recognize that if it's a wet process 

16 like that, of course it's much lower than, the 

17 exposure is much lower than if they were working 

18 in a plant for which the original document the TBDs 

19 were made. But I just am -- but it just seems like 

20 a number pulled out of a hat. And given the vast 

21 difference that the results have, they're 

22 disturbing to me. 
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 DR. MAURO: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

2 John Mauro. It's even more disconcerting. I 

3 certainly agree with Wanda regarding, you know, if 

4 it's a low-exposure circumstance. But we're 

5 getting working-level months alone that are at four 

6 picocuries per liter. 

7 In other words, I use what they call 

8 Method B, which I didn't look at anything. I just 

9 looked at the case, and I said, listen, I'm going 

10 to put a lower bound concentration of radon this 

11 guy might have been exposed to, looking at some 

12 literature. And the lowest number reported was 

13 around four picocuries per liter. And for those 

14 of you in the radon world, you're probably sitting 

15 in your home right now, and you're probably at 

16 around one picocurie per liter or two picocuries 

17 per liter. Yes, that's where it comes in. The EPA 

18 standard guideline is four, but I know in my 

19 basement I'm at one and that's where I am right now.

20 Now all I assumed was that the person 

21 was at four picocuries per liter, and you're going 

22 to be very surprised. You do get, over a nine-year 
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 period, if you're working 2,000 hours per year at 

2 four picocuries per liter, you get 2 working-level 

3 months. Now I'm coming in a factor of 10 higher 

4 than NIOSH, and I'm only assuming four picocuries 

5 per liter.

6 So what I'm getting at is that this is 

7 a perfect example of you get into your protocols, 

8 your procedures, workbooks, and assumptions, and 

9 you all step back and think about it, and I didn't 

10 do that. I mean, I'm the guy that used to do these 

11 Method B things. And I just asked myself, listen, 

12 yes, the lowest number they could assign is four 

13 picocuries per liter. I think everyone agrees 

14 that's a fairly low -- and that's the guys working 

15 outdoors. I'd be the first to admit if he was 

16 working outdoors, you know, it's 3.1 picocuries per 

17 liter or even lower. But assuming he's indoors, 

18 four picocuries per liter is a very low number, and 

19 I come up with, you know, about 2 working-level 

20 months’ time-integrated exposure to a radon 

21 progeny, and NIOSH comes in at 0.2. There's 

22 something wrong here. 
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes. Well 

2 I'm even concerned that if we use, if when you use 

3 Method A that you came in at 0.8 --

4 DR. MAURO: I agree.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: --

6 working-level months.

7 DR. MAURO: I agree.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's a 

9 factor of four. I will also note that the one that 

10 we're going to eventually get to, one of those that 

11 we're going to eventually get to where there was 

12 a change in compensation or potential change in 

13 compensation from Rocky Flats also had the problem 

14 in the internal dose. 

15 Now I'm keeping my mind, I mean I'll 

16 keep open what specifically was the problem. But 

17 at least two of them where there is a serious 

18 difference or a serious concern, we have internal 

19 dose, although the other one, I have to say, is 

20 plutonium. So that's even further upsetting.

21 But beyond upsetting, it is, I mean, 

22 we're trying to learn, we hope that the blind 
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 results, the NIOSH and SC&A are together. But if 

2 they're not, then it is our duty to understand why 

3 and try to figure out what could be done in the 

4 future so that we do not have differences like this. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, these blind 

6 reviews, especially this one that we're discussing 

7 now and the other one that you made reference to, 

8 are extremely informative because they are 

9 illustrative of a position that I've taken 

10 repeatedly, and not very popularly I might add, 

11 with respect to what we have done here deliberately 

12 in our actions as a Board. We have gone out of our 

13 way to try to be as generous in our compensation 

14 attitudes as possible, and this, if we have a single 

15 issue and only one issue to look at, makes sense.

16 We have, as these cases demonstrate, a 

17 very large number of aspects of the issue that we 

18 must look at. And in every case, we are permitted 

19 to go to abstract extremes. We're urged to do so 

20 often, even though, in this case, as John pointed 

21 out, he didn't really feel he was going to an 

22 extreme and was just taking what he felt was a 
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 rational number. But the end result of that 

2 stack-up of decision points causes knowledgeable 

3 people with high humanitarian intent to come out 

4 with results that just simply don't make sense. 

5 This is what I meant earlier when I said 

6 you can look at that 118 rem and say this does not 

7 make sense. I find myself thinking I wish I knew 

8 less about human biological effects and a little 

9 bit less about dose rates and what they meant 

10 because, if I did, I would just say, boy, look at 

11 that, that's a big difference. But instead I look 

12 at that and I say that's so far off the realm of 

13 possibility that it has to be, it has to be 

14 discarded on the face of it. But that doesn't help 

15 us in our deliberations here about is this okay and 

16 what, if anything, should we be doing something 

17 about it and, if so, what? 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And, 

19 yes, and I recognize that that is an unpopular 

20 opinion, and it is. On the other hand, the concept 

21 behind workers' compensation is, as we know, not 

22 precise scientific knowledge, but likelihood that 
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 the problem, if likely to have come from the work 

2 that people do. And we have to make decisions and 

3 do all the time in all kinds of workers' 

4 compensation on the basis of is it likely to have 

5 done something. And even within that context, we 

6 are flexible. And it's [as] true for a person 

7 getting ill from working in a dusty trade as it is 

8 for radiation, that, at a certain point, you just 

9 say, well, if there's any doubt, if there is concern 

10 or if there's some evidence that we have to act 

11 generously on behalf of the person who is ill.

12 So it's a clash. Nevertheless, I fully 

13 agree with you in this case. I mean, 120 rems, 93 

14 of which are from uranium thorium, it doesn't sound 

15 right. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: There wasn't much 

17 uranium thorium there. 

18 DR. MAURO: But the irony of this is the 

19 radon progeny alone is the driver. I'd like to say 

20 that this particular case, I believe, is an 

21 aberration in that I've never seen differences on 

22 this scale. When we get into the others, the other 
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 blinds, we're going to get a lot more comfortable 

2 because we're going to see the differences are 

3 subtle in most cases. But if we just have to pick 

4 the first one, we'd want it to be the one that I've 

5 never seen such an extreme divergence amongst the 

6 three people because you remember SC&A had the 

7 Method A and Method B, and I did not talk to a Method 

8 A guy and I just did my thing. And this was, of 

9 all of the cases that we were involved in by way

10 of lines, this is the one that is the most 

11 astonishing. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: One has to make some 

13 common sense judgments, as well as the possibility 

14 judgments. And when you're speaking of, in a case 

15 like this, you know you do not have the kind of radon 

16 emissions that you would get in other kinds of 

17 situations. First of all, you know that this is 

18 a wet process and that any materials that you have, 

19 which are only slightly radioactive to begin with, 

20 are in solution. Then you have to know that this 

21 is, after all, an industrial building and you know 

22 that there is air exchange going on there. They're 
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 not working in a closed, shuttered facility. And 

2 these things are the kinds of things that we 

3 encountered when we were dealing with the Blockson 

4 plant and similar phosphate plants since that time.

5 They are mechanical realities that 

6 affect how one can even approach the real science 

7 of this properly. It's just something you have to 

8 take into consideration. 

9 MEMBER MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Jim. 

11 MEMBER MELIUS: Yes, I'm not 

12 disagreeing with what Wanda is saying or what may 

13 be the, you know, sort of the real Probability of 

14 Causation here. But I think, again, we are getting 

15 dose reconstructions that speak of what extent and 

16 are we able or can we come up, you know, with the 

17 kind of guidance that's being provided to the dose 

18 reconstructor, to the available information to 

19 them is sufficient for them to come up with 

20 consistent findings. And clearly something is 

21 missing here. I don't believe it's, you know, 

22 necessarily, with these kind of differences, that 
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 we can leave it all up to judgment. There should 

2 be some way of reaching a consensus on what's a 

3 proper approach to provide guidance for that. You 

4 may not narrow it down to the plus or minus, you 

5 know, 0.001, whatever, but we ought to be able to 

6 do that. 

7 And that's really the purpose of these 

8 audits. It's not the final answer, but are we 

9 providing the kind of information available that 

10 people can come up with, you know, scientifically 

11 valid but also consistent approaches for 

12 evaluating these cases. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well and, in 

14 particular, I would say to John Mauro's thought 

15 that it's an aberration. How would we explain to 

16 the Secretary, not to speak of to the families of 

17 the people who are ill, how this could happen and 

18 why, given the way that we're working, it is not 

19 going to happen again, or we can't call it an 

20 aberration without some rationale as to why this 

21 has occurred and if it isn't -- well, it is our 

22 obligation to try very hard to do this. 
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 MEMBER MELIUS: We have to carry it 

2 beyond what's been talked about so far and see where 

3 did the differences come about and what is the 

4 information that, you know, either the information 

5 or the methodology, what led to these disparate 

6 findings and --

7 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and I'm 

8 going to try to --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, yes. 

10 Could you speak a little louder, please, Grady? 

11 MR. CALHOUN: TBD-6000 actually, which 

12 can't be completely related to this, actually does 

13 have some sections that talk about the differences, 

14 and they do use a number of six percent, or ten 

15 percent, I'm sorry, for differences between, say, 

16 even a supervisor and operator. And this guy was 

17 a [identifying information redacted]. 

18 And we also have the statement here that 

19 only a few pounds of concentrate were ever 

20 produced. The TIB-43 is based on an operational 

21 facility that's probably processed much more than 

22 that every day, okay? But what we need to find out 
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 is do our guys, in fact, have any kind of guidance 

2 that tells them to use that ten percent? And if not, 

3 we'll put something out there that does. 

4 And what Dr. Kotelchuck was mentioning, 

5 how do we prevent this from ever happening again, 

6 I'm not ready to say we need to prevent this from 

7 ever happening again because I'm not convinced it's 

8 wrong. What we need to do is make sure that both 

9 of us or somebody that's looking at the program can 

10 come up with the same flow path to get similar doses 

11 that we've got. 

12 So my go-do right now is to go try to 

13 find out what kind of guidance we have for that. 

14 And if we don't have guidance, we can put something 

15 in place. But, remember, we're using 10 percent 

16 of an operational facility, and, you know, if we 

17 used 10 percent of what was really happening at 

18 Allied Chemical and Die, it would even be far less 

19 than that.

20 So this guy was -- we can all put our 

21 reasonable hats on here and realize that this is 

22 a very, very low exposure potential case. But I 
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 do agree that we need to make sure that similar 

2 decisions are made from case to case.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

4 To just add to that, as I've said, our Method A is 

5 trying to, is a direct, you know, direct assessment 

6 or correlation between what NIOSH is doing. And 

7 had there been specific guidance to be used for the 

8 Allied Chemical and Die facility, obviously we 

9 would have used that.

10 So, again, this was my primary concern:

11 Is the level of consistency that is 10 percent being 

12 used by all dose reconstructors? Is there any 

13 guidance out there? Because this isn't the first 

14 time we have seen situations where there may be a 

15 Word document or something out there that is being 

16 used. We've even seen inconsistencies between 

17 that and Site Profiles, and, luckily, we have 

18 stumbled across this particular case. But I do 

19 think that, as Dr. Melius is saying, the 

20 consistency issue is really important here and I'm 

21 glad that we at least identified that.

22 DR. MAURO: This is John again. If I 
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 was to say what's the root cause of the times when 

2 we run into circumstances where we're so divergent 

3 is when there is a lot of judgment that needs to 

4 be applied. And this is one of those cases where 

5 you really don't have all of the information -- Site 

6 Profile details, guidance, etc. -- available to 

7 you. And the dose reconstructor is left with 

8 having to rely on professional judgment, and then 

9 you can see the differences arise. And that's why 

10 I consider this to be a little bit different than 

11 the others because, most of the time, you do have 

12 quite a bit of guidance available or information 

13 in the Site Profile. 

14 MS. K. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

15 Behling. One more time on this issue. Not only 

16 there, and you'll see that in one of these blinds, 

17 also even judgments when there is a TBD with regard 

18 to, and Hans has brought this up in several of his 

19 reviews, how can we be a little bit more specific 

20 and give a little bit better guidance with regard 

21 to using co-worker data, a 95th percentile versus 

22 a 50th percentile.
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 So even when there is guidance, you 

2 know, and I realize you can't dictate everything, 

3 nothing is completely cast in stone, but we do need 

4 to help the dose reconstructors as much as we can 

5 to make similar decisions. And that's one of the 

6 things I think that could be incorporated.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me just, in 

8 reference to that, where there is a lot of judgment 

9 -- and this is certainly, it's a small place. 

10 There was no monitoring and an enormous amount of 

11 judgment. I'd look at the 45.9 percent that NIOSH 

12 came up with. In a very large plant where lots of 

13 industrial hygiene and health physics work has been 

14 done, 45 percent is very rarely, if we look at it 

15 or when SC&A looks at it, generally, they're never 

16 going to go up into above 50 percent. In fact, 

17 they're not going to deviate much from 45.9. But 

18 is there a way of looking at this and saying there 

19 is -- make an estimate of the degree to which there 

20 is judgment involved, a large amount of judgment, 

21 and say at 45.9 you're actually close to 50 percent 

22 because that's really what is happening. This 
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 would not happen, I think, in a large plant where 

2 there had been measurements where we have something 

3 to hold on to firmly. 

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I agree 

5 completely. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And that 

7 may, that may help provide us with guidance if we 

8 had some effective way of assessing what led to the 

9 45.9. In that regard, if we had some idea, then 

10 we'd start playing around with, well, 5 percent, 

11 10 percent, 15 percent, and seeing if that changed 

12 things very much. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I came 

14 across some little nuggets here while we're --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: And I guess, you know, 

17 still, I think we're getting away from the fact that 

18 there is, that if there's guidance, this goes away. 

19 And so what I found here is, at least I haven't found 

20 the actual document, but what some of my co-workers 

21 have been sending me is that TIB-43 is based on a 

22 production rate of 12 tons of uranium per year at 
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 the smallest plant. Twelve tons, okay? So we use 

2 one-tenth of those values for this site, which is 

3 certainly less than 1.2 tons per year. So it says 

4 that this is some guidance that I'm told we have.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: So it does say 

7 specifically to use 10 percent of the values in 

8 TIB-43. So we do have that, so it does exist. 

9 Now, it's not going to be a formal document.

10 Now the other thing that we're going to 

11 get into here is, well, why don't you make them all 

12 formal documents? Well, we've got 18 cases from 

13 this site, and what we should have done and what 

14 I always say this is always our standing is that 

15 we should make the TBD, not the TBD, the DR detailed 

16 enough that you know what we did. Not you in 

17 particular, the claimant or anybody. We're not 

18 going to make TBDs that are approved documents for 

19 235 sites just in case we get DRs in. 

20 So I'll see what we can do about, you 

21 know, firming this up a little bit. But it's out 

22 there, so I feel better about it now. I didn't know 
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 it until just now. 

2 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling, 

3 and I agree. And like we used to talk about back 

4 in the early days of our audit, we recognize that 

5 there are what we used to call these guidelines or 

6 notes out there that are specific to sites, and this 

7 could be a great example that could be out there. 

8 They're not necessarily formal documents because 

9 we understand you don't have the time to generate 

10 a formal document for every single small site where 

11 there's only 18 Dose Reconstructions. But you 

12 could put together something as simple as one of 

13 these notes, something in the training for those 

14 people that do these sites, and that would help with 

15 the consistency issue. And we used to see them. 

16 In fact, early on, I used to find them on the O: 

17 drive and know what [the dose reconstructors were] 

18 being trained in -- which is a good thing. And 

19 we're not even suggesting that you have to do a Site 

20 Profile for each and every site, but these 

21 workbooks or these notes are guidelines. And now 

22 we even put those into the case files. That was 
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 something that I know Mark had requested. 

2 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Can I just ask 

3 one question, which is sort of the other side of 

4 the equation, about why these decisions are so far 

5 apart or this estimate? Kathy, for your side, John 

6 Mauro and whoever was the other, the A, did you 

7 folks not, at the time, recognize the nature of this 

8 production, or not even production but this 

9 exposure scenario, the difference between that and 

10 the normal Blockson, you know, mass production 

11 scenario? Was that not apparent in the 

12 information available on this site when you guys 

13 did your blinds? 

14 DR. MAURO: This is John. I could 

15 answer. I mean, that's why I picked the lowest 

16 number of radon concentration in those 

17 publications that were measured [by] the EPA, to 

18 say, okay, that's how I came at it. I didn't go 

19 with the median; I went with the lowest. 

20 And even then, when you're dealing with 

21 radon, you know, one picocurie per liter delivers 

22 2,000 rem to the lining of the lung. So, I mean, 
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 that's why I call this an unusual case. 

2 MR. KATZ: Of course, you use your own 

3 methodology, which is really quite divorced from 

4 -- but in your situation, I think it's probably 

5 useful for someone to explore why your figure came 

6 out so much higher than theirs because if the 

7 assumption is sort of equivalent, I mean their 

8 assumption that it's a very low exposure and then 

9 they use the 10 percent, your different approach, 

10 using a low number, but I don't know how that 

11 relates to their assumption. 

12 It seems like the Subcommittee, if they 

13 understood why your figure comes out so high, even 

14 though you assume a relatively low exposure level, 

15 would be helpful just to put, at least, your side 

16 because the A methodology, I mean, that seems 

17 clear-cut. If you folks had used a 10 percent or 

18 a similar percentage, we would have ended up where 

19 they were and there wouldn't have been any question 

20 with that. Your Method B, though, John, is the one 

21 that sort of blows a lot of mystery into the 

22 situation. 
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 DR. MAURO: Well, let me just say one 

2 thing. The number for the working-level months 

3 that is used here by NIOSH is lower by a factor of 

4 two than is in my house right now, in my basement 

5 where I'm working right now, in other words 

6 one-half. So this is just my residence. 

7 So something went wrong in the protocol 

8 with the 10 percent number that was an unintended 

9 consequence. I think Grady's explanation is 

10 understandable, but then what happens when you got 

11 to the radon, the 0.2 working-level months or 

12 whatever over a nine-year period, that means the 

13 concentration of radon is a fraction of 1 picocurie 

14 per liter. And there's where I say you have to be 

15 careful because you're using a protocol, let's say 

16 you're not standardized, though you intended in 

17 this particular circumstance where you're dealing 

18 with radon, you have to ask yourself the question 

19 what radon level does this mean? 

20 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, John. Someone 

21 has got a lot of background noise in their phone, 

22 and it's making it really hard to follow John. 
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 Okay. Now it's quiet. Okay. John, I'm sorry.

2 DR. MAURO: That's okay. I really had 

3 my say. In this particular case, now, clearly, we 

4 have this divergence between the lung dose, not 

5 including radon, just we need to talk about that. 

6 And I think that's going to be important. But all 

7 I'm saying is from a radon point of view because 

8 I didn't even bother looking at the others. I 

9 didn't need to. I was able to get over 50 percent 

10 just by looking at four -- by the way, which this 

11 explains, radon is a very potent radiological 

12 carcinogen for lung cancer. 

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So you're basically 

14 explaining that you would like NIOSH to dig back 

15 into its methodology because you think it may not 

16 be that it's just the 10 percent figure that's 

17 giving them such a low output?

18 DR. MAURO: I think 10 percent maybe 

19 makes sense within a certain context but not when 

20 you're dealing with radon levels in this particular 

21 application. I can't imagine indoors at this 

22 facility that the radon level is what they're 
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 basically saying is about 0.5 picocuries per liter. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: Now, John, you've got to 

3 remember that this is enhanced radon. The radon 

4 in your basement doesn't count.

5 DR. MAURO: No, I understand --

6 MR. CALHOUN: Wait a second now. You 

7 have three pounds of uranium compounds processed 

8 over multiple years give you that much radon 

9 concentration, in excess of what God already put 

10 there.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay.

12 MR. CALHOUN: That's all that counts.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, I mean, I hear 

14 what you're saying, and the only justification I 

15 have, for better or worse, is that, looking at the 

16 available radon data for these kinds of facilities, 

17 I went with the lowest reported value. Now, that 

18 may be too high for this particular facility, and 

19 that's good that we know that. In other words, 

20 that's why we're doing it. I think this is very 

21 revealing. 

22 I went ahead and picked a number based 
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 on my judgment that I said is a lower bound, and 

2 that was sufficient to give me quite an exposure 

3 for radon. So, I mean, it's important that we know 

4 that happened. That's one of the outcomes of this. 

5 Who's right and who's wrong is almost a separate 

6 question. It's just that it was so different, and 

7 the way we thought about the problem is quite 

8 different because we were allowed a certain amount 

9 of discretion for lack of detailed guidance or Site 

10 Profile or data. So I think it's revealing from 

11 that perspective. 

12 MS. K. BEHLING: And this is Kathy 

13 again. With regard to Method A, let's go back to 

14 what the charter is or what the role is under Method 

15 A, is to try and use the guidance documents that 

16 exist for NIOSH and ORAU, and we're trying to match. 

17 We're hoping that we're going to come in exactly 

18 where they are or very close to where they are. And 

19 like John said, in many cases we do.

20 And I'm going to let Doug speak to this 

21 better because he can give more details, but, back 

22 to our report on page 13 and 14, Doug did understand 
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 that Allied Chemical is a smaller process. He did 

2 use various assumptions. And when he did use the 

3 OTIB-43 data, and, Doug, stop me if I'm -- you have 

4 to understand, NIOSH selected the maximum value and 

5 took 10 percent of that. Doug did what he thought 

6 was reasonable by selecting from those tables in 

7 OTIB-42 a geometric mean value, and it didn't make 

8 as much difference in the external as the internal. 

9 But he used data that he had available that he 

10 thought NIOSH would use, and he used a geometric 

11 mean value, rather than the maximum value. 

12 MR. KATZ: But that would be a mean of 

13 big operations with a lot of throughput, right? 

14 MS. K. BEHLING: True. That's because 

15 -- yes.

16 MR. KATZ: That's the difference, I 

17 think. That's why it comes out so differently, 

18 right? 

19 MS. K. BEHLING: And, Doug, I assume 

20 Doug is still on the line? 

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'm still here. 

22 It's Doug. Well, I mean, the assumptions are laid 
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 out there. And if the only contention is the 

2 intake rate, the daily intake rate, okay, I could 

3 see where that may not be the best number to use. 

4 But the problem was there was no guidance to use 

5 any other number or any number. This is the big 

6 problem with this case. There was no site 

7 information based -- other than a couple of lines

8 in a document. I mean, there was no survey data 

9 and no, like, NIOSH document even describing the 

10 site. So you're left with almost no guidance to 

11 use.

12 Now, I could see where maybe you 

13 shouldn't use that full number of 44 picocuries per 

14 day. But I'm not sure what number would be a better 

15 number. Where do you stop: 10 percent, 20 percent, 

16 30 percent? I don't know what the right value is. 

17 What's interesting is that we used 100 

18 percent, NIOSH used a 10 percent, and pretty much 

19 if you multiply one by 10 or divide the other by 

20 10, you've got much closer doses. 

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, that goes to the point 

22 that -- right, exactly. You guys basically use the 
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 same methods. 

2 MR. FARVER: Well, no, we used 

3 completely different methods, which is interesting 

4 that it came out so close if you were to use the 

5 same intake. Completely different methods. 

6 DR. MAURO: This is John. What are the 

7 philosophies in terms of doing Dose 

8 Reconstructions? You're always stuck with the 

9 situation when you're dealing with a circumstance 

10 where you have, let's say it's a co-worker. What 

11 you usually end up doing is, if you believe the 

12 person likely received some exposure but, based on 

13 his job, it doesn't look like it could have been 

14 at the high end, the rule of thumb is to go with 

15 the full distribution of the geometric mean. And 

16 you only assign the upper 95th percentile when you 

17 believe that the worker's job category or 

18 circumstances was such that there was a real 

19 possibility he could have been exposed at the high 

20 end.

21 So in this particular circumstance, and 

22 that's why I used the word aberration. That's a 
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 little extreme, but it is an unusual circumstance 

2 in that picking the geometric mean of the full 

3 distribution under these circumstances is not 

4 unreasonable. But, you know, Grady makes a good 

5 point. This is such a much smaller facility that 

6 even the geometric mean is really not a good number 

7 for this facility. 

8 So, therefore, you're left with the 

9 judgment of, you know, how far below the geometric 

10 mean do you want to go? And the way, the approach 

11 they used was with this 10 percent effect, which 

12 brings you, at some level, at some percentile 

13 within a distribution. And that's why we've got, 

14 this is an unusual circumstance because of the 

15 limited amount of guidance and data that we have 

16 available. In fact, this is almost like a flagship 

17 indicator of circumstances, especially if you're 

18 coming into 40-percent level and a lot of judgment 

19 had to be used. 

20 And you say what do we take away from 

21 this? Well, you know, when you have to use a lot 

22 of judgment and you're coming in in the 40s, you 
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 know you're in dangerous waters. I mean, that's 

2 what I take away from this. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

4 MR. CALHOUN: I'm thinking, you know, 

5 when I look at this, it almost seems like, I mean, 

6 maybe our guidance needs to be revised a little bit, 

7 I mean way down, because, you know, three pounds 

8 is 1.25 hundredths of one percent of the lowest 

9 production rate used to come up with the doses for 

10 TIB-43. 1.25 hundredths of one percent. 

11 DR. MAURO: Wow. You make a good 

12 argument there, Grady. 

13 MR. CALHOUN: And we're using 10 

14 percent. I don't know. We need to look back at 

15 the whole thing. I've got my homework assignment. 

16 I'm ready to do it. 

17 DR. MAURO: You know, Grady, I'd be the 

18 first to agree with you. See, what I did, and 

19 again, this is completely judgment, is say, listen, 

20 is four picocuries per liter a low number? Yes, 

21 that's a low, I mean, in the world of radon, that's 

22 a pretty low number indoors, even in a, you know 
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 -- now, I agree with you that you're saying the 

2 additional contribution above and beyond natural 

3 background in this building may have been 

4 minuscule, and, you know, you might be right.

5 So, I mean, this is good. This is a 

6 good conversation. I rolled with four because it 

7 was the lowest number measured at this facility, 

8 thinking, thinking that I was doing the minimal 

9 dose reconstruction. Just radon. That's all I 

10 looked at. And I was going to do a low end, the 

11 lowest I thought plausible. And I still came in 

12 with consequences that were significant.

13 But you're making a good argument. 

14 You're saying, listen, even that lowest number that 

15 you found in the literature at four picocuries per 

16 liter, which, in itself, in an absolute sense, is 

17 a very low number, even a relatively low number for 

18 a residential structure, you're saying that that's 

19 not low enough here because the amount of uranium 

20 handled and the associated radon from, I guess, the 

21 radium, the tailings part of it, could have been 

22 virtually zero, in effect, your argument would be. 
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 Okay. I mean, I'm ready to have that conversation. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. How 

3 about, Grady, you said, I'll take it on. How about 

4 doing that and then coming back to us and not only 

5 seeing what you get but also trying to think about 

6 how we could avoid this or what an analogous 

7 situation would be and how, therefore, we could 

8 avoid coming up with this sort of disparity again? 

9 MR. CALHOUN: Here's what I'm going to 

10 do is I'm going to go back and I'm going to try to 

11 find out where this guidance exists because I'm 

12 just getting little snippets by email. I'm going 

13 to make sure that when we do dose -- I'm going to 

14 verify that that's right, but I feel confident that 

15 it is. I'm going to verify that it's right, and 

16 then I'm going to make sure that we start 

17 incorporating that in any new Allied Chemical and 

18 Dye company DRs to be quite specific about what 

19 we're doing. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I kind of want, I kind of 

22 want to check where John got that big dose, so I'm 
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 going to look into that one, too. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, remember, it's 

3 just four picocuries per liter, and you convert 

4 that to working-level months over a nine-year 

5 period, you know, you get about two. Now, what I 

6 would like to do and I didn't do it is, did I get 

7 the PoC right? In other words, going from four 

8 working level months, you know, over this nine-year 

9 period and coming out with a PoC above 50 percent, 

10 I'd like to go back and do that again and make sure 

11 I didn't do something dumb. But I think my number, 

12 my working-level month number is a good number. I 

13 mean, if you accept four picocuries per liter as 

14 being a lower end of the kinds of concentration this 

15 guy might have been exposed to, then my 

16 working-level month number is a good number and 

17 it's ten times higher than yours.

18 Now, going from working-level months to 

19 the PoC, maybe we better take another look at that 

20 because, you know, that's not something we 

21 routinely do, you know, is derive PoC.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 
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 MR. BARTON: This is Bob Barton. If I 

2 could just make a quick comment here because we seem 

3 to have gotten maybe a little -- it seems like 

4 there's two separate issues. The first one is 

5 which number is the right one to use in Dose 

6 Reconstruction, but the other issue was this idea 

7 of guidance. And I, you know, I think we're all 

8 fully sympathetic to what Grady said about you 

9 simply can't have a Site Profile for every one of 

10 these sites. But I think there is some precedent, 

11 for example, in this Dose Reconstruction. TIB-43 

12 was used. A lot of times, these TIBs, which are 

13 more site-wide, will have an appendix that will 

14 have just little snippets of site-specific 

15 guidance in how you're going to apply the TIB-43 

16 methods to site A, B, and C, and it could be as 

17 simple as saying for this specific site the dose 

18 reconstructor, you know, was instructed to use 10 

19 percent or whatever the correct number ends up 

20 being. And then that way you don't have to write 

21 a whole Site Profile, but you do have specific and 

22 clear guidance that can then be used for every claim 
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 that's processed. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: That's something to 

3 consider. I'm open-minded. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I wonder also, 

5 in this calculation, that either NIOSH or SC&A --

6 we're dealing with lung cancer. We're dealing 

7 with alpha particles. It is not our obligation or 

8 -- how should I put it? There is an issue about 

9 smoking and that the process of smoking will bring 

10 unusually large amounts of the alpha particles in, 

11 as happens with other things like asbestos. 

12 We do not, the compensation, the law, 

13 as I understand it, in this case, we don't consider 

14 smoking in terms of saying -- this is different than 

15 other workers' comp things where we don't say you 

16 have a certain degree that was caused by smoking 

17 and a certain degree that was caused by work. But 

18 on the other hand, if we're trying to -- pardon? 

19 MR. CALHOUN: Dave, actually --

20 MS. K. BEHLING: It's built into IREP.

21 MR. CALHOUN: It's built into IREP, and 

22 then there are several categories of smoking and 
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 the more you smoke the more dose you need to go over 

2 50 percent. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

4 alright. No, I didn't quite realize that. Good, 

5 good. 

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, that and skin color 

7 also has play. So to the degree that they could, 

8 IREP tried to take into consideration confounding 

9 variables that clearly have a significant 

10 implication.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

12 Well, that's good. Okay, very good. I wasn't 

13 aware because I don't do the calculation as you 

14 folks do. And I'm glad to hear that. 

15 So I think we have, we have a procedure 

16 following what Grady said. Is there anything 

17 more? I mean, do folks have any comments about 

18 that, or are we finished with what we can do with 

19 this for the moment? 

20 MR. CALHOUN: I don't think we can do 

21 anything else with it until we take a look at it 

22 and decide what a path forward is. 
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds to me, 

2 sounds right to me. Any other comments or input 

3 from any of the --

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

5 think we need to look into it a little bit more. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

7 good. Then I think it's reasonable to go ahead to 

8 another one of the blinds. 

9 MS. K. BEHLING: If you'd like to do 

10 this, can I suggest that, you had mentioned earlier 

11 the Rocky Flats plant case under the 17th set. I'm 

12 going to let Ron Buchanan discuss that particular 

13 case. He's our Rocky Flats person. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

15 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay, this is Ron 

16 Buchanan with SC&A. This is a Rocky Flat case, and 

17 I will cover the highlights. And if you have any 

18 questions, just stop me. I'll try to cover what 

19 we need to know but not go into too much gory detail. 

20 This is an Energy employee who worked 

21 at the Rocky Flat plants from [identifying 

22 information redacted] through [identifying 
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 information redacted]. 

2 MS. ROLFES: Ron, real quick, which 

3 case number are you looking at again? 

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Oh, [identifying 

5 information redacted].

6 MR. CALHOUN: You can't talk about that 

7 on the line, that case number. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry. 

9 Okay. I was not aware of that. I thought that was 

10 legitimate to quote. Okay. Well, we won't 

11 discuss that [and the information will be redacted 

12 from the transcript]. We have a document from 

13 Rocky Flats. 

14 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I can talk about 

15 their job description and cancer, correct? 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. 

18 MS. LIN: Well, Ron, can you just use 

19 the documents that have [been] PA-reviewed and 

20 redacted and talk about the case from that -- this 

21 is Jenny with OGC. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.
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. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

2 I have to be honest, I'm not sure that this was 

3 PA-reviewed, and this was a question that I had 

4 before we decided we were going to discuss these. 

5 And we were told that, I mean, the redacted version 

6 is, there's just so much taken out typically. It's 

7 very difficult to work in a setting like this and 

8 --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well, 

10 Ted, I think we can't, if it hasn't been --

11 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, I think it has been 

12 PA-reviewed, but we just went through a whole case, 

13 so I'm not sure why this one differs. We just went 

14 through the Allied Chemical case without really 

15 causing a problem. I don't know why we can't go 

16 through this case. I mean, Ron is not going to get 

17 into enough details for someone to sort this out. 

18 MS. LIN: Okay. Well, that's good. 

19 This one with the case number that's being used is 

20 the SC&A's case number that's randomly assigned. 

21 That's not part of the PA system, and that's fine. 

22 But I wasn't sure the case number that you just 
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 called out, is it the claim number or the SC&A case 

2 number? 

3 MR. KATZ: Well, we probably shouldn't 

4 even talk about it anymore. 

5 MS. LIN: That being said, just be 

6 mindful of the information you're about to discuss, 

7 particularly, you know, the dose information that 

8 is very specific to the Energy employee. So 

9 anything that, if you want to discuss this, the 

10 cancer, then talk about the cancer in general 

11 terms, as opposed to the specific locations or the 

12 number of cancers associated with the case. 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, right. That's good 

14 general guidance. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But in this 

16 case, Rocky Flats with an enormous number of 

17 people, this is not a rare type of cancer we're 

18 talking about and I don't think it would identify 

19 any one individually. 

20 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Can I --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You go ahead, 

22 yes. 
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 MR. BUCHANAN: The person had one type 

2 of cancer. Can I state that type of cancer?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. He had lung 

5 cancer. Okay. Worked there in the 80s. In this 

6 case, we had three methods: NIOSH's method and 

7 SC&A's A and B method, just like on the previous 

8 case. So I'll just refer to it as NIOSH and Method 

9 A and B.

10 All three methods used the Rocky Flat 

11 TBDs as their main guidance, along with IG-001 

12 information and several others as we get into it. 

13 We see that NIOSH, in Method B, used the best 

14 estimate approach and Method A used the minimizing 

15 approach. 

16 We see that Table 1-1, there it gives 

17 us a breakdown summary of the different doses 

18 assigned. And we had photon and neutron dose we 

19 had recorded, we had missed, and we had unmonitored 

20 or co-worker dose. And then we had medical x-ray 

21 dose, and then we had internal dose from plutonium 

22 and americium. One method we had depleted 
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 uranium. We see that what this brings up is the 

2 fact that the doses were similar in case A and 

3 NIOSH's method and in B method it was larger in 

4 dose, quite a bit larger. However, the PoCs were 

5 not, did not really follow that. NIOSH arrived at 

6 about 47 percent, and SC&A arrived at about 56 

7 percent using both methods.

8 So I'll go through and then we'll 

9 discuss it in more detail. We see that Table 2-1, 

10 there are comparison of the methods they used. And 

11 I will go through the differences in the methods, 

12 as opposed to going through all of them. And we 

13 see this is segregated into the types of doses. We 

14 have recorded photon dose. The main difference 

15 there was that Method B used some uncertainties 

16 that the other two methods didn't use for dosimetry 

17 uncertainty factors. 

18 We see that the dose distribution was 

19 different. NIOSH used the normal distribution 

20 with Monte Carlo uncertainties. And then A and B 

21 used a constant with no uncertainties. 

22 Missed photon dose. We see the similar 
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 parameters there. Unmonitored co-worker dose. 

2 Let's see. Can you put that up on Live Meeting, 

3 Rose, or whoever is controlling the Live Meeting? 

4 Yes, you have it here. Can you go down to Table 

5 2-1, okay? And that's where we're at. Okay, I 

6 guess I have control of it.

7 Okay. So we have unmonitored photon 

8 dose, and that is a difference there. NIOSH used 

9 50th percentile. Method A, now, Method A arrived 

10 at over 50 percent without using co-worker dose and 

11 several other doses, so it's not considered there 

12 because you've got a PoC of greater than 50 percent 

13 with it included. And Method B used the 95th 

14 percentile, so this kind of goes back to what's 

15 talked about in differences we see sometimes.

16 We see that the dose distribution was 

17 somewhat different, and I point this out because 

18 this leads to a difference in the end. NIOSH used 

19 some triangle distributions there, whereas we 

20 usually use one type of distribution for any given 

21 part of the dose assignment. We use a normal 

22 deviation of 30 percent.
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 We can go to recorded and modeled 

2 neutron dose. There, again, we're similar, except 

3 they used the Monte Carlo uncertainty. And then 

4 we go to the missed neutron dose, and we had similar 

5 parameters there and similar distribution.

6 Unmonitored neutron dose. We see that 

7 that is similar there, except, again, NIOSH used 

8 50th percentile and Method B used 95th percentile 

9 co-worker dose. 

10 And so if we go to the medical, we see 

11 that NIOSH used the two that was recorded in the 

12 DOE files, whereas Method A and B both assigned 

13 annual doses according to Table 3-1 of the TBD. 

14 The rest of the parameters were the same.

15 Now, one of the main differences in this 

16 was in the internal doses. NIOSH separated out, 

17 the person worked two periods, a long period and 

18 then a short period. And so NIOSH took that 

19 co-worker dose, and all the results were

20 background. And so they looked at the missed dose, 

21 and then they looked at co-worker dose, and they 

22 assigned the first part as missed dose and the 
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 second part as co-worker dose, whereas SC&A 

2 assigned it totally on missed dose and the intake 

3 and resulting doses. So that did result in some 

4 differences.

5 Tritium dose was less than 0.001 rem in 

6 all methods, so that wasn't included. One of the 

7 largest differences was the depleted uranium, and 

8 that is that NIOSH did not assign dose to that and 

9 neither did Method A. Method B did assign it based 

10 on the americium-241 lung counts, and we'll talk 

11 about more on that when we get into the internal 

12 dose.

13 So if we look at the recorded dose, we 

14 see that we used similar factors there. NIOSH and 

15 Method A used similar factors there to assign dose. 

16 Method B used similar factors except more 

17 conservative. Method A and NIOSH used 100 

18 percent, 30 to 250 keV photons, plus 100-percent 

19 less than 30 keV photons, whereas Method B was more 

20 minimizing in that they used 25 percent less than 

21 30 keV photon and 75 percent 30 to 250 keV photons.

22 And so that gives a little difference 
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 in the assigned dose. If you look there on Table 

2 2-4, you'll see that the doses come out fairly 

3 close. Even though there's some difference in 

4 assignment, they came out at about 1.5 rem in both 

5 cases. 

6 So we'll move on to missed photon dose. 

7 At Table 2-5 there, we see that, again, there are 

8 similar doses assigned there and they're small 

9 amount. And so that was similar doses there.

10 So we have the recorded, the missed, and 

11 then the unmonitored periods where there was no 

12 film badge data or it was unreadable. And so 

13 NIOSH, in Method B, assigned a dose for this period. 

14 Method A did not because they didn't need to because 

15 it was already over 50 percent.

16 Now, this is where one of the 

17 differences came in. We see that NIOSH used the 

18 50th percentile, whereas Method B used 95th 

19 percentile to assign co-worker dose. And so this, 

20 of course, resulted in a different co-worker dose 

21 assignment. Plus, NIOSH used the Monte Carlo 

22 method and did a triangular distribution and also 
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 normal distribution, whereas SC&A assigned it as 

2 a normal distribution with 30-percent standard 

3 deviation. And so this does lead to some 

4 differences in the dose and also in the PoC. 

5 So we see that Table 2-6 comparison of 

6 unmonitored photon dose, we see that there is a 

7 difference there because of the 95th percentile 

8 versus the 50th percentile.

9 DR. MAURO: Ron, this is John. Just to 

10 make sure I am tracking you well, so it sounds like, 

11 again, what we are talking about there was a 

12 judgment made and it really relied on whether you 

13 are going to work with the 95th percentile. 

14 In each table, it would be good to get 

15 the essence of the difference and it sounds like 

16 in the last two cases, the essence of the difference 

17 was whether the 95th percentile was used or the full 

18 distribution. 

19 Would that be your take on these - so 

20 far what we looked at?

21 MR. BUCHANAN: So far what we looked 

22 at, that is correct, John. Plus the fact that they 
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 were assigned different distributions.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 MR. BUCHANAN: It will be important in 

4 the end, okay. And so we repeat the same thing then 

5 for recorded, missed and unmonitored. Neutron 

6 dose we see that in this case you used similar 

7 parameters. The dose conversion factors and such, 

8 they are illustrated in Table 2-7 and 2-8.

9 Again, NIOSH used Monte Carlo method to 

10 determine uncertainty whereas the SC&A assigned a 

11 given uncertainty. And so otherwise the doses 

12 were similar as you see in 2-8 there. 

13 Now, the missed photon dose we see in 

14 2000 there the similar values and on exactly how 

15 many zeroes you feel is correct. 

16 Sometimes if you use the best estimate 

17 program it will come up with slightly different 

18 numbers than if you actually physically go in and 

19 count them and insert where the zeros could have 

20 occurred here in the film badge exchanges and so 

21 you get slightly different zeroes and slightly 

22 different dose assignments. 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But they are similar there in 2-9. Now 

2 we come down to unmonitored neutron dose which is 

3 like unmonitored photon dose.

4 Method A didn't assign it. NIOSH used 

5 the 50th percentile and SC&A method B used the 95th 

6 percentile and, again, there in Table 2-10 you see 

7 a substantial difference there in the dose 

8 assignment for unmonitored neutron dose. 

9 And again NIOSH used the Monte Carlo 

10 methods to determine uncertainty whereas SC&A used 

11 a normal distribution of 30 percent uncertainty. 

12 Again, we don't run the Monte Carlo programs at 

13 SC&A. 

14 That brings us to the occupational 

15 medical dose and in all methods assigned 

16 occupational x-rays doses and mainly using the 

17 TBD-3 Rocky Flats, also consulted Procedure 61 and 

18 OTIB-79 and the difference here is that NIOSH used 

19 the two that were recorded in the DOE records. 

20 There was record of two x-rays being 

21 taken. That is what they assigned dose for. Both 

22 SC&A Methods A and B went to TBD-3 and said okay, 
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 for these years of employment there was perhaps all 

2 of the x-ray information available and so they 

3 assigned an annual x-ray and so you see in Table 

4 2-11 there that makes a difference.

5 A and B came out with the same values 

6 using annual x-rays and NIOSH came out with .084. 

7 That last -- on an absolute basis, it's not a whole 

8 lot of dose but there is a relatively large 

9 difference there.

10 DR. MAURO: Ron, this is John. I'm 

11 sorry to interrupt again but I think there -- I'm 

12 always looking for these themes -- this is one of 

13 the assumptions I've been making in working for all 

14 these years is that for DOE facilities when there 

15 is no explicit record of medical occupational 

16 exposures, we are required to assume that the 

17 person did receive annual exposures. 

18 However, I realize also that I have not 

19 been as deeply involved in this dose -- these Dose 

20 Reconstructions as you have. 

21 Has that guidance changed where the 

22 default - that is, if you have records that say 
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 okay, we know this person -- we have records that 

2 say we know this person received two exposures --

3 had two exposures, so the differences here that 

4 might be important even though the doses are 

5 relatively small. Am I correct or am not -- do we 

6 still assume for DOE facilities that the --

7 everyone gets their -- this annual medical x-ray? 

8 Or is the procedure now that are being 

9 used by NIOSH: No, we only use -- we count up the 

10 number of x-rays that's in his records and that's 

11 what we use? Do you see the distinction?

12 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, and the way I 

13 understand the present accepted method is that if 

14 there is -- it depends on the site. Some sites are 

15 very explicit about providing x-ray information.

16 Rocky Flats is not one of them and well, 

17 I mean -- excuse me, about providing yearly or 

18 annual x-ray exams and some sites vary. 

19 It depends on the job title whether they 

20 got it yearly or four years or five years or at

21 beginning and at end or whatever. Since this 

22 person worked as a --
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Telephonic interference.)

2 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt, 

3 Ron, but are those sirens coming from your area?

4 MR. BUCHANAN: No.

5 DR. MAURO: Someone is on the line that 

6 has a siren that -

7 MR. KATZ: It's okay. It's gone.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. KATZ: It was a neighbor. 

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm 

11 sorry, Ron. Go ahead.

12 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And so in the 

13 particular case of Rocky Flats it depends on the 

14 job duties whether they had an annual x-ray or not 

15 and so in this case I would say generally it would 

16 be accepted you would use the DOE files as opposed 

17 to assigning an annual x-ray. Some sites that's 

18 not true. That's not an across the board thing. 

19 It depends on the sites and depends on the job duty.

20 DR. MAURO: So in this particular case 

21 would you say that NIOSH took the right strategy 

22 in terms of counting up the number of x-rays as 
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 opposed to these strategies that you and I did, 

2 namely, giving an annual?

3 MR. BUCHANAN: Probably so.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. No, it's okay. 

5 That's what it is. Okay. 

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Right. I would say 

7 that probably that was more of a best estimate. I 

8 would say Method A and B maybe would be an 

9 overestimate. If it's less than 40 percent then, 

10 you know, yes, just go ahead and do the annual. 

11 When you are around 45, 50, you know, 

12 I would say probably go by the DOE records for just 

13 per case. That's not an across the board stance; 

14 that's just for this one. 

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

16 Kathy Behling. The other thing that we can refer 

17 to here is, there's an Attachment A to PROC-61 and 

18 that has an attachment that identifies each of the 

19 DOE sites and for Rocky Flats, depending on the 

20 approach taken whether it's a best estimate, a 

21 minimizing or maximizing, even a best estimate 

22 approach says frequencies per TBD Table 3-1 or 
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 actual records if records indicate more procedures 

2 in Table 3-1.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay. So it is all laid 

4 out there. So it's not that there's much 

5 discretion.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Correct.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 MR. BUCHANAN: You're saying that if it 

9 says more than Table -

10 MS. K. BEHLING: I am reading - I am 

11 reading from the table from best estimate approach 

12 and that is what I just read, yes. 

13 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well -

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can't 

15 let that go.

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. No, no. Go 

17 ahead. Go ahead, Scott. I'm sorry.

18 MR. SIEBERT: It's just the point that 

19 Ron was correct. It depends on the site and 

20 whether we believe that we can get the full x-ray 

21 record or not and Rocky Flats is one of the sites 

22 where we get the full x-ray records. 
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 So we follow the x-ray records as they 

2 are provided by the site in a best estimate case. 

3 Actually, these days we use the records in all 

4 cases. We no longer do any overestimates in x-ray. 

5 If you'll remember correctly that came 

6 out of the 10-year review. We use best estimate 

7 actual x-rays at Rocky Flats in all cases.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: I guess I just wasn't 

9 reading that in this Attachment A. But maybe I 

10 need to go back to Table 3.1, or 3-1. Anyway, go 

11 ahead. I'm sorry, John.

12 DR. MAURO: Yes, but for the Board 

13 Members, you notice we're having our own little --

14 as far as I'm concerned we are all trying to find 

15 the right approach and the complexity and, again, 

16 another takeaway that might be helpful to everyone 

17 is that finding the right approach is not always 

18 that easy. 

19 There are a lot of procedures and, you 

20 know, I guess there are workbooks in there. So I 

21 know I, for one, realize it's quite overwhelming 

22 sometimes in working your way through one of these 
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 and it's -- clearly, in this case it sounds like 

2 that there was some guidance out there that clearly 

3 explained the appropriate approach to use in this 

4 case. 

5 But notwithstanding that, we did come 

6 away with two different approaches are the ones 

7 that SC&A used, both A and B, and the one that NIOSH 

8 used. 

9 And Scott, it sounds like that you 

10 believe the guidance out there is pretty clear and 

11 that NIOSH did have the guidance and in fact did 

12 apply it appropriately.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Right.

14 DR. MAURO: And that's important to 

15 know. 

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, let me -

17 DR. MAURO: Okay, go ahead, Kathy. 

18 Yes.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm sorry. But as I 

20 just read, it says for best estimate approach 

21 frequency for the TBD Table 3-1 and if I go to the 

22 time period of 52 through 85 the frequency says 
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 annual and termination PA chest, all workers.

2 And if that is not what you are 

3 following, if you are only using documented x-rays 

4 then the guidance needs to be changed.

5 DR. MAURO: That's important. 

6 MR. SIEBERT: And I - this is Scott. I 

7 am going to have to look at those specifically and 

8 I agree, if our documentation does not direct that 

9 correctly, we would need to update that.

10 DR. MAURO: I like this. I'm sorry to 

11 discuss at length but I like this. See, we're 

12 getting out to the root causes. Who cares who is 

13 right and wrong? And I am not saying -- we don't 

14 have any turf here. 

15 What we are doing is saying listen, 

16 there is guidance -- it's a complex program and it's 

17 easy for two people properly trained and, you know, 

18 trying to do the best job they can and many people 

19 -- you still could come up with differences and it's 

20 very important to understand why those differences 

21 are happening and that is what we are trying to do.

22 And right now it sounds to me that, 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Kathy, your position is that the guidance is - you 

2 interpreted the guidance in a way that was 

3 different than the way in which NIOSH interpreted 

4 and I think it is important that we are getting some 

5 answer out of this whether or not - you know, 

6 whether or not the guidance is in fact clear and 

7 NIOSH, you know, did follow it or for some reason 

8 they weren't - they didn't follow it and that goes 

9 for us too, either way. 

10 This way the Board gets a clear picture 

11 of where the vulnerabilities are and that is -- I 

12 think that is why we are all sitting around the 

13 phone right now.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That is why we are doing 

15 these reviews and you are correct, John. The other 

16 thing that we have grown unaccustomed to doing 

17 because of the way we've been forced to do some of 

18 our other things is, we have grown accustomed to 

19 accepting that fact that, contrary to popular 

20 opinion, many of these sites did keep excellent 

21 records and continue to have good records, and when 

22 we have them, good science will dictate that we use 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the appropriate good records we have. Novel idea.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, now we go 

3 to occupational internal doses, and boom. 

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Big 

6 differences.

7 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So you can see 

8 these things do change, too. That is the issue. 

9 Like on x-ray, they change with time. So it's hard 

10 to keep track of them for all the sites. 

11 Okay. Looking out for occupational 

12 internal dose, we see that here the DOE records show 

13 that the Employee had in vitro bioassay monitoring 

14 for plutonium, americium and tritium during the 

15 employment period. Also had a chest count for 

16 plutonium and americium. 

17 All the results were below the MDA value 

18 for background and so what they would do with this 

19 information, okay. So we will look at what NIOSH 

20 did in this kind of summary form. 

21 In this case, they looked at both 

22 co-worker doses from TBD-5 and also the missed dose 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and compared them and in the long run ended up 

2 assigning a missed dose for the beginning and 

3 co-worker dose for the ending employment period. 

4 And so they based it on the MDA values 

5 and also the co-worker from TBD-5 Table B-6 using 

6 the 95th percentile rate of intake and shown there 

7 in Table 2-12 their intakes. 

8 And so we will -- from this they 

9 assigned a missed plutonium dose of around 5 rem, 

10 co-worker dose around 40 rem and a missed americium 

11 dose of about half a rem. This is assigned with 

12 constant value of no uncertainty.

13 Now, Method A - SC&A's Method A used a 

14 chronic intake for the whole employment period 

15 based on one half of the MDA, compared uranium and 

16 chest counts and decided that the americium chest 

17 count provided more direct readings than the 

18 uranium and so they used the chest count data just 

19 like NIOSH did. 

20 And then in Table 2-3 it shows their 

21 respective intake of the different plutonium and 

22 americium isotopes. And then, of course, there's 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plutonium at Rocky Flats. We had to do an 

2 adjustment for OTIB-49 for Super S plutonium and 

3 that is illustrated there in Table 214 and then the 

4 total down at the bottom there is 38.67. 

5 Six rem assigned and now Method B 

6 used - also did a similar comparison and arrived 

7 at a total dose of 57 rem. And all this was 

8 assigned into the IREP tables and that brings us 

9 down into the tritium dose again. All three methods 

10 found at less than .001 rem and wasn't assigned. 

11 Now, that brings us to the depleted 

12 uranium. Method A in NIOSH did not assign depleted 

13 uranium and where this -- where this comes from on 

14 the depleted uranium Method B is the only one that 

15 used that and it does state in the Rocky Flat TBD-5 

16 that there was a potential for uranium -- depleted 

17 uranium exposure was plausible at Rocky Flats 

18 during the entire operating period. 

19 It doesn't really say who to assign it 

20 to, what conditions and when to assign it to them. 

21 And, in addition, when the whole body count or lung 

22 counts was done there was a column for the results 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the raw data sheet that listed a position for 

2 uranium. 

3 They had a plutonium, americium and 

4 then had a thorium, uranium. We determined that 

5 there was no thorium at this time, Method B did, 

6 but there was a potential for uranium. 

7 And so they used the ratio of americium 

8 test counts to the DU concentrations and derived 

9 an intake and assigned this in the IREP table as 

10 a separate entity with a normal distribution of 30 

11 percent and it came to 10 rem. And so we 

12 see in a summary of internal doses there in Table 

13 2-17 that we had NIOSH assigning 46 rem, Method A 

14 assigned 38 rem, and Method B assigning a total of 

15 67 rem including the 10 rem from the DU. 

16 MS. K. BEHLING: Ron, this is Kathy 

17 Behling again and I just want to go back because 

18 I want to be fair here and let's go back to Page 

19 18 for the plutonium and americium. 

20 And one of the things that I wanted to 

21 ensure was included in here was exact verbiage from 

22 the NIOSH Dose Reconstruction report, and as you 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will see I in fact put it in bold indicating that 

2 NIOSH has concluded that in -- the reason they 

3 selected the co-worker model for those shorter time 

4 periods, even though that was a lower dose, is 

5 because they have concluded that with these short 

6 time periods when you use missed dose, it can 

7 significantly overestimate the internal dose. 

8 So I -- that is their justification and 

9 reason for doing that and I think that is 

10 appropriate and if you look at your Table 2-12 you 

11 can see for which these short periods in 1985 that 

12 they did assign the co-worker model and probably 

13 appropriately so if the missed dose -- if they have 

14 proved that the missed dose really overestimates 

15 -- incorrectly overestimates the dose. I just 

16 want to point that out.

17 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you, 

18 Kathy. So go down to the summary and conclusions, 

19 Section 3, Page 24. 

20 We see that Table 3-1 compares the doses 

21 assigned external, medical and internal and, 

22 again, to review we see that the total lung dose 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was 49 rem, NIOSH 47 - about 48 rem on Method A and 

2 about 72 rem on Method B, and ten of that was due 

3 to the depleted uranium. 

4 And so the PoCs come out 47.5 in NIOSH, 

5 56.7 by Method A and 55.75 on Method B, and this 

6 is kind of concerning because here we have a higher 

7 dose than for NIOSH -- and PoC less than 50 percent, 

8 whereas Method A come out with a slightly less dose 

9 but a PoC of 56 percent. 

10 So why was that and why was this 71 rem 

11 led to slightly less PoC than this 48 rem? And so 

12 looking over this the main thing we found - we can 

13 go through this and we can say okay, they used the 

14 best estimate or minimizing estimate, 50 and 95th 

15 percentile. 

16 But if you look at this the doses come 

17 out similar here because the PoCs are inverted and 

18 reversed.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. BUCHANAN: And so why is that. And 

21 so the reason I emphasize and, you know, maybe NIOSH 

22 can shed more light on this, this is kind of 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something new that we ran into on this case, kind 

2 of like the last case, is that the main difference 

3 that we could see was the way the uncertainties were 

4 entered.

5 And like I say, SC&A does not have Monte 

6 Carlo capabilities on the uncertainties and stuff 

7 and so we don't assign triangular distributions and 

8 we don't assign varying uncertainties. We use 

9 either like a logarithmic distribution or the GSD 

10 of 3.0 for all the entries or whatever. 

11 And so the main difference between 

12 NIOSH, A, B, and C was the way the distributions 

13 were entered and the uncertainties. So that is 

14 where we are at on this case: presented how it was 

15 done and some of the differences and the only thing 

16 we can arrive at is the way they are entered into 

17 IREP and this is kind of, you know, sends up a 

18 question is there a standard way - is this affecting 

19 any other TRs that are -

20 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy again. 

21 If we can scroll down on Live Meeting a little bit 

22 then we can see that we wrote this up in here that 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the dose uncertainties were entered into IREP where 

2 82 percent of the total dose was entered as a 

3 constant -- that NIOSH entered 82 percent of a dose 

4 as a constant or the internal co-worker dose and 

5 you can see the differences here. 

6 Eighty percent of SC&A's Method A was 

7 a log-normal distribution with a GSD of three and 

8 with Method B, 93 percent of the missed internal 

9 dose was entered as a normal distribution with a 

10 standard deviation of 30 percent.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy, Dave. I 

12 -- just since we went through Table 3.1, the Method 

13 A column doesn't add up. It has internal doses, 

14 alpha 38.67. Could we go up to that? And then 

15 there is nine -- roughly nine more rems and the 

16 column up above doesn't have nine rems.

17 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes. That is an error 

18 and I thought that was corrected on there. On 

19 mine, I corrected it. That should be 41.915. 

20 That seven there should be a one.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Forty-one -- 41. 

22 Okay. 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I'm sorry. That 

2 is --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But your 

4 calculations were done with that and that's just 

5 --

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes. That is just an 

7 error there.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: And that ties right 

10 there. It's just a typo error.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 MR. BUCHANAN: That's 41.915.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

14 MR. BUCHANAN: The relationship is 

15 still --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: And I'm sorry. And if 

18 you go back to Table 1-1 the correct number -- the 

19 correct value is in there. It didn't get corrected 

20 at the end, 41.915 in Table 1-1.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: My apologies there.
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay. 

2 So --

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

4 prepared to discuss this if you would so desire.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

6 MR. SIEBERT: I just want to make sure 

7 that SC&A was -- Ron was done with presenting 

8 everything he wanted to do on that.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm done.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Looking through 

11 this, the comparison, really, the lion's share of 

12 the difference is the internal, specifically the 

13 plutonium assessment. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. SIEBERT: And we have been having 

16 discussions right now about distributions and so 

17 on. The distributions that are required under the 

18 process of our project are laid out in, I believe 

19 it's OTIB-60. 

20 But we've been consistently using it 

21 since the beginning of the project that missed dose 

22 is assigned as a triangular distribution for 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal and fitted dose is assigned as a 

2 log-normal distribution with a GSD of three. 

3 Those are the -- those are the two 

4 distributions for when we are basing it on the 

5 bioassay data that we use, which is what was done 

6 in the NIOSH version. 

7 There were no positive results in this 

8 claim for plutonium or for americium-241 chest 

9 counts, which is an indicator for plutonium. So 

10 any dose that was calculated, as Ron stated, they 

11 state that it's missed dose that they assigned.

12 However, missed dose should have been 

13 assigned as a triangular distribution, not as a 

14 log-normal with a GSD of there. That right there 

15 makes a huge amount of difference on the PoC 

16 calculation and that drives a lot of the difference 

17 that you are seeing in the PoC. 

18 That is one of the issues, and I don't 

19 know if you want to discuss that a little bit more 

20 fully before I go on to another one.

21 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Well, repeat 

22 that please, so I can write it down.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. When we -- when we 

2 assess missed dose that is a triangular 

3 distribution with a minimum of zero. The mode is 

4 the MDA over two value and the maximum is at the 

5 MDA and we do the calculations based on the bioassay 

6 results at those levels.

7 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: When we do fitted dose it 

9 is set as a log-normal distribution with a GSD of 

10 three and it's based on the actual positive 

11 bioassay results. 

12 In this specific case, as you mentioned 

13 it's all missed dose that is being assigned so it 

14 should have been a triangular distribution and, as 

15 you said, those distributions really drive a lot 

16 of difference in the PoC calculations.

17 MS. BRACKETT: And Scott, is that --

18 you say that is incorporated into OTIB-60, the 

19 internal dose reconstruction TBD? Yes.

20 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that is where 

21 we have it, yes.

22 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. Definitely 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there. This is Liz Brackett.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you, Liz.

3 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. Thanks.

4 MR. SIEBERT: And that is something we 

5 have consistently done since the genesis of the 

6 program and, again, it gets documented in 60.

7 MS. BRACKETT: Okay.

8 MR. SIEBERT: So that -- so that's the 

9 differences from a distribution point of view. 

10 The other major difference that I saw is neither 

11 of the calculations on SC&A's side which -- let me 

12 go on aside for a second and let you know. 

13 I really appreciate doing this process. 

14 It gives me an appreciation for what SC&A does every 

15 day because I had to go back and figure out how they 

16 did their stuff and tried to justify it, which was 

17 very interesting to do.

18 They did not take into account ingrowth 

19 of americium-241 from plutonium-241 in the 

20 plutonium mixture. Everything at Rocky Flats, 

21 when you're dealing with plutonium, you don't see 

22 plutonium without americium. 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It's always a mixture and it's always 

2 growing in from the plutonium-241 component of the 

3 full mixture. You can see americium all by itself 

4 in urine results because there were times that 

5 Rocky Flats worked with purified americium.

6 However, you will not see plutonium 

7 without americium. So whenever we are doing 

8 calculations for plutonium you have to take into 

9 account the plutonium and the americium in tandem. 

10 You can't do the plutonium and the 

11 americium separately. When you do that, you also 

12 must take into account the americium-241 ingrowth 

13 from plutonium-241 because if you take a chest 

14 count -- an americium-241 chest count and 

15 back-calculate an americium intake and then assume 

16 from ratios that the plutonium in the mixture is 

17 what is out of the TBD, if we don't take into account 

18 ingrowth, the plutonium-241 that is part of that 

19 mixture does continue to create and contribute 

20 americium-241 and you'll actually end up 

21 overestimating the chest count based on the intakes 

22 that are assigned.
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I looked at the files that we got from 

2 SC&A in the review and without taking that into 

3 account, once I took the americium-241 ingrowth 

4 into account, their intake would have been only 55 

5 percent of what it actually is assigned in the case 

6 itself. It cuts it almost in half. 

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And Ron, maybe 

8 you can give me more details here. But I thought 

9 that we used the RSP plutonium/americium intake 

10 calculation tool.

11 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, okay. Now, Doug 

12 did this -- Doug and John did this. I just did the 

13 comparison. So, you know, I'd have to go back and 

14 research that. I didn't actually do the original 

15 dosage.

16 MR. SIEBERT: The americium -- the 

17 americium ingrowth function is part of IMBA and 

18 needs to be specifically turned on in IMBA to run 

19 that and the ratio of 241 plutonium to americium 

20 needs to be entered into IMBA and the IMBA files 

21 that we received did not have that option enabled 

22 so it did not take into account americium-241 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ingrowth from plutonium-241. 

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. You 

3 brought up something very interesting here which 

4 is unique to Rocky Flats: Is there something in the 

5 tools for the dose reconstructors? Do they -- how 

6 do they know to be able to do this? This sounds 

7 to me different than other facilities.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Brad, this americium-241 

9 and plutonium mixture is not unique to Rocky Flats. 

10 We do this at Savannah River, Hanford.

11 Everywhere we are dealing with 

12 americium chest counts we have to take that into 

13 account when we do our assessments of a plutonium 

14 mixture because it does include the plutonium-241 

15 as well as the americium-241. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So this is not 

17 just unique to Rocky Flats. I kind of got that from 

18 you at the beginning because you make the comment 

19 of whenever we do Rocky Flats this is how we do it.

20 So I was just wondering if this is 

21 something unique to them. But this is throughout 

22 all of the sites, the plutonium?
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. If I -- if I led you 

2 astray, I apologize. Perhaps my wording could 

3 have been clearer.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. I just wanted to 

5 make sure that there wasn't something there that 

6 we need to make sure that, you know, that people 

7 that do this all the time may have known it but other 

8 ones that didn't. I apologize. Thank you. 

9 MR. SIEBERT: And just to let everybody 

10 know, this discussion of americium-241 is also 

11 covered in OTIB-60, the fact that we deal with 

12 ingrowth as well.

13 DR. MAURO: And Scott, I'm sorry. I'm 

14 not as quick on my feet as I probably should be. 

15 But you're saying that because of this we 

16 overestimated the dose, and I have to say I'm having 

17 a little trouble following the narrative. Could 

18 you give it to me one more time?

19 MR. SIEBERT: That's fine. When you 

20 -- when you calculated your americium-241 intake 

21 you used a chest count and you -- and you determined 

22 the intake of americium-241 from -- for the whole 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 missed time frame.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Then we used ratios to 

4 also assign the rest of the mixtures which would 

5 include the plutonium-241 in the mixture.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Now this is your weapons 

7 grade and time period, right, that's at the table?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: And that is based on 

9 a -- the intake calculator tool? I'm trying to 

10 understand this too. Isn't there, like I said, 

11 that plutonium/americium intake calculator tool 

12 that we should have used?

13 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. But the problem is 

14 the only way you can use that tool appropriately 

15 is if you consider americium ingrowth from the 

16 plutonium-241 when you do your americium 

17 calculation. 

18 Otherwise -- because what I did was I 

19 took the americium-241 intake that was assigned in 

20 the methods and if I account for ingrowth from a 

21 plutonium-241 that was also assigned and project 

22 out to the chest counts, the chest count is almost 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- it's projected to be almost twice as high as the 

2 actual chest count result.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Okay. It's 

4 like we double -- we double count on that? 

5 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: In Method A we get less 

7 of a plutonium dose. In NIOSH assigned we had 38 

8 rem and NIOSH assigned 46 rem and our total - and 

9 so there must be another factor in distribution 

10 also in comparing A to NIOSH - SC&A Method A to NIOSH 

11 we come out with a lesser dose and greater 

12 probability. So that must be due to distribution 

13 factors as opposed to this americium issue.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it's both of them 

15 combined and what I did as a quick down and dirty 

16 I was only -- I was given the IREP sheet from one 

17 of your -- I'm not positive which one it was but 

18 all I did was I ratioed the alpha dose down to 55 

19 percent, basically almost in half, to account for 

20 the americium-241 because at this point everything 

21 is a straight ratio when you don't include these 

22 things. 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 When I reduced the numbers correctly 

2 like that and changed the distribution to 

3 triangular as is described rather than a log-normal 

4 with a GSD of three and reran the PoC, it came out 

5 at approximately -- well, I don't have to say 

6 approximately -- I can give you the actual number 

7 -- 47.38 percent. 

8 So those two issues right there are what 

9 accounts for the difference in compensability 

10 decisions, in my mind.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then it sounds 

12 like the SC&A folks, if they agree with this 

13 criticism and they, I guess, properly should double 

14 check, essentially what you have calculated, 

15 Grady, that is -- that resolves that problem 

16 significantly.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy again. 

18 Doug, are you still on the line? Do you want to 

19 weigh in on this at all? Because I - we will look 

20 at this, of course.

21 MR. FARVER: No, I've been looking at 

22 this but I've been trying to figure out where that 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ingrowth function is. I haven't found it.

2 MR. BARTON: Could I ask a question? 

3 This is - this is Bob Barton. You mentioned that 

4 the ingrowth correction is mentioned in TIB-60, 

5 which is internal dose reconstruction, which was 

6 just recently updated last Fall but -- and I only 

7 have the current version in front of me -- was that 

8 guidance actually in the previous version, which 

9 I think was several years earlier when we were doing 

10 these blinds? I'm not sure.

11 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz Brackett and 

12 it's actually not in either version. It is not 

13 addressed in OTIB-60. It is covered in dose 

14 reconstructor training and there is an informal 

15 guidance document for the, in the case when they 

16 are doing cases if they need it. But it's not in 

17 OTIB-60.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Can we get a copy or 

19 can we see that guidance -- that guidance document 

20 -- that informal guidance document so we can verify 

21 this?

22 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, I will pass that 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through NIOSH.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is an issue that has 

3 been discussed in the Subcommittee actually in the 

4 past because we have dealt with this. 

5 We have been doing this since pretty 

6 much day one of doing plutonium assessments on this 

7 project.

8 And Doug, to help you out or for IMBA, 

9 it's under the advanced options. You go to 

10 advanced options and advanced -- the second 

11 advanced options. It's under bioassay and has the 

12 allowed ingrowth of americium-241.

13 OPERATOR: Speaker, please identify 

14 yourself.

15 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. This is 

16 Scott Siebert yet again. 

17 MR. FARVER: This is Doug and that is 

18 right where I was looking and it is grayed out in 

19 my version or --

20 MR. SIEBERT: Well, you probably don't 

21 have -- do you have americium selected as the 

22 radionuclide of interest and then have -- let me 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 see here.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, you guys 

3 really don't need to settle this on this call. I 

4 mean, that's sort of the clarification of how to 

5 do which you can do offline, you guys.

6 DR. MAURO: By the way, one 

7 other - another takeaway I have here is that it 

8 sounds like that the sophistication of your program 

9 in terms of the training your folks, that the --

10 and the tools it's a living process and correct me 

11 if I'm wrong, any chance that when you're in a mode 

12 where, let's say, you're training people on your 

13 tools, especially when they are nuanced like this 

14 one, that one of our folks -- our lead internal 

15 dosimetrists -- can join in and --

16 MR. KATZ: Tom, this has been raised 

17 before and I've asked that and I thought Stu or 

18 somebody thought it would be reasonable actually. 

19 I think it's important that your folks who are doing 

20 Dose Reconstruction reviews get whatever training 

21 can be arranged that is being given to other dose 

22 reconstructors.
222

NEAL 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. K. BEHLING: Yes, we discussed 

2 during, I think, the last Procedures Subcommittee. 

3 MR. KATZ: I think that's a great idea.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I am happy to 

5 hear that this discrepancy that appeared at first 

6 may in fact be resolved and that we do not have a 

7 flip-over in decisional compensation. 

8 But basically SC&A will redo and make 

9 sure that we have agreement, in which case that's 

10 very hopeful and this is good.

11 MEMBER MUNN: I think you are right 

12 about that, David. And we have -- we have 

13 discussed this question and I've already seen 

14 ingrowth in this forum before.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Oh, yes, 

16 and it makes -- I think it is understandable to me 

17 who wasn't part of that discussion. I did want to 

18 ask before we conclude on this what we should 

19 consider about the depleted uranium, which now we 

20 are not looking at Method B of -- we are really 

21 comparing NIOSH and Method A. 

22 But B considered and has ten rem of
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 depleted uranium and I would like somebody to tell 

2 me is that something that others missed or is there 

3 new information that depleted uranium is around 

4 that people were not aware of or --

5 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

6 address that one, as well.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please.

8 MR. SIEBERT: There is no indication 

9 that the Employee (EE) was working in any uranium 

10 facility at Rocky Flats. The EE was placed --

11 anytime we saw data that placed the EE in any 

12 facility at Rocky Flats, it was a plutonium 

13 facility. 

14 This was clearly a plutonium worker. 

15 The plutonium and uranium -- it's not the same area 

16 at Rocky Flats, from my understanding. It's a very 

17 clear delineation. 

18 So this individual was clearly working 

19 with plutonium as is seen from here -- the 

20 individual's data. We also saw whenever we looked 

21 at any of the indication -- the incident reports 

22 and so on, they are always in areas of plutonium. 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 They are not in any uranium areas. So 

2 [what] we said in the bottom line is, this 

3 individual does not appear to have any reason to 

4 have been exposed to uranium based on the 

5 information that we have.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And SC&A 

7 folks, how do you respond to that?

8 DR. MAURO: We've got to go back and 

9 figure out why we included it. I have to admit, 

10 you know, this is something -- I'm involved very 

11 much in the Method B and I'd have to go and figure 

12 out why we included uranium, perhaps erroneously. 

13 But I think it's --

14 MR. SIEBERT: Well, John, I can tell 

15 you in the original report -- not the comparison 

16 report but the original report on Page 7, you 

17 clearly do state, see our Method B assigned 

18 potential internal intakes from DU, which was very 

19 claimant-favorable because the EE worked in the 

20 plutonium facility. Just to give you somewhere to 

21 look.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay. So in other words, 
225

NEAL 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 -- thank you for looking so carefully. In 

2 effect, what you did find is that we made what we 

3 believed to be a claimant-favorable assumption, 

4 which was actually unrealistic. 

5 Okay. I accept that. But we'll take 

6 a look at that. I mean, I think we should take a 

7 look at it. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

9 DR. MAURO: But I, you know, certainly 

10 accept that criticism. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So when we come 

12 back to this, this may be a -- one that's resolved 

13 such that there is now agreement and that is very 

14 good. It is just about four o'clock. Do people 

15 want to take a ten-minute break now?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, that sounds great.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We'll 

18 take a ten-minute break. Be together at ten 

19 minutes after 4:00 Eastern time and then we'll go 

20 on to another case. This is progress. And I --

21 Kathy, I leave it to you to which case you'd like 

22 to choose next.
226

NEAL 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. K. BEHLING: Okay. Maybe we'll 

2 look at Fernald if Doug is up for it.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. See 

6 you in ten minutes.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

8 went off the record at 3:58 p.m. and resumed at 4:15 

9 p.m.)

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy, as we 

11 begin, you said that you'd like to take a case from 

12 Fernald. Might you be able to show us the very 

13 first slide, the table with all of the different 

14 line --

15 MS. K. BEHLING: The comparison table?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, the --

17 MS. K. BEHLING: The summary 

18 comparison, yes. 

19 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

20 reporter. Are we on the record?

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Just let us take 
227

NEAL 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 look at it and then ---

2 COURT REPORTER: Sorry. Are we on the 

3 record?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Of course.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're on the 

6 record. 

7 COURT REPORTER: Okay. 

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Of course, yes. Of 

9 course. It's your decision as to which case we do 

10 next.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But I, as Chair, 

12 I'm going to suggest that you choose it and we will 

13 be happy to do that. 

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. And the only 

15 thing, like I said, we --- just because of the 

16 details as you know and as you've recognized that 

17 we're discussing here, as I said, Doug and Ron and 

18 I have decided to split these up. And if Doug is 

19 prepared to do the Fernald case, which is the second 

20 one identified under the 17th set, that would be 

21 fine. 

22 And, Doug, you can tell me and, if not, 
228

NEAL 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 can take another case. But I will point out as 

2 we all recognize, especially looking at the Rocky 

3 Flats site that we just discussed, the level of 

4 complexity that, and especially that site, I 

5 believe, but that goes into these dose 

6 reconstructions. 

7 And I think one of the things that I 

8 pointed it out when I wasn't sure when it was 

9 happening but at least because of how complex Rocky 

10 Flats is, it does sound like everything is in place 

11 so that the dose reconstructors appear to be doing 

12 this in a consistent manner. 

13 And I just wanted to point that 

14 particular aspect out, that even though we may have 

15 -- but it shows you how complex -- and we've been 

16 running this IMBA for all these years and we're not 

17 necessarily made aware or were aware of all of these 

18 level of details and the advanced aspects of even 

19 the IMBA program.

20 But as long as the dose reconstructors 

21 are doing this consistently, and it appears in this 

22 particular case they are, I think that's a good 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sign. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: So, Doug, would you 

4 like to start on the Fernald case, if the 

5 Subcommittee Members are in agreement? 

6 MR. FARVER: I can do that and I can 

7 make it real quick without all the nuances and even 

8 going through the whole document. I mean, if you 

9 really want the short story --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we have 

11 not suffered -- no, we can go through it in a little 

12 more detail -- in the same level of detail that the 

13 other two we've gone through. That was quite 

14 informative. 

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're here until 

17 5:00 p.m.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Here. 

20 MR. FARVER: I just didn't want to take 

21 up your time unnecessarily. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no. This is 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not -- this has been constructive. 

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. If we go to Page 8, 

3 Table 1.1, that will kind of tell you the story 

4 between Method A and Method B and the NIOSH 

5 calculations. And --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yes. 

7 MR. FARVER: Everything above the 

8 recorded shallow dose is similar, all of the photon 

9 doses and the missed photon doses for Method A and 

10 NIOSH. Method B is very similar. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Although 

12 A is our -- it's the comparison of NIOSH and A that 

13 is central to our mission. 

14 MR. FARVER: Yes. And they're pretty 

15 much duplicates of each other. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

17 MR. FARVER: So that's pretty 

18 unexciting. And then you go down to onsite ambient 

19 dose --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. The fact 

21 that they're so similar is exciting to some of us. 

22 MEMBER MUNN: Statisticians. Right? 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: And the onsite ambient 

2 dose is where the really big difference in the whole 

3 case is. SC&A did not do an onsite ambient dose 

4 so we'll talk about that when we get to it. And 

5 NIOSH did. And that's where the three additional 

6 rem come from. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Mm-hmm. 

8 MR. FARVER: That was your short story. 

9 Now we can go on through if we wish. You know, you 

10 see the occupational medical dose. Method A is 

11 higher than NIOSH but not as high as Method B. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I would say 

13 where the calculations are identical as they are 

14 for the photon dose, the low energy and high energy 

15 -- higher energy, there's no need to go over that. 

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I'm looking 

18 at A and NIOSH, unless you have something from B 

19 that you feel should be brought to our attention. 

20 MR. FARVER: I don't believe so, mainly 

21 because if you look at the total doses, they're 

22 pretty similar. 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They're almost 

2 identical. 

3 MR. FARVER: Right. And the crux of it 

4 is the ambient dose, is where the three rem 

5 additional that NIOSH came up with that we didn't. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

7 talk about that. 

8 MR. FARVER: Okay. And we can move on 

9 down to that section, which --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If folks 

11 disagree or other Subcommittee Members want to go 

12 over any of those that are identical there, please 

13 say so. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: No, certainly not I. 

15 This is exactly what I was talking about at outset, 

16 how much of a difference is significant enough for 

17 us to -- yes. 

18 MS. K. BEHLING: I'm sorry, Doug. 

19 This is Kathy. Obviously the doses are identical 

20 and also the methodology used has to be identical 

21 almost in order to come up with those identical 

22 doses. 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Right. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is correct. 

3 MS. K. BEHLING: So that's important. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: Right. 

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Right. 

7 MR. FARVER: Well, if we look at 

8 Section 2.1.6, the onsite ambient doses, SC&A chose 

9 not to assess an onsite ambient dose because the 

10 employee was continuously monitored. NIOSH 

11 assigned an ambient dose after 1984 when the 

12 ambient dose was subtracted out of the measured 

13 dose, out of the dosimeter dose. 

14 So that is the difference. They 

15 calculated the dose from 1994 through, is it '97, 

16 I believe. And we came up with the additional 

17 three rem.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: And I think what's 

19 important here is that that is documented, I 

20 believe in PROC-60 as to how to deal with the onsite 

21 ambient for each of the sites. 

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excuse me. I'm 

2 not clear what the difference is. I didn't quite 

3 follow it. Would you mind? 

4 MR. FARVER: Why we did not? 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

6 MR. FARVER: We did not because the 

7 employee was continuously monitored, wearing a 

8 dosimeter. 

9 MR. FARVER: So we did not feel there 

10 was a need to assess another dose on top of that. 

11 MS. K. BEHLING: And generally that is 

12 the rule. However, like I said, there are some 

13 specifics to different sites and those are spelled 

14 out in PROC-60. 

15 MR. FARVER: Correct. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And what are 

17 those specifics? 

18 MR. FARVER: For this site that after 

19 1984, you do start assessing an ambient dose. So 

20 NIOSH is correct in what they did. 

21 MS. K. BEHLING: And that is because at 

22 that facility, they were subtracting out that 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ambient dose from the measured dose. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Again, a facility issue, 

3 an onsite. Yes.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: Correct. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And NIOSH folks, 

6 what do you say? Grady? 

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. We agree 

8 wholeheartedly that we did it correctly following 

9 the Procedure 60. 

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Thank you for that, 

11 Scott.

12 MR. FARVER: Good. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I've 

14 just got a question on this because this has come 

15 up at some other sites. So what you're telling me 

16 is that when they started putting a badge, say, out 

17 there where the badges were kept or whatever, when 

18 they read it, they subtracted that from the 

19 people's badges? Is that why you --

20 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct, Brad. 

21 That is what they were doing. 

22 MS. K. BEHLING: That's right. 
236

NEAL 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: Okay. So, okay. 

2 Just wanted to make sure. I was just trying to 

3 figure it out. I had heard that before and I just 

4 wanted to make sure. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, but, I 

6 hadn't looked at -- I mean, what happened in '84? 

7 I mean, why the change?

8 MR. SIEBERT: It's just a change in how 

9 the site was dealing with their dosimetry program. 

10 Up until '84 they didn't have the ambient badges 

11 being subtracted out. I don't know if they had the 

12 ambient badges --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: Once they hit '85, they 

15 decided to start subtracting the ambient doses out 

16 so that they weren't reporting the ambient doses 

17 to the DOE. But, I mean, if that's conjecture to 

18 me as to why, but there was a clear delineation as 

19 to change in their methodology. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not clear 

21 who's backing off. People are laughing, but who 

22 -- and I may have forgotten and it's getting later 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the day, the first slide, but why? 

2 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy. NIOSH 

3 was correct in assessing onsite ambient dose after 

4 1984. We didn't do it because, as I said, often 

5 it is an issue of if you were monitored, we didn't 

6 need to do that. We made a mistake by not 

7 consulting PROC-60 in this particular case. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we 

9 will -- so you accept that NIOSH did it correctly? 

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. 

11 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And that 

13 effectively, I don't know, I guess, if you will, 

14 you should change it? Or is there any value to your 

15 actually putting this on paper or if this is 

16 something we could just describe, if you will? 

17 And there's no change in the decision. 

18 That is to say, a flip over from compensable to 

19 non-compensable or non-compensable to 

20 compensable. 

21 MR. KATZ: No. Right. This is Ted, 

22 Dave. I think this is just an example where, in 
238

NEAL 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 narrative, the little summary memo, you know, 

2 they can cover this in a couple sentences how this 

3 issue was disposed. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: And then we'll have a clear 

6 record for this case of that matter. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

8 sounds good. I just want to make sure. 

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, then --

11 MR. FARVER: We can move on to the 

12 medical doses. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

14 MR. FARVER: And on Page 15, you can see 

15 Table 2.6 of the two methods and the NIOSH results. 

16 And you'll see some differences. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

18 MR. FARVER: And Method A, pulled the 

19 numbers off of Table 8.9 from OTIB-6. And Method 

20 B pulled the doses from the Fernald TBD, Tables 3.14 

21 and 16. And although it really wasn't specified 

22 where NIOSH got their values from, we believe they 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 got them from OTIB-6 but we're not exactly sure 

2 where because OTIB-6, they have 41 different skin 

3 cancer sites. 

4 So it's a little tricky to make a direct 

5 comparison. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

7 MR. FARVER: So we don't really know 

8 what was done for that one, but they're all very 

9 similar.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And small. 

11 MR. FARVER: And small. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So NIOSH folks, 

13 what do you say? 

14 MR. CALHOUN: I'm being quiet here 

15 because I work at Fernald. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

17 Fine. Anybody else? 

18 COURT REPORTER: Speaker, please 

19 identify yourself. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is Grady. 

21 MR. CALHOUN: That was Grady Calhoun. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine, 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Grady and that's correct. Is there anyone else 

2 that can speak to that or wants to speak to that?

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott from the 

4 ORAU team. I mean, we're going to have to look at 

5 the specifics on what was assigned and why. We 

6 have somebody looking at it but they probably won't 

7 be able to answer it right at this very second. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine. Why 

9 don't we say that you will have somebody look at 

10 it and report back to us at the next meeting? 

11 MR. SIEBERT: We would be happy to. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And then 

13 --

14 MR. SIEBERT: As long as Grady wants me 

15 to. 

16 MR. CALHOUN: I always want you to, 

17 Scott.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

19 good. So that would, I believe, conclude this. 

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. We can wait until 

21 we get a response back from NIOSH. It looks like 

22 the employee had about seven exams so it should not 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be too difficult to track down. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

3 And that will be -- one doesn't have to present 

4 anything. Just tell us in words what that 

5 difference is and that will be incorporated into 

6 the report that we write up. Correct? 

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, so Scott will report 

9 out -- will send, you know, just like we would with 

10 other matters with matrices and so on. If he'll 

11 just send out what he finds, his response, when he 

12 has it, to the Work Group and to SC&A --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

14 Okay. And then that will resolve it without having 

15 to come back to the meeting. Then we will need --

16 we only have about 15 minutes because we've got to 

17 choose our next meeting. And I think if we don't 

18 have time to go over another one, maybe we should 

19 just talk about our meeting time and any other 

20 concerns and finish up for the day.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Good. 

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy? 

2 MS. K. BEHLING: One quick question 

3 here and I'm just -- I should have a better 

4 understanding. I do take notice -- and, again, 

5 it's not significant doses but I was curious for 

6 the internal dose, the total internal, the 

7 difference between Method A and B --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry. I 

9 did not -- yes, yes. Okay. 

10 MS. K. BEHLING: I just want to -- maybe 

11 we could elaborate on that again. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By all means. 

13 By all means. That's my mistake. I thought we had 

14 finished everything and we have not.

15 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. I think I 

16 can go on with that. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do. 

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If we go to the 

20 bottom of Page 15, which we can see that it 

21 discusses NIOSH's uranium dose calculations. And 

22 well, this employee had, like, 217 urine samples. 
243

NEAL 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 mean, it was a lot to look at, a lot of data. 

2 But there are only -- there was one 

3 result that was above the MDA and one result at the 

4 MDA. Okay. So that's pretty much what you have 

5 out of over 200 samples. You're looking at maybe 

6 two results of interest. 

7 So those are the ones that NIOSH 

8 plotted, assumed the chronic intake, 2 percent 

9 uranium. They assumed that those -- or before 

10 those dates, that those were acute intakes, that 

11 those results were caused by acute intakes. 

12 So they assess two acute intakes on top 

13 of a chronic intake that occurs through the entire 

14 employment period. And that is the method they 

15 used to come up with their dose. They also did 

16 assess some thorium on top of that and from a 

17 baseline fecal sample and chest counts. Okay. And 

18 that's included doses. It will come up later. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

20 MR. FARVER: Method A for this, SC&A 

21 assessed an acute intake for the single elevated, 

22 the one that was elevated above MDA. 
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 MR. FARVER: So your MDA is at 14. 

3 There is one result of 14, one result of 18. So 

4 we just assessed the 18 as an acute and felt that 

5 the 14 fell in along the MDA line. 

6 Okay. And then we assessed a missed 

7 uranium dose for the employee. So we had a little 

8 different approach. They had two acute intakes. 

9 We had one acute intake. And I see where we're at 

10 on live. Okay. 

11 Table 2.10 shows the intakes. There 

12 was an interesting thing about this because we used 

13 the CADW and the IMBA software. But the CADW 

14 seemed to come up with some lower doses than the 

15 IMBA doses. And that information was in our 

16 original report. 

17 But we did not put the comparison in 

18 here. If I remember right, I believe that the CADW 

19 at the time was doing -- it was doing an estimating 

20 for some of the uranium, thoriums -- I'm not sure. 

21 I seem to recall there was something the CADW was 

22 doing that it's no longer doing now. That's been 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 corrected. 

2 But that may have been the reason that 

3 we noticed the difference between the CADW and the 

4 IMBA. 

5 MS. K. BEHLING: The other thing that's 

6 strange about that is that CADW you have to put in 

7 the full year where the IMBA you can put in your 

8 exact years. So you would almost have expected the 

9 CADW to be higher. 

10 I guess maybe that was brought to our 

11 attention. Maybe we should think about -- I don't 

12 know. As long as we know that that's been 

13 corrected and if -- well -- 

14 MR. FARVER: Yes. And if we go on to 

15 Table 2.11, we also assessed it for recycled 

16 uranium with those intakes. Now, we were off 

17 probably by about a difference of ten in our 

18 internal doses. Let me verify that. Internal 

19 dose of .037 and .302 from the NIOSH and then .292 

20 for our Method B. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could somebody 

22 scroll to where it --
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay. Well, I was just 

2 flexing back for my own benefit. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

4 MR. FARVER: So Method A and NIOSH are 

5 off by about a factor of ten. And I believe I know 

6 why. I believe that's because we incorrectly 

7 chose Type S uranium and probably if we would have 

8 chose Type M uranium, the skin doses would have been 

9 higher. 

10 That's just -- from looking at this 

11 right now, that's kind of my guess on this. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: It's possible. 

13 MR. FARVER: And I'm the one that made 

14 the mistake so I admit it. But I'm looking at it 

15 now and I'm thinking, why did you do that because 

16 you know that's not going to give you a skin dose 

17 Type S? 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. That is what we 

20 did.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes. 

22 MS. K. BEHLING: We did Type S uranium. 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: So I'm guessing that 

2 probably explains that factor of ten. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

4 MR. FARVER: Even though we assessed 

5 different intakes, you know, two acutes versus one 

6 acute over top of chronic, a lot of times that 

7 really doesn't matter because your overall dose is 

8 going to be about the same, assuming you choose the 

9 same material class.

10 And then we went on to assess some 

11 environmental dose but it wasn't much of anything. 

12 But that's kind of the short story and that's kind 

13 of where the two big differences are.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 MR. FARVER: The acute dose and then --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Medical dose. 

17 Pardon. 

18 MR. FARVER: And then we kind of got the 

19 uranium solubility incorrect. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That should also 

21 be written up again, not necessarily -- if you would 

22 just do the calculation and bring it to our 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 attention. 

2 MR. FARVER: I will. Now that I'm 

3 looking at Table 2-12. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

5 MR. FARVER: And is that on the screen? 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is. 

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now I'm more 

8 confused. Maybe it's because we didn't assess 

9 thorium. We'll have to look at that. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

11 that one I would urge us to come back to next time. 

12 Okay? 

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

14 MS. K. BEHLING: We can do that. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

16 that's what we'll start with next time. And let's 

17 talk about schedule. Ted, could you talk to us 

18 about when we could get together again? 

19 MR. KATZ: Sure. Let me just pull up 

20 the calendar so I can see where we are. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

22 MR. KATZ: One second, please. 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: July is a problem with 

3 us. 

4 MR. KATZ: We have a Board meeting in 

5 July.

6 MEMBER MUNN: We have a Board meeting 

7 in Idaho. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, well, July is 

9 further out maybe than we need to be though. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I wondered if we 

11 could meet sometime in early June or mid-June. 

12 MR. KATZ: I don't know why we can't 

13 meet in June provided that people -- we have a lot 

14 to do with these blind reviews alone. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You bet we do. 

16 MR. KATZ: So I think we don't have to 

17 worry about getting work done in time. Plus we 

18 have still a lot of work that I think both NIOSH 

19 and SC&A have done on the other sets, which we won't 

20 get to today but we could get through the regular 

21 cases.

22 So I think we have -- is this true, SC&A 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or not? We probably have a full load of material 

2 even if we were to meet tomorrow. Right? 

3 MEMBER MUNN: That's pretty close, I 

4 think. 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, then let's 

7 --

8 MR. KATZ: That's good. So let's look 

9 at June then and we don't have to worry about being 

10 prepared so much. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: How about Tuesday the 

14 23rd? Or do you really want it much earlier? We 

15 have a Board telecon on the 9th. 

16 MR. KATZ: What about mid -- I mean, we 

17 have a telecon on the 9th. Right. But what about 

18 that mid-June area? So, for example, the week of 

19 -- I mean, even the week of the telecon, June 10th, 

20 11th. How's that? Or the following week? The 

21 week of the 16th? 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 
251

NEAL 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: How are people's calendars 

2 for those dates? 

3 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and I'm 

4 going to throw a wrench into it a little bit. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay. 

6 MR. CALHOUN: I'm gone on my annual 

7 fishing trip from the 5th through the 13th. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's helpful. So 

9 --

10 MR. CALHOUN: And I've got a joint 

11 outreach task group meeting 16th and 17th in Saint 

12 Louis.

13 MR. KATZ: So are you alright, for 

14 example, on the 18th, Grady? 

15 MR. CALHOUN: The 18th, 19th and then 

16 the following next two weeks look fine. 

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. So why don't my Board 

18 Members look at that from the 18th forward to the 

19 end of June. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: My choice is on the 23rd. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I said, my choice would 

2 still be the 23rd. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. But we have those 

4 five whatever --

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 18th 

7 would work for me and would be good. 

8 MR. KATZ: So Brad and Wanda, can you 

9 do the 18th? 

10 MEMBER MUNN: I can do the 18th. 

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. This is Brad. 

12 I can do any of those dates. I'm not that 

13 important, so --

14 MR. KATZ: You are very important, 

15 Brad. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, you 

17 are. David, is that possible for you? 

18 MEMBER MUNN: He said yes. 

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, it's -- I'm 

20 going to be a little bit up in the air. I'm going 

21 to be out of the country then. So I'll be on a six 

22 hour time difference. 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's then 

2 proceed to the next week, if we can. 

3 MR. KATZ: Are you still out of the 

4 country the next week, David? 

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. I'll still 

6 be out of the country. So either I can call in for 

7 part of the time. If you don't need me for a 

8 quorum, I mean, that would be -- 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

10 it would be reasonable for us to hope that we will 

11 have another Member by June 18th. 

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. I think we can get 

13 another Member by June 18th for sure. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In which case, 

15 if the rest of us can -- now, we don't know about 

16 John Poston's availability.

17 MR. KATZ: So let's pick a couple 

18 tentative dates. I'll query folks and if David 

19 needs to and, you know, you can call in for a small 

20 portion of the meeting or whatever. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

22 then let's pick the 18th as one option. How about 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Monday the 23rd? 

2 MEMBER MUNN: Tuesday the 23rd. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Tuesday the 

4 23rd. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. Tuesday would 

6 be better than the Monday. 

7 MR. KATZ: The 18th and the 23rd. I'm 

8 going to send those out to John. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'll tell you, 

10 the 24th would be better. 

11 MR. KATZ: Or 24th. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And 

13 Wanda, that's what you suggested, didn't you? 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Sure. Yes. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's do 

16 the 18th and the 24th. 

17 MR. KATZ: I'll send those out and see 

18 if John Poston can make one of those.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great. 

21 MR. KATZ: Then I'll be sending those 

22 dates out because I don't think we can have the 
255

NEAL 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 of David probably not being able to make the 

2 full meeting and John Poston not as well. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. That sounds 

5 good. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

7 MR. MELIUS: This is Jim Melius. Just 

8 to weigh in a little bit on what I think we need 

9 to do. I mean, I think the blind reviews are the 

10 key step we need to do to get the rest of the letters 

11 off. 

12 And we need figure out what the 

13 schedule's going to be for when we are going to be 

14 able to say something about the blind reviews, 

15 meaning we have enough of them resolved that we can 

16 feel comfortable reporting on them, so to speak. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We'll have 

18 several that we can report on to the Idaho Falls 

19 meeting. 

20 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, that next 

21 meeting, I think we could knock out any of them if 

22 not all of them. And then get the memos written 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up after that. If it goes like it went today, we 

2 spent a lot of time on other matters before we got 

3 to the blind reviews today.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

5 MR. KATZ: We could get many of them 

6 done, I think. 

7 MR. MELIUS: Yes. No, my 

8 recommendation was just to focus on them and not 

9 worry as much about 14 through --

10 MR. KATZ: Right. Right. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's item one 

12 on the agenda. 

13 MR. KATZ: I agree. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: Well, and besides, we did 

15 two sticky wickets really, the ones that were 

16 strange like that. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

18 We started with the worst first. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. We had the tough 

20 ones, I think, knock on wood. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

22 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I'm 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sorry. Now that we're talking about blind audits 

2 again, is there any way that NIOSH could be 

3 delivered any of the supporting files that SC&A 

4 used in all these? Just having the PDF report is 

5 very hard for us to recreate what was done. 

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, Scott. That should be 

7 no problem with that. SC&A can send you the files 

8 for each of those that you want. I think it'd be 

9 helpful if you just request what files you want for 

10 which. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: I mean, I'm just 

12 wondering if we can make it part of the normal 

13 process that --

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: -- Grady gets all the 

16 files. Because NIOSH should really be the 

17 repository. I'll get it from them. 

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes. I don't see 

19 that there's any problem. Right? I'm asking 

20 whoever is the holder of the file. Kathy or --

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. That shouldn't 

22 be a problem. 
258

NEAL 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, great. That makes it 

2 easier for everybody to move forward. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. Well, thank 

5 you all for a very productive meeting. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly 

7 was. And this was productive and actually 

8 intellectually interesting. 

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, it was that too. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's 

11 always fun. Okay. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: What do those big words 

13 mean? 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

15 thank you all. I will call the meeting to an end 

16 and adjourn. 

17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

18 went off the record at 4:46 p.m.)

19