1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

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

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

NICOLE BRIGGS, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

ED MAHER, ORAU

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

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

Discussion .................................... 6

Review of summary information from sets 6-13

by Rosanna Gogliotti

Discussion ................................... 55

Report Drafting Plans by Ted Katz

Discussion ................................... 89

Changes to tables and graphs by Grady Calhoun

Discussion .................................. 128

Case Reviews Issue Resolution - Remaining case 

issues from sets 10-13 by Dr. John Mauro

Discussion .................................. 149

Portsmouth blind case (SC&A) from period before 

2009 by Kathy Behling

Discussion .................................. 181

X-10 blind case (SC&A) from period before 2009 by 

Kathy Behling

Discussion .................................. 227

Blind case from Allied Chemical (SC&A) drawn from 

set 17 by Kathy Behlin

Discussion .................................. 236

Remaining 3 blind cases from Set 20 (SC&A) by Dough 

Farver and Dr. Ron Buchanan
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (10:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So let me, for Board 

4 Members, we have -- I'm going to deal with 

5 conflicts. It's easier for me to do than for you 

6 to recall yours. But we have all the Board 

7 Members. Dr. Kotelchuck's here, Richardson, Brad 

8 Clawson, Josie Beach, Wanda Munn, Dave Richardson, 

9 all on the line. So they're all present.

10 For conflicts, let me just run through 

11 them. Brad is conflicted on INL cases. Josie on 

12 Hanford and Wanda on Hanford. Dr. Poston, if he 

13 joins us, let me just cover his now, is conflicted 

14 for ORNL and I think we have a case from there today, 

15 BWXT, Sandia, LANL, ANL, that's ANL-West, Lawrence 

16 Livermore National Lab, and Y-12. So I can redo 

17 that if and when John joins us.

18 So let's move on to attendance for the 

19 NIOSH ORAU team.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey Ted, just one 

21 second while you're on conflicts. Because I'm a 

22 little bit confused on the INL because ANL-West was 

23 always separated from us but then it became us.
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 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: So what are we doing 

3 on that? Because we had a little thing here a while 

4 back about that. How do I, I guess I'm wondering 

5 how I treat that.

6 MR. KATZ: Well you treat that as being 

7 conflicted.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: There may be, I'll get back 

10 to you with details if there's a period for ANL when 

11 you're not. But for the time being, just treat 

12 that as a conflict, one big --

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Well I'll just 

14 treat it that way then. I just wanted to make sure.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. And I'll get back to 

16 you Brad, if there's a period for which you were 

17 not conflicted for ANL. Okay. So anyway, let's 

18 get back to then the NIOSH ORAU roll call.

19 (Roll Call.)

20 MR. KATZ: Very good. Welcome to all 

21 of you. Federal officials, contractors to the 

22 fed. This is Ted Katz. I'm the Designated 

23 Federal Officer for the Advisory Board. I'm not 
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 expecting actually anyone from Office of General 

2 Counsel.

3 So do we have any, there's no public 

4 comment session or whatever, but do we have any 

5 members of the public who wish to register their 

6 attendance? No response Very good. And then let 

7 me just circle back around and see if John Poston, 

8 have you joined us? No response Okay then.

9 Let me just remind everyone, since we 

10 have quite a few people on this call, to mute your 

11 phones except when you are addressing the group. 

12 That will just improve the audio for everybody. 

13 And also, try not to use your speaker phone too much 

14 because it causes problems if people are, you get 

15 feedback from other people's lines. Dave, 

16 otherwise, it's your agenda.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

18 folks, you all have the agenda. Let's start out 

19 with the first bullet on summarizing review results 

20 for the Secretary's Report. Rose, is it you who 

21 are going to present on the summary information 

22 from Sets 6-13?

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that's me.
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: Okay. Great.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Al right.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And those were, 

4 if I may start out by saying, those were very nice 

5 and useful graphs and tables.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you. Now just a 

7 refresher for everyone, the 2009 Secretary Letter 

8 went out in May. And at the last meeting, we 

9 decided that this Secretary Letter would cover sets 

10 six through thirteen which is tabs 101 through 324. 

11 At that meeting we were also tasked to provide some 

12 statistics and the equivalent statistics that were 

13 in the last report.

14 Since then, I spoke with Dr. Kotelchuck 

15 and Ted and we did add some more figures to these. 

16 Okay. So our first table, and these are the same 

17 that are in the memo, I just put them in PowerPoint 

18 so they'd be easier for everyone to see. We did 

19 review 232 cases in this grouping.

20 Now two cases we did not review because 

21 of a PER issue. But the remaining cases, 193 were 

22 best estimates, so roughly 80 percent. And 32 were 

23 maximizing and seven were minimizing. And it is 
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 significantly different than the last letter which 

2 did look at 76 percent over-estimating.

3 That might be worth mentioning why the 

4 Subcommittee has changed their selection approach. 

5 Okay. And Table 2 is our summary of overall case 

6 rank. And that reflects the cumulative impact of 

7 all case findings. From our Dose Reconstruction 

8 Reports, that's the last line of the Table 2 

9 checklist and it takes into account the impact of 

10 all the findings.

11 Now typically, there's four options for 

12 us as a dose reconstructor when we select these low, 

13 medium, high, and under review. But since all of 

14 these have been resolved, we did go back and 

15 re-evaluate. So there are no more under review 

16 because all of these cases have been resolved, or 

17 nearly all of them have been resolved at this point. 

18 So those all have been reassigned.

19 Okay. And moving on to Table 3, here

20 is our summary of findings and observations from 

21 this case set. And in total we had 670. And that 

22 represents all the findings, adding in all the 

23 observations for the King findings, removing out 
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 the findings that became observations and those 

2 that were withdrawn.

3 And we did also reassess these. And 

4 you'll see that majority of them are low with some 

5 medium and a few high. We also had 206 

6 observations. And observations actually began in 

7 the 8th set, so this is reflecting of the 6th and 

8 7th set in our observations. Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: Rose, I just wonder if it 

10 would be helpful for the others if you just remind 

11 everyone what low, medium, and high are interpreted 

12 as.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Low means that 

14 it has a low impact on the dose or a low significance 

15 in the case. Medium would be a medium impact on 

16 the case or a medium programmatic impact. And high 

17 would be a very significant, those would be several 

18 rem dose increases.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And in 

20 general, these are for 232 cases so you were finding 

21 an average of roughly three findings per case and 

22 a little less than one observation per case.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Well a little 
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 more than one observation per case because it 

2 doesn't reflect the sixth and seventh sets.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is a change from 

5 the last letter which did have four findings per 

6 case and no observations, obviously.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Hi, this is Grady. Does 

8 this report address what we discussed earlier about 

9 the cases that we've decided really weren't 

10 findings. Has that been changed yet?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We did review or remove 

12 four findings. But we did not respond to anything 

13 different.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Well, from the examples 

15 that I provided, I think, you know, at some point 

16 we need to at least discuss that. Because we 

17 actually -- every one of them that I provided was 

18 in the previous report as being a finding. I think 

19 we believe they were not.

20 So I don't know how you want to deal with 

21 that one but I just want to make sure that, please 

22 don't forget about it.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave. I 
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 think that we need to have a discussion about that, 

2 certainly for all the Subcommittee Members as well 

3 as myself, who read the correspondence between you 

4 and Ted and Rose. But why don't we hold that and 

5 then come back to that as a substantive discussion 

6 afterward, after she presents her graphs and 

7 tables.

8 MR. CALHOUN: That works for me.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Sounds good. 

11 Moving on to Table 4. This is a summary of our 

12 finding classification system. We do classify all 

13 findings as A through F while we're going through 

14 the issues resolution process. So A is an issue 

15 of judgment of where the person worked.

16 B would be exposure scenarios, so they 

17 consider everything. Was there a correct external 

18 model, is C. Did they use the correct internal 

19 model assumptions, is D. E is a quality concern. 

20 And F is, did they not meet any of the other 

21 criteria. So that's the catchall.

22 The majority of them were external 

23 dose, which is not surprising. If we were to go 
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 through and remove findings, these numbers would 

2 obviously change. Okay.

3 Figure 1 is a breakdown of all the 

4 employment sites for sets six through thirteen. 

5 And here you'll notice that the bars don't quite 

6 add up to the 232 cases. That's because if the EE 

7 happened to work at multiple work locations, that's 

8 reflected here. This table was provided in the 

9 last Secretary Letter. Okay?

10 And Figure 2, this is the figure that 

11 you requested, Dave, that compares the first one 

12 through five grouping with the current grouping of 

13 six through thirteen.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Good.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: These are just, again, 

16 the same.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And for 

18 folks from the Committee, you'll remember that the 

19 first report was 100 cases. So the number and the 

20 percents are the same. And I think later, you 

21 didn't bother putting the percent, you just put the 

22 number on those, for the blue bars for this one.

23 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And you asked me 
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 to rework the way that I --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- display the 

4 information.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

6 that's good. Also, this is of course -- did this 

7 include -- does this have all 332 cases? Or are 

8 there a few plants that are left out?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is all the cases, 

10 of course, minus the two that we did not review.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So everything through 

13 the 13th set.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

15 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady again. 

16 This is just an observation on this graph. I think 

17 it would look much more favorable to us if you --

18 those bar graphs there appear to be keyed in on the 

19 number of findings. But I think percentages are 

20 much more relevant. I don't know. It's 

21 misleading when we've got so many more cases and 

22 you list the total number of findings rather than 

23 the percentage.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And actually, maybe 

2 this next figure might help with this. This, 

3 instead of next to each other, I stacked them on 

4 top of each other. You can see here clearly that 

5 the first five sets don't represent as many cases 

6 as six through thirteen. But we can certainly 

7 change Figure 2 if that's what the Subcommittee 

8 desires.

9 MR. KATZ: I'm confused by what Grady 

10 just said because -- was the first graph findings 

11 numbers?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Those were cases.

15 MR. KATZ: Right. It's just cases, 

16 Grady.

17 MR. CALHOUN: What's the percent? I 

18 can't see it. I have nothing on my screen now.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Neither 

20 do I.

21 MR. KATZ: But the graph you were 

22 commenting on, Grady, just showed the number of 

23 cases for each site. It's not --
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 MR. CALHOUN: Although it's a percentage 

2 too though.

3 MR. KATZ: But not a findings, it's not 

4 the findings.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. That was a just 

6 breakdown of percentages of the cases observed?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. CALHOUN: Al right. My bad.

9 MR. KATZ: That's okay.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry, for some reason 

11 my screen stopped sharing that.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And Figure 3 --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Figure 3 is, to 

15 me, a very powerful, important one because it 

16 really gives us a sense that we generally 

17 accomplished the one percent goal that we 

18 internally set for ourselves.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Great, yes. I love 

20 this figure. I think it tells a great story. Here 

21 you'll see I stacked the first five with the 

22 remaining six through thirteen. And it's a 

23 comparison with the one percent selection rule. 
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 These values were actually provided to us from 

2 NIOSH and they were provided with the date of August 

3 of 2010.

4 They are the values that were used by 

5 the Subcommittee to select the thirteenth set of 

6 cases. And the 13th set wasn't actually selected 

7 until early 2011. So there was about a six-month 

8 gap there. But they were the most current and we 

9 don't have a way of going back and getting 

10 statistics from the exact point that the 13th piece 

11 was selected.

12 And I will point out also, for this 

13 figure, every site that is included had at least 

14 three or more cases. And if one percent wasn't 

15 three or more cases, it ended up in the remaining 

16 bin here because I didn't want to lose those values. 

17 Okay?

18 And moving on to Figure 4. And this is 

19 the same as Figure 1 but adding in findings. So 

20 this is six through thirteen. So the blue lines, 

21 obviously, represent the cases that were reviewed 

22 and the red would be findings. So for instance, 

23 here we had 144 findings for 37 Savannah River 
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 cases.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rose, I'm not 

3 sure that this is a, this is less significant in 

4 my mind than the previous graph because I'm not sure 

5 we need to know the number of findings per plant. 

6 That suggests that there were lots of findings on 

7 Savannah River Site and Hanford.

8 But that could reflect some of the 

9 issues that Grady, I know, had raised about, are 

10 some of these lack of information from SC&A 

11 compared to what the ORAU people were doing? That 

12 it was not a miscommunication, but a different 

13 case.

14 I'm not sure this is a terribly 

15 important figure. The overall results which you 

16 gave in the table above, they certainly are 

17 important and shows that you're doing your job, 

18 SC&A is doing its job.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I found it very 

20 useful.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that David?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well good. 
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 Okay. How so?

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well it's getting 

3 to the fact that information or findings aren't 

4 uniform across the different sites. So whether 

5 it's expressed as numbers or a ratio --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're saying it 

7 identifies problem sites? Analytical problems in 

8 different sites.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, and none of these 

10 figures are set in stone. We can change figures, 

11 we can add figures, we can remove figures.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Pardon?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: None of these figures 

14 are set in stone. If you want to include a figure 

15 or include additional --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- include additional 

18 or remove --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

20 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver, if I 

21 could jump in for just a second here. Regarding 

22 raised concern, I can certainly understand that. 

23 But as regards this particular graph, I mean, we 
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 have the statistics -- and we'll talk about this 

2 a little bit later.

3 Rose was working on this last week and 

4 we kind of looked at all the findings and tried to 

5 determine which ones were, kind of fell into that 

6 bucket. So it would be a pretty simple matter of 

7 going back and adjusting those values. I think 

8 it's still important to show that, you know, 

9 certain sites, the ratio of findings to cases, I 

10 think that's some valuable information and 

11 something the Secretary would like to see.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is also 

14 Kathy Behling. I believe that in this particular

15 case, this Figure 4 would also be useful for the 

16 Dose Reconstruction Methods Work Group. I believe 

17 they requested this type of information. Now 

18 whether you want to include it with the Secretary's 

19 Letter or not, but I think they would benefit from 

20 seeing this.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

22 look, whatever I say and like what David said just 

23 now is a significant point. Seems to me that I 
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 didn't see it initially. But this is, after all, 

2 for all of us. This is a first take on the 

3 breakdown of the data. We're going to refine it 

4 and condense it into some more minimal number of 

5 tables and graphs. But this is the first crack and 

6 it's a very good one.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, Dave, this is 

8 Josie. I want to chime in too. I found that the 

9 number of cases reviewed versus the findings 

10 reported for those cases was interesting and 

11 helpful for me in all of these graphs. So I think 

12 we should keep it.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We've got a few 

15 more slides on this. I will move to the next one 

16 here. Okay. Figure 5 is our breakdown of cases 

17 with no findings and this is the figure that Ted 

18 requested. It's fairly self-explanatory. This 

19 is, again, sets six through thirteen with the total 

20 cases compared to cases that do not have any 

21 findings.

22 And here I did have to break these into 

23 cases, sites with one case and sites with two cases. 
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 That's just because if I included every single 

2 site, we would need five pages of tables to show 

3 one bar or two bars. So they're not lost but they 

4 are just hidden here.

5 MR. CALHOUN: I can't see that, the 

6 legend there. Is the red total cases with 

7 findings, I'd imagine, or without?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Without findings.

9 MR. CALHOUN: So that's -- okay. The 

10 red is total without. And is the blue total cases?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Al right. I just 

13 couldn't see that over there.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And Figure 6 is 

15 a breakdown of tabs six through thirteen again, and 

16 this is by decade first employed. And here I 

17 listed the selection goals that were included in 

18 the last Secretary Letter. They don't quite align 

19 with what was done this time.

20 And so we can include those or not 

21 include those based on your desires here. And they 

22 do reflect somewhat similar to what was done in the 

23 original letter. Okay.
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 MEMBER MUNN: I would expect some 

2 changes over the period of time since the first 

3 report. You wouldn't expect the same percentage 

4 of decades to be what we saw.

5 MR. KATZ: I wonder, Wanda, you've been 

6 here for the long haul, if you could remind us. I 

7 honestly don't recall these goals being set this 

8 way. I'm just sort of curious how those goals were 

9 set in the first place.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes. I didn't 

11 chime in when there was the discussion going on 

12 about Figure 4. But, you know, originally it was 

13 our plan to try to look at about two percent of the 

14 cases. So when you look at the number of findings 

15 that we have, when you look at the number of cases 

16 that are being reviewed, the original goal was to 

17 try to aim for about two percent.

18 MR. KATZ: But, Wanda, I'm talking 

19 about these goals of the decades. Ten percent in 

20 the '40s, 25 percent in the '50s. I just have no 

21 recollection of that discussion. Do you?

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, I don't. As a matter 

23 of fact, I don't know why we would have done that 
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 without a better metric on how many cases we were 

2 going to have. We didn't have that information.

3 MR. KATZ: John Mauro, maybe do you 

4 recall? Honestly this is just, this was a surprise 

5 to me to see these goals.

6 DR. MAURO: I had to take you off mute. 

7 Yes, I recall the meeting when all this was being 

8 constructed and Mark Griffon was very much 

9 involved, Paul. A strategy needed to be developed 

10 on the taxonomy of what we were going to pick.

11 There were a number, one of which was 

12 decades, of course there were sites, cancer types, 

13 PoCs. And there may have been other categories 

14 that established the basis of trying to shoot for 

15 those goals. And when the Board sat around the 

16 table, when there was, like, a set of maybe 60 or 

17 so cases that were going to be selected from for 

18 review, there would be information in front of each 

19 member of the Board regarding where we stood on each 

20 one of these characteristics, including decade.

21 So yes, this was something that was 

22 discussed quite a bit very early on in the program.

23 MEMBER MUNN: I recall the discussion 
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 of sorts, but I think I didn't realize we were 

2 actually making that selection for a statistical 

3 purpose. But yes, we were, in the first place, we 

4 were dealing with the information that we had 

5 available to us. There's no way you could project 

6 what was going to happen over a decade.

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David 

8 Richardson. I remember that too. I think it was 

9 a meeting in Cincinnati in the basement. Or at 

10 least that was one, because we had a discussion 

11 about whether to do random sampling of, like, a two 

12 percent sample or stratified sampling.

13 John's right, I remember Mark Griffon 

14 proposing a number of factors that we would 

15 stratify on.

16 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

17 Kathy Behling. I actually have, that I can send 

18 to everyone, a flow diagram from back in 2004 that 

19 lists these criteria and lists the percentage of 

20 the decade employed and the duration of employment 

21 and the fact that you wanted to do 2.5 percent. I 

22 actually have, I have a document that shows the 
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 initial Board selection criteria.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks, Kathy. I 

3 just raised the issue because I didn't recall it 

4 and I think it's helpful to have some background 

5 context on how these came about. I mean, when you 

6 look at these, you can sort of understand 

7 intuitively that the '50s and '60s were sort of a 

8 prime period, '70s, to be looking at in a 

9 concentrated way.

10 Maybe the '40s, the thought that was 

11 that there wouldn't be as many cases just because 

12 it was a long time ago. I don't know.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can I chime in? 

14 I've only been here for the last several years or

15 so, since 2012. And I don't remember using these 

16 selection goals. To the extent, though, that I was 

17 involved with selecting cases in six through 

18 thirteen, or really ten through thirteen, it seems 

19 to me that I generally wasn't able to use all of 

20 the selection criteria.

21 The one that seemed to me most 

22 significant and the one I know that I used when I 
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 was doing my selections-- each person did their 

2 own--

3 was the years of employment. And I 

4 thought that was important. So I'm not sure in

5 cases 101-334 that this was an operational 

6 selection goal. Whereas I'm certain, in terms of 

7 at least one person on this Subcommittee, that it 

8 was the years of employment that was, in a sense, 

9 determinative.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. Dave, I think that's 

11 been my observation over these, what, eight years 

12 or whatever since I've been a DFO in watching 

13 selections, is that, I think you're on the mark in 

14 how generally the Board Members have been doing 

15 selections.

16 And I guess the only point I'd just 

17 make, I'm not even sure that the goals themselves, 

18 anymore, are that important. I think the figure

19 that is important to show is the distribution. But 

20 I'm not sure the original goals really matter that 

21 much.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I agree. 
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 At least this set of selection goals.

2 MR. KATZ: Exactly.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this is only 

4 for cases 101-334.

5 MEMBER MUNN: And I have to 

6 re-emphasize, remember the body of data from which 

7 these goals were derived was minuscule compared to 

8 what we deal with 12 years later.

9 MR. KATZ: Right, Wanda.

10 MEMBER MUNN: And that's what these 

11 decisions were based on, the body of data that we 

12 had, the cases that we had filed already, you know, 

13 which was very small in 2004 by comparison to now.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: My sense is 

15 that, and we haven't gone through all the pie 

16 charts, but that this set of selection goals listed 

17 on Figure 6, I would not put in. Because I don't 

18 think it characterizes, as we've noted, six through 

19 thirteen.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro again. 

21 Just to add an additional perspective, I recall 

22 that the judgments that were made collectively, you 
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 know, where each Member of the Board would 

2 indicate, you know, I'd like to see a few more from 

3 Hanford. My recollection, there wasn't any like 

4 hard and fast quantitative criteria.

5 Now Kathy says they may have been 

6 written up. But when it was actually implemented, 

7 it really reflected judgments of each member of the 

8 Board whose sense was that, you know, we could use 

9 a few more at this site, we could use a few more 

10 that are in this range.

11 So it was almost like everyone came 

12 together to say, okay here's the set of 30, because 

13 it used to be a process where there would be about 

14 a set of 60 that NIOSH would provide that are 

15 available. And then the Board together would each 

16 make their own individual judgments on which ones 

17 they would like to see amongst the next set of 30 

18 that SC&A would look at.

19 But I don't recall any process where 

20 we're saying, well, did we achieve a ten percent 

21 goal for this decade? I don't ever remember it 

22 discussed within that context.
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 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think it ever 

2 was, John.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

4 speaking. It never was, but what we were getting 

5 back to when we were making a lot of our selections 

6 in the earlier time, it ended up that we were 

7 getting a larger selection in the earlier years and 

8 that was bothering us.

9 If I remember right, it was bothering 

10 us that we want to be looking more to newer, the 

11 later years a little bit, too. And I think this 

12 is where that time frame came from. Because when 

13 we first got started into this, most everything 

14 that we had was in the earlier years.

15 And we wanted to see how we were 

16 progressing above and beyond that. This was just 

17 more of an informational, if I remember right, let 

18 us know kind of where we were at and what time frame 

19 that we were pulling from.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I have a suggestion. 

21 I'm not sure if this would be relevant but we could 

22 potentially -- I'm sure NIOSH could provide 
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 statistics on how cases actually are, for the 

2 percentage breakdown of employment site or decade 

3 first employed in this case. And we could compare 

4 those to that instead of the original selection 

5 goals. Maybe it would be more meaningful.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Probably would.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That 

8 might be interesting and helpful.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Giving me a task here. 

10 Are you looking for a breakdown of all the cases 

11 we have in house by decade? Or what are you looking 

12 for?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, in this case it 

14 would be by decade first employed. But there are 

15 several other figures that would be different 

16 breakdowns also.

17 MR. CALHOUN: And this is all clients 

18 for in house, first employment by decade?

19 MR. KATZ: Right. And the assumption 

20 would be that the statistics wouldn't change that 

21 much. I mean, you've done a lot more, quite a few 

22 more dose reconstructions since this cohort. But 
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 that would be the assumption, that this probably 

2 doesn't change that much now that we have this many 

3 cases under our belt. But maybe they would.

4 MR. CALHOUN: My gut is telling me that 

5 Figure 6 is going to be a lot different. I think 

6 more, I think less than 50 percent of our cases now 

7 have first employment in the '50s. But I'm just 

8 basing that number on the ones you selected to look 

9 at.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, 101-334.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And I mean, I can 

12 look at that. You know, you've just got to think 

13 what the purpose is. I mean, it's no big deal. I 

14 think we can do this pretty easily.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. It would 

16 --

17 MR. CALHOUN: Are we going to compare 

18 that to what we're looking at and change what we're 

19 doing?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I doubt it because all 

22 anybody's interested in more is 45-52 percent PoCs.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Actually, I 

2 mean, what you're saying probably makes sense. It 

3 has to be. If this was started, if we started work 

4 in the early 2000s, a decade ago, then we were 

5 looking -- if people started employment in the 

6 '50s, they had been 50 years out from their first 

7 employment.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Exactly.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So of course, as 

10 we go on now, we're going to have a lot more, I 

11 suspect '60s, less '50s. It's a demographic 

12 issue.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I'm not even 

15 sure that that comparison -- since it's easy, it 

16 would be interesting to look at and see what we 

17 might deduce from it. But I'm not sure we're going 

18 to be, that there's too much useful that we're going 

19 to be able to deduce.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No, but I think it's 

21 accurate that there will be a significant shift.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, there has to 
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 be.

2 MEMBER MUNN: This is what I was trying 

3 to point out.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Repeatedly going back 

6 and saying, remember, we were basing this on the 

7 data that we had at the time. And the clients that 

8 we had in 2004 don't bear any relationship to what 

9 we have now.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Except as a base, 

12 starting out.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right. 

14 Because the life expectancy alone would cut off a 

15 number of potential claims.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes. One would 

17 anticipate at this juncture, a significant number 

18 of the original claimants --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, it's 

20 clear that these selection goals were thought about 

21 and perfectly sensible in 2004.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And useful. I 

2 don't think they represent selection goals now and 

3 they're not particularly used.

4 MEMBER MUNN: No.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Anyhow, 

6 I think we had an interesting discussion and we have 

7 tasked Grady, we've tasked your folks there. So 

8 maybe we should just go on to Figure 7.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Figure 7 is our 

10 breakdown we looked at the cases in sets six through 

11 thirteen by PoC. And here we have the selection 

12 goals again. I did do a tally here and it is, 49 

13 percent were below 44.9 percent PoC.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

15 these selection goals are certainly operable now 

16 as we select cases. They remain important.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would even suggest 

18 that maybe the 45 through 49 percent PoC have become 

19 more important over time. But again, these are six 

20 through thirteen, and we did end the thirteenth set 

21 in 2011.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. How 
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 does this compare with the first hundred cases? 

2 Were the numbers about --

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would have to go back 

4 and look.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's not 

6 --

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I assume they're very

8 similar but I would have to look. And I did provide 

9 a copy of the last Secretary Letter in the meeting 

10 files and that's in the historical documents 

11 folder. Okay. So that is Figure 7.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And Figure 8 is a 

14 breakdown by years of employment.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And these still 

16 inform, actually inform our choices of cases.

17 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me. This is 

18 Kathy Behling again. Just to go back to the 

19 previous figure and answer your question, David, 

20 in the first letter, the 45 to 49.9 percent PoC was 

21 only five percent of the cases.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wow.
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 MR. KATZ: Yes. Remember, Dave, that 

2 those were efficiency cases back then.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

4 That's right. Yes. Well, that's interesting and 

5 that will be significant to point out in the report.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

8 you.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Moving on to Figure 9, 

10 this is our breakdown of the IREP risk models that 

11 were used in each case. And here, I only included 

12 each unique cancer. So if the claimant happened 

13 to have five basal cell carcinomas, that only 

14 counts as one in the table because only one risk 

15 model was used.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In this breakdown of 

18 cases, we did cover all but five of the risk models. 

19 And actually, you could say four because CLL wasn't 

20 added until after it was done.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But not surprisingly, 
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 the majority are prostate cancers and skin cancers.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Question, we did 

3 add CLL before we finished 13, right?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It was added within the 

5 last two years, maybe.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so it was added 

8 before we finished talking about them but after the 

9 selection.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So that could not have 

12 been included in this.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just for 

15 clarification, all male genitalia, that's the 

16 prostate?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And that's the 

18 terminology that IREP uses.

19 MR. CALHOUN: I think you'd also get 

20 testes in there as well. If you had cancer of the 

21 testes, all male genitalia would be the model that 

22 you would use. Or even, like some kind 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 connective tissue cancer to the penis would also 

2 be included in that. It's not just prostate, but 

3 the majority of it is.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I hadn't realized 

5 that the risk model for the testes was the same as 

6 for the prostate. That's interesting.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And Figure 10 

8 is much the same, but I also included sets one 

9 through five. It seems to follow the same trend 

10 which is not surprising.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Comments by, 

12 further comments or thoughts by Subcommittee 

13 members?

14 MEMBER MUNN: My only comment is that 

15 Rose did a gangbusters job on this. I was really 

16 impressed when I saw the graphs.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Those of us with 

19 simplistic minds really understand data when it's 

20 presented like this. So good job, thank you.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Is there ever a 

22 breakdown of cases by sex or race?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I certainly could do 

2 that. I would think it that it would be majority 

3 male.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, absolutely.

5 MEMBER MUNN: No question about it. 

6 You've got 95 percent.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's the 

8 question in my mind. First let's think of gender. 

9 What would be the appropriate -- I don't know that 

10 we want to run through every one of those tables 

11 and graphs. But maybe one or two would seem most 

12 important. Certainly types of cancer, right? 

13 That is, models.

14 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well it's partly 

15 the models. But it's also, I think, just a 

16 reasonable thing to describe. Are we evaluating 

17 them? And I agree that the workforce in the past,

18 with the exception of some plants like some of the 

19 gaseous diffusion plants, I think, where a lot of 

20 the labor force was female. Like K-25 maybe? Is 

21 that right?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I think it 

2 would be worth our report of the evaluation 

3 considering, at least reporting the basic 

4 demographic composition of the people we're 

5 reviewing. Right now, it's just, you know, those 

6 facts are invisible.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. I 

8 agree. I think the question only is, what should 

9 we present? And should we simply go over all of 

10 the basic tables that she's done for the subset of 

11 female claimants.

12 MEMBER MUNN: My personal take would be 

13 no. But I think it should be covered in the text. 

14 Certainly we need to comment on it, indicate that 

15 it is a consideration that we're aware of. But 

16 that, statistically -- if the statement can be made 

17 after you see the comparative numbers, if the 

18 statement can be made that it's not statistically 

19 significant, then it seems wise to. Certainly it 

20 needs to be addressed in text. But I question 

21 whether it's useful to accommodate it in each of 

22 these graphs.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Although you, 

2 you will recall a few moments ago that you said 

3 there's nothing like having a set of graphs and 

4 tables to help all of us understand the data. And 

5 I think that, in that spirit, I do think we ought 

6 to have some of this in tables and graphs. 

7 MEMBER MUNN: For the moment, David, I had not 

8 thought about that specifically and it seems to me 

9 you've made a very important point. I would assume 

10 all the rest of us -- if anybody disagrees, please

11 say so but that all of us would agree that we should 

12 analyze female and then we'll talk about it. We'll 

13 also talk about race.

14 But in terms of female, for myself I 

15 would just let the folks at SC&A see, go over, take 

16 the female cohort and then see what seemed to be 

17 useful tables and figures without prescribing it 

18 in advance that they must do all or this or that. 

19 I hadn't thought through which ones would be most 

20 useful.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That sounds great. 

22 I was really just thinking about something like a 
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 Table 5 as to how many men and how many women were 

2 among the cases.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: You know, maybe a 

5 breakdown. I don't know if there's information on 

6 race, probably there is. But for some people --

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't know that 

8 there's race statistics but I'll have to go back 

9 and take a look.

10 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and I 

11 don't think that we are going to have race unless 

12 it's a skin cancer. Because that's the only time 

13 that -- I'm pretty sure I'm right here but the only 

14 time we actually ask that question is for skin 

15 cancers.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And I can 

17 see policy reasons why we wouldn't want to ask 

18 people.

19 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I mean the 

20 thing that I think would be most interesting along 

21 the lines of what David has proposed, I think is 

22 just seeing -- and again, I don't know if we can
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 get the denominator for this. But the comparison 

2 between the cases we've reviewed, male versus 

3 female, and the cases that there were to select from 

4 by site.

5 I think that would sort of, I don't 

6 know, that seems to be the most interesting 

7 question. Just that, how were we doing in 

8 selecting male versus female in these case 

9 selections? I mean, versus, I think what cancer 

10 they have and so, I'm not sure that really tells 

11 you anything.

12 Because this is the, you know, the 

13 review of cases. It's not about and there's no 

14 reason to expect that somehow the dose 

15 reconstructions are done better or worse for men 

16 than women.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Grady, 

18 I have another task for you. This look at the 

19 gender would only be meaningful if we could get the 

20 percent of females who submitted claims. Or the 

21 number of females who submitted claims. Then we 

22 could look at what percentage of the females were 
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 gotten and perhaps, what percentage were reviewed 

2 by us.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Total percentage men 

4 versus women in --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Claimants.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Just a pie chart 

7 showing percentage of male and females.

8 MR. KATZ: And would you want it by site 

9 or not, Dave?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't know 

11 because the numbers may be so small that I don't 

12 know -- there probably wouldn't be too many sites 

13 where you had a large cohort of females who that 

14 were claimants. Well, that might not be true.

15 MR. KATZ: I have no idea.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't know. I 

17 guess the answer, my answer to your question is I 

18 don't know. Let them take a look at it.

19 MR. KATZ: I guess all I'm saying is, 

20 I mean, maybe it's not so much interesting to the 

21 Secretary, but maybe to our own selection purposes 

22 down the road. If you know that at certain sites, 
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 there's actually a substantial proportion of women 

2 and yet we're not getting them, you may want to 

3 target that way. And for that, it'd be nice to know 

4 the sites.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. We 

6 certainly have selection goals for cases to be 

7 reviewed about making sure that we have female 

8 members.

9 MR. KATZ: Right. So if, for example, 

10 at one of the Oak Ridge sites there's a high 

11 proportion of women, you'd want to know that you're 

12 capturing it sort of proportionally in your 

13 reviews, too. And then you'd know also, for other 

14 sites where there are very few women, that that's 

15 not really the issue. The issue is there are very 

16 few women.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: So I don't know. It seems 

19 to me like the site, if Grady can do it by site,

20 that would be nice.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I expect, Grady, 

22 that you can analyze by site as well as by overall 
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 number of claimants or percent of claimants pretty 

2 easily. Right?

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. We can do 

4 anything.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, but I mean 

6 you could even do it easily. So why not do it? And 

7 again, I would leave it to Rose and the SC&A folks 

8 to try to make the best sense out of it they could, 

9 what seemed to be the most useful, without 

10 prescribing it in advance.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Dave, I am somewhat 

12 concerned that we won't have enough females to make 

13 a table even meaningful.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I think 

15 that's quite possible. And that's why I say, 

16 that's why I don't want to give directions but just 

17 say, take a look. Certainly, we have to have a 

18 table. Right? And we certainly want to deal with 

19 it in the text as Wanda suggested. And let's see. 

20 Right? What seems to make most sense.

21 And with race, I think we've answered 

22 the question that we don't gather statistics by 
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 race except for skin cancer. And therefore, is 

2 there anything meaningful about looking at skin 

3 cancers where we know race? I don't think so but 

4 what do others think?

5 MR. KATZ: It only has a bearing on the 

6 risk models so I wouldn't think so. This is Ted.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I wouldn't think so.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And in any case, you're 

10 really getting down into the weeds. I can't 

11 imagine that that kind of minutiae -- we keep 

12 talking about what we want is the 30,000-foot view 

13 for the Secretary.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Al 

15 right. So obviously we will address this in the text 

16 also. Because it's important to say that we didn't 

17 gather information on race. It's not relevant in 

18 a compensation case.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think I would 

20 take issue with the last part.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Really?

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think there's 
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 concern, there's been voiced perspectives about 

2 racial and gender differences in monitoring 

3 practices at these facilities. And racial and 

4 gender differences in the assignment of tasks and 

5 placement into jobs. So that work was structured 

6 by race and sex. And the completeness of 

7 monitoring is objectively -- differs by race and 

8 sex.

9 So it's something that, I mean, 

10 particularly for example women, I would be looking 

11 into in the future over the next decade. There's 

12 going to be more claims from women because there 

13 were more women employed as time progressed at 

14 these facilities and they moved into jobs that 

15 involved more work in radiologic controlled areas.

16 And as they transitioned into those 

17 jobs, they had periods of employment with gaps 

18 where they weren't monitored. So at some point, 

19 we need to think, I think, about how we're, ask the 

20 same sort of questions that we --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 PARTICIPANT: -- have asked in the past 
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 but taking those considerations into account.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. You 

3 make a good point. And perhaps we should think 

4 about whether we -- and implicit in that is for 

5 race, that we should be asking about race because 

6 the jobs and related monitoring are race-based in 

7 many cases, or race-skewed.

8 MR. KATZ: Well the program, Dave, is 

9 not going to be able to ask for information on race 

10 on that basis, just because we're interested. I 

11 mean, that's something that would have to be 

12 approved by OMB and so on. And that's just not 

13 going to happen, I don't think.

14 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. A 

15 thought came to me that, you know, when we look at 

16 these data, you're looking at it within the 

17 context, well you know, we looked at Bridgeport 

18 Brass and we looked at these many cases, et cetera, 

19 et cetera, and how different it was between the 

20 first report and the second.

21 The thought that came to me while we 

22 were discussing this is, isn't the real question, 
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 have we captured the right cross-section given the, 

2 I think it's 40,000 or so cases that were 

3 adjudicated over the last ten years. In other 

4 words, I'm putting myself in the Secretary's shoes.

5 I'm saying to myself, okay listen, 

6 there were 40,000 cases where a decision was made 

7 and the Board reviewed one percent of those. To 

8 what degree did that one percent capture the proper 

9 cross-section of the demographics in terms of all 

10 these parameters that we're talking about?

11 We've been talking about the 

12 distribution in these pie charts, only from the 

13 perspective of, what did we do. But don't you 

14 think it would be of great interest to the Secretary 

15 to say, well, that distribution, whatever it is in 

16 terms of age or whatever, relative to what we're 

17 operating from, the population, namely the total 

18 demographics for all of the 40,000 cases or so that 

19 were done.

20 It seems that theme is not here. And 

21 I would think that is an important theme because 

22 it tells us whether or not we've got a good 
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 cross-section. We know what the process is but we 

2 have no perspective on, is this the right 

3 cross-section? And the only way you know that is 

4 by comparing it to 40,000 that were done.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Perhaps as a 

6 suggestion, we have a perception right now but we 

7 haven't confirmed whether information about sex 

8 and race are known for all claimants. I mean, they 

9 are known in epidemiologic studies of these 

10 populations. Are they or aren't they known within 

11 the compensation program?

12 MR. CALHOUN: I can tell you for sure 

13 that race is not known for non-skin cancer claims 

14 because we don't ask. And if it's somewhere in 

15 their documents, it wouldn't be something that was 

16 queryable to try to come up with a report.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Okay. Well that 

19 answers the question.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it does. I 

21 think, actually, as we think about whether we 

22 should think about the issue, about whether we 
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 should keep data about race in any fashion is really 

2 a Board, and ultimately Secretarial and OMB matter.

3 We are looking over the past. Right? 

4 And the Board will determine advice to the 

5 Secretary for the future. So in a way, with the 

6 answer on race, we basically covered what we can 

7 cover in terms of the review. Right? Okay.

8 Well, and I think I was going to have 

9 a follow-up question on that first bullet in our 

10 agenda of, are there things we need to do that we 

11 haven't done? And we have already discussed that, 

12 right? And particularly now, with respect to 

13 gender.

14 The next bullet that we have -- and by 

15 the way, we've been going for about an hour. So 

16 let's keep going for a while before we take a coffee 

17 break or a comfort break unless I hear someone 

18 suggest otherwise, or someones. Okay. Not 

19 hearing that, let's talk about the report drafting 

20 plans. A while ago, on September 10th, Ted sent 

21 to me and some of the staff, a number of the staff, 

22 suggestions for the report structure which I found 
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 useful. I don't think they were sent to our 

2 Subcommittee members so I sent them out this 

3 morning, half an hour before we got together.

4 But I think that might be a useful 

5 template to start the discussion. And thanks, 

6 Ted, for doing that. Did people see it? Or can 

7 we put it up possibly? Or folks can find it in 

8 their computers.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: What was the date of 

10 that email?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: September 10th. 

12 There were a few September 10th letters. It's 7:00 

13 p.m., September 10th. In a way, Ted, since you've 

14 been involved in this and I've never been involved 

15 in a report before, would you want to talk a little 

16 bit if that is appropriate?

17 MR. KATZ: Sure.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I would find 

19 that helpful, if you would.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. I'll have to, let me 

21 just pull it up myself.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
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 MR. KATZ: Let me find it. I know you 

2 sent it out this morning so I just have to dig it 

3 out.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: But all I did, just as 

6 context while I'm looking for it, I didn't even look 

7 at the first report to see exactly what that 

8 framework was. But I just thought about, 

9 typically, when you do a report to the Secretary 

10 of any sort, sort of, and then I just obviously had 

11 our content in mind.

12 But this is sort of a general structure 

13 one uses for that kind of audience. But I didn't 

14 look at what we did the first go-round. Someone 

15 may have that fresh in mind as a contrast, if that's 

16 much different.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Although I think 

18 we said that so much has changed in the second 

19 report, that I had the sense from the earlier 

20 discussion and from folks who were around for the 

21 earlier report, that this report is just many 

22 secretaries later and really doesn't need to be we
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 don't need to worry too much about the structure 

2 of the first report.

3 You do suggest that the introduction 

4 cover briefly the first report context, status, 

5 nature of cases reviewed, findings and presumably 

6 comparisons.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: And just speaking to that --

10 I don't know why I can't find the darned email right 

11 now.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I've got it pulled up 

13 on the Live Meeting here.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. Good. Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, thank you.

16 MR. KATZ: Good grief. I just think 

17 there's a lot of context that can be given that is 

18 important for understanding this report, given how 

19 different a place we are in the program's, sort of, 

20 development than we were with the first report. 

21 And, you know, given the very select, you know, the 

22 high degree of selectivity with which we sample 
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 cases and all that, too.

2 So that's why -- so Executive Summary, 

3 that's just sort of a standard thing that you always 

4 want. You want a short version, a very short 

5 version for the very hurried reader that you tend 

6 to have as audiences as you go up the pole. So 

7 first report, context status of the DR at the time, 

8 nature of the cases reviewed, et cetera. That's 

9 what I'm getting at there.

10 Status of the DR program reviewed in the 

11 current report. Just again, just to sort of set 

12 them up for understanding the findings that they'll 

13 read. And then this C, relationship to concurrent 

14 Board review activities, reviews of SEC petitions, 

15 Site Profiles, and other DR methodology and data.

16 I don't know how that will turn out or 

17 whether you want to keep that at the end of the day. 

18 As you all know, we've had lots of discussion and 

19 Dr. Melius joined us for some discussions about, 

20 sort of, the constant concern that, in a sense, this 

21 activity is, you know, is much entangled with what 

22 the rest of the Board's review, which also very much 
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 relates to dose reconstruction case quality and so 

2 on, the same task.

3 When you're reviewing an SEC petition, 

4 how that works out. Or a Site Profile which is the, 

5 you know, the machinery for doing a dose 

6 reconstruction. Or at least the guidance 

7 machinery. So those other, sort of, moving pieces 

8 of the Board's review work, you know, aren't 

9 directly captured in the case review, but they're 

10 certainly relevant to the issue of the quality of 

11 dose reconstruction and scientific, you know, 

12 standing of the dose reconstruction work. So I 

13 just think it, probably on the front end at least, 

14 it's worth giving a shot to trying to add some 

15 discussion to capture that in narrative at least. 

16 And maybe with some statistics, too, on SEC 

17 petitions and so on, or maybe some analysis. But 

18 I mean, to fill out the picture of where the Board 

19 is in its sense on how the dose reconstruction 

20 program is going.

21 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Ted, can I ask a 

22 question?
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 MR. KATZ: Yes.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David. Am 

3 I right that between the first report and this one, 

4 the ten-year review was another report?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. Although that's an 

6 internal, that's a NIOSH, I mean, that's really not 

7 the Board's business work. In other words, that 

8 was an internal NIOSH project, that review.

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: But sort of 

10 provided another major review of, kind of the 

11 status of the DR program at some interim period in 

12 between that prior report and this one.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. And that report was 

14 not reported to the Secretary. And to the extent 

15 that you want to discuss it, I mean, I think it's 

16 all fine for you to discuss. Again, my point is 

17 just that I think there's more to say than just the 

18 case review that you may want to say to the 

19 Secretary.

20 That may end up getting too complicated 

21 and you may abandon it. But I think it's worth 

22 considering on the front end, because if you 
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 recall, with the first report, it took a lot of work 

2 just to get that first report done. And that was 

3 the simplest of all worlds. So this is 

4 complicating things. Is anybody still there?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Somebody is.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: On mute. I'm 

8 both chairing --

9 MEMBER BEACH: I think we're 

10 digesting.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we are. 

12 Good. I also have a general problem which is to 

13 say, I probably live in the noisiest place of any 

14 of our staff and Board Members. And so, I keep 

15 having to cut myself off onto mute because every 

16 time a big truck or fire engine goes by, it messes 

17 us up.

18 But yes, we're thinking anyway. Are 

19 there suggestions, folks, for -- well, have you 

20 finished first?

21 MR. KATZ: So that's with that 

22 introductory section.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: That covered the 

3 introductory section. And I guess you all can 

4 ponder that. I mean, I think, at minimum, you 

5 could do, in a very summary sense, just discuss the 

6 fact that, concurrent with doing these case 

7 reviews, you know, there have been X number of 

8 petitions that have approved, some of these which 

9 affected the sites.

10 And some of these cases, you know, have 

11 changed as a result of those, results of those SEC 

12 petitions for example, or Site Profile Reviews, et 

13 cetera. I think there's something minimal that 

14 you could probably say that at least would 

15 acknowledge the bigger world of the Board's review 

16 process. Okay.

17 The next section: methods. It just, it 

18 seems like you always want to explain how you went 

19 about your review. So that's all that is intended 

20 to cover. And then findings, you know, I think 

21 that's self-explanatory.

22 Future review plans. I think that 
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 would tie in. And since it's going to take a little 

2 time to get this report done, my thought there is 

3 that you would want to tie in and tell the Secretary 

4 about future plans as they relate to, you know, the 

5 other Work Groups, the Subcommittees. I mean, the 

6 Dose Reconstruction Review Methods Work Group --

7 their work, and what the Board finally decides 

8 about how to go forward. You may want to capture 

9 that in this report, too. It will probably be 

10 timely. So that's my thought for future review 

11 plans.

12 And then the appendices, you know, 

13 would be Rose's nice tables, graphs, the statutory 

14 text just to remind, make it easy for the Secretary 

15 to see where this comes from, this requirement. 

16 And the first report because we'll refer to it so 

17 it's probably nice to just make it easy and have 

18 that as an appendix. Anyway, those are my 

19 thoughts.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, thanks 

21 much. I wasn't sure if I was on, where my mute was. 

22 Thanks, Ted. Do folks have comments, further 
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 thoughts, things that we might add that were not 

2 covered?

3 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

4 Were you going to consider including any of the 

5 blind review of comparisons in this report?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh absolutely, 

7 we must. I assume that when we do case selection 

8 and case review procedures -- well in fact, 

9 findings. I guess it's actually findings. No, we 

10 absolutely, that's one of our most important 

11 measures of how well we're doing, that we're 

12 consistent.

13 So certainly. And I guess it's 

14 probably in findings. Case review procedures will 

15 discuss that we do reviews. And then findings, 

16 Part A, we will discuss what we found. And we'll 

17 talk about those later, of course, today, the 

18 remaining blind cases. Other comments or 

19 thoughts?

20 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Do you 

21 have anything in there about, I didn't see it in 

22 what we just reviewed, but do you have anything in 
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 there about the total number of cases reviewed and 

2 the total number of them that were actually 

3 determined to have caused a reversal in 

4 compensation decision? Because there were like 

5 two.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Certainly 

7 we should mention them.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, if we're going 

9 to get into that kind of a draft or something like 

10 that, do we have any that says because of these 

11 reviews, how many DR reviews were then changed, or 

12 the whole programs have changed because of that 

13 information?

14 I understand what Grady's saying but 

15 that's, you know -- you guys are doing a marvelous 

16 job. There's no question of that. But I do think 

17 what you're saying is important. These findings 

18 we've had and gone through this whole thing have 

19 not, there has not been major players in there to 

20 really reverse somebody's compensation or not.

21 But, you know, we can put a lot of stuff 

22 in there, in my opinion. But I don't think it's 
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 going to be, I think what Grady's saying would be 

2 useful. I do, don't get me wrong. But I just, I 

3 don't know. We can put a lot of things in there.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, certainly 

5 we can put in the number flipped in the text and 

6 put some emphasis on that.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, yes. But 

8 because of these reviews, how many TBDs have been 

9 changed? How many Site Profiles have now been --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let's take a look at 

12 the real big picture. Let's paint the truth, the 

13 whole picture.

14 MR. CALHOUN: We've certainly made 

15 some changes. And if we think back on -- most of 

16 my discussions here, the majority of those changes 

17 were made after the case was complete but before 

18 it was reviewed. And I agree that this program is 

19 very valuable.

20 But our goal has always been to come up 

21 with the correct compensation decisions. That's 

22 always been our goal. If you just look at the 
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 number of findings, I think it could lead one to 

2 believe that there's a lot more that have flipped 

3 than possibly have.

4 And just from the top of my head, 

5 because these are so important to me, I can think 

6 of three cases. One back in the day flipped, or 

7 the assertion was that we overdosed somebody and 

8 compensated them. But that was based on the fact 

9 that we, it was the Director's decision to use an 

10 overestimating technique to complete a very, very, 

11 very large number of cases to get them out of the 

12 queue. That was one. So that one wasn't a 

13 mistake. That was the direction that we were 

14 given.

15 The second one was a Rocky Flats case 

16 where there was, we requested data. Department of 

17 Energy did not give us NDRP data. We used the data 

18 that was given to us and it was non-comp. But we 

19 went back and re-requested the NDRP data. We got 

20 it and then we assigned neutron dose. So again, 

21 I would say that that one was not a mistake. That 

22 was just, we used the data that was available to 
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 us.

2 And there's a third one and I don't 

3 recall what that one is. But anyway, those are 

4 very, very important to us. I may be wrong and 

5 there may be more than that. But I only recall 

6 those three and I just don't know the details of 

7 the third.

8 MR. KATZ: Well Grady, I mean it sounds 

9 like that data -- going back to Dave's question to 

10 everyone, what else is missing in terms of data that 

11 we need for this report? It seems like all of those 

12 cases and what happened there, maybe is information 

13 that's needed in writing by the Subcommittee, in 

14 writing this report. Right? I mean --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think you're 

16 right. In fact, it seems to me if there were three 

17 cases, if there are three cases, we should write 

18 in detail why each of them, or put it in an appendix 

19 so that the Secretary can read exactly what went 

20 wrong. And in fact, as indicated by Grady, what 

21 went wrong was not our methodological procedure.

22 But in one case, you know, getting, not 
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 being given the right data or not having the right 

2 data. In other words, I think it will make -- the 

3 fact is that we only have three. That's a very 

4 small percentage of the cases that we've reviewed. 

5 Or actually, that we analyzed, right?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. You better make 

7 sure about that number before we proceed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, absolutely. 

9 But we should quote the number and then explain what 

10 happened in those cases because, in fact, I think 

11 it will reflect well on us, not badly. That even 

12 the few that were flipped were flipped for reasons 

13 that were, essentially, beyond our control, beyond 

14 out analysts' control.

15 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro again. 

16 I'm sorry to interrupt like this. Brad mentioned 

17 something in terms of the big picture. With the 

18 statements that are being made about there have 

19 been very few, I agree with, directly related to 

20 the DR process. But what comes to mind immediately 

21 is like, recently PERs are issued.

22 And the genesis of those PERs may very 
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 well come from the DR process or come from a Site 

2 Profile Review process. I can mention, for 

3 example, General Steel just went through a PER 

4 process where 100 cases were flipped. That was 

5 just General Steel.

6 Now the degree to which that story is 

7 appropriately told in this particular report is a 

8 question I think needs to be answered. Or are we 

9 going to limit it? You know, is that part of the 

10 story? Because there are many, many reversals as 

11 a result of the PER process which, in turn, was 

12 triggered by a myriad of processes at work 

13 throughout the entire program.

14 And I think that needs to be understood 

15 because I wouldn't want to leave the impression 

16 that there were very few flips. There have been 

17 many, many flips for a variety of reasons.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

19 those -- okay. So those, what you're saying --

20 MR. CALHOUN: I think those are 

21 different.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes they are.
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. CALHOUN: That is because the GSI 

2 claims in particular were based on ongoing 

3 discussions between our staff and the Board.

4 DR. MAURO: I agree with you 

5 completely. I just wanted to bring that up so that 

6 we air it out.

7 MR. CALHOUN: It's like included in the 

8 number of SEC claims that were paid because for some 

9 reason, the Board said we couldn't do dose 

10 reconstruction and we thought we could. I think 

11 that this Subcommittee is very targeted on whether 

12 or not we made mistakes that were made that caused 

13 a change in compensation.

14 What you're talking about are 

15 programmatic changes. And they could have been 

16 brought about by a variety of things. But I think 

17 that they're very, very different.

18 MEMBER MUNN: But what John was talking 

19 about, I think, is what Ted was talking about under 

20 his Executive Summary list when he talked about the 

21 relationship to concurrent Board review activity.

22 MR. KATZ: Right. That's exactly 
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 right, Wanda.

2 MEMBER MUNN: That's where that falls.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

4 MR. KATZ: That's right. I mean, I 

5 agree with John that I think this broader context, 

6 could be touched on to some degree, is important 

7 just to give, you know, a more complete account. 

8 I'm not differing with Grady on the narrow purpose 

9 of the Dose Reconstruction Review Subcommittee's 

10 work.

11 But I think this broader context, you 

12 know, is important. It also, though, in having 

13 this discussion, you can see how it's complicated 

14 and it's going to be a hard one to summarize nicely 

15 and briefly.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And I 

17 would now like to ask the nuts-and-bolts question. 

18 Who is going to write Findings A? Who is going to 

19 write Findings B? Or how do we actually go about 

20 writing? Who is going to write the first draft and 

21 when? Who is responsible for that?

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, and --
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

2 it's us.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, yes. Let me note 

4 that, that it's really not approved with Federal 

5 Advisory Committees, in general. And this one I 

6 would say is more important than any. But staff 

7 including contractors should not be writing report 

8 language. So this really is something that falls 

9 to the members to do.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Enjoy yourself, Dave, 

12 and make it brief and short.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

14 Hey, wait a minute. I think we better consult Jim 

15 on this. No, but obviously we have a role to play. 

16 And if I'm Chair of the Committee, I've got to put 

17 my shoulder to the wheel or whatever they say.

18 So I'll certainly help -- hold it, 

19 sorry. But let's, maybe we should talk altogether 

20 about who should be writing. I certainly, if I'm 

21 going to do some work then I'm glad to. Others 

22 should be doing up -- and particularly, for 
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 example, in the introduction.

2 I think some of our more senior Board 

3 members may be the most appropriate folks who 

4 understand many of these issues in greater depth. 

5 And that's certainly three of, well, that's quite 

6 a few of our Members, four of our Members. Well, 

7 if staff is not supposed to write it, I don't know, 

8 Ted, if I can say to you, do you have some good 

9 ideas? Or what other Board Members think how we 

10 should do this. I'm clearly not going to write the 

11 whole thing. And clearly, I will write parts of 

12 it, major parts.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think it's not a 

14 problem, Dave, for folks to comment on things that 

15 are drafted and to provide bullet points on 

16 matters, factual matters and all that kind of 

17 thing. But there's, because FACA committees are 

18 supposed to be independent of the agency, and the 

19 Agency is it's staff, including its contractors, 

20 it's just, the actual writing and construction 

21 really has to be done by members.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Maybe 
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 the right -- I had not thought this through much 

2 other than I knew it was coming up sooner or later, 

3 that we've actually got to write this now. I think 

4 we have a nice outline, a good outline. And we've 

5 talked it about a little bit.

6 Why don't I speak with Jim Melius, who 

7 is our Chair of the Board, and look to his 

8 suggestions, both in terms of who on our committee, 

9 from the Subcommittee should be working on this in 

10 addition to myself, and also what other Board 

11 members, what role they should play?

12 Because clearly, there are a whole lot 

13 of issues that are things like our Site Profiles, 

14 et cetera that others could and should be involved 

15 with. So is it appropriate to say that I will speak 

16 to Jim and think with him about how we might put 

17 this together, write a draft?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds reasonable to me.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: And Dave, I have some ideas 

21 administratively how we can -- if this is an 

22 overwhelming task for you administratively, I may 
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 be able to get you help in another way to sort of 

2 supplement the Subcommittee's membership just for 

3 this task, ad hoc members. So I'll talk with you 

4 and Jim about that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. Oh, 

6 that would be helpful. Okay. Well then, if that, 

7 I think we've handled --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Dave?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, before you move 

11 on, this is Josie.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: So this needs to be 

14 pretty timely, too. So just a suggestion on time 

15 frame on that.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

17 MEMBER BEACH: It probably shouldn't 

18 linger for too long.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. In 

20 fact, Ted, you're probably the most knowledgeable 

21 of us in terms of when we should get this to the 

22 Secretary.
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. KATZ: Oh there's no, I mean 

2 there's no answer to that, Dave. I mean, we wanted 

3 to do this, you know, a couple years ago.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: There's really no answer to 

6 that. We do it, we get it done when we get it done 

7 and then it'll go.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: We don't really worry about 

10 the should be of it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I work 

12 better on deadlines. But maybe I'll let Jim say, 

13 okay, we should have it done by January 1st or 

14 whatever.

15 (Laughter.)

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that a joke?

17 MR. KATZ: I think that's very 

18 manageable. We ought to have it done before the 

19 new year. I mean, we want to get it done earlier 

20 than that and actually get it to the Board. But 

21 you know, I mean realistically, obviously we're not 

22 going to get it done before the November Board 
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 meeting, I think.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

3 MR. KATZ: Unless, you know, unless you 

4 really have some time to sit down and write. And 

5 if that's the case, then you know, the rest of the 

6 Board's not going to get to it. And this is only, 

7 sort of, advisory to the rest of the Board anyway.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: The rest of the Board 

10 actually decides what the letter will be.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: You know, the next meeting 

13 then is in March, I believe.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

15 right. You're right.

16 MR. KATZ: That gives you some sort of 

17 time frame --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They're not 

19 going to have it done by November.

20 MR. KATZ: The Board could have it 

21 early enough that the Board can actually think 

22 about it independently and give comments before the 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 March Board meeting. And then get it done and 

2 finalized at the March Board meeting. I think 

3 that's probably a realistic time frame.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well then, I 

5 think that's a way to look at it is, let's get a 

6 draft out by the end of the year. And give the 

7 folks -- I think that's doable. And then we'll 

8 have folks go over it and either approve it or 

9 approve it with changes or make changes at the March 

10 meeting.

11 Sounds good. And thanks, Josie, 

12 you're right. Time frame is important. So 

13 anything else with respect to this item on our 

14 agenda? I think not. I think we're finished.

15 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I just 

16 want to give you one of my go-dos real quick that 

17 I got done. The total number, and I'll get more 

18 details, but the total number of female energy 

19 employees. That's different than claimants 

20 because claimants don't have to have worked there; 

21 they could be survivors. But the total number of 

22 energy employees from a percentage standpoint is 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 13.64 percent women in our total pool.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

3 that's --

4 MR. CALHOUN: I'll work on that by site 

5 as you requested but that's the total.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well that's very 

7 interesting. Could you explain again? There was 

8 a little interference on my line. What defines the 

9 females? They're not survivors.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. They're not 

11 survivors --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: These are energy 

13 employees.

14 MR. CALHOUN: People use the term 

15 claimant. I think we all know what we want to mean 

16 by that but a claimant could be a survivor.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

18 So 13 actually is a larger percentage than I 

19 thought. And it's a larger percentage than we've 

20 been reviewing recently, I mean, I think of the case 

21 selections.

22 MR. CALHOUN: It's roughly 6,000 women 
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 out of roughly 44,000 claims.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Thank 

3 you very much. That's an interesting number.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Six thousand employees, 

5 right?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Six thousand employees, 

8 claimants.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Claimants.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Wanda, that's what I 

11 would say. Yes, 6,008 women employees who have 

12 cancer and who were in our program out of 44,035 

13 total.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Sure doesn't seem 

15 like that when we're looking at case selections and 

16 trying to find.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No it doesn't. 

18 And that's why it's a surprisingly large number.

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hey, Grady? This 

20 is David Richardson.

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Could I ask you for 
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 one more thing at some point?

2 MR. CALHOUN: You can absolutely ask 

3 for whatever you want.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. Well, is 

5 there a way to break that down by, let's say like, 

6 five-year intervals in terms of when the claims 

7 came in? Are there --

8 MR. CALHOUN: Is when the claims came 

9 in as important as when they worked?

10 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes. Like, is 

11 there a trajectory of there being more female 

12 claims in recent years? Like, is that different 

13 than it was in the past? My question is sort of, 

14 are we -- my intuition is that we are looking at 

15 a trajectory in which women will become a more 

16 important part of the claimant pool.

17 MR. CALHOUN: I would agree with that.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it would be 

19 interesting to see that.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I think I can. 

21 Okay. So you're just saying as a function of 

22 five-year intervals.
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 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: As we received the 

3 claims.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's for 

5 making projections for the future. Certainly our 

6 case selections for recent sets have not had 15 

7 percent, 13 percent women. I don't think they've 

8 had ten percent women.

9 MR. KATZ: That's my guess, too, Dave.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Now the one thing that, 

11 you know, we're not going to do anything different 

12 based on that. So this is just information that 

13 you guys might be interested in.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it will 

15 affect the goals for case selection in the future.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. I mean, yes, 

17 because we all do our dose reconstructions with 

18 changing processes. I think they can do anything 

19 with our -- we've got all these numbers here. We 

20 certainly should be able to do that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good. 

22 This is very good. Thank you for the data and 
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 thanks for the observation on that. Now, it's 

2 12:00 East Coast time and we're ready to go into 

3 the case reviews issue resolution. And in 

4 particular, we have a relatively few, three cases 

5 according to my notes that are still open from ten 

6 to thirteen.

7 And then we have the blind cases which 

8 -- how many blind cases are there remaining to be 

9 reviewed?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry, Kathy.

11 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, Rose. This 

12 is Kathy Behling. If we are still going to discuss 

13 the two initial cases plus I think there's three 

14 from the twentieth set. So it's a total of five.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

16 that's are fairly substantial number. Do we want 

17 to just -- I'm figuring we that we should go another 

18 half, if people are open to go another half hour. 

19 Or should we take a comfort and lunch break right 

20 now?

21 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. I 

22 wonder if this would be a good time to have the 
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 discussion that Grady brought up earlier this 

2 morning. Or does that fit somewhere else better?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh my goodness. 

4 No. Thank you. We said we'd do that and I forgot 

5 to come back to it. So this is the time, before 

6 we go on to the case reviews. Thank you for 

7 reminding me. So can we go on, folks?

8 I mean, this is the point people may 

9 well want to take a comfort break now and come back. 

10 Or you may want to take lunch. But we do have the 

11 discussion with Grady and Rose for the benefit of 

12 the Subcommittee Members.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

14 good.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm good.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I'm good.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's go 

18 back to that discussion. There was a rich 

19 discussion between Grady and Rose on the counts in 

20 the tables. And perhaps people -- maybe Rose, 

21 would you like to summarize why you didn't change 

22 the graphs that you had presented earlier today? 
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 That Grady had requested, the changes that Grady 

2 had requested.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sure.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The findings that are 

6 in my Table 3, I believe it is --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you put it 

8 up?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Here, let me.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thanks.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. These findings 

12 are the findings as they were discussed in the 

13 Board. I made no modifications other than, there 

14 were four that SC&A did deem were inappropriately 

15 made and we did remove those. But we did not remove 

16 findings that Grady pointed out, that he disagrees 

17 should not have been there.

18 Now, it's our understanding that the 

19 findings are the Board's findings. And so, for me 

20 to go in and select findings that are wrong feels 

21 disingenuous. Now, we can go ahead and look at 

22 them if that is what the Subcommittee desires. I 
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 did take an initial crack at it just to see.

2 And I did find five percent, around, 

3 that we concede are probably incorrect. But then, 

4 I had a proposed solution that I think might resolve 

5 some of the issues at least. For a lot of findings, 

6 we weren't necessarily correct--

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If I may 

8 interrupt, Rose.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bear in mind 

11 that as we're talking, it was Grady who made the 

12 initial objection to this set of findings. And 

13 maybe it would be better first if Grady said what's 

14 wrong and then you respond by talking about what 

15 you think would be a good solution.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Would that be 

18 okay?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And one other 

20 thing, please, Rose, your voice is so soft that I 

21 can hear you but barely. I'm straining my ears to 

22 get your voice. If you can, if it's a matter of 
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 distance from your mic --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I've got the phone 

3 directly -- I'll just try and talk louder.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh thanks. That's much 

5 appreciated. Sorry about that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Grady?

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Basically what I 

8 started thinking about when I was looking through 

9 these is, during the course of our evaluations, we 

10 have a finding written down, and then we all kind 

11 of come to the agreement that, well it actually was 

12 done according to that procedure. And we just 

13 close it and move on.

14 I would prefer that, if there was really 

15 nothing wrong, that it doesn't get taken off of the 

16 --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm having a lot 

18 of break-ups. Are other people having them?

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. I think we're all 

20 hearing it. Somebody, I don't know, everybody 

21 else try muting your phones. I don't know what 

22 that's coming from.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Me neither. 

2 Okay. I'll go back on mute.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Terrible beeping sound 

4 somewhere.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. So anyway, 

6 basically what happened is, you know, during the 

7 course of our discussions, we find that these 

8 really aren't findings and we just close them and 

9 move on. And so, I'd like to take credit for it 

10 but I didn't, I can't. I asked Scott to do it and 

11 he did a very quick look of the tenth to thirteenth 

12 sets.

13 I sent examples over of the cases that 

14 we believe, that we all, at the end of them, said 

15 hey, there's really nothing wrong with that. It 

16 was just a misunderstanding in the review. 

17 Because this is, kind of, a report card of how we're 

18 doing, I would like to get those taken off in 

19 retrospect.

20 But I would also think that, as we 

21 review these now, to make it easier, we just say, 

22 you know, this really wasn't a finding, let's take 
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 it off.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know, Grady, this 

3 is Brad. I thought we had this discussion about

4 three to four years ago when we were going through 

5 this process, when we were looking at how we were 

6 ranking these. I was understanding what you said 

7 in your memo there. But we've been through this 

8 one a while back.

9 We felt that we had good enough paper

10 trails to be able to show all of this. But we were 

11 still leaving them --

12 (Telephonic interference.)

13 MR. CALHOUN: That must be Brad because 

14 as soon as he started, it started the popping and 

15 stuff. We do but no one who is reading this report 

16 understands that. So I mean, I believe that if 

17 something is flagged as a finding and we decide that 

18 nothing was wrong, it shouldn't be recorded as 

19 such.

20 MR. KATZ: I mean, that's correct, 

21 Grady. I mean, I don't think there's any other 

22 side to the debate on that. I thought we were, I 
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 mean we have been tracking those in the 

2 discussions. And I thought and I assumed, I don't 

3 think I was entirely correct that these were 

4 actually being inputted into the summary tables.

5 And we've had a discussion about this. 

6 Dave and I had a discussion with Rose about going 

7 back through those tables and then correcting for 

8 those decisions. And I think Rose did some of 

9 that. I'm not sure but that was what the direction 

10 Rose was headed.

11 And then she came out with the report 

12 and then I heard about your, Grady, your objections 

13 that there were more of those cases that hadn't 

14 been, the corrections hadn't been reflected. So 

15 that's as much as I know about it. Rose can maybe 

16 shed more light on the distinction between what 

17 Dave and I discussed with Rose and what actually 

18 came out of the pipe.

19 MR. CALHOUN: And I think what, next 

20 step what may actually have to happen is that you 

21 take a look at the, at these sort of one, two, three, 

22 four cases and it looks like five different 
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 findings of those cases total, and see if I'm wrong 

2 somehow. I mean, some of these, if you look at the 

3 closing things, this is NIOSH's text, TBD 

4 indicates, you know, this is how it was supposed 

5 to be.

6 MR. KATZ: Those were the cases that 

7 Rose was going to correct the statistics for. 

8 Rose, but I don't know what's gone on on either side 

9 here. So maybe we could give Rose a chance to talk 

10 about it.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Well, when we 

12 went through and did our initial cumulative ranking 

13 for the scoring for, you know, starting that 

14 cumulative rank, total rank. And I had Nicole flag 

15 me with these, the findings that she thought were 

16 very wrong. And those were the ones that we 

17 removed.

18 Now, these are just the four -- I'm 

19 sorry. I still have interference. I don't know 

20 if you can even hear me.

21 MR. KATZ: I don't know if we all need 

22 to dial back in but this is pretty terrible. So 
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 if everybody is muted and it's still making this 

2 noise, then we should just all dial back in to the 

3 number.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like 

5 a good idea.

6 MR. KATZ: Dial back in.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

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

10 12:15 p.m.)

11 MR. KATZ: So Rose, you want to give it 

12 another shot?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So Nicole did 

14 pull four findings that we felt were, for whatever 

15 reason, were incorrect and were very incorrect. 

16 Now the question is, when we looked at Grady's 

17 email, we disagreed that many of those were valid 

18 findings.

19 Perhaps we were wrong but there was 

20 substantial discussion. NIOSH may have agreed to 

21 revise something because it was clear that there 

22 was confusing in the text. And it's very difficult 
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 to read that in the matrices. And it's very 

2 difficult to make a judgment on right or wrong.

3 I feel at least, that most of these 

4 findings fall into more of a gray category. But 

5 I did have a proposed solution that I hope will 

6 resolve things. Ultimately, it's up to the 

7 Subcommittee. I was proposing we add another 

8 category to this and a no impact category or combine 

9 a no impact category slash low income, or low 

10 impact. Sorry.

11 And those would be the findings that we 

12 might not have been correct on but there was lengthy 

13 discussion to determine if we were correct. A lot 

14 of times there were White Papers generated, these 

15 discussions went over multiple meetings, they were 

16 professional judgment calls, suggested findings.

17 Or even in the earlier case sets, 

18 because we didn't have the option for observations, 

19 a lot of the findings were more observations. And 

20 so, they were clarifications of what we needed, the 

21 information to complete our dose reconstruction 

22 reviews. If we were to add another category, 30 
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 percent of these findings would move over into that 

2 category.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Let me just, and I don't 

4 want to argue too much here but let's just use one 

5 for example here. I'm looking at one right now and 

6 the finding was that we neglected to use the actual 

7 dosimetry data that was available. Well, 

8 the case was done before the data was ever 

9 identified. We never got it. We asked for it, we 

10 didn't get it. And when we did get it, we've got 

11 a program in place that automatically captures 

12 that. So, the finding that we neglected to use the 

13 actual data is false because there was no data.

14 So that one, to me, is not arguable. It 

15 can't be a finding because you're judging us 

16 against something that wasn't even there. So 

17 that's one of the examples that I want to use.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, it seems 

19 to me that you're suggesting that the large number 

20 of findings, what you would consider the inflated 

21 number of findings, reflects poorly on your team. 

22 And I don't see that in terms of, it may reflect 
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 SC&A being super, I mean, they're invested in 

2 trying to find as many problems as they can to 

3 ferret out what are real problems. Right?

4 I mean, there are misunderstandings. 

5 But, in a sense, they're doing their job by finding 

6 a lot of findings. You're, in a sense, saying 

7 you're doing your job. You're going to try to make 

8 sure they don't have too many findings. I don't 

9 think it reflects on your group. It also reflects 

10 on SC&A and the interaction between the two.

11 MR. CALHOUN: It certainly affects our 

12 group because it's saying we're wrong when we're 

13 not.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And you're not. 

15 Absolutely --

16 MR. CALHOUN: So they should be 

17 eliminated. I mean, that one in particular. And 

18 if we have to go back and look at some of these, 

19 we will. But it certainly does reflect on us 

20 negatively because they're not findings. You 

21 can't classify something as a finding if it's not 

22 a finding.
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 It may be an observation if something 

2 wasn't clear. That's not a finding. A finding is 

3 when we fail to follow the procedure adequately.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But --

5 MR. CALHOUN: It does reflect poorly on 

6 us and I don't particularly like it. I know from 

7 going forward, we could certainly do a better job 

8 and say, hey, this wasn't a finding. But when this 

9 report comes out, the people that are reading this 

10 report have no idea of all of our interactions and 

11 how this program works, at least a lot of them 

12 won't.

13 They will just be looking at how many 

14 findings are there in these cases. And if there's 

15 a number of them that aren't findings, it's just 

16 incorrect information.

17 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. Can 

18 I jump in for just a minute here? That finding that 

19 Grady used as an example would be one that would 

20 be withdrawn, at least in my opinion, it should have 

21 been withdrawn if it was a situation where we ding 

22 them on not using the data when the data wasn't even 
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 available yet. There are others --

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The problem is that we 

3 don't have access to that when the dates that these 

4 --

5 MR. STIVER: Yes. There's another 

6 category, and it kind of gets back to the whole 

7 historic evolution of the program. And these were 

8 the ones where we just didn't know what, after 

9 putting in our due diligence, we just didn't know 

10 what NIOSH was doing and we couldn't figure it out.

11 Back during that period, you know, when 

12 most of these cases were done, it was kind of a 

13 commonly accepted practice to make those findings 

14 and then resolve them and get clarification in the 

15 Subcommittee environment, in that forum. And then 

16 those would then be resolved that way. But they 

17 still were listed down as findings.

18 And those I can understand, you know, 

19 Grady can see, I understand his position. That the 

20 cursory observer is going to think that those are 

21 actual deficiencies in the program when in fact 

22 they weren't. So I personally wouldn't have any 
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 problem in taking those out of the statistics.

2 But then, at least, having some 

3 narrative discussion as to why. You know, just to 

4 explain that, you know, not only was this historic, 

5 the way things were done at the time. But also, 

6 it kind of fostered an improvement in the 

7 communication and transparency. And also on the 

8 part of NIOSH and the ability of SC&A to, you know, 

9 get the tools and techniques and so forth and have 

10 a better understanding of what NIOSH is doing.

11 So it actually helped improved the 

12 program. So we don't want to really lose that in 

13 the letter. But, you know, I can see taking those 

14 types of findings out of statistics so it doesn't 

15 kind of distort the whole picture.

16 MR. KATZ: I want to, what Stiver just 

17 said, John just said, I mean, you could have a 

18 section, you could add in the statistics on 

19 observations, pile those in with the other 

20 observations that were already categorized as 

21 observations and have that narrative discussion. 

22 I mean, you know, I mean part of the 
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 clarification of course is mostly an internal 

2 interest, you know, inside baseball thing. 

3 Because it makes it easier for you guys to audit, 

4 you know, an the transparency versus it's not 

5 really making anything easier for the claimants per 

6 se. But there have been a lot of 

7 improvements that have made it more 

8 straightforward and easy and thorough for you to 

9 audit. I would agree with that.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Can I 

11 just speak one minute? You know, as I've been 

12 sitting here looking at all the discussions we've 

13 had on all the process, we've got SC&A looking at 

14 this as a process from their view. We've got Grady 

15 looking at it from NIOSH's view.

16 And one thing to remember is that part

17 of this is what this is being for the Board. And 

18 this is so that we can track this. We're the ones 

19 that are responsible to put forth this letter. I 

20 will be the first, Grady, to say that I believe that 

21 NIOSH, with what they have had, has done a 

22 remarkable job.
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 But also too, the data here, especially 

2 the one that you just spoke about, here's my point 

3 of view on that one. No, I think that is a finding. 

4 And the reason why I feel it is because this dose 

5 reconstruction was done and it didn't have the 

6 right information.

7 Now, later on that did come in, that 

8 information did come in. But when we reviewed 

9 this, it wasn't there. So in my point of view, and 

10 I want to emphasize this because every one of us 

11 has a different perspective that we're looking at 

12 this.

13 But I want especially the Board Members 

14 to remember that this is our information. We are 

15 the ones, same as Grady is responsible for, you 

16 know, looking at these findings and thinking it's 

17 real bad. We are also the Board and we have been 

18 tasked, this is our responsibility to be able to 

19 put forth this letter.

20 And all this information that we have 

21 will come into it. And I want it to be as 

22 transparent and as clear as everything is in there. 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Do I see your point of it? A hundred percent. I 

2 really do. But I'm looking at maybe a little bit 

3 bigger picture of what we're tasked to do, what 

4 we're putting our name on to be able to send to the 

5 Secretary.

6 MR. CALHOUN: If you've ever worked in 

7 a QA program though, or QC program, that's not a 

8 finding.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: What's that?

10 MR. CALHOUN: It's just not a finding, 

11 that particular one.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Oh, because the QA 

13 didn't work? I beg to differ. If your QA is 

14 falling, I will tell you right now, then you've got 

15 problems.

16 MR. CALHOUN: That's not, you can't 

17 expect somebody to do something with something they 

18 don't have. I'm not going to argue that one 

19 because that one's crystal clear.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well Grady, you know, 

21 I've said this from the beginning and I'm so glad 

22 that you brought that up. If you don't have the 
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 right data, then you don't have the data and you 

2 can't do it. So why is it being done if you don't 

3 have the data? Bottom line, crystal clear finding 

4 to me.

5 But I also, in the same sense, it is not 

6 -- I see your point. I want you to understand that. 

7 That that's not a finding against NIOSH on this. 

8 You can only deal with what you have. This is one

9 of the things that I've brought up numerous times. 

10 If we don't have the sufficient data and everything 

11 else, you can't do it.

12 And this is a perfect example of what 

13 I've said for years. Now all of the sudden the data 

14 comes in, okay, now it's okay, we can do it. But 

15 that's not a finding against us. Well, how many 

16 of these were done in that sense?

17 You know, we're sampling a small 

18 section of this and find stuff like this. It does 

19 bother me. Makes you wonder what is the real big 

20 picture on that.

21 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Dave, 

22 if I may.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Rose, you mentioned 

3 adding a column. That seemed like a reasonable 

4 suggestion to me. Did anybody else have any 

5 thoughts on that?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: No. You know what? 

7 I have no problem with this. And we discussed this 

8 several years ago. This is how we kind of --

9 because SC&A was looking at this same problem of 

10 how do we categorize these? And if I remember the 

11 communications right, I believe it was John Mauro 

12 that was involved with this.

13 Was that we felt that we, you know, we 

14 were covering this with sufficient information and 

15 going forth with it. I can understand, you know, 

16 I look at this 670 and I'm thinking holy cow. 

17 That's nothing, to tell you the truth.

18 But looking at it from Grady's point, 

19 it looks really terrible. Looking at it from 

20 SC&A's point, this is the information we have. But 

21 what are we going to do, Josie, for the past? 

22 Because in the future, going on, I think that's 
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 going to be fabulous. But what are we going to do 

2 with this?

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now we could 

4 recategorize these here into low-impact or 

5 no-impact findings.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. We could 

7 certainly, in the future, be a lot more clear for 

8 sets 14 on as to whether something should be a 

9 finding or an observation. Certainly I did not see 

10 the significance of that and the impact when I first 

11 took over as Chair. And I don't, I feel like the 

12 Subcommittee did not try to say, no, this shouldn't 

13 be a finding; it's an observation.

14 Recently we started doing that. But 

15 it's pretty hard to go back for ten through thirteen 

16 and recreate it.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well no, I think this 

18 is what Doug tried to bring up to us later on when 

19 he was trying recategorize some of these.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Later he 

21 did. We did do that. But I don't think we started 

22 all the way back at ten.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: No, and that's my 

2 point.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Is how are we going to 

5 be able to go back to all of these? Because I do 

6 agree with Grady. There's some of these that are 

7 in here that, you know what, it was a problem that, 

8 for one, that SC&A couldn't get access to the tools 

9 the other group had. And that was the only 

10 problem. And those weren't a finding.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we do have 

12 a record of that data. I hate to think about it 

13 but I've been going over those transcripts for a 

14 couple of years now. And in the transcript, we can 

15 see the discussion that went on. One might be able 

16 to tease out whether findings should be an 

17 observation or vice versa. But that's still a hell 

18 of a job.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: You're talking a 

20 monumental job.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it is. 

22 Yes.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: The whole thing that, 

2 because this is what it is, this is what we came 

3 into. This is how we went through the process. Do 

4 I believe that we should have changed these 

5 findings? Yes, I should have -- I feel that we 

6 should have.

7 And I believe that we were getting, 

8 feeback from both sides, you know, of how do we do 

9 this? You know, what is the proper way to be able 

10 to do this? Because I remember several 

11 conversations with Doug on this of, you know, how 

12 do we handle this? Because he was right up front. 

13 But the whole thing is to be able to go back and 

14 to be able to pull all these out.

15 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I mean, Rose 

16 has the universe of them because she mentioned it 

17 and she gave you a statistic on it. What I had just 

18 suggested is -- and I agree with Rose. Some of them 

19 are gray-area things where it's a matter of 

20 judgment and it was really clear. But the 

21 Subcommittee basically said no, never mind with 

22 this because, you know, it's not a big deal.
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I agree with Rose for those ones. 

2 Those, I think, belong in the low-impact bucket. 

3 But I do also agree with Grady that the ones where 

4 the Subcommittee pretty clearly said, we agree with 

5 NIOSH at the end of the day, those should just be 

6 thrown in the observation bucket because they're 

7 not findings in the audit world sense and in the 

8 QA world sense, which is the sense that most other 

9 people that read this would understand findings.

10 You know, that's how they would think 

11 about them. They would think of them as low-impact 

12 defects. And it's unfair to call it a defect if 

13 the Subcommittee itself said, that's not a defect. 

14 So I mean, I think for proper accounting, those ones 

15 should be pared out.

16 You know, the alternative is to have a 

17 discussion about what a finding is on the front end 

18 and be clear that findings aren't necessarily 

19 defects. You can go at it that way too. That's 

20 the other side of the coin.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ted, how could 

22 we come to some resolution on the findings going 
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 into observations?

2 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, Rose has them. 

3 I think I don't know how much detail she has on each 

4 of them. But she gave us the statistic of 30 

5 percent or whatever it is. And if she could 

6 distinguish between those where the Subcommittee 

7 simply said, we agree with NIOSH versus those where 

8 the Subcommittee said, no never mind , we don't need 

9 to fool with this any longer. She could just split 

10 them that way.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well let me ask 

12 you this. I think there's a conflict, if you will, 

13 a conflict of interest between the NIOSH group and 

14 SC&A on this. Is it possible for Grady to do the 

15 same thing and then have them compare?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Then why don't 

18 we do that? That will resolve a lot of the problem. 

19 Although there's still the issue of, you know, 

20 there will be a debate. Because, just as Brad 

21 said, you know, he would consider the example that 

22 Grady gave a finding.
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 MR. KATZ: Yes. But I mean, Brad 

2 didn't go back and review the transcript where that 

3 one was discussed. But I mean, if that one was one 

4 where the Subcommittee actually agreed, then it's 

5 not really a debate any longer because the 

6 Subcommittee spoke on it.

7 And I think, it's my recollection over 

8 these years, the Subcommittee has been pretty clear 

9 at the end of the day where they agreed, where they 

10 disagreed.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Or where they said no, never 

13 mind . Because I remember the no never mind s, too. 

14 And again, I would credit the no, never minds as 

15 findings and the others as observations. I would 

16 just say let them give it a shot and exchange 

17 information, see if we can't resolve this. And 

18 everyone will be happy if we can.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Would that be, 

20 how would that sound?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let me ask you this. 

22 Who is going to make the ultimate decision then? 
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 Because --

2 MR. KATZ: Well let's --

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: You're talking about 

4 conflict of interest here.

5 MR. KATZ: No I'm saying let the two 

6 parties both do it. And let's see if they actually 

7 disagree at the end of the day before we worry about 

8 conflict of interest. Because the Subcommittee 

9 can decide, again, the Subcommittee transcripts 

10 are really clear. So there's actually the facts. 

11 You don't have to -- it's no subjective judgment

12 here.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If they can go 

14 down to a limited number, if they can agree on a 

15 lot of the cases -- First, in answer to your 

16 question, the Subcommittee makes the decision.

17 MR. KATZ: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But if they can 

19 narrow down the gap, if there are not a lot of 

20 problems, differences between them, we can then go 

21 back to the transcript. I just don't know how many 

22 there would be. I mean, the transcripts will have 
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 it.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There would be a lot if 

3 we compare values.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Could I 

5 suggest that, as you have these conversations, 

6 would it make any sense to have you cc me and Ted, 

7 or the whole Committee? Although I don't think 

8 that's probably useful. But could there be, I 

9 mean, should any of the rest of us look in on this 

10 as you talk back and forth?

11 MR. KATZ: I absolutely think that they 

12 should at least copy you and me, Dave the Chair, 

13 and me for DFO, on the correspondence back and 

14 forth. Yes.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. And I would think 

16 too, that you don't need to go back to the 

17 transcripts right away. I think that you can glean 

18 a lot just from looking at the matrices

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, exactly. 

20 That's why I'm saying no. You and Rose will look 

21 at them. You'll go over the review and you'll see 

22 where you agree and disagree. And then, if there 
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 are a relatively small number, we can go back to 

2 the transcript. But we can't, going back to the 

3 transcript for all of them is, again, a monumental 

4 job.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is 

7 John Mauro. I do have one question that I think 

8 would greatly expedite this.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 DR. MAURO: Many, many of the low 

11 findings have to do with the fact that the 

12 information that was -- it's a different category 

13 than the example we just had. The information that 

14 was contained in the DR Report and its supporting 

15 documentation did not have all the information we 

16 need. The explanation of the basis or rationale 

17 wasn't there.

18 So as a result, we were in a position 

19 where we could not check the numbers. And during 

20 the course of the issues resolution process, more 

21 information was provided which said, oh no, this 

22 is what we assumed, we did this and here's the 
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 reason why. And at the end of the process, we all 

2 understood exactly what they did and we agreed yes, 

3 that you did it correctly.

4 Now, here's my question. The fact that 

5 there is a DR Report that does not have sufficient 

6 information in it that would allow an independent 

7 person to check the number, is that a finding? If 

8 not, then I think a lot of these go away.

9 If that is a finding, the report itself 

10 has a -- let's call it a deficiency in that it lacks 

11 clarity and completeness to allow a person to 

12 independently check in. If you feel that, in the 

13 end after you go through the process, everything 

14 is okay and that should not be a finding, it's 

15 important for us to know that.

16 But if you feel that, running into these 

17 challenges where there is a deficiency in terms of 

18 the report itself not being complete enough. And 

19 if you feel that's a finding, then it stays a 

20 finding. So I mean, that's going to be a big deal. 

21 In other words --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 DR. MAURO: That's a philosophy, 

2 really.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

4 DR. MAURO: We need guidance from the 

5 Board on how you would like us to deal with those.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, my first 

7 thought is that that's an observation.

8 DR. MAURO: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What do other 

10 Subcommittee Members think?

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

12 disagree.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. For 

14 reasons, essentially, that you outlined before?

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes. You know --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Go ahead.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Others?

19 PARTICIPANT: Of course, I think that 

20 that's just a finding, or an observation because 

21 it's not a violation of a written requirement.

22 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I agree.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You agree that 

2 it's an observation?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It would seem an 

4 observation to me.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let me ask a question 

6 so I'm understanding where she's coming from on 

7 this. Why do you feel that it's an observation?

8 MEMBER MUNN: I've always felt that 

9 unless the findings, unless the material that we're 

10 talking about is absolutely based on the total 

11 facts that's available, that it is not -- to me a 

12 finding is something that can be corrected. And 

13 if it's not something that can be corrected, then 

14 it's an observation.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well and this is, 

16 we've had this debate so many times on this. This 

17 all comes back to the data. And if you're coming 

18 into this and you don't have all the data, then 

19 you've got a problem. To me, if the data wasn't 

20 used, and as Grady has said, it wasn't there but 

21 then it was, to me that's, we took it at face value 

22 when this was done and it was.
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 But you know, and I guess maybe part of 

2 my QA program and my QA past is starting to come 

3 out in that. Each one of us is looking at it a 

4 little bit different. And I agree, in some 

5 aspects, with this. But I also do not want to lose, 

6 I have no problems with putting them into an 

7 observation bucket.

8 You know, when there were little things

9 that have gone wrong because I'm one of the first 

10 ones to agree too when we've got in there and come 

11 to find out, when we get into it, that the dose still 

12 came out the same. The way that they arrived at 

13 it was a little bit different.

14 And we've made changes into that. This 

15 has been something that, this has been working 

16 itself to be able to make what it is now a long time. 

17 And everybody has their own opinions too. And the 

18 only reason I'm asking you, Wanda, is because I'm 

19 trying to see how you were looking at it. That's 

20 the only reason why.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Am I on?

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you are.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Is there 

3 any value -- I'm thinking out loud, I admit. Is 

4 there any value to having something called, a 

5 category called gray area with findings and 

6 observations. I mean, good people will disagree 

7 and we are disagreeing. It may actually muddy the 

8 waters to think of a gray area. But would a gray 

9 area, would that --

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I thought that's what 

11 the, kind of, observations were. They weren't 

12 really a finding. They weren't anything. This 

13 has been something we've been dealing with for a 

14 lot of years.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Where do we put them 

17 in the bucket at?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've had these same 

20 arguments and stuff in the meetings of, well, is 

21 it a finding or is it not a finding?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I will be the 

2 first to tell you that I take a finding serious 

3 because I don't want anything to look bad on this 

4 program either.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: But also too, we're 

7 tasked with a job to be able to look at this. And 

8 I believe Doug Farver brought it up to us and told 

9 us. He says, you know, we're getting into these 

10 areas that, at first glance, they are a finding. 

11 But as we work ourselves through it and both parties 

12 agree and then we better understand how it was done, 

13 it's not a finding. We came out to the end that 

14 it was an observation. And I thought that's how 

15 we came up with this observation part of it. To 

16 me, that was the gray area.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's where we threw 

19 it into the gray area.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Dave 

21 and Josie, what are you folks thinking?

22 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I was waiting 
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 for Dave to say something. I can see the merits 

2 on both sides so I'm kind of on the fence.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: At some level, 

4 we all -- David? Excuse me. David, are you on the

5 line?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am, but go 

7 ahead.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. At some 

9 level, I think we all -- I was not here for those 

10 earlier discussions. But I think we all recognize 

11 that there's merit on both sides. There really is. 

12 And that is, maybe we need to think about this a 

13 little bit more, all of us. And still, 

14 we can have Grady and Rose begin to look at those 

15 gray areas, the grays, the ones that are uncertain 

16 and see what they come up with. And that will also 

17 give us on the Subcommittee a little bit more time 

18 to think through.

19 Since I wasn't here for those earlier 

20 discussions, I haven't thought it through as much 

21 as I could or should. But I'll be glad to think 

22 about it. I see the issue now.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: And Dave, this is 

2 Brad. I agree with you 100 percent, but basically 

3 this comes down to the Board or the Subcommittee 

4 to be able to go through this.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: To be able to hash it 

7 out. But that being said, all this discussion that 

8 we have had today, we need to be looking into the 

9 future. So that we're not trying to come back in 

10 the past and try to figure this out, if it's a 

11 finding or not.

12 Now we've got observations and I know 

13 that this started with Doug. But we were going 

14 into it and, you know, this is just an observation, 

15 we've got this area. But we need to take a look 

16 at how we're going to handle these in the future 

17 too.

18 MR. KATZ: With respect to that, Brad, 

19 I mean I did, quite a while ago, discuss this with 

20 SC&A when this first came up. That we just get our 

21 tracking sorted so that our tracking is the basis 

22 for our statistics. And our tracking accounts for 
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 the Subcommittee's decisions on these cases so that 

2 it is clear at the end of the day.

3 When findings are determined to be not 

4 findings by the Board or it disagrees, in other 

5 words, with them, that that's reflected in the 

6 source for the statistics so that we don't have to 

7 go back and tease through and reconstruct what 

8 happened.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: I've watched that. 

11 I've watched that because over the last few times, 

12 and I think Dave can even talk to this one. That 

13 we've, well, is this a finding or not a finding? 

14 How are we going to change this? And I think that's

15 showing that we were seeing what the problem was.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

17 true.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just want to make 

19 sure because there can be some of them that come 

20 out that kind of really don't fit anywhere. And 

21 we're going to have to figure out how to deal with 

22 them.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well I mean, as 

2 Chair, I'm committed for the future to being more 

3 careful about this, and to admitting that I did not 

4 see the importance of this as I first took over as 

5 Chair. So I certainly never pushed it. And I 

6 agree, that we're seeing this problem now.

7 But that doesn't resolve the issue of 

8 the Secretary's Report. I think, for the moment, 

9 we just have to say, if it's okay with people, that 

10 Grady and Rose look, and will cc Ted and me, and 

11 we'll see in the end what they come up with and how 

12 much overlap there is and figure out how to proceed.

13 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. What I'm 

14 thinking we do, if it's okay, I'll just communicate 

15 directly with Rose. And we'll start it with, 

16 instead of, you know, doing a shotgun approach and 

17 looking at everything, we'll take some subset and 

18 look at maybe the six through thirteenth sets and 

19 see what we come up with there before we go on to 

20 the next thing.

21 I can tell you like, you know, we just 

22 discussed -- and one thing that I'm not losing here 
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 is we have made a lot of improvements because of 

2 this process here. And I don't deny that and we've 

3 just, we've done a great job and you've really 

4 helped us out.

5 When we look through some of these 

6 things though, some of them that we'd be pushing 

7 into an observation in our mind, you know, our two 

8 goals are to do the Dose Reconstruction on the right 

9 side of the compensation decision. And to make the 

10 Dose Reconstruction Report readable and 

11 understandable to the claimant.

12 Although it's important, it's not one 

13 of our main goals to make our process auditable by 

14 you, and I mean that with all respect. Just 

15 because you don't understand what we did right 

16 away, if we did it right, it's an observation not 

17 a finding. So when we do our evaluations, that'll 

18 be the point that we're coming from.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Sounds 

20 good. I admit, as a guy sitting on the 

21 Subcommittee, I'm glad to see SC&A give us a lot 

22 of false positives which we can then get rid of and 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 say, hey you know, that's not an observation.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes. Well, we certainly 

3 prefer for them to err on the side of bringing 

4 something forward.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

6 And that's always been, I mean, that has been the 

7 spirit.

8 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro again. 

9 The mechanics of this going forward, because I 

10 understand going retrospective for the purpose of 

11 the letter. But what I'm hearing is the mechanics 

12 of this going forward, when we are in the process 

13 of sitting down in issues resolution and we get to 

14 the point where we say, it turns out we accept 

15 NIOSH's answer, we did not understand it or the 

16 information wasn't available or whatever.

17 But at the end of some sometimes 

18 protracted process, it's concluded, no, the 

19 numbers are good. At that point, when we're right 

20 there, do we change it from a low to an observation?

21 MR. KATZ: I think that's the way to do 

22 it in the future.
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 DR. MAURO: Okay. So that's how we're 

2 going to go forward in the future.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: Ted, if you recall, you may 

5 not have been there. We had that conversation and 

6 the decision was, no, we're not going to go back 

7 and fix those. Let the record speak for itself. 

8 But now what we're hearing, and this is important 

9 and I have no problem with any of it. I mean, what 

10 I'm saying is that we're going to change our way 

11 of doing business during the issues resolution 

12 process when we reach that point, when SC&A 

13 realizes no, they were correct after all. Even 

14 though it may be a complex process to get to that 

15 point, once we get to that point, we change that 

16 low impact finding to an observation.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. And John, that 

18 doesn't mean you have to issue a new audit report, 

19 revised audit report. All it means is that, it's 

20 just so that our summary table where we pull our 

21 statistics for these reports for the Secretary, 

22 just so that those statistics are correct. That's 
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 all.

2 DR. MAURO: Very good.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: This is very helpful for 

5 going forward. Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And both sides 

7 are doing a good job, it seems to me.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, absolutely.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And 

10 process is good; it's a good process. But it's now 

11 ten of one Eastern Time. It seems to me we have 

12 finished this discussion and it's time to take a 

13 break, a lunch break. Yes? Or a late breakfast 

14 break for our West Coast contingent.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So it's ten of 

17 one here. Is it okay, let's just do it for an hour 

18 and get back together at ten of two this time.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. See you 

21 in one hour, folks.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. Bye.
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: Thank you, all.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

5 went off the record at 12:53 p.m. and resumed at 

6 1:52 p.m.)

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Al right. 

8 Well, just going in order in our agenda, we have 

9 three cases that remain from sets ten to thirteen. 

10 As folks will remember, we have done all that we 

11 could do for all the cases but there were three that 

12 we referred to other Subcommittees or needed some 

13 more work from NIOSH or whatever.

14 So, the three I have are Hooker Chemical 

15 Set 10-221.1, and Koppers Company Set 12-282, and 

16 Monticello Uranium. And I'm glad to know there's 

17 a Monticello Utah because I had never heard of it 

18 before and I was thinking Monticello, New York, 

19 when did they have a uranium mill? It's part of 

20 the Catskills area. So there's Monticello, Utah 

21 uranium mill.

22 Now I have a feeling I don't know how 
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 much was done. For Hooker Chemical, we have a Site 

2 Profile issue on internal exposure. I checked for 

3 the AWE Working Group which I'm a member of, by the 

4 way, and we have not dealt with AWE for a long time.

5 They had an SEC petition which the 

6 Subcommittee has recommended not be accepted. But 

7 they are looking to get some information from FOIA 

8 and they requested that we not go to the Board until 

9 they get their FOIA information. It may have some 

10 bearing, they believe, on the decision.

11 But what I don't know is, as I said, it's 

12 a Site Profile issue. Do you know, Ted, if anybody 

13 has worked on it? That hasn't been mentioned by 

14 --

15 MR. KATZ: Yes. The Hooker Work Group 

16 has not been ready to meet. So that's why that's 

17 sort of put on ice. So that's why that hasn't gone 

18 forward. So there's no progress to be made there 

19 on the Hooker cases. I thought there were two 

20 Hooker cases but maybe --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There actually 

22 are. There's 222.2. You're right, another one. 
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 Yes. Same issue.

2 MR. KATZ: So if the findings that are 

3 outstanding are germane to the Site Profile issues, 

4 then those are just on ice.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That means that 

6 we, it's not a question of --

7 MR. KATZ: It means that the specific 

8 Subcommittee can't resolve them because, until the 

9 Site Profile issues are resolved, there's no right 

10 answer.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

12 there's no way to expedite the Site Profile issue.

13 MR. KATZ: No, we can't push that 

14 forward.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now can I recommend 

17 that we transfer them to that Committee?

18 MR. KATZ: No, because these are Dose 

19 Reconstruction Review cases. We can't transfer 

20 them. We just deal with them after that Work Group 

21 gets around to the Site Profile issues.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. I will point 
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 out that there are a number of transfers already 

2 in the six to thirteen --

3 MR. KATZ: Cases themselves, we don't 

4 transfer. I mean, we don't transfer cases. We 

5 wait for the resolution of Site Profile issues that 

6 affect the case in our hands. But there's no 

7 transferring cases to a Work Group from this 

8 Subcommittee.

9 MEMBER MUNN: You can transfer action 

10 but not the case.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, in effect, 

12 you're just awaiting their actions because they're 

13 the ones who will make the decision about the Site 

14 Profile, what the Board's view of the Site Profile 

15 is.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I don't know if 

17 anybody else is hearing it, but I'm hearing that 

18 on the phone again.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. There's some 

20 crackling.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Same, yes. Do 

22 we want to do what we did before which seemed to 
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 help? Which is to say hang up and dial in again.

2 MR. KATZ: We can try that. Sometimes 

3 crackling is caused if people have their cell phone 

4 close to their phone. So folks that do, and they 

5 have their cell phone on, they want to either turn 

6 off their cell phone or move it further away from 

7 their phone. That might help too.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: There we just went.

9 DR. MAURO: It just ended.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it did. 

11 Thank you. We will not ask for identification of 

12 who did it, but thank you. So all right, now those 

13 represent two cases. No, two findings on the case 

14 222, set ten case -- no, 221 and 222 are two cases. 

15 And by the way --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it's the same.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's the same case, 

19 just --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh okay. So 

21 that's one of the two cases that were reviewed. 

22 Rose, when you're in the previous analysis -- I'm 
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 sorry, I know there's background noise when I'm 

2 speaking.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, that case was 

4 reviewed, Dave.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That case was 

7 reviewed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have findings on it. 

10 These cases are open still. So I treated those 

11 cases as if there has been no change. So the 

12 original ranking was ranked again.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Al 

14 right. Good. And then so, we're waiting on that. 

15 Then there's the Koppers Company from Set 12-282.1. 

16 And folks will remember TBD-6001 was withdrawn. 

17 At that time, last time we met, folks could not find 

18 the Kopper matrix to handle the external exposure. 

19 Is there anything new there?

20 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. Maybe 

21 I could help a little bit.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Always welcome.
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 DR. MAURO: I took a look at the matrix 

2 and the TBD-6001 issue and the way it's written up 

3 in the matrix. Since TBD-6001 is off the table, 

4 the matrix really isn't very helpful. So what I 

5 ended up doing is going back and looking at the 

6 Koppers dose reconstruction and our review of the 

7 dose reconstruction forgetting about TBD-6001 

8 because it doesn't exist.

9 And I said, okay, I did a quick review 

10 of the case. I think there are two problems with 

11 it that really need to remain open. The only thing 

12 I can really do right now, if this is helpful, is 

13 there are two very simple technical issues. One 

14 dealing external and one dealing internal. 

15 Perhaps, if I just explain it very briefly, 

16 it's something that NIOSH may be able to look at 

17 pretty quickly and answer. I don't think it would 

18 take much time. So if you'd like, I could very 

19 quickly give you the bottom line on Koppers and what 

20 is it we have to close out.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

22 DR. MAURO: And I'll do that very -- it 
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 turns out that, from an external point of view, the 

2 way to look at it is, you've got 55-gallon drums 

3 filled up with some form of uranium and people are 

4 standing near it, being externally exposed. NIOSH 

5 has come up with an external dose to people who work 

6 there from the radiation coming from these drums 

7 of .055 rem.

8 We looked at that number and we come up 

9 with .34 rem per year. And NIOSH's position is, 

10 well John, your numbers are based on the assumption 

11 that the person spends 100 percent of his time one 

12 meter away from the drum. So in effect, the 

13 difference between SC&A and NIOSH is, we both agree 

14 that the right distance is one meter but it's the 

15 amount of time.

16 You know, I assume the person is there 

17 2,000 hours per year. That's the distance he was

18 away, how long he's there. Effectively, and 

19 please, NIOSH, correct me if I'm wrong because I 

20 reviewed this yesterday. Effectively NIOSH is 

21 claiming, well we're not assuming he's there 100 

22 percent of the time.
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 Effectively, it implies it's more like 

2 ten percent of the time. So I think the 

3 fundamental external issue is for us to come to an 

4 agreement on, what's the reasonable amount of time 

5 that the person is in the vicinity of these 

6 55-gallon drums? And once we resolve that, the 

7 issue will be resolved.

8 So right now, we're at about a factor 

9 of ten difference. Because I'm at one extreme 

10 where I put the guy one meter away 2,000 hours per 

11 year. And I'm presuming, based on NIOSH's number 

12 which is one tenth mine in terms of external 

13 exposure, that they're assuming a shorter time 

14 period that person's away. So that's issue one. 

15 It's very simple.

16 Issue two is the internal dose. And 

17 basically, there's airborne radioactivity 

18 associated with the handling of all this uranium. 

19 And I went back to the -- they're using surrogate 

20 data that's out there from a report by two guys 

21 named Christifano and Harris.

22 And he provides a wonderful amount of 
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 data on all the different internal exposure data, 

2 airborne dust loading data for uranium, for a whole

3 wide variety of different ways of working with 

4 uranium.

5 NIOSH assumed that the dust loading, 

6 the intake rate, I'm sorry, the intake rate for 

7 uranium by the workers is 100 picocuries per day. And 

8 that's based on certain assumptions about the 

9 airborne dust loading. I come up with a much --

10 I looked up Christifano and Harris, and the numbers 

11 I get from them is much higher in terms of what the 

12 airborne dust loadings are and the intake rates 

13 are.

14 So bottom line is, from looking at this

15 from scratch basically, we don't agree on the 

16 internal dose either. I'm not saying I'm right or 

17 wrong. I'm saying if I were doing the dose 

18 reconstruction, I would have come up with a 

19 substantially higher external dose and a 

20 substantially higher internal dose.

21 And I think it's up to, you know, the 

22 issues resolution process to resolve those 
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 differences. So we really can't close those out 

2 right now. The issues related to Koppers 

3 unfortunately, I believe, has to remain open until 

4 we have a chance to discuss the matters I just 

5 mentioned.

6 MR. CALHOUN: John, did you get a 

7 chance to look at my response, at least for the 

8 external?

9 DR. MAURO: I think you -- yes. Your 

10 response is to the amount of time the person was 

11 there.

12 MR. CALHOUN: It actually was detailed

13 -- ultimately your finding was you didn't know, you 

14 couldn't figure out how we did it. And I went 

15 through and looked at the DR and showed you where 

16 the calculations were. Because you're right, you 

17 can't tell from the DR. But if you look at the IREP 

18 input sheet, I went line by line and showed exactly 

19 where those came from and the table in TBD-6001 was 

20 referenced.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I think we have to 

22 discard the table, we ought to get rid of TBD-6001. 
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 It doesn't exist anymore and we have to look at the 

2 merits going back to the original source document 

3 that establishes the basis, originally established 

4 the basis for TBD-6001 which is Christifano and 

5 Harris.

6 So what I did is -- I don't want to, you 

7 know, we shouldn't even be talking about TBD-6001 

8 because it doesn't exist anymore. And since we 

9 have Christifano and Harris which is, ultimately, 

10 the source document that stands behind, originally 

11 was supposed to stand behind TBD-6001 which 

12 everyone agrees is a rock solid piece of work.

13 Let's just go right to Christifano and 

14 Harris and see what they say about, you know, this 

15 particular type of operation. And it's in there. 

16 And I didn't come up with your numbers. So I'm 

17 looking at the matrix and I see your words and I 

18 see your reference to TBD-6001. But I decided that 

19 -- listen, we can't be talking about TBD-6001 to 

20 close this thing out because it doesn't exist.

21 Let me just go back to first principles 

22 and go look at Christifano and Harris and see if 
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 I match your numbers or come close to them, both 

2 external and internal. And unfortunately, I 

3 can't. Now, I'm not saying that I got it right. 

4 But I can't say here on the phone now that I 

5 understand what you did and that it's correct.

6 And that's why I'm saying that. We're 

7 going to need to have an opportunity to communicate 

8 this. And I could write something up. I wrote up 

9 notes that I'm reading from right now about what 

10 I did and where I come out. I’ll try to summarize 

11 it quickly, you know, why I came out differently 

12 than you.

13 And I think I've got to get that into 

14 your hands. And then I think we speak from there.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Right. And yes, that's 

16 fine. I'll definitely need something that 

17 outlines that.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. And I wish -- quite 

19 frankly, it wasn't until getting ready for this 

20 meeting where it was brought to my attention that 

21 these are items that were still unresolved. And 

22 I said, let me see what I can do to help. And I 
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 think that I see where our differences are. But 

2 I think I owe you some material to explain, okay 

3 this is what I did and why I'm coming up different 

4 than you.

5 Then, I think we'll quickly converge 

6 once you see how I'm looking at it. You may find 

7 out where, you know, we'll come to an agreement. 

8 But I have to show you why I did what I did.

9 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Now, just so 

10 everybody knows, it was done according to TBD-6001 

11 which was in place at the time. It was current and 

12 it was referenced.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 DR. MAURO: And that's fine. But I'm 

15 looking at it now, do we have -- I mean, the reality 

16 is we're trying to close out an issue. And I can't 

17 agree with the doses, notwithstanding the fact that 

18 TBD-6001 existed or didn't exist at the time the 

19 work was done.

20 I can only look at the doses from the 

21 point of view, do I think you've assigned the right 

22 dose to this guy or is there a problem?
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. CALHOUN: Okay.

2 DR. MAURO: I didn't ask myself the 

3 question, did you follow TBD-6001?

4 MR. CALHOUN: I know.

5 DR. MAURO: You understand?

6 MR. CALHOUN: I just need that write up 

7 so I can respond.

8 DR. MAURO: And I will. It won't take 

9 me very long to do it. I'll get something to you 

10 next week and then we can talk about it. I don't 

11 know the machinery of how to do that. I'll just 

12 take my lead from John Stiver on how to best go about 

13 doing that.

14 MR. KATZ: Oh John, I mean that's --

15 this is Ted. I mean, just a memo describing your 

16 methodology and the basis for which you contend 

17 that this was done wrong, is what you need to do. 

18 It'd just be a supplement to your Dose 

19 Reconstruction Case Review.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I can do that very 

21 quickly.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I think I 
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 hear Grady saying, I didn't do anything wrong, 

2 TBD-6000 existed, well 6001 existed at that time; 

3 it's since been withdrawn. And so, we have to do 

4 it again. Right?

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. TBD --

6 MR. CALHOUN: That's fine. I'm 

7 completely open to look and see what John has to 

8 say.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay. We're in good shape 

12 then.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

14 that's the way we're going to resolve that. And 

15 finally, the Monticello uranium.

16 DR. MAURO: That's me again. And the 

17 good news is we can close this and I'll tell you 

18 why.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 DR. MAURO: When I reviewed this, one 

21 of the most important exposure pathways for these 

22 uranium mill tailings facilities, uranium mills, 
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 is radon, inhalation of radon and its progeny. And 

2 the typical way in which it's done is you calculate 

3 the intake, the exposure rate in terms of working 

4 level months per year. That's the numbers that are 

5 used as input into IREP in order to get a 

6 Probability of Causation.

7 Now it turns out, when I reviewed this, 

8 I saw something unusual. There was actually a dose 

9 that was calculated. And I said, a dose. I mean, 

10 I didn't know that, you know, my experience has been 

11 that the protocol is to come up with working level 

12 months per year.

13 So I called Jim Neton up. And Jim 

14 explained to me that, in this particular case, they 

15 followed a certain protocol that I was unaware of. 

16 He explained it to me. I understand it, and as far 

17 as I'm concerned, that's another way to do it, and 

18 that's fine. You know, it's not the working level 

19 month per year approach.

20 It's a dose approach based on the 

21 citation material that Jim gave me. It's 

22 certainly another way to do it. So as far as I'm 
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 concerned, this issue is resolved. It wasn't 

2 something that was documented. The problem was, 

3 it wasn't in the documentation.

4 I just simply went by the protocol that 

5 NIOSH normally uses which is a working level month 

6 per year protocol, not this other approach. But 

7 once it was explained to me, what that other 

8 approach is, I didn't have any problem with it.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 DR. MAURO: So I would recommend 

11 closing this item.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

13 sounds good.

14 MR. KATZ: So Dave and Subcommittee, 

15 this is an example, I think, where you need to be 

16 clear about whether in this instance, there's no 

17 problem with the methodology except that it wasn't 

18 documented so that John Mauro wasn't aware of it 

19 when he reviewed it. So does this end up as an 

20 observation?

21 MR. CALHOUN: I think it is an 

22 observation. Isn't it?
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 DR. MAURO: Yes. I would agree with 

2 that.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's already an 

4 observation.

5 MEMBER MUNN: It is.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Formerly it was 

7 an observation.

8 DR. MAURO: It always was an 

9 observation.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Sorry, I apologize. 

11 I wasn't following along.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: See Ted, this is one 

13 of these situations where we've got into where 

14 going through this review, we're just not 

15 understanding. This is why we went to these 

16 observations like we did. So it is a good example. 

17 I think it's working. The only problem I see is 

18 it's in the later part of this process.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thanks.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good. 

21 Well, we've taken care of those case issues. And 

22 I think we're ready to go on to the remaining blind 
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 cases.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I may really quick. 

3 Because we were asked to hold all of the revisions 

4 to these cases until the 10th through 13th sets were 

5 finalized, as long as no one has any objections, 

6 I'll go ahead and reissue all of those.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I could not hear 

8 that. I'm sorry.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. Can 

10 you hear me now?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Could you 

12 please repeat now?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: SC&A was asked to hold 

14 the revisions of all of the case sets that were 

15 directed by the Board until after we finished the 

16 tenth through thirteenth sets. And now that this 

17 almost wraps it up, I'm going to go ahead and 

18 reissue those. I believe there's five or six 

19 cases. And that's where we were asked to withdraw 

20 a finding or reduce a finding to an observation and 

21 that was Board-directed.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So you can expect to 

2 see those.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Thank 

4 you.

5 MR. KATZ: So Rose, are you saying that 

6 you'll send out a new sort of case summary? Or what 

7 is it you're sending out?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Throughout the issues 

9 resolution process, we were asked to withdraw 

10 certain findings or from the actual Dose 

11 Reconstruction Report. I think we withdrew three 

12 observations for change of findings. And we were 

13 asked to make those in the actual report. And 

14 those changes have been made, they just haven't 

15 been finalized.

16 MR. KATZ: Oh I see. Okay.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. 

18 Well now we're ready to go to the remaining. You 

19 mentioned that there were, the first three blinds 

20 that were done way back in sets one through six that 

21 you wanted to go over again. I thought we had 

22 completed them but --
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 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

2 And there were actually two initial blinds that we 

3 were given back in the 2009 time frame, I believe. 

4 What you had asked me to do, back when we initially 

5 did those first two blinds, we were not asked to 

6 calculate a PoC.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MS. BEHLING: So at the last meeting, 

9 you asked us to go ahead and calculate that PoC, 

10 which I did. And I know that, perhaps many years 

11 ago, we did have an opportunity to discuss these 

12 cases. However, I think there are new 

13 Subcommittee members who that are not really aware 

14 of what we did in these two blinds.

15 And this is back when we did the two SC&A 

16 methods, Methods A and B, and then we compared it 

17 to NIOSH. If you agree, I do think there are some 

18 interesting aspects and observations that I would 

19 like to point out from these two older blinds that 

20 may be worth taking some time for me to go over them. 

21 I'll try and be brief although I do want to go 

22 through each of the elements, if you agree.
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 Let me just say this, on the first blind 

2 which was a Portsmouth blind case, Method A's PoC

3 ended up being 49.35 percent. Method B was 79 --

4 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on a second. This 

5 is Grady. I don't want to throw a wrench into 

6 things, but I don't think case numbers should be 

7 up there since we have members of the public on the 

8 phone.

9 MS. BEHLING: That was going to be my 

10 other question. Are there members of the public 

11 on the phone? Because my next question was going 

12 to be, for these two particular blinds, we never 

13 did back then get a PA-cleared version.

14 Now they are available under the 

15 Advisory Board website under the DR Subcommittee 

16 folder under today's meeting, September 24th 

17 meeting. And I was going to ask Ted, if we would 

18 be able to pull those up or not.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes. They're fine on Live 

20 Meeting. I think Grady is worried about what you 

21 say orally.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I don't think I 
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 gave --

2 MR. KATZ: Live Meeting is not 

3 available to the public. It's only available 

4 internally.

5 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

6 MR. CALHOUN: You have to be careful 

7 with the case numbers.

8 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

10 MS. BEHLING: I didn't say the case 

11 number, did I?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, you didn't.

13 MR. CALHOUN: You did not.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you. But 

15 first of all, like I was about to say, finally I 

16 was going to say that NIOSH's PoC for the first 

17 Portsmouth case is 48.75 percent. So Method A and 

18 NIOSH's method are close: 49 and 48 percent. 

19 Method B was 79 and I can explain that if you'd like 

20 me to go through this.

21 This second case was an X-10 case. And 

22 again, I calculated Method A's PoC to be 66.15 
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 percent. Method B's PoC was 72 percent. And 

2 NIOSH's PoC was 43.63 percent. So as you can see, 

3 both of the SC&A methods would have compensated in 

4 this particular case.

5 But again, if you'd like me to go 

6 through these, I can explain. I think in both of 

7 these cases, we are going to find this was 

8 professional-judgment type issues that drove the 

9 differences. So I will let you decide if you'd 

10 like me to go through those.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I would 

12 like you to.

13 MEMBER BEACH: So would I.

14 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Al right, I will 

15 start with the Portsmouth case. I will ask Rose, 

16 maybe we can bring that up and I will start talking. 

17 As I said, I'll try to keep it brief.

18 This particular person worked from 

19 [identifying information redacted] through 

20 [identifying information redacted] as a sheet 

21 metal worker and then ultimately, a sheet metal 

22 [identifying information redacted]. He was 
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 diagnosed with [identifying information redacted]

2 skin cancers and a [identifying information 

3 redacted] cancer. It was a [identifying 

4 information redacted] cancer.

5 In Table 2-2 on Page 8 of my report, I 

6 give you a comparison of the different 

7 methodologies. As you can see, SC&A's Method A 

8 used what they considered a best-estimate method. 

9 Method B set a reasonable but claimant-favorable 

10 method. And NIOSH actually stated that they 

11 overestimated these doses.

12 The primary approach for 

13 overestimating associated with what NIOSH did is 

14 that, rather than using the actual [identifying 

15 information redacted] DCF of 0.62 prior to 1987 and 

16 0.479 after 1987, they used a [identifying 

17 information redacted] DCF of one. You can see that 

18 in this Table 2.2.

19 I won't go through all the details but 

20 everyone agreed on what the monitoring years were 

21 and what years the individual wasn't monitored 

22 which was 1970 to 1979 and applied various 
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 dosimeter correction factors and uncertainty 

2 factors.

3 When we get to the recorded photon and 

4 electron doses, which are shown in Table 2-3, you 

5 can see that the difference in the electron dose 

6 between SC&A's Method A and NIOSH was due to, in 

7 this case, Method A incorrectly read the records 

8 and assigned a positive dose of 139 millirem in 

9 1969. And so, that is what created the difference 

10 there in Table 2.3.

11 Method B is 2.8 times lower because 

12 Method B only assumed one positive dose in 1969 and 

13 used the RBS, [identifying information redacted]

14 --

15 (Telephonic interference.)

16 MS. BEHLING: Can you hear me?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Maybe 

18 folks, somebody has their cell on.

19 MS. BEHLING: I hear crackling again. 

20 So do you want me to continue?

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It seems hard. 

22 Let's wait a second. Does anybody have a cell 
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 phone nearby that may be feeding in?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: How about everybody 

3 mute from their --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Let's all 

5 mute.

6 MS. BEHLING: Should we call back in?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we 

8 should. Yes.

9 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, folks. 

11 We'll all call back in. Sorry.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

13 went off the record at 2:22 p.m.)

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, what were 

15 we doing? Is Wanda back?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I am.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. She's 

18 not the culprit either.

19 MR. KATZ: And David?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, David's on I 

21 think. Right?

22 MR. KATZ: Good.
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BEHLING: Okay, so I -- can I 

2 continue?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please do.

4 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I was going to 

5 just also say with regard to the [identifying 

6 information redacted] dose, Method B was about 2.8 

7 times lower and that was because that method 

8 assumed one positive dose in 1969 and used the 

9 [identifying information redacted] DCF as opposed 

10 to NIOSH assuming that there were three positive 

11 values throughout the years and used a DCF of one, 

12 which was overestimating a function with using the 

13 DCF of one.

14 If we go on to missed dose in Section 

15 2.1.2, here again, Method A, the differences in 

16 dose here was that Method A assumed an LOD of 15 

17 milligrams --

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. But 

19 someone is in a shopping area or something and if 

20 you could just mute your phone.

21 MS. BEHLING: Okay, there we go. Back 

22 to the missed photon and electron doses, if you look 
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 at Table 2.4, Method A assumed an LOD of 15 millirem 

2 based on information in the Portsmouth TBD, whereas 

3 NIOSH and SC&A's Method B assumed a 30 milligram 

4 LOD, which comes from OTIB-17, which is your 

5 assessment for skin doses. So that's what created 

6 the difference in the missed photon and electron 

7 doses.

8 Now, here's where we go to some 

9 professional judgment. And again, this is 

10 unmonitored external doses, Section 2.1.3 and 

11 Table 2.5.

12 Everyone assumed that the individual 

13 was unmonitored between 1970 and 1979, and assumed 

14 that there should be coworker data used to fill in 

15 that unmonitored period. And they all used the 

16 OTIB-40, which is the external coworker data for 

17 Portsmouth.

18 However, Method A and NIOSH assumed 

19 that this worker fell into the 50th percentile 

20 category, while Method B assumed that this worker, 

21 being a sheet metal worker, would perhaps fall into 

22 the 95th percentile category.
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 And again, NIOSH used the DCF of one, 

2 where the others used the DCF values associated as

3 appropriate for that under the implementation 

4 Guide 1.

5 Occupational medical dose. Again 

6 here, there are some differences. Again, all of 

7 the B methods used the TBD for assessing -- that's 

8 Table 2.6 -- used the TBD, Portsmouth TBD, Section 

9 3, for calculating the medical doses. However, 

10 differences in the dose was that SC&A's Method A 

11 assumed an annual frequency based on information 

12 in Table 3.1 of the Technical Basis Document.

13 And Method B and NIOSH only assigned 

14 doses for documented. And, in fact, in looking 

15 through the records, I think Method B came up with 

16 ten X-rays and NIOSH came up with 12, so there was 

17 a little bit of discrepancy between how they 

18 interpreted the records.

19 Also, it's interesting with a skin 

20 dose, because you have to select various areas and 

21 various sites. Each method maybe selected a 

22 different site and NIOSH used the entrance skin 
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 dose prior to 1970 and used the eye/brain as a 

2 surrogate for the skin cancers on the [identifying 

3 information redacted] and the [identifying 

4 information redacted].

5 They used the thyroid as a surrogate 

6 organ for the [identifying information redacted]. 

7 And just standard skin for the cancers on the 

8 [identifying information redacted] and the 

9 [identifying information redacted]. So there was 

10 some differences in the selection of where the 

11 particular site of the various cancers, skin 

12 cancers, were. The only method --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy, you're 

14 fading for me.

15 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Is that any 

16 better?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A little better. 

18 How about others?

19 MEMBER BEACH: We're fine here.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, she sounds fine here,

21 too.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 
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 fine then. Keep going. I can hear you.

2 MR. BEHLING: Okay. I'll speak up. 

3 The only method that calculated dose from potential 

4 skin contamination was Method B. They based that 

5 on assuming a hundred hours per year of potential 

6 skin contamination from uranium and technetium-99. 

7 And that resulted in somewhere between one and two 

8 rem.

9 Now we go to internal. Internal skin 

10 doses were very similar between Method A and NIOSH. 

11 Method B did not calculate that. Difference in the 

12 [identifying information redacted] dose for the 

13 uranium had to do -- it basically comes down to the 

14 various assumptions used regarding how they're 

15 going to fit the data.

16 For Method A, they assumed a chronic 

17 exposure period between 67 and 85 at the LOD level. 

18 They assumed Type M, because he felt that there was 

19 also a lung count, and he felt that using a Type 

20 S, the lung count would have bounded to using a Type 

21 M. And Method A also accounted for recycled 

22 uranium components.
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 Method B considered three different 

2 intake regimes and calculated a chronic intake from 

3 67 through 75 at one-half the LOD value, also added 

4 the recycled uranium component where NIOSH assumed 

5 a chronic intake period based on one-half the LOD 

6 throughout the employment period and also assumed 

7 there was one bioassay in 1977 that was right at 

8 the LOD level. And so they assumed that that was 

9 an acute intake and calculated doses based on that 

10 and also added in the recycled uranium component.

11 So it comes down to that the internal 

12 doses differed resulting from interpretation of 

13 the records. You know, whether it was acute on 

14 that 1977 or whether that should all be considered 

15 chronic.

16 Also, the selection of the sorption 

17 types. Those Method B, I didn't mention is that 

18 NIOSH in Method B assumed Type S absorption and just 

19 a fitting procedure, whether it was a chronic or 

20 acute.

21 So, really, the major difference was 

22 the issue of the selection of 50th versus 95th 
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 percentile value from the coworker external data.

2 So that pretty much sums up this first 

3 one. And the reason that Method B went over the 

4 50th percentile was because of selecting the 95th 

5 percentile for the coworker.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: So, Kathy, this is John. I 

8 think that, you know, the level of granularity here 

9 is amazing in terms of the level of detail done in 

10 comparison.

11 But what I'm hearing is, it really boils 

12 down to, the major difference was this judgment on 

13 95th versus 50th percentile. And I know that 

14 there's guidance out there by one of the OTIBs of 

15 when you use 95th percentile and when you use the 

16 full distribution.

17 And I guess, is it your opinion that 

18 there's enough ambiguity in interpreting and using 

19 that guidance, that reasonable people could very 

20 well come to different decisions regarding whether 

21 the 95th or the 50th should be used?

22 And if that's the case, that is a bit 
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 of a problem, because then you have inconsistent 

2 approaches, which could have a substantial effect, 

3 as we see here.

4 MS. BEHLING: I'm going to ask NIOSH to 

5 weigh in on this, but when we're talking about sheet 

6 metal workers, wouldn't they be plant type workers 

7 or does it have to be more of operations type 

8 people? I really, I'm not quite sure.

9 But I do ask myself, this is something 

10 I think that -- that's why I wanted to discuss this 

11 case so that we could have a better understanding 

12 of, does a sheet metal worker fall into what you 

13 would consider a 95th percentile?

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I mean, 

15 I can give you answer as to why we did what we did.

16 MR. BEHLING: Okay.

17 MR. SIEBERT: In this case, we were 

18 talking about two different things. In this case, 

19 we're talking about somebody who was monitored for 

20 some of the period and was not monitored for other 

21 parts of the period. But it doesn't appear their 

22 job classification really changed.
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And in a case like that, what we will 

2 normally do is look at the time frame they actually 

3 were being monitored and see if it lines up 

4 reasonably with the 50th percentile or the 95th 

5 percentile.

6 Because the thought process really 

7 isn't that suddenly they pulled his badge and 

8 started exposing him at a much higher rate. So we 

9 looked for what was relatively consistent.

10 And, just like SC&A Method A, it seemed 

11 to be more reasonable that the 50th percentile was 

12 indicative of what he was being exposed to when we 

13 were monitoring him or when he was being monitored 

14 within the 95th percentile. So that's the thought 

15 process that went into this one.

16 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I can also 

17 understand why Method B would perhaps select the 

18 95th percentile, if you're considering that this 

19 individual started out being a sheet metal worker, 

20 person in the plant and then ultimately a 

21 [identifying information redacted].

22 And so, I guess, like I said, that's the 
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 dilemma as to how do you classify this type of 

2 person. But I think looking at the previous 

3 records or looking at the dose records also is an 

4 appropriate way to determine if it's 50th or 95th 

5 percentile values that should be used.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes-- this is Brad. I 

7 thought you always went to the most 

8 claimant-favorable process. This is a prime 

9 example of, you know, these are judgments that 

10 these people are having to make.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: And I'll tell you 

13 right now, from my standpoint, as being in the 

14 operations, we have sheet metal workers in cells 

15 with us and everything else like that, but we even 

16 have some of the foremen are in there because 

17 there's a problem, things like this. So it's one 

18 of those things.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, Dave, but 

20 I understood Method A and NIOSH were the, their 

21 comparison if you're using the same methodology, 

22 the B is not to check on whether NIOSH did it 
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 correctly.

2 It's -- well, it is, but it's a 

3 different methodology and we are no longer using 

4 B in now from the 5th, during the current grant 

5 period.

6 So, to me, A and the fact that NIOSH 

7 agree -- and A -- NIOSH and A agree, seems to make 

8 me comfortable they're trying the same methods, 

9 following the same rules, and they're getting the 

10 same answers.

11 MS. BEHLING: If I can just interject 

12 for a second and --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. BEHLING: I don't mean to put Doug 

15 Farver on the spot here but, because this goes back 

16 a long way and I don't know if he's prepared to 

17 answer this question, but he was the person that 

18 did SC&A's Method A. And I don't know, Doug, if 

19 you recall what your thought process was in 

20 selecting the 50th as opposed to the 95th. Perhaps 

21 Doug can give us some insight. You on the phone, 

22 Doug?
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Give him a 

2 second to get off of mute. Doug?

3 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I hope he's on the 

4 line, because he was going to discuss some of the 

5 later blinds.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe he just 

7 stepped away for a second.

8 MR. KATZ: Maybe someone could pop him 

9 an email just to, or I'll send him an email, but 

10 --

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: If you have a different 

13 email for him, you might try him with yours, too.

14 MS. BEHLING: I will do that. Okay. 

15 So I'm just presenting the different methodologies 

16 and, like I said, I don't know. I didn't actually 

17 go back because, as I said, it has been a while into 

18 the TBD to reread whether there's any very clear 

19 and concise -- it's never clear, I guess, to 

20 determine if it's 50th or 95th, but I don't know 

21 how specific the guidance is in the Portsmouth TBD.

22 MEMBER BEACH: That seems to be a 
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 problem that should be clearer.

2 DR. MAURO: Kathy, this is John. Your 

3 PoC for A, did that come in above 50 percent?

4 MS. BEHLING: No, it didn't. That 

5 came 49.

6 DR. MAURO: The only one that came in 

7 above 50 percent was --

8 MS. BEHLING: Method B.

9 DR. MAURO: Was B.

10 MR. FARVER: Hello, hello? Hi, this 

11 is Doug.

12 MS. BEHLING: Hi, Doug.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay, I'll leave you to 

15 talk.

16 MR. FARVER: Okay. I was my pushing my 

17 mute button on and off and that phone wasn't 

18 working, so I had to switch phones.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh.

20 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to talk to you 

21 and nothing was happening. Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MR. FARVER: But I was going to tell 

2 you, the short answer is I do not remember off the 

3 top of my head why I selected 50th percentile. I 

4 would have to go back and look at my report.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. SEIBERT: This is Scott. I'll 

7 just say once again, if you'll notice, there were 

8 only three years where the individual even had 

9 positive external dose. All other years that he 

10 was monitored were all zeros. So that doesn't seem 

11 to indicate a 95th percentile exposure.

12 MR. FARVER: If it's important to the 

13 Subcommittee, I can go back and look at my original 

14 report and see what I wrote in it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I don't 

16 know. I feel like we've talked about not using B, 

17 because B uses different methodology. It doesn't 

18 try to reproduce what NIOSH did, but tries to start 

19 fresh from, whatever, a good basic approach. In 

20 which case, I don't see the issue. I don't see that 

21 it's an important issue.

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I, you 
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 know what, I understand where everybody's going, 

2 but this is one of the reasons why, when we get into 

3 this professional judgment, it is so difficult and 

4 so -- here we see a case like this and because of, 

5 I believe, it's one decision. Correct, Kathy? To 

6 go from 50 to 95?

7 MS. BEHLING: Correct.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Made it comparable or 

9 not?

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes, that was the driver, 

11 I believe, yes.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: All I'm saying is I 

13 want us to look at this and understand that this 

14 is why so many times when we're looking at little 

15 small things that change here or there or thought 

16 processes, it can make a difference and we don't 

17 see the outcome like this. I think this is very 

18 useful, in my opinion.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. SEIBERT: This is Scott again. I 

21 went back to the original report. And in Method 

22 A, it says the 50th percentile doses were chosen 
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 as a best estimate of the EE dose, since he was 

2 likely exposed to intermittent low levels of 

3 external radiation.

4 MS. BEHLING: And that does make sense 

5 in this particular case, in my view, because of the

6 existing records. As Scott indicated, there was 

7 only three years of positive doses and so I guess 

8 it wouldn't be necessarily unreasonable.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And they were 

10 discussing --

11 MR. CALHOUN: I imagine that their 50th 

12 percentile doses aside were higher than any of the 

13 doses when he was actually monitored.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: That's key. Correct, 

16 yes. If you go to 95 percentile, you're just 

17 simply making things up.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Wait a minute. I 

19 think we do that quite a bit. We're taking a lot 

20 of guesses here.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, when you have a --

22 MEMBER CLAWSON: You can't tell me that 
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 what he did was -- we're making a guess. We're 

2 using a, I guess you could even say we're making 

3 a professional judgment on this individual. He 

4 may have, in the earlier years, been subjected to 

5 a lot that he wasn't. We don't know. We're 

6 guessing, I think, quite a bit.

7 MEMBER MUNN: What we're doing is we're 

8 basing our judgment on the facts that are before 

9 us. For us not to do that would be to be 

10 essentially refuting all of the recordkeeping that 

11 had been done.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Or lack of.

13 MEMBER MUNN: We have the record on 

14 this particular worker.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: We've got a fair 

16 amount of record, yes. And I agree with that. 

17 But we're taking that and spreading that over a long 

18 period of time and we're telling everybody this is, 

19 you know, this is our best guess.

20 And we have not, you know, this -- this 

21 slide of the TBD is why we go into such great detail 

22 with them and get as much information as we can.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Other 

2 questions?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, I guess, for me, 

4 it just goes back to, is there clear guidance and 

5 should there be clear guidance on which percent you 

6 use. So it's not left up to such a judgment, a 

7 professional judgment.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: It's always going 

9 to be a professional judgment. Because there's so 

10 many factors that come into play. And you've got 

11 to remember, too, that this guy was, I believe, he 

12 was monitored, in fact, in the earlier parts of his 

13 career and then he wasn't.

14 So that's even more indicative that he 

15 moved to a job or moved to an area, even if it might 

16 have been the same category, where he just wasn't 

17 getting dosed or they didn't see any need to 

18 monitor.

19 MR. SEIBERT: That is correct. He was 

20 monitored on either side of the gap. That is 

21 correct.

22 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. In 
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 OTIB-40, which is the external coworker dosimetry 

2 data document, under -- it does give guidance for 

3 selecting the 50th percentile or 95th percentile 

4 under Section 7. So there's some guidance given. 

5 If you want, I could read it to you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, could you?

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. There's a table, 

8 so it talks about the table below. These 

9 percentile doses should be used for selected PGDP 

10 workers with no or limited monitoring data using 

11 the methodologies outlined in Section 7 of OTIB-20.

12 In general, the 50th percentile dose 

13 may be used as a best estimate of a worker's dose 

14 when professional judgment indicates the worker 

15 was likely exposed to intermittent low levels of 

16 external radiation.

17 The 50th percentile dose should not be 

18 used for workers who were routinely exposed. For 

19 routinely exposed workers, i.e. workers who were 

20 expected to have been monitored, the 95th 

21 percentile dose should be applied.

22 For workers who are unlikely to have 
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 been exposed, external on-site ambient dose should 

2 be used rather than coworker doses. So that's the 

3 one bullet, Number 5.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Thank you.

5 MR. CALHOUN: And, Doug, you're 

6 correct. And that comes, also that's just pulled 

7 right out of OTIB-20. The guidance that talks 

8 about assigning a coworker.

9 MR. FARVER: So that would be the 

10 reason I would, my guess is, that I assigned it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that was 

12 what NIOSH would have followed, as well.

13 MS. BEHLING: However, I will say, 

14 after reading that guidance, you can understand why 

15 there would still be some question, in a dose 

16 reconstructor's mind, perhaps, as to -- because it 

17 was simply, if I understood it correctly, it's 

18 simply saying, if he had been monitored, and maybe 

19 I'm misunderstanding what was said, but if he was 

20 routinely monitored and should have been 

21 monitored, perhaps some thought to the 95th is 

22 appropriate.
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 Now, as I'm saying, in this particular 

2 case, because we're looking at relatively low 

3 doses, but he was monitored before and he was 

4 monitored after, so after hearing that, I could 

5 understand why there would still be some need for 

6 professional judgment. And it's not very clear as 

7 to which way you would go with that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So what is 

9 our conclusion? Do the two blinds agree or not. 

10 Do the blinds agree?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. If we're going 

13 off beta, I'd say no.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: The whole thing comes 

16 down to you're going to want the best judgment that 

17 they run into with this. And I can understand what 

18 they're doing on this, but I just -- we are looking 

19 at this. It's interesting. We use the data when 

20 we can and we have to do other. This is a 

21 monumental task that these guys have to go through.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: I guess that's why 

2 we're still debating with the issue of professional 

3 judgment.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Other 

5 folks? I think there's a -- I mean, my feeling is 

6 there's agreement.

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And, as I said in 

8 this particular case, just based on the doses, I 

9 would agree. And especially if the 50th 

10 percentile doses are even higher than the actual 

11 monitored doses. Perhaps there could be a little 

12 bit more clarity put into the coworker guidance, 

13 dose guidance, but --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MS. BEHLING: -- in this particular 

16 case, I have to say I would agree that the 50th is 

17 probably appropriate.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. To 

20 help out a little bit, to make this -- I'm the Method 

21 B guy. And listening to the arguments, I have to 

22 agree.
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 When I made the judgment to go with 90th 

2 percentile, some of the considerations I just heard 

3 are certainly reasonable. And if I were to do it 

4 over again, I'd probably go with the 50th 

5 percentile. So I'm just trying to help --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 DR. MAURO: -- everyone get 

8 comfortable with the decision that is being made 

9 right now. Because I think that the arguments that 

10 were made by NIOSH and by Kathy -- you should also 

11 realize that when we used to do the A and B, the 

12 A people did not talk to the B people. They let 

13 each person --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

15 DR. MAURO: Which is good. And I think 

16 in this particular case, we did do the B. I know 

17 we don't do it any longer. But it is sort of 

18 indicative of what could happen and I'm sort of glad 

19 that we did A and B here.

20 And I'm happy to listen in, and I'm glad 

21 to hear that my assumption was probably the wrong 

22 one. Because I think that the arguments made by 
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 NIOSH are compelling and, you know, so that may help 

2 everyone get comfortable with this because it's a 

3 tough one. Because --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: -- it's a reversal 

6 situation.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, exactly.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, so --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's why it's 

10 so important.

11 DR. MAURO: I am now hearing, you know, 

12 hearing the arguments. And the way I'm listening 

13 to them now, I'm sold that I should have went with 

14 the 50th percentile as opposed to the 95th 

15 percentile.

16 MEMBER BEACH: John, that's helpful 

17 for me. This is Josie. Thanks.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, it is, 

20 also. So we concluded that there is agreement and 

21 unless -- do I hear objections? Except Brad 

22 certainly objected or disagreed. Any other? 
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 Brad, what do you think?

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: What's that? I'm 

3 sorry, I couldn't hear you.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry. 

5 I said, Brad, do you feel comfortable --

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I do.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then we 

8 have agreement, I think. All of us. David, I 

9 didn't hear from you, but I'll accept that as 

10 agreement.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay. If you'd like, I'll 

12 go on to the X-10 case.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS.BEHLING: There's some interesting 

15 aspects to this also. And I'll have those, or 

16 whoever, someone pull it up.

17 This particular case, the individual 

18 worked at Y-12 between [identifying information 

19 redacted] and then at the X-10, the Oak Ridge 

20 National Lab facility, from [identifying 

21 information redacted].

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we skipped 
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 those. We skipped quickly over the overall 

2 picture, but NIOSH A and, excuse me, SC&A A and 

3 NIOSH disagreed on the 50th percentile, right? 

4 They disagreed on compensation.

5 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Both SC&A's Method 

6 A and SC&A's Method B --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's right.

8 MS. BEHLING: -- were greater than 50 

9 and NIOSH came in under 50.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And, in 

11 fact, A and B are close to agreement on some basic 

12 level.

13 MS. BEHLING: Yes. And we will get to 

14 those issues.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay.

16 MS. BEHLING: Again, judgment calls. 

17 The individual worked in various job categories. 

18 [Identifying information redacted], on and on, and 

19 was diagnosed with [identifying information 

20 redacted] carcinoma in 1982.

21 Now for the -- and I'll quickly -- yes, 

22 there's Table 1-1 that shows you the doses and I'll 
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 just highlight for you the occupational medical 

2 dose. You can see there's quite a difference 

3 between Method A and the other two methods.

4 And also, the Method B internal dose is 

5 quite a bit higher, and we will get to those issues. 

6 But when it came to the -- and I'll just mention 

7 to you that NIOSH and Method A used the urinary 

8 bladder as the target organ for this particular 

9 cancer, where Method B used the liver. It's just 

10 an interesting side note. But currently, I think 

11 the current OTIB-5 now uses the liver for the 

12 [identifying information redacted] carcinoma.

13 Also have to mention that there was an 

14 SEC at the Y-12 facility, so for this individual's 

15 employment between 1944 and 1947, due to the SEC, 

16 the external dose prior to '48 NIOSH in Method A 

17 only used medical dose. Method B assigned a 

18 medical dose and an on-site ambient dose.

19 If we look at Table 2.1, again here are 

20 the comparison of the parameters that were used. 

21 Pretty much everyone used a best estimate. 

22 Assumed pretty, you know, a close -- yes, I'm sorry. 
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 Method A and NIOSH used a dosimeter correction 

2 factor.

3 Again, the differences are going to be 

4 in the organ DCFs with SC&A Method A using the 

5 bladder and NIOSH using the bladder. The only 

6 difference there is that NIOSH broke up the energy 

7 ranges of 25 percent per 3250, which has a 1.244 

8 DCF value.

9 And they assumed that 75 percent of the 

10 dose was greater than 30-250 keV, which actually 

11 has a DCF of .883. So that will explain the 

12 difference in some of the doses.

13 If we go to the recorded doses shown in 

14 Table 2-2 --

15 MR. SEIBERT: Hey, Kathy? I'm sorry. 

16 This is just a point for the -- this is Scott.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

18 MR. SEIBERT: I'm just asking the 

19 Subcommittee, so this one has more differences than 

20 the last one. The last one, really the only 

21 difference was the 50th and 95th percentile.

22 Do you want Kathy to go all the way 
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 through and then go back and discuss each one 

2 separately or would you like me to address these 

3 as we go through? I can do it either way. I just 

4 wanted to let you know, whatever is better for you 

5 guys.

6 MS. BEHLING: I will leave that up to 

7 the Subcommittee.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Myself, I'd like to 

9 address them as we go through them, because it would 

10 be kind of hard to recap back a little bit. But 

11 that's just my opinion.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay, Scott. If that's 

13 the agreement of the Subcommittee, I'll let you 

14 chime in. Just interrupt me any time.

15 MR. SEIBERT: Yes, I'm sorry to do that. 

16 So we already talked about the use of the organs 

17 and that was the changing OTIB-5. And I think we 

18 already agreed that it was done correctly at the 

19 time. And then OTIB-5 changed the organ of

20 interest.

21 And just one thing I want to point out 

22 on that is that the change to the organ of interest 
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 being the liver rather than the bladder, it reduced 

2 the DCF.

3 MS. BEHLING: Correct.

4 MR. SIEBERT: So there was no reason to 

5 go back and do a PER or anything of the sort on this 

6 one.

7 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: The next one is the 

9 discussion of the energy ranges, which is why I 

10 stopped you at that point.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

12 MR. SEIBERT: The reason we used the 

13 energy range up until, I believe it was, 1962 of 

14 the split of 25 percent, 30 to, 250 keV, and then 

15 75 percent at the over 250 keV, is because we based 

16 it on the actual locations of the EE as came out 

17 of the bioassay records and the various records 

18 that we had within there.

19 The other thing that really drives --

20 and in '62 on, we actually used the hundred percent 

21 30-50 keV just like you guys did.

22 MS. BEHLING: That's correct, yes.
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 MR. SEIBERT: The other, the big thing 

2 for me to point out on that is if you go to the actual 

3 TBD and look at the facilities, there's only two 

4 facilities that have a hundred percent 30-50 keV 

5 as the energy split. Almost everything else is 25 

6 and 75 percent or a hundred percent in the greater 

7 range.

8 And those two facilities are 4508, 

9 which is what we assumed after 1962, and a storage 

10 facility vault for special nuclear materials.

11 Both of those in the attachment in the 

12 TBD do not have, they're not open until, they don't 

13 that have range until the early 1960s anyway. So 

14 prior to the early 60s, there are no facilities that 

15 would be 30 to 250 a hundred percent. So that's 

16 why we used what we did.

17 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I agree. In 

18 fact, we go to the bioassay records also to try to 

19 determine where this individual worked to get a 

20 best estimate as to where that is. And I think that 

21 that was appropriate.

22 As you can see in Table 2.1, where I have 
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 identified work locations, Method A and B of the 

2 SC&A both assumed that he was in building 4508 and 

3 the metal and ceramic labs throughout most of the 

4 employment period.

5 So that is why I believe that they 

6 assumed a hundred percent, 30 to 250, but I do 

7 understand and agree with NIOSH's assumption.

8 Okay. If I go on, under the missed 

9 photon doses on Table 2-3, again, I guess there is 

10 some difference in interpretation of the records. 

11 And I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong here, 

12 Scott, but it's pretty much a difference in 

13 assessing whether it's a zero dose or a blank and 

14 how that gets counted for the missed dose.

15 SC&A's Method A interpreted, or 

16 counted, 332 missed doses. Method B counted 450 

17 missed doses or doses that were less than half the 

18 LOD value.

19 And NIOSH counted 406 missed doses. 

20 And again, the differences in DCF values is what 

21 created the difference that we see in Table 2-3. 

22 Anything to add, Scott?
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 MR. SEIBERT: Yes. I would agree it 

2 does have to do with the counting of blanks versus 

3 zeros. And there is guidance in the TBD for X-10 

4 on how to handle those things.

5 One thing I will point out and I'll 

6 admit, if you look at -- I believe that Method B 

7 probably has the best number of zeros, 450.

8 Going back and looking at the claim, we 

9 had 406, and when I went back and looked at it, we've 

10 actually done this claim under PER for Super S 

11 plutonium.

12 We looked at that and there was a period 

13 in '49 and '50 where there would be approximately 

14 42 additional zeros that probably should have been 

15 counted, which would bring our number almost 

16 exactly the same as Method B.

17 So I think Method B probably has the 

18 best number on that case and we realized what the 

19 issue was. And we had actually done it correctly 

20 in the PER when we corrected it for Super S. So 

21 we would agree with that number, once we redid the 

22 work.
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 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Well, I'm glad to 

2 hear that you did go back and we haven't gotten to 

3 it yet, but I did point out in this report that at 

4 the time that we were comparing or making this 

5 comparison, the OTIB-49 guidance was not in effect. 

6 And so, NIOSH did not look at the Super S.

7 But when I went back into the records 

8 just recently, I didn't see where this case was 

9 reworked, but obviously you said that it was 

10 reworked. So I'm glad to hear that, because that 

11 was going to be a comment when we got to the internal 

12 section.

13 Okay, now here, when we get into the 

14 occupational medical doses on Table 2-4, here again 

15 I think we can consider this again professional 

16 judgment.

17 The reason that Method A's doses were 

18 so much higher is because Method A assumed that this 

19 worker was, quote, a craft worker and therefore 

20 assumed that they would have received a lumbar 

21 spine X-ray between 1950 and 1953. And that added 

22 13 rem to the occupational medical dose.
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 And in the case of NIOSH and Method B, 

2 they assumed a PGF for those years. So, Scott, I 

3 don't know if you have anything to add to that.

4 MR. SEIBERT: Yes. And you're right. 

5 It does have to do with craft worker assumption. 

6 And looking at the, what this claimant is listed 

7 as, I mean, I'm seeing [identifying information 

8 redacted], lab technician.

9 Nothing really suggested to us that he 

10 was a craft worker that would be moving things like 

11 that, which is the reason I would assume that they 

12 would getting a lumbar spine. So there was no 

13 indication to us that those type of exams would have 

14 been appropriate.

15 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I'm just seeing, 

16 though, that he was a [identifying information 

17 redacted] for one month in 1948. And then 

18 [identifying information redacted]. So, you 

19 know, various job categories, so.

20 Anyway, that was the difference in that 

21 particular dose. And I'll move on. We can get 

22 back to that.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 On-site ambient dose --

2 (Telephonic interference.)

3 Nothing much there.

4 Now, occupational internal. Due to 

5 the SEC at Y-12, SC&A and NIOSH did not assign any 

6 internal prior to '48. The individual did have 

7 numerous urine bioassays, about 53.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sorry. I was on 

9 -- oh, you said 52 millirem. I read .052 millirem.

10 MS. BEHLING: Oh, you are right. I'm 

11 sorry. It was such a low dose.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fine. 

13 Yes, good, good.

14 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry I misread that.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MS. BEHLING: Thank you.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good, 

18 good. I'm just --

19 MS. BEHLING: Okay. So --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But go on.

21 MS. BEHLING: You needed the 

22 correction. Now --
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MS. BEHLING: If we go to Table 2.5, 

3 again, a lot of the differences in the dose here, 

4 and I'm not going to make judgment as to which is 

5 right and which is wrong, but it was the intake 

6 regimes that were selected by the various methods 

7 that were used.

8 For the plutonium dose, Method A 

9 assumed one chronic and three acute intake periods. 

10 They also assumed for the plutonium, the Super S. 

11 And as we were just talking, at the time, NIOSH did 

12 not have the OTIB-49 guidance in place.

13 Method B went in and looked at numerous 

14 intake regimes and ended up with one chronic period 

15 for '48 through '50 and seven acute periods, also 

16 considered Super S after 1955.

17 NIOSH assumed two chronic intake 

18 periods and two acute periods. And they looked at 

19 that fitted dose and compared it to missed dose and 

20 compared year by year and assigned the highest for 

21 each year. And again, no Super S dose was 

22 considered.
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 Now when it came to the uranium dose --

2 MR. SEIBERT: Can I go ahead and talk 

3 about plutonium?

4 MS. BEHLING: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

5 MR. SEIBERT: That's okay.

6 MS. BEHLING: Go ahead.

7 MR. SEIBERT: I know, you're excited 

8 about internal. I am too. The plutonium, if you 

9 notice, and Kathy did a great job pointing this out, 

10 SC&A A and NIOSH, even though they're slightly 

11 different from the methodology point of view, they 

12 actually do come up with darn close to the same 

13 dose, if you take out the idea of Super S, which 

14 was not in place at the time.

15 The way you would deal with Super S is 

16 basically a factor of four. That's a 

17 simplification, but it would be approximately a 

18 factor of four.

19 So if you look at the NIOSH dose in Table 

20 2-5, where it's just over 200 millirem, and the SC&A 

21 Method A is at a little over 800 millirem, once we 

22 applied Super S in the PER, those two numbers lined 
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 up relatively well. So those are very close 

2 agreement.

3 Method B, however, you can see, 

4 obviously, is the outlier here. We didn't have the 

5 files for how Method B actually created their 

6 intakes and so on, so I spent a lot of time trying 

7 to recreate it.

8 And what I came up with is, it appears 

9 that each of those intake regimes was assessed 

10 individually, separately. So the intake regime 1 

11 was calculated in intake and then regime 2 was 

12 calculated without taking into account that there 

13 already was a regime 1.

14 MS. BEHLING: That's correct.

15 MR. SEIBERT: And that is a huge issue 

16 in that if you don't take into account earlier 

17 intake regimes, you're going to over-predict later 

18 bioassay.

19 In this case, just by going through 

20 those dates and those intake quantities, when I 

21 projected out the last two bioassay samples, it 

22 overestimated them by a factor of approximately 8 
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 and 24.

2 So that's the main issue. The 

3 difference with the, the plutonium difference in 

4 B, is that it was just assessed very differently 

5 without taking into account previous intake 

6 regimes, which would not be our method.

7 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. And 

8 that we're also going to see the same issue with 

9 the strontium and fission product doses.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

11 MS. BEHLING: The uranium doses were 

12 all very close and so I won't go into details, but, 

13 as Scott is saying, for the strontium and fission 

14 product doses, Method A used two chronic periods, 

15 as shown in Table 2-11. Compared types F and S and 

16 eliminated any doses obviously less than one 

17 milligram.

18 Let me see here. What else did we do? 

19 It looked like we did some coworker doses. And 

20 then we assumed -- the associated radionuclides for 

21 the fission products for Method A.

22 And let me go back and just -- I think 
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 the method, no, no. I was going to say Method A 

2 and NIOSH were similar, but they weren't. And 

3 we'll let Scott explain that.

4 But what happened with Method B is they 

5 assumed 11 independent continuous periods, '51 

6 through '53, as you can see in Table 2-14. And I'm 

7 sure, as Scott's going to tell you, because of 

8 looking at them independently and not considering 

9 the previous intake regime, that is what resulted 

10 in the very significant dose.

11 They also, Method B also looked at some 

12 ingestion from '48 to '50, but that really explains 

13 why the 29 rem was very much different than the 

14 other approaches.

15 MR. SEIBERT: That is part of the 

16 issue. The other issue, which is also the reason 

17 you see a difference between the NIOSH and the 

18 Method A for data -- go ahead.

19 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry. Go ahead, 

20 Scott. I didn't mean to interrupt.

21 MR. SIEBERT: No, that's okay. The 

22 main difference that I see there is NIOSH assumed 
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 a Type F fast-clearing solubility type, and SC&A 

2 assumed Type S slow clearing.

3 The issue there is Type S is only for 

4 strontium titanate and there are very few places 

5 on-site at X-10 that had that. Actually, there's 

6 only one location, Building 3517, where that 

7 material was handled.

8 So the assumption is unless you can tie 

9 them into that area or have an indication that they 

10 could have been exposed to strontium titanate that

11 is not an option for doing Type S strontium.

12 When you look at the actual strontium 

13 doses, it doesn't impact it that much. But if you 

14 look at the intakes, there will be a much larger 

15 intake of Type F strontium, which when you then 

16 compare and put the other radionuclides that can 

17 be ratioed to it, it makes them basically multiple 

18 times larger.

19 I don't have the number, but I want to 

20 say they're 30 or 40 times larger, which gives you 

21 the much larger doses. And they're based on that 

22 strontium titanate, which is not an option for 
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 uptake at that point.

2 MS. BEHLING: I agree. I agree. And 

3 I guess the difference between Method A and NIOSH's 

4 strontium-90 dose is that they also, Method A also 

5 considered some coworker dose between 1971 and 1975 

6 -- internal coworker dose unmonitored for the 

7 strontium-90.

8 MR. SEIBERT: Right. And that was a 

9 very minuscule difference. And, yes, I agree.

10 MS. BEHLING: Yes.

11 MR. SEIBERT: But I think we pretty 

12 much agree on that.

13 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And that's pretty 

14 much the summary. Like I said, I thought the 

15 biggest issue was whether you classify this 

16 individual as a craft worker with regard to the 

17 medical doses, because that's really what drove 

18 Method A into indicating that the dose, or that the 

19 PoC would be greater than 50.

20 So again, as Scott and I mentioned, this 

21 is a judgment call based on what type of worker was 

22 he? Was he considered a craft worker, based on the 
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 job categories that we've identified?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And we have no 

3 way of knowing.

4 MS. BEHLING: And again, I will defer 

5 to Doug. Again, I don't mean to put you on the 

6 spot, Doug, but I guess you could be the best one 

7 to explain why you felt that this person was a craft 

8 worker.

9 MR. FARVER: I just found my old 

10 reports from this. I'm going to try and find out 

11 why.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And if you go 

13 back, Rose, to prior to this Table 2.1, I think I 

14 list all of the job functions that this individual 

15 -- right there. I've highlighted them.

16 And I guess, again, it's difficult for 

17 me to tell, but laboratory technician I wouldn't 

18 necessarily think was a craft worker. Science 

19 technologist, I don't know.

20 As we're talking about doses, we're 

21 talking about medical doses associated with the 

22 X-10 facility.
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 MR. FARVER: Kathy, I'm having a hard 

2 time finding my original report, so I don't want 

3 to take up everyone's time.

4 MS. BEHLING: Right. And in this 

5 particular case, like I said, I can also 

6 understand, from Scott's perspective, saying 

7 trainee, I don't know, repairman, mechanic. 

8 Although that was Y-12, I'm sorry. We need to look 

9 at the Oak Ridge data. So patrolman, store 

10 attendant, security guard. I can understand, I 

11 guess, why I would not have considered him a craft 

12 worker.

13 MR. SEIBERT: And, Doug, I happen to be 

14 looking at it right now, just to help you out. 

15 There really isn't -- I'm looking at that section. 

16 There really isn't a reason to say why you did 

17 assume that in that report.

18 It just says, in addition, it was 

19 assumed that the EE received lumbar spine X-ray 

20 series from '50 to '53. So, and your report 

21 doesn't really give that information, if you're 

22 looking for that, that I can see.
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 MR. FARVER: Okay, thanks.

2 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hi, this is David.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Another way of 

5 looking at this, my guess, is, is there not clear 

6 guidance right now on the definition of a craft 

7 worker or what job titles or set of job titles fall 

8 into that? Is that correct?

9 MS. BEHLING: I'm going to ask NIOSH, 

10 perhaps.

11 MR. SEIBERT: Yes. I mean, I'm going 

12 to tell you that X-10 is not my site, so I can't 

13 tell you from the specific X-10 point of view. 

14 However, from a generic point of view, it falls 

15 under the same thought process as the construction 

16 trade worker, OTIB-52.

17 And that does list various types of 

18 individuals. Laborers, mechanics, masons, 

19 carpenters, pipe fitters, painters, boilermakers. 

20 It gives that type of information. And this person 

21 just doesn't seem to fit into those categories.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Dave, it seems 
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 to me that this is a case where there is not 

2 agreement. That is, that it would flip depending 

3 on which perspective you had.

4 Because the person's working in so many 

5 different types of jobs and we don't have detailed 

6 information about what's involved with each, 

7 right? I mean, I think this is the one that I would 

8 accept as there was not agreement between NIOSH and 

9 SC&A on the blind.

10 Well, how do others think? What do 

11 others think? Excuse me.

12 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Well, I guess what 

13 I was getting at is there's an advantage in, to the 

14 extent possible, having clarity in the definition 

15 of rules or categories so that you have 

16 reproducibility in decision making.

17 And it may just be sitting on the place 

18 where, you know, I think there's one of two ways 

19 of doing it. Either to try and refine the 

20 definition of what that means or, in some cases 

21 where there's uncertainty, NIOSH has had a 

22 precedent of doing things like averaging between 
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 two options or --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And I don't have 

4 any advice about it, except that it seems like it's 

5 flagging someplace where two people with good 

6 intentions are coming up to different, trying to 

7 defend different positions.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's what 

9 we're trying to find out is if the two people 

10 working separately, the two groups working 

11 separately, come to different opinions.

12 It's not a question, I mean, we can, for 

13 the future, look to forcing people into one of the 

14 two categories, craft or not. But what we've been 

15 doing, presumably all along, people have been 

16 making some judgment or other without clear 

17 guidance. But the result is that they do come up 

18 with different compensation decisions.

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. One 

20 thing I do want to point out that the craft worker 

21 X-rays were only assigned from 1950 to 1953.

22 And that is the period where he was 
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 working as, the listed jobs are [identifying 

2 information redacted] and lab technician. And, 

3 once again, I just do not see either of those as 

4 being craft workers.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

6 MR. FARVER: Listen, this is Doug. I 

7 did find that, where I got that number from.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Oh good.

9 MR. FARVER: It's from Table 3-2 of the 

10 ORNL Technical Basis for X-rays. It lists the 

11 whole sequence, starting in 1947, '47 through --

12 and through the different years and what X-rays 

13 were taken during those different periods.

14 And the period from April 6th, 1950 

15 through September 23rd, 1953, you go across to the 

16 X-ray and projection, and that's where the lumbar 

17 spine series comes in.

18 And then if you keep going over, it says 

19 people involved, craft workers. But it's the only 

20 thing listed for that time period. But that's the 

21 table that that assumption came from. Table 3-2.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: And actually, that 

2 person, you know -- how many different groups, 

3 Scott, do we have? You have craft and operation 

4 and what else?

5 What do you know -- because I'm looking 

6 and he was only a [identifying information 

7 redacted] for a couple of months there and a lab 

8 technician, or whatever. It seems like if he was 

9 a lab nerd, he would have stayed with that quite 

10 a bit.

11 But, you know, if he was a lab 

12 technician out there taking samples or whatever 

13 else, it -- I don't know if you could really 

14 classify him out of it.

15 That craft one really bothers me. 

16 That, so only people who were out there, 

17 pipefitters or welders or, would have got that 

18 X-ray. I think --

19 MR. SEIBERT: Well, I'm going to speak 

20 here and, unfortunately, Elyse Thomas, our medical 

21 X-ray guru for the project, could not be on the call 

22 today.
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 But the idea for those additional 

2 lumbar spines based on craft workers was based on 

3 a safety concern of the type of work they were doing 

4 was lifting and turning and so on. So it had 

5 nothing to do with radiation.

6 And anybody can correct me if I'm wrong. 

7 That's my understanding. So once again, a lab 

8 technician just would not fit that type of 

9 definition to me.

10 MS. BEHLING: I agree that that is also 

11 my interpretation of why they did the lumbar spine 

12 X-rays.

13 MR. FARVER: I'm not going to -- this 

14 is Doug and I'm not going to say that's a good or 

15 bad assumption that I used. I'm just saying that's 

16 where it came from. The Technical Basis Document.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MS. BEHLING: It almost sounds like 

19 that table should have another option for those 

20 years.

21 MR. FARVER: It does above it, but it 

22 incorporates a lot of years. It's a little 
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 confusing.

2 MS. BEHLING: Yes. That's what I was 

3 going to say.

4 MR. SEIBERT: Yes. What it seems to be 

5 saying is craft workers during that time frame had 

6 a special regime where they were getting a lumbar 

7 spine series, APs, a lot of it lateral. All those 

8 things are listed there, whereas the line above it 

9 is talking about 1947 to 1963, and it's for 

10 employees in pre-placement. It's the people 

11 involved.

12 So the way I read this table is if you're 

13 a general employee, you're going to be getting the 

14 one X-ray, one film projection. If you're a craft 

15 worker during that minor subset of time, you would 

16 have also gotten these additional exposures.

17 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. Scott, I 

18 understand that. Now go down to the line below 

19 that, where it says, end of 1963 to 1976.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: And it goes, people 

22 involved, only pre-placements. Does that mean 
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 employees were not given regular exams?

2 MR. SIEBERT: That is the way I would 

3 read it, but I can't say for sure.

4 MR. FARVER: And then back in '76, they 

5 started giving employees exams again?

6 MR. SEIBERT: Employees in respirators 

7 and asbestos programs every three years.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 MR. SEIBERT: So, yes, it does seem like 

10 they changed their process over the years, which 

11 is what this table is explaining.

12 MR. CALHOUN: And I'm sure we didn't 

13 guess on that. That was something that we had 

14 documentation about their program.

15 MR. SEIBERT: Oh, yes, I'm sure that 

16 came from somewhere.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's interesting.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Just for me to 

19 clarify, you're saying there was no medical 

20 screening in those years, other than for craft 

21 workers?

22 MR. SEIBERT: No. During those years, 
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 there was medical screening for, it appears, 

2 everyone up until -- I just went away from the 

3 table. I'm sorry. Up until -- was that '63, Doug?

4 MR. FARVER: Yes.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. Up until '63, 

6 employees in pre-placement were getting that. But 

7 during the 1950 -- actually, it was April 6th of 

8 1950 to September 23rd of 1953, which gives me the 

9 indication, as Grady was saying, this ties back to 

10 a reference we have in the SDRB saying that craft 

11 workers were getting additional exposures for 

12 medical X-rays during that time frame.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Where do we 

14 stand, folks?

15 MR. CALHOUN: Good to go is my vote.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

17 MR. CALHOUN: I vote that it's good to 

18 go.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Others now --

20 MR. CALHOUN: It was based on, you 

21 know, we have a program. Documentation is 

22 discussed. What was required when. And that's 
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 fairly typical that different types of X-rays were 

2 done based on the types of workers.

3 That, combined with the fact that we 

4 have clear years when they assigned that extra 

5 X-ray dose. And during those years, there's not 

6 even a job category that remotely sounds like a 

7 craft worker.

8 So this case was done according to all 

9 our documentations. If there's an issue something 

10 thinks was TBD, that's a different situation.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So you're good 

12 to go?

13 MR. CALHOUN: I'm good to go.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

15 does that not mean that if you're good to go, that 

16 SC&A and NIOSH disagree on the blinds?

17 MR. CALHOUN: I'd agree that we did it 

18 right, so --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not saying 

20 you did it wrong or right. I'm saying, do you agree 

21 or disagree? And if you say you did it right, which 

22 is fine and sounds persuasive, then we have to say 
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 that SC&A didn't agree.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, let's hear again from 

3 SC&A. Kathy was saying that she understood the 

4 crafts issue distinction and the job definitions, 

5 but I haven't heard SC&A speak with one voice on 

6 this.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Let's 

8 hear.

9 MS. BEHLING: And I'm going to let Doug 

10 weigh in here, but it does sound to me, and I do 

11 agree, I would not consider laboratory technicians 

12 to be a craftsperson. That I agree with.

13 And I do think the lumbar spine exams 

14 were given for people that were out there lifting 

15 and turning and exactly for that reason.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Well --

17 MS. BEHLING: The only thing -- yes?

18 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Let me 

19 stop you just for a sec. Process, it says, process 

20 operators, repairmen, mechanics, lab techs. The 

21 lab techs that I know of do the same work that 

22 operators do, and that does include lifting and 
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 turning and up to, I think the limit is, 40 to 80 

2 pounds. So --

3 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: The only thing I --

5 MS. BEHLING: -- you're saying that is 

6 true for lab technicians?

7 MEMBER BEACH: The ones that I'm aware 

8 of here at my site, lab technicians do that type 

9 of work. So do the operators, the repairmen, 

10 mechanics. Those all fit under categories where 

11 people would be doing some kind of lifting.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Because that's the time 

14 frame --

15 MS. BEHLING: Alright, yes.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. That is --

17 MS. BEHLING: I think that Doug is also 

18 saying he was looking at a table that seemed to 

19 indicate between that time frame, that was the dose 

20 that got assigned to the medical. And I'm just, 

21 also didn't want there to be some discrepancy or 

22 something that is not clear in that table or in the 
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 TBD.

2 But if lab -- and you have a better 

3 understanding of what the roles are and the jobs 

4 for these various job categories, so I'm going to 

5 stay out of it.

6 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. All I can 

7 say is that there were no medical records. So you 

8 didn't have anything to go by to say that, you know, 

9 you had a previous history of just certain exams.

10 It just really wasn't clear to me, so 

11 I took the most, we'll say, claimant-favorable 

12 approach, which was to add in those lumbar exams 

13 for, what, three years or so.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Four years.

15 MR. FARVER: Four years. I don't know 

16 if it's right or wrong. I don't know if he really 

17 was considered a craftsperson or if he had those 

18 exams, because there are no records.

19 In the absence of records, I thought it 

20 was the right thing to do.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Most claimant-favorable. 

22 I agree.
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 MR. FARVER: I think what we're falling 

2 down to, though, and maybe we'll have to go back 

3 and look at our source documents, but the frequency 

4 and type of exams were determined or stated 

5 somewhere, I imagine, to be craft workers. Not 

6 people who left, but craft workers. And so, that's 

7 how the site determined who was going to get these 

8 X-rays.

9 MR. SIEBERT: I did some tracking while 

10 we were talking and I'm --

11 MR. FARVER: Great.

12 MR. SIEBERT: -- sorry to interrupt.

13 MR. FARVER: I'm going to mute myself 

14 then, Scott.

15 MR. SIEBERT: I found the SRDB 

16 reference that this actually comes from. It's 

17 called Oak Ridge National Lab Historical X-ray 

18 Practices and Protocols. And I'll read you the 

19 portion that is talking about that portion.

20 Pre-employment and chest X-rays were 

21 done on all prospective employees and, depending 

22 on job classification, parentheses, i.e. crafts 
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 workers, close parentheses, lumbar spine X-rays 

2 were also performed. Lumbar spines were performed 

3 from 4/1/50 through 9/23/53.

4 And that's the information we have. So 

5 it very specifically states craft workers, but 

6 there's no specific definition.

7 MR. FARVER: It sounds like pre-job 

8 only though, doesn't it?

9 MEMBER BEACH: No, no, no. That's two 

10 different topics. He said pre-job for the one type 

11 of X-rays and job employment for craft people for 

12 the lumbar.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For three years.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Right. Depending on job 

15 classification, lumbar spines were also performed. 

16 It's not necessarily clear if that lumbar spine 

17 would be only pre-employment lumbar spine or while 

18 they were doing the work. It's, once again, it's 

19 not clear. However, through the TBD, we've listed 

20 it as if you're a craft worker, you would assume 

21 it every year.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Well, you have 
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 classifications in these job titles that are craft 

2 people, so you have to go with the most 

3 claimant-favorable, in my opinion.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Not for the years that 

5 you assigned those doses.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Which are what years 

7 again? Please remind me. '50?

8 MR. FARVER: '50 to '53.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And that is your tech 

10 science and --

11 MR. FARVER: No. No, it's --

12 MEMBER BEACH: No?

13 MR. FARVER: Only the lab technicians.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Then those lab 

15 technicians should be covered also.

16 MR. CALHOUN: I've never heard a lab 

17 technician be classified as a craftsman. Never.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I have to beg to 

19 differ. That's what they're classified as here. 

20 Lab technicians take care of all their own waste, 

21 handle all their own barrels, move barrels.

22 MR. FARVER: So in 1955, do you think 
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 a lab technician was classified as a crafts worker?

2 MEMBER BEACH: I do, yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: In Y-12?

4 MS. BEHLING: X-10.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, let me ask this 

6 question. What would you think they would have 

7 been classified as?

8 MR. FARVER: A lab technician.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, okay. And what 

10 is a lab technician? Is he a scientist? Is he 

11 classified as a professional? You know, you're 

12 putting this position of a craft in there, and 

13 you're looking at it very small, you're looking at 

14 just pipefitters, welders, so forth like that.

15 And then you start getting into all the 

16 operations personnel. Then you get into all the 

17 scientists. You get into the professional part of 

18 it.

19 You've got -- and each one of these 

20 sites is a bit different the way they classify their 

21 people. I can see very easily, with Josie, how 

22 this can be classified as craft.
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 But the whole thing comes down to, guess 

2 what? It comes back to one thing again. We're 

3 making a professional judgment here.

4 But he does not look to me, where he's 

5 been a [identifying information redacted] for so 

6 long, just all these different ones, he does not 

7 look like to me that he falls in the professional 

8 category as a scientist or administrator or 

9 anything else like that. So, in my opinion, I 

10 think he'd fall more into the craft end of it.

11 Craft is pretty broad spectrum, I'd 

12 say. But I imagine that they'd have operators and 

13 everything else that would fall into that category 

14 as craft.

15 I'm considered a craft. I'm an 

16 operator. But they've thinned, through the years 

17 they've made those separations even more clear.

18 MS. BEHLING: I will go on to say, and 

19 I'm not going to try to make a judgment in any way, 

20 but if you go on to Page 15 of the Technical Basis 

21 Document, it does talk a little bit further about 

22 the lumbar spine series of exams.
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 And it says that it was reserved for 

2 pre-placement X-rays exams for craft employees. 

3 And then in parenthesis, it says, pipefitters, 

4 carpenters, et cetera.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 MS. BEHLING: So I don't know if that 

7 sheds any additional light on --

8 DR. MAURO: Kathy, does this whole 

9 conversation decision rest on this single metric 

10 or are there other differences that could possibly 

11 have turned this, reversed this, also? Because 

12 I, the numbers, I didn't -- how close are we to that 

13 50? How close was NIOSH to that 50 percent? What 

14 was the number?

15 MS. BEHLING: Let me look. NIOSH was 

16 --

17 MEMBER BEACH: While you're looking, 

18 can I ask Grady a question? You said this lumbar 

19 thing was based on a finding or something within 

20 the plant. Do you guys have a copy of that?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. Scott, I believe, 

22 read that.
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 MR. SIEBERT: Correct. What I was 

2 reading --

3 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, that was what you 

4 were reading?

5 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. That was from --

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

7 MR. SIEBERT: -- the Site Research 

8 Database that we got data from the plant.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

10 MS. BEHLING: And, John, to answer your 

11 question, NIOSH's PoC, at least for this particular 

12 dose reconstruction, was 43.63.

13 Now, Scott indicated that -- and that

14 was a question I was going to ask -- that because 

15 of the Super S plutonium, this case should have been 

16 reevaluated.

17 And I don't know what the result of that 

18 reevaluation was, because, in fact, I didn't -- I 

19 was questioning whether it was reevaluated, 

20 because I didn't see it in the file.

21 MR. SIEBERT: The reevaluation was at 

22 48.1 percent.
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 DR. MAURO: I'm hoping that this is an 

2 exception. This very -- you see we're operating 

3 at a very, very fine edge on judgment, on 

4 interpretation of the regs, where a decision 

5 regarding compensation for a real person hangs in 

6 the balance. So it's -- and the fact that we're 

7 coming in at 48 one is --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

9 DR. MAURO: And anyway, I don't want to 

10 lose perspective here. This nuanced argument that 

11 I'm sure is impossible to resolve --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, and that 

13 says there's a disagreement. Look, the issue is 

14 not negotiation between the two parties.

15 DR. MAURO: Yeah.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The issue is if 

17 each party believes its professional judgment is 

18 correct. In the previous space, we had a 

19 discussion. And one party, SC&A, agreed on Method 

20 B that what NIOSH did was right and we came to 

21 agreement.

22 DR. MAURO: Yes.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But if SC&A 

2 believes that it did the right thing, and it is open 

3 to interpretation and then you made a professional 

4 judgment, and NIOSH didn't, then there's 

5 disagreement.

6 I do say -- although it shouldn't 

7 influence us, so I won't say it -- that just looking 

8 at this case alone, I just feel as if we have to 

9 say we don't agree.

10 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I think you can say 

11 that, Dave. I was going to just say, one of the 

12 things that you -- I'm sure it's not worth it, the 

13 level of effort. But it is a factual matter, in 

14 reality. And there may be someone who has 

15 historical memory at the site who could tell you 

16 for sure whether lab technicians fall in that 

17 bucket or not. I mean, so --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We could 

19 do that.

20 MR. KATZ: There could be answer to it. 

21 I'm not saying that that would be easy to get or 

22 that it's worth the level of effort, but it's a 
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 factual matter and someone may have historical 

2 memory to be able to --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, no. I 

4 would say that a judgment was made. This happened. 

5 This happened already. And people had cases 

6 decided. Those that we didn't -- that we're not 

7 reviewing.

8 MR. KATZ: No. I'm just saying --

9 Dave, I'm just saying it's a factual matter whether 

10 lab technicians got that X-ray or not.

11 It's actually not -- it's a judgment now 

12 because we don't know. But people at the site, 

13 some people at the site, associated with the site, 

14 may actually know the answer to the question.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That may be 

16 true.

17 MR. CALHOUN: And our X-ray guru, like 

18 Scott says, is not here at the moment. So there 

19 may be some other thing that she knows about that 

20 we'll try to see if we can find.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We do 

22 have somebody who -- from inside the groups here, 
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 who can say -- who might have said something that 

2 would have affected it. Obviously, I'm dubious, 

3 but it's perfectly -- let's try and find out what 

4 we can, and if there's a factual matter that we can 

5 resolve.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Give me a few days and 

7 I'll look at it. And if I can't find anything, I'll 

8 tell you I can't find anything.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And, 

10 alright. What I was going to say then I stopped 

11 before, was that we have an agreement on, I think, 

12 almost all the other cases. And there's been 

13 agreement, and that is good. So, one case that's 

14 not in agreement. There's one case that's not in 

15 agreement.

16 MS. BEHLING: However, as Ted is 

17 saying, if we can get some clarity and make sure 

18 that the TBD is very specific as to who falls under 

19 this craft workers -- it's not for just this 

20 particular case, but for obviously other cases out 

21 there. And we want to be sure that the TBD is as 

22 accurate as possible and takes away that as much 
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 judgment as we can from the dose reconstructors.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

3 that's true. Certainly going forward, it would be 

4 valuable to resolve. And we'll see how much it 

5 impacts in this case.

6 Okay. Scott, you'll get back to us in 

7 a few days.

8 MR. CALHOUN: That was Grady. Yes, I 

9 will.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, I'm 

11 sorry. Excuse me.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay. If we can move on. 

13 If you'd like to move on. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is a quarter 

15 of 4:00. We've been meeting since ten of 2:00. 

16 Would it be appropriate to take a comfort break now, 

17 folks?

18 MR. KATZ: That sounds great.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

20 take, what, ten minutes' comfort break?

21 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that would be super. 

22 Thanks.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We'll 

2 resume at ten minutes of 4:00 Eastern Time. Okay. 

3 See you in a few minutes.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

5 went off the record at 3:43 p.m. and resumed at 3:53 

6 p.m.)

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay, if you want, I can 

8 start. I just wanted to make mention of two things 

9 under the 17th set. I believe -- and someone 

10 correct me here if I'm wrong -- that we did last 

11 time discuss all of the blinds under the 17th set. 

12 But I do want to go back to two of those 

13 lines. And the first one is the Allied Chemical. 

14 And if we recall, that was one we had a great deal 

15 of discussion on regarding the radon issue. 

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MS. BEHLING: And I think we sort of 

18 resolved that. The other thing that was a little 

19 bit odd to me, that seemed odd at the time, was that 

20 NIOSH had used an approach of 10 percent of the 

21 values in the OTIB-43 for calculating their 

22 internal and external doses.
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 And I wanted to just go back. I had 

2 looked at it, but I wanted to go back and go into 

3 NOCTS and be sure that that was consistently 

4 applied. And when I did, all of the cases that I 

5 looked at that had to do with the Allied Chemical 

6 & Dye, there was a document in there called 

7 "Instructions." And I did verify that I believe 

8 all of the cases associated with Allied Chemical 

9 & Dye did use these instructions.

10 I guess the one thing that I do want to 

11 make mention of is that Bob Anigstein did send me 

12 a note saying that what we had missed in some of 

13 these discussions is that the representative 

14 phosphate ore from Central Florida, associated I 

15 guess with this particular site, contains, from his 

16 research 1,200 becquerels per kilogram of 

17 uranium-238. And also 1,460 becquerels per 

18 kilogram of radium-226.

19 And these instructions, and the dose 

20 reconstruction, does not consider radium in this 

21 mix. And I'm not sure that we can really just 

22 ignore this radium component. Perhaps, NIOSH can 
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 talk to that issue. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: I certainly cannot, at 

3 the moment, because that wasn't -- I thought this 

4 was done. And so I put that case away.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

6 MR. CALHOUN: So I guess I'll have to 

7 reopen it and look.

8 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Because --

9 MR. CALHOUN: Can you email me 

10 Anigstein's findings or whatever so I can actually 

11 make sense of this, please?

12 MS. BEHLING: Yes, I will. Okay. 

13 The other thing -- I don't mean to 

14 divert our attention here -- but, again, and I guess 

15 in light of these blinds, when I see this type of 

16 instructions in these files -- and we briefly 

17 touched on this in the past -- when we do a blind, 

18 we are following the hierarchy of data which is 

19 looking at TBDs and OTIBs and documents that are 

20 out there and published.

21 And it sounds again like this is one of 

22 those guidance documents that is being used. It 
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 may be under the DR Tools folders that we can access 

2 through the H drive, but it's not something that 

3 SC&A would even know exists.

4 These type of instructions -- and I'm 

5 glad to see that they're being applied 

6 consistently, but if we were not assigned this 

7 particular case as a blind, we may never have come 

8 across these instructions. And we may never have 

9 even questioned this radium issue.

10 And, I guess, the other thing that comes 

11 to my mind is that during the one-on-ones for the 

12 last set of DR reviews that we did -- in fact, that 

13 Josie and Andy were on that one-on-one -- we had 

14 encountered a Vallecitos case where there was one 

15 of these templates that's embedded in the dose 

16 reconstruction report. It's not a separate 

17 document, as far as I can tell. I talked to David 

18 Allen on that issue. 

19 And I know that Josie and Andy both 

20 recommended that this is something, perhaps, that 

21 SC&A should be looking at because -- and perhaps 

22 this is always already been discussed before the 
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 board meeting, I'm not sure -- but just in light 

2 of this Allied Chemical, it brought that issue to 

3 my mind again.

4 And I know at least that those two Board 

5 Members felt that it was important that SC&A maybe 

6 at some point be tasked with looking at all of these 

7 templates and try to identify if we have seen cases 

8 associated with sites that have these templates 

9 embedded in the dose reconstruction reports. Just 

10 something that I was throwing out there.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Kathy, from my memory, 

12 we decided to put that to the special Work Group 

13 for those reconstructions. Is that correct, Ted? 

14 Do you recall?

15 MR. KATZ: That's exactly what I was 

16 going to say, Josie.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: So, yeah, they sort of have 

19 that on their plate to consider these sort of extra 

20 instructions. In some cases, I think, the case is 

21 that they're sites with very few cases. And so 

22 that's part of the reason in some places.
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 Well, what have you, I think it's become 

2 clear to everyone that there are these other 

3 procedures that are used in special circumstances 

4 that are not getting reviewed through the TBD 

5 reviews and so on.

6 MS. BEHLING: And in fact this Allied 

7 Chemical & Dye instruction is -- it's not dated, 

8 it's just a Word file that's in the file. I think 

9 it's signed by Dave. I assume that's probably 

10 David Allen. I'm not even sure, but it's not 

11 dated. And it just talks about what his feeling 

12 is, and, you know, why they should use the 10 

13 percent in this case and so on and so forth. So 

14 I'm not sure how many of these instructions are 

15 being used in lieu of maybe more generic types of 

16 TBDs or --

17 MR. KATZ: I think, I mean -- and Grady 

18 can refresh my memory -- but Grady sent forward to 

19 -- I know I distributed it to some people on the 

20 Board. But Grady sent forward a listing of sort 

21 of extra-TBD, meaning outside of the TBD, methods 

22 and procedures. He collected those and sent them 
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 in a document forward, which I distributed.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay. I was not aware of 

3 that. Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. So I think someone at 

5 SC&A has it. But I definitely distributed it to 

6 embers of the Board.

7 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Just didn't want 

8 that to fall through the cracks.

9 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

10 MS. BEHLING: So if we could get some 

11 response for the Allied Chemical case regarding the 

12 radium, and I will forward some information from 

13 Bob Anigstein over to Grady. I think we need to 

14 resolve that.

15 One more issue before I stop talking 

16 here: the Rocky Flats case associated with the 17th 

17 set. During the discussion of that particular 

18 blind, we talked about the fact that we were not 

19 able to reproduce some of the internal doses 

20 because the version of IMBA we had didn't allow us 

21 to do the ingrowth -- I don't -- but, Grady, you 

22 had been working on trying to get us the most 
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 current version of that IMBA, and I don't remember 

2 what happened to that somehow.

3 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah. We're having a 

4 hard time getting it ourselves. I don't know, 

5 there's a lot to it, but the guy who distributes 

6 the thing is terminally ill. And he's not in the 

7 United States. And there's some question as to who 

8 actually owns the rights to the program. So, we're 

9 actively trying to get that for us as well as for 

10 you. So that's where we stand on that one.

11 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

12 MR. CALHOUN: Sorry.

13 MS. BEHLING: If you can keep us in the 

14 loop on that, that would be appreciated. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Kathy, on the 

16 Allied Chemical.

17 MS. BEHLING: Yes?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Whatever is 

19 found, will that affect the blinds' decision? I 

20 don't think so.

21 MS. BEHLING: No.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that correct? 
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 Right. Okay. I mean, it's certainly something 

2 that we need to check. And I appreciate, you know, 

3 having this pointed out about the radium-226.

4 MS. BEHLING: Well, I should say that 

5 NIOSH's PoC on that blind was 45.9.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I see, I see.

7 MS. BEHLING: So, maybe -- I don't know 

8 what the contribution of the radium will be.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, but let me 

10 ask, if you were to argue that that was a mistake 

11 -- I mean, if you think, would that be categorized 

12 as a mistake? 

13 MS. BEHLING: Well --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That they 

15 ignored something which they should have taken into 

16 account?

17 MS. BEHLING: All I'm going to say is 

18 based on the phosphate ore that was coming out of 

19 Florida, there is a ratio of uranium to radium, and 

20 the radium component seems to be even higher than 

21 the uranium.

22 They consider uranium, but they didn't 
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 consider radium. And if there is a reason for 

2 that, we need to know. But I just want to be sure 

3 that that was considered.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it should 

5 have been.

6 MS. BEHLING: Yes. I think so.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Considered, maybe. 

8 We've got to see what he found --

9 MS. BEHLING: Right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: -- and what he's making 

11 these --

12 MS. BEHLING: That's what I said. 

13 Considered.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

15 MS. BEHLING: Perhaps it was 

16 considered and it didn't contribute enough to the 

17 dose. I don't know.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Okay. 

19 Thank you. That clarifies it for me.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay. And I believe the 

21 last three blinds that we have to discuss are under 

22 the 20th set.
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: Right.

2 MS. BEHLING: And so now you can listen 

3 to someone other than me, because I think Doug can 

4 take care of the two Hanford blinds. And Ron

5 Buchanan , I think he's still on the phone I hope, 

6 there's another Rocky Flats site that needs to be 

7 discussed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see 20 blinds 

9 here. I see, excuse me, six blinds under the 20th 

10 set.

11 MS. BEHLING: That's correct. And 

12 three of them, I believe, we have not discussed. 

13 There were three that were disclosed during the 

14 last --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me -- oh, 

16 you're right. No. No. I'm checking back on my 

17 notes. That's correct. The first three, the 

18 three of them that Ron handled were reviewed and 

19 there was agreement.

20 MS. BEHLING: Correct. And I believe 

21 we still have a Hanford -- that was in Weldon 

22 Springs -- Hanford, but Weldon Springs is the 
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 majority --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MS. BEHLING: And the Hanford case 

4 that, I believe, Doug is prepared to discuss. And 

5 then there's also a Rocky Flats case under the 20th 

6 set that Ron Buchanan should be discussing.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay. 

8 Let's do that. First, Hanford.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is Doug. If 

10 we just look what's on the screen at the moment 

11 under the case, where is says "Hanford WSP."

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: If we could just go across 

14 the board and kind of just give a look-see on the 

15 doses. The external doses, there's a little bit 

16 of difference: nine and 13. Internal doses, 

17 similar difference: four and six. And then the 

18 total dose, we show the differences. And then the 

19 PoC differences, a difference of two percent in the 

20 PoC. So, that's kind of the range that we're 

21 looking at here when we go through the process.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.
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 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now Rose if you 

2 would put up the -- let's see, get the right one. 

3 The blind DR comparison file 12/2015 I believe is 

4 the one. Hanford.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: WSP.

6 MR. FARVER: Does it say WSP?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

8 MR. FARVER: I'm trying to find the 

9 right one. Oh, there it is. Okay. Alright. 

10 Okay. Please scroll down to Page 7, Table 1.1. 

11 And then I'll just give a little recap of this case.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You don't think 

13 we should talk? You don't mention the organ, 

14 right?

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let's --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's not 

17 mention it.

18 (Comment redacted.)

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: So that's kind of the 

21 background. And then when we see the doses in 

22 Table 1.1.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Where there are 

2 unusual cancers, probably we should not identify 

3 them. Sorry.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I tried to head 

6 that off, but proceed.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Table 1.1, we can 

8 see a comparison of the photon doses.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know what, 

10 Doug. I'm sorry. There'll be a transcript of 

11 this. I don't believe we have any external folks 

12 on the phone, on the line at this point. Can we 

13 check that?

14 MR. KATZ: Well, there is no way to 

15 check that, actually.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, we 

17 should delete the last comment about the type of 

18 cancer. It's an unusual enough type that it may 

19 well identify a person, which we do not want to do.

20 MR. KATZ: The way to take care of that 

21 is I will send a note to the people who do the 

22 transcriptions.
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 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Exactly.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sorry. 

4 But that's a general issue. Go ahead.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. I just want to make 

6 sure I don't say it again, because it's going to 

7 come up. I believe it comes up later on where there

8 a difference where the organs used.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

10 we'll just say there's a difference in the organs 

11 used.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let's just jump 

13 down to Table 2.1 on Page 8. We'll go through a 

14 comparison of the assumptions that we used.

15 Looks like both NIOSH and SC&A used 

16 similar energy ranges. NIOSH did account for 

17 neutrons. SC&A did not.

18 The dose conversion factors, NIOSH used 

19 a 1 for the organ dose and SC&A used .845.

20 There a difference of -- NIOSH used a 

21 correction factor -- I mean a -- yeah, a correction 

22 factor of 1.4, and SC&A did not.
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 The medical X-rays, very similar, 

2 almost identical, eight exams on both cases.

3 Ambient dose, very similar documents 

4 used, similar assumptions. 

5 Okay. We get down to the internal 

6 dose, and there's a little difference there. SC&A 

7 assumed the best estimate and NIOSH used a little 

8 bit of an overestimate, so we'll see a little bit 

9 of a few differences as we go down through.

10 Okay, if we go down to Page 11, go down 

11 to Table 2.3 and it will just show a comparison of 

12 recorded photon and neutron doses.

13 Right off the bat, SC&A did not feel the 

14 need to calculate neutron doses because, based on 

15 the Weldon Springs Technical Basis Documents, 

16 which we quoted up on Page 10, it's a very slight 

17 possibility of neutron doses. So we did not 

18 consider them, but NIOSH did.

19 And in the comparison of the photon 

20 doses, you will see a very small difference. And 

21 a lot of that has to do with NIOSH did use a 

22 correction factor of 1.4. SC&A did not.
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 And NIOSH used an organ dose conversion 

2 factor of 1 for the higher energy photons, and SC&A 

3 used the actual .845 dose conversion factor. And 

4 those two items account for the differences. 

5 Other than that, they are pretty much the same.

6 We move on to the photon doses, or the 

7 missed photon doses, we can see that both SC&A and 

8 NIOSH assumed 72 zeros, so they should come up with 

9 the same dose. Once again, there's a slight 

10 difference because NIOSH used a DCF of 1 and we used 

11 the DCF of .845. That is the difference with the 

12 missed photon dose.

13 NIOSH calculated the missed neutron 

14 dose and SC&A did not calculate neutron doses.

15 Occupational medical dose. Both the 

16 SC&A assigned 8 exams, Table 2.5. You can see we 

17 come up with the same exact number for the Weldon 

18 Springs plant. Hanford Site, the employee did 

19 have a PFT exam, which is shown in Exhibit 2-1. I 

20 understand that -- I guess it's OTIB-70 --

21 MR. CALHOUN: Seventy-nine, Doug.

22 MR. FARVER: Seventy-nine. It says 
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 you're not supposed to use these because they were 

2 taken offsite. However, I did include it, because 

3 it does not say anything about a hospital, and I 

4 understand that the Hanford medical facilities 

5 were located at the hospital. So I included it. 

6 But that is the difference, that we included the 

7 medical, the PFT exam from Hanford.

8 Let's see, if we go on down to the 

9 ambient dose, SC&A determined the Hanford dose to 

10 be the three months that a person was there, or four 

11 months, from the Hanford Technical Basis Document 

12 which gives 115 millirem per year. And we prorated 

13 that down and it works out to 20 millirem for that 

14 year. 

15 NIOSH did something very similar. We 

16 have some differences that were used where we 

17 assumed 2,500 hours and NIOSH assumed 2,600 hours. 

18 And that really accounts for the difference between 

19 our 20 millirem and their 38 millirem.

20 NIOSH also determined the ambient dose 

21 for 1957 of 43 millirem, where SC&A used coworker 

22 doses for that time period at Weldon Springs. And 
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 we came up with 341 millirem, which is shown in 

2 Table 2-6.

3 And the big difference is that we 

4 assigned coworker doses based on the 50th 

5 percentile value of Table 6.8 from the Weldon 

6 Springs Technical Basis.

7 We move on down to the internal dose. 

8 The employee wasn't monitored for internal doses 

9 while at Hanford. At Weldon Springs, the employee 

10 had several urine samples for the time period from 

11 '57 through '64. SC&A used the best estimate 

12 method.

13 Prior to 1960, all the bioassay results 

14 were less than the detection limit. So we 

15 performed a visual fit using IMBA and assumed a 

16 chronic intake period for the time period from 1960 

17 until '64.

18 In other words, everything before 1960 

19 was less than the detection limit, so we started 

20 with the period after that and went on through the 

21 end of the employment period. And we came up with 

22 uranium Type M of 225 picocuries per day.
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 NIOSH used overestimating assumptions 

2 and the highest bioassay result, which was obtained 

3 in 1964, and calculated the intakes shown in Table 

4 2-7, based on Type S uranium. So they had a much 

5 higher intake, 200-and-about-57.8 picocuries per 

6 day.

7 Both NIOSH and SC&A assumed recycled 

8 uranium contaminants. And the way this works is 

9 that's usually based off your uranium intake. So, 

10 Table 2.8 shows the uranium contaminants based on 

11 an intake of 225 picocuries per day.

12 And the ratios that were used in the 

13 Fernald recycled-uranium, mixed-intake rate 

14 calculator, both for natural and one percent 

15 enriched. The dose works out to about 2.3 rem 

16 total.

17 NIOSH used an overestimating method. 

18 They started with 5,780 picocuries per day. The 

19 approach would be similar to apply the conversion 

20 or the fractions for the recycled contaminants. 

21 They came up with 3.2 rem per day. But the organ 

22 is different. And I don't know if you want me to 
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 specify which organs were used or not.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Well, to explain that 

3 one, I almost think -- because I could explain that, 

4 but without getting into the specifics it's very 

5 hard to explain.

6 MR. FARVER: I understand that.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Well, okay, let me see if 

8 I can explain it without getting too specific. In 

9 OTIB-5, for this ICD-9 code, there is a footnote, 

10 Footnote [identifying information redacted], to 

11 discuss that a medical review is required when this 

12 type of cancer is run into.

13 During that review, based on 

14 information in the DOL file, it was determined that 

15 the organ that NIOSH used would have been specified 

16 in the DOL medical records rather than just 

17 assuming the other one. So we had the 

18 documentation behind it as to why we chose the one 

19 we did over the other.

20 MR. FARVER: And where were those 

21 records contained?

22 MR. SIEBERT: That would be in the DOL 
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 file, Page 301 of the DOL file.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. And is that the 

3 initial case file, DOL file?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. But there is a 

6 difference for that ICD-9 code, and the footnote 

7 is there on Page 18 of Kathy's report where it's 

8 quoted from OTIB-5. And it depends what organ you 

9 use, whether it is specified as one type or if there 

10 is an internal review. Okay. Apparently, I did 

11 not see that in the DOL file.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the DOL file is 

13 over 1,100 pages long, so I understand.

14 MR. FARVER: So that was one 

15 difference. If we go back to Table 10, there's a 

16 little bit -- there's a difference in the values 

17 used to determine the recycled uranium mix.

18 The NIOSH person, I believe, used the 

19 values from Table 5.11, which were in parts per 

20 billion instead of the correct values. Is that 

21 fair, Scott?

22 MR. SIEBERT: To tell you the truth, 
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 that was such a small portion of the differences, 

2 I did not review that portion. I apologize.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. And where you can 

4 see that is if you compare Table 2.9 to 2.10, I 

5 think. Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's 2.11, 2.11. 

6 Sorry. Where you give the SC&A RU-to-U ratios and 

7 the NIOSH RU-to-U ratios. And it just comes out 

8 to using different conversion factors. But as 

9 Scott pointed out, it is not a big dose concern, 

10 it is just a QA concern. We'll call it that.

11 Both NIOSH and SC&A assigned dose from 

12 thorium processing. The approach is almost 

13 exactly the same for both NIOSH and SC&A. In other 

14 words, it's pretty straightforward out of the 

15 Technical Basis Document for Weldon Springs what 

16 to use.

17 If you scroll down to the bottom of Page 

18 19, there's two big differences. The doses wind 

19 up differing by about a factor of seven, even though 

20 the approach is the same. One has to do with the 

21 choice of organ.

22 The second is that NIOSH assigned a dose 
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 from 230, thorium-230, instead of -232. And that 

2 results in a substantial difference in the doses.

3 And then, lastly, environmental dose. 

4 NIOSH and SC&A both did the environmental dose for 

5 the short period while the person was at Hanford, 

6 and it came out to be less than a millirem and was 

7 not included.

8 So on top of Page 20 we can do a 

9 comparison of the internal and external doses. 

10 For the internal, we'll start first, a large part 

11 of that is the difference in choice of organ.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. FARVER: And then the external 

14 dose, I believe a big part of that is the neutron. 

15 NIOSH assigned a neutron dose and SC&A did not, 

16 which accounts for a couple of rem. PoC-wise, 

17 we're within, you know, a couple of percent of each 

18 other. 

19 A comparison of the methodology. 

20 NIOSH did the overestimating approach and SC&A did 

21 the best estimate. NIOSH overestimated a little 

22 bit on the DCFs by using 1 for the external dose.
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 SC&A included a Hanford PFT under the 

2 occupational dose. NIOSH did not.

3 And then on the internal doses, we 

4 discussed those, a differences in -- even though 

5 the approaches were similar, there was a difference 

6 in the organs and the recycled uranium ratios used.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. While 

8 the number of rems are different, the PoCs don't 

9 differ by much. And they're both on the same --

10 they both come to the same conclusion. Right?

11 MR. FARVER: Correct.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

13 that's agreement.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Any comments, 

16 anybody, or concerns? 

17 Okay. Do you want to go on to the next 

18 one, the Hanford PNNL?

19 DR. BUCHANAN: Do you want me to go on 

20 the Rocky Flats to give you a break, Doug?

21 MR. FARVER: Sure. Go ahead.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 
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 Yes, sure.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: I know how hard it is to 

3 keep going. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron

6 Buchanan of SC&A, and we're looking at the Rocky 

7 Flats plant, there.

8 And we see that we had pretty good 

9 agreement on this one. And so we had similar 

10 doses, we had similar PoCs, about 43 percent, and 

11 dose around 11 rem. 

12 And so if we look at this, it was a 

13 [identifying information redacted]. It's Rocky 

14 Flat plant, [identifying information redacted].

15 The worker got diagnosed with cancer in 

16 2011. And, according to the DOL records and the 

17 CATI reports, the worker worked at buildings 881, 

18 444, and the 700 area during the first period of 

19 employment. And trailers at the wind site close 

20 to building 664 during the second period.

21 The worker was monitored for photon 

22 exposure during most of the first employment period 
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 and the second employment period. There were a few 

2 bioassays conducted. 

3 We relied mainly on the TBDs for Rocky 

4 Flat. And both SC&A and NIOSH came out with a PoC 

5 less than 50 percent. Table 1.1 provides the 

6 summary of the doses assigned and the resulting 

7 PoC. And as we discussed briefly, they were 

8 similar.

9 So we'll just briefly go over the ones 

10 that were the same and discuss any of the 

11 differences. And if there's any questions, stop 

12 and let me know.

13 So, if we go to Table 2.1, we look at 

14 the external dose assumptions and parameters, and 

15 we see there that we pretty much agree on best 

16 estimate, location.

17 Now this worker did go in and out, was 

18 around the plutonium building quite a bit. So even 

19 though it's clerk/secretary during the first 

20 employment period, it wasn't like they sat in 

21 administrative. They were out on the floor area 

22 and working, and so this is the reason we assigned 
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 the plutonium building where most their work was 

2 located.

3 We look at the table there, and we see 

4 that we agree on most of all the parameters used. 

5 The main difference in external dose, photon dose, 

6 was the logarithmic distribution and some 

7 triangular distribution by NIOSH, whereas we used 

8 -- usually we use a straight distribution, whereas 

9 NIOSH will go ahead, and the way I understand it, 

10 they have program that looks at the best 

11 distribution and assigns each year according to the 

12 best distribution. 

13 And we don't do that, so we come out with 

14 similar results but not exactly the same. And this 

15 is true on all of these here in this case.

16 Now, the missed dose, we used similar 

17 parameters. We came up with 27 photons, 27 neutron 

18 zeros. They came with 21, 25. Similar. Similar 

19 LD values and DCFs.

20 And the neutrons, we assigned the same 

21 energy range. Again the way theirs was assigned, 

22 the distribution is slightly different, but 
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 similar.

2 Shallow doses, same parameters and 

3 assignments. Ours has onsite external dose. We 

4 see that we had similar values there. We used a 

5 slightly different dose conversion factor. We 

6 calculated what appeared that NIOSH used and came 

7 out with a similar one. We had a constant, no 

8 uncertainty; they had normal and triangle 

9 distribution.

10 The medical, we had three documented 

11 X-rays on both cases, same distribution 

12 assignment. No problems there. 

13 So we look at 2.2. We look at the 

14 guidance there. Now this is the main difference 

15 in this whole dose reconstruction, that this was 

16 done before coworker intake was released. We did 

17 it after NIOSH did theirs. And so they used the 

18 OTIB-18 air sample data. We used the newer 

19 coworker intake from TBD-5. And so we used a 

20 different method than they did and we came out with 

21 some different results, although not greatly 

22 different.
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 And so we looked briefly at the recorded 

2 and shallow dose. If we look at Table 2.3, there 

3 we see that this -- and Rocky Flats is a very 

4 complicated site. And they use a different 

5 dosimetry system depending on the year, how it's 

6 recorded, and how you subtract out the information.

7 Because they record everything and then 

8 you've got to subtract out the information. 

9 You've got to remove the photon and neutron and 

10 shallow dose according to these formulas. And we 

11 had to use N over P value, so I gave that in Exhibit 

12 A there to illustrate those values.

13 So each year you've got to look at 

14 what's happening, what the dosimetry system was, 

15 and back out individual doses. And so if we look 

16 at Table 2.4, we see what we ended up with there.

17 The recorded doses, we see, are very 

18 similar on the photon dose. Now the shallow dose, 

19 there was some difference there because there was 

20 an error in the records, in that for one quarter 

21 in 1970, the shallow dose read less than the 

22 penetrating dose. And it shouldn't have done 
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 that. You should always have more total shallow 

2 dose than you do penetrating dose. And all the 

3 other records in for this EE show that.

4 And so we treat it two different ways. 

5 I treat it, SC&A treats it, as if they reversed the 

6 values. And that's because it looked very similar 

7 to the other entries.

8 NIOSH was more conservative, they said, 

9 well, we'll use the skin dose as recorded. No, 

10 we'll use the penetrating dose as recorded. We'll 

11 add the dose to it to get the total dose, shallow 

12 dose and then back out the skin dose. 

13 And so they were more conservative than 

14 I was, used what appeared to be the pattern in the 

15 previous quarters and following quarters. 

16 And so this did not affect the results 

17 much except for the shallow dose, the 

18 non-penetrating. NIOSH ended up assigning more 

19 dose than we did because of the conservative 

20 correction of that error in a recorded dose.

21 Now there were periods that the worker 

22 was not monitored. So SC&A used the 50th 
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 percentile. And we see that, if we look at Table 

2 2.5, and we see the coworker dose again.

3 And NIOSH used the same assumption, 50 

4 percent coworker dose. And we had some difference 

5 in the distribution assignment. And also the 

6 error post-1970 assumptions in the recorded dose.

7 And so we see that the 3-250 keV doses 

8 were very similar, about 1.5 rem. The shallow dose 

9 was slightly different because of some of the 

10 assumptions.

11 And just the missed dose, we 

12 calculated, we just went through it and looked if 

13 it was recorded every quarter. And if the person 

14 was badged monthly, then we just counted the 

15 periods in between. NIOSH, I think, used a best 

16 estimate-type method to derive the zeros. We came 

17 up 27, they came up 21; similar values. And so we 

18 assigned the doses as shown in 2.6.

19 NIOSH, also similar doses, and assigned 

20 them using the same distribution, just slightly 

21 different number of zeros counting.

22 Neutron dose, since the worker was 
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 employed in the plutonium area, we used the N over 

2 P value to sort out the photon and the neutron dose.

3 Now in addition to the sorting out, you 

4 also have to look at NDRP. When Rocky Flats, when 

5 they used NTA neutron film, they went back and 

6 reread a lot of the earlier neutron doses. And so 

7 some of the files will have NDRP data in it that 

8 supersedes the recorded dose.

9 So we went back and looked back at the 

10 NDRP data and then incorporated that in for 1970, 

11 when it was available, used N over P values to count 

12 the information in other years. And we agree 

13 pretty much with NIOSH in the dose assignments.

14 And so we can look at Table 2.7 there. 

15 We had 457 millirem, and they had 445. Now, the 

16 main difference there was some rounding. You go 

17 through quite a bit of distribution or parameters 

18 adjustments on these, the conversion factors and 

19 such. 

20 And so it depends whether the tables are 

21 truncated, rounded, or if NIOSH in their workbook 

22 carries it out to the ninth decimal point, exactly 
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 what value you get. So, considering that, the 

2 values are pretty close, and no issue there.

3 Coworker neutron dose. So we used a 50 

4 percent coworker dose, according to the TBD, and 

5 so did NIOSH. And again the differences come, as 

6 I just stated, in the constants, parameters 

7 applied, how far you carry out the decimal point. 

8 And also how you figure the time periodfractions

9 by months, days, etc.

10 If a person had coworker dose for, you 

11 know, three and a half months, you calculated that 

12 on a monthly, 365 days a year, or used some kind 

13 of program, gave you slightly different values on 

14 the fraction.

15 And so we see it in Table 2.8 there. We 

16 have similar doses in our coworker dose assignment. 

17 Now we did the same thing for neutron dose. It came 

18 out very similar, 27 zeros. They came out 25. 

19 They assigned it just like we did the neutron dose.

20 We see Table 2.9 there, very similar 

21 doses. And, again, some of the differences are the 

22 difference in mainly the number of zeros we counted 
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 compared to what NIOSH did, and then the other 

2 factors I spoke of. So we had no real issues there.

3 Now, Rocky Flats is one of the few cases 

4 that you still, according to Procedure-60, assign 

5 onsite ambient external dose. They're monitored 

6 for seven years. And we followed that procedure. 

7 So did NIOSH. And we come out with very similar 

8 doses.

9 We did find that, I think, the dose 

10 conversion factor, although I can never really find 

11 what they used, it was similar to ours but slightly 

12 higher. And so they assigned .018 and we assigned 

13 .016 rem. So we had no real issues there.

14 Medical dose. Okay. We used the 

15 records and we assigned the doses according to the 

16 recorded X-rays and the TBD-3. We found that they 

17 were 210 there. You see that we assigned about .10 

18 rem, and they assigned .033.

19 And the main difference in external 

20 dose that we found was that, apparently, the Rocky 

21 Flats workbook, under the X-ray data tab, that 

22 comment just above 210, Table 2.10. If you want to 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 go to Table 2.10? Okay, just above that I list the 

2 issue.

3 The TBD lists one value for the lumbar 

4 spine used. And, apparently -- and I gave their 

5 column and rows there -- in the Rocky Flats workbook 

6 they list the lower value. And so this total came 

7 out to, they assigned a lower value than we had. 

8 And so, you know, I guess, this needs to be checked 

9 out, why the workbook has a lower value than what 

10 the tables have.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Hey, Ron. This is 

12 Scott. I'll butt in at this point, if that's okay.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes. 

14 MR. SIEBERT: I've got an answer on the 

15 X-rays. The reason for that is the Rocky Flats TBD 

16 was older than OTIB-6. OTIB-6 was updated in 2011 

17 and reflected updated values, which the TBD 

18 actually uses the OTIB-6 values and references 

19 OTIB-6.

20 So once OTIB-6 was updated, we updated 

21 the values in the tool to reflect what the OTIB-6 

22 values are. The Rocky Flats TBD, the medical TBD, 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 needs to be updated to reflect those numbers as 

2 well. We agree with that. However, just during 

3 the period until we get a TBD updated, if we still 

4 have the root document, such as OTIB-6 reference, 

5 we'll use that in the tool and use the more recent 

6 values.

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. So we were going 

8 by the TBD and it had an older version of the OTIB-6 

9 values in it. And Rocky Flats workbook, which we 

10 generally don't use unless we really need to, had 

11 updated values from a new OTIB-6. And so that's 

12 the reason their values were lower than ours. 

13 Okay. So I'll finish the internal 

14 dose. We see that this is the main difference in 

15 the whole dose reconstruction. Although there 

16 wasn't a lot of difference, this was the main one, 

17 in that we performed our dose reconstruction after 

18 NIOSH had performed theirs. When they performed 

19 theirs, the coworker dose was not available. It 

20 came out in September of 2014, and the dose 

21 reconstruction was done in 2013. 

22 So they used the air sampling data in 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 OTIB-18, of August of 2005. And so this is where 

2 the difference came in. And so I will go over how 

3 we assign dose and then look at how this came out 

4 differently.

5 We assigned dose, SC&A used the 

6 coworker dose because that's what we -- the person 

7 had external monitoring and/or we used coworker 

8 dose for external. So it was natural that we used 

9 coworker for internal.

10 He had received some whole body counts, 

11 but they were, you know, normal backgrounds and 

12 such. And so we used coworker dose intakes and 

13 used those in the chronic annual dose workbook. 

14 And assigned the dose accordingly for the isotopes 

15 there, which is uranium-234, plutonium isotopes, 

16 and americium.

17 And so we came out -- okay, now, in our 

18 case, OTIB-49 had been issued and so we looked at 

19 the -- this is uranium, this was a urinalysis that 

20 the coworker data was taken from, and so we applied 

21 the plutonium Super S according to OTIB-49, and 

22 came out with the doses showing in Table 2.11, a 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 total of plutonium plus uranium of 3.3 rem.

2 Now, NIOSH performed this before the 

3 coworker data was released, the way I understand 

4 it, that is why I had to query this out. And so 

5 they used the air sampling data, OTIB-18, and 

6 arrived at one rem.

7 And so I looked at the difference there, 

8 and if you go down and look at the actual doses 

9 calculated before you do Super S, before you apply 

10 OTIB-49, just below Table 2.11 there, I explained 

11 that we got very similar doses, about one rem a 

12 piece.

13 And so when I applied the Super S for 

14 the uranium analysis then it increased it by the 

15 last years entered into the table, increased it to 

16 about 3 rem. And so this is the reason there was 

17 a difference in the internal dose assignment as far 

18 as I can tell.

19 Now for some summaries in doses, Table 

20 3.1, we see that the external doses were very 

21 similar. Internal doses were different, didn't 

22 play as big a role as external doses. So the PoCs 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 both came out to about 40. Theirs came out to about 

2 43 percent, and ours came out 43.8. So we see that 

3 there were some differences, like we always see, 

4 in the number of zeros. There were some 

5 differences in the distribution assignment that we 

6 usually see. And the main difference was the use 

7 of coworker internal dose as opposed to the OTIB-18

8 internal intakes. And so that's where we're at on 

9 that case.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So alright. 

11 Good. Good. Comments? Questions?

12 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think there's 

13 much to be said here. Looks like good agreement 

14 to me.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Looks like fine 

16 agreement.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I can see no argument 

18 with either approach and the end result is very 

19 close. Looks like it's good to go, to me.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Agreed? 

21 Others?

22 MEMBER BEACH: I agree also.
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I agree.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we have 

3 agreement on that one. So there's only one left. 

4 However, there are time considerations at this 

5 point. It's a quarter of 5:00, East Coast time. 

6 The last one is the second Hanford, in which there 

7 is good agreement. It's pretty far from 

8 compensable and both groups agree. 

9 Doug, is it possible to go through this, 

10 or summarize what the major differences are? 

11 These are both far from compensable.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. I think it is.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Could we 

14 do that and then finish up?

15 MR. FARVER: Yes. Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that okay 

17 with other members of the Subcommittee?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's fine with 

19 me.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We may go over a 

21 couple of minutes. Go ahead, Doug.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. If we put up the 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comparison report and just jump right to -- we can 

2 jump right to Page 6, Table 1.1 and we go through 

3 and discuss which doses we really want to talk 

4 about.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

6 MR. FARVER: A lot of them are pretty 

7 similar. I'll wait until we get to that point.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Here we are.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay. Table 1.1, if we 

10 just scan across line-by-line. Less than 30 keV 

11 photons, looks like everyone's pretty similar. 

12 Same thing for the 30 to 250 keV recorded photons. 

13 Everybody's pretty close.

14 The neutrons, if you want me to give you 

15 the story on the neutrons, it has to do with the 

16 number of years. NIOSH chose to assign neutrons 

17 for less years than SC&A did. The method's the 

18 same, it's just the number of years. 

19 The missed dose, the less than 30 keV 

20 photons, NIOSH did not assign them separately for 

21 the skin doses, and the [identifying information 

22 redacted] doses are exactly the same.
266

NEAL 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 get into the missed dose for the 30 

2 to 250 keV photons, and I can tell you it has to 

3 with the number of zeros. We assumed a biweekly 

4 and then monthly, and NIOSH assumed a weekly 

5 exchange and then a monthly exchange. And 

6 therefore they had a larger number of zeros, and 

7 therefore the doses would be higher.

8 The missed neutron doses, once again 

9 has to do with the number of years. NIOSH chose 

10 to assign neutron dose for a smaller number of 

11 years, and that's the difference in the dose. 

12 Ambient dose about the same.

13 Medical dose, there's a little 

14 difference on the skin. So it would be the skin 

15 on the chest. And that's probably one you want to 

16 talk about. It has to do with the locations that 

17 each of us chose as the locations of the cancer 

18 site.

19 Hot particles. NIOSH assessed from 

20 hot particles. SC&A did not.

21 MR. SIEBERT: I'm sorry. Doug, do you 

22 want to go ahead and discuss that real quick? The 
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 X-ray one?

2 MR. FARVER: I thought we'd drop down 

3 to that point in it. I mean, I was just trying to 

4 hit the highlights and see what they wanted to 

5 discuss.

6 MR. SIEBERT: That's fine with me.

7 MR. FARVER: That will be one of them.

8 MR. SIEBERT: You got it.

9 MR. FARVER: The internal dose, we can 

10 look across there. There's a little difference in 

11 the alpha dose for the skin. Then all the way 

12 across.

13 But then you drop down to your photon 

14 and electron doses, and they're pretty similar. 

15 And then you'll see that the bottom the differences 

16 in the PoCs for the separate cancers. And then, 

17 let's see, the overall PoC difference was 36.43 for 

18 SC&A and 42.31 for NIOSH.

19 Okay. Now, of those, which ones do you 

20 think you would like to discuss? I think we need 

21 to talk about the medical. Do you have any 

22 preference? Or do you just want me to go down and 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 give you some of the big differences, which would 

2 be the years for the neutrons, the medical. Okay. 

3 We'll just drop down to the neutron doses.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: On Page 9. Okay. SC&A 

6 assigned neutron doses from 1950 to 1971 based on 

7 the penetrating photon doses and the neutron to 

8 photon ratio that's given in the Technical Basis 

9 Document. NIOSH defined for shorter period from 

10 1964 to 1969. So, in Table 2.2 you'll notice the 

11 big difference in the neutron doses, and that's 

12 pretty much the reason, is the shorter time period.

13 MR. SIEBERT: The reason we did that is 

14 based on the work, the type of work the individual 

15 was doing, and the location. Such as in the early 

16 '50s, they were a [identifying information 

17 redacted] in the 300 area; mid-'50s, [identifying 

18 information redacted] in a metal hut close to the 

19 3706 building, which is not a neutron facility; 

20 '58, there's no employment; '59, there's only one 

21 month of employment, no monitoring. So, it seemed 

22 like low potential. '60 to '62, there's no 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 employment. And, starting in '63, they were 

2 rehired for a short amount of time. There doesn't 

3 appear to be any exposure during that time frame. 

4 Then they came back in October and there's no 

5 bioassays for the rest of the year.

6 Then, starting in '64, which is when we 

7 started assigning neutrons, there was unknown 

8 locations and building 326. And the badge house 

9 in the 300 area. All those areas, if I remember 

10 correctly, are neutron locations, which is why we 

11 assigned them as well. 

12 And then from '68 through '74, he was 

13 in the 700 area working with a whole body counter, 

14 so neutrons did not seem appropriate during that 

15 timeframe for ours. So it was based on location.

16 MR. FARVER: The worker was employed 

17 there from [identifying information redacted] or 

18 so. So, there was a huge history of different 

19 positions throughout the time period.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Are 

21 there -- am I on?

22 MR. KATZ: Dave. You’re on.
270

NEAL 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: Yeah, I was on. 

2 Are there other ones that we want to look at?

3 MR. FARVER: The next major one would 

4 be the medical.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: And this does come up from 

7 time to time. So it's probably something everyone 

8 should be aware of.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MR. FARVER: If we look at Table 2.4, 

11 on top of Page 11. And the main one is the 

12 [identifying information redacted] on the chest. 

13 Now, gosh, I guess in PROC-61 it is several 

14 different locations for skin cancer. And I don't 

15 remember exactly how many, Scott. It's got to be 

16 15, 20 different locations?

17 MR. KATZ: Yeah, you're right. There 

18 are a lot.

19 MS. BEHLING: I thought it was closer 

20 to 40.

21 MR. FARVER: It's a lot. 

22 MS. BEHLING: Forty-three, I think.
271

NEAL 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 this is just a good 

2 example of how much difference it can make from what 

3 you choose. Now, what we chose, we chose left 

4 torso, base of neck to end of sternum. NIOSH chose 

5 front torso, back of neck to end of sternum, as the 

6 cancer location.

7 So when you go back and look and see, 

8 well, where is the cancer located, the best I could 

9 find by looking at the medical records was left 

10 chest.

11 Now, sometimes, if you're lucky, you'll 

12 see a drawing in the medical records where it will 

13 actually show you the location. Not too often. 

14 So this can become something that's not very easy 

15 to determine. Sometimes it is easy.

16 In this case, I am not saying I made the 

17 right choice or the wrong choice, I'm saying 

18 there's a huge difference in the choice you make. 

19 But that is the difference in the doses. It all 

20 has to come down to choosing the parameter of the 

21 location of the dose.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And I agree 
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wholeheartedly with Doug that it's often a digging 

2 through the records issue.

3 In this case, you're right, the medical 

4 X-ray -- let me see here -- NOCTS' description of 

5 the dose or the cancer was left chest. Further 

6 digging into the DOL initial file, on Page 40, 

7 actually had the discussion of the sternum chest 

8 for this specific [identifying information 

9 redacted]. 

10 So, since the sternum was mentioned as 

11 opposed to just the left part of the chest, it made 

12 more sense to use the front of the torso rather than 

13 the left side of the torso.

14 MR. FARVER: You know, I'd go along 

15 with that except both descriptions have sternum in 

16 them. They both say base of neck to end of sternum, 

17 except one says left torso and one says front torso.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Well, the sternum is in 

19 the front.

20 MR. FARVER: I understand, but that's 

21 why -- that's what's confusing about where it say 

22 left torso, base of neck to end of sternum.
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: Well, that would be the 

2 left side of the torso on that -- that gives you 

3 a range, a vertical range. There is no sternum on 

4 the left side of the chest, obviously, or the left 

5 side of the torso. It's in the front.

6 MR. FARVER: I understand that, but 

7 your argument that you just said was that because 

8 it mentions sternum in the document, the medical 

9 document, you chose front.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. What I'm saying 

11 is, the left torso, there is no way to describe a 

12 north-south, a vertical difference, other than 

13 using the neck and the sternum, because there is 

14 nothing on the left side of the torso that you can 

15 call the bottom part. You're just saying it's the 

16 bottom part of the sternum.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. So if there was a 

18 cancer in that location, how would you describe it?

19 MR. SIEBERT: In what location?

20 MR. FARVER: Let's say it was on the 

21 left side of the torso, in that location between 

22 the neck and end of sternum.
274

NEAL 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: So you're referring to 

2 under the arm, basically? The left side of the 

3 torso? I mean, I can't classify something. All 

4 I can say is the records mention the sternum 

5 specifically, and the sternum is in the front 

6 portion of the body.

7 MR. FARVER: And what I'm saying is 

8 that PROC-61 mentions sternum specifically, too. 

9 My point is --

10 MR. SIEBERT: Also it's stating what 

11 the vertical -- what the top and the bottom part 

12 of the vertical is. There is nothing on the body, 

13 on the left side of the body, to say what the bottom 

14 part is on your left side of your body.

15 All it's doing is it's talking about the 

16 front side of the body to reference how high and 

17 how low the area would be on the left side of the 

18 torso.

19 MR. FARVER: My point is that PROC-60 

20 may have a -- there may be a better description that 

21 could be used for the left torso in that area. 

22 That's all. And I'm not arguing the location of 
275

NEAL 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 sternum. I'm just saying that it's probably 

2 not the best description to use. But, anyway, this 

3 is what can result from using different locations 

4 for your X-ray exams.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There's no --

6 there's a distinction, but there's no difference 

7 in the -- no significant difference in results?

8 MR. FARVER: No.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right?

10 MR. FARVER: Not in this case.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Because you are looking at 

13 a single exam. Now, if it had been several years 

14 of exams, it could make a huge difference.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Yeah. 

16 Are there further things we need to talk about?

17 MR. FARVER: I don't believe so.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I hope not.

19 MR. FARVER: I think I hit the 

20 highlights.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Good. 

22 And there's agreement. So, again, unless somebody 
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 has a comment that they want to make, we should just 

2 record agreement. 

3 Hearing none, I think we're about to 

4 finish. We will need to think about the next 

5 meeting. We probably need to go on. We've now 

6 resolved all the blinds, which is very good, for 

7 our Secretary's report. Except the one --

8 MEMBER BEACH: Allied Chemical.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Except, the 

10 Allied, of course. Yes. And that will come out.

11 And then we, frankly, need to just go 

12 on and start going into Sets 14 through 18. We 

13 started a long time ago. So, what should we 

14 have--an early December meeting? Or a December 

15 meeting, yeah, early?

16 MR. KATZ: That time frame makes sense 

17 to me. Why don't I send out a scheduling request 

18 for that timeframe to everybody. And then, 

19 instead of doing it on the phone here --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MR. KATZ: Unless you want, I mean, if 

22 folks want to tell me right now on the phone since 
277

NEAL 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're all on, bad dates in early December, then 

2 I'll avoid those when I send out the scheduling 

3 request.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I think 

5 that's -- go ahead.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: The 25th.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MR. KATZ: That's not early December, 

10 but --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Al right. 

12 Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Early. E-A-R-L-Y.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, this is Josie. 

16 I'm not available from December 2nd through the 

17 holidays, so the first is --

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's all of early 

19 December, basically.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

22 very helpful to know.
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: The first through the 

2 30th. 

3 MR. KATZ: I forgot. I remember now, 

4 but you have a trip. 

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. If we 

7 can, the last week in November after Thanksgiving.

8 MR. KATZ: Now, how does that look, the 

9 end of -- well, Thanksgiving's kind of late this 

10 year, I think.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It is. It's the 26th. 

12 It's the last week.

13 MR. KATZ: So that is the end of 

14 November, I think.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, it is.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So shall we do 

17 something in early January?

18 MR. KATZ: It sounds like we need to, 

19 yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Or we could do, when we 
279

NEAL 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 it's the end of November, we're not taking into 

2 consideration Monday the 30th and December 1st.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Exactly. I'm good both 

4 of those days.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, check on 

6 those two dates, everyone.

7 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Something 

8 happened. Anyone there?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah.

11 MR. KATZ: Oh. Okay. So?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Josie said she was good 

13 those two days.

14 MR. KATZ: So, she's good the 30th and 

15 December 1st?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: So is everyone else who's on 

19 the phone good those two days?

20 MR. CALHOUN: I am.

21 MR. KATZ: How about, so, David 

22 Richardson, December 1st? 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Maybe we don't have David anymore. 

2 Brad, December 1st?

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: At this point, I am, 

4 yes.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. You're not taking 

6 off for Christmas yet on December 1st.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, I'm thinking 

8 about it.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Alright. So I'll 

11 check with David and John Poston about December 

12 1st. But if everyone else is good with that, why 

13 don't you pencil that in, December 1st.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: I'll check with those two. 

16 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Hey.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. Who's that?

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: David Richardson. 

19 I'm sorry. I was --

20 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Are you good for 

21 December 1st?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I got cut off of 
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the last minute. So basically we're finished. We 

2 have a couple of dates to check out for --

3 MR. KATZ: Well, so, David, December 

4 1st, does that work for your schedule?

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's a Tuesday 

6 right?

7 MR. KATZ: Yes.-

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, you're 

9 right. I should check. But I believe that we'll 

10 -- and I'm almost certain, hold it. December. 

11 But you're right, I should check. December 1, 

12 yeah. And November 30th, December 1, yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. So, let's everybody, 

14 December 1, let's plan on that. I'll check with 

15 Dr. Poston.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

17 sounds good. And, alright, folks, thank you all 

18 very much. We got a lot accomplished.

19 MR. KATZ: Fun day.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Thanks much.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Bye-bye.
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Bye-bye.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Have a good 

3 weekend.

4 MR. KATZ: Bye.

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

6 was concluded at 5:09 p.m.)

7

8