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 

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

JUNE 27, 2017

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

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

David Kotelchuck, Chairperson, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairperson

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB BARTON, SC&A

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

KEITH MCCARTNEY, ORAU Team

JIM NETON, DCAS

MICHAEL RAFKY, HHS

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

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

Review of outstanding cases........................

from Sets 14-18................................... 6

Continuing review of backlog of....................

Category 1 and 2 cases from........................

Sets 19-21...................................... 200

Adjourn......................................... 258
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 10:32 a.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Let's go with roll call.

5 (Roll call.)

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, that takes care of 

7 it. I think I would note for everyone the 

8 agenda is on the Board website under schedule 

9 of meetings, today's date, and you can follow 

10 along with that. I don't think there are 

11 materials posted on the website, just that.

12 And that's it. And Dr. Kotelchuck, 

13 it's your meeting.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very good. 

15 Welcome, all. So we have the agenda for today.

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 MR. KATZ: I'd remind everyone 

18 please mute your phone except when you're 

19 talking.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, Rose 

21 sent the transcript to us. The transcript is 

22 out for the 4/13 meeting.

23 And by the way, Ted, as we saw it, 
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 it was very helpful receiving the transcript 

2 for review a couple of weeks before this 

3 meeting so that I have had a chance to review 

4 it and post it before we received the materials 

5 from Rose.

6 By the way, I'm having trouble 

7 getting onto the -- onto Skype, but I'm 

8 perfectly fine here with the BRS, as you are, 

9 Josie.

10 And also a note to folks: In 

11 rereading the reviewed transcript I did find a 

12 couple of minor errors. And I'll contact you, 

13 Hans and Rose, just to double-check what had 

14 happened. They're small, and I know it's 

15 posted, but I trust we can make one or two -- a 

16 few small changes now.

17 Well, our agenda, as we have it [is 

18 to] review outstanding cases from Sets 14-18. 

19 We have a more limited number of issues there.

20 Review of outstanding cases

21 from Sets 14-18

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I don't know how 
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 folks would like to go over the order, but my 

2 own feeling was, I'm on the BRS, was to perhaps 

3 do the expanded responses first, three out of 

4 the four which are 14-18.

5 So, if that sounds okay, and then 

6 we'll go on and finish up the other 14-18

7 [cases]. Does that sound okay to folks? 

8 MEMBER MUNN: Sure.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is Hans still on the 

11 line?

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: He is. Okay, great.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So let's start 

15 out with Tab 409. We'll just do it in the 

16 order that we have it, that Rose sent to us.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Actually, this one 

18 we previously discussed. I think this -- did 

19 John Mauro sign off? I had told him we would 

20 discuss this --

21 DR. MAURO: Hi Rose, this is John. 

22 Maybe I'll join in when you start just to see 
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 where I might fit in on the agenda. So I'll 

2 just listen in and you let me know when you 

3 need me. But I'll be listening in, you know, 

4 just to get some guidance from you.

5 MR. KATZ: And Rose, can you speak 

6 into the mic[rophone] a little closer, because 

7 it's tough to hear you.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I apologize. I'm 

9 holding the mic but I'll try and speak up a 

10 little bit. 

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. I 

13 understand that there are times you have to 

14 call other people to be with you. And so if 

15 that represents a problem --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can certainly do 

17 --

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It just seems to 

20 me that was the order that you sent us and that 

21 was the order, certainly, I reviewed them. So 

22 I just thought -- and also we discussed them 
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 before, so they're a little fresher in our 

2 minds. So --

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, the history of 

4 Tab 409 was initially -- this is a Bethlehem 

5 Steel case. NIOSH said to summarize: We spent 

6 extensive time historically working on 

7 Bethlehem Steel. And they kind of wanted these 

8 off the table.

9 After some additional dialogue we 

10 decided that most of them would be on the 

11 table. And that's when we put out the memo, 

12 which I did send to you. We did discuss this 

13 at the last meeting and it was your preference 

14 that we would wait and discuss it additionally 

15 at this meeting.

16 And NIOSH responded to it at that 

17 time. So let me just pull it up here in the 

18 BRS.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So you're pulling 

20 it up on the issues resolution in the BRS. 

21 Okay?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And which one of 

2 those? Since I'm not on the Skype, which file 

3 is that?

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Oh, I apologize.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, that's okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's 14-18 Set, the 

7 AWE matrix.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, excellent. 

9 Alright, yes. Good.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the first one 

11 that's open is 409, Observation 2. Again, this 

12 is a Bethlehem Steel case.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And here, this is 

15 just directly out of our expanded response. We 

16 did enter the expanded response in here to 

17 track things more closely.

18 And the observation essentially said 

19 that transparency of the Site Profile would be 

20 enhanced if the results of the air sampling 

21 were included in the appendix.

22 And essentially this is just a 
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 factual observation. We don't think it 

2 warrants an additional response. So if the TBD 

3 were to be revised we would suggest that it 

4 would benefit from including that information.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. 

6 And since there are a number of items here, do 

7 we want to, just the Subcommittee, I assume 

8 that we will close this, that there is no issue 

9 that we have to consider.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

13 Let's go on.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one 

15 is 409.1, and the finding states that the 

16 photon dose rate at the skin at one-foot from 

17 the source is understated by a factor of about 

18 1.9 if a claimant-favorable large source is 

19 used as a reference.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, are you on the 

22 line?
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 DR. MAURO: Yes, I'm here.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Did you want to talk 

3 about 409.1?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, this looks like the 

5 item that deals with -- at the time that this 

6 issue was raised, I believe this has to do with 

7 when doses are reconstructed a full 

8 distribution is assumed for -- I believe this 

9 is the one dealing with -- working with the 

10 geometric mean and the geometric standard 

11 deviation as input for -- and this is all the 

12 Site Profile now.

13 Keep in mind that everything we'll 

14 be talking about on Bethlehem Steel really 

15 pertains to the application of the Site Profile 

16 to a particular case. The cases, the 

17 individuals themselves, don't have any 

18 dosimetry data. So this is all really 

19 interpreting the Site Profile and how it 

20 applies to a particular case.

21 It also has to do with the fact that 

22 the Site Profile has undergone some revisions 
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 that were not reviewed by SC&A since we 

2 initially reviewed the SEC activities which go 

3 way back. You might want to keep that in mind 

4 in context.

5 So, when we review a case, at the 

6 time they reviewed the case, one of the 

7 concerns we had is that we were expecting to 

8 see assigning an upper end, maybe a fixed upper 

9 end value at the 95th percentile for this 

10 particular exposure at the time we made that 

11 comment.

12 Subsequent to that, this issue on 

13 when to use a full distribution, when you might 

14 use a fixed upper 95th percentile or upper end 

15 value for your exposure, was engaged in other 

16 venues.

17 And Jim Neton put out some nice 

18 material, not related to Bethlehem Steel, but 

19 pointing out that when you put in the geometric 

20 mean and the distribution, the full 

21 distribution, and then you run it through an 

22 IREP you pick off the upper end Probability of 
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 Causation.

2 And the end result is you really 

3 don't get that much of a difference in what 

4 your PoC [Probability of Causation] would be if 

5 you use the full distribution and then you run 

6 IREP where samples from these distributions 

7 pick off the upper end, the upper 95th 

8 percentile value.

9 You end up with a PoC that's really 

10 more or less identical to as if you were to put 

11 in a fixed value at the 95th percentile value.

12 And that was something that came up and was 

13 demonstrated very nicely in the past.

14 So, bottom line is we're okay. I 

15 mean, I would recommend that this item could be 

16 closed because the approach that NIOSH used 

17 convinced us that, yes, using the full 

18 distribution does in fact result in a claimant19 favorable outcome, and it is not necessary to 

20 always apply the upper 95th percentile value.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So in the 

22 BRS you say this finding should be changed to 
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 an observation. Right? Because nothing was 

2 done that was wrong. It was not wrong. It was 

3 appropriate.

4 DR. MAURO: Yeah, at the time we made 

5 the comment we were in the mode of thinking in 

6 terms of, well, when do you assign an upper end 

7 value, when do you assign the full 

8 distribution?

9 But then, after that dialogue and exchanging 

10 information with Jim, you know, this may be 

11 useful as an observation to point that out, the 

12 point I just made, or just withdraw it or close 

13 it. Either way. As far as I'm concerned it's 

14 been resolved.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, right. It 

16 certainly sounds like an observation. 

17 Certainly it's not a finding. And therefore, 

18 folks from the Subcommittee, do you want to say 

19 should this remain an observation? Should we 

20 delete it entirely?

21 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe we 

22 should delete it, because if the topic arises 
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 again it's always useful to have a record of 

2 what we've discussed and what we've deliberated 

3 on. Changing it to an observation appears to 

4 be the appropriate move from my perspective.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree with Wanda.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I do, too. So, 

7 we'll change it to an observation, folks. 

8 409.2. Good.

9 MR. BARTON: Could I ask a 

10 clarifying question on that? Because that was 

11 an interesting discussion.

12 It sounds like, you know, if you use 

13 the 95th percentile as a fixed value versus a 

14 distribution -- I mean, typically we came up 

15 with the whole concept of using the 95th 

16 percentile to handle [the exposure for] workers 

17 that had a higher exposure potential versus 

18 maybe more intermittently exposed workers.

19 But the fact of the matter is using 

20 the 95th percentile as a fixed value is going 

21 to end up in the same place PoC-wise. I'm kind 

22 of wondering why we even have the option.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Someone want to 

2 respond?

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

4 holding back waiting for Jim, because the 

5 demonstration that was made, at least as it 

6 applies to this class of problem, seemed to 

7 work. That is, using the full distribution did 

8 not give results that were substantively 

9 different than the upper 95th percentile for 

10 the values that we were working with.

11 Now, that may not always be the 

12 case. I guess all I can say is that it may not 

13 always be the case that you'll come up with 

14 comparable PoCs. And there may be times when 

15 the upper 95th percentile makes more sense. 

16 I'm not quite sure.

17 Jim, can you help me out here?

18 DR. NETON: I certainly wasn't 

19 anticipating this question today so I really 

20 can't comment. I don't think it's always the 

21 case. I mean, we've demonstrated that it's 

22 close, if not perfect. 
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 Unless Dave Allen's got some other 

2 insight here I really can't address that 

3 question off the top of my head, to be honest 

4 with you.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well, this is Dave. And 

6 I'm not positive on it. I wasn't ready for 

7 that question either. But I think, if I'm not 

8 mistaken, this has to do with how large the 

9 uncertainty is.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 MR. ALLEN: So, in some 

12 distributions it certainly is large enough to 

13 where the uncertainty of the risk models is 

14 irrelevant and you end up with the same PoC, 

15 whereas other ones it might not be so large and 

16 it can make a difference.

17 So I don't think we can make a 

18 wholesale program-wide declaration that we can 

19 always do one or the other. It works for 

20 Bethlehem Steel because the GSDs are high.

21 MR. BARTON: Okay. So this is kind 

22 of a site-specific characterization and not 
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 necessarily a program[matic] one.

2 MR. ALLEN: That's my belief. I 

3 couldn't swear to that, but I'm pretty sure 

4 that's the way it would come out if we analyzed 

5 that.

6 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd like 

7 to make a suggestion. I think the issue itself 

8 is important. That is, there are times when 

9 the full distribution works well as opposed to 

10 -- and there are conditions when it makes more 

11 sense to use the full distribution because of 

12 the nature of the job the person has.

13 But I think it is important to sort 

14 of zero in on, well, when is it that you really 

15 should be using the 95th percentile? For two 

16 reasons:

17 One, the persons themselves are

18 likely to have had a job which puts them at the 

19 upper end. And that the nature of the upper 

20 end for that particular, let's say, facility 

21 and job is such that a full distribution may 

22 not do the job justice.
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 So what I'm hearing is that there 

2 are places where we do need to go with the 95th 

3 percentile and not just rely on the full 

4 distribution. In this case, the full 

5 distribution served us well, but there may be 

6 other cases where they don't.

7 A little bit of guidance regarding 

8 that would be helpful. I think we're okay 

9 here, but I agree, Dr. Kotelchuck, that it 

10 would probably be a good idea to know a little 

11 bit more about the conditions where you're 

12 really better off going with the 95th 

13 percentile.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Do we want to 

15 refer this to the Procedures Subcommittee? We 

16 can act on it as an observation, because it's 

17 clearly the resolution in this case, and then 

18 send a note to the Procedures Subcommittee.

19 MR. KATZ: I was going to suggest 

20 just that, Dave.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Ted, would 

22 you do that? 
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 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. BARTON: This is Bob. If I 

4 might offer, there is sort of a general 

5 guidance contained in the Coworker 

6 Implementation Guide that talks about when it's 

7 appropriate for the 95th percentile.

8 It talks about, well, it's your 

9 higher exposure employees, whereas those 

10 workers who were intermittently exposed, you 

11 know, not all the time, not in the highest 

12 places, that's when you look more towards the 

13 full distribution. So there is that.

14 That's the paper that you wrote, 

15 Jim. And so there is some language in there 

16 about when you should be applying the 95th 

17 percentile.

18 I'm not entirely familiar with the 

19 Bethlehem Steel case. It sounds like the 

20 original question was whether that worker sort 

21 of fit the mold of a higher exposed individual, 

22 or a more intermittently exposed individual for 
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 selecting whether you're going to apply the 

2 95th percentile versus the full distribution.

3 DR. NETON: Yeah, in the case of 

4 Bethlehem Steel it's one-size-fits-all and all 

5 workers were considered to be heavily exposed, 

6 the way the model is written. There's no 

7 differentiation between any of the worker 

8 classes in this case.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I mean, if 

10 we send a note to Procedures and then change 

11 this to an observation I think that takes care 

12 of it for us.

13 And given my desire as Chairperson 

14 to move on, I wouldn't mind going on to 409.3.

15 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I have a 

16 procedural question. Are we going to leave 

17 this observation open or do we close it? What 

18 does this do for us? We don't close 

19 observations by definition.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct, 

21 we don't. 

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a finding. 
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No.

2 MR. KATZ: It was withdrawn or 

3 changed to an observation so it's no longer a 

4 finding.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It is now an 

6 observation, 409.2 is changed to an 

7 observation. 

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, 409.1.

9 MR. KATZ: No, this was all 409.1, 

10 Dave.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. That was 

12 changed.

13 MR. KATZ: So we haven't gone to 

14 409.2 yet, right?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I was 

18 getting ahead of myself. Okay. Well, let's go 

19 on to 409.2.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Just for 

21 clarification, Dave, so this will be changed to 

22 an observation, and will it say that it was 
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 recommended to transferred over -- not 

2 transferred, but the Procedures Work Group 

3 would look at that portion of it?

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. A note 

5 will be sent to the Procedures Work Group.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And will it be 

7 noted also in the BRS under this observation?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It should be.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It's an action by 

11 the Subcommittee.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, thank you.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we are 

14 officially closing this as an observation, 

15 correct?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: Observations don't 

18 need to be closed.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We do close them 

20 internally, though.

21 MEMBER MUNN: They are observations.

22 MR. KATZ: We've been closing them 
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 all along even though --

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, in a sense 

3 closing is really accepting.

4 MR. KATZ: We're done with it.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We've reviewed 

6 it. Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: I have only one 

8 question, and that is I'm not sure what 

9 additional deliberations Procedures can bring 

10 to this that hasn't already occurred.

11 You're more than welcome to do that. 

12 Of course, it's your prerogative and we'll 

13 certainly look at it. But I'm unclear as to 

14 what anyone anticipates that we might be able 

15 to do other than essentially reach the same 

16 conclusion we just reached, that it's primarily 

17 an issue of the size of population you're 

18 dealing with. But we'll be glad to look at it.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: If anyone has any 

21 ideas about how to approach that in a new way 

22 please do let me know.
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But I 

2 think we as a Subcommittee can't go further 

3 with this beyond changing it to an observation. 

4 If there's a change, or if there's a way to 

5 resolve this, it's outside the purview of the 

6 Committee. 

7 Okay, let's go on.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

9 is 409.2. The finding states that photon dose 

10 was underestimated or understated by about 15 

11 percent in the year 1952.

12 And here NIOSH agreed with us there 

13 was an error. They say this appeared to be a 

14 copy of the 1951 values, so it's suspected that 

15 a copy and paste error may have occurred.

16 The increase in dose is trivial and 

17 doesn't affect the compensation decision. And 

18 they will correct the error in the next TBD 

19 revision.

20 So, with that, I think we can 

21 recommend closure.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Folks 
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 agree?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Agreed.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, so, 

5 closed.

6 MEMBER MUNN: So are we closing it 

7 or do we go to abeyance? It wasn't clear to me 

8 when I was looking at the material that we had 

9 this time that we were still -- and the 

10 question arose in the material itself: are we 

11 still following that protocol or no?

12 MR. KATZ: No, not for the Dose 

13 Reconstruction Subcommittee. 

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 MEMBER MUNN: -- a final action on 

16 it would be to include it in any new revision 

17 that comes along. We're no longer holding that 

18 in abeyance?

19 MR. KATZ: That's fine for the 

20 Procedures Subcommittee. We don't need to do 

21 that for Dose Reconstruction. I think we just 

22 close it and NIOSH will just update the --
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: That's what I was 

2 asking, Ted.

3 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go on, 

5 shall we?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one 

7 is 409.3. NIOSH should verify that U.S. Army 

8 1989, which is a reference, is the correct 

9 source of the dose of 90 millirad per hour and 

10 provide a reference for the cited electron 

11 dose.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

13 question, in my mind, is there's a question of 

14 verifying the U.S. Army data. And I'm not sure 

15 that's --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We're not verifying 

17 the data. We're verifying the reference is 

18 correct.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. If we're 

20 verifying that the reference is correct is that 

21 not an observation?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not in this context. 
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 And actually --

2 DR. MAURO: Do you have the 

3 attachment? There was a nice write-up that Bob 

4 Anigstein put together on this issue where he 

5 ran down the reference, I believe, in the 

6 materials to try to -- this also came up in 

7 another venue.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes, I see. 

9 And I can't open it from BRS.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You should be able 

11 to open it from the BRS. Are you working off 

12 the printout?

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Or the actual BRS? 

15 You're in the printout. Okay.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I see. 

17 Okay. But if I went to the BRS itself,

18 directly.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I will do 

21 that in the future. I did not here.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, John, I have 
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 that pulled up for you here.

2 DR. MAURO: I guess the only thing I 

3 can point out is that there was -- in 

4 referencing the U.S. Army document, one of the 

5 things we did was, well, let's go take a look 

6 at it and see what it says.

7 And it didn't really have the 

8 information. But we ran it to ground and 

9 prepared this attachment, which I think helps 

10 show where this information came from. I guess 

11 it came from different locations and wasn't 

12 originally cited.

13 And so the attachment provides that 

14 documentation to say, okay, here's where it 

15 came from.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

17 So, Subcommittee, we can approve this, close 

18 it?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, what is your 

20 recommendation?

21 DR. MAURO: From our perspective, 

22 this issue has been resolved. That is, we 
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 understand where those numbers, the 90 mR per 

2 hour, et cetera, we know where they came from 

3 now. So, from our perspective, we understand 

4 it and it's a valid source.

5 The only matter here, I guess, goes 

6 back to the Site Profile deal whereby it makes 

7 reference to some material that isn't exactly 

8 correct. 

9 And now we do have information that 

10 -- not the DR now but the Site Profile itself, 

11 when and if it's amended, just like we had this 

12 earlier comment, the Site Profile itself, at an 

13 appropriate time, when amended, just like we 

14 recommended adding in the table of airborne 

15 concentrations. Here's a place where the Site 

16 Profile would benefit by putting in the correct 

17 citations related to those exposure rates. And 

18 they're all here laid out in the appendix.

19 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. I'm not 

20 understanding why this is not an observation, 

21 because the dose reconstruction is not 

22 incorrect, it's just an incorrect reference in 
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 the Site Profile.

2 MEMBER BEACH: But there's also skin 

3 calculations that you have recommended NIOSH 

4 adopt. Can you talk about that, John?

5 DR. MAURO: I don't know if it's in 

6 this one. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It is.

8 MEMBER BEACH: It's in the last 

9 sentence.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay, so it is? Okay. 

11 My apologies. I thought that would just 

12 confirm that, yes, we found the source, but it 

13 goes further.

14 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I might be 

15 able to comment on that.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

17 DR. NETON: The skin dose in the 

18 last sentence actually refers to modifying the 

19 skin dose for the so-called Putzier effect by a 

20 factor of 15.

21 But the fact is that the uranium 

22 that was -- the billets that were provided to 
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 Bethlehem Steel were actually, had already been 

2 pre-rolled. And in fact, in your original 

3 review audit, there is a footnote to a table 

4 that essentially says that and states 

5 consequently the assumption the billets were 

6 not freshly cast appears reasonable. 

7 So, I'm not sure why we would modify 

8 that at this point. This is different from 

9 what the original audit finding stated.

10 DR. MAURO: You're right, Jim. I 

11 agree. That last sentence in this write-up 

12 where we talk about the Putzier effect, I 

13 believe that has been put to bed for Bethlehem 

14 Steel and doesn't have play here.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well, the last 

16 sentence in the last paragraph discusses that 

17 Putzier effect. So it was a little confusing 

18 to me.

19 DR. MAURO: And rightly so. I think 

20 we're in error here as it applies to Bethlehem 

21 Steel. Certainly there are other facilities 

22 where you have this double refinement process 
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 where the Putzier effect has play. But now 

2 that Jim reminded me, I don't think that it had 

3 play here at Bethlehem Steel. Is that correct, 

4 Jim?

5 DR. NETON: That's correct. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which would move 

7 this to what category?

8 MR. KATZ: Well, this is Ted. I 

9 mean, you have bundled an observation and a 

10 finding. But you could close them both. 

11 I mean, they're bundled as one, but 

12 the first part, the wrong reference, would be 

13 an observation. This last bit about needing to 

14 account for Putzier effect, that would be a 

15 finding. I think you can close them both.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So let's 

17 just close it as a finding, since that's what 

18 it's listed as initially. Shall we go on to 

19 four?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Okay, [409].4 

21 states NIOSH should explain [that] the source 

22 term for electron exposure is not based on 
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 consistent assumptions. 

2 And here this actually appeared in 

3 our review that we discussed at the last 

4 meeting. However, we didn't formally close it.

5 So it states that notwithstanding 

6 our concerns regarding consistency, the use of 

7 TBD methodology is clearly more claimant8 favorable than the TBD-6000 methodology and is

9 reasonably similar to SC&A's Monte Carlo and 

10 particle calculations for a large slab. As 

11 such, we suggest that this be changed to an 

12 observation. End quote.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. That 

14 seems to me to make good sense.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. Okay. An 

17 observation it becomes. And we can go on.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: {Point] Five. And 

19 it states that we were unable to determine how 

20 a surface concentration of 1.25E to the 7 dpm 

21 per meter squared was calculated.

22 And, going on, we also discussed 
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 this at the last meeting, but we did not 

2 formally close it. Our response states that a 

3 review of Revision 2 of the Simonds Saw & Steel 

4 Site Profile, which was only seven months after 

5 the dose reconstruction audit appeared, 

6 revealed that the revised surface concentration 

7 of 67,000 disintegrations per minute per 100 

8 cubic centimeters squared would corresponds to 

9 6.7E to the 6 dpm per meter squared. Therefore 

10 we accept the surrogate value and agree the 

11 finding should be closed.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, closed. 

15 And now .6. By the way, .6 was left out in the 

16 letter that you wrote, that SC&A wrote. It 

17 went through all nine initial things that you 

18 considered findings, but you didn't list 

19 anything in six.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Number 6 was the 

21 only one that NIOSH did not respond with their 

22 standard response that they responded to all 
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 the other ones with. So that one was 

2 accurately captured in the BRS.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see. Okay. 

4 Can we talk about it now?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Here it says 

6 the DR report should explain why no doses are 

7 assigned to the post-1962 residual period.

8 And NIOSH responded saying that 

9 there is no residual contamination associated 

10 with Simonds Steel and there's no need in the 

11 TBD for the DR to explain why there's no 

12 radiation dose or residual contamination 

13 outside the dates specified on the DOE website 

14 or the residual contamination study that was 

15 written by NIOSH.

16 And if that's the case, that's fine. 

17 However, we do believe that the TBD should 

18 clearly state that there's no residual 

19 contamination associated with Bethlehem Steel, 

20 because that is different from Simonds.

21 DR. MAURO: Rose, this is John. We 

22 took a quick look at the TBD just to see what 
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 it had to say about the residual period for 

2 Bethlehem Steel. And I believe it's silent.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It is silent on that 

4 matter.

5 DR. MAURO: Yeah, and I think that 

6 could be problematic.

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You have to go into 

9 the DOE website and dig around quite 

10 considerably. I was able to verify that that 

11 is correct. However, I had to spend a 

12 considerable amount of effort to find that and 

13 it should be stated clearly in the TBD.

14 DR. MAURO: And the reason there was 

15 no residual -- I have to say, I'm surprised, 

16 because I know that Bethlehem Steel continued 

17 to do its work, steel.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That is, rolling.

19 DR. MAURO: Steel rolling operations 

20 after it finished its AWE obligations. 

21 And the only thing I can imagine why 

22 you could neglect a residual exposure at the 
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 end of the AWE period is one of two reasons.

2 One, there was some kind of clean3 up. Or two, and this is kind of obscure, but 

4 any uranium that may have been deposited would 

5 have been rapidly covered up by the steel 

6 cuttings or steel-making operations and sort of 

7 buried.

8 And I'm not quite sure which of 

9 those two reasons is the reason why the 

10 residual period becomes null and void, so to 

11 speak, for Bethlehem Steel.

12 I remember when we looked at that it 

13 was the kind of operation where there was a lot 

14 of debris associated with the rolling 

15 operations, whether you were rolling uranium or 

16 rolling steel. And you could quickly cover up 

17 anything that was from the previous day, and 

18 perhaps clean-up. I'm not sure.

19 MR. KATZ: John. Jim can address 

20 this, because this is not a new subject.

21 MR. CALHOUN: I can, even. This is 

22 Grady.
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 First of all, you've got to remember 

2 that the Bethlehem Steel uranium rollings were 

3 very, very limited. This was not a big 

4 operation. It was done on the weekends, and it 

5 was [not] only done, we know exactly how many 

6 rollings were done.

7 And secondly, we have documentation 

8 that discusses cleanup and recovery of any 

9 residue.

10 And thirdly, although limited, we 

11 have surveys of the actual rollers that show 

12 that they're below the free release criteria 

13 that currently exists. So that's what that was 

14 based on.

15 This specific topic has been beaten 

16 to death over and over and over, and that's 

17 what we based everything on.

18 DR. MAURO: Is that in the Site 

19 Profile?

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Some of it is. 

21 Most of it is.

22 DR. NETON: I'm not sure it needs to 
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 be in the Site Profile, John. 

2 MR. CALHOUN: It doesn't need to be. 

3 Just because there's --

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 DR. NETON: We've done 1,200 dose 

6 reconstructions at Bethlehem Steel and I 

7 challenge anyone to find out where we 

8 inappropriately reconstructed dose during the 

9 residual contamination period. That's not an 

10 issue.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, then that 

12 really suggests that this should not be either 

13 a finding or an observation. That it's an 

14 erroneous position by SC&A. Is that correct?

15 MR. KATZ: That's absolutely 

16 correct.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't think it's 

18 erroneous that we would recommend the inclusion 

19 that there was no residual contamination. 

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Whether you would 

21 call it erroneous or not, there is no such 

22 problem, and it need not have been raised.
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 My feeling is, in terms of what we 

2 do, this is not an observation; it's not a 

3 finding. And therefore, it seems to me we 

4 should just remove it.

5 I appreciate -- look, when in doubt 

6 say something, right? “See something, say 

7 something”, as the saying goes.

8 And you were concerned about 

9 something, and I'm glad you raised it. But it 

10 doesn't make it an observation or a finding in 

11 this case because there was no residual 

12 contamination.

13 MEMBER MUNN: In other cases, other

14 places that might have been a reasonable query. 

15 In this particular case, it is well covered by 

16 previous activities and our discussions. We 

17 know what happened there. There was no 

18 residual --

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't think that 

20 we're arguing that there should be residual 

21 contamination applied. I think we're just 

22 saying that the TBD is silent on that matter, 
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 and it wouldn't hurt it, and it would actually 

2 benefit the TBD if it just said there is no 

3 residual contamination.

4 MR. KATZ: As was just said, I mean, 

5 we have TBDs -- I mean, we have the TBDs for 

6 many, many AWEs, and not all AWEs have residual 

7 periods. And when they do have a residual 

8 period it is stated and covered.

9 I'm not sure that there is a policy 

10 stating for all the AWEs that don't have 

11 residual periods that they don't have it. We 

12 do -- NIOSH does a report on residual 

13 contamination to Congress and that's a factor 

14 in how that gets --

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would say this. 

16 Given the discussion last time about how long 

17 ago this was done and how many years ago, I 

18 mean how much the Board said, okay, this is it, 

19 and we're re-looking at it now, I would just 

20 say, I would like to suggest that we withdraw. 

21 And I'm going to move that, that we withdraw 

22 this. What do other Subcommittee Members 
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 think?

2 MEMBER MUNN: I agree.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: I don't. I think 

4 it would still do us good. I think it's just 

5 an observation. If at any time people come 

6 back, we have looked at this. There is no 

7 residual.

8 But is it part of the problem? You 

9 guys want to throw this out. Then all of a 

10 sudden we're back again going over this stuff 

11 again.

12 So just mark it as an observation or 

13 whatever you want to call it and go on from 

14 there. But it still should be documented that 

15 we've discussed it.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that 

17 also.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You make a good 

19 point. The point that we made earlier as well, 

20 that it'll be on the record.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I would be open 
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 to withdrawing it, but I think an observation 

2 is probably the better choice. And I'll accede 

3 to that and join in and say that it's an 

4 observation.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with that 

6 also.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Dave or Wanda?

8 MEMBER MUNN: I'll be circumspect 

9 and be silent on this one.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And David?

11 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I agree with 

12 that.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. It's an 

14 observation and we will accept that as an 

15 observation. {Point] Seven.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the finding 

17 states that airborne dust loadings of uranium 

18 between rollings are underestimated.

19 And here David Allen responded 

20 saying that all airborne activity during 

21 operations at Bethlehem Steel was caused by 

22 resuspending contamination as well as directly 
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 from sources.

2 Resuspension would normally have the 

3 smaller effect during operations but the only 

4 cause after operations.

5 Because of this, estimation of 

6 resuspended contamination from operational air 

7 samples is believed to be bounding and does not 

8 need to include uncertainty.

9 And here, John, you responded saying 

10 that during the time period between AWE 

11 activities, the airborne dust loadings of 

12 uranium were assumed to remain the same during 

13 AWE operations pursuant to claimant-favorable 

14 assumptions. And as long as the case was 

15 denied, this represents appropriate claimant16 favorable assumptions in accordance with the 

17 efficiency guidance. 

18 Therefore, we recommend closure.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Do we 

20 close this as a finding or an observation? 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?
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 MEMBER BEACH: I said agreed as a 

2 finding. I believe that's what it is, yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Others?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Finding.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We close

6 it as a finding. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: Wait a second, did we 

8 do anything to fix that, if it was a finding? 

9 Didn't we just state what the explanation was?

10 I mean, if we're not changing 

11 anything to fix what the thing is, it's not a 

12 finding; it's an observation. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Not necessarily. Just 

14 because it's classified as a finding doesn't 

15 mean that there is a change that has to occur 

16 as a result of deliberating it.

17 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it means that 

18 it's kind of a departure from a written 

19 document or something that's wrong. And if 

20 we're not going to fix it, then it's an 

21 observation in my opinion.

22 Because we get graded on how many 
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 findings we have, and if this is something that 

2 we're not going to change, and we still find it 

3 satisfactory to do dose reconstructions this 

4 way, it's just an observation. 

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd be 

6 glad to jump in a little bit, too. I'm tending 

7 to agree with NIOSH in that, see, when we 

8 looked at this, and we saw that this was a 

9 special case. We had these in-between periods 

10 where there was no rolling operations. 

11 And the fact that they continued to 

12 use the same dust loading shows that, oh, well, 

13 that's a very conservative assumption.

14 In retrospect if I were doing it 

15 today, I would say just wait, and I wouldn't 

16 make this a finding. In fact, I probably would 

17 just make it a point that we're fine with using 

18 this approach, as long as --

19 And here's the only important thing, 

20 as long as it's denied: Because it is an 

21 unrealistic upper bound. And as long as you're 

22 denying, it becomes an efficiency issue. That 
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 would be the only thing that I think is 

2 important to know here.

3 But I sort of feel the same way 

4 NIOSH does in that the approach they use is 

5 perfectly consistent with the way in which they 

6 do these dose reconstructions for efficiency 

7 purposes.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, then close it 

9 as an observation, then, and I understand NIOSH 

10 is sensing some findings. I have no problem 

11 with that.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'll go along 

13 with that as an observation. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, I agree with 

15 that also.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then let's 

17 accept that as an observation and go on.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. [409].8 

19 states that some of the average surface 

20 concentrations reported in Table 3 of the TBD 

21 appear to be inconsistent with the surface 

22 concentration measurements reported in Table 2 
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 of that document.

2 MR. KATZ: You're getting harder and 

3 harder to hear.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm sorry, I'll try 

5 and speak up.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then NIOSH 

8 responded saying that the values in Table 3 are 

9 actually correct. However, an error exists in 

10 Table 2. Table 2 indicates that the 

11 contamination values are in units of dpm per 

12 100 centimeters squared. However, the values 

13 are actually taken directly from the surveys 

14 that were direct measurements.

15 The instrument used 75 centimeter 

16 squared active surface area where the value was 

17 dpm per 75 centimeters squared. The 

18 measurements were normalized in Table 3 since 

19 Table 3 was used for the intake rate 

20 calculation, but the error did not impact the 

21 calculated intake rate.

22 And here, NIOSH did agree that there 
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 was an error in Table 2. And presumably, 

2 they'll correct it whenever the next revision 

3 of the Site Profile is issued. We recommend 

4 closing the finding.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So let me 

6 understand. Is this a problem in the 

7 reporting?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a problem in 

9 the TBD where there's an error in Table 2, 

10 which did not affect this case. However, we 

11 initially thought it did because the error in 

12 Table 2 makes Table 3 look incorrect, but the 

13 error actually was in Table 2.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I see what 

15 you're saying. So, we should -- sounds like we 

16 should close it as a finding. 

17 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Number 

19 nine.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Number nine says 

21 there appears to be an error in ingestion rate 

22 for non-rolling days in Table 5 of the TBD.
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 And NIOSH did come back, but John, 

2 you responded saying that this is a Site 

3 Profile issue concerned with the way ingestion 

4 doses are derived during residual period.

5 NIOSH acknowledges that the TBD 

6 needs to be revisited with respect to this 

7 matter. And it doesn't have a substantive 

8 effect on this particular dose reconstruction.

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 DR. MAURO: This created -- in light 

11 of the previous discussion, and I could use a 

12 little help here again, it almost -- my 

13 understanding here is that this issue arose 

14 because there was an ingestion pathway and that 

15 the ingestion pathway concern that we raised 

16 here had to do with a residual period.

17 As we know, the way in which 

18 ingestion doses are derived is different for 

19 operations versus post-operations. And we went 

20 through that in other venues.

21 And in this matter, the point that 

22 was being made for better or worse was that it 
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 looks like that this wasn't done. That is, the 

2 current method for doing ingestion doses during 

3 residual periods was not followed.

4 There's this OTIB-9 approach, and 

5 then there's what I would call the Charley Yu 

6 approach that Jim and I [used] on previous 

7 occasions.

8 Now, my dilemma is that the 

9 implications of this is that there wasn't a 

10 residual period. Unless I'm confused. So that 

11 sort of contradicts our previous discussion. 

12 I could use a little help here 

13 myself. I thought we had -- we were ready to 

14 say that, well, the ingestion doses were 

15 minimal, first of all. But you really didn't 

16 follow the protocol that was agreed upon in the 

17 interim at other venues on how to do it for the 

18 residual period.

19 But now, the problem I'm having is, 

20 wait a minute, I thought there was no residual 

21 period. So could we clear this up a little 

22 bit?
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good point.

2 MR. ALLEN: Hey John, this is Dave 

3 Allen. I actually bumped my receiver and lost 

4 my connection about halfway through what you 

5 were saying. But I think I followed, and I'll 

6 try to answer.

7 As far as the conversations we've 

8 had in other Work Groups as far as residual 

9 versus operational, the same still somewhat 

10 applies, or the concept applies here, because 

11 we had operational day followed by essentially 

12 a month of non-uranium work.

13 Bethlehem Steel is unique in that 

14 situation, and because of that, this was 

15 discussed quite a bit in detail when we looked 

16 at the TBD.

17 And it was actually SC&A that 

18 developed a technique that they wanted to use 

19 for essentially, if you remember, the dilution 

20 factor.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes, it's coming 

22 back. Yes.
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. ALLEN: Right. And it was a 

2 separate dilution factor for airborne versus 

3 ingestion. The one for ingestion was 0.147. 

4 It comes from SC&A's supplemental review from 

5 September 2005. And that's what was used in 

6 the TBD. 

7 DR. MAURO: I remember that, this 

8 dilution effect. So what we're really talking 

9 about here is this is a very special case of 

10 not residual period issue, but actually the 

11 window between rollings and the fact that 

12 during that window what happens is you might 

13 have had some fresh uranium deposit. The AWE 

14 went on hiatus for a week or whatever, or a 

15 month. 

16 And then uranium operations 

17 continue. That uranium residue accumulates, 

18 commingles with any uranium that might have 

19 been deposited previously. Yes, it's all 

20 coming back.

21 I think Bob Anigstein came up with 

22 an approach to try to deal with this. Which of 
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 course is unique to Bethlehem Steel. It really 

2 has no analogy that I can even recall.

3 So this does not deal with what we'd 

4 call the classic residual period. This really 

5 deals with that in-between period where there 

6 were no uranium rollings going on, but it was 

7 still during the AWE period, if you see what 

8 I'm saying.

9 And I think that solves everything. 

10 I mean what I'm getting at. I have to 

11 apologize. This goes back many years, and now 

12 that you refreshed my memory about this issue, 

13 this is not -- you're saying, no, this is not a 

14 residual period issue; this is just during the 

15 hiatus between AWE rollings. And there was 

16 this unique approach taken to deal with the 

17 inadvertent ingestion during that period.

18 Thank you for reminding me. I 

19 understand it, and I agree with it.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thanks for the 

21 clarification.

22 Then I think, to me, that satisfies 
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 me, and I think we should move to close.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

3 MR. KATZ: It's not a finding, 

4 right? Like the other issue. There's no error 

5 in the dose reconstruction. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: No, there was no 

7 error.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: That's correct. I 

10 don't see it as a finding. This is Brad.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 Observation it is. So .9 becomes now an 

13 observation. Okay. We have resolved Bethlehem 

14 Steel and all the points on it. Good. I'm 

15 glad. So that memo that you folks sent out, 

16 SC&A sent out, and our discussion has resolved 

17 lots of these, all of the issues remaining for 

18 Bethlehem Steel. Good.

19 Now we go on to --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I may, can I 

21 suggest while we have John Mauro on the line 

22 that we do 360.3, and that way he 
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 doesn't need to be on the call for one more 

2 finding for the rest of the day.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, 360.3. 

4 Okay. Ah yes, the BONUS Reactor. Okay.

5 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Just 

6 for clarification this is in the same set, 

7 correct?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, the same set.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, 14 through 

10 18 AWE.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Just verifying, thank 

12 you.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good. 

14 Okay.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this finding 

16 stated that there was insufficient evidence 

17 presented for the assigned internal dose.

18 DR. MAURO: There's a story here. 

19 Perhaps I can help out a little bit. 

20 NIOSH is in the difficult position 

21 of trying to assign internal doses to workers 

22 at the BONUS Reactor. This is one of the 
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 reactors, the research reactors I believe, in 

2 Puerto Rico.

3 And the question was: Okay, we want 

4 to try to assign some internal dose, if we can, 

5 to the workers.

6 But there really wasn't sufficient 

7 data in order to do that. So a surrogate 

8 approach was taken. And certainly anyone, if 

9 I'm not communicating this accurately please 

10 help me out, but I believe that the decision 

11 that was made by NIOSH was well, let's take 

12 advantage of the data, the environmental data 

13 at INL for locations that I believe had 

14 reactors that were not completely dissimilar 

15 from the BONUS Reactor.

16 And my position was: You can't do 

17 that. The whole [set of] circumstances

18 surrounding INL and its environmental levels, 

19 if you were to say, okay, I was going to put 

20 this to the test on the surrogate data test, it 

21 would fail.

22 So I would say you really can't do 
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 that. 

2 But at the same time, I understood 

3 that there probably wasn't -- I believe the 

4 record showed that there really wasn't very 

5 much fuel failure or reason to believe that 

6 there was internal exposures that could have 

7 occurred at the BONUS Reactor.

8 And I agree with that, too. So you 

9 find yourself in the position of: Well, listen, 

10 we're trying to assign some internal dose, but 

11 how are we going to do that?

12 And my takeaway, and this was in my 

13 write-up, is that well, when you're in this

14 circumstance one of the strategies that NIOSH 

15 has used in the past was, I believe it's OTIB16 033, whereby you say, okay, here we've got a 

17 reactor. We know it's under radiological 

18 controls. We've got a good health physics 

19 program going. And what you do then is say, 

20 well, if we want to put a plausible upper bound 

21 on what internal exposures might have occurred 

22 if you don't have air sampling measurements or 
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 bioassay data to draw upon for a given worker 

2 or for the workers in general, you go to some 

3 fraction of an MPC or a DAC as being, well, we 

4 could say with a degree of confidence that 

5 because of the HP programs, it would be 10 

6 percent or some fraction of derived air 

7 concentration or an MPC if that's the time 

8 period.

9 That seems to be a strategy to come 

10 at this problem that is more defensible than 

11 using INL environmental airborne concentrations 

12 as a surrogate.

13 At the same time, I'll also admit 

14 that even that approach, this fraction of a DAC 

15 OTIB-033 approach may be overly conservative, 

16 even here given that I believe there's some 

17 evidence that there was very little fuel 

18 failure or concern about internal exposure.

19 But of all the different strategies 

20 that might be available to NIOSH to try to 

21 assign something, it seems to me that was the 

22 closest that I could think of.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John?

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Since your response, 

4 Beth did come back and respond again.

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And let me just read 

7 her response.

8 To explore any impact of this 

9 finding, the case was reevaluated using the 

10 complex-wide overestimate from OTIB-18, as 

11 suggested by SC&A.

12 The probability of causation 

13 increased less than 4 percent, remaining below 

14 40 percent. 

15 Also, all claims from the BONUS 

16 Reactor, as well as the Puerto Rico Nuclear 

17 Center, were reviewed and each of the other 

18 claims is for a job title more in line with 

19 environmental intakes than operational intakes.

20 Therefore this finding does not 

21 appear to have an impact on the claims revised 

22 to date.
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 And just to clarify, job title more 

2 in line with environmental intakes, you mean 

3 like an administrative position? 

4 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave. I'll 

5 answer that. I don't know how much detail I 

6 can say in a meeting like this, but one was an 

7 accountant/secretary type of thing.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

9 DR. MAURO: And does that follow 

10 this fraction of a DAC approach? I remember 18 

11 and 33 sort of relate.

12 MR. ALLEN: Right, 18 basically, as 

13 I recall, gives a complex-wide overestimating 

14 approach. And 33 allows you to take a fraction 

15 of that.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes.

17 MR. ALLEN: This was actually just 

18 applying 18 without taking a fraction.

19 DR. MAURO: Oh, so it's even more 

20 conservative.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I mean, basically, 

22 you probably have a point: That the sum of the 
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 environmental is probably not the right way to 

2 go.

3 All I'm pointing out with this 

4 comment response is that, if we put an 

5 overestimating approach in there, it still 

6 doesn't affect this claim.

7 DR. MAURO: I agree. The way I look 

8 at it is -- I remember the OTIB-18 was 

9 supplemented with 33 so that you can get even 

10 more realistic if you need to.

11 And so basically, the strategy 

12 you're adopting is to go with the site-wide 

13 generic approach of 18/33, and I'm fine. That 

14 was basically what I was trying to recommend.

15 MEMBER MUNN: OTIB-18 has been 

16 worked over pretty well.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. That's all been 

18 reviewed and approved.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, long since.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So based on that, I 

21 think we can recommend closure.

22 DR. MAURO: I'd agree with that.
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 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sounds good.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Closed. Now 

5 Dave, did you want to continue on with the 

6 expanded responses? Did we lose Dr. 

7 Kotelchuck?

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You did lose me. 

9 I was on mute and forgot that. I usually stay 

10 off of mute, but we had a lot of noise here in 

11 the background.

12 I did ask a question, and no wonder 

13 people didn't answer. I said that, for the 

14 particular case here, what we're saying -- do I 

15 understand that what we're saying is that the 

16 overestimation works perfectly -- works 

17 appropriately for this case.

18 But my question was, is there 

19 another case -- another case could occur which 

20 would not be resolved in this fashion if we had 

21 somebody who was involved with operations? We 

22 don't have to resolve that. All we can say is 
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 we're resolving this case, and we're closing 

2 it. Is that correct?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

4 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt, 

5 but I think that's a solution for the BONUS 

6 Reactor. Now we're talking the solution for 

7 internal exposure that is being proposed for 

8 this worker. I think it would be universal for 

9 anybody who worked at the BONUS Reactor because 

10 I think there's some evidence that there really 

11 wasn't any potential for internal exposure.

12 And this OTIB-18/33 approach is, in 

13 fact, a good way to place a plausible upper 

14 bound on internal exposures for any time that 

15 you would have a situation, another case.

16 Let's say we ran into another case 

17 at the BONUS Reactor where the person was 

18 working there, and there really is no reason to 

19 believe he had very much internal exposure at 

20 all for the same reasons we don't believe this 

21 person had it.

22 I would say that it would have broad 
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 applicability and not necessarily only this 

2 case at the BONUS Reactor.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: With OTIB-33.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. I agree with the 

5 OTIB-18/33 approach.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

7 Fine, good. So we close. We're closing, and 

8 I'm back online. Sorry.

9 So the question was, where do we go 

10 to next. And we were starting with the cases 

11 where we had the extended discussion. We 

12 started with Bethlehem Steel. And I would then 

13 go to, I guess -- I guess the next one was the 

14 Hanford, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. 

15 DR. MAURO: Since that's closed now, 

16 I'm going to break from mute. It was nice 

17 speaking with everyone, so I'll bid my adieu.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you for 

19 your input.

20 DR. MAURO: Bye-bye.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. One of the 

22 cases was at Hanford 42. That's actually the 
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 [Sets} 19 through 21, right?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This one, yes, 42 

3 and 19 through 21, correct.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then let's 

5 -- can we go ahead with that one?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Bob, are you 

7 on the line still?

8 MR. BARTON: I'm right here, Rose. 

9 Alright. 

10 So this one we've had some 

11 discussion on, especially at the last meeting. 

12 I'll just give a little bit of background here.

13 The original finding: We were 

14 looking at this case, and we noticed that for 

15 certain years, specifically '57 through '71, we 

16 were not seeing any missed shallow doses being 

17 applied for the claimant, although the years 

18 prior to that, to '56 and the years after that, 

19 '72, we were seeing missed dose applied.

20 And so what I had originally done is 

21 I went in and said: Why are we not seeing any 

22 missed dose applied for this period of time?
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 And I had found what I thought was 

2 an error in the coding of the Hanford tool. 

3 And it's these Excel workbooks that kind of 

4 automate the process for dose reconstructors.

5 And so I presented where I thought 

6 the error was occurring in the coding. And 

7 what happened was we got a response from NIOSH, 

8 and they said: Well, no, for this case what 

9 we're assuming is that shallow doses are not 

10 actually electrons.

11 What they are is they're going to be 

12 low energy photons. And for that period of 

13 time that was in question, the Hanford 

14 dosimeter actually had three elements. It was 

15 deep, shallow, and then an X-ray component, 

16 which was the third component.

17 And what NIOSH presented as the 

18 technical defense was that, well, if you don't 

19 see any sort of positive reading on that third 

20 component, the X-ray component, it's just not 

21 likely that you're exposed to a low energy 

22 photon source.
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 And so unless we see that positive 

2 value in the X-ray doses, then we're not going 

3 to assign any missed, or we really shouldn't be 

4 assigning any measure either shallow doses 

5 because the positive X-ray component 

6 essentially serves as the criterion for that

7 period, for when you should be assigning these 

8 doses.

9 And so we brought in our own 

10 external dosimetry expert and we talked about 

11 this at the last meeting. We really don't have 

12 any comments on the technical nature of that.

13 One thing we'd say is that that 

14 information -- how you interpret the dosimeters 

15 at Hanford for that period -- we feel that's 

16 important information to be put into the TBD 

17 because it is a technical judgment, and while 

18 we agree it makes sense, obviously for the 

19 transparency of the program, it just makes 

20 sense for any sort of outside parties or later 

21 reviews to say, okay, they were assuming low 

22 energy photons, but they also had this criteria 
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 that you needed an X-ray component before 

2 assigning it.

3 So we agreed with the technical 

4 aspect of it. But I still had some concerns on 

5 what I feel is a small coding error in the 

6 workbook for those years, in that even though 

7 it might have worked for this case, concerns 

8 remain that in other situations it might be 

9 returning an erroneous result when you're 

10 trying to count the number of missed doses for 

11 shallow.

12 And so we wrote up this memo. And 

13 at that meeting, I tried to explain what the 

14 error was I was seeing, and it was requested 

15 that we produce this memo so that we could show 

16 specifically where we think that the workbook 

17 might be going awry.

18 And so this is the memo that you see 

19 up here on the screen. And what I did was 

20 basically just went in and created a fake 

21 exposure scenario where -- to test this concept 

22 of having the X-ray doses be positive to be 
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 able to get the shallow doses. But then also 

2 that raised questions about, well, if we're not 

3 assuming that they're low energy photons and 

4 thus don't need that positive X-ray, I think 

5 you're still seeing an error there.

6 Then we also came across, because of 

7 the function of the workbook, for some odd 

8 reason, if you put in a positive ring dosimeter 

9 result, it will tally up a missed shallow dose 

10 for no real rhyme or reason.

11 So that's what we kind of wrote up 

12 in our memo. I'm not sure if DCAS and ORAU 

13 have had enough time to really look into that. 

14 So I guess I'd turn it over to them briefly to 

15 see what their thoughts are on it.

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Let me 

17 just let you know, yes, we looked at it for 

18 you, and we, as of yesterday, because you had 

19 just posted it not that long ago, we put a 

20 response up as well.

21 And I know you haven't had a chance 

22 to look at it because you probably didn't even 
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 know it was there, but we do have Matt Smith, 

2 the external dosimetry expert on our side, on 

3 the line. 

4 Would it be helpful to you if he 

5 just kind of walked through the general 

6 responses that we have on the issues, and then 

7 you can review the actual paper at your 

8 leisure?

9 MR. BARTON: That's fine. I'm not 

10 sure if the question that remains is really 

11 about the technical aspects of external 

12 dosimetry but rather about how the tool was 

13 developed.

14 MR. SIEBERT: It actually does have 

15 to do with both pieces because the tool is 

16 implementing some external dosimetry thought 

17 process that Matt can probably get into. Matt, 

18 does that sound right?

19 MR. SMITH: Sure. And we've got 

20 Keith McCartney on the line, too, who's our 

21 tool development manager.

22 With respect to the direct question 
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 about low energy photon dose being applied if 

2 the X-ray value is zero but we have a positive 

3 ring dose, that was done basically to deal with 

4 a very rare instance.

5 And we use the presence of ring 

6 dosimetry I think for a particular claim, if 

7 Keith can refresh my mind on that, to apply the 

8 low energy photon dose. Again, using the ring 

9 dosimetry as a claimant-favorable assumption 

10 that they were maybe working at PFP.

11 It turns out -- Keith went and 

12 looked at a big retrospective of all the data 

13 that we have in the database and really only 

14 found two records, in other words two instances 

15 where we end up with zero X-ray dose and 

16 positive ring dose.

17 So it turns out to be a very rare 

18 condition.

19 In our response, Keith does outline 

20 how the tool goes through the logic process of 

21 doing that evaluation.

22 So the bottom line on that 
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 particular issue, it's a very rare condition to 

2 have occur. And the reason for the tool 

3 assigning that low energy photon dose is again 

4 to make a claimant-favorable dose assignment.

5 With regards to the issue of the 

6 overall logic of this tool dealing with things 

7 properly if the Energy employees' exposures to 

8 electrons, our answer to that is yes.

9 And we give a data table that shows 

10 all the missed dose that is assigned given the 

11 different beta, gamma, and X-ray component 

12 settings or results if you will.

13 The bottom line on that front is if 

14 we have a skin claim, we're going to be using 

15 OTIB-17 logic. And because of that multi16 element film dosimeter, the logic becomes quite 

17 complicated during that time period.

18 And so Keith and his team have 

19 actually developed a Visual Basic code to deal 

20 with that logic tree.

21 That's all broken out in our 

22 response to what we call issue number 3 from 
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 the SC&A memo.

2 In most every case, missed dose is 

3 given as photons 30 to 250 keV, except for if 

4 we'd have a zero in the beta column and 

5 positive values in gamma and X-ray.

6 In that situation, we choose to 

7 assign the missed doses electrons or photons 

8 that are low energy depending on the facility.

9 So if it was PFP [Plutonioum 

10 Finishing Plant], we're going to go photons 

11 less than 30 keV. If it's elsewhere, say a 

12 reactor, we'll go electrons greater than 15 

13 keV. 

14 So, on the front of: Do we do things 

15 properly for electron dose assignment for skin, 

16 we feel the tool is handling that properly.

17 There was a footnote on page 9 of 

18 the SC&A memo that also identified a potential 

19 problem with what column the ring data was in.

20 Keith checked that out and did 

21 verify that that was an issue. In other words, 

22 a column where the ring dosimetry is placed, 
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 that column shifts through the years. 

2 And so he already has a tool fixed 

3 in place to address that issue.

4 MR. BARTON: Well, it sounds like 

5 there's a lot of kind of complex moving parts.

6 MR. SMITH: It is kind of complex, 

7 that is for sure.

8 MR. BARTON: I guess at the end of 

9 the day -- so it sounds like there was maybe a 

10 couple of fixes based on that column shift,

11 which is really exactly what I had observed and 

12 thought was the original issue myself beyond 

13 this low energy photon problem.

14 And it sounds like there's also a 

15 Visual Basic script being developed to kind of 

16 handle all the different complexities. Okay.

17 MR. SMITH: As you go through our 

18 response, you'll see we kind of broke out the 

19 things from page 9 into four issue responses. 

20 And hopefully, we have addressed everything 

21 that was brought up in the memo.

22 MR. BARTON: Okay, well then I 
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 certainly look forward to reading it, and I 

2 think -- I mean if those tweaks are being made 

3 to the workbook. I think we can probably 

4 easily close that out at the next meeting. I'd 

5 like to take a look at that.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. I think 

7 this should just be in progress, and then 

8 hopefully we'll be able to resolve it very 

9 quickly next meeting. But you have to have a 

10 chance to look at it.

11 So can we just say that this is in 

12 progress, and we will come back to it at the 

13 next meeting. Okay. Is that okay, folks?

14 MR. KATZ: No one's answering, but 

15 that should be okay.

16 MEMBER BEACH: While realizing that 

17 some of us can't answer.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? That's 

19 right. Yes, thank you for so noting. That's 

20 right. And I meant to ask that question when 

21 we started referring to this.

22 Alright. We will deal with this at 
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 the next meeting. Are there anyone who can 

2 object who wishes to object? Hearing nothing, 

3 we'll --

4 MR. BARTON: Dr. Kotelchuck, if I 

5 could ask just one clarifying question?

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. BARTON: Would the updates to 

8 the tool fall under the purview of this work? 

9 Or would ball then get kicked to the Hanford 

10 Work Group? I'm not sure.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, that is 

12 the question, whether it goes to Hanford or 

13 whether it goes to Procedures. But why don't 

14 we wait until you've had a chance to look it 

15 over, and also we'll look it over and be able 

16 to decide at that point.

17 MR. KATZ: It doesn't necessarily go 

18 anywhere beyond here.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: It doesn't have 

20 to. We may resolve it here. Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Can I request that 

22 the updated tool be provided to us?
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 MR. SIEBERT: Well, we actually 

2 can't update the tool until we get resolution 

3 with the result that is correct, if everybody 

4 agrees that that's the way it should be 

5 corrected and resolved.

6 So yes, we'd be happy to do so, but 

7 only after we all resolve it, and then we can 

8 deliver it over.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So we 

10 should talk about this at the next meeting when 

11 folks have had a chance to read the response.

12 MR. SIEBERT: For the court 

13 reporter, that was Scott Siebert. Sorry.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

15 It is nearing noon here, which is to say 9:00 

16 on the West Coast, 9:00 a.m. on the West Coast. 

17 Do folks want to go on for a while? 

18 We can certainly do that -- let's see, I guess 

19 the Oak Ridge [case] would be the next. The 

20 Oak Ridge, I think, 458.1. Was that the next 

21 one on our list? That we might be able to 

22 resolve very quickly, at least according to my 
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 reading.

2 Would folks like to break now, or 

3 would folks like to go on for one more?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I'm good for one 

5 more, Dave.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good for one 

7 more.

8 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Me too.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Can I be clear? 458, 

10 which set is that in, please?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That would be in the 

12 19 through 21 set. This is the small 

13 intestine.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

15 right. 19 through 21.

16 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Yes, that's 

17 fine. You're right, that one should go 

18 relatively quickly.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think it will. 

20 Okay, folks. Go ahead.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So the 

22 history of this is that at the last meeting, we 
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 discussed the initial finding [that] had to do 

2 with applying the appropriate gender for lung 

3 dose.

4 Then we got into talking about 

5 whether or not OTIB-6 could be interpreted to 

6 recommend that the small intestine be assigned 

7 to lung dose as a surrogate or to ovary dose as 

8 a surrogate.

9 And NIOSH's position was that the 

10 lung was being consistently selected. And as a 

11 result of that the Board should just verify 

12 what they were saying was correct, [and] tasked 

13 us with doing a small study of claims that 

14 we've previously evaluated.

15 And we did -- we have evaluated two 

16 claims that were small intestine claims, but I 

17 didn't think that was a great sample, so I did 

18 search NOCTS and just selected a random sample 

19 of 10 other cases that specifically referenced 

20 the small intestine as the organ of interest.

21 So I didn't look at any suborgans, 

22 so if the duodenum was mentioned, for the 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 duodenum I omitted those just so we would have

2 consistency in what I was looking at.

3 And 458, of course, is the one, the 

4 case that we were talking about and 381 here, 

5 selected stomach.

6 And of my random sample, every 

7 single case selected the stomach.

8 And I was kind of surprised by that 

9 to be honest, because I couldn't find any 

10 reference that would suggest using the stomach 

11 would be appropriate for the medical surrogate 

12 organ.

13 And I did find OTIB-5, which 

14 references the ICD-9 code and what surrogate 

15 organs should be selected for internal and 

16 external dose. That does recommend using the 

17 stomach for small intestine. However, that 

18 reference specifically excludes use for X-ray 

19 doses. And I have that quote cited here.

20 And I did locate, at least one of my 

21 claims that I looked at, specifically 

22 referenced OTIB-5 as the reason that that 
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 surrogate medical organ was selected, which of 

2 course is precluded by that OTIB.

3 So in conclusion, I did find that 

4 the stomach or the lung was being consistently 

5 used as a surrogate organ for the small 

6 intestine medical dose.

7 And OTIB-6 recommends use of the 

8 lung as a surrogate for organs of the upper 

9 abdominal cavity such as the stomach. So those 

10 organs are treated identically by OTIB-6.

11 They are being consistently applied. 

12 However, I do have lasting concerns that OTIB-5 

13 is incorrectly being used to assign medical 

14 dose. And I would suggest a follow-up study 

15 concerning OTIB-5 results with OTIB-6 to make 

16 sure that was consistent. 

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. I 

19 can handle that. There's two pieces here. The 

20 number one is the technical issue, this 

21 specific case which I believe we all agree, 

22 this was done correctly.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Or at least 

2 was claimant-favorable.

3 MR. SIEBERT: It's a lung dose, so 

4 it was done correctly. So, I think from a --

5 and this is obviously up to the Subcommittee --

6 but from a closure point of view, this can be 

7 closed.

8 In follow-up action, I can just 

9 state that it's going to be up to NIOSH to 

10 direct ORAU whether to move forward on anything 

11 of the sort.

12 However, we've already started 

13 walking down that road just in case. And we 

14 agree that probably the documentation for 

15 clarification, we could probably do some 

16 documentation clarification. And I'm sure 

17 we'll be talking to Grady about that. 

18 So that's pretty much where we are, 

19 that the wording can probably be clarified. 

20 And whether it's another document or whether a 

21 clarification in OTIB-6, our medical X-ray 

22 dosimetrist is looking into that, and we'll be 
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 talking to NIOSH about the direction to move 

2 forward or not.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But it 

4 does appear to me that this is closable, and 

5 it's up to others to decide whether to assign 

6 new -- that it be checked further, the 

7 consistency be checked.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Doesn't that leave it 

9 in progress still?

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In this particular 

11 case, I think we've resolved the issue.

12 MEMBER MUNN: For this case.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The last meeting, we 

15 did discuss closing this finding, but we 

16 decided to leave it open until the study was 

17 complete.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And it's 

19 completed.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Well, it sounds like 

21 NIOSH is going to take the appropriate steps 

22 and moving forward already, so I agree with 
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 closure on this.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm certainly 

3 open.

4 MR. KATZ: I'm confused as to 

5 whether this is a finding or not.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's a good 

7 question.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would suggest, 

9 since that action was taken on the part of 

10 NIOSH, and they do feel that it warrants 

11 additional investigation or at least the 

12 recommendation -- I think it is a real finding.

13 MR. SIEBERT: And this is Scott. I 

14 would have a tendency to say, if something 

15 would be background documentation, so making an 

16 observation would be appropriate. But 

17 obviously it's up to you guys to decide.

18 MR. KATZ: So the organ selection 

19 was correct. 

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: At this point, we 

22 certainly believe that.
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 MEMBER MUNN: For this claim. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, for this 

3 claim. For this claim. I mean, the study, a 

4 lot of work has gone on following last meeting. 

5 But in the end, that was -- the 

6 stomach lung was consistently used as a 

7 surrogate organ, which is what the question 

8 was. 

9 So in a sense, I do think it's 

10 probably an observation. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: It was correctly done.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Do others want 

13 to?

14 MEMBER BEACH: I can agree with 

15 that, Dave.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

17 So we'll move this to an observation and accept 

18 it. Good. 

19 And now it is noon, and it seems to 

20 me this is a good time for a lunch/breakfast 

21 break, depending on one's geographical 

22 position.
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 So shall we get together at 1:00? 

2 MR. KATZ: Sounds good.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 1:00 

4 Eastern Daylight Time. Speak to you in an 

5 hour. Bye bye.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

7 matter went off the record at 12:02 p.m. and 

8 resumed at 1:02 p.m.)

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, Dave, it's all 

10 yours.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We're 

12 going to finish up on the Westinghouse Nuclear 

13 Fuel Division 434. We had a lot of discussion 

14 about this last time. Hans and some of the 

15 NIOSH people had strong disagreements and asked 

16 Hans to write a memo, which he did.

17 And who would like to start for 

18 SC&A, Rose, Hans, whomever?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Hans is going to 

20 start this off.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, I guess I'm 
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 going to be asking you for some guidance as to 

2 how much detail needs to be put into this. 

3 Because this is not a simple issue to discuss 

4 over the phone.

5 And I'm prepared to sort of give you 

6 pretty much a summary of what was contained in 

7 the White Paper that has been issued, and I'm 

8 hopefully aware of the fact that most of the 

9 people have read it. So I'm not sure how much 

10 detail you need to get at this point or simply 

11 maybe await NIOSH's response.

12 I really don't know what's the most 

13 appropriate approach here.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, certainly

15 we have read your letter. My own sense is that 

16 many of the issues raised here will have to be 

17 referred to the Procedures Subcommittee. I 

18 mean, there are a number of issues that 

19 certainly I as one Board Member do not feel 

20 competent to decide.

21 But I think what we should do is, if 

22 you would discuss in brief your letter, and 
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 you're correct to say we've all read it, and 

2 then get a response.

3 And then see where we should go.

4 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott, and I'd 

5 just let you know, we have read it, and we're 

6 working on the written responses. 

7 We're pretty much in the same 

8 position SC&A was at the last meeting. We're 

9 almost there, but it's not in writing yet. 

10 So I can give verbal information as 

11 to where we are on all of them and what 

12 direction it's going, but the written will be 

13 coming relatively soon.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think given 

15 this is a complex issue and a number of 

16 different facets are complex, it seems to me to 

17 make more sense for us to wait until you have a 

18 written response and then we can read that in 

19 the context of Hans's report, and then talk 

20 about it next time.

21 I don't see a lot of point in 

22 discussing it here. Or put it this way, I 
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 don't think we can resolve things today.

2 What do other Subcommittee Members 

3 think?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. 

5 There may be some clarifying questions that 

6 NIOSH has, and we could discuss those.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's certainly 

8 true.

9 MEMBER BEACH: And if there's not, 

10 then I agree with you.

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

12 don't believe there's any actual questions 

13 we're going to have to get resolved. I think 

14 we can pretty much do the responses in the 

15 written response.

16 So from our point of view, I agree, 

17 it probably makes sense to go ahead and get 

18 those written responses in and have SC&A review 

19 them and get to the next meeting then.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Maybe a 

21 brief discussion, with the understanding that 

22 we're going to probably not resolve it until 
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 the next meeting.

2 But what Josie said certainly makes 

3 sense to me, that there may be things that we 

4 discuss that will clarify things for us on the 

5 Subcommittee and clarify things for the 

6 different points of view.

7 So why don't we go ahead and talk 

8 about it briefly.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. I'm going to 

10 at least hope that if there's one thing I can 

11 hope to achieve in this presentation, it's 

12 that, if there are any outstanding questions 

13 that some of the people may have, that I'm in a 

14 position to answer them as we go along here.

15 And hopefully as a result of maybe 

16 us receiving NIOSH's response, we can also 

17 therefore anticipate what we may have to say in 

18 the next meeting.

19 But let me at least take the time to 

20 at least provide you with a simple 

21 understanding of what the issues were that I 

22 identified in the White Paper and if anyone has 
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 questions, please do interrupt right away, and 

2 I can perhaps clarify the issue for not only 

3 the Working Group but anybody else, inclusive 

4 of NIOSH, as to what I intended to achieve 

5 here.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. Just briefly 

8 again, the finding really pertains to an Energy 

9 employee who was at the Westinghouse Nuclear 

10 facilities during the time that includes the 

11 time period after the operational period, and 

12 there was obviously residual exposure.

13 And NIOSH has stated that -- or at 

14 least in my finding, I say that NIOSH has 

15 included unsupported methods for the 

16 determination of external doses during residual 

17 period, and more specifically, this finding 

18 cited the absence of information needed for 

19 SC&A to duplicate doses that were derived by 

20 NIOSH.

21 And for the reconstruction of dose, 

22 NIOSH employed information guidance that was
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 contained in the templates -- and again this is 

2 somewhat different from the conventional 

3 findings that involve, obviously, more 

4 documented information than had previously been 

5 assessed by NIOSH. In the case of templates, 

6 we have not seen this before.

7 And because of this, the 

8 Westinghouse facility template, which has not 

9 been previously validated, was incorporated as 

10 part of the review of the ED dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 And so, let me briefly turn over and 

13 review some of the items identified in section 

14 3 of the SC&A's White Paper pertaining to this 

15 particular finding.

16 And if I can, Rose, ask you to put 

17 up slide number 1.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That is on the 

19 screen already.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, okay. I'll 

21 have to actually look at Kathy's screen here to 

22 see.
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This is the slide that in summary 

2 provides the basic background information 

3 regarding what was the central issue here in 

4 this particular dose reconstruction that 

5 involved external doses during the residual 

6 period.

7 And I quoted in here the exact 

8 wording and the particular table that's the 

9 central part of this issue here.

10 And if you read the italics here, in 

11 this particular slide here, you will notice a 

12 couple of things. 

13 Among the other things that I want 

14 to bring attention to is that this particular 

15 time period was part of a continuum that 

16 involved continuing operations that are not 

17 covered under EEOICPA.

18 And I point this out because later 

19 on we're going to talk about the issue that 

20 involves the absence of the cleanup and the use 

21 of a resuspension factor that I had considered 

22 inappropriate.
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 Again, I'll quote the residual 

2 exposure, so calculated based on contamination 

3 levels calculated below, and applying the dose 

4 conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 

5 12 for contaminated surface and submersion.

6 So what this really means is that we 

7 have information that was provided in this 

8 table here below, which for 1973, identifies a 

9 yearly photon dose of 32 millirem for the 

10 photon component or whole body component and a 

11 dose of 171 millirem for the skin dose from 

12 electrons.

13 So let me just summarize. In 

14 summary, in behalf of these two numbers, that 

15 is the 32 millirem external whole body dose 

16 from photons and the electron dose of 171 

17 millirem per year cited in the table, NIOSH's 

18 explanation for these numbers is limited to the 

19 fact that we have an unspecified contamination 

20 level as we'll see and the application of EPA's 

21 dose conversion factors (DCFs) for contaminated 

22 surfaces and contaminated air submersion doses 
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 that are cited in Federal Guidance Report 12.

2 So that on the basis of that limited 

3 data, SC&A's previous inability to reproduce 

4 and validate the aforementioned photon-electron 

5 dose that prompted this particular finding must 

6 be viewed in context with the limited 

7 information that is provided in the template.

8 In other words, on the basis of that 

9 limited data, I was not able to duplicate these

10 doses, and part of our charter in doing a 

11 review of a dose reconstruction that involved a 

12 template that had not previously been reviewed 

13 by SC&A, I was really not in a position to do 

14 so. So that is really the basis of our 

15 finding.

16 Let me quickly go on to slide 2 

17 here. This is data that was presented to us 

18 only on March 31 of this past year in terms of 

19 trying to clarify how these two numbers, that 

20 is the 32 millirem external photon and 171 

21 millirem per year for skin dose were derived.

22 And this particular slide 2 -- Rose 
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 -- this is figure 1. Figure 1 is slide 2. 

2 Okay. 

3 And what I want to talk about [this] 

4 here. I clarified this is the actual 

5 spreadsheet, one of two spreadsheets that I 

6 received, and it contains the various columns.

7 On the top, I identified columns by 

8 1 through 10 on the upper right-hand side -- if 

9 Rose, you can point to those columns there, 1, 

10 2, 3, 4, 5 across the top.

11 And just briefly, and I will 

12 identify those columns that are important. 

13 In column 1, NIOSH identified four 

14 different potential assertions that could 

15 possibly result in the external exposure. In 

16 natural thorium, however, it resulted in the 

17 highest deep dose and shallow dose among the

18 four potential [assertions], and it's 

19 highlighted in yellow here.

20 Column 2 identifies the assigned 

21 surface contamination, and I'm going to make 

22 reference to this number repeatedly throughout 
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 the statements that follow here.

2 Assigned surface contamination level 

3 is 2.83 times 10 to the 6 dpm per square meter 

4 for the year, the starting year 1973. It's a 

5 number I will refer to again and again.

6 In column 3, an important criterion 

7 that I want to bring attention to is the 

8 assigned resuspension value of 1 [times] E to 

9 the minus 6 per meter was selected to derive 

10 the air contamination level that appears in 

11 column number 4.

12 And by means of that particular 

13 resuspension factor, the air contamination 

14 concentration was derived by means of that 

15 number in column 5, which obviously then 

16 defines -- actually, let's see here. Oh yes, 

17 okay, I forgot the same sentence here.

18 In column 4 the resuspension value 

19 that was previously found in column 3, 1 times 

20 10 to the minus 6 per meter times the 2.83 

21 times 10 to the 6 dpm per meter squared yields 

22 an air concentration of 2.83 dpm per cubic 
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 meter. And that is for the calculation of an 

2 air submersion dose.

3 And so on. The other ones are not 

4 that important. You can look at it. Column 5 

5 corresponds to effective DCF for the three 

6 isotopes that represent the natural thorium, as 

7 will be seen in the next figure for surface 

8 contamination. And column 6 corresponds to the 

9 combined effective DCF for the three isotopes 

10 representing natural thorium in figure 2 from 

11 Federal Guidance Number 12 for the submersion 

12 exposure.

13 So you have two types of doses, 

14 surface contamination external and of course 

15 the air submersion dose.

16 Column 7 represents the effective 

17 external dose that results from the 

18 contaminated surface. For example, the derived 

19 effective contaminant dose rate of 1.62 E to 

20 the minus 5 rem per hour is a product of 

21 columns 2 and 5. And so you end up with a 

22 value of 1.62 E to the minus 05 rem per hour.
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 And column 8 represents effective 

2 external dose that results from immersion dose 

3 in contaminant air. Column 9, the work-hours 

4 per year with external exposure, is assumed to 

5 be 2,000. And column 10 is the final effective 

6 annual dose of 0.032 rem per year from the 

7 combined effective external dose from the 

8 surface contamination and the submersion dose.

9 So what I end up doing is 

10 demonstrating that, based on the information 

11 that was provided, I was able to reproduce the 

12 32 millirem per year from external photon dose 

13 and the 171 millirem shallow dose per year you 

14 see.

15 Also, shown below in the next row of 

16 data that is below the one that you see on top 

17 in figure 1, is a derivation of the shallow 

18 dose. As I said, that is 171 millirem per year 

19 or 0.17 rem per year, the value you see on the 

20 right-hand corner.

21 And it pretty much follows the same 

22 protocol. It uses guidance reported under 12 
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 and corresponds to the skin as a target tissue 

2 for the shallow dose.

3 In figure 2, and I will go to figure 

4 2 now. Figure 2 segregates the numbers that I 

5 showed you in figure 1 into the three isotopic 

6 components. In other words, natural thorium is 

7 thought to represent thorium-232, thorium-228, 

8 and radium-228 and provides a contribution of 

9 both the effective contamination dose as well as 

10 the effective submersion dose for each of the 

11 radionuclides.

12 And when you tally them up, they all 

13 combine, in the end yielding 32 millirem per 

14 year for external whole body and 171 millirem 

15 for the skin dose.

16 What you will see, however, is the 

17 assigned isotopic activity that is represented 

18 by the three radionuclides, thorium-232, 

19 thorium-228, and radium-228 in the upper right20 hand corner is that these are thought to 

21 contribute the natural thorium based on isotopic 

22 fractions that represent 8.4 percent for 
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 thorium-228, 1.45 percent for thorium-232 and 

2 90.15 percent for the radium-222.

3 And this, however, is not -- these 

4 are not fractions that you would consider to 

5 represent natural thorium, but actually are more 

6 likely to thorium represent tailings.

7 For unprocessed natural thorium or 

8 for unprocessed, meaning natural thorium you 

9 would expect three radionuclides, thorium-232, 

10 thorium-228, and radium-222 to reasonably be in 

11 secular equilibrium.

12 And therefore, the numbers that you 

13 see here, that you see in terms of thorium-228 

14 that's 8.4 percent and 1.45 for thorium-232 and 

15 90.1 for radium-228 really should have, in 

16 essence, been represented by values of 0.333 

17 each if one were to assume secular equilibrium. 

18 So that is one of the things I wanted to point 

19 out which will come into play later on again.

20 Let me go and then quickly talk about 

21 -- based on the data that I received in behalf 

22 of these two spreadsheets, I identified a number 
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 of things that are concerns and uncertainties. 

2 And in section 4.0 in my White Paper, 

3 I stated the following: While the data contain 

4 figures 1 and 2 allowed SC&A to duplicate 

5 NIOSH's derived external deep dose of 32 

6 millirem per year and shallow dose of 171 

7 millirem per year for the residual period, it 

8 does not imply a validation.

9 Embedded in the derivation of 

10 external dose, however, are three unexplained 

11 undocumented assumptions and two inconsistencies 

12 that require further clarification.

13 And let me cite them briefly what 

14 they are. The first is the undocumented surface 

15 activity. As I mentioned in figure 1, the 

16 starting point for the assessment of the actual 

17 dose was the assumed value of 2.83 times 10 to 

18 the 6 dpm per square meter.

19 This is a value that I don't know 

20 where it came from, but I will assume that it 

21 came from actual empirical data involving the 15 

22 SRDBs that were cited in the template.
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 However, we don't know how these 

2 numbers really represent each or all of these, 

3 or some of those SRDBs that are cited.

4 So the first finding or issue that I 

5 wanted some clarification on is the undocumented 

6 surface activity, which is the basis for those 

7 two calculated values of 32 and 171 millirem 

8 each.

9 The second one is the inappropriate 

10 value for a resuspension factor. As I pointed 

11 out previously for the derivation of the 

12 external submersion dose, NIOSH assigned a 

13 resuspension factor of 1 E to the minus 6 per 

14 meter. 

15 And NIOSH's assigned resuspension 

16 value of 1.0 E to the minus 6 per meter is not 

17 appropriate, according to what I believe it 

18 should be.

19 It is also incompatible with the air 

20 assumptions that are assumed by NIOSH for the 

21 derivation of the inhalation internal dose that 

22 I'll discuss briefly here.
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 Under the heading of residual 

2 external dose of the template, NIOSH states the 

3 following:

4 Though a monitoring program existed 

5 at the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Division during 

6 the residual period, continuing operations that 

7 are not covered under the EEOICPA also occurred.

8 This statement, to me, implies that 

9 there was no decontamination at the end of that 

10 operational period and continued work without 

11 any attempt to clean up any residual activity 

12 that would potentially affect people who would 

13 be exposed during the residual period.

14 So the use of the resuspension factor 

15 that is as low as 1 E to the minus 6 per meter 

16 is generally used only to validate a thorough 

17 and documented decontamination effort when a 

18 facility has been decommissioned and complies 

19 with the standards specified under AEC's 

20 Regulatory Guide 1.86, which has the following 

21 standards, limits for residual contamination in 

22 order for unrestricted use.
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 And at this point, I would ask Rose 

2 to put up slide 4. Okay, you already have it up 

3 there.

4 What you see there in the left-hand 

5 column is -- in the radionuclides, you'll see 

6 natural thorium. 

7 And what you see there are three 

8 values for average, maximum, and removal of 

9 contamination limits identified in terms of dpm 

10 per 100 square centimeters.

11 And when you look at that value, and 

12 I'll point to the average value, if you take 100 

13 dpm for 100 centimeters squared, and you 

14 standardize it to per meter squared, you end up 

15 with 100,000 dpm per meter squared.

16 Now, that is what the average value 

17 should be, and I assume that the value of 2.83 

18 times 10 to the 6 dpm per meter square that were 

19 cited in figure 1, if you compare those two 

20 values, you realize there is a twenty-fold 

21 difference.

22 And it's really a standard practice 
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 for the use of 1 E to the minus 6 as a 

2 resuspension value, and I think it was cited 

3 also in the document that NIOSH offered in OTIB4 70 as a value that applies to that particular 

5 set.

6 You realize you can't use it if you 

7 consider that the average value should be 

8 instead of 2.83 times 10 to the 6, it is now 

9 reduced according to Reg Guide 1.86 to 100,000 

10 dpm or 28-fold lower. 

11 And that's the reason I identified 

12 the 1 E to the minus 6 that were used for the 

13 resuspension value for the contamination and the 

14 submersion dose is to be perhaps an 

15 inappropriate value.

16 The next point that I wanted to talk 

17 about is the inconsistent resuspension-factor18 derived air concentration has been not 

19 consistent with what follows on the issue of the 

20 air contamination as it applies to the 

21 inhalation dose that was also derived in the 

22 template.
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 When you look at the air 

2 concentration that NIOSH used for the 

3 calculation of external immersion dose to 

4 contaminated air, as I pointed out in figure 1, 

5 that turned out to be -- that value is 2.83 dpm 

6 per cubic meter of air that defines the 

7 submersion dose.

8 But when you go to the actual 

9 template that talks about the issue of 

10 inhalation exposure, NIOSH derived a value of 

11 100 dpm per cubic meter for inhalation.

12 So now you have obviously two air 

13 concentrations involving an individual who was 

14 simultaneously exposed to external air 

15 contamination in the submersion dose and also 

16 concurrently breathing in air that contained 28 

17 times higher dose of air contamination than 

18 assumed for inhalation as opposed to submersion.

19 And that's an inconsistency. You 

20 cannot have two separate air concentrations, one 

21 for immersion dose and one for inhalation dose 

22 that vary by more than a factor of 28.
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 And that value of 100 dpm per cubic 

2 meter was derived from a table that exists in 

3 the template where they talk about the 

4 inhalation of 9.65 dpm per day.

5 And of course when you standardize 

6 this to reduce it to what is in the air by 

7 accepting the fact that NIOSH assumed that 1.2 

8 cubic meter of air per hour times 8 hours, so 

9 9.6 divided by -- or take the 965 dpm per day 

10 inhalation and divide that by 9.6, which is the 

11 product of 1.2 cubic meters for air an hour 

12 times 8 hours, you end up with 100 dpm.

13 So again, we have an inconsistency 

14 here in terms of an air concentration that 

15 doesn't match when you talk about or compare the 

16 inhalation dose concentration to the immersion 

17 dose.

18 And lastly, I do want to talk about 

19 how this question of what this number 

20 represents. When NIOSH has identified 965 dpm 

21 per day as an inhalation, I assume this was 

22 again based on empirical data that comes from 
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 the 15 SRDBs that are cited on page 4 of the 

2 template. 

3 And there is, however, no information 

4 available that would allow us to -- or me to 

5 assess whether or not this number is one that 

6 has a scientific merit or technical basis, and 

7 therefore, it needs clarification.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: And the last thing, 

10 I made some recommendations how we can resolve 

11 this, but I think we'll let that one go until we 

12 hear from NIOSH to see how each of those five 

13 issues are addressed in their response to SC&A.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Thank you. 

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

16 Actually, it's the recommendations that we 

17 address. So we'll hit those quickly and say 

18 what we're doing.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, okay, then let 

20 me just quickly go through the recommendations.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But we have them 

22 all. 
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 DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, okay.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We have them in 

3 front of us.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

5 MR. SIEBERT: I can state them 

6 briefly when I hit each one.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. Well, the first 

9 recommendation was providing information and 

10 data that validates the surface contamination 

11 level we used.

12 And this is the fact that when --

13 this finding was initially an external finding. 

14 So when we gave the template and the backup 

15 documentation, it was all the external 

16 information because that's what the finding was 

17 on.

18 In hindsight, I guess it would have 

19 been better if I had given you all the internal 

20 information, too, because you were looking into 

21 that as well.

22 So what we're going to do is, we have 
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 all that information. We will post that with 

2 the next response.

3 You are correct. It comes right out 

4 of those SRDB documents, and we show how we 

5 calculated the 95th percentile and what that 

6 information is based on. So you'll see that in 

7 the response.

8 The second one is for the derivation 

9 of the external doses revised [by] the activity 

10 fractions for natural thorium.

11 And we did note this issue after the 

12 first version of methodology, and we had already 

13 changed it in 2014 to reflect natural thorium in 

14 that revision. So we'll be giving you the next 

15 version of it that demonstrates that we changed 

16 to natural thorium as well. So that one, we 

17 agree that that makes more sense, but we already 

18 made the change. So that's two.

19 Number three is the resuspension 

20 question. And in that update in 2014, we also 

21 updated the resuspension factor. I'm not 

22 prepared to go into specifics, but you'll see 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that information in the response as to what we 

2 used and where that came from.

3 And the final one is number four, the 

4 information data for the air concentration of 

5 100 dpm, which kicks over to the inhalation of

6 just over 900 dpm per day.

7 It's the same thing. It's in the 

8 internal information which we'll post, and I 

9 probably should have posted the last time. So 

10 you'll see that as well, and you can go through 

11 those numbers. So that's what you're going to 

12 see.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, as I said, I 

15 did not really identify any of these issues as 

16 real findings other than the collective issues 

17 upfront that says we need clarification based on 

18 the limited data. And even after the two data 

19 sets were presented to us in the form of a 

20 spreadsheet, I was again -- I want to be clear, 

21 I was able to duplicate your numbers down to the 

22 last digit.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And on the other hand there were 

2 still obviously some residual concerns because I 

3 didn't know where the original 2.83 X 10 to the 

4 6 dpm per square meter came from, nor did I have 

5 a full understanding of how the 965 dpm per day 

6 inhalation was derived. 

7 But I suspected that they were based 

8 on empirical data which I didn't have.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. In a way, 

10 now, we're at the point that if there are 

11 questions from anyone, whether Subcommittee 

12 Members or staff folks on the phone, would 

13 people want to ask any questions or ask for 

14 clarification before we conclude and await the 

15 ORAU results?

16 MEMBER MUNN: No, what I think I 

17 heard is most of the clarifications are going to 

18 be in the documents that we'll see coming from 

19 NIOSH.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's right. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: I don't, except that visual 

22 is better than oral.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Agreed. Other 

2 folks want to input a question or comment? 

3 MEMBER BEACH: None here, Dave.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: None from me.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

7 that's good. So we've summarized the issue. 

8 We've gone over it again, the issues. We await 

9 the response. And we will take this up at our 

10 next meeting.

11 DR. H. BEHLING: As far as I'm 

12 concerned, just about everything is likely to be 

13 resolved. And the only thing that I guess I 

14 wasn't sure what the numbers will be with the 

15 resuspension, but obviously there was at least a 

16 reference to a revised resuspension factor other 

17 than the 1 X E minus.6 that was used in the 

18 original document.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So, I think 

20 with that we have covered as best we can the 

21 results in the expanded responses.

22 And I think we're ready to go on to 
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 the PRS.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I can suggest 

3 while we still have Hans on the line, if we 

4 finish off --

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon me?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If I can suggest 

7 while we still have Hans on the line, he has one 

8 more response for this Westinghouse case that 

9 might be appropriate to address now.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. That 

11 sounds good. Thank you. Okay.

12 Is this other than 434?

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, this is the same 

14 case.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, it's the same 

17 case. And this one should be very quick to 

18 resolve one way or the other.

19 When I reviewed that particular case 

20 I looked at the, obviously, all of the 

21 assignments of internal and external exposure. 

22 And I came up with the notion that 
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 after we gave the CATI report that there was 

2 something of an inconsistency, and I think we 

3 can discuss it a little bit longer here after I 

4 make my comments here.

5 I realized that for external 

6 exposure, he was assigned an ambient dose. And 

7 yet when I read the CATI report, it was clear to 

8 me that in the CATI report, he clearly stated 

9 that he was exposed to external exposure and was 

10 monitored for external exposure because -- based 

11 on his particular job, which I won't discuss 

12 here.

13 But in his CATI report, he clearly 

14 recalls multiple things. 

15 One, he wore his badge. Two, 

16 coworkers that he worked with also wore badges, 

17 and the frequency of badges worn he says [was] 

18 “always” and also remembers that the chest 

19 location was the choice of location that he wore 

20 his badge.

21 So it seems to me based on the CATI 

22 report that he had a firm understanding that he 
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 was once -- during this time period monitored. 

2 Not so when he was asked whether or 

3 not he was monitored for internal exposure in 

4 the CATI report: Did you participate in the 

5 biological radiation monitoring program such as 

6 urine, fecal, breath, or in vivo whole body 

7 count? His answer was, I don't remember. I 

8 don't know.

9 So, when I looked at it, and I 

10 realized that for external exposure, where the 

11 CATI report suggests that the individual, the EE 

12 firmly remembers that he was monitored and yet 

13 there was no record of his exposure, of external 

14 exposure, and therefore NIOSH compelled to 

15 assign him an ambient dose as opposed to a 

16 surrogate dose or coworker dose.

17 At the same time, the EE clearly 

18 remembers or at least doesn't remember ever 

19 being monitored. And that's something that you 

20 would expect someone to remember if he has to 

21 submit a 24-hour urine sample, he was whole body 

22 counted, or he was assessed fecally. That's 
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 something we don't forget about, and yet he says 

2 he doesn't remember.

3 And yet under that circumstance, 

4 NIOSH assigned him a coworker dose, and that was 

5 probably a substantial dose as opposed to what 

6 he might have received under coworker external 

7 dose.

8 And I just cited it because, as part 

9 of our charter, when we do evaluate a dose 

10 reconstruction we always look for the CATI 

11 report to support everything that NIOSH does.

12 And yes, there are times when there 

13 are inconsistencies where someone doesn't 

14 remember, but perhaps out of reasons that 

15 involve being in a situation where you were

16 willing to assess him even under questionable 

17 circumstances, somebody will assign a dose to 

18 that person even though there's no imperative 

19 reason to do so.

20 But in this case, I find it 

21 inconsistent where, in the form of external 

22 exposure situation where the EE identifies that 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there was no attempt to give him a coworker 

2 dose, and yet for the internal, the EE was given 

3 a coworker dose.

4 And I just mention this as an 

5 inconsistency. As I said, I don't disagree with 

6 NIOSH's attempt to identify any records that he

7 might have had.

8 But the fact is, this is an 

9 inconsistency where in one case you've given the 

10 dose, and in the other one, you don't.

11 There's also still a remote 

12 possibility that, maybe -- I mean, after all, 

13 the operational time period was a very brief 

14 time, and maybe he wasn't exposed, and maybe he 

15 wasn't even monitored, but the records are 

16 simply not there.

17 Anyway, it was just an observation or 

18 a finding that identified in terms of the 

19 inconsistency.

20 And I can't tell you that there is a 

21 firm need for me to prevail on this issue. It's 

22 just an inconsistency I see, and NIOSH can 
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 respond however it deems.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, what you're 

3 talking about is 434.2, which is on Other DCAS 

4 Sites on page -- just for the folks who are on 

5 the line, page 78.

6 And NIOSH responded to your concern 

7 that you indicated and looked for data quite 

8 extensively and didn't find any.

9 And there is a contradiction there. 

10 The question is, do we feel -- do folks on the 

11 Subcommittee, do we want to try to look into 

12 this? It is a different question than the ones 

13 we've been talking about.

14 Or should we leave it until we come 

15 back to the Westinghouse 434 case next time? I 

16 don't know how folks wish to proceed.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I can 

18 clarify a little bit if that would be helpful.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. SIEBERT: It's really two 

21 questions. Number one is the individual says 

22 they had external monitoring, and we did not 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 find it.

2 As we said in our response back in 

3 April, we agree that the individual may have had 

4 external dosimetry. However, there is no record 

5 of any during the operational time frame.

6 One thing to really remember, we have 

7 the records from '71 and '72. That's the only 

8 operational time frame there is because that's 

9 the only time frame where they got fuel from the 

10 AEC.

11 So we specifically were looking for 

12 data when we did our data request of the site 

13 and all that information for the operational 

14 period. That's what we focused on.

15 So, the individual, I looked back, 

16 and the individual's employment was 32 years, 

17 from '59 to '91. 

18 How do I say this? I wouldn't be 

19 surprised if this individual did wear badging 

20 sometime during that 30 years because [in the] 

21 nuclear fuel division, clearly they worked with 

22 fuels during that time frame.
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 However, we have good records of all 

2 the badges during '71 and '72, and there is no 

3 indication this individual had a badge during 

4 that time frame.

5 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, just and 

6 again, I'm not trying to disagree with you other 

7 than to tell you that I'm looking at the CATI 

8 report, and it talks about this time period.

9 He was employed there from 1963 

10 through 1990. And at the same time also when he 

11 talked about the frequency of badge worn, the 

12 answer was always.

13 And so that gave me the impression 

14 that he would have likely been monitored not 

15 only outside the operational time frame but also 

16 for the year of '71 and '72 that he might have 

17 also been thinking about having had a badge on.

18 That was the only justification for 

19 bringing this up. If there was no data, maybe 

20 he's mistaken. There's no way we can be sure 

21 which is the correct answer here.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And probably we could 
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 have explained this in the dose reconstruction 

2 report a little clearer so everybody understood 

3 that. So we can accept that.

4 The other thing is what's being 

5 stated as an inconsistency between external and 

6 internal. And really it's not because we did 

7 not assign coworker because there is no coworker 

8 during this residual period in an AWE.

9 But actually it's Westinghouse 

10 Nuclear Fuel. It is based on the information 

11 that we have from the site at the end of the 

12 operational period.

13 So what we assigned, both on the 

14 external and the internal side, and Mutty, feel 

15 free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

16 But what we assigned on both sides of 

17 the equation are the information we have for an 

18 unmonitored individual that we assume may have 

19 been in the area. So they would have gotten 

20 some external dose based on what was in the area 

21 at the end of the operational period and some 

22 internal based on resuspension of what was in 
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 the area at the end of the operational period.

2 So it actually is consistent. The 

3 reason it could seem inconsistent is the fact 

4 that if he had actual monitoring, we would have 

5 used that monitoring instead of the default 

6 monitoring that's based on the end of the 

7 operational period. That's the only difference.

8 MR. SHARFI: We only would have used 

9 the dosimetry during the operational period.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

11 MR. SHARFI: During the residual. 

12 Because there's continuing operation, residual 

13 external exposure would be --

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Because the work, 

15 the covered work, the work that was covered 

16 under our responsibilities went on only for a 

17 limited amount of time, is it possible that the 

18 Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Division, which I 

19 assume still exists, or there's some --

20 certainly, there's a Westinghouse company, can 

21 they -- let me ask it this way -- do we know 

22 that the person had a badge that was badged 
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 before and after this '71-'72 period?

2 We've been looking at '71-'72. Fine. 

3 And there's nothing there that we can find. Do 

4 we know, or is it possible to find out?

5 I assume he was badged. We all 

6 assume he was badged before and after, but is 

7 there -- do we know if he was badged before and 

8 after? Is that something we can reasonably seek 

9 out from Westinghouse?

10 MR. SHARFI: We have all the Eberline 

11 and Landauer reports for '70 and '71. We did

12 not try to capture all these reports for all the 

13 years that were not applicable to the exposed --

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I understand. 

15 That's reasonable. But in this case, we're a 

16 little bit -- I'm a little unsure, as we all 

17 are, about whether the lack of records for '71-

18 '72 was just something missing in that person's, 

19 or whether that person was not badged before and 

20 after.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Dr. Kotelchuck, let me 

22 point out, this is not a site where we can 
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 request data from the site.

2 This is a site where we had to go out 

3 and go through records and pull the applicable 

4 records on a data search.

5 So we can't just do a phone call and 

6 say, for this individual, can you tell us if 

7 they ever had a badge. We don't have a 

8 mechanism for pulling that type of response.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

10 Thank you. I was just thinking that if they had 

11 badging before and after that we might -- it 

12 might infer something about whether the badging 

13 which was just missing for that one year or --

14 whether the badging was missing or whether the 

15 person was not badged over a long period of 

16 time.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: In part also, I'm 

18 going back to the CATI report. I'm looking 

19 here, and the question that he answered 

20 affirmatively, he goes, did you conduct your

21 work under special work permit, SWP, or 

22 radiation work permit, RWP? And he says, yes, 
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 under special work permit.

2 And I assume special work permit does 

3 require a radiation monitoring device.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. I mean, 

5 there's no question there should have been 

6 monitoring. Was there? 

7 But the answer is, we cannot find 

8 that out. That's not something we can just call 

9 Westinghouse.

10 DR. H. BEHLING: The only thing else, 

11 he does identify a coworker by the name of -- I 

12 won't name him.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No names.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: No, I'm not going to 

15 name the name. But he includes a coworker by 

16 name and a telephone number, who as stated here, 

17 might be a witness of his, you know, in a 

18 radiation safety specialty, who can confirm and 

19 expand on the information he provided us.

20 I don't know who the person is, but 

21 he at least had the foresight of saying, you can 

22 call and talk to this person and confirm my 
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 statements as contained in the CATI report.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I don't 

3 know. 

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Like I said, it may 

5 not be a major significant issue, and all I was 

6 concerned with, as part of our review, we always 

7 do look at the CATI report, and we do it very 

8 seriously to say, is the data contained in the 

9 dose reconstruction consistent with the 

10 information? And here was an obvious 

11 inconsistency where he was not -- was just a 

12 person who had dosimetry records on file and 

13 therefore that was a --

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Subcommittee 

15 Members, what do you suggest we do?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Well, a couple of 

17 comments. As to what we do, it's up to all of 

18 us I suppose.

19 But the fact that he may have had any 

20 number of TLDs or other types of radiation 

21 monitoring does not necessarily mean that this 

22 limited time period, in 1971 and '72 wasn't it, 
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 were those periods during which that was 

2 occurring.

3 The other thing I personally 

4 encountered is individuals who are not clear on 

5 the distinction between dosimeter badging and 

6 identification badging.

7 There's, in companies like 

8 Westinghouse, all of the employees who worked in 

9 those facilities were badged. They were not 

10 necessarily radiation monitor badges. And that 

11 is an easy error, I think, that -- as I said, 

12 I've encountered that on a couple of occasions 

13 where people believed they were being monitored 

14 when in fact they were being identified.

15 MEMBER BEACH: The only difference --

16 sorry to interrupt.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Go ahead. Please.

18 MEMBER BEACH: The only difference is 

19 that he seemed quite clear, and clear enough to 

20 identify someone to contact to vouch for and 

21 have another reference. So that leads me to 

22 believe he knew what he was talking about, 
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 potentially, in this instance.

2 So we're in a quandary here.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We are. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: But it's the timing 

5 area that is questionable. And as was pointed 

6 out, if you've had a whole body count, you would 

7 know the number always comes out to be one. For 

8 me, I never had more than one body counted at a 

9 time.

10 But it's a memorable experience. And 

11 I don't know anyone who's gone into that 

12 counting chamber and laid down and watched the 

13 cover above you that doesn't remember that.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Can I ask someone, 

15 do we know that the person who the employee 

16 referenced was called? Or if not, should that 

17 person be called.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Dave, this is Grady. 

19 Generally, well, the standard question on the 

20 CATI we ask everybody if they can list 

21 coworkers. So it's not like he just listed this 

22 guy just out of the blue. So we ask that 
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 question of everybody. It's a standard 

2 question.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. CALHOUN: In all the time I've 

5 done this I think that we've only made that call 

6 -- I've only made that call once, and I bet it's 

7 been done less than a dozen times in the 15 

8 years of this program.

9 I think we have to look at everything 

10 in total before we make that call. And I'm not 

11 sure that would make a great deal of difference.

12 I don't know, at this point I think I 

13 would recommend more of just waiting for a 

14 response, a written response back from Scott and 

15 then you can do some other detailed look at 

16 things.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Grady, just to let you 

18 know. This is Scott. This already has a 

19 written response from the last one, and our 

20 response is no different. This is point 2.

21 MR. CALHOUN: That's right.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'll tell you 
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 what, then without a clear -- it's a tough one. 

2 It's hard to call.

3 We are clearly coming back to this 

4 case, and I -- if I may say, we're not getting 

5 anywhere quickly on this.

6 Why don't we, we're coming back to 

7 the case 434 next time, and let's include this. 

8 This may give us a chance, all of us, to think a 

9 little bit more about the issue for this, and 

10 also read more carefully and think about the 

11 response that we have in the RS at 434.2.

12 So let's go on and move ahead. Is 

13 that okay, folks, Subcommittee folks?

14 MEMBER BEACH: Is there any other 

15 work that can be done in these recommendations 

16 from SC&A on that?

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, as I said, I 

18 wouldn't necessarily be even concerned about it, 

19 but the PoC on this individual is relatively 

20 high without naming it. But it wouldn't take 

21 much to bring him up to the point where 

22 compensation would have to be considered, unless 
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 of course the assigned internal exposure would 

2 also be withdrawn as part of a more definitive 

3 dose assessment. I don't know. 

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I suggest 

5 let's hold this until the next time. Both of 

6 these.

7 MR. BARTON: This is Bob Barton. 

8 Could I ask a quick clarifying question? Is 

9 this a site where we don't have external 

10 dosimetry for anyone?

11 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct. We do 

12 have -- we have the Landauer and the Eberline 

13 reports since they were their vendors. We have 

14 all the reports during the time frame. So we 

15 have lots of external dosimetry from people who 

16 were actually monitored. 

17 MR. BARTON: I mean, was an external 

18 coworker model looked at. This might be an 

19 application where that makes sense for a worker 

20 who maybe should have been monitored or maybe 

21 wasn't monitored or maybe was monitored and we 

22 don't have those records.
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 I mean, if we do have data on other 

2 records, would that be something that either has 

3 been explored, or would it be worth exploring?

4 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady again. 

5 One of the things that that shows is that if we 

6 do have like the records from everybody there, 

7 the likelihood that he was monitored is remote.

8 So now we're trying to -- are we 

9 trying to make an evaluation of, well, he was 

10 monitored, but somehow Landauer lost the 

11 records?

12 Or are now we trying to say he should 

13 have been monitored, and we need to do a 

14 coworker? Those are two different approaches I 

15 believe in my mind. 

16 And if we believe we have relatively 

17 thorough records from other people who worked 

18 during that time and we don't have his, it's 

19 more of an indication that he wasn't monitored 

20 during that period than it was he was monitored 

21 and we don't have the records.

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
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 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. Let me just 

2 make another comment. I wasn't complete in my 

3 comments regarding his coworkers he listed.

4 In addition to the one coworker for 

5 whom he listed a telephone number for contact, 

6 there were two other people -- actually no, yes, 

7 two other people here that he cites as people 

8 that you can contact for confirmation.

9 And it would be interesting just to 

10 run those three different names and see if there 

11 are any radiation exposure records on their 

12 behalf, whether they're claimants or not, 

13 doesn't matter.

14 But it would support the notion that 

15 he was in their company, and maybe they can shed 

16 a light on whether or not he is basically a 

17 person who was truly not monitored during the 

18 operational period, or maybe he was not.

19 But like I said everything here seems 

20 to suggest that there's an outside possibility 

21 that maybe he was monitored and the records are 

22 simply not there.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

2 something doable. Is that a major task, Grady?

3 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not going to commit 

4 to call him. 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No, no, not to 

6 call. To check the records.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I'll go back and look 

8 what we've got, but I'm not going to commit to 

9 calling any --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh no, and I'm not 

11 asking you to commit that either to be clear. I 

12 just want to check the record. If you could 

13 check the records when we come back to it next 

14 time, that may be helpful.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I have 

16 a question then. What will that actually tell 

17 us? Because if his coworkers have data, that 

18 doesn't necessarily mean they were coworkers 

19 during the '71-'72 time frame.

20 And the flip side is, if they don't 

21 have data during that time frame, that doesn't -

22 - I don't know what it really tells us.
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 We can pull the information. I'm 

2 just not sure what it really actually indicates 

3 to us.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I have to 

5 think about that. It certainly doesn't say --

6 we're looking for inference as to what might 

7 have happened. We can speculate that he just 

8 didn't do -- not speculate, the absence of 

9 records suggests that he didn't do work in that 

10 period. But he reports it, and that's the 

11 dilemma. 

12 But folks, I propose we go on. This 

13 is one of many cases that we have to go over. 

14 So I propose that we come back to this next time 

15 and that we end this discussion now.

16 And just go back and finish up sets 

17 14 through 18 as best we can in the time period 

18 we have left. We've covered good ground today, 

19 but let's go back to the BRS reports.

20 It happens that we are in -- if we're 

21 looking at 434.2 or 434, we're in the Other DCAS 

22 Sites. And according to my records, there are 
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 two other cases in that file, and both of them 

2 are in progress, 436.2 and 369.3.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There's also 435.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I missed 

5 that, 435. Is that in progress?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it's an 

7 observation.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, can 

9 we -- I mean --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Would you like to go 

11 through this matrix?

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, exactly. 

13 It's just a few more things left. Two of them 

14 that we have are in progress, so I'm not sure 

15 unless there's a report now. Or we could look 

16 at 435. Well, let's go through the matrix. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We can start with 

18 this one, and we'll just go down my list here.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have the W.R. 

21 Grace case, 369.3. And the finding states that 

22 NIOSH did not consider Pu intakes for 1969 
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 through '70.

2 And we last left it that NIOSH was 

3 considering exploring Pu coworker dose during 

4 the operational period. Has any progress been 

5 made on that?

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I found it. 

7 I'm sorry. I was looking. Have other people --

8 I don't have the screen that other people have, 

9 so 369.3.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. We're 

11 in the midst of working through a coworker study 

12 during that time frame, so this is something 

13 that is going to be ongoing for quite a while.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that is 

15 in progress, and that's where we appropriately 

16 will leave it. Okay, good.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. There's also 

18 another one on the Westinghouse case that we 

19 pretty much have resolved.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 434.4. The finding 

22 states that activity ratios used for Pu were ---
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 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we did come to a 

4 resolution. However, Brad had a remaining 

5 concern --

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- that was not 

8 addressed at the last meeting.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct. And do 

10 we have a response from Brad on that?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There is no response 

12 here.

13 It looks like he was concerned with 

14 whether or not the practice was a standard 

15 practice or if this was an isolated instance.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I apologize. I always 

18 look at the most recent response, and the most 

19 recent response was talking about closure. So 

20 let me look for a second here.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Sure, go 

22 ahead.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Do you just want to 

2 move on and we can come back to it?

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Sure.

4 Go ahead Grady.

5 MR. CALHOUN: What?

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry 

8 Scott. Excuse me.

9 MR. SIEBERT: What practice is 

10 standard? What's being asked here?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You'd have to go back 

12 to the matrix at this point. Depending on which 

13 version of the matrix you're looking at, it's 

14 either on page 42 or 45.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Because what the 

16 discussion is is plutonium-241 being listed as 

17 alpha when it's really a beta. Is that the 

18 issue itself?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think it was beyond 

20 that. This is the discussion we had back in, 

21 looks like January or November. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 9/11/2015. I have 
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 it in the BRS.

2 MEMBER BEACH: You might have to go 

3 back to the transcript and read it.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, we 

5 could do that. 

6 MR. BARTON: If I might, I was just 

7 looking through my notes from January, and it 

8 looked like the isolated incident was whether 

9 you use ambient intakes as opposed to coworker 

10 intakes. That's what I have written down as the 

11 concern about whether this was an isolated 

12 incident or something pretty common. For this 

13 particular site, that is.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Thanks, Bob.

15 MR. SIEBERT: If that's the question 

16 then that is easily answered actually. We've 

17 already discussed it. 

18 There is no such thing as coworker or 

19 ambient during residual time frame. There is --

20 as we discussed in the previous response, there 

21 is only if the person was monitored during the 

22 operational period, which this individual was 
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 not, or we can assign the residual external and 

2 internal components, which are based on the end 

3 of the operational period and settling and 

4 resuspension and so on and so forth both from an 

5 internal and external point of view.

6 So that is how we deal with it at 

7 this site. There's no inconsistency there.

8 Brad, does that help you after what 

9 we talked about a little earlier?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: To tell you the 

11 truth, I'd have to go back and read what the 

12 discussion was. But we'll take a look at it. I 

13 don't think it's a showstopper in any way. I 

14 was just trying to figure out if this was a 

15 normal practice that we did with this. 

16 I think I'm okay with it myself.

17 MR. SIEBERT: I can just tell you 

18 that what we did is what we normally do. So the 

19 answer is yes.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And that was 

21 recommended for closure once a response was 

22 gotten, which we now have.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: We have it, and I 

2 don't have a problem with it.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So let's 

4 close on 434.4.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one we have 

8 here is a Brookhaven National Lab case. And

9 that is tab 435. Are you there?

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Just before, going back, 

12 since it's been so long and I couldn't read what 

13 was above about closure. So are we closing a 

14 finding where SC&A had a finding and we agreed 

15 that it's correct or not? I don't know what the 

16 actual outcome is there.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Let me go back.

18 MR. KATZ: Rose can tell us. What 

19 did we close on?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Hans had some 

21 remaining concerns about one of the tables I 

22 believe. And once we have NIOSH's additional 
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 information, that can provide --

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, I'm looking 

3 at BRS. NIOSH has since corrected the 239/240 

4 issue as discussed on page 45 of our January 

5 transcript. SC&A recommends closure once B. 

6 Clawson's concern is addressed. And it is.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: And it's been 

8 addressed.

9 MR. KATZ: I understand that. But 

10 the actual finding, not Brad's observation or 

11 concern, but the actual finding was there was 

12 some error in the table, and those have been 

13 corrected.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. KATZ: This is the same case that 

16 was corrected earlier, that came up in our 

17 discussion.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We discussed in a 

19 different context. And actually, this is really 

20 an observation. Delete the word alpha in row 4 

21 of Table 4, acknowledge the activity ratio. 

22 These recommendations are for the 
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 report. So this 434.4 is, I believe, an 

2 observation. 

3 MR. KATZ: Okay.

4 MR. BARTON: And I can again say from 

5 January, what I have here is that it was a 

6 discussion about plutonium. 

7 A response from Scott was, we've 

8 updated the template since that time frame and 

9 we've actually added the Pu-238/240 to respond 

10 to this portion of the finding. So that's what 

11 I have for 434.4.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. That sounds 

13 like an observation to me. So, can we call this 

14 an observation and close it? Or accept it?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. Do 

17 we have any more on this file, Other DCAS Sites?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. There is 435, 

19 observation 1.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this one we've 

22 been carrying for some time. We were unable to 
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 replicate the results from their tech-99m 

2 results because they used a different version of 

3 IMBA than we have. And they were looking into 

4 it at the last meeting.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Into getting us the 

7 most current version of the IMBA software so 

8 we're properly able to evaluate their results.

9 MR. CALHOUN: I'll go get an update 

10 on that again, but I think that we've had a real 

11 hard difficulty ourselves with that one.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 434.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I thought we finally 

14 resolved that issue of different copies of IMBA. 

15 No, we didn't?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, we've been 

17 working on it for at least a year I believe.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Longer than that.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It might be two years 

20 now. I don't know.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It seems like forever. 

22 It keeps coming up so many places.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I'm having 

2 trouble finding it in the file. Someone who is 

3 on the BRS file, what page is it? 

4 MR. BARTON: That's 435, observation 

5 1.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I've got it. 

7 Okay, thank you. I had the wrong number. Well, 

8 NIOSH will investigate status. And that status 

9 has not been investigated. That is to say -- or 

10 the conclusions, there's not a conclusion on 

11 that, right?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. It still 

13 has not been resolved.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, then we'll 

15 have to keep it in progress. It is in progress. 

16 Somebody has to try to resolve that.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then there's one 

18 more left in the matrix.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 436.2, perhaps?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

22 MR. BARTON: Rose, I think this is 
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 one of mine, right?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe so.

3 MR. BARTON: 436, let's see what we 

4 have here. Okay, yes, this was one of mine. 

5 Alright, so essentially what happened 

6 with this case is you had a health physics 

7 worker, I don't want to get into it too much, 

8 but they were working in a place where shallow

9 doses through beta radiation was possible.

10 And so when we were doing the review, 

11 we noticed that the application of missed 

12 shallow doses was applied for one half of one 

13 badging period. So essentially, usually when 

14 you apply a missed dose, it's one half of the 

15 limit of detection. You apply that. In this 

16 case it was essentially one quarter of the limit 

17 of detection. And then no more missed dose was 

18 applied for this individual worker, which 

19 certainly got us scratching our heads.

20 I don't think we talked about this at 

21 the last meeting. I think it was probably the 

22 meeting before that, and we got the verbal 
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 explanation, and that admittedly made my head 

2 spin.

3 So what happened at that meeting is I 

4 requested that NIOSH put that in writing, so 

5 they're hopefully going to look at that and sort 

6 of get where that's going. Because obviously, 

7 it's kind of a strange thing to think about, 

8 that you could be applying a missed dose to only 

9 one half of one badging period, which in this 

10 case is a month.

11 So we got that written response, and 

12 we looked it over. I feel a little bit better 

13 about it but not much. I'm still rather 

14 confused about it. 

15 And I think the problem is -- I think 

16 I understand the spirit of what the procedure is 

17 for figuring out these missed badging cycles and 

18 how it's possible that you could get one half of 

19 a badging cycle applied.

20 But I guess for my own -- I certainly 

21 would feel better about it if the response sort 

22 of kind of went into the actual case and put 
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 numbers.

2 As in, we're looking at this quarter. 

3 This is the total reported dose. This is how we 

4 parse it out to the different assumed badging 

5 periods.

6 You have to remember in this case and 

7 for this particular site, the workers were on a 

8 monthly schedule, exchange schedule, but the 

9 records we have only report the totals on a 

10 quarterly basis.

11 So you kind of have to take those 

12 measured results and assume they were in certain 

13 months during that quarter for the purposes of 

14 calculating what the missed dose is going to be. 

15 In this case, it's a best estimate missed dose.

16 And one of the references NIOSH 

17 provided which was helpful was PROC 6, which the 

18 very last page of that has an example of how you 

19 do it for deep doses. But then there's this 

20 added wrinkle. We're talking about shallow 

21 doses here.

22 So I guess at this point I would 
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 recommend either one of two courses of action. 

2 Either we could certainly turn it over to NIOSH, 

3 and they can kind of explain how this process 

4 works. Again, I found it still a little bit 

5 confusing. What I would prefer is if NIOSH is 

6 amenable, they could go in and say listen, we're 

7 going to show you the hand calculations. Here's 

8 the actual number from the dosimetry file. This 

9 is how we parse it out. This is how we assume 

10 which doses, which missed doses are for deep, 

11 and this is why the resulting is left for 

12 shallow.

13 And I'll give you just one example of 

14 why I'm a little bit confused. The badging 

15 cycle that was on a quarter rather where the one 

16 half of one missed dose was applied, all we know 

17 really is that the total deep dose was 1.05 rem. 

18 And then I looked in the following 

19 year, and there's another quarter of a deep dose 

20 is 1 rem. So essentially a difference of 50 

21 millirem.

22 And I just couldn't quite resolve 
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 that in my mind why that badging period was 

2 different. And so again, this would sort of be 

3 like a back of the envelope type calculation. 

4 You know, like one of those Part II health 

5 physics questions where you kind of state your 

6 assumptions and it's a little bit like a 

7 storyline, just so we can kind of get from point 

8 A, which is sort of the guidance on how you're 

9 supposed to be calculating these things, and 

10 then point B, to actually see how you get from 

11 that guidance, using the actual numbers for this 

12 case to kind of resolve it. 

13 At least that would certainly put my 

14 mind at rest. And again, I don't think it would 

15 take a great deal of effort. And it might also 

16 help out Members of the Subcommittee to see that 

17 in sort of a step by step process.

18 Because again, it's a bizarre thing 

19 to think about that you could be applying one 

20 half of a missed dose, not one half of the limit 

21 of detection but one half of a badging cycle 

22 missed dose, so essentially one quarter of a 
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 limit of detection.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yes, I 

3 agree. It's always struck me as a little odd, 

4 too, but when it's a best estimate, it kind of 

5 makes sense.

6 Yes, the expanded responses that we 

7 gave in March, actually there's two different 

8 documents. There's one that discusses the steps 

9 involved, the document, the Word document, and 

10 gives the specifics for the claim in question, 

11 discussing fourth quarter of '68.

12 And then there's an Excel spreadsheet 

13 that shows the columns and how the pieces all 

14 fit together.

15 I'm not sure how much more specific 

16 we can get.

17 MR. BARTON: I guess what I had 

18 envisioned is literally a written piece of 

19 paper. Look, here's what exactly we're seeing 

20 in the file, for example, dose totals for this 

21 quarter and dose totals for this quarter.

22 And here is how we're going to break 
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 this up. This is how we're going to break up 

2 the deep dose.

3 And actually, I do have a question.

4 MR. SIEBERT: That's what's in the 

5 document we gave though. I mean, I'm reading 

6 it. It says 1968, there are two positive deep 

7 dose dosimeters based on dose limits and only 

8 one positive for shallow dose, which means 

9 there's one zero dosimeter reading for deep dose 

10 since there are three dosimeters within the 

11 quarter, and give example 3 minus 2 equals 1 and 

12 two for shallow.

13 I mean, we did the step by step in 

14 this document. This is what I'm saying. I'm 

15 not sure how much more specific we can get.

16 MR. BARTON: I see the step by step. 

17 It doesn't actually refer directly to the 

18 reported doses. And I gave that one example 

19 where the quarter that we're talking about, the 

20 total dose is 1.05 rem, and that's when we 

21 assign that missed shallow dose.

22 And then in the very next year, 
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 there's another quarter that has 1 rem, so 

2 essentially 50 millirem less. And then there's 

3 no shallow dose assigned.

4 And so I guess the devil is kind of 

5 in the details, and it's that somehow that extra 

6 50 millirem --

7 MR. SIEBERT: You're talking about 

8 the difference between '68 and '69, right?

9 MR. BARTON: Yes.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Okay. And we actually 

11 discussed that. We went through the steps for 

12 '68, and then for '69, it says note that for '69 

13 and '70, the number of positive dosimeters based 

14 on the LODM dose limits are equal for deep and 

15 shallow dose.

16 As specified earlier we can only 

17 assign shallow dose when the number of zero 

18 shallow dosimeter readings exceeds the number of 

19 zero deep dosimeter readings. Since they're 

20 equal, it doesn't exceed it.

21 Like I said, I'm not sure how much 

22 more specific we can be here. I don't know how 
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 to write it up much more clearly.

2 MR. BARTON: Well, I guess perhaps 

3 then maybe I need to take a closer look at that 

4 and maybe get some other SC&A folks who --

5 again, I just, looking at it and trying to parse 

6 it out, I wasn't entirely comfortable that I 

7 understood enough to sign off on it in this 

8 context.

9 But while we're talking about this 

10 issue one of the earlier responses, in fact I 

11 think it was the first response, it states that 

12 for this site, the shallow dose was only 

13 reported if it was greater than the deep dose. 

14 Is that correct?

15 MR. SIEBERT: I believe that is 

16 correct. I'd have to look at it.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I believe so.

18 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

19 MR. BARTON: So we can assume that a 

20 shallow dose equal to the reported deep dose was 

21 applied to all skin cancers? Because a shallow 

22 dose is only reported if it's actually greater 
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 than the deep dose. That kind of infers that 

2 the shallow dose is either somewhere between 

3 zero and whatever was reported for the deep 

4 dose.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Okay, I think what 

6 we're going to need here to get this moving 

7 forward is, Bob, if you could write up your very 

8 specific questions so that we can then address 

9 them piece by piece so we can walk through it. 

10 That may save us some time here and hopefully we 

11 can describe it to your satisfaction, answering 

12 specific questions.

13 Would that be workable?

14 MR. BARTON: Yes, I'd be happy to do 

15 that. Again, I just wasn't quite comfortable 

16 enough, in seeing the response and looking at 

17 the actual dose values, to be able to sign off 

18 on it from what I've heard without reading up on 

19 it.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That sounds like a 

21 reasonable resolution. It is in progress now, 

22 so it will remain so until next time, and 
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 hopefully folks will find it to resolve and make 

2 a recommendation to the Subcommittee.

3 Alright. That as I see finishes all 

4 the items on the file, Other DCAS Sites, 

5 correct?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see in the other 

8 files, the SRS and Hanford have only two 

9 outstanding issues.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Both of them are 

12 awaiting Working Group actions from SRS.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Therefore there's 

15 nothing to pursue in that file for us to finish 

16 Sets 14 through 18. INL and NPS also, 383.8, in 

17 progress, awaits report from INL Working Group.

18 So we have the remaining ones on the 

19 AWE file, in addition -- beyond Bethlehem Steel 

20 and BONUS. We have four or five. Right? Shall 

21 we start on that, then?

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Let me get that 
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 pulled up.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The first 

3 one I noted in the BRS was 430.2, Electro Metal. 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And then 

6 we'll go on for a little while now and then 

7 we'll take a short comfort break. But we can go 

8 on.

9 MR. SIEBERT: I apologize. This is 

10 Scott. Which set are we in now?

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We're going back 

12 to AWE and Sets 14-18.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Gotcha, thank you.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, this is finding 

15 430.2 and it's an Electro Metal case. The 

16 finding states that there was a failure to 

17 acknowledge the recollection by one of the 

18 claimants of a specific type of cancer that was 

19 reported in the CATI report. And that's on the 

20 screen, but I don't want to give away too much 

21 PI information.

22 The claim was done with a different 
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 trunk cancer and this particular claimant had a 

2 better recollection, or thought that they had a 

3 better recollection, of more information about 

4 the cancer.

5 At the time that we did the dose 

6 reconstruction this was a flag for us. And so 

7 when we were doing our one-on-ones the Board 

8 Members felt it was important to bring it to the 

9 attention of DOL. So we did send to DOL an 

10 email regarding this case. 

11 And DOL did respond. We notified 

12 them in November of 2013 and they got back to us 

13 on November 25th of 2013. And the medical 

14 officer determined that there was no specific 

15 location noted in the autopsy report and there 

16 was no biopsy or pathology report associated 

17 with this particular cancer. And the physician 

18 that attended this case has since deceased. So 

19 they couldn't make a more positive 

20 identification than the cancer that was used.

21 This case was since reworked under 

22 PER-68 and did result in compensation. And so 
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 with that we would recommend closure.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

3 Recommendation of closure.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Any concerns, 

6 Subcommittee? 

7 MEMBER MUNN: Not here.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then we can 

9 close that.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

11 is 432.1 and that's a uranium mill in Monticello 

12 case.

13 Okay, this one, the finding 

14 essentially had to do with NIOSH followed their 

15 procedure, and we do not disagree with that. 

16 However, the approach that was used seemed to be 

17 more or less overestimating for the brain. And 

18 our reviewer thought that that was inappropriate 

19 based on a compensated case.

20 We talked about this extensively 

21 before and John was asked to write up a 

22 response, which he did. And I can read that 
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 here for you.

2 "The basis for this finding is the 

3 possibility that a surrogate ICD-9 organs listed 

4 in OTIB-005 and the associated dose conversion 

5 factors for the external exposure to residual 

6 organs as provided in Appendix A of IG-001, 

7 which includes the brain, raises a concern about 

8 the approach that might overestimate dose to the 

9 brain which is shielded by the skull. Such an 

10 approach could be considered reasonable but is 

11 likely an overestimate to the dose to the brain 

12 due to the shielding provided by the skull.

13 "SC&A does not question that NIOSH 

14 followed their procedures, but in this instance 

15 the claimant-favorability of the assumptions 

16 leads to an overestimate in an uncompensated 

17 case.

18 "However, since this case was 

19 compensated, a more realistic estimate that 

20 includes the derivation of the dose specifically 

21 to the brain might be a subject that the Work 

22 Group might like to explore."
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: This was an 

2 overestimate.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In this particular 

4 instance, John felt this was an overestimate to 

5 the brain. And the case was compensated. And 

6 as you're aware, technically you're not supposed 

7 to use overestimating assumptions in 

8 compensation --

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's correct. 

10 The uranium mill, this was not an SEC, was it? 

11 No. 

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I do not believe 

13 there's an SEC associated with this site. 

14 Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So it was an 

16 overestimate that led to a compensation in a 

17 non-SEC case?

18 MR. KATZ: It doesn't really matter 

19 whether it was SEC or not.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah. I mean, it 

21 was compensated, so that's resolved. The 

22 question is, was that proper procedure?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH followed their 

2 procedures.

3 MEMBER MUNN: It's proper procedure. 

4 The question is whether or not we wanted to 

5 consider the fact that a procedure results in a 

6 potential overestimate for exposure to the 

7 brain. I'm not at all sure that we're qualified 

8 to undertake that kind of consideration.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would say certainly 

10 it's more detailed than the Dose Reconstruction 

11 Subcommittee usually would pick up. However, 

12 whether or not we wanted to refer that to the 

13 Procedures Subcommittee I think would be the 

14 overall question.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

16 MR. KATZ: Does NIOSH have a response 

17 to this as to whether this whole issue of 

18 overestimate?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They did not respond 

20 in the BRS.

21 MR. KATZ: I know, but do they have a 

22 response now?
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 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. You 

2 know, I'm looking through this DR here, and we 

3 don't have a specific dose model, at least at 

4 the time then. I don't think we do. You have 

5 to calculate the dose directly to the brain. So 

6 we've got to use something else that's close to 

7 that organ.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, and --

9 MR. CALHOUN: So unless we -- and 

10 now, with the new ICRP 116, I don't know if 

11 there's a model for the brain in that or not. 

12 But that's something that we're working through, 

13 because a lot of the DCFs have changed for many, 

14 many organs.

15 But there's not one that exists. So 

16 I don't know what the question is. Is the 

17 question that we need to make one that doesn't 

18 exist, or to make up a new one and not use one 

19 that does exist that we think is reasonable? I 

20 don't know what the question here is.

21 MR. KATZ: So, Grady, this is -- I 

22 mean, in our regs, this is not a problem. We do 
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 not have any prohibition against overestimating 

2 when -- using an overestimate when it's the best 

3 estimate that's available --

4 MR. CALHOUN: Well, here's the deal -

5 -

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. KATZ: -- not like a sufficiency 

8 case. 

9 MR. CALHOUN: No, it's not. No.

10 MR. KATZ: So, this is fine.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Let me tell you, I'm 

12 going to read from -- I can read from the DR 

13 here, and it doesn't have anything specific. 

14 It says because there's no specific 

15 external model, dose model, that calculates the 

16 dose directly to the brain either the thyroid or 

17 remainder organs can be used. The thyroid is 

18 used when a maximizing estimate of dose is 

19 performed. But this time the remainder organs 

20 were used. 

21 So there was a choice to pick for a 

22 best estimate and we used the remainder. So it 
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 says that in here, unless this is a different 

2 version than you guys reviewed. 

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think the question 

4 was not whether or not you followed your 

5 procedures. We completely agree with that. 

6 MR. CALHOUN: But see the procedure 

7 tells us we can pick between A or B. And we 

8 chose the right one. Now you're asking us, I 

9 believe, to come up with C, and that doesn't 

10 exist.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I think they left that 

12 open for the Work Group to decide if it was 

13 worthy of a discussion point. And I think it's 

14 fine. I mean, I think we can close this.

15 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I agree.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Should there be a 

17 note to the Procedures Subcommittee?

18 MR. CALHOUN: Here's what's going to 

19 happen, Dave, and it might take a while. And I 

20 can't tell you that brain is specifically listed 

21 in the new ICRP that we're evaluating.

22 But we're going through this, and you 
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 know how we do PERS. PERS are, you know, we go 

2 back and look at everything. The DCFs, those 

3 are the dose conversion factors, those are going 

4 to change for a significant number of organs. 

5 And there may very well be some that are added 

6 for organs that previously did not have one.

7 So if a new DCF is derived for the 

8 brain in the process of this, every case that's 

9 non-comped that's a brain cancer will have an 

10 evaluation performed to make sure that the 

11 appropriate DCF was used if in fact that DCF 

12 would result in a higher dose than the surrogate 

13 organs or other things that we're currently 

14 using.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it may 

16 be resolved in the ordinary course of events. 

17 It will be a while.

18 MR. CALHOUN: Yes. And the key that 

19 we need to leave here with is we don't 

20 necessarily believe anything needs to be 

21 resolved. It's just a question of maybe 

22 something isn't as good as it could be.
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And the

2 case has been compensated so there's nothing in 

3 terms of compensation -- well, what we decide, 

4 if we close it, it has no impact and there's a 

5 good chance that something better will come that 

6 is in fact being worked on right now. Right?

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: To further that point, 

9 I see no reason for us to attempt to do 

10 something with this. To what end? It's unclear 

11 to me. I'm not sure what our purpose would be 

12 in undertaking this discussion.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You mean in terms 

14 of asking -- sending it to the Procedures 

15 Subcommittee?

16 MEMBER MUNN: No, I mean in terms of 

17 what we're doing right here. I don't know what 

18 any of us can -- how we can further this. For 

19 what purpose and to what end? It doesn't follow 

20 that we can come up with anything other than the 

21 information that we have, that I can see.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The question is, 
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 do we close it or not?

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I think the 

4 answer is yes, we have to.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And my suggestion 

7 is sending it to the Procedures Subcommittee is 

8 not useful because it's likely to be resolved in 

9 other ways. So let's just close it.

10 MR. KATZ: Yeah, I mean, Dave, it's 

11 not that it's so broad a thing. With new 

12 information, you know, with progress in science 

13 the methods may be updated with a new DCF.

14 But given the science that was 

15 available at the time, this was the best method. 

16 This was the best information available for 

17 doing this for the brain. 

18 There's nothing wrong with this case, 

19 and you can close it. And down the road, if new 

20 information on DCF allows for an update, it will 

21 be updated. But there's nothing wrong with this 

22 case.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right, which also 

2 says that it's an observation that we're 

3 closing. Okay. Let's go on.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

5 in the same case, it is Finding No. 3. And the 

6 finding says the comparison of the earlier 

7 version of the CADW tool and the current 

8 resulted in a different internal dose.

9 NIOSH had suggested that the reason 

10 we were unable to match these was we were using 

11 old and new files simultaneously, since the CADW 

12 has since been updated.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: A little louder, 

14 please.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH has suggested 

16 that the problem that we were having was we were 

17 trying to use old CADW files on the new version 

18 of the CADW, which was resulting in some 

19 differences that we were seeing in dose.

20 And when Ron went back and did this 

21 he was able to verify that that was the cause. 

22 We were mixing old and new files and we were 
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 getting compatibility issues with the software. 

2 And based on that, we recommend closure.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. It makes 

4 sense. Close, folks?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, so is that a 

9 finding? Or was that was an administrative 

10 matter?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's more an 

12 administrative matter.

13 MR. KATZ: Yeah, okay. Again, it's 

14 observational. It's not a finding.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

16 the same case, Finding No. 4. We were unable to 

17 match NIOSH's dose correction values for the 

18 exposure to radon.

19 And NIOSH was going to update TIB-11. 

20 And to my knowledge that hasn't been done yet.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Response?

22 MR. CALHOUN: I can't tell you if 
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 TIB-11 has been revised yet or not. I doubt it.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Can you tell us if 

3 it's on the list to be revised?

4 MR. CALHOUN: Give me a second. 

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is TIB-11 not 

6 OTIB-11.

7 MR. KATZ: Can I ask, while they're 

8 looking for that, as to whether it's revised or 

9 not, but is this a finding where NIOSH agreed 

10 with the finding and updating the TIB? Is that 

11 what we're talking about here?

12 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. I just 

13 got back from walking down the hall and we 

14 certainly have that on our list. I'm not going 

15 to say that it's imminent. But like anything 

16 else, when that gets revised, anything that's 

17 affected by it will be reviewed and revised as 

18 necessary.

19 MR. KATZ: Grady, I was just asking 

20 while you were walking down the hall, was there 

21 an error that you're revising in the TIB that 

22 was this finding?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, this --

2 MR. CALHOUN: I don't think so.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH's response 

4 here, it says that they didn't feel a lengthy 

5 technical revision was appropriate for the dose 

6 reconstruction but they would include that in 

7 the next revision of the TIB. And SC&A was 

8 tasked to review that whenever that happens for 

9 --

10 MR. KATZ: A police car just went by 

11 -- I think I understood what you were saying. 

12 I'm just unclear as to whether this -- is this a 

13 finding? Is this an observation? I don't know 

14 what this is.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I don't either, but it 

16 looks like what we're asking for is a 

17 clarification of the derivation of the DCF. 

18 Right?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. We're looking 

20 for the derivation of the dose conversion 

21 factor.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, but that sounds like 
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 an observation.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Yeah, it sounds like 

3 there's nothing wrong, it's just they need a 

4 better explanation. 

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sounds like 

6 it to me, too.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think it's hard to 

8 know if there's something wrong without the 

9 information.

10 MR. KATZ: Right, without seeing the 

11 derivation. 

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it will 

13 remain in progress and likely will be -- when we 

14 resolve it, it's likely to be an observation. 

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, so it's in progress.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: There is a response to 

18 the last question, whether the TIB's been 

19 crafted or issued. The answer is no, but it is 

20 on the list. It's on the list for revision.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And in NIOSH's 

22 responses they did say that it would be revised.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. We 

2 have only remaining the 33.2 and .3. And that 

3 will finish this file, as best we can at this 

4 time.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a Ventron 

6 Corporation case. And the finding states that 

7 SC&A questions whether NIOSH used the 

8 appropriate procedures/methods for 

9 reconstructing internal dose on behalf of this 

10 case.

11 And we have not had a more recent 

12 response here, but NIOSH essentially said 

13 they're using TBD-6000 to assign dose to the 

14 residual period. And we had some remaining 

15 concerns about whether the approach they were 

16 using was compliant with the Board's surrogate 

17 data criteria.

18 Actually, I think this ties in with 

19 the next one, NIOSH's response to the next. So 

20 let me just pull that up, 433.3.

21 MEMBER MUNN: As to whether it's 

22 compliant, I think.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. And this just 

2 was posted yesterday so we haven't had a chance 

3 to look at it. But I did see that it was posted 

4 this morning.

5 The residual period value described 

6 in TBD-6000 is not a measurement taken from this 

7 facility, rather a model. Measurements at 

8 several facilities were reviewed as part of 

9 creating the model, but they were not used 

10 directly as the value.

11 Therefore it would be difficult to 

12 evaluate against the Board's surrogate data 

13 criteria. Also, residual contamination at 

14 uranium metal facilities does not normally 

15 involve metal, but rather metal oxides.

16 As such, [during] the residual 

17 period, there is little distinction between 

18 uranium metal and refining facilities. In fact, 

19 TBD-6001 for uranium-refining facilities 

20 contains the same model for the residual 

21 contamination. 

22 MEMBER BEACH: So is this something 
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 where SC&A would need to review that model?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I don't think that we 

3 need to re-review it, but I would like to have 

4 John Mauro look at this, if that's alright, and 

5 we can carry this till next time.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It's well-established 

7 that both SC&A and NIOSH have used it 

8 frequently. 

9 MEMBER BEACH: It doesn't hurt to 

10 have them look at it, though.

11 MEMBER MUNN: True.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I just would like him 

13 to see this response in correlation with this 

14 case.

15 MR. KATZ: So will both of these, 

16 then, be in progress, 33.2 and .3?

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, they're both 

18 in progress. Okay. That appropriately sets 14 

19 through 18, the files, the four files for 14 

20 through 18. So it sounds like a good time to 

21 take a break. It's 2:47 so let's gather at 

22 3:05. Fifteen minutes.
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 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay? See you at 

3 3:05, folks.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

5 went off the record at 2:47 p.m. and resumed at 

6 3:08 p.m.)

7 Continuing review of backlog of

8 Category 1 and 2 cases from

9 Sets 19-21

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then, we 

11 we’re talking about doing SRS and Hanford for 19 

12 through 21. And Rose said there are maybe eight 

13 cases to do. So let's get started.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And we did 

15 already go over this matrix once, so they're no 

16 longer broken down into Type 1 and Type 2. 

17 These are just the remaining issues that we were 

18 not able to resolve the first go-around.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the first one is 

21 a Hanford, 479.1. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the finding had 

2 to do with the correct dates for calculating 

3 PUREX doses. And we did have one remaining 

4 question at the end of the last meeting, which 

5 was, was there a potential for Pu exposure at 

6 the PUREX facility after 1992 or was it all 

7 removed at the end of '92? This particular 

8 case, the EE was in a job title referred to 

9 being employed in the PUREX process beyond 1992. 

10 And here NIOSH responded, saying that 

11 although the PUREX operations ceased at the end 

12 of '92, deactivation of PUREX occurred between 

13 1992 and 1996 and included Pu removal and 

14 decontamination activities of N Cells and Q 

15 Cells. So potential Pu and U exposure to a 

16 small group of workers under the tightly 

17 controlled access existed.

18 A data search was requested for the 

19 site, was developed and sent to identify this 

20 group of workers and potentially associated 

21 bioassays.

22 Since the EE states that he managed 
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 PUREX through '99, this information has been 

2 requested for the site and the dose 

3 reconstruction will be revised if the resulting 

4 response indicates that this is warranted.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

6 presumably we do not have that response. Or do 

7 we have that response?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That was NIOSH's 

9 response.

10 MR. SIEBERT: As far as I know we

11 have not yet received a response from the site 

12 on that information.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That sounds 

14 fine. Okay, so we'll keep that in progress.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Actually, 479.3 is 

16 basically an identical finding but has to do 

17 with uranium dose instead of Pu dose. And so, 

18 based on that response, I would recommend 

19 leaving that one open as well.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then the only 

22 remaining one on this case is .2, also a Hanford 
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 case, that positive whole body count was not 

2 included in the assessment.

3 And going through here, NIOSH had 

4 excluded that result because they felt that it 

5 was a termination result. But they did go back 

6 and assign fitted rather than missed cesium and 

7 OTIB-54. And that increases the intake rate for 

8 the employment period and also slightly 

9 increases the missed intake rate for the 

10 subsequent employment period.

11 It increases the assigned OTIB-54 

12 dose by 26 millirem to skin and 20 millirem to 

13 the other organs, and does not impact the claim. 

14 So based on that we would recommend closure.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Okay. 

16 That seems reasonable. Any comments from the 

17 Subcommittee Members? Any objections? Okay, 

18 then we can close it.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

20 482, Observation 1. And this is a Hanford and 

21 Lawrence Livermore.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Wait a minute, 
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 didn't we go over that before?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We have gone over 

3 482, but this is an observation rather than a 

4 finding.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And with this one 

7 there was a glove box adjustment factor that was 

8 used when the ratio of shallow to deep doses was 

9 2.19. We were concerned about where that number 

10 came from. NIOSH pointed to a spot in the DR 

11 template where that came from.

12 However, we're still not sure what 

13 the meaning of the 2.19 is relative to how it 

14 was used. So we're provided with where it came 

15 from in the references but not any justification 

16 about what that 2.19 represents.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

18 MR. SMITH: This is Matthew Smith 

19 with ORAU Team. And, Scott, I think you and I 

20 maybe have exchanged emails on this. I'm not 

21 sure if it's into the BRS.

22 The origin of that factor of 2 traces 
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 back to a very early TIB, which is, at the time, 

2 called OCAS-TIB-7. And although the title of it 

3 is assignment of neutron dose for Savannah 

4 River, embedded in that document of guidance to 

5 help the dose reconstructor figure out if an 

6 Energy Employee was working in the H and F 

7 Canyons. In other words, in a glove box 

8 situation.

9 And among the guidance given in that 

10 section is a guidance to take a look at the 

11 shallow dose to deep dose ratio. And in there 

12 it's stated if it's greater than 2 then you've 

13 got pretty good evidence, along with plutonium 

14 bioassay monitoring, that that person was 

15 probably working on the F or H lines. 

16 So with that as a very early set of 

17 guidance on the project, that factor of 2 ended 

18 up being used as a way to kind of judge whether 

19 or not somebody [was] doing glove box work. I 

20 think in this case somebody had probably in the 

21 CATI had checked "sometimes" with respect to 

22 glove box work.
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 So that shallow to deep ratio factor 

2 has its lineage back to OCAS or DCAS TIB No. 7. 

3 And the specific page is page 4 of 6 in that 

4 document.

5 The 2.19 is actually the geometric 

6 mean value of what we do call the glove box 

7 factor, which is out of DCAS-TIB-10. 

8 My guess is that it was put in a 

9 template because somebody was thinking about 

10 glove box work, considering that factor of 2 as 

11 something that we've used as a guidance number.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Is it possible for 

13 you to write up specifically in the BRS that 

14 comment?

15 MR. SMITH: Certainly. I'll work 

16 with Scott to get that done.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, sounds

18 like we could accept that observation at this 

19 point, yes?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I would like to 

21 actually investigate further.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: You'd like to 
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 await the write-up. Okay. So we'll leave it in 

2 progress until next time. That's okay. 

3 Alright.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one is 

5 Observation 4 from the same case. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which observation?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 482, Observation 4.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. Sure. 

9 Okay. 

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Rose, what was the 

11 number again on that? 482?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 482, Observation 4. 

13 Again, this is a Hanford and Lawrence Livermore 

14 case.

15 And where we left it last, having 

16 discussed it I believe in January, was that we 

17 had a question on how the dose was being 

18 assigned. 

19 And NIOSH came back and said that 

20 there was a miscommunication in the updated 

21 missed dose in the previous response. The 

22 extension to the exposure timeframe resulted in 
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 an increase in dose to both organs impacted. 

2 The new value is .307 rem to one 

3 organ and .334 to the other. And that is an 

4 increase of what was done previously. But it 

5 did not impact outcome of the claim.

6 And so, based on NIOSH's response, it 

7 appears that the end date of Pu exposure should 

8 have been extended through '66 to the end of 

9 June --

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I am having 

11 trouble locating -- 480?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 482, Observation 4.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I don't know 

14 why I'm not finding it. 482, Observation 4. 

15 Please go on while I search.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It should be 

17 approximately page 27, if I had to guess.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you. That 

19 will help. Go ahead, please.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- increase in dose, 

22 but since it doesn't affect compensation we 
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 recommend closing this issue.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And because it did 

4 increase dose we do also recommend that this be 

5 elevated to a finding rather than an 

6 observation. 

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Comments, folks? 

8 I'm still searching around.

9 MR. BARTON: I can add a little bit 

10 to this, Rose. This is Bob Barton.

11 In the original case, and I'm kind of 

12 working a little bit from memory here, the case 

13 had assumed that plutonium exposures stopped in 

14 June of 1966.

15 And we made an observation because we 

16 didn't really see why that was the end date 

17 chosen. And in fact there was at least some 

18 indication that June 1967 was actually the date 

19 that plutonium exposure should have been 

20 extended to based on a document that definitely 

21 indicated at that time that the worker had 

22 terminated work with plutonium.
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 Based on the response, it did not 

2 impact the case, but probably in the original 

3 go-around it should have been June 1967 and not 

4 June 1966 that plutonium exposures were 

5 evaluated to.

6 Again, at the time of the review we 

7 didn't really understand and so didn't want to 

8 call it a finding, but based on the response it 

9 appears that extra year should have been added 

10 in the original dose reconstruction.

11 So our last comment here is the 

12 Subcommittee may want to consider -- so, in our 

13 case, we're actually elevating an observation to 

14 a finding because it appears that it was not 

15 done quite correctly the first time around.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, good. 

17 Alright, that seems reasonable. So we should 

18 close this as a finding. Good. Excellent. 

19 Let's go ahead.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and since we 

21 did already discuss 42.1 the next one would be 

22 451.1.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the finding said 

3 that the procedure for the assignment of Pu dose 

4 from chest count was not clear.

5 MR. KATZ: Wait, which site is this?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a Hanford and 

7 an RFP.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Rose, this is 451, 

10 observation what?

11 MR. KATZ: 451.1.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And for this one we 

14 ended up doing some more research and we found 

15 that the survey calibration factor for cpm to 

16 nanocuries of americium-241 came from the 

17 surrogate case's DOE response files rather than 

18 the case's DR files.

19 And although that's somewhat 

20 abnormal, the NIOSH method does seem reasonable 

21 to us in this case where our RFP reported cpm 

22 instead of dpm for this particular individual. 
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 They used cpm to nanocurie 

2 calibration factors based on other workers' 

3 files with similar chest indexes and time period 

4 and used similar detectors. So based on that, 

5 we do recommend closure.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe NIOSH 

8 committed to incorporating that into at least 

9 the guidance document, if I remember correctly.

10 MR. KATZ: So is that still a 

11 finding? Sounds like it's not.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

13 (Simultaneous speaking.)

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- just the way the 

15 results were reported by the site.

16 MR. KATZ: Right. That's an 

17 observation.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then there's one 

22 last one in this matrix and that's 465.1. And 
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 this is a Savannah River case. And here the 

2 finding says missed photon dose was assigned 

3 instead of coworker dose.

4 And we discussed this at length at 

5 the last meeting and the Subcommittee wanted 

6 additional time to review this particular 

7 finding.

8 We, Scott and I, seemed to come to 

9 the conclusion that this was a professional 

10 judgment --

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: A little louder, 

12 please.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Scott and I, at least 

14 at the end of last meeting, came to the 

15 conclusion that this was a professional judgment 

16 issue.

17 However, this is the Savannah River 

18 [facility] and it does have to do with the 

19 coworker modeling that's still being discussed 

20 by the SRS Work Group.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. So that 

22 would remain in progress. Correct?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You're welcome to 

2 keep it in progress.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Your feeling, 

4 though, is that it's resolved.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It's a professional 

6 judgment issue whether or not you should be 

7 assigning missed dose versus coworker dose. 

8 I believe this EE had monitoring 

9 after a certain period but not before and so 

10 coworker dose was assigned -- or missed dose was 

11 assigned and we believe that it would be more 

12 appropriate to assign coworker dose.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is our standing 

14 on our coworker model, correct? 

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The SRS Work Group is 

16 currently discussing this.

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MR. KATZ: But the Work Group's not 

19 going to discuss this kind of matter, which is a 

20 judgment about whether this case should be 

21 treated as coworker based on the records of this 

22 individual. This is not going to get resolved 
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 there.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I think the 

3 issue was, for certain years, SRS left results 

4 blank. And that indicated either that there was 

5 no monitoring or there was a zero result. And 

6 how you interpret that impacts how dose is 

7 assigned.

8 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. And I 

9 can probably give a little bit more detail as to 

10 the thought process that went a little further 

11 into this.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

13 appreciated.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. When it comes 

15 down to it --

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Whoever has the siren 

17 in the background, can you mute your phone?

18 MR. KATZ: It's probably Dave.

19 MR. SIEBERT: The monthly monitoring 

20 was assumed based on the CATI. The EE did say 

21 they routinely wore a dosimetry badge, and they 

22 also did indicate that they always wore the 
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 badge.

2 This is kind of different than the 

3 previous one we were talking about with the 

4 difference in the CATI in the fact that we know 

5 Savannah River's records here are not 

6 necessarily clear to understand, but they're 

7 still there.

8 The HPAREH does include the years for 

9 '84 and '85 with no results. So they're blank; 

10 they're not necessarily missing. 

11 There wasn't any reason to believe 

12 the person wasn't being monitored in '84 and 

13 '85, which you would see a blank, [whereas] if 

14 they were being monitored, they were all zeroes. 

15 So there really wasn't a thought process of 

16 including coworker at that point.

17 Let's see here. And those are the 

18 basic thought processes that go into the years 

19 where it was assumed to be missed dose based on 

20 the way they did their records versus coworker 

21 assuming the person wasn't really monitored.

22 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I do believe, also, 
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 during those early years there was bioassay 

2 data.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, the individuals 

4 did frequently have bioassay as well.

5 MR. KATZ: So, again, in my view, 

6 that's not going to get -- it's particular to 

7 this case. It's not going to get resolved by 

8 the Savannah River Site Work Group, what they're 

9 addressing. So it's up to the Subcommittee to 

10 decide what they feel is reasonable here.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Well, we've made a 

12 number of decisions about this kind of thing in 

13 the past with which, as most of you know, I 

14 didn't agree at the time and still don't. 

15 I don't agree with the assertion that 

16 zero reported dose means that something was 

17 missed. I've known too many people, and myself 

18 being one of them, who had no exposure at all 

19 despite the fact that I was working in a 

20 radiation zone. 

21 And, to me, that's what we have the 

22 monitoring program for. But that's not the 
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 issue here. The issue here is whether or not 

2 one should use a coworker, if I interpret what 

3 I'm reading correctly.

4 And I thought that one of our first 

5 rules of addressing any site, and any set of 

6 data, involves the assertion that available data 

7 was going to be used whenever it was available.

8 The fact that you get information 

9 that says it's zeroes leading to the assertion 

10 that you might consider therefore using a 

11 coworker model is contradictory to what we have 

12 seemed to accept as a fairly prime rule in 

13 addressing how we do these things.

14 Unless I'm misinterpreting what I 

15 think I'm reading here. From my perspective, 

16 you have records. They were zero.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They're blank.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, that's also 

20 based on how good your information is. And if 

21 you see you're asked to close in all the 

22 systems, especially this site, you would start 
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 bringing into question those blanks. That's 

2 kind of where I'm sitting at on it.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Gee, Brad, I think you 

4 and I have had this conversation before. This 

5 sounds familiar to me.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: It really does. 

7 It's like deja vu isn't it.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, all over again.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Well, and I know 

10 what -- I don't know what to -- part of my thing 

11 is I know we're still trying to even work out a 

12 coworker model and that's into question right 

13 now too. That's why I was wondering what -- you 

14 know, granted if we can't come up with a 

15 coworker model or a -- that would change this, 

16 wouldn't it?

17 MR. KATZ: No, it wouldn't, Brad, 

18 because the question here, Brad, is simply 

19 whether this is appropriately interpreted as 

20 this person wasn't monitored for that period, or 

21 that the person was monitored and has zero 

22 doses. 
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 That's the only question at hand. It 

2 doesn't really matter whether or not this 

3 coworker model.

4 MR. SIEBERT: And like I said, this 

5 is Scott. All those pieces of information went 

6 into our decision as well as looking at the 

7 other years. And there were other years where 

8 they -- the rest of their years were relatively 

9 low dose years. 

10 We really didn't have a -- there's no 

11 indication they changed jobs after -- during 

12 that time frame when they started being 

13 monitored -- or started seeing values in the 

14 HPAREH result.

15 And as Kathy mentioned -- I 

16 appreciate you reminding me of this, Kathy --

17 there was bioassay data present in '84 which 

18 would be an indicator they were being monitored. 

19 And generally speaking, you're not going to 

20 internally monitor without the external.

21 I mean, it can happen, but at 

22 Savannah River generally that didn't happen. 
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 And we do know, their records, that blank could 

2 mean they were unmonitored or they were 

3 monitored with all zeroes.

4 And in our thought process the weight 

5 of the evidence seemed to indicate this is --

6 there was no reason to believe he was not 

7 monitored -- or she; I don't know which -- the 

8 individual was not monitored during that 

9 timeframe, whereas there are great indications 

10 to say they likely were being monitored.

11 So it's a weight of the evidence 

12 thought process from our point of view.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That was actually me, 

14 that was Rose, I apologize.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'm sorry, Rose.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: For the transcript. 

17 So what it boils down to is it's a professional 

18 judgment issue, is how I see it.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Right, that's what I 

20 see, too.

21 MEMBER MUNN: To me it's a weight of 

22 the evidence issue. That's what professional 
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 judgment is for, actually, is to --

2 MR. KATZ: Well, in the past, in 

3 other forums, we've had SC&A argue that since 

4 there's internal monitoring for someone they 

5 probably were monitored externally and something 

6 has gone wrong with those records. We've had 

7 that argument in other forums.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. None of this is 

9 new. I find no fault with the rationale myself.

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: When I personally 

11 sit there and look at it, they're making an 

12 awful lot of assumptions. Be it, they're 

13 professional, but also too is the background of 

14 this site, too.

15 MEMBER BEACH: You could easily have 

16 gone the other way and the most claimant17 favorable way: give them dose for that 

18 timeframe.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can say 

20 unequivocally that the PoC in this particular 

21 case was low enough where a couple of years of 

22 coworker dose is not going to do anything.
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 MEMBER BEACH: Right, but it may on 

2 some others.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Does anyone have a 

4 large axe for the Gordian knot?

5 (Pause.)

6 MEMBER BEACH: Guess not. Did we 

7 lose Dave?

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Maybe he got 

9 arrested.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. KATZ: Dave went on mute because 

12 of the sirens, I think.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Right. 

14 MEMBER MUNN: I think the fire 

15 department was doing their usual good deeds. 

16 Can you hear us, Dave?

17 MR. KATZ: Dave, are you trying to 

18 speak? You're on mute.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: My goodness. I'm 

20 so sorry. I was on mute. That last fire engine 

21 that went by, I muted and then didn't unmute. 

22 So, thank you, because I've been 
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 talking to myself for a few moments. And as I 

2 said, I would lean toward the coworker dose 

3 simply to give the benefit of the doubt and 

4 being as worker-friendly as I could in good 

5 conscience be, let's just say that.

6 So I would kind of lean to the 

7 coworker, but I could have been -- I was playing 

8 around in my own mind as we were talking about, 

9 maybe I'll just abstain on this one because I 

10 really don't -- I can't make up my mind.

11 But I think, on balance, I guess I 

12 would vote that we should do the coworker dose 

13 on the claimant-friendly argument. It could go 

14 either way and I would not criticize either way.

15 MEMBER BEACH: I'll jump on that, 

16 Dave, and say I agree.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: What I want to make 

18 clear is I'm not looking at -- yes, we're 

19 looking at this case, but I'm looking at, you 

20 know, for this one it may not be compensated, 

21 but I'm looking at the other ones that possibly 

22 are. Because this is just a snapshot of small 
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 pieces that we're even monitoring or checking.

2 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. This is 

3 one of those cases where we may have to agree to 

4 disagree. I don't think that we're going to go 

5 change it just because a couple of people think 

6 that we should.

7 Like you said, this is a professional 

8 opinion. I mean, we can take another look at it 

9 and see if there's something else that drives us 

10 the other way, but at this point I'm inclined to 

11 probably let it be as it is.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: So here's what I 

13 would suggest. Why don't we just kind of hold 

14 off on this until after our meeting in Santa Fe? 

15 And we'll reevaluate this one after that.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, Brad, again, it 

17 doesn't make a difference whether you have a 

18 coworker model or not for this question. 

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm not talking 

20 about the coworker model, I'm talking about the 

21 information from this site. And that'll be 

22 coming out in a report here shortly.
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 I think, after that report comes out, 

2 I think we could reevaluate this one, especially 

3 with this time period right here. And I bet you 

4 we can probably change a little bit.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: We'll wait until 

7 that report comes out and also too just set this 

8 aside and we'll agree to disagree right now and 

9 reevaluate it.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I look forward to 

11 the report. The report certainly will give me 

12 better context in which to try to make the best 

13 decision I can.

14 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Let me 

15 also clarify. I just looked at the coworker 

16 values versus the missed dose values that we've 

17 assigned. And they're basically the same. 

18 Coworker is right around 100 millirem for 

19 shallow and 120 were assigned for those specific 

20 years.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: But I'm already --

22 certainly, as one person, I'm already convinced 
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 it's not going to make much difference in this 

2 case. But it's the implication for other cases 

3 that makes me want to try to make the best 

4 decision I can here.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. I'm just 

6 pointing out those other cases would be the same 

7 way because it's the same missed dose and it's 

8 the same coworker values that would be used.

9 I'm just pointing it out for 

10 everybody. I'm okay with the decision. I'm 

11 just pointing that out, too.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. But 

13 I think we'll wait. I would like to wait for 

14 the report. Unless there's objection from other 

15 Subcommittee people, let's hold this off until 

16 the meeting after that report is released and we 

17 have a chance to read it.

18 MR. BARTON: Scott, this is Bob. Can 

19 I ask a quick question? Did you just say that 

20 the coworker doses are lower than the missed 

21 doses?

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: No.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SIEBERT: They're in about the 

2 same range, 100 to 120.

3 MR. BARTON: And 120 is the coworker 

4 dose?

5 MR. SIEBERT: One hundred and twenty 

6 is what was assigned, and a little over 100 is 

7 what the coworker dose would be.

8 MR. BARTON: Okay. And what was 

9 assigned was not just completely missed dose. 

10 It had some positive values in there?

11 MR. SIEBERT: No, it's entirely 

12 missed dose.

13 MR. BARTON: Oh, okay.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Folks, 

15 that finishes -- for 19 to 21, that finishes the 

16 SRS Hanford file, if I'm not mistaken. Is that 

17 correct, Rose?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, you're correct.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So, we have 

20 basically the remaining DOE sites, which are 

21 almost all open, and then the Oak Ridge and GDP 

22 site file, which has a number that we have 
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 discussed and a number remaining open.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The Oak Ridge sites, 

3 we've only discussed one and we went out of 

4 order on that particular case.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. Really? 

6 Okay. So, what is your pleasure, Rose, on this

7 file, to go to next?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: My preference would 

9 be that we work through the Type 1 findings on 

10 the Oak Ridge site and the GDP cases.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. How does 

12 that sound, folks?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Sure.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. Good. 

15 It's always nice to come to Type [Category] 1. 

16 Okay.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Let the good times 

18 roll.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Actually, almost all 

20 of the cases remaining are Type 1, so it should 

21 be easy.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.
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. KATZ: Rose, you're faint to hear 

2 again.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Can you hear me now?

4 MR. KATZ: Yeah, that's better. 

5 Thanks.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Now, is 

7 this your Excel file?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. We use an Excel 

9 file for the Type 1 findings and then we switch 

10 to the BRS for the Type 2 findings, in general.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Got it. Okay, 

12 good, good. Alright.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Give me one second. 

14 Okay, can you see my screen?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. We'll start 

17 with 457.1, and that's Oak Ridge, all three 

18 facilities.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I can't hear.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 457.1. It's an Oak 

21 Ridge case. All three of the Oak Ridge 

22 facilities. 
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 And the finding states that NIOSH's 

2 assignment of ambient external dose is not 

3 consistent with other unmonitored dose in the 

4 case. And the resolution was NIOSH admits that 

5 the assignment of internal coworker dose was 

6 inconsistent with the assigned missed ambient 

7 external.

8 However, it was assigned as an 

9 overestimate and that method of overestimation 

10 is not the current DR practice. So this was 

11 kind of a historical thing that they're no 

12 longer doing. The overestimate doesn't impact 

13 compensation, so based on that we recommend 

14 closure.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'm in the Excel 

17 file which you sent us.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If you open the Excel 

19 file, and if you go into the "all findings" Tab, 

20 which is the second tab. And then in Column D, 

21 if you sort for the matrix, it should be Oak 

22 Ridge GDP.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: 458?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 457.1. And then you 

3 need to also sort row K for TIB-1 findings. 

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. But I 

5 don't see 457.1. This is what you sent us. Oh, 

6 all findings. No, my apologies, but I'm looking 

7 at that file. I just don't see 457.1.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That would be listed 

9 in Column E. 

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Column K we 

11 discussed.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: K, yes. K should be 

13 sorted to Type 1 findings. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's see. 

15 Only one.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And then you should 

17 be in the Oak Ridge and GDP matrix for Sets 19 

18 through 21.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: What is the number 

20 on that again, Rose?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 457.1. And I do have 

22 mine up on your screen.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I'm working 

2 off of what you sent me. I haven't been able to 

3 get on the screen all day. I tried a few times.

4 Well, that being the case, let's 

5 continue on and I will simply follow on audio. 

6 I don't quite understand why. Maybe I'll pick 

7 things up later.

8 But would somebody, again, if I may 

9 ask the senior person, Wanda, would you be 

10 willing to chair for this section of the 

11 discussion? And I'll follow as best I can.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Sure. For what it's 

13 worth, I'll be glad to listen to what our 

14 fearless leader there is telling us. As long as 

15 you have it on the screen, I've got it, Rose.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great.

17 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Before 

18 we move off of 457.1, since we agree nothing was 

19 wrong, it was an overestimate and determined to 

20 be an overestimate on purpose, could that --

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: You admitted that it 

22 was inconsistent with your other assumptions.
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 MR. SIEBERT: Well, it can be 

2 inconsistent and yet that doesn't mean it's 

3 wrong if it's used as an overestimate. I could 

4 use something as a best estimate and an 

5 overestimate and those will be consistent. 

6 We're not saying that inconsistent is 

7 wrong. In a non-compensable case we can 

8 overestimate any specific portion of the case.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I do agree, but since 

10 then you have actually dropped that process.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, but it has 

12 nothing to do with the fact that we did it at 

13 the time and it was an entirely acceptable way 

14 of doing claims.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it was, as a 

16 matter of fact, a preferred one in order to move 

17 to the activities.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I agree.

19 MEMBER MUNN: So this brings us to 

20 the question of, is this then, by our current 

21 standards, a finding? And I guess I'd have to 

22 say I think probably it was because of the 
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 timing. But it's all timing. And it depends on 

2 how you want to parse it.

3 I would just simply recommend that I 

4 would accept closure and just close it, but if 

5 there's other feelings with that regard then now 

6 is the time.

7 MR. KATZ: Well, so the only question 

8 is -- I think we're agreed on closing it. I 

9 think the question is do we close it as a 

10 finding or an observation? I'm arguing that 

11 it's an observation.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And I think it's 

13 an observation in that it was proper to do what 

14 was done at that time. It was an overestimate.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: A lot of different 

17 ways you can overestimate.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Any contrary opinion? 

19 If not, then the ayes have it and it's changed 

20 to an observation and closed.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Go ahead, Rose. 457.2.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one, same 

2 case, Oak Ridge cases again. NIOSH assigned 

3 1989 dose using the 1990 value. And that does 

4 agree with us. They assigned the 1999 dose 

5 using the 1990 value. It was a transcription 

6 error while comparing the three sites. 

7 When they corrected it, the PoC went 

8 from 36.88 to 36.7. So it actually did go down.

9 It doesn't impact compensation, though, so we 

10 would recommend closure.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Any comments? 

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

13 MEMBER BEACH: None here.

14 MR. KATZ: So that's a QA problem.

15 MEMBER MUNN: It is. Yes. Put it in 

16 the QA column and close it.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. A little 

18 louder, please.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry, my computer is 

20 --

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 MR. KATZ: Absolutely.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Especially when it's 

2 talking to my computer.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, it looks like 

4 the next one here is the Oak Ridge Gaseous 

5 Diffusion Plant and Y-12.

6 The finding number is 455.1. And the 

7 finding states that NIOSH used the incorrect 

8 number of missed doses for skin cancers.

9 NIOSH did agree that the assignment 

10 of additional shallow missed dose was 

11 inappropriate but it does not impact the 

12 compensation decision. So based on that, we 

13 recommend closure.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like another QA 

15 to me. And closure. Any questions?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Sounds good. 

17 That was what number? What case?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 455.1.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, thank you. 

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

21 490.1. And this is a K-25 and X-10 case.

22 And the finding states that there was 
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 an excess in omission in assigned medical X-ray 

2 doses. And NIOSH did agree that X-rays were not 

3 correctly assigned for the years '73, '80, '83, 

4 and '85. The IREP runs were updated making this 

5 change. The PoC did go up but very modestly. 

6 Based on that we recommend closure.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Same response as 455.1, 

8 I believe. It appears to be another QA 

9 correctly addressed now. Closure is 

10 recommended. Any objections?

11 MEMBER BEACH: No.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one from the 

15 same case, 490.2. It says that NIOSH did not 

16 assign Pu prostate dose for 2009.

17 And NIOSH did agree the OTIB-49 dose 

18 of Pu in 2009 was inadvertently left out of IREP 

19 when copying and pasting. The inclusion did not 

20 impact the overall dose -- or the overall 

21 compensation decision, sorry.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Same response unless 
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 someone objects.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I don't 

3 object. I just want to let you know that now our 

4 process is we insert these into the tool and it 

5 would automatically do the pasting into IREP for 

6 us. So these kind of cut and paste issues are a 

7 thing of the past, from this point of view.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Which we appreciate 

9 greatly, believe me.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Good to know.

11 MEMBER MUNN: I suspect that the 

12 reconstructors appreciate it greatly, too.

13 MR. SIEBERT: Very much so.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Next we are 494.2.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, we just did 

16 494, so the next one is Tab 500, Observation 2. 

17 And this is a Y-12 and K-25 case. Let's see, 

18 PROC-60 recommends the environmental geometric 

19 mean dose of 13 microrem per hour obtained from 

20 Table B-7. The DR correctly used this value in 

21 this case. However, in Table B-7 only the total 

22 dose of 21 microrem per hour is listed. And 
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 this difference in the TBD could result in 

2 inconsistencies in future cases.

3 And so we just recommend NIOSH modify 

4 this to prevent future inconsistencies.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, am I correct in 

6 stating that the current version is always the 

7 one used, and therefore this would resolve 

8 itself, is that correct?

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, there's PROC-60 

10 and then there's the TBD. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, same table, yeah. 

12 Would we not always use the new TBD? And does 

13 the new table correspond with PROC-60?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we always use the 

15 most current TBD.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And does it currently -

17 -

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Would you use that 

19 instead of more recent procedures?

20 MR. CALHOUN: I'm not sure I 

21 understand that question.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Let me be clear here. 
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 The TBD is not incorrect, it's just not specific 

2 as to what to do with the value that it lists.

3 And Procedure-60 does give us specific 

4 information as to how to apply it. So, the 

5 documentation, whereas perhaps it could be 

6 clearer, is not inaccurate.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, and it could 

8 just lead to inconsistencies in the future, 

9 which is why we pointed it out and it is an 

10 observation. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: So we're talking about 

12 a difference in 13 microrem and 21 microrem, 

13 right?

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. But the process 

16 -- the protocol is clear in the minds of the 

17 dose reconstructors now? PROC-60 tells them how 

18 to apply the information that exists in both the 

19 TBD and in the procedure itself, right?

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, the dose 

21 reconstructors know what to do as well as the 

22 correct dose is in the tool. So as long as they 
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 pick the right years for ambient it's going to 

2 be correct.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So the tool 

4 itself is what we rely on. I see that as 

5 acceptable and closed. Is that amenable with 

6 all? The presence of the tool makes a big 

7 difference, is what I'm hearing.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MEMBER MUNN: The presence of the 

10 tool assures us that this will not recur.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

12 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Alright. Close it.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

15 is from the same case, Tab 500, Finding 1. And 

16 the finding states that NIOSH applied the 

17 incorrect X-ray dose uncertainty factor for the 

18 year 1961.

19 NIOSH agrees. This is a copy and 

20 paste error and it's correct in the calculation 

21 workbook. So based on that, we would recommend 

22 closure. It's just another QA issue.
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 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Isn't it nice to be 

5 able to do that at the time?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Very nice.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I still go back 

9 and update everything in the BRS, but this helps 

10 me quite a bit.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, really nice to 

12 just be able to do that.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one is 

14 459, Observation 1. And this is a Paducah case.

15 For this particular case, we thought 

16 it was a little bit difficult to determine what 

17 should have been done for occupational medical 

18 dose, whether it should be assigned or not.

19 In this particular case, the TBD says 

20 that everyone received X-rays. However, in the 

21 CATI report the worker reports not having 

22 examinations. So no examinations were assigned.
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 But had the worker not said anything this dose 

2 would have been assigned. So it was just an 

3 interesting thought problem for us that we 

4 thought was important to point out.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yeah, it is. That's 

6 something you don't run across very often. I 

7 can see no reason why we shouldn't accept that 

8 closure suggestion for this observation. Anyone 

9 else?

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That's fine.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Agree.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Also another 

14 Paducah case, Tab 460, Observation 1. We've 

15 seen this one dozens of times and we're going to 

16 see it until we finish out the 21st set.

17 NIOSH used a Weibull distribution. 

18 We had not previously discussed it so we were 

19 asked to make it an observation until we had 

20 discussed it. We have since discussed it at 

21 length and we are okay with using it. So we 

22 recommend closure.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sounds good.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes, absolutely. 

4 By the way, I finally got onto -- I got into the 

5 Excel.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Here's where we are.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see where we 

8 are.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Do you want to take it 

10 over?

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay. I'd 

12 be delighted if you wanted to continue. But, 

13 sure, I'll take over.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Welcome back.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And thank you very 

16 much. What happened was I basically went onto 

17 my CDC computer and got it to come up. But I 

18 couldn't get it to come up on my own personal 

19 computer. 

20 So we just finished 460. 

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so 460 we 
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 just accepted as an observation.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And we're going to 

4 494?

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct. Observation 

6 1.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is a Paducah 

9 and an Allied Chemical case.

10 And here the DR report said that a 

11 value of 1.91 was used when in fact they 

12 actually used a value of 2.

13 NIOSH agrees that the report should 

14 have stated 2 rather than 1.91. They believe 

15 that the dose reconstructor likely copied the 

16 text from a previous report. Since this was in 

17 fact a reworked case it doesn't impact anything 

18 in the text in the DR --

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely. 

20 Right. So this certainly is an observation. 

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, and that's how 

22 we have it listed.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, 

2 accepted. 

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Moving 

5 right along. It makes you feel like you're 

6 really getting a lot of work done when you go to 

7 Category 1, doesn't it?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Oh yes, it's great. 

9 Rose has already put it up for us.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Yes. 

11 Okay, 463.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next one 

13 here is Observation 1. It's a Portsmouth case. 

14 And we thought the recommendations from the TBD 

15 were unclear. And NIOSH responded that this 

16 issue had previously been discussed and is 

17 thoroughly recorded in the April 2004 meeting 

18 transcript, which was subsequent to our review 

19 of this case, in order to be fair. And based on 

20 that discussion we would recommend closure.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

22 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.
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 MEMBER CLAWSON: Agreed.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

4 Portsmouth 463.1. We felt that NIOSH assigned 

5 excessive missed dose for the years 1981 through 

6 '85.

7 And NIOSH did provide us with some 

8 additional guidance in the form of the DR 

9 guidance document and template. Keep in mind 

10 SC&A doesn't have access to the non-published DR 

11 guidance documents. And those documents did 

12 recommend what was done. And, of course, we 

13 recommend that guidance should be incorporated 

14 into the published TBD. But we do recommend 

15 closure.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Closure. Is it 

17 not an observation?

18 MR. KATZ: Yeah.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I believe it is. 

20 So we should close it, but I think it's an 

21 observation.

22 MR. KATZ: Right.
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They did it 

3 correctly. However, we just don't have access -

4 -

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Of course, of 

7 course. No fault of yours at all, but I think 

8 it's an observation.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And we'll go down to 

12 the next one, same case, Finding 2. NIOSH 

13 omitted doses for 19 X-ray exams listed in the 

14 DOE files. And NIOSH came back and said at the 

15 time that the dose reconstruction was completed.

16 Omitting those exams was consistent with OTIB17 79. But since then the TBD has been revised and 

18 those exams would now be included. And all 

19 cases affected by that are covered under PER-71.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And so based on that 

22 we recommend closure.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. And again 

2 closure as an observation.

3 MR. KATZ: No, Dave. That's actually 

4 a finding. I mean, they've updated and improved 

5 their methods, but what they used at the time 

6 they corrected. So that is a finding. It's 

7 wrong with that case.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Omitted -- listed 

9 at the time of these exams was consistent with -

10 ---

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, but it doesn't matter 

12 if it's consistent with their procedures at the 

13 time if the procedures at the time were wrong. 

14 And they updated them to improve them and now 

15 they include these. So you can surmise from 

16 that that the procedure was wrong and it should 

17 be a finding.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Essentially, this is 

19 one of those things that called attention to the 

20 fact that there was a flaw in the original 

21 document. And that really is a finding. 

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I see, okay, thank 
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 you. Thank you for that clarification. Good, 

2 good. Okay, so, closed as a finding. 

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one here is 

4 Tab 495, Observation 1. This is also a 

5 Portsmouth case. And it's an observation. 

6 While it was not cited in the DR report, we 

7 assume that the missed dose for '81 and '82 has 

8 a limit of detection consistent with the 

9 parameters for 1983 dosimeters and applied a 

10 quarterly missed dose for each year.

11 NIOSH agreed the current Portsmouth 

12 DR guidance document states to apply the '83 LOD 

13 for '81 and '82. This practice is written into 

14 their current DR report template and DR guidance 

15 documents, but of course that wasn't available 

16 to us.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Alright. 

18 Good. Accept.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one, same 

20 case, Observation 2. This is a professional 

21 judgment issue. NIOSH, I believe, assigned a 

22 50th percentile coworker, but we don't believe 
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 that was justified. We believe 95 percent might 

2 have been more appropriate, but it is of course 

3 a professional judgment call and wouldn't impact 

4 compensation either way. And this is an 

5 observation.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Accept.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

8 Observation 3. Similar. We felt that the EE, 

9 they had the same job, in the same department 

10 from '70 to '74 and also from '75 to '78 and 

11 potentially beyond that. And the EE was 

12 monitored for internal exposure during several 

13 of those years where we thought that the 

14 application of a different coworker dose 

15 criteria for the two periods wasn't justified. 

16 But again it's a professional 

17 judgment call and wouldn't impact compensation. 

18 And it is an observation. 

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Anybody, 

20 Subcommittee Members, any concern?

21 MEMBER MUNN: No, that's right. 

22 That's a call.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, same case, 

3 Observation 4. Says that the penetrating dose 

4 portion was not subtracted from the non5 penetrating dose portion based on OTIB-17 

6 methodology for evaluating monitored -- or 

7 measured non-penetrating doses. The DR report 

8 appears to significantly overestimate the 

9 measured shallow dose. 

10 And NIOSH does agree with that. The 

11 dose reconstructor selected the wrong thing in 

12 the workbook which resulted in shielded dose not 

13 being subtracted out from the open window dose.

14 Correcting for that does decrease the 

15 PoC but it's still above the compensation 

16 threshold. But we do recommend that that would 

17 be elevated to a finding also.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right, good. 

19 Sounds good. Okay. Closed.

20 MEMBER MUNN: That's all in the QA 

21 category?

22 MR. KATZ: 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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, same case, 

3 Finding No. 1. The finding states that not all 

4 unmonitored photon dose was included for the 

5 year 1954. And after the review of documents 

6 that NIOSH cited in their response, we do concur 

7 with the start of operations. 

8 However, these references aren't 

9 cited in the DR report and we couldn't locate 

10 evidence in the TBD for the start date of 

11 September of that year. And we just recommend 

12 that that information should be included in the 

13 approved documentation for the site and also be 

14 reflected in OTIB-40.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Would that 

16 not be an observation?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

19 is an X-10 case. It's 456, Observation 1. And 

20 this is a repeat of the Weibull distribution 

21 again, and so we do recommend closure.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the next case, 

2 Finding No. 1. And here the finding states that 

3 NIOSH may not have included the IREP for the 

4 ICRP-60 factor distribution. And this case was 

5 evaluated in early 2014 using the OTIB-12 dose 

6 correction factor, because this is before we 

7 started investigating Report-4.

8 Subsequent to this SC&A has developed 

9 a different procedure for reviewing CLL claims 

10 which were previously not included. Therefore, 

11 this case, we did not use the same tools as 

12 NIOSH did at the time, and by today's standards 

13 this should have been an observation. 

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right. So, 

15 this is an observation.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Observation closed.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And closed. Good.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

19 Finding No. 2. And it's basically the same as 

20 the last one. It had to do with the CLL and us 

21 not being able to reproduce it.

22 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right.
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, also reducing 

2 this to an observation.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Observation 

4 accepted. 491.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, 491, 

6 Observation 1. This is an X-10 and K-25 case. 

7 There was a lack of consistency, or we felt that 

8 there might have been a lack of consistency, in 

9 X-10 X-ray machine filtration values.

10 NIOSH did provide us with additional 

11 information and we do understand what they've 

12 done and they are consistent. And based on that 

13 information we'd recommend closure.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one, same 

16 case, 491, Observation 2. And I think we've had 

17 this one before. PROC-61 and OTIB-6 do not 

18 agree on how gender should be treated with 

19 regard to the lung, I believe.

20 NIOSH agrees and PROC-61 is in the 

21 process of being revised and this will be 

22 corrected in the next revision. 
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Right. 

2 Observation because it was the correct thing at 

3 the time, which will be changed.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They did it correctly 

5 and they applied the correct interpretation. 

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: At the time.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: However, the 

8 documents were inconsistent and if you used one 

9 or another you could get an incorrect value. 

10 But it was done correctly in this case.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Finding No. 1, 

13 same case. NIOSH used an incorrect X-ray 

14 modifier for this particular area. 

15 And NIOSH does agree that the 10 

16 percent dose should have been applied for 2006 

17 for this particular location. There was a copy 

18 and paste error in the worksheet. It doesn't 

19 impact compensation so we recommend closure.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one here is 

22 the same case, Finding No. 2. NIOSH used an 
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 inappropriate X-ray lung dose. Here NIOSH used 

2 the male lung dose instead of the female lung 

3 dose for each of the cancers. It resulted in a 

4 (inaudible due to sirens) of the cancer sites 

5 with a smaller impact on the overall case and no 

6 impact on the compensation.

7 MR. KATZ: Dave had to mute.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I just had a 

9 fire engine go by. It just went off. But this 

10 is closed, is it not? Is it accepted, folks, 

11 that we close this?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: I didn't catch the tail 

16 end of it. Is this a QA? What is this?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a workbook 

18 error that's since been corrected, so I guess 

19 you could call it a QA error.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, we closed that 

22 one. We can go on here to the next one.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think we may 

2 want to be closing in a little while and we need 

3 to have a little time to talk about our next 

4 meeting. So let's go on. Would people be open, 

5 let's go on for another 10 minutes until 4:30?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: And then plan for 

8 our next meeting and then finish for the day.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Go ahead. 

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, Tab 457, 

12 Observation 1. It's an X-10, Y-12, and K-25 

13 case. It's an observation. The first paragraph 

14 in the DR report we felt was erroneous. It 

15 said, how we interpreted it to be, that onsite 

16 ambient dose was not assessed when it was in 

17 fact assessed, and we felt that that was perhaps 

18 a carryover from a previous dose reconstruction.

19 And NIOSH did clarify that that the 

20 sentence construction of the way it was written 

21 in the report could have been read that it was 

22 or was not done. With their clarification, we 
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 do recommend closure.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I think 

3 that's clear-cut. Thank you. Next.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

5 Observation 2. The TBD contains conflicting 

6 column headings, multiple columns say --

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH agrees. I 

10 believe that's already been corrected.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Correct. And it's 

12 an observation and will be closed. Good.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, same case, 

14 Observation 3. Here, it's a little detailed, 

15 but for Pu at K-25 and Y-12 the recycled uranium 

16 was used. Therefore, according to OTIB-49, an 

17 adjustment factor for Type SS plutonium are not 

18 applicable. 

19 However, they could be applicable for 

20 X-10. When we reviewed NIOSH's CADW intake 

21 values for Pu-239 Type S we found the DR used 

22 the X-10 value instead of the correct value for 
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 the years 1967 through '77.

2 Using the correct intake would 

3 increase the Type S Pu-239 dose. NIOSH agrees. 

4 The correct Pu-239 Type S intake values were 

5 assigned. And that the X-10 corrected values 

6 are still less than the dose that was used. 

7 So we do recommend closure but also 

8 elevating this to a finding. 

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? You do 

10 close what?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We recommend 

12 elevating it to a finding. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: It sounds reasonable 

14 given the degree of error.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I agree.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The next one, same 

19 case, Finding 3. NIOSH assigned one value 

20 instead of another value, without giving away PI 

21 information, for X-ray dose. You can see it on 

22 my screen. NIOSH agrees they should have used -
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 -

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. And 

3 nice handling of that. Thank you. No, those 

4 are the kinds of things, it's very good people 

5 were aware of this. Anyhow, this is accepted.

6 Right, folks? It is a finding. 

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. Alright, 

9 great. Next one.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is Tab 

11 458, Observation 1. It's an X-10, Y-12, K-25 

12 case. And it's a Weibull distribution again so 

13 we recommend closure.

14 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yes, my 

17 vote, sure.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

19 is Finding No. 2 from the same case. And this 

20 was kind of an unusual -- there were two 

21 different files in the EE's DOE files. One was 

22 the result as 2.44 nanocuries and the other 
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 listed the results as 244 nanocuries. So the 

2 difference of a decimal place.

3 Despite it being a big factor it 

4 doesn't really impact the dose that much. NIOSH 

5 used the lesser. We think it might have been 

6 more claimant-favorable to use the greater value 

7 when there was some uncertainty associated with 

8 the value.

9 But this is a historical dose 

10 reconstruction and we have no way of knowing the 

11 correct dose reconstruction value. It doesn't 

12 impact compensation so we do recommend closure.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Why could we not 

14 verify what was the proper number where the 

15 decimal point should have been? We couldn't 

16 tell from the data that was given us. This was 

17 a measurement, is that it?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, it was a 

19 historical result, though.

20 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would have to look 

22 into the year, but one was a handwritten value 
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 and one was a computer generated value. It was 

2 tough to know which one predated the other.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And which was the 

5 correct.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

7 Actually, I think it's relatively 

8 straightforward because the error in both of 

9 them were identical. The decimal point was not 

10 missing in the errors.

11 And when you look at the value in the 

12 errors it's 44 plus or minus .81, [which] makes 

13 a lot more sense and it's a type-written value 

14 where we can see the decimal. And the 

15 handwritten which, would be 244 plus or minus 

16 .81.

17 So I don't really think this was a 

18 determination of professional judgment. This 

19 was a determination as to which one seemed to be 

20 the logical answer. And we wouldn't make a 

21 claimant-favorable decision on that. We would 

22 pick the right number, which was pretty clear 
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 the data. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So the right 

3 number was used, which would mean that this 

4 would be an observation. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like it.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

7 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds like it to me.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good. I'm 

9 pleased that we could tell the difference 

10 between 2.44 and 244.

11 MEMBER MUNN: As their statement 

12 says, when in doubt you go one direction, but 

13 what we heard was there wasn't really any doubt 

14 if you looked at the reasonableness of the data 

15 you had.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

17 Alright. Then No. 3.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, No. 3. NIOSH 

19 used the intake period of '93 through '99 

20 instead of '93 to 2000. NIOSH agrees the intake 

21 should have been assigned later through the date 

22 of the last whole body count. It does not 
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 impact compensation so we recommend closure.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yes. Okay, 

3 closed. And what would the next one be? We're 

4 kind of nearing the end.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Here we go, 458.4.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And the X-10, Y-12, 

8 and K-25 case. And the finding states that 

9 NIOSH did not analyze the results of lung count. 

10 NIOSH came back and said that the 

11 whole body counts were evaluated but the lung 

12 counts were not considered to be routine 

13 monitoring in the DR's judgment. But further 

14 review was warranted. The ORAU team requested 

15 additional [data] for this timeframe from the 

16 site to determine exposure potential to Pu. 

17 The data requested yielded the 

18 results of a urine sample in '96 based on an 

19 incident. This new information confirmed that

20 dose reconstruction should have considered and 

21 assigned the Pu during that time frame.

22 The claim was reworked under the CAD 
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 system to consider this new information. And 

2 the final decision was on the same side of 50 

3 percent so it had no impact on compensation.

4 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. That 

5 was certainly a finding and we should close it.

6 Okay. Well, with this last burst of 

7 energy we threw a lot of -- as we said earlier, 

8 it always makes you feel good to be able to make 

9 judgments on a lot of cases. Proper judgments,

10 appropriately considered and not rushed. Good.

11 Ted, when should we be thinking about 

12 our next meeting?

13 MR. KATZ: I'm just pulling up my 

14 calendar.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Same.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Don't we still have a 

17 couple of more to go through or are we done? 

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MEMBER BEACH: It looks like there 

20 are just three more.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Really, there are

22 only three more?
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 MS. GOGLIOTTI: In this Type 1 

2 matrix.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Oh, by all means, 

4 surely, surely. If there are only three, I'm 

5 open. Are other folks open?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Let's do it.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Alright, yes. 

8 Good. So we will go back on the record to 

9 finish up. Go right ahead.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 499, Observation 1, 

11 which is a Y-12 and K-25 case.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Which one is that? 

13 499. Yes. Good. Thank you for pointing that 

14 out.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And for this 

16 observation we found that the K-25 calculation 

17 workbook under the input tab lists a lapse for 

18 the year 1970 and this is incorrect according to 

19 the TBD.

20 NIOSH has agreed. The workbook has 

21 since been corrected and now shows the lapse 

22 began in 1971, which is consistent with the TBD. 
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 So based on that we recommend closure.

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: I missed something there. 

4 If there's an error in the workbook, why is that 

5 not a finding?

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I believe this should 

7 be a finding.

8 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, it's listed as 

10 an observation. 

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: This is a finding.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

13 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, same case, 

15 Finding No. 1. NIOSH used the inappropriate 

16 surrogate organ for K-25 PFC and PA exams. 

17 NIOSH said the dose reconstructor did 

18 not use the correct K-25 workbook to calculate 

19 occupational medical dose. They used an earlier 

20 version when they should have used a different 

21 version, the 2.03 rather than 2.0.

22 And they assigned dose to the 
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 eye/brain instead of an entrance skin dose. 

2 Using the 10 percent entrance skin dose the PoC 

3 would have increased potentially about 7 

4 percent. However, still not enough to flip the 

5 case. So we recommend closure.

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and the final 

8 one is Tab 470, Finding No. 1. And this is a Y9 12 and K-10 case.

10 And the finding states that NIOSH did 

11 not assign one organ Pu dose for the year 2000. 

12 NIOSH agrees the dose is not applied for the 

13 year 2000 for this particular organ. It doesn't 

14 impact the outcome of the claim and it appears 

15 to a cut-and-paste error or a QA error so we 

16 recommend closure.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

18 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, and that's all 

20 of them, for the Type 1’s anyway.

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. That's 

22 very good. Fine. Okay. So, let's look at our 
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 calendars. And Ted, you'll please lead us off 

2 on this.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes. One second. Okay, 

4 where are we.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: We are meeting in 

6 late August ourselves, the Board.

7 MR. KATZ: That's the Board. Okay. 

8 So let me just go -- we're at June 27th. Okay. 

9 So the soonest we could meet would be the week 

10 of September 11.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

12 MR. KATZ: The week of September 11th 

13 is the soonest we could meet. We'll work from 

14 there forward in terms of your availability.

15 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Now we're 

16 going to September. Some of us have Jewish 

17 holidays. I don't have them listed. Do you, 

18 Ted? Do you have them in your book?

19 MR. KATZ: Unfortunately they're not 

20 on my calendar here. 

21 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I think there's 

22 some way they may be --
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 MR. KATZ: If someone has a Google 

2 calendar.

3 MEMBER BEACH: I have one on the 

4 20th.

5 MR. KATZ: What's on the 20th?

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, there's a --

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: [identifying 

8 information redacted]

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

10 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Good. If 

11 [identifying information redacted] is on the 

12 20th then the [identifying information redacted]

13 is the 28th.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Yom Kippur is on the 

15 29th.

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Twenty-ninth, 

17 okay. So the week of the 11th is fine in terms 

18 of holidays. Let me see.

19 MR. KATZ: I need multiple options 

20 because I think we've lost David as well as we 

21 don't have John Poston.

22 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady and we 
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 tentatively have an outreach meeting planned for 

2 Jacksonville, September 12th and 13th.

3 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: I'll tell you, the 

4 following week is much better for me.

5 MR. KATZ: The week of the 18th?

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The week of the 

7 18th. The only problem would be that Wednesday 

8 for Rosh Hashanah.

9 MEMBER KATZ: Okay, how about the next 

10 week?

11 MEMBER BEACH: That's good.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: So I'm available 

13 the 18th, 19th, 20th before sundown and 22nd.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, how's the 19th or 

15 the 20th?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I am not available 

17 the 19th.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, how about the 20th?

19 MEMBER BEACH: I'm good the 20th. 

20 How about the 18th?

21 MR. KATZ: Well, yeah, I try to avoid 

22 Mondays just because there tends to be other 
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 stuff going on. 

2 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: How about the 

3 22nd, a Friday?

4 MR. KATZ: We need multiple options 

5 anyway, so if you want to pick a couple of these 

6 days.

7 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Certainly 

8 9/20 appears to be good for those here. The 

9 second one, if we want to we could look at the 

10 next week, if you don't want the 18th or the 

11 22nd.

12 MR. KATZ: There's nothing wrong with 

13 the 22nd if that's okay with everyone else.

14 MEMBER MUNN: What was wrong with the 

15 19th?

16 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Josie couldn't 

17 make it.

18 MEMBER BEACH: No, Rose.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Rose, I'm not 

20 available.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and I prefer to 

22 not do Fridays if possible.
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 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's go 

2 into the next week then. What about the 27th?

3 The next Wednesday.

4 MR. KATZ: And when was the holiday 

5 that week?

6 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The holiday is on 

7 the 28th.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Twenty-ninth.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: The 29th, which 

10 means that we can meet on the 27th or 28th.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Or 26th.

12 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Right. Among the 

13 three days, 26, 27, 28, what are preferences? 

14 We could pick two.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Any of them are fine 

16 with me.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Any of them are 

18 fine with me.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, and Brad?

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I'm just 

21 waiting for everybody to choose. I can work 

22 about anything in.
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Why don't we say that then 

2 the 20th will be option one, and then 26th, 

3 27th, 28th, will be options two, three, and four 

4 after I hear back from Dave and John.

5 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: That sounds good.

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. KATZ: With the 20th being the 

8 preferred one.

9 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds great.

11 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Very good. Folks, 

12 thank you. Long day. We got a lot 

13 accomplished.

14 Adjourn

15 MR. KATZ: Thanks for all the good 

16 work.

17 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Thank you all. 

18 MEMBER BEACH: Thanks.

19 CHAIR KOTELCHUCK: Okay, bye-bye.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

21 went off the record at 4:37 p.m.)

22
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

2

3