1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE

+ + + + +

MONDAY,

DECEMBER 8, 2014

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee meeting convened 

via teleconference at 10:30 a.m., David 

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member

WANDA MUNN, Member

JOHN POSTON, Member

DAVID RICHARDSON, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUGLAS FARVER, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team

WILLIAM THURBER, SC&A

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3

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

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

Discussion

Case Review Issue Resolution ............ 10

TBD-6001 - DuPont Deepwater........ 104

Simonds Saw........................ 118

Updates on NIOSH and SC&A Blind 

Reviews ................................. 131

Status of Review Responses for .......... 164

Sets 13 through 18

How to Handle QA Issues that ............ 248

Have Been Automated to be Correct

in the Future

Administrative Matters .................. 258

Discussion of Next Meeting .............. 261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4

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

2 10:32 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: To begin with this is the 

4 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

5 Ready to go on the line. And this is the Dose 

6 Reconstruction Review Subcommittee.

7 The agenda for today's meeting is 

8 posted on the NIOSH Website under the Board 

9 section under today's date. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: May I 

11 interrupt that comment to just say that in 

12 reviewing the remaining cases over the weekend, 

13 it's clear that the Committee has covered some 

14 of those already, so that we have a smaller, 

15 slightly different set of cases, but we'll go 

16 through all of them.

17 MR. KATZ: No, that's fine. 

18 That's fine.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: I've just covered what I 

21 best could figure at the time that I did the 

22 agenda, but --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5

1 MR. KATZ: And I didn't have input.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, and I 

3 hadn't reviewed until this weekend what we 

4 really have to complete today.

5 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you, 

6 Dave.

7 So let's run through roll call. I 

8 already know who's on the line for Board 

9 Members. Let me get that started just with 

10 covering for you so that you don't have to cover 

11 yourself, conflicts of interest. But we have 

12 attendance of the Chair, Dave Kotelchuck.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

14 MR. KATZ: Wanda Munn, David 

15 Richardson and Brad Clawson. And just to cover 

16 conflicts that are relevant for today or 

17 potentially relevant, Wanda is conflicted for 

18 Hanford. There may be Hanford discussion. We 

19 may be done with Hanford. I'm not sure.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think we 

21 are.

22 MR. KATZ: And then John Poston who 

23 will be joining us a little later is conflicted 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6

1 for ORNL and LLNL. And Mark Griffon is 

2 conflicted for Mound. So I'm covering those 

3 now just because Mark, if he joins us, will be 

4 joining us late, as well John. And that will 

5 be on the table in the clear. 

6 Otherwise, that's it, well, for 

7 what I have. And, David, it's your meeting.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

9 good. So, folks, first as we start, let me 

10 thank Wanda for chairing our Subcommittee 

11 meeting. As you know, I was away for personal 

12 reasons last meeting.

13 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Dave. I just 

14 left off everyone else's roll call.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, for 

16 goodness sake. Yes, okay. Excuse me.

17 (Roll call.)

18 MR. KATZ: Back to you, Dave. 

19 Sorry.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 Again, I was saying thank you to Wanda for 

22 chairing the last meeting. And just as a 

23 personal note my brother who had an operation 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7

1 that day, or the day before, is doing well now, 

2 recovering well. So we're very pleased. I'm 

3 pleased about that.

4 So the last meeting you had finished 

5 Bethlehem Steel 238.3 and we're getting ready 

6 to start with 238.4. That is in the DCAS Sites 

7 Grouping File. Could we put that up on the 

8 screen? 

9 And for those of you who are looking 

10 not on the Live Meeting, but on the file itself, 

11 238.4 is about two-thirds of the way down on the 

12 file. 

13 MEMBER POSTON: Good morning. 

14 John Poston here.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good 

16 morning, John. Excellent. Glad to have you.

17 MEMBER POSTON: Sorry.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're here 

19 nice and quickly. I thought you might be just 

20 a little later. Good. So you're our fifth 

21 member.

22 And 238.4 is on our screen for the 

23 Live Meeting folks. So, Doug, do you want to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8

1 discuss this?

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. 238.4 has to 

3 do -- let's see, Bethlehem Steel and the finding 

4 was inappropriate assumption used in the 

5 modeling period between rolling operations 

6 before 1951. As it turns out, this really 

7 doesn't matter anymore. So I'm not sure what 

8 we would [do] with the others. We kind of 

9 figured -- you look at the other one, it says 

10 the issue falls within the SEC time period, so 

11 we closed the finding. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

13 And you recommend closure, and that seems 

14 reasonable. Is there any comment that anyone 

15 wants to have? This has already been 

16 compensated.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

18 just want to make sure one of the reasons why 

19 we're checking this is I understand the SEC took 

20 care of this, but still why was this done the 

21 way it was? Doug? So is this a finding or --

22 MR. FARVER: Well --

23 DR. MAURO: I might be able to help. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9

1 This is John. All of the issues of course 

2 related to the SEC; and that's been closed, and 

3 we're always in the circumstance where, okay, 

4 what about uncovered time periods? And I do 

5 recall that there was considerable discussion. 

6 We're talking right now about the -- where it 

7 says start here, okay? Inappropriate 

8 assumptions used in modeling the period between 

9 rollings. 

10 My recollection -- and I see that we 

11 closed it, but it seems that we closed it 

12 because the inhalation exposures are being 

13 compensated for a very specific reason, and I 

14 think it's worthy of a little bit of discussion 

15 here. The reason the SEC was granted -- and 

16 anyone who has better information than this

17 [should speak up], but my recollection is it had 

18 to do with cobbling the cobbles and the 

19 inability to reconstruct doses with sufficient 

20 accuracy for that particular scenario. 

21 And it's an inhalation scenario 

22 while you're rolling the rods. And you may 

23 have to cut them because they get cobbled up 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10

1 like spaghetti. But it's my understanding 

2 though that if you have to do a partial dose 

3 reconstruction, there's a lot that could be 

4 done. There's a person that may have a 

5 prostate or skin cancer. You can do a partial 

6 where you would not try to do this particular 

7 inhalation exposure.

8 But I think there are other 

9 inhalation exposures that NIOSH's position is 

10 that they can perform. Is that correct? Is 

11 that NIOSH's position? That for example uranium 

12 exposure, let's say to a person who might have 

13 prostate cancer, you need to reconstruct the 

14 internal dose not covered by the SEC. Is it 

15 correct that that's certainly still something 

16 that needs to be done?

17 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady, and we 

18 do include internal dose per the TBD.

19 DR. MAURO: Very good. So it puts 

20 me on the right path on this item here.

21 Now, I recall during the in- between 

22 periods, because if you remember, at Bethlehem 

23 Steel they did the rollings on the weekends and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11

1 they did steel during the week days. And so 

2 they had this in-between period. And the 

3 question was, okay, there might be some 

4 residual uranium now, because this is not 

5 cobbling now. There might be some residual 

6 uranium there in the junk on the floor, most of 

7 which is going to be steel, and we all recognize 

8 that. But a little bit might be some uranium. 

9 And I remember that we did come up with -- and 

10 I think we did agree upon a protocol for 

11 reconstructing that particular time period, 

12 those increments, those one-week increments.

13 And so I thought that we -- and it

14 became something very thoughtful, the process 

15 where the steel is covering it. And so I think 

16 that that issue has been addressed and has been 

17 resolved. The only thing I don't know is I 

18 haven't read the latest version of the 

19 Bethlehem Steel Site Profile to see, oh, yes, 

20 there it is. They're doing it just the way we 

21 discussed way back when. 

22 And so I think that we need to talk 

23 a little bit about that, whether or not there's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12

1 a need to confirm, yes, we agreed in principle 

2 and there it is, because we did not look at that 

3 latest version of the Site Profile.

4 Did I characterize this 

5 appropriately?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Tom, this is Wanda. 

7 My memory is certainly in agreement with yours. 

8 There's no question that this question of the 

9 cobbling and what transpired at Bethlehem Steel 

10 has been discussed at great length. And my 

11 memory is that we essentially resolved all of 

12 these subsidiary issues prior to the granting 

13 of the SEC. And as John said, the question now 

14 remains only as to whether or not this has been 

15 appropriately recorded in the documentation or 

16 not. The discussion certainly has been made in 

17 more than one venue. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We would 

19 presumably see that if there were a case 

20 involving partial dose reconstruction, right?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would 

23 be obviously where we would see it, and we may 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13

1 have such. If we don't have such, there's no 

2 reason to go over, I think, the model other than 

3 that there is a good model now and SC&A and NIOSH 

4 agree. So I don't see any reason not to close.

5 Brad, are you satisfied with that?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: You know what, 

7 that's fine. My bottom line that I was getting 

8 to is, what I wanted to find out, is this a 

9 finding or not because if this person -- if it's 

10 just because the SEC were not going to look at 

11 it, I want to make sure that we're looking at 

12 it right. That's bottom line and that's --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

14 we have a model for looking at it, right, if you 

15 will. 

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. 

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's clear. 

18 Okay. Then we'll close on that and go to 238.5.

19 MR. FARVER: 238.5 is similar. 

20 Has to do with the cobbling.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: I would say it's 

23 probably -- based on what John just said, it's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14

1 all been discussed. And if there is an issue, 

2 it will come up during a partial dose 

3 reconstruct. But really any issue could come 

4 up during that.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. But 

6 I mean, there is a model out there for the 

7 inhalation exposure.

8 DR. MAURO: This is John. You're 

9 talking 238.5?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: This one in my mind is 

12 a simple one. It's not a matter of doing a 

13 partial or whether or not the protocol is there 

14 or not. This is the reason the SEC was granted. 

15 So there will not be any attempt --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: -- to reconstruct 

18 the --

19 (Simultaneous speaking)

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct. 

21 Correct.

22 DR. MAURO: Because that's the 

23 thing they can't do.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Exactly. 

2 Okay. Good.

3 DR. MAURO: So I think this is an 

4 open and closed case. It's closed.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think that 

6 sounds correct to me. 

7 Any comments or concerns by other 

8 Members of the Subcommittee?

9 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

10 agree.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

12 Then I think we should close it and we should 

13 go on to 238.6.

14 DR. MAURO: It's John again. 

15 Doug, certainly shut me down if I'm talking too 

16 much. All of this stuff is AWE stuff. I spent 

17 eight years doing this stuff.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: And I was involved in 

20 helping Doug prepare the matrix, and so this is 

21 all very familiar territory to me.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 DR. MAURO: And we're up to No. 6?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

2 it's the same issue, I see.

3 DR. MAURO: No, it's all --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ingestion 

5 exposure.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, they're similar, 

7 but there are nuances that are important to 

8 appreciate.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 DR. MAURO: Now what we have here is 

11 that -- the argument is that -- ingestion 

12 exposure pathway is the issue here. 

13 Inappropriate assumptions used to model 

14 ingestion. Now, the fact that an SEC was 

15 granted does not shut down this issue, if there 

16 is an issue. And stay with me for a minute. 

17 The fact that there's an SEC means good, okay? 

18 But there will be workers again, just like when 

19 we talked about it just a moment go where you're 

20 going to do a partial dose reconstruct.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: And at the time this was 

23 an issue [where] there was some question. I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17

1 remember we had lots of discussion whether the 

2 methods that NIOSH employs to reconstruct 

3 ingestion exposure in OTIB-0009 -- there was an 

4 issue. And so in theory this could be an open 

5 item, because if there was still some 

6 disagreement regarding that protocol, 

7 OTIB-0009, on how do you do ingestion, it would 

8 apply here because you will have to do that as 

9 a part of a partial dose reconstruction. But 

10 as it turns out, the record will show that all 

11 issues related to OTIB-0009 have in fact been 

12 resolved by the Procedures Subcommittee, so 

13 therefore it could be closed here. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 DR. MAURO: The reason I'm saying 

16 this, it's important that we don't lose sight 

17 of the fact that having an SEC does not negate 

18 the need to address a number of TBD issues.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

20 agree. Normally what we would do is when we 

21 come to things where other Subcommittees in 

22 fact are responsible is that we, if you will, 

23 quotes, "pass it on" to the Procedures 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18

1 Subcommittee and say that this Subcommittee 

2 takes no further action. It's closed with 

3 respect to our actions.

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I'll 

5 have to admit I have not checked OTIB-0009 

6 recently, and especially with regard to this 

7 particular finding.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: I'll be glad to do 

10 that when we break for lunch if --

11 (Simultaneous speaking)

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would 

13 be very good. Why don't we hold this then open, 

14 238.6 open --

15 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. We closed 

16 all the ingestion issues.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We did.

18 MR. KATZ: I mean, we've closed all 

19 of those.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay. 

21 So, but the question is, I mean, normally when 

22 we approach this, we close it from our end, then 

23 give it over to the Procedures Subcommittee.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19

1 MR. KATZ: I guess what I'm saying, 

2 Dave, is I mean, this went over to the 

3 Procedures Subcommittee long ago and is long, 

4 long ago [put] to bed.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know 

6 that, because Wanda was suggesting that at 

7 least she hadn't looked at it or did not 

8 remember it, but --

9 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, I remember this 

10 discussion at great length because of my very 

11 strong objection to the issuing of the SEC.

12 I simply do not remember whether 

13 this particular item was closed appropriately 

14 in our deliberations. I know that it was in 

15 terms of the entire Board.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: I just have not 

18 checked what the Procedures record says, and I 

19 would have to pull up the --

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well 

22 then, the question is what do we want to call 

23 it? I mean, effectively I would like to hear 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20

1 from you later, and you'll check it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Good. I know that 

3 the item has been closed. I just have not --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Well 

5 then, let's just say that formally this is 

6 closed for our Subcommittee.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it is. Let me 

8 put it this way: I will double-check --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

10 MEMBER MUNN: -- that we have it in 

11 the same condition in our Procedures lists, 

12 yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

14 Okay. And you'll report back after lunch?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I will.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you 

17 for doing that.

18 MEMBER MUNN: But the item itself I 

19 agree is --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Closed.

21 MEMBER MUNN: The technical issue 

22 is closed.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21

1 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

2 I just checked the BRS, and it is indeed closed.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

4 Excellent.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, thank you, John. 

6 John has done our job for us.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

8 Thanks a lot. 

9 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

10 One more point. It's procedural - meant for 

11 Ted. We're very mature in this process now. 

12 We have these different Work Groups and 

13 Subcommittees. The activities and the 

14 exchange. The cross-talk has been becoming 

15 richer and richer. And the last time we 

16 encountered this circumstance, if you recall, 

17 had to do with a TBD-6000 issue that was 

18 transferred over to Paul. Paul closed it out. 

19 Wrote a memo back and said everything is -- it's 

20 sort of like closing the loop. In effect what 

21 we have here is -- and this is really a question 

22 for Ted.

23 Ted, do you believe that we need 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22

1 something in writing, a memo from the head of 

2 the Work Group? For example, in this case 

3 we're talking about -- with respect to 

4 Bethlehem Steel or any of the others, or we're 

5 talking in this case about OTIB-0009. Would 

6 you like to see a piece of paper that says all 

7 issues on OTIB-0009 have been closed? Then 

8 it's transferred for example in this case to the 

9 DR Subcommittee as being a part of the record 

10 and closes the loop as opposed to right now the 

11 way we're doing it is really ad hoc, so to speak.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, and thanks for the 

13 question, John. And I think ordinarily, 

14 especially with Work Groups, the way they pick 

15 things up, I think that's a good idea where we 

16 explicitly transfer something over to 

17 Procedures. Wasn't quite how this transpired 

18 though here. So I think recording for the 

19 record here now is good enough.

20 DR. MAURO: That's good enough? 

21 Good. Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: So I do agree with that 

23 in general. Specifically when we formally 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23

1 transfer something to another group, 

2 absolutely I think the other group should be 

3 sending a formal sort of follow-up when they 

4 close those issues. So I agree with that, 

5 John.

6 And since we're at a break in 

7 discussion, Mark has -- you may want to speak 

8 up for yourself, but Mark has joined us. So we 

9 have actually --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

11 Welcome. We have our full --

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark 

13 Griffon. I'm on.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: --

15 complement here. Terrific. Full Committee. 

16 Good. Good, Mark. Welcome. 

17 Then I think we're ready to go on to 

18 the DuPont Deepwater 260.1.

19 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. I'm 

20 back. I had some phone problems.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. FARVER: I missed the end of 

23 238.5. I believe we closed it. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, Doug. We closed 

2 238.5 and 238.6.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 238.6. 

4 Right.

5 MR. FARVER: 238.6. Before we 

6 leave 238, if we go back to page 20 for the first 

7 finding --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: -- last meeting we 

10 were going to review a document. That document 

11 is not in our purview to review.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

13 correct. Okay. You're just saying that for 

14 the record, because I saw the discussion that 

15 was held.

16 MR. FARVER: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Good.

19 MR. FARVER: So, yes, we closed 

20 that finding.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct. 

22 Okay. 

23 MR. FARVER: And that will take 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25

1 care of that case then.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

3 that's now on the record.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

6 260.1.

7 MR. FARVER: 260.1, DuPont 

8 Deepwater. The dose rates in table B.3 of 

9 TBD-6001 appear to underestimate the dose that 

10 was being revised. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: Our response is there 

13 are no open issues concerning that table.

14 Is that correct, John?

15 DR. MAURO: I believe this is --

16 right, we just looked at this and the answer is 

17 yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

19 so is it that there's not an underestimate, or 

20 a change has been made in the dose 

21 reconstruction? I'm just trying to 

22 understand, read this and understand it. They 

23 were resolved.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26

1 MR. KATZ: John can cover that, 

2 because John's been intimately involved with 

3 Deepwater.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, I think we're in a 

6 place where there are some issues on Deepwater 

7 that -- it went through a cycle of revision and 

8 review.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: And many have been 

11 resolved, but the last I checked there are a 

12 couple that have not. And as you could see from 

13 the previous discussion we just had, the first 

14 one we closed, but the second one I'm not -- it's 

15 not immediately apparent to me that -- which --

16 let me put it this way: Which issues still 

17 remain require some discussion on DuPont that 

18 might have relevance to this case? And if 

19 that's the case, which ones might still have 

20 relevance? It's probably something we need to 

21 talk about. Unfortunately, I can't 

22 speak right now to each and every one of these. 

23 Are there any remaining items in DuPont 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27

1 Deepwater that might have a bearing here? So 

2 I have to say that the first one clearly we 

3 looked at and we were okay, but the other ones 

4 I can't -- I'm looking at it right now, the 

5 table.

6 The specific issue, whether or not

7 that has been resolved in the latest go-around 

8 or not. But I need a little help here. Given 

9 that we have a revised Site Profile for DuPont 

10 Deepwater, and presuming that there is a PER 

11 that's going to be issued or has been issued,

12 and you could help me with that, and then cases 

13 are going to be revisited, I guess the question 

14 would be some of the cases -- if we're looking 

15 at a case right now. I don't know, is this one 

16 of the cases that is being revisited, or if so, 

17 that puts [it] in a very special place. It's 

18 almost like moot because it's being revisited 

19 or it's not being revisited.

20 Am I on the right track here the way 

21 I'm thinking about it? If we're in that mode 

22 where you have an active PER process, where we 

23 happen to have a case in front of us that was

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28

1 captured and is being redone, that puts that 

2 case in a very special place. I don't know if 

3 you folks could help me out, if I'm thinking 

4 clearly about this.

5 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. It 

6 appears to me that the question is very clear 

7 from what we see here on the screen certainly. 

8 The only question is whether the information 

9 that's presented in table B.3 does 

10 underestimate the whole body dose, and I would 

11 think that would have been covered extensively 

12 in Work Group discussions. I don't believe I 

13 was a part of that personally, but that's the 

14 only real question here: is the issue with 

15 respect to any estimation of the whole body dose 

16 still outstanding? One would be led to think 

17 from the comment that's on the matrix itself 

18 that all of the outstanding issues had been 

19 resolved with the AWE Work Group, but I guess 

20 one thing to do would be to check the Work 

21 Group's transcript.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, the problem is 

23 that the Work Group hasn't met to button up this 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29

1 review. So as John was saying, there are a 

2 couple of findings that needed to be sort of 

3 finally resolved by the Work Group. I mean, it 

4 all appears -- all the work has been done both 

5 by SC&A and by NIOSH on Deepwater. But the Work 

6 Group hasn't met, because this is -- they're 

7 waiting for another site to have enough 

8 material for a meeting. 

9 MEMBER MUNN: But the question, 

10 Ted, is: Is this one of the outstanding issues, 

11 or does it --

12 (Simultaneous speaking)

13 MR. KATZ: So part of that's the 

14 problem. Neither John nor I can recall the 

15 specifics of --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

17 MR. KATZ: -- what was put to bed 

18 how at this point. So that's why we can't be 

19 specific on any of these as to exactly how they 

20 were dispositioned.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's why I'm 

22 suggesting that. 

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30

1 relatively recent, by the way, Wanda. SC&A's 

2 DuPont Deepwater report I think only came out 

3 relatively recently. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I see that, but 

5 it says these were resolved at a meeting last 

6 year, in September last year. And why can't we 

7 just simply check the transcript to see if this 

8 is one of the items that was put to bed at that 

9 time? If it's not one of the outstanding 

10 items, then we can close it, but the transcript 

11 ought to point out to us what items are still 

12 outstanding. Should it not?

13 DR. MAURO: Well, no, because the 

14 last review of DuPont -- the ones that were 

15 closed were closed, but we -- I'm tripping over 

16 my feet a bit. It appears to me that 260.2, for 

17 example, having to do with this table B.3 of 

18 TBD-6001 -- okay? That's how it all started.

19 Now TBD-6001 went away. Okay? 

20 And in the interim the DuPont Deepwater Works 

21 Site Profile was redone. And in the end -- and 

22 basically addressed all of -- in other words, 

23 everything, all of the comments we originally 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31

1 had really are moot in a way because TBD-6001, 

2 which was the foundation upon which a lot of 

3 these AWE cases were based, does no longer 

4 exist. And they were replaced by their own 

5 stand-alone Site Profiles. Now, in some cases 

6 SC&A has had an opportunity -- and they were put 

7 out -- has had an opportunity to review those 

8 Site Profiles. DuPont Deepwater is one of 

9 those. And our report was issued relatively 

10 recently, and there were some findings.

11 Now, what did that do? There are 

12 two layers to the issue: One is NIOSH might 

13 very well be issuing a PER to deal with the 

14 changes to DuPont Deepwater. I don't know. 

15 Second, there are some issues with the latest 

16 version of DuPont Deepwater's Site Profile that 

17 may or may not have applicability to this 

18 particular issue for this particular case.

19 So I would say that with a little 

20 homework -- I could go maybe during a break and 

21 take a look at where are we exactly on what 

22 issues still are alive and well and need to be 

23 dealt with and do they have any bearing on this 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32

1 particular case and this particular issue? 

2 But I really can't speak off the top of my head 

3 to that matter at this time.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is there a 

5 new PER? Is there a PER?

6 MR. KATZ: Unless Grady knows, I 

7 don't think we have an answer to that.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: Because it's not that 

10 all of the findings from SC&A's review were 

11 concurred with by the Subcommittee. I think 

12 there was a mix of findings, if John recalls 

13 correctly.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's --

15 MR. KATZ: I think the best course 

16 is for John to just -- John, if you would --

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: -- at lunch time or 

19 whatever if you would just take a look at the 

20 record there, and then maybe we can put these 

21 to bed even though the Subcommittee may not have 

22 formally retired the review.

23 DR. MAURO: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

2 MR. KATZ: That would be great.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And so we'll 

4 take this up right after the break, the lunch 

5 break, or breakfast break.

6 MR. CALHOUN: I can tell you that a 

7 PER has been scheduled for this, but it is not 

8 completed. I just found that out.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

10 MR. CALHOUN: It's on our list.

11 DR. MAURO: But the fact that you 

12 have a PER that is in the queue -- in theory if 

13 this was a case that was rejected, you would go 

14 through your process of determining whether or 

15 not you would need to revisit this one or not.

16 MR. CALHOUN: Right. That's a 

17 fact.

18 DR. MAURO: But you're not there 

19 yet. 

20 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we haven't

21 reevaluated it, but it is on our list --

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes.

23 MR. CALHOUN: -- of the ones we have 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34

1 to do.

2 DR. MAURO: By way of process you 

3 could see how things get complicated. Here we 

4 have a case that we reviewed a long time ago. 

5 The world has changed three times in the 

6 interim. We have a PER process at work. We 

7 have an SC&A TBD review process at work. And 

8 in theory the PER process will go forward as it 

9 should based on the latest version of the TBD 

10 that you folks have. And in my mind it's very 

11 important. Notwithstanding the fact that 

12 there still might be some issues SC&A has on the 

13 latest version of the TBD. 

14 And, Ted, this is something maybe 

15 you want to help me out with a little. You can 

16 envision a situation where a major revision is 

17 made to a TBD, sort of like General Steel, and 

18 we know that there are going to be a lot of cases 

19 that are going to be revisited as a result of 

20 that revision. And in theory NIOSH launches a 

21 PER process based on the latest version of the 

22 TBD, as should be, because these folks have been 

23 waiting forever. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35

1 But at the same time SC&A, as you 

2 know, Ted, has recently reviewed the latest 

3 version of the TBD. And I'm talking General 

4 Steel, but it has applicability here also. And 

5 we're in this unusual place that says, well, we 

6 have a new TBD. We really need a PER to go 

7 forward because there really have been some 

8 substantial changes. A lot of cases could be 

9 affected. We don't want to hold that up. 

10 But we also realize that SC&A still 

11 has a couple of things to polish the apple. 

12 Like I would refer to -- there are some things 

13 that we need to take care of. This is true of 

14 General Steel. This is also true of DuPont. 

15 And here we are trying to resolve issues on a 

16 case, and it's an uncomfortable place to be, and 

17 how best to move forward. 

18 MR. KATZ: John, I think you'll be 

19 fine. At lunch break if you could just review 

20 the transcript for the last meeting where 

21 DuPont was discussed by the Uranium Refining 

22 AWE Work Group, that would be great. Because 

23 as I recall it, the issues there were pretty 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36

1 simple and cut and dried.

2 DR. MAURO: And I think you're 

3 right.

4 MR. KATZ: Nothing near the 

5 complexity that we had with GSI.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 MR. KATZ: So I think you'll find 

8 that it's probably easy to resolve this just 

9 after you look at the record.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 MR. KATZ: But we'll see then.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay. I agree with 

13 you. I'll take care of it.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful. 

15 Thank you. 

16 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry for going on 

17 and on. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

19 we'll revisit this right after the lunch break, 

20 or breakfast break as the case may be for our 

21 West Coast colleagues.

22 And let's go on now. So we are 

23 going on Task 260.3, and I think IMC is next. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37

1 It's a 281.

2 MR. FARVER: Well, we can go to 

3 260.4. This is separate from the technical 

4 basis.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

6 Fine. If we can, then let us.

7 MR. FARVER: It has to do with some 

8 information that was in the CATI report.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: I believe the employee 

11 either marked something that he was monitored 

12 or wore a badge. Anyway, we noted this in our 

13 finding that NIOSH had addressed the 

14 possibility that there was film badge data. 

15 Well, NIOSH's response was that monitoring 

16 results have not been identified for any 

17 individuals working at the site.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MR. FARVER: I don't know if this 

20 has been addressed with the Work Group or not 

21 about that, but there was nothing in the case 

22 that indicated there were film badge results. 

23 It was just in the CATI report.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: And apparently there 

3 have been no other monitoring results for any 

4 employee at DuPont Deepwater, so we --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So this 

6 would appear to be an error or misinformation 

7 on the CATI report? Is that what you're 

8 saying?

9 MR. FARVER: Information in the 

10 CATI report that we noted.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

12 is not correct in that no external 

13 monitoring --

14 MR. FARVER: There is -- apparently 

15 there are no external dosimetry data.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Doug, I would just say 

18 that this really ends up not being a finding. 

19 It's more like an observation that was 

20 inconsistent with the facts, which is that they 

21 didn't have any of these records.

22 MR. FARVER: Well, the fact was 

23 that it was noted in the CATI report.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39

1 MR. KATZ: No, I know, but that's 

2 not a finding. There's not a problem with the 

3 dose reconstruction and they did their work 

4 correctly and there were no records. 

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there's nothing 

6 you can do about that.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: So it's not a finding.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: So should we not 

11 identify discrepancies in the CATI report?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, no, I think --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no. 

14 What you've done is proper. I think the 

15 question is whether we call this 260.4 or 

16 whether we call this Observation 1. And I 

17 think it makes sense to call this Observation 

18 1. You did follow up on the information that 

19 was provided, which is very important.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So just 

22 change --

23 MEMBER GRIFFON: Can I ask a 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40

1 question, Dave?

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, sir.

3 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark 

4 Griffon. I just wonder how we don't know that 

5 something in the CATI report wasn't correct. 

6 In other words, did NIOSH check all the CATI 

7 reports from this site to see if several people 

8 said there was monitoring and we just never 

9 found the monitoring data.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, that's the point, 

11 Mark. It's not disputed that there was 

12 monitoring.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay.

14 MR. KATZ: It's disputed that there 

15 are not records. 

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just can't 

17 recover it? Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes.

19 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Alright. 

20 I just wanted to check that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

22 So we will close on that. 

23 MR. FARVER: Okay. We'll make 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41

1 this an observation and we'll go back and 

2 renumber and reissue that report. And by the 

3 way we've had I think four other, or three other 

4 reports that we're going to have to reissue. 

5 And what we're doing is we're waiting until we 

6 close out this set of cases and then we'll issue 

7 those cases at one time.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

9 MR. FARVER: Now for future 

10 reference, if we come across something like 

11 this in another CATI report, do we identify it 

12 as a finding because we don't know if it's 

13 correct and then later change it to an 

14 observation if it is incorrect, or do we 

15 identify it as an observation? I just want to 

16 know how to handle this in the future.

17 MR. KATZ: Doug, can I just 

18 suggest -- I mean, in this sort of case, I mean, 

19 the thing to do would be to check with NIOSH 

20 about what -- you have access to records and you 

21 get records. So where there's an issue like 

22 this, do your research in advance and then you 

23 won't be issuing a finding that you have to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42

1 reverse.

2 MR. FARVER: Well, it's not up to us 

3 to research the whole site and find out if 

4 there's data.

5 MR. KATZ: Well, when you find a 

6 discrepancy that you're about to say is a 

7 finding that they didn't use something that 

8 they should have, I think checking with NIOSH 

9 to see whether they have these records or not 

10 makes a lot of sense.

11 MR. FARVER: We did not say they 

12 should have it. What we said was the employee 

13 indicated it in the CATI report.

14 MR. KATZ: No, I understand. I 

15 understand, but that --

16 MR. FARVER: Just like the employee 

17 indicates he's exposed to uranium or plutonium 

18 and if it's not included in the dose 

19 reconstruction, we will bring it to the 

20 attention of the Subcommittee.

21 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Let 

22 me interject something here that may help a 

23 little bit. The CATI was done with a survivor. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43

1 It wasn't even the employee that said he wore 

2 the dosimetry. 

3 MR. FARVER: All I want to know is 

4 how do we handle when we find a discrepancy in 

5 the CATI report with information that's in the 

6 dose reconstruction? 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, no --

8 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

9 have an opinion on that, and it's not one that's 

10 an efficient opinion, but I think that the point 

11 is well taken. We've placed a great deal of 

12 emphasis throughout the entire project on 

13 paying attention to what's in the CATI. We'll 

14 pay attention to what's in the CATI before we'll 

15 pay attention to the health physicist who was 

16 on site because we are concerned about how the 

17 events occurred from the viewpoint of the 

18 worker, the person who was on the ground. 

19 That's what we pay attention to.

20 So when we have a situation like 

21 this where the CATI says that there was an 

22 exposure, that there was badging but we have no 

23 evidence of it one way or another, I can 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44

1 understand why it would almost of necessity be 

2 put forward as a finding. When we discover 

3 that we have no such information, that it isn't 

4 there, then it's inconvenient for us, I 

5 understand. And it's certainly not efficient 

6 for us. That's understandable as well. But 

7 what we have just done may be the appropriate 

8 thing to do in terms of keeping our hands clean 

9 in terms of paying attention to what's in the 

10 CATI.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I agree 

12 with that; that is, I think it should be if a 

13 person reports it on the CATI, it should be a 

14 finding because we believe it until we find 

15 evidence to show that that is not correct. And 

16 then it becomes an observation. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: And it's cumbersome 

18 from a procedural point of view.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: And from our point of 

21 view it's extremely cumbersome. But it seems 

22 to be from my viewpoint the legitimate way to 

23 approach it. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so. 

2 DR. MAURO: This is John. We're on 

3 a subject that I think is very important, near 

4 and dear to my heart, and that has to do with 

5 the role of an independent reviewer and the fact 

6 that we want to be efficient and we want to be 

7 transparent. And circumstances arise where a 

8 simple telephone call would very often clarify 

9 things.

10 I find myself very often, for 

11 example, checking the number and I can't quite 

12 [omitted] it, and I don't know why. I suspect 

13 that it's right. But the dose reconstruction 

14 reports of necessity cannot be of great detail. 

15 And sometimes I find myself in the 

16 uncomfortable position of saying, geez, I can't 

17 figure out exactly what was done here. I would 

18 love nothing better than to simply be able to 

19 make a call to one of the authors, or maybe call 

20 Jim or Stu and say is it okay if I speak to them 

21 just to say, ah, okay, now I understand. And 

22 then it doesn't even make it to the table, so 

23 to speak. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46

1 And I think we've had this 

2 conversation before, but --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We have.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. And I guess maybe 

5 I just --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We have 

7 authorized that a call from SC&A to the NIOSH 

8 folks for technical information is absolutely 

9 to be encouraged and be done more. This is a

10 little different because it's a CATI report, 

11 and there are many CATI reports. It's not a 

12 question of the number. It's a question of 

13 calling someone up and asking someone to check 

14 the records further. 

15 So for this particular case I would 

16 suggest that we go along with Wanda's 

17 suggestion, this be a finding.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Otherwise, 

20 feel free to call, and you are encouraged to do 

21 so.

22 DR. MAURO: Thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I don't like it. 

2 It's sticky. It seems like a ridiculous thing 

3 to do when we know that information isn't there, 

4 but until we verify that information isn't 

5 there --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

7 right. That's right. Alright. Then that is 

8 closed unless I hear any further comments. 

9 Excuse me. That is not closed. That becomes 

10 an observation and then we don't --

11 MR. FARVER: Well, I will do like I 

12 did with the other time we changed a finding to 

13 an observation. I will close this in our 

14 matrix. And then when I make the changes to the 

15 document, then it will get reissued. The 

16 finding will be deleted from the report and I 

17 will strike it out in the matrix.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

19 MR. FARVER: Change it to a finding 

20 and note that our twin observation notes it was 

21 a finding.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

23 Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48

1 MR. FARVER: It's a little awkward, 

2 but I can do that.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's messy.

4 MR. FARVER: It is. And I just 

5 wanted to point out there are some times where 

6 the employee will say, I was involved in an 

7 incident, and I think that's important to bring 

8 up. And there also are some times where, yes, 

9 maybe a technical call can clarify something in 

10 a dose reconstruction, but I think we have to 

11 separate that out, like you did. So I think 

12 that's a good choice. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good. 

14 Alright. IMC 281.1.

15 MR. FARVER: IMC, the hypothetical 

16 internal dose model overestimates the dose and 

17 I'm going to turn this over to John Mauro 

18 because he's the IMC person.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, I took a look at 

20 this. Interestingly enough, I think that you 

21 overestimate a dose by about a factor of two for 

22 the reasons given in terms of the timing. We 

23 took a closer look at the timing. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49

1 And to make a long story short, 

2 think of it like this: There's a contract 

3 between the Atomic Energy Commission and IMC 

4 for a certain time period to do AWE work, and 

5 it was four years. Turns out when you take out 

6 the magnifying glass and you take a closer look, 

7 son of a gun, they really only did the AWE for 

8 two years. Even though the contract went for 

9 four years, they only really did the work for 

10 two years. But in this case they calculated 

11 the dose as if the person was exposed for four 

12 years, and therefore of course overestimated 

13 the dose and still denied.

14 And you could come down on this in 

15 one of two ways: You say, one, this is an 

16 expedient way to quickly -- we know the duration 

17 of the contract and we place a plausible upper 

18 bound on the worker's dose, and he still was not 

19 compensated. So one could say everything is 

20 fine. Or one could say, well, wait a minute, 

21 when you take a closer look, if you really were 

22 trying to do as realistic a dose as you can, you 

23 would have given him a dose of two years and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50

1 maybe a residual dose of the other years before 

2 they actually terminated the contract.

3 As marked in blue here, we basically 

4 say that and we say in this case we probably 

5 should let this go and close it because what it 

6 is is a reasonable way to place a plausible 

7 upper bound. What's plausible becomes kind of 

8 fuzzy here, but our position is we should close 

9 this item for the reasons I just described.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the 

11 overestimate, this was not a compensated case?

12 DR. MAURO: If it was compensated, 

13 there would be a problem.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

15 Right. But so it wasn't compensated, right?

16 DR. MAURO: That's correct.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it 

18 was overestimated and --

19 DR. MAURO: I believe --

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- it wasn't 

22 compensated?

23 DR. MAURO: Yes, Doug, could you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51

1 take a quick check? Any way you could 

2 quickly -- because if was compensated, then 

3 everything I said, I take back.

4 MR. FARVER: It was compensated.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Its worker 

6 was compensated. I couldn't see. I'm on the 

7 screen until now.

8 DR. MAURO: Ah, okay. I'm sorry to 

9 do this to you, but I think there's a little bit 

10 more we need to talk about.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 DR. MAURO: If this fellow was 

13 compensated, it seems to me that the -- it now 

14 becomes a judgment, and that judgment becomes 

15 important. I could argue that you 

16 overestimated this dose by about a factor of two 

17 and you compensated him. Do we really want to 

18 be in that place where we have a record that says 

19 in this particular case it certainly appears 

20 that we overestimated the person's dose? And 

21 that being the case, I guess I'd have to put it 

22 back onto NIOSH. Do they agree that maybe they 

23 did overestimate the dose? Now, that doesn't 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52

1 mean they can take away the compensation, but 

2 that is problematic, as you could see why.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. Has 

4 this been reevaluated based on -- well, 

5 actually let's ask what NIOSH -- NIOSH's 

6 response to this.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Well, our response is 

8 that we'll go back and look again. Our initial 

9 response is what was written in there.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MR. CALHOUN: And then it came back 

12 as a recommendation to close, and so now we'll 

13 have to reevaluate.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it 

15 would be proper to do so, because the person may 

16 still be worthy of compensation. Unlikely, 

17 but possible.

18 DR. MAURO: By the way, this is 

19 John, they did make it in -- I have to say I'm 

20 trying to refresh my memory as we're working 

21 through this. Yes, you could see in the 

22 mock-up on the page in front of us there is this 

23 blue section -- but since this worker was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53

1 compensated, we questioned whether such an 

2 overestimate of a dose is appropriate in this 

3 case. So, yes. No, we did get it right in the 

4 matrix. In other words, in my mind I see that 

5 we closed it, but I would ask those on the phone 

6 is it appropriate to close this in light of the 

7 fact there's that question on the table?

8 MR. KATZ: Just from an audit 

9 perspective no, because it doesn't matter which 

10 side of the compensation decision the problems 

11 may arise. It's you're trying to find how well 

12 the dose reconstructions are done. So you need 

13 to see this through. You need a NIOSH 

14 response.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, Ted, you 

16 bring up a good question though. I mean, we 

17 have seen in many circumstances where NIOSH 

18 employs simple finding assumptions. Let's say 

19 they were doing a realistic analysis here. And 

20 if my understanding of the record is correct, 

21 it looks like there was actually some 

22 operations going off at two years where there 

23 was operational exposures. And then they 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54

1 transitioned into what would be called a 

2 two-year residual period where things are shut 

3 down, and you would do an analysis that way.

4 Now, which gets to be a more 

5 complicated analysis. You have to go through 

6 this multi-step process. And I could envision 

7 NIOSH saying, well, listen, we're going to do 

8 a bounding analysis, simplify it, figure out 

9 what the annual dose is, multiply it by four 

10 because the contract was for four years. And 

11 if it's denied; we know we're overestimating, 

12 we shut it down and we say we're done and the 

13 dose reconstruction is done. 

14 And the way I look at the world, it 

15 becomes an issue when you do that, simplify an 

16 assumption, which might go very well, if I got 

17 it right; and there's no guarantee I got it 

18 right, but I think that's where I come out on 

19 this, that they did overestimate the dose by 

20 about a factor of two and they compensated the 

21 person. So now, if they didn't compensate him, 

22 I would walk away. 

23 But are you saying, Ted, that you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55

1 prefer to address this issue either way?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm just saying our 

3 reviews are supposed to be reviews of the 

4 quality of the dose reconstructions, 

5 regardless of the compensation decision. So 

6 in this case, I mean, I think we still need a 

7 NIOSH response as to whether they performed the 

8 dose reconstruction as they should have under 

9 the rules. Because obviously you can do 

10 simplifying assumptions as efficiency 

11 measures, but otherwise you have to take the 

12 information as far as it can go before you --

13 I mean, you can still have simplifying 

14 assumptions because that's all -- if that's the 

15 information you have. But they have to take 

16 the information as far as it can go. So we need 

17 that response from NIOSH before we'll know 

18 whether this was done correctly or there's an 

19 error here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, there 

21 is an error here.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, NIOSH 

23 hasn't had the chance to respond yet.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would say that 

2 that's -- all you're really hearing is when I 

3 looked at it, this is what my take-away was.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: And certainly NIOSH 

6 could take a look at it and see if they agree 

7 with that. They may have good arguments and 

8 reasons why, no, we think we did it right.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: And so, I guess we need 

11 to hear about that. So in a way this really 

12 shouldn't be closed at this time.

13 MR. CALHOUN: So basically the 

14 point here on this is that we assigned two more 

15 years than we should have, is what you're 

16 saying.

17 DR. MAURO: That's what it really 

18 comes down to.

19 MR. CALHOUN: And I'm going to look 

20 back. And I'm thinking this was done six years 

21 ago, so I'll have to look back and see what was 

22 going on then. It may have been at that point 

23 in our program. If DOL said this is the covered 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57

1 period, that's what we did.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 MR. CALHOUN: And we may have 

4 evolved to a point where we discovered after 

5 that that operations shut down. I'm just not 

6 sure.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 MR. CALHOUN: We will take a look at 

9 that.

10 DR. MAURO: Good. Good. Thank 

11 you.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

13 this must remain open?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

16 we have a second case from IMC, I believe.

17 MR. FARVER: The next finding is 

18 very --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, a second 

20 finding; I'm sorry, for the same case. 281.2.

21 MR. FARVER: It has to do with the 

22 timing of the operations period, residual 

23 period and so forth, like we just discussed. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. FARVER: And so --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Both of 

4 those must remain open then.

5 MR. FARVER; Correct.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, they're all the 

7 same. In other words --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: -- they were looked at 

10 the same -- they're connected. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

12 DR. MAURO: And it also has to do 

13 with what was the duration of actual AWE 

14 operations.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

16 Could I ask the folks from NIOSH, if we find that 

17 this was indeed an overestimate, after you do 

18 the calculation it was an overestimate, how do 

19 we then handle any other cases that occurred 

20 from this facility, the IMC facility?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Well, I would hope 

22 that we have fixed that by now, but if they're 

23 compensated, they're going to stay 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59

1 compensated.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Of course.

3 (Simultaneous speaking)

4 MR. CALHOUN: -- go back. But if 

5 we find that there is an error, the procedures 

6 will be changed and we'll fix in that --

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 Alright. I guess I was also thinking of going 

10 forward. Cases may appear in the future. But 

11 if they appear in the future, this information 

12 that we're talking about now will be 

13 incorporated in the analysis. So I guess we're 

14 okay. 

15 Are there other cases? There may 

16 be other -- well, after you do this, you'll 

17 also -- I think you need to look back to see if 

18 there were previous cases that were 

19 overestimated after you finish this one. Yes?

20 MR. KATZ: Well, there's no reason, 

21 Dave, to look back, because it's not like 

22 anything is going to change in the case of those 

23 cases. They're not going to withdraw 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60

1 compensation for people who were already 

2 compensated. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

4 right. We're not --

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

7 right. They're not going to withdraw. And on 

8 the other hand, if they were denied, if the 

9 overestimate showed that they in fact did not 

10 have a PoC within that 50 percent range, then 

11 they weren't compensated and that would have 

12 been correct. So, okay. We're following 

13 through the logical pathways and I see what 

14 you're saying. 

15 So we'll leave those two cases, 

16 those two findings open and NIOSH will report 

17 back to us at some time. Next meeting, 

18 hopefully.

19 MR. CALHOUN: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

21 those two, 281.1 and 2 are open and will remain 

22 so. 

23 And I think we can go on. It's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61

1 11:30. That's fine. We're fine. Let's go on 

2 to Koppers.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. This case is 

4 from Koppers. The first finding, the external 

5 exposure values in table 7.3, TBD-6001, 

6 regarding material handling during the 

7 fluorination process appeared to be 

8 substantially overestimated. And NIOSH's 

9 response is that they think we mistook the 

10 values in a different table. Unfortunately, 

11 when we went back to look at their response, the 

12 appendix is gone, as in not on the Web site.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, it put us in a 

14 position where when they pulled TBD-6001, very 

15 often what would happen is there -- under 

16 TBD-6001, the original umbrella TBD, there were 

17 these processing plants, each of which had its 

18 own appendix and which would give you a little 

19 bit more detail as it applied to that particular 

20 site. Koppers I believe is one of them. But 

21 when TBD-6001 was pulled, I don't believe there 

22 is a Koppers TBD out there that -- and by the 

23 way, for most of these sites there are no data 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62

1 for the site itself. There's just information 

2 about what was going on at the site. 

3 And without a Site Profile, I guess 

4 we're at a little bit of a loss to be able to 

5 confirm the response that was given, that is the 

6 answer that was given here by NIOSH puts SC&A 

7 in a position where it's difficult for us to 

8 check because there is no TBD. However, I did 

9 receive an email this morning talking about 

10 Koppers that I had a chance to look at it. I 

11 don't recall who sent it. And there would be 

12 some more to talk about as a result of that 

13 email. The person that sent that email out, is 

14 he on the phone with us?

15 MR. FARVER: Grady sent that email. 

16 It was sent out late last week or last week.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Forwarded it to you 

19 this morning.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, so --

22 MR. CALHOUN: Here's the deal on 

23 these sites is we don't have TBDs for everything 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63

1 and this one kind of got stuck because we had 

2 a methodology for it, in that 6000 or whatever, 

3 6001 document, and then that document got 

4 pulled. And what's supposed to happen is if 

5 these things aren't covered in a TBD, the detail 

6 in the DR has to be -- they have to have enough 

7 detail that you can actually see what we did. 

8 I would say that going forward that 

9 they will have that level of detail, but because 

10 it was based on a document that is now gone, that 

11 one did not. So Dave tried to explain what 

12 exactly we did there, and that's what I 

13 forwarded to you.

14 DR. MAURO: And I found that useful 

15 in that -- because when I read your response, 

16 I have to say, the one in the matrix right now, 

17 I didn't quite understand it. But I did 

18 understand the email that went out that Doug 

19 forwarded to me. And I think maybe we could 

20 come to a place where we could have an agreement 

21 on this. 

22 In the email that I just looked at 

23 this morning it was explained. The concern was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64

1 this: Conceptually it's quite simple. 

2 You've got a facility that's filling up drums 

3 with the yellowcake and there are people 

4 working near it and there's a radiation field 

5 created adjacent to the yellowcake. And when 

6 we reviewed that, we looked at the doses and we 

7 know from just the physics of the problem what 

8 the radiation field is as a function of 

9 distance. 

10 So you know the micro R per hour or 

11 millirem per hour as a function of distance of 

12 penetrating radiation from the drum. And the 

13 number, the doses that you get are directly 

14 proportional to how much time do you think this 

15 person might have stayed or resided in the 

16 vicinity of the drum? We know he worked there 

17 2,400 hours a year. I think that was the 

18 assumption. 

19 The question is do we know how many 

20 hours a year is he one foot away from the drum, 

21 or one meter away from the drum? And in the 

22 email that was sent to me that I read this 

23 morning the numbers that came up effectively 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65

1 said that a relatively short period of time was 

2 spent in the vicinity of the drum, because the 

3 doses that were coming up were many fold lower 

4 than I was expecting given my knowledge of what 

5 the radiation field is in the vicinity of these 

6 drums as a function of distance.

7 So where we are right now, based on 

8 what I read this morning, is it seems that the 

9 way in which -- your outcome was -- I think it 

10 was 183 millirem per year. I forget the 

11 number. I'd have to go back to the email. But 

12 I was expecting to see something somewhat 

13 higher, even if you assumed only a relatively --

14 maybe 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent of the 

15 time the person is one foot away or one meter 

16 away. So it's not that we have something here 

17 where we got a really hard and fast calculation 

18 that's straightforward and simple. 

19 What's straightforward and simple 

20 is the radiation field as a function of distance 

21 from this drum. What is difficult to deal with 

22 is what do we assume is the duration of time the 

23 person stays in the vicinity of one or maybe 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66

1 more drums? And it appears to me that the 

2 numbers that were sent to me in that email 

3 seemed to be kind of low in terms of, to get to 

4 those doses. You may not agree with that and 

5 you may have good reason to believe that, no, 

6 he did not spend a lot of time there, but I 

7 didn't see that explanation.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady?

9 MR. CALHOUN: I don't know to come 

10 back on that one. I'll just have to look again, 

11 I guess.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. So, 

13 sounds like this has to be open.

14 MR. FARVER: This is Doug. I've 

15 just got a question since I don't deal with a 

16 lot of these AWE sites. When we withdraw like 

17 TBD-6000 and appendices are we losing site 

18 information that could be useful?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Just one quick 

20 correction. You're talking about 6001.

21 MR. FARVER: 6001, yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: 6000 is alive and 

23 well.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67

1 MR. FARVER: Yes, 60001. Are we 

2 losing information about a site when we 

3 withdraw them?

4 MR. KATZ: Doug, so what happened 

5 there was this one sort of meta-whatever-you6 want-to-call-it TBD was replaced by ones that 

7 were specific to the different sites where 

8 there was specific information. So I don't 

9 think the case is that good information was lost 

10 at all. It was just more carefully treated in 

11 site-specific TBDs where those could be 

12 developed.

13 MR. FARVER: So we didn't have good 

14 information on Koppers to begin with?

15 MR. KATZ: So if that did not get 

16 its own TBD --

17 MR. FARVER: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: -- my guess is it didn't 

19 have more specific information, just what 

20 they're consolidating in the specific dose 

21 reconstruction reports, as Grady was 

22 explaining earlier.

23 MR. CALHOUN: And there's actually 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68

1 another factor, too. We look at what we have 

2 available, but we also look at the number of 

3 claims. If there's only a handful of claims, 

4 we won't go through the effort to actually write 

5 a stand-alone TBD. But when we don't do that, 

6 we still would like to try to have enough detail 

7 in the individual DR that you can tell what we 

8 did.

9 DR. MAURO: Grady, this is John. 

10 This is only my opinion. I agree with that 

11 philosophy. I think that as you said if there 

12 aren't many sites, you could document the dose 

13 reconstruction itself at a level of detail that 

14 stands alone and you don't need a TBD to stand 

15 behind it, unlike other sites which might be 

16 complex and where there are many cases and 

17 different circumstances arise.

18 So just in my own personal opinion 

19 I think your folks having that discretion on 

20 when you actually need a TBD; Koppers is your 

21 example here, I agree with that. But it turns 

22 out that in looking at the information 

23 provided, granted that the information was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69

1 provided in two places -- one, in the dose 

2 reconstruction itself; and two, the 

3 supplemental information you provided 

4 recently. 

5 So I guess I'm not really 

6 questioning the discretion you have regarding 

7 when you're going to develop a TBD or not for 

8 a place like Koppers. But I do question the 

9 doses and your outcome and your rationale why 

10 they were so low. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

12 then the folks from NIOSH are going to look at 

13 that.

14 MR. FARVER: Grady, I just have one 

15 more. Now, that information -- and I'm 

16 thinking of things like what the site did, when 

17 it operated, what was the source term? Just 

18 general information. Is that contained in the 

19 DR template for that site, or how is that going 

20 to be maintained so that we use consistent 

21 dates, consistent locations and so forth?

22 MR. CALHOUN: We have some kind of 

23 desktop methodologies that we have for some of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70

1 these sites that help us be consistent in that 

2 regard, but the goal is to actually have it in 

3 the DR and have it stand alone so that you can 

4 look at it and figure out everything that was 

5 done without having to go to any other document 

6 in these cases.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grady, I 

8 think is this the one where you used Blockson 

9 [?] as a surrogate?

10 MR. CALHOUN: No, that's IMC.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, that was 

12 IMC. I'm sorry. Crossed lines on you. Okay. 

13 Never mind.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Now, this one, I'm 

15 looking and I'm a third party to this actually, 

16 but assuming a lab technician spent 100 percent 

17 of his time within one foot of the drum?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. We get 

19 much bigger doses.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, okay. 

21 (Simultaneous speaking)

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. By the 

23 way, I'm not saying you should assume that.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71

1 MR. CALHOUN: I thought that you 

2 said that we were not assuming he was there long 

3 enough. 

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I can go 

5 back to your -- I can't get to my memo. I'm on 

6 the screen now.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I looked at 

9 your memo and I said -- well, you sent back to 

10 us SC&A said the exposure rate at one foot is 

11 this, the exposure rate at one meter is this, 

12 and if he was there 2,400 hours a year at one 

13 foot or one meter he'd get some big doses. And 

14 but you gave what dose you did come up with and 

15 it seemed to be such that he would have to have 

16 spent relatively short periods of time at a 

17 meter or more away from the drum to get that 

18 lower dose. 

19 MR. CALHOUN: Now, I looked at this 

20 this morning. Certainly, please, take a look 

21 at it. See if you walk away with -- listen, 

22 there's no reason why we should be disagreeing 

23 on this. In other words, you may look at it and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72

1 say, no, I think that it's reasonable that we 

2 come out where we come out. But when I read it 

3 this morning, I felt as if you were coming out 

4 kind of low.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

6 Well, Grady's going to look at it. 

7 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we'll look at 

8 it.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it will 

10 remain open.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, I'm thinking we 

12 may only be like five millirem apart, but I'll 

13 look.

14 DR. MAURO: No, I would say I was 

15 about a factor of five higher than you even if 

16 he was a meter away. In other words, the way 

17 I did my little quickie thing I said, okay, 

18 let's assume the guy is one meter away from the 

19 drum for a protracted period of time. Not one 

20 foot. One meter. And I came up with doses 

21 that were several-fold higher than yours. 

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

23 MR. FARVER: Okay. We're going to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73

1 keep that one open.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then 

3 there is 282.2.

4 MR. FARVER: Why don't we keep that 

5 one open?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I haven't 

7 looked at it.

8 MR. FARVER: There's the same 

9 situation where we can't review it because --

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

11 MR. FARVER: Let's see. The 

12 documents not on the web anymore. 

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Yes, 

14 then we do have to keep both of those open.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Do we know what has to be 

17 done with the second one?

18 MR. FARVER: I don't remember if 

19 this was --

20 MR. KATZ: In other words, if it's 

21 open, then who's following up on what exactly?

22 MR. FARVER: Was this included in 

23 your memo, Grady? I don't remember.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74

1 DR. MAURO: I think your memo was 

2 limited to external, Grady.

3 MR. CALHOUN: That's true.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. So do you need 

6 more information from Grady before you can 

7 respond further, Doug?

8 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, because I 

9 believe that I made the mistake of assuming why 

10 they were both the same and I didn't even ask 

11 for a response on the internal.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. Alright. So 

13 that will be a follow-up from Grady, too.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We 

15 have about 15 more minutes, so let's go on to 

16 Bridgeport Brass.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay. Bridgeport 

18 Brass has been pretty straightforward. There 

19 is an occupational medical dose from 1963 that 

20 just was omitted. Appears to be just omitted 

21 for no apparent reason. QA mistake.

22 Other doses were applied correctly. 

23 So, and not sure what we can do with it --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 MR. FARVER: -- other than mark it 

3 as a QA concern.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

5 it will not affect the PoC significantly. 

6 Alright. Then that seems straightforward and 

7 closeable. That is a QA mistake.

8 Any other Subcommittee Members want 

9 to comment or --

10 MEMBER MUNN: No, sounds 

11 appropriate.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

13 we will close it.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay. And that's it 

15 for that matrix.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 Bridgeport Brass. Right. Isn't there --

18 MR. FARVER: There are --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- a 308.2?

20 MR. FARVER; There are some that 

21 are at the previous -- well, 308.2?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I just 

23 haven't looked at it, but it is there.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76

1 MR. FARVER: Oh, it is there? 

2 Okay. I apologize. 

3 MEMBER MUNN: There's both. We 

4 have agreement and closure, the matrix says.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

6 We do have that. Therefore statement --

7 MR. FARVER: Yes, this is another 

8 one of these where we --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MEMBER MUNN: You're relying on 

11 what the CATI said.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Then 

15 we close that. There's an observation.

16 MR. FARVER: Hang on. Observation 

17 was that the derived upper 95th percentile 

18 external doses in table 4.1 appear to be low by 

19 a factor of two. Then saying the TBD's been 

20 modified. And I assume SC&A has reviewed it 

21 since then and agrees with the changes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let me 

23 understand why this is an observation and not 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77

1 a finding. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at 

2 Observation 2. Excuse me. Observation 1 

3 you're talking about.

4 MR. FARVER: Right. I would have 

5 to go back and check the DR. I'm not sure. 

6 Let's see, I have 308 at 13. Okay. Just for 

7 a little background, PoC was about 22 percent. 

8 Was not compensated. And let's go down to my 

9 observations.

10 DR. MAURO: Doug, I can't see the 

11 full screen, so what site is this?

12 MR. FARVER: This is Bridgeport 

13 Brass.

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, one of my 

15 favorites. Okay.

16 MR. FARVER: I'm just looking up 

17 the observations and why they're observations 

18 and not findings. 

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, in terms of 

20 outcome it really isn't an issue, but --

21 MR. FARVER: No.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, the question 

23 is -- it would appear just from the statement 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78

1 it would appear to rise to the level of a 

2 finding.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

4 my concern. And I see both Observation 1 and 

5 2 are the same in that respect.

6 MR. FARVER: The reason we didn't 

7 make this a finding is because two previous 

8 cases identified findings concerning the 

9 values in table 4.1. So we've identified it 

10 before.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can you 

12 scroll -- are you talking about --

13 MR. FARVER: I'm looking at the 

14 case file.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 308.1 

16 and 2? Could you scroll up a little bit just 

17 to let us see that?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and Observation 

19 2, the reason for that is fairly clear. It's 

20 a transcription error, but --

21 MR. FARVER: Observation 1 is 

22 because we've identified it as a finding twice 

23 before.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79

1 MR. KATZ: Doug, can you just 

2 clarify, for the same case or for other cases?

3 MR. FARVER: For other cases.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. But then, so I 

5 don't recall why would that not remain a finding 

6 as long as it's --

7 MR. FARVER: Probably because 

8 either it was being discussed at the time and 

9 we didn't see a need to make it another finding 

10 since it was already in discussion.

11 MR. KATZ: I mean, I'm not saying --

12 I think really a problem with any specific case 

13 and the dose that's derived from that should 

14 still be a finding whether it's already being 

15 discussed or not.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I 

17 agree.

18 MR. KATZ: But just to get the 

19 accounting right for the end of the day I think 

20 it's --

21 MR. FARVER: Yes, I mean we have 

22 done this before with the --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If it was in 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80

1 10 cases, it would be 10 findings.

2 MR. FARVER: -- iso and the 

3 rotational geometries for certain cancers.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: Remember that 

6 discussion? We've done this before where 

7 we've made several findings and then since it 

8 was brought up again, we just started to make 

9 it an observation since it was already a finding 

10 and being discussed.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But I don't 

12 agree with that approach. If it was a finding 

13 before in another case, it's a finding in this 

14 case.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, I agree with Dave, 

16 because it's not only -- it's going to skew your 

17 statistics.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

19 right.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Both of 

22 those should be findings.

23 MR. FARVER: Well, let me check the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81

1 second one and see why we did what we did.

2 DR. BUCHANAN: This is Ron 

3 Buchanan, SC&A. If the DR though followed the 

4 table in the TBD correctly, is that still a DR 

5 error or -- that's a problem with the TBD, not 

6 the --

7 (Simultaneous speaking)

8 MR. KATZ: Yes, but a problem with 

9 the TBD that's using a DR is still a finding for 

10 the DR. 

11 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

14 right.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but if that's 

16 true in Observation 1, that shouldn't be true 

17 in Observation 2. In Observation 2 it's 

18 clearly pointed out that it's a transcription 

19 error.

20 MR. FARVER: It is a transcription 

21 error.

22 MEMBER MUNN: And that takes it out 

23 of the realm of a finding.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82

1 MR. FARVER: It's a bioassay result 

2 that is transcribed as a 10 times higher than 

3 it is in the record.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's a QA 

5 issue. That's not a --

6 MR. KATZ: Well, that's a finding.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, a QA 

8 issue is finding.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Well, okay. 

10 DR. MAURO: This is John. Did the 

11 transcription error result is just a text error 

12 where they said something, but they actually 

13 used the correct number in the dose 

14 reconstruction? Because if that's the case, I 

15 could see that being an observation, if it was 

16 just a typo. But if it carried through, I think 

17 you're right, it's a finding.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

19 Observation 2, the transcription error made it 

20 off by a factor of 10. So that's a finding.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I guess so. 

23 MR. FARVER: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So you will 

2 need to change that to finding.

3 MR. FARVER: Change both 

4 observations to findings.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

6 MR. KATZ: Just to be clear, these are 

7 unequivocal and can be closed, right?

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. KATZ: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, 

13 absolutely.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, okay. Thanks. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is that --

16 does that -- other Members of the Subcommittee? 

17 I think that's correct that they should be --

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there's nothing 

19 else could be done.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I agree on 

21 both, John. Findings and closed.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84

1 agree.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

3 we'll have our statistics in order and our 

4 closure taken care of. Okay. Good.

5 It is 11:55. I think that finishes 

6 Copper, right? We're on Copper? 

7 MR. FARVER: That was Bridgeport 

8 Brass.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

10 Bridgeport Brass. Excuse me. 

11 Then is that it? That may be it for 

12 this --

13 MR. FARVER: There are some 

14 observations for case 314.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: Let me get caught up on 

17 my note taking here.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If folks 

19 wouldn't mind, we could -- let's see. If we're 

20 just dealing with three observations, this 

21 would close them. This would finish the file, 

22 which I would love to do, if folks don't mind 

23 spending a few more minutes. If it gets 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85

1 lengthy, we'll break and come back to it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It would be nice if we 

3 could wipe up both the Copper and Brass, yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

5 Right.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. I'm just 

7 catching up on my matrix here. Hold on.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 

9 While you're looking, of course to say that we 

10 complete the file doesn't mean that the file is 

11 closed. We have four open findings that will 

12 have to be resolved in the future. So it would 

13 just be psychologically nice to have only one 

14 file to go to close what we can for today. But 

15 we will not close 10 through 13 today.

16 MEMBER MUNN: But for today's 

17 agenda.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Which is probably 

20 good timing. I appear to have lost Live 

21 Meeting on my computer.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, Doug, 

23 unless you're --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86

1 MR. FARVER: I'm calling up the 

2 case now. 

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And 

4 hopefully --

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. So uranium 

6 mill in Monticello. I just wanted to make sure 

7 it wasn't more Bridgeport and --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. Oh, 

9 that's the uranium mill. Okay. That's the 

10 uranium mill at Monticello. Okay.

11 DR. MAURO: That's the next one 

12 we're going to be doing after the break?

13 MR. FARVER: No, that's one we have 

14 three observations for.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda, did 

16 you get back to the open meeting?

17 MEMBER MUNN: Well, not quite yet, 

18 but I do have a signal page up in front of me, 

19 so that in itself says that I've been logged 

20 off.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MEMBER MUNN: But I'll restart 

23 here.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 Doug, you go ahead.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Observation 

5 1.

6 MR. FARVER: Observation is NIOSH 

7 should explain why the 0.65 millirem per hour 

8 was specifically selected for use with this 

9 employee. And --

10 DR. MAURO: I think I can help. 

11 MR. FARVER: Thank you, John.

12 DR. MAURO: Monticello is one of a 

13 number of uranium mill tailing sites that are 

14 addressed in HASL-40. Picture this: There's 

15 a whole bunch of uranium mill tailings,

16 Monticello being one of them. And you really 

17 can't do a dose reconstruction based on 

18 worker-specific exposure rates because the 

19 data are not there. But you can take advantage 

20 of really a wonderful document called HASL-40 

21 which summarizes I believe something like 9 or 

22 10 uranium mill tailing sites with lots of data. 

23 And it turns out that Monticello is one of the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88

1 nine that's in there that makes up the database. 

2 And the concern I guess we 

3 originally had was how do we know you picked --

4 there's a range. For the HASL-40 there's a 

5 range. How do we know that the numbers, the 

6 exposure rate, the 0.65 millirem per hour 

7 really works well for this particular site, 

8 this particular person? And it turns out we 

9 were able to look at the data in HASL-40. And 

10 there's the answer that the data were all there. 

11 Take a look at it. I think we're okay. This 

12 is NIOSH speaking. And we did and we think 

13 they're okay. 

14 So we think that HASL-40 is a great 

15 document as the basis for judging -- and the 

16 reason we know that Monticello wasn't some type 

17 of outlier is because HASL -- because 

18 Monticello is actually one of the nine or so --

19 I forget how many -- I think it was -- sites in 

20 there, and it actually falls more or less in the 

21 middle of the values. So the numbers that were 

22 picked were reasonable. Maybe that's the best 

23 way to say it.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, let me 

2 ask -- somebody can say [it] was 0.65 millirem 

3 per hour -- was that the average, the median, 

4 the upper limit of the uncertainty?

5 DR. MAURO: My recollection is it 

6 was not the upper bound, but it fell in a 

7 reasonable place. The reason I say that is 

8 when you're reporting millirem per hour you get 

9 variability in time and space.

10 To pick a high end value that might 

11 be reported in a table, it would be as if you 

12 were saying, oh, this person was always there 

13 at the high end location for the entire time 

14 period.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

16 DR. MAURO: So I would think that 

17 would be unrealistically high to do that. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But that 

19 would be an overestimate. That would be the 

20 maximum overestimate.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, and you wouldn't 

22 expect the person necessarily -- now we had some 

23 circumstances where we had people that we knew 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90

1 worked all the time at the same location, which 

2 was the worst location you could possibly pick.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: And then we gave them 

5 the big number, right? But we don't have that 

6 here. There's no reason to believe this guy 

7 was always at the worst high end number.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 DR. MAURO: So I believe they 

10 picked a number -- again, my take-away was they 

11 picked a number that was reasonable when you 

12 think in terms of the fact that it was an -- 0.65 

13 millirem per hour, you know, hour after hour, 

14 day after day. And so an essential tendency 

15 number seems to be reasonable when you start to 

16 think in those terms.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Got it. 

18 Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: I think some of the 

20 confusion was that it just really wasn't clear 

21 from the DR report where the 0.65 came from. 

22 And when we went to look at it, it didn't 

23 compare, it didn't match up with any of the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91

1 values in the HASL-40 tables.

2 But it didn't meet up as close to the 

3 values on the lower end of 0.5.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: So that was a little 

6 confusion and that's probably why it's an 

7 observation, just because we weren't clear 

8 where it came from. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

10 appropriate. 

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. 2?

13 MR. FARVER: No. 2. Scroll down. 

14 Now, NIOSH had better explain the basis for the 

15 approach used to derive the dose to the breast 

16 for this employee to exposure to radon.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Could you 

20 scroll down just a little bit? 

21 MR. FARVER: John, I'm going to 

22 take this back to you. I think this has to go 

23 back to HASL-40, I would think. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92

1 DR. MAURO: You notice I don't 

2 think there's a response from NIOSH here.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, but I do remember 

5 having a conversation with Jim Neton that they 

6 do have a protocol for -- see normally when you 

7 have radon exposure you're concerned with a 

8 dose to the lungs. Apparently this person 

9 perhaps had a dose to another organ, the breast. 

10 And I remember Jim talking about this and that 

11 there was a way to calculate doses to other 

12 organs where radon may find its way in fatty 

13 tissue. 

14 So there's an answer, but I believe 

15 NIOSH has addressed this question before and 

16 has come across it before. And the answer 

17 isn't here, but I believe that it has been 

18 discussed before and it was good. I remember 

19 having that discussion with Jim. Jim pointed 

20 it out to me. I looked into it and in mind it --

21 oh, okay. I didn't know about that. Because 

22 people usually don't think in terms of radon 

23 being a possible dose contributor to an organ 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93

1 other than the lungs.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's a 

3 reasonable position, but I would like to see 

4 something in that second box in NIOSH response, 

5 either from Jim or in this case you can say, but 

6 I think we have to have something there, because 

7 it appears as if --

8 MR. CALHOUN: We'll get something 

9 for you on that one. 

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

11 Good. Thank you, Grady.

12 MR. FARVER: Grady, it might be in 

13 OCAS report 002, table 4-5.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Certainly where 

15 there's uranium there's radon. We've looked 

16 at it --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- many, many times. 

19 It's just a question of citing the appropriate 

20 documentation, I believe.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

22 right. And then that will satisfy. We don't 

23 need to respond.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94

1 MR. FARVER: And the next 

2 observation --

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the 

4 last.

5 MR. FARVER: -- was the CATI report 

6 would benefit from a follow-up question in 

7 response to the interviewer's claim that 

8 enriched uranium was handled at the site. This 

9 is a case where the employee marked that they 

10 used enriched uranium. When we looked at it, 

11 we didn't really believe that just because the 

12 person reviewing this was familiar with the 

13 site and he thought that the employee might have 

14 meant concentrated uranium.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, yes. I 

18 remember this. Yes, you're right. That's the

19 answer.

20 (Simultaneous speaking)

21 MR. FARVER: -- to have a question 

22 do you mean enriched or concentrated? Anyway, 

23 so we just wanted to bring this up because this 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95

1 was a discrepancy in the CATI report. But this 

2 was a case where we just thought the employee 

3 was confused.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: And that's why --

6 (Simultaneous speaking)

7 MEMBER MUNN: So we have no reason 

8 to believe that they ever had highly -- any 

9 enriched material, right?

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

11 good. And --

12 MR. FARVER: So sometimes we use or 

13 judgment and make observations or findings. 

14 And then if we have to change them, we change 

15 them.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good. 

17 I think that takes care of us now. And it's now 

18 seven minutes after noon here on the East Coast. 

19 Should we take a break for an hour and come back 

20 five minutes after 1:00?

21 MEMBER MUNN: I'd certainly 

22 appreciate doing that, however, one last 

23 question. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: We can mark this 

3 Observation 3 as closed, correct?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

6 Well, we don't have to mark it. We don't 

7 evaluate observations, right?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it would be 

9 nice if we didn't, but since we're observing 

10 them and discussing them, how do we know the 

11 next time that we look at it --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That we 

13 will --

14 MEMBER MUNN: -- unless we refer to 

15 the preceding -- it's just a matter of --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MEMBER MUNN: -- bookkeeping from 

18 my perspective.

19 MR. FARVER: I mean, I'm just 

20 putting not a big discussion. I'm just putting 

21 closed by the observations. And Observation 2 

22 I am just going to put that, what, NIOSH will 

23 provide a reference or something.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97

1 MEMBER MUNN: Hopefully, yes.

2 MR. FARVER: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Just for our 

5 edification when we refer to these in the 

6 future, I would think.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

8 MEMBER MUNN: I would prefer not 

9 that we had not make a decision to address the 

10 observations at this length, but since we've 

11 done so, it seems appropriate that we should 

12 also --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: -- indicate what 

15 we've done it. Okay?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fair enough. 

17 Alright, folks. We'll get together, okay, 

18 let's say; we've talked a few more moments, 10 

19 after 1:00.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: See you all. 

22 Thank you, all. 

23 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98

1 matter went off the record at 12:09 p.m. and 

2 resumed at 1:13 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We are going 

4 to go back to 308, Observations. There we go.

5 DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry, it 

6 wasn't Bridgeport. Did I say Bridgeport 

7 Brass? It is DuPont Deepwater. Remember, I 

8 had a lunchtime assignment?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You did. 

10 So, we were supposed to start with that, you're 

11 correct.

12 DR. MAURO: And that is on page 22.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, yes. And 

15 whenever you want to start, just let me know.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's 

17 do so.

18 DR. MAURO: Okay. What we have 

19 here is we did our original -- this is column 

20 2 -- it gives the original findings that SC&A 

21 had on DuPont Deepwater, which goes back to a 

22 time quite some time back where there was this 

23 TBD-6001. You brought up the document, and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99

1 there was an Appendix B to TBD-6000 which dealt 

2 with DuPont Deepwater. And we had a number of 

3 comments.

4 I believe now I'll give you the end 

5 of the story, but at the end of the story I think 

6 these comments all need to be opened except for 

7 one, unfortunately. So, I will be taking a 

8 couple of steps backwards, but I will tell you 

9 why.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

11 DR. MAURO: So you guys can judge.

12 What happened here is, we will work 

13 the first one, 260.1. It was agreed by NIOSH 

14 at the time that, yes, we do have a problem with 

15 TBD-6001. And at the time of that meeting, the 

16 discussion was we're going to withdraw 

17 TBD-6001. We are going to reissue a new Site 

18 Profile, and we are going to address all these 

19 issues. The first one is just one of a number 

20 of issues.

21 And then, there was a meeting. If 

22 you move over, you see the SC&A response.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100

1 DR. MAURO: There was a little 

2 discussion whereby there was a series of 

3 meetings we had regarding these matters that we 

4 were concerned about. And they all, in other 

5 words, if you go down the whole list, you can 

6 see they all refer back to the first row there, 

7 the 260.1 row, which tries to explain that we 

8 talked about this, and we put them in abeyance 

9 because, apparently, it was agreed in principle 

10 at the time that everything was being handled, 

11 and handled in the way that seemed to be 

12 reasonable. Okay?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: So, as a result, it was 

15 decided to close them because there seemed to 

16 be agreement in principle. Alright?

17 But now, here's where things did a 

18 little reversal on us. After all that, which 

19 is summarized there, there was a Revision 1 

20 issued of the TBD for DuPont in December 2013. 

21 Okay?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

23 DR. MAURO: And SC&A was asked to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101

1 review it, and that review was done largely by 

2 Bill Thurber, who is on the phone. And it was 

3 delivered on November 21st, 2014.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 DR. MAURO: You know, it was a 

6 couple of weeks ago.

7 Now it turns out, in my 

8 opinion -- and Bill could go over some of the 

9 comments that he had -- that the comments are 

10 of a nature that says, you know, we understand 

11 that maybe we agreed in principle during these 

12 meetings, but now that we actually see the new 

13 TBD and we reviewed it, we still have some 

14 significant concerns with certain issues which 

15 might have a bearing on this particular case, 

16 except for one item.

17 And superimposed on all of this, of 

18 course, is the fact that there was an issuance 

19 in December 2013 of a new TBD by NIOSH. I guess 

20 one of the questions is, was there a PER issued 

21 as a result of the new Site Profile or TBD --

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 DR. MAURO: -- and was this 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102

1 particular case revisited? So we have, again, 

2 a similar situation where perhaps we closed 

3 this item at the time prematurely.

4 In my opinion, looking at the 

5 history of this, it would be one of those that 

6 we might put in abeyance, saying, okay, listen, 

7 I think we have agreed in principle based on 

8 everything we have exchanged and talked about, 

9 but until we actually see the Site Profile and 

10 review it, let's keep it in abeyance.

11 And we did review the Site Profile 

12 and we did submit a report on November 21st, 

13 last month, and we do have some comments that 

14 might be relevant here. And, of course, in all 

15 of this mix, also, there is the very real 

16 possibility that a PER may have been issued on 

17 this that we are not aware of, which has play 

18 also.

19 So, that is the general picture of 

20 this. Bill is on the line. He could summarize 

21 what some of our findings are. These are going 

22 to be all new to NIOSH. They have only seen it; 

23 it only showed up a couple of weeks ago. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103

1 There's a good chance no one has even read it 

2 yet.

3 So, Bill is on the line. He could 

4 sort of summarize what we found, what might be 

5 important and what might not be important. But 

6 I think that is the big picture on these items.

7 The only item that goes away is the 

8 last item, which dealt with the CATI, which has 

9 nothing to do with the TBD.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 DR. MAURO: We have one item there 

12 that we said, well, that was cleared up. But 

13 the other items, it seems to me, are all items 

14 that should be held in -- well, I guess they 

15 should be held in abeyance.

16 We did review the TBD. We do have 

17 comments.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

19 right.

20 DR. MAURO: Anderson's Work Group 

21 probably needs to meet to talk about what we 

22 found out and, then get back to you, you know, 

23 where are we on issues resolution on the TBD.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

2 That sounds -- Grady, you folks have received 

3 that report, right?

4 MR. CALHOUN: I imagine we have. I 

5 can't tell you for sure.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. CALHOUN: But if they say we 

8 did, I'm sure we did.

9 MR. KATZ: This is Ted.

10 I can follow up what John just 

11 reported --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

13 MR. KATZ: -- because, yes, 

14 definitely NIOSH received that report. The 

15 NIOSH folks received it. And I can tell you, 

16 John, Jim Neton looked at that report, and Bill.

17 He didn't think there would be any problem 

18 closing all those, the issues that Bill has in 

19 his review. So, he thought that would be 

20 pretty quickly done when you have the Work Group 

21 meeting. But, as we discussed earlier, we need 

22 the Work Group meeting.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105

1 MR. THURBER: This is Bill Thurber, 

2 Ted.

3 I agree with that. I think that 

4 there were two points, one having to do with the 

5 fact that the dose to the hands and arms was 

6 substantially lower in the DuPont TBD than is 

7 in the TBD-6000 umbrella document, if you will. 

8 And the second one had to do with some confusion 

9 about how calendar days are converted to 

10 workdays, or vice versa. And those are very 

11 tractable issues. None of those are 

12 showstoppers, I agree, yes.

13 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

14 So, anyway, I guess, Dave, we just 

15 need to let the Work Group finish its business 

16 on these.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, 260.1 to 

18 .3 will remain open, alright, until that 

19 conversation occurs.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think it should.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

22 What do others think on the 

23 Subcommittee?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think that is 

2 appropriate.

3 Ted, do we know whether the AWE Work 

4 Group is scheduled?

5 MR. KATZ: What I have said earlier 

6 is I have been looking to schedule and I have 

7 been wanting to schedule the Work Group, but we 

8 were wanting to both get this dealt with, 

9 DuPont, and another site, too. And Jim Neton 

10 was following up on whether any of the other 

11 sites that the Work Group has to work on would 

12 be ready to be discussed anytime soon.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

14 MR. KATZ: But, if not soon, then we 

15 will just go ahead and do a teleconference with 

16 this and get DuPont wrapped up.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

18 Sure.

19 What other sites are you talking 

20 about besides DuPont?

21 MR. KATZ: The Uranium Refining AWE 

22 has three other sites which [are], off the top 

23 of my head, General Atomics, I think NUMEC and 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107

1 W.R. Grace. Those were the other sites that 

2 have live issues that need addressing by the 

3 Work Group. But, before they get addressed by 

4 the Work Group, NIOSH has to complete response 

5 work related to the SC&A reviews.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

7 Right.

8 MR. STIVER: Ted, this is John 

9 Stiver.

10 Also, Hooker is still outstanding. 

11 There are still 22 findings on that review that 

12 we need to --

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. I don't show 

14 Hooker as still having open findings, but, 

15 okay, I will take your word for that.

16 MR. STIVER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Well, then, with that being open -- could you 

19 repeat for me, just for my records, my notes, 

20 which ones you said were left open? Hooker 

21 has, Hooker has --

22 MR. KATZ: No, well, it doesn't 

23 really matter, Dave, because this is another 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108

1 Work Group and it is not related to the dose 

2 reconstruction reviews.

3 But the other sites that the Uranium 

4 Refining AWE Work Group is dealing with are 

5 General Atomics, NUMEC, W.R. Grace, DuPont 

6 Deepwater, of course, and then, John just 

7 mentioned that Hooker has open findings.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

9 MR. FARVER: And, Ted, we do have 

10 some outstanding DR issues with Hooker.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you, Doug.

12 MR. FARVER: And something that is 

13 similar, but probably another Work Group is 

14 General Steel.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that is an 

16 entirely different Work Group, yes.

17 MR. KATZ: A different Work Group.

18 MR. FARVER: I know, but it is the 

19 same situation where we reviewed the TBD, sent 

20 out a report, and there's, I think, nine 

21 findings there.

22 MR. KATZ: Oh, no. No, I know, I 

23 realize that Work Group needs to meet as well.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109

1 MR. FARVER: Okay, and that is a lot 

2 of our open findings.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's right, Doug.

4 MR. FARVER: Another one would be 

5 Pacific Proving Grounds.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: And I'm not sure what 

8 Work Group that would fall under.

9 MR. KATZ: That has its own Work 

10 Group.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that is a brand 

12 new Work Group.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

14 MR. FARVER: But a lot of our open 

15 findings have to do with Work Groups and things 

16 like that.

17 MR. KATZ: That's correct.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

19 Well, then, open it shall be.

20 And will you scroll down to 260.4? 

21 Scroll up to 260.4? Okay. Right, and that's 

22 closed. That is the CATI and that is closed. 

23 Okay. Let me write -- yes, good. That is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110

1 going to close and change to an observation. 

2 Good.

3 So now, we go on to, I believe now 

4 we go on to the three Bridgeport Brass, the 

5 Observations down at the bottom of the file. 

6 Or, actually, it is not Bridgeport Brass. It 

7 is the uranium mill in Monticello that has the 

8 three observations.

9 MR. FARVER: I thought we did that. 

10 We closed --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I 

12 thought we had three -- oh, no, excuse me. 

13 Pardon me. We stayed through until after noon 

14 here and finished it up.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, we talked it out.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely, 

17 we did. And that was my memory lapse.

18 So, we are ready to go on to the 

19 other file, the Remaining Sites Matrix and

20 Simonds Saw, I believe, is the first open one.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

23 MR. FARVER: And that is on page 56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111

1 at the bottom.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

3 MR. FARVER: Let me make sure that 

4 is the -- 240.1, that is the first open one in 

5 this.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay. Alright. For 

8 the last meeting the TBD was updated and is in 

9 administrative review. SC&A will review it 

10 before our next meeting. So, this is another 

11 one where the TBD was being revised and we 

12 needed to review it.

13 If you go to the bottom of page 57, 

14 we did review the Simonds Saw Site Profile and 

15 determined that the agreed-upon methods for 

16 estimating external exposure are present, as 

17 discussed.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this 

19 includes?

20 MR. FARVER: This includes a 

21 discussion of available film badge data to 

22 validate the proposed TBD approach, and we 

23 recommend closing this issue.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 (Telephonic interference) agreement there?

3 MR. KATZ: Dave, your voice is 

4 breaking up.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sorry. Can 

6 you hear me now?

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

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

9 that looks reasonable for closure. What do 

10 other folks think? There was no error.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

12 That's fine.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

14 Wanda?

15 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes, that's 

16 fine.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David? 

18 David, are you on the line?

19 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Yes, I am here.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

21 So, let's close on that.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that is very 

23 reasonable.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's done.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: Next, is 240.2, the 

5 method used for assessing photon dose from 

6 uranium billet long exposures is not 

7 claimant-favorable. This is the external 

8 exposure as was in Finding 1.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: And this was also 

11 addressed in the revision of the TBD.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, right. 

13 So, it is the same issue.

14 MEMBER MUNN: And all agreed it's 

15 closed?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: All agreed, 

17 closed.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay, so those two are 

19 closed.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Three we've 

21 already acted upon.

22 MR. FARVER: Right.

23 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right? And 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114

1 closed it. In fact, we have closed everything 

2 from .3 through .7.

3 MR. FARVER: Eight.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right.

5 MEMBER MUNN: The next one is .8.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, the 

7 next one is .8.

8 MR. FARVER: Method for 

9 reconstructing thorium doses from inhalation 

10 of resuspended residual contamination may not 

11 be claimant-favorable.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

13 We're just scrolling on that one.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's just 

16 see. Let's wait until we get there. Waiting 

17 for that to come up on the screen. There we go. 

18 Good. Okay, thank you.

19 MR. FARVER: Agreed-upon method 

20 for reconstructing doses to thorium during the 

21 residual period has been discussed and agreed 

22 upon. And the updated TBD is a complete 

23 rewrite of the methodology for reconstructing 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115

1 internal doses during the residual period. So 

2 that issue has been addressed in the revised 

3 TBD.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

5 Right. Okay. How does that sound to others?

6 MEMBER MUNN: As long as the update 

7 has occurred and everybody is happy, close it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sounds good.

9 Okay. Unless we hear other, let's 

10 go down to 240.9.

11 MR. FARVER: 240.9, methods for 

12 reconstructing doses from ingestion of 

13 resuspended residual --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MR. FARVER: -- thorium may not be 

16 claimant-favorable. This was also addressed 

17 in the revised TBD.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

19 Okay. Closed. It's the same issue. Closed.

20 Let's go to .10.

21 MR. FARVER: Ten was already 

22 closed.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Already? 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116

1 Oh, yes, right. Okay. So, good. So, from .1 

2 to .10 will be closed.

3 Are there any observations on that 

4 one?

5 MEMBER MUNN: No.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

7 Alright.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Move on to --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: On to --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Lawrence Livermore.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pacific 

12 Proving Grounds?

13 MR. FARVER: The next one should be 

14 Pacific Proving Grounds, the bottom of page 70.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: Case 325, Finding 

17 325.1. And we have a series of these findings 

18 .1 through .7.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

20 MR. FARVER: This is one I've 

21 mentioned before. It is pending completion of 

22 a Work Group review of the technical basis.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117

1 MEMBER MUNN: And I don't think 

2 they are out of the start box yet.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. So, Doug, does 

4 that apply to all seven of them?

5 MR. FARVER: That's all seven.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So those are 

8 open.

9 MR. FARVER: And that is all the 

10 ones that are open in that matrix. Actually, 

11 since we closed, all of them open is the PPG 

12 findings.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

14 the PPG findings are the only ones open on 

15 remaining sites. So, we still have -- and that 

16 ends our discussion of the 10 through 13 sets, 

17 right, until we get back to the ones that remain 

18 open?

19 MR. FARVER: Correct, and that is 

20 going to be PPG, General Steel, Hooker.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes, 

22 okay. But some of those discussions are for 

23 other groups, in other groups, right?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118

1 MR. FARVER: They are all in other 

2 groups, yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

4 only ones that we have yet are PPG plus IMC and 

5 Copper, right? I mean, and those who are 

6 waiting on discussions from other groups?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, I don't know. 

8 IMC, what other group are we waiting on for IMC?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I have that 

10 listed on my notes as open.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's because 

12 NIOSH is going to look into the time periods.

13 MR. KATZ: Right, right, but that 

14 is not with another Work Group, I don't think.

15 MR. FARVER: That one is up to us.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay, 

17 fine. Fine.

18 MR. FARVER: Copper's is in our 

19 court.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Correct.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. But 

23 PPG is not?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119

1 MR. FARVER: PPG is not.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Open 

3 in other -- does this have to come back before 

4 us?

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, I am going to 

6 work on getting -- I am pretty certain I can get 

7 DuPont Deepwater, that addressed in a Work 

8 Group teleconference early in January.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

10 MR. KATZ: I haven't tried to 

11 schedule that yet. I've actually spoken with 

12 Neton about scheduling that, but I haven't 

13 actually put out a scheduling request for that 

14 yet, but I will do that this week.

15 And then, I would like to also -- I 

16 have to look because I don't recall what is 

17 holding up the PPG Work Group from meeting. 

18 There may be something, a response on one side 

19 or the other that is holding that up, but I need 

20 to follow up on that. And I will get that 

21 scheduled as soon as it can be.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

23 So those are our plans for completing review of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120

1 Sets 10 through 13. I am looking on the agenda.

2 Before we start discussing Sets 14 

3 through 18, the remaining matrix that Doug sent 

4 us last week, I have a note summarizing review 

5 results for Board report. Do we want to 

6 discuss briefly -- well, I don't know that there 

7 is anything we can do for summarizing the review 

8 until we finish, unless, Ted, if you have any --

9 MR. KATZ: No, I think you can't 

10 because --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MR. KATZ: -- you need those to be 

13 wrapped up for your statistics for the final 

14 report.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Exactly. 

16 Right.

17 MR. KATZ: I mean, so only if you 

18 need to discuss -- I mean, I think we have 

19 already discussed in the past, conceptually at 

20 least, that SC&A would do sort of summary 

21 statistics as they did for the last report, for 

22 this one.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121

1 MR. KATZ: I think everybody agreed 

2 that those would still be needed.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: And then, that is sort of 

5 your basis for writing the report.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. So, 

7 we are not going to meet until some time 

8 probably later in January or even February, 

9 right, because we have to get the results in 

10 January and then schedule a meeting. I don't 

11 think we can -- can we --

12 MR. KATZ: Here is what I would 

13 suggest in sort of scheduling.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: As soon as I can nail 

16 down when these two Work Groups will meet, I 

17 think, then, we can schedule the DR 

18 Subcommittee to meet following that, you know, 

19 giving it a few weeks --

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: -- but following that. 

22 Because I think in both those cases we have a 

23 good chance of getting enough resolution in 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122

1 those Work Groups to deal with the cases at 

2 least.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

4 That sounds good.

5 I wonder, does everybody have a copy 

6 of our last or our first Board report? Ted, you 

7 sent that to me a long time --

8 MR. KATZ: We distributed that a 

9 long time ago now.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A while ago. 

11 Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: A year ago now, but I 

13 distributed it to everyone again.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

15 Excellent. Alright.

16 Why don't I leave that for January 

17 reading for folks? Okay? You can take a break 

18 over the holidays. But, after the New Year, 

19 let's all take a look at the Board report before 

20 our next meeting, seriously, before our next 

21 meeting. So, we will be kind of up on what was 

22 done in the past, what sort of work was done and 

23 how the report was laid out. And then, think 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123

1 a little bit about how we want to lay this one 

2 out. And we will discuss that at the next Board 

3 meeting.

4 So, we can begin on Set 14, but 

5 perhaps before we do that, we should try to get 

6 updates on our blind reviews, see where things 

7 are.

8 That has been, until we finished 10 

9 through 13, they have been a somewhat secondary 

10 priority, important as they are. But maybe we 

11 should just talk about NIOSH and SC&A blind 

12 reviews now for a moment.

13 Well, first, Grady, on NIOSH?

14 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Actually, I 

15 guess you guys have discussed this earlier 

16 because Stu had talked to me about it. So, as 

17 with yours, ours has kind of taken a backseat 

18 to all of the other work we have been doing.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

20 right.

21 MR. CALHOUN: But I will try to 

22 resurrect those.

23 So, the process that we have of 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124

1 continuing to select them is ongoing, and it 

2 happens automatically. So we have got them and 

3 we have got many, many, many that are assigned 

4 but just not done.

5 We are going to start doing those 

6 again. And the one thing that we found, just 

7 like you guys did, is that, believe it or not, 

8 we don't have much better access to all of the 

9 tools that ORAU does as you guys do even. So 

10 we are struggling with that a little bit, but 

11 we have got to come up with some kind of method 

12 to just get those, short of just transferring 

13 them on a flash drive or something.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

15 right.

16 MR. CALHOUN: So I have been asked 

17 to do that. And then, I am supposed to provide 

18 something to Stu, an overall look at what we 

19 have done so far in trying to roll up 

20 everything, all of the individual things that 

21 we found.

22 I think, generally speaking, what I 

23 can say -- and I have done that, but I just 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125

1 haven't put it down in writing -- is that we have 

2 had a few cases, a few instances where our DRs 

3 come out different from a compensation 

4 standpoint than those done by ORAU. In every 

5 case it was because our folks here made an error 

6 of some sort.

7 Our follow-up review, the way ours 

8 works is that we have our guys do them blind, 

9 and then, we have a second person wait until the 

10 DR is completed and then that person compares 

11 the ORAU DR to our DR.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. CALHOUN: We come up with, we 

14 have got a little table, basically, of what to 

15 check. And what we found in every case is that 

16 our guy made an error. Now, you know, some of 

17 the options we would have to fix that is we could 

18 put another layer of review. Like when ORAU 

19 does a DR, they have got the DRs, they have got 

20 a peer review, and they have got a couple of more 

21 layers of review of that dose reconstruction. 

22 We don't. We just have our one guy do that 

23 review.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126

1 And we could have another person 

2 look at that, but I can pretty confidently say 

3 we are not going to do that, just because that 

4 is just a whole other level of commitment of 

5 individuals from what we need to do.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. CALHOUN: I think the big 

8 thing, though, is we need to get the tools --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: -- and make those 

11 more available to our folks here.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MR. CALHOUN: Because we have the 

14 same struggles you guys do as far as multiple 

15 people logging onto the tools at the same time. 

16 There seems to be a gate that doesn't allow that 

17 somehow.

18 So that is where we are. 

19 Ultimately, we are just going to pick up doing 

20 more of them --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. CALHOUN: -- than we have been 

23 doing and a summary of where we are at so far.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure. 

2 Okay, good.

3 And we will start from now on to move 

4 up the priority for the blind reviews compared 

5 to the past. We had a lower priority in the 

6 past, and I think now it should move up a bit 

7 in priority.

8 Why don't you keep me and Ted 

9 informed about how things are coming, in 

10 particular, getting hold of the tools? Just 

11 keep us in the loop in terms of where you are. 

12 And then we will talk about it again, of 

13 course, at the next Working Group meeting.

14 MR. CALHOUN: Okay. Sounds good.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: DSC meeting 

16 I mean.

17 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David.

18 Could I ask just, so over the last 

19 calendar year, because we are in December now, 

20 how many has NIOSH done?

21 MR. CALHOUN: Give me half a second 

22 and I will try to find that.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I recall six 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128

1 from a previous discussion.

2 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, no. No, no, no. 

3 Oh, maybe calendar year, but we have done many 

4 more than that overall.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, yes, 

6 overall, sure.

7 MR. CALHOUN: Let me look for that 

8 here real quick.

9 You might want to go on to somebody 

10 else and let me get back with you here.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Very 

12 good.

13 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, Dave. This 

14 is John Mauro.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

16 DR. MAURO: If you would bear with 

17 me for one moment, I would like to bring up 

18 briefly a subject that is a bit controversial, 

19 and actually I did not have this conversation 

20 with anyone.

21 But something recently 

22 developed --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Before we 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129

1 do, I was going to go on to finish the discussion 

2 of blind reviews.

3 DR. MAURO: Well, it is. It has to 

4 do with blind reviews.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

6 Go ahead.

7 DR. MAURO: But it has to do with 

8 SC&A's blind.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. That 

10 was going to be my next question.

11 DR. MAURO: And I'll keep it real 

12 simple. Recently, I found that I had to 

13 perform a review of what I would consider to be 

14 a very complex case where a sophisticated tool 

15 was used to assess the dose, internal dose, to 

16 a worker based on gross beta analysis of urine 

17 samples. And it required checking a 

18 procedure, OTIB-54, and its implementation 

19 workbook.

20 I am just speaking for myself now. 

21 It was an AWE site, and I do a lot of AWE sites. 

22 And I'm looking at this case and I am saying, 

23 how am I going to check this? I tried to follow 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130

1 the workbook and the procedure, all of which 

2 is -- by the way, the procedure and the workbook 

3 themselves have been reviewed and issues have 

4 been resolved. So, the whole process to review 

5 that procedure, OTIB-54, and the workbook.

6 But something very interesting 

7 happened. And it may just be me. But, when I 

8 got to the case and I said, okay, I am going to 

9 check if I think these internal doses to the 

10 hands and the pancreas, it turns out, for this 

11 guy, seem to make sense, that they were derived.

12 And I found that the only way I could 

13 do it is by hand. What I mean by that is just 

14 sit down and think about the problem, and how 

15 am I going to check this where I could say to 

16 myself, these numbers look good. And we 

17 usually refer to this as the commonsense 

18 approach to doing a DR review.

19 So, there was a time -- this goes 

20 back a couple of years -- when SC&A was 

21 authorized to do a blind, we would use two 

22 approaches. One is just to go ahead and do it 

23 with the workbooks and check.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 DR. MAURO: And, you know, do it the 

3 way NIOSH would do it. We would not have their 

4 results. We would just have all the input 

5 data --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: -- and then, we follow 

8 the workbook, and we see if we get the same 

9 results.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: But what we also did, at 

12 my urging at the time, was I used to do what I 

13 would call the commonsense approach, the 

14 approach that would be used to say, listen, as 

15 a health physicist, let me see if I could come 

16 close to their numbers from first principles 

17 and in a way that I could explain to someone else 

18 in layman's language, I would call it. You 

19 know, these numbers look good; let me tell you 

20 what I did.

21 I had to do that just now recently 

22 on this case. But, as you may know, SC&A is no 

23 longer doing that kind of blind.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's 

2 right. That was in the contract that renewed.

3 DR. MAURO: Right. Yes, we killed 

4 it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

6 DR. MAURO: We killed that, and 

7 that's fine. I'm fine with that.

8 But I just want to alert the 

9 Subcommittee that from time to time at least I 

10 run into a case where one of two things need to 

11 be done. I just say, you know what? I really 

12 can't check this because I find the workbook 

13 impenetrable.

14 Now we have folks in SC&A who are 

15 wizards with workbooks, and that's great. And 

16 they can do that.

17 But all I can say is that I found 

18 myself in a position -- and I'm an experienced 

19 health physicist -- where the only way I could 

20 check it was to go back to first principles.

21 I would like to just leave a thought 

22 with the Subcommittee that there may be certain 

23 cases where you get into blinds -- let's say we

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133

1 are talking blinds -- where SC&A is asked to do 

2 a blind where there are certain benefits to 

3 getting down to converting this very 

4 sophisticated, complex protocol to its 

5 simplest elements, where a person could 

6 understand from first principles why that 

7 number is good or not good, and why does it seem 

8 to make sense.

9 I am not saying this should be done 

10 on all blinds that SC&A is asked to do, but I 

11 have got to tell you, on this one that I just 

12 did I found it so revealing. And at the end of 

13 the process, I matched the numbers, you know, 

14 they used. NIOSH used what I consider to be an 

15 overwhelming workbook, in my mind.

16 And I just went ahead, and when I was 

17 done, I came in real close to their numbers. 

18 And so, this idea of a blind using something 

19 other than the workbook, you know, maybe just 

20 using -- listen, I am a health physicist; I 

21 understand internal dosimetry. Let me do it 

22 the way I would do it if I didn't have the 

23 workbook.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134

1 And I want to just leave that with 

2 the Subcommittee to think about a little bit.

3 MS. BEHLING: This is also Kathy 

4 Behling. If I can interject a brief comment 

5 here?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MS. BEHLING: Initially, like John 

8 is saying, we did a Method A and we did a Method 

9 B for the blinds. And what I had actually 

10 recommended for the continuing blinds that we 

11 were assigned is that in the case of when we have 

12 a DOE facility, I wouldn't suggest doing the 

13 Method B. However, if we have a case coming 

14 from an AWE, especially an AWE where we may not 

15 have or there is no TBD or exposure matrix, that 

16 is where I felt that we should still be doing 

17 this Method B process that John was just 

18 explaining.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. Let me 

21 just add to, hopefully, clarify some of this. 

22 I mean, the constraint is not -- where you have 

23 a site which doesn't have workbooks, et cetera, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135

1 there is no problem with using, I mean limiting 

2 yourself to first principles where you need to, 

3 because there is no more methodology laid out.

4 The whole point -- and this was 

5 reflected in the contract -- was that the only 

6 thing that you are excluding is you are not 

7 checking methods that the Board has already 

8 signed off on, because that is pointless. So, 

9 that was what was meant to be excluded.

10 Whether you use the workbook or not 

11 is really not the issue. It is whether you use 

12 methods that have already been signed off by the 

13 Board as being good methods. You know, you are 

14 constrained to those, but you are not 

15 constrained to actually using the workbook. 

16 And certainly, where methods haven't been 

17 reviewed by the Board and approved, you are not 

18 constrained at all there in how you do those 

19 blind reviews.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, Ted, I understand 

21 that and I agree with that. It just happened 

22 to be a coincidence that I just finished this 

23 case that does have a workbook, that has been 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136

1 reviewed, had been approved. It has all been 

2 worked out. It has a procedure. So it is all 

3 laid out, and it was done by folks at SC&A that 

4 I call them the workbook wizards. And they 

5 figured it all out and they said, yes, I 

6 noticed. There were problems, but they worked 

7 them out. It had to do with OTIB-54.

8 But, then, what was interesting, by 

9 coincidence, I get hit with an AWE case where 

10 the workbook was used, this OTIB-54 workbook 

11 was used. And I found it impenetrable, okay?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 DR. MAURO: And I said, you know 

14 what, John? Just go back what you have learned 

15 in school, see if you could figure this out --

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fine.

17 DR. MAURO: -- and if it makes sense 

18 to you. And I did. And I did it in my own way. 

19 I found it very valuable to me. It gave me much 

20 more confidence in the workbook because I 

21 didn't understand the workbook, even though it 

22 was reviewed by others.

23 So I just wanted to point this out 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137

1 for people because I found the process I went 

2 through very reassuring. It gave me a little 

3 bit more confidence. I said, you know, even 

4 though I can't use the workbook, I can still sit 

5 down and check these numbers. And I could 

6 convince myself that they make sense, and I can 

7 explain for you -- in other words, we can have 

8 one-on-ones, you know, part of this process. 

9 And when we do that, I am going to walk through 

10 what I did, which is not the workbook; it is what 

11 I did.

12 And I think you are going to find 

13 that it is going to be an eye-opener to say, oh, 

14 is that what you do in OTIB-54? You know, 

15 because I've got to tell you, you read that. It 

16 is a very, very complex process.

17 And until you actually do one and 

18 bring it down to its simplicity, you say, well, 

19 what are you really doing here? And I was 

20 forced to sort of do that.

21 I don't know why I felt compelled to 

22 tell you this story, but I want to leave that 

23 with you.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, okay. 

2 But, if there is a workbook, then it seems to 

3 be -- and you want to do another method, nice 

4 as it is -- I think that is a contractual matter 

5 --

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- and not 

8 something for the Committee to decide one way 

9 or the other.

10 And so, that is interesting, but I 

11 don't think we can consider it.

12 DR. MAURO: Well, I appreciate you 

13 listening to my story, though. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

15 appreciate hearing it.

16 MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver. 

17 If I could just step in for one second here.

18 I think in this situation what John 

19 did was implement the procedure, OTIB-54. He 

20 just didn't use the workbook.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. STIVER: And I'm trying to 

23 think -- it doesn't really matter if you use the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139

1 workbook or not as long as you are not 

2 generating some new methodology there.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, no.

4 MR. STIVER: He is using actually 

5 methodologies. He is just doing it in a 

6 different type of calculation using a 

7 different --

8 MEMBER MUNN: Quite to the 

9 contrary, yes, I think you're absolutely right, 

10 John.

11 This is Wanda.

12 And for goodness' sake, the reason 

13 we as the Board hired SC&A, the people who are 

14 on it, supposedly have much more qualification 

15 to do many of these things than most of the 

16 people who are on the Board.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

18 MEMBER MUNN: And one of the 

19 reasons we chose these people specifically and 

20 left it in the hands of SC&A to identify the 

21 proper people to do it is because they have the 

22 background in knowing what has been done in the 

23 past and to understand what the real questions 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140

1 are when they address how to do a dose 

2 reconstruction.

3 So, the fact that there is more than 

4 one way to skin this cat should be beneficial 

5 for everyone concerned. And the fact that we 

6 have people who have backgrounds that are 

7 adequate to be able to do that without following 

8 the workbook is, in my estimation, precisely 

9 why we have a contractor.

10 So I can't see that there is a 

11 problem with not using the workbook. As has 

12 been pointed out, the whole idea is to identify 

13 that the dose reconstruction is being performed 

14 in what is a complicated subject matter.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, this I 

16 believe has been chewed over at some great 

17 length before the contract was renewed, and 

18 there were a number of discussions. I do 

19 agree --

20 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. It is Ted.

21 But, again, as I said just a moment 

22 ago, it is not a concern whether SC&A uses the 

23 workbook; it is a concern that they follow the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141

1 procedures that have been approved.

2 So John doing it by hand versus 

3 cranking through the workbook is not a problem, 

4 so long as he gets the procedures correctly that 

5 have been approved. So, I mean, whether he 

6 does it that way or whether he just consults his 

7 workplace wizards, so that he understands the 

8 workbook, you know, there is no dictating how 

9 SC&A does that, again, so long as they implement 

10 procedures that the Board has already said are 

11 good ones.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, if he is doing 

13 OTIB-54, then that's fine.

14 MR. KATZ: Right, right, right.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: So I don't think we have 

17 a problem here.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

19 I --

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

21 Brad. I have one question before you leave 

22 this.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: John made a 

2 comment that we are no longer doing blind 

3 reviews because of the contract.

4 MR. KATZ: No, no, no, no, that is 

5 not it.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

7 MR. KATZ: Brad, in the old 

8 contract, there were sort of like two blind 

9 reviews that get done for everyone. One blind 

10 review would be done using first principles of 

11 health physics, and the other would be done 

12 using, in effect, the procedures and methods 

13 discussed.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Done by 

15 SC&A.

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, by SC&A, and they 

17 are developed by NIOSH. So, that is what used 

18 to be done. And what got knocked off the table 

19 were these just doing them by first principles. 

20 Because, if you recall, we weren't really 

21 getting much out of that except, yes, we would 

22 get different results, and there was nowhere to 

23 go from there.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: Because they were 

3 different, less sophisticated approaches to 

4 doing it. So, anyway, that is how those 

5 dropped off in this.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that 

7 is helpful.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just 

9 wanted to understand how that had changed.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I appreciate it, 

12 Mr. Chair.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

14 I'm clear about that now. So, there is no 

15 problem or disagreement at this point.

16 MR. FARVER: Dave, this is Doug. I 

17 have a comment about, though, our blind 

18 reviews.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

20 MR. FARVER: And it goes back to 

21 what Grady was saying. I believe there is a 

22 limitation of two people can log into the DR 

23 tools application at one time. Otherwise, you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
144

1 get locked out.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: And we have run into 

4 this before where we are unable to log in at 

5 certain times because the two slots are full. 

6 I believe Grady is running into this, but they 

7 are also going to be adding more people, which 

8 is going to limit this more.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. CALHOUN: We should try to 

11 figure that out, though. That is not 

12 acceptable on our side or for you, either.

13 MR. FARVER: Right, and it has been 

14 a limitation, but it is going to be more so until 

15 we can up that log-in number. That is one.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

17 MR. FARVER: And the second issue 

18 is we have had some problems with just moving 

19 files around. It gets a little awkward going 

20 between the drives and so forth. I think we 

21 have worked that out. And if Ron is on the 

22 phone, Ron is the one that worked that issue, 

23 and I believe we have worked that out.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
145

1 I believe those were our two main 

2 issues that we have run into so far.

3 MS. BEHLING: Doug, this is Kathy.

4 You are currently working on six 

5 blinds, is that correct, six blinds that are 

6 in the 20th or 21st set?

7 MR. FARVER: Twentieth set, yes.

8 MS. BEHLING: The 20th set, okay. 

9 And I'm also in the process of comparing, from 

10 the 17th set, the six blinds that we had 

11 previously done with the NIOSH-assigned doses, 

12 adjudicated cases.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MS. BEHLING: So that is also in the 

15 process.

16 MR. KATZ: And, Kathy, can you tell 

17 us when can we expect those?

18 MS. BEHLING: Well, I have got one 

19 of them completed. I have got six to go. 

20 Probably not by the next meeting, but 

21 definitely by the meeting after that.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

23 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
146

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

2 Good.

3 Okay. I'm just finishing up notes.

4 And then, I think we are ready to go 

5 on to start 14.

6 MR. CALHOUN: Well, Dave, I have 

7 got some numbers here for you.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

9 Thank you. Okay, great.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Here's what we have 

11 done. As you probably know, we have an 

12 automated system that selects our DRs at random 

13 to do. And we have got 186 that have been 

14 selected. Ninety-six of those have been 

15 assigned. Only 42 have been completed.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. CALHOUN: The last one was 

18 completed in October of last year. So, we 

19 haven't completed any in 2014.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 Well, you mean, do I understand that we are 

22 talking about 50 that are hanging loose to be 

23 done?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147

1 MR. CALHOUN: We are talking about 

2 54 that are not completed yet, yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is a 

4 huge job.

5 MR. CALHOUN: Oh, yes, and they 

6 keep getting created every week.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I know. I 

8 know. And I have been here only the last couple 

9 of years on this.

10 MR. CALHOUN: So we probably need 

11 to adjust how many that were getting selected, 

12 you know.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 MR. CALHOUN: We clearly can't keep 

15 that. We can't keep up with it.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

17 was only viewing what had been assigned in the 

18 last couple of years, which, of course, is a 

19 much smaller number.

20 MR. CALHOUN: Right.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That will 

22 help us understand better [the] priority, and 

23 maybe we will discuss with you the next time how 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
148

1 one might reasonably prioritize this task along 

2 with trying to move on the Sets 14 through 18.

3 MR. CALHOUN: We really need to 

4 look at what our goal is. What are we trying 

5 to achieve here?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

7 mean, to my mind, finishing 10 through 13 would 

8 allow us to begin to do the report to the 

9 Secretary, and that was driving me and driving 

10 us. And that has to be worked on in the next 

11 couple of months.

12 Beyond that, I don't have a sense of 

13 what should be prioritized. Maybe other 

14 people do, and I would be very glad for input 

15 from folks, either John Stiver or Ted, about 

16 what --

17 MR. CALHOUN: Now keep in mind, 

18 David, that I'm talking about just the ones 

19 assigned to NIOSH. I'm not talking about the 

20 ones that you guys got.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. For 

22 SC&A you mean?

23 MR. CALHOUN: No, to NIOSH. We've 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149

1 got two different programs here. And I just 

2 reported the numbers that were assigned to our 

3 HPs, not SC&A.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. KATZ: So, Dave, NIOSH took on 

8 this task of doing their own blind reviews sort 

9 of independently of the Board. I mean, they 

10 are doing it all for good reasons, right. So, 

11 I don't think that really affects the 

12 Subcommittee's priorities per se. The 

13 Subcommittee has to just worry about its own 

14 case reviews, both the blind and the regular 

15 ones.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I see. 

17 Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: But NIOSH has been nice 

19 enough to bring us in the process and they will 

20 be briefing us as they continue with this. 

21 And, of course, they are open to the 

22 Subcommittee's input on how they do those blind 

23 reviews.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
150

1 But that is sort of on top of the 

2 core task for the Subcommittee, which is to 

3 address its own blind reviews and its own case 

4 reviews, regular case reviews.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: I think we just take 

9 those as they come from NIOSH.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

11 MR. KATZ: But, really, our 

12 emphasis -- so, when you say to increase the 

13 focus on the blind reviews, because I know Dr. 

14 Melius has been very interested in seeing more 

15 results from the blind reviews.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: He most 

17 certainly has.

18 MR. KATZ: That is why I asked Kathy 

19 when does she expect to have, for example, the 

20 comparisons on the previous ones that were 

21 already completed, blind reviews by SC&A, when 

22 does she expect those to be ready. Because I 

23 know Dr. Melius wants to see results from all 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
151

1 of these.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

3 Well, good. Okay.

4 MEMBER RICHARDSON: This is David.

5 I mean, the history of NIOSH doing 

6 this is not kind of separated from the 

7 activities of the DR Subcommittee or the 

8 findings of the 10-year review or any of those 

9 other things. And it was motivated by some 

10 problems which were observed and questions 

11 about how QA/QC was happening at ORAU and who 

12 should be tasked with doing that.

13 And one of the concerns was we 

14 repeatedly were reviewing historical dose 

15 reconstructions, and NIOSH was going to pull 

16 and pretty much, if I am recalling correctly, 

17 pull a small number of cases closer to 

18 real-time. And it was a fairly modest number, 

19 right, like a couple a month?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. CALHOUN: That is correct.

22 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And try to 

23 evaluate those, so that we would have something 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
152

1 happening closer in real-time to the dose 

2 evaluations of scientific quality issues and 

3 basic quality assurance issues for those cases.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And it sounds 

6 like for the last 14 or 15 months that hasn't 

7 been happening. And it was something which we 

8 sort of, I had been led to believe was going to 

9 be, you know, following the 10-year view, was 

10 going to be one of the priorities for NIOSH to 

11 be tasking, and it wasn't, in my view I guess,

12 it wasn't a huge number of them, but it was going 

13 to start to give us a building-up of a record 

14 for understanding whether we are doing better 

15 or it is still in the same problems we have had 

16 with QA/QC issues on it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MEMBER RICHARDSON: And so, I guess 

19 I have to say, you're right, it is nothing we 

20 can do. It is nice of NIOSH to keep us in the 

21 loop. But it has been motivated by a chronic 

22 concern that we have had for years now of 

23 looking at these and trying to both get a more 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153

1 timely evaluation and get evaluations in a 

2 blind sense of these small QA/QC records.

3 So, it sounds like it has just 

4 slipped off the radar again.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: Right. And, Dave, I 

7 wasn't trying to minimize the role --

8 MR. CALHOUN: I will have to look 

9 whatever that is. I am paging through some of 

10 the 10-year review documents now. I am not 

11 sure of it. Yes, boy, it has been a long time 

12 ago. I need to find out really what our 

13 motivation was behind that.

14 I didn't think it was a 10-year 

15 review thing, but it might have been. I'll 

16 look.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Ted, 

18 you were starting to say?

19 MR. KATZ: Oh, no, I was just saying 

20 I wasn't minimizing the role of the 

21 Subcommittee in its work in motivating NIOSH to 

22 take on what it has done. All I was saying was 

23 that is sort of NIOSH's machinery, not the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154

1 Subcommittee's.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. KATZ: So we just sort of 

4 receive that as it comes from NIOSH.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: That was my point.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

8 Anything further on this?

9 (No response.)

10 Shall we go on to 14, Set 14? Okay, 

11 if you would put it up on the screen?

12 I can say, for one, I am delighted 

13 to get into Sets 14 through 18.

14 I have spent most of my tenure on 

15 this Subcommittee, all of it I believe, on the 

16 last sets. We're not finished yet, but we are 

17 close.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it would be nice 

19 to have a number larger than 13, I'll have to 

20 say.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly

22 would.

23 There we are. Okay. The Oak Ridge 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
155

1 site, 349.1.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay. Are we up on 

3 the screen?

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, you 

5 are. Thank you.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. 349.1, NIOSH 

7 did not account for all the recorded zero dose 

8 values, 1953. Once again, it is summing up the 

9 zero dose values to determine the missed dose.

10 And NIOSH's response is that the 

11 finding is correct. Three additional dose 

12 values were indicated for week 53 of 1953. 

13 They were not included in the data entry file 

14 and were not added by the dose reconstructor. 

15 Okay?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: The issue of 

18 additional week 53 data has been identified by 

19 the data entry group subsequent to this claim 

20 and is now addressed when being entered.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MR. FARVER: So, is this something 

23 that was limited to this specific year?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
156

1 Grady, do you have an idea?

2 MR. CALHOUN: Hold on. Let me get 

3 back to your thing here.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay.

5 MR. FARVER: Just kind of how it 

6 reads.

7 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

8 Grady, I can help you out with this.

9 Yes, 1953 is one of the unusual 

10 years where there is a 53rd week.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 MR. SIEBERT: So, yes, that is why 

13 it is specifically talking about that. That is 

14 why we noticed that issue and we have changed 

15 our process to ensure we catch that 

16 information.

17 MR. FARVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

19 Alright.

20 MR. FARVER: Were there other years

21 that had 53 weeks?

22 MR. SIEBERT: Say that again?

23 MR. FARVER: I said, were there 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157

1 other years that had 53 weeks? I'm sorry.

2 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, I'm sure there 

3 probably are.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. Is it 

5 something you have problems with on those years 

6 also?

7 MR. SIEBERT: I can't tell you 

8 specifically.

9 MR. FARVER: I was just curious if 

10 anyone looked into that.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We certainly 

12 had data for entries beyond 52 weeks, and we 

13 have certainly worked and figured out what they 

14 were when people started having more frequent 

15 measurements or daily measurements or, too, 

16 somebody had a couple of different detectors. 

17 But I don't recall a 53-week year.

18 However, in terms of dealing with 

19 this, this was a data-entry problem. It seems 

20 to me that this should be closed. We know how 

21 to deal with it.

22 MEMBER MUNN: I agree.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Shall 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158

1 we close?

2 MEMBER MUNN: We have agreement 

3 from SC&A.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 Okay, let's go on to the next one.

6 MR. FARVER: Finding 2, NIOSH did 

7 not address the different solubility types for 

8 strontium-90 and the associated radionuclides. 

9 Did not evaluate strontium-90 Type S because 

10 there was no potential to strontium titanate 

11 where the employee worked. Described this to 

12 include strontium-90 Type S only if it was 

13 documented that the employee worked in the 

14 building 3517, where the material was handled.

15 Is this in the technical basis or is 

16 it in the DR Guidance?

17 MR. SIEBERT: To tell you the 

18 truth, off the top of my head, I can't tell you.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: I would expect this 

21 being in the guidance. Wouldn't you?

22 MR. FARVER: Yes. I didn't find it 

23 in the technical basis. That is why I asked. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
159

1 I didn't know if I was looking at the right 

2 section.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I would expect

4 the guidance.

5 MR. FARVER: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So this also 

7 is closeable. I mean, the person didn't have 

8 exposure, but if they did have exposure, there 

9 is agreement on how it is handled.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So that 

12 should be closed. Both should be closed on 

13 349.

14 MR. FARVER: The only thing I would 

15 suggest that this gets at some point moved into 

16 the Technical Basis Document.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Yes. What we do is 

18 we make sure that the Technical Basis Document 

19 owners have the DR Guidance when they are doing 

20 their update, so that all those things get 

21 rolled in.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay. Hopefully, at 

23 some point it will make it to the TBD.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
160

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

2 let's go to 350.1.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay. Hang on until I 

4 finish my notes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

6 MR. FARVER: 350.1.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MR. FARVER: The PFG doses were not 

9 considered after 1944. Okay.

10 The employee was employed by 

11 Tennessee Eastman Corporation, which was the 

12 prime DOE contractor for which PFG x-rays were 

13 assigned based on values found in the Y-12 

14 Medical TBD.

15 And this is from '43 through 

16 February of '44. Okay? So, PFGs were 

17 addressed.

18 Then the employee was employed by 

19 [identifying information redacted], 

20 subcontractor companies, after 1944. The 

21 medical doses for those periods were OTIB-6, 

22 due to subcontractors likely having medical 

23 screening x-rays offsite. I take it that it 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
161

1 would not be PFG.

2 OTIB-57, which was applicable at 

3 the time of the dose reconstructions and 

4 concurrent with NIOSH's response.

5 MEMBER MUNN: If SC&A concurs, we 

6 can close it.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I 

8 think that's right.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

10 apologize for jumping in.

11 I am just going back to the previous 

12 one. I know we already closed it, but I did 

13 verify the strontium discussion is in the DR 

14 Guidance document.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good. 

16 That's reassuring. Thank you.

17 So, I think this can be closed as 

18 well.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Agreed.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let's 

21 go on to the next one. That was all of 350.

22 MR. FARVER: Now we move to 357.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 357, okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
162

1 MR. FARVER: The recorded doses 

2 that were less than the MDL values were not 

3 removed.

4 Okay. There were multiple 

5 instances in which the recorded doses were less 

6 than LOD over 2 and were not removed and applied 

7 as missed dose. But, if an LOD over 2 was 10, 

8 you might have a dose in there that was 8, and 

9 where it should have gotten set equal zero and 

10 assigned as a missed dose, it was just kept 

11 being an 8. Okay. So, that's what it was.

12 I know we have had this issue before 

13 with the workbook.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Corrected.

17 MR. FARVER: In the past the dose 

18 reconstructor had to set them equal to zero 

19 manually. Now we will ask Scott. So what you 

20 are saying here is that now they don't have to 

21 do it manually; it does it when they import the 

22 data?

23 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
163

1 The tool identifies those and makes the 

2 adjustments as needed.

3 MR. FARVER: That is great. Thank 

4 you.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

6 Okay.

7 MR. FARVER: I do appreciate that 

8 one.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

10 Why don't we close it?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, let's do.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

13 next one, 357.2, dose assigned for missing 

14 badge cycles.

15 MR. FARVER: No badge assigned for 

16 missing badge cycles. Okay, we have a little 

17 bit of a concern about this one.

18 The employees' badges were 

19 exchanged annually for '80 and '81. If they 

20 were doing it annually, then why were there 

21 three badge exchanges in '80? And for '81 

22 there was only one entry for a fourth quarter. 

23 It was uncertain if the badge was exchanged 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
164

1 quarterly or annually. I think what we are 

2 saying here is there is still some concern if 

3 it was on a quarterly or annual frequency.

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron 

5 Buchanan.

6 This is one that I worked on. And 

7 we have several in this group. And what we come 

8 up to is in the DOE records, they will have an 

9 exchange of, say, a second quarter and a fourth 

10 quarter or a first and third quarter, or not all 

11 four quarters will show badge exchange.

12 Some of the sites give the date 

13 issued, the date returned and the date read, 

14 which, from that, you can determine how often 

15 they were passed sometimes. Now, for some of 

16 the sites -- and I think Y-12 was one of 

17 them -- they don't give any information except 

18 the issue date. They don't give the return 

19 date or the read date. And so, you don't know 

20 if the person wore that an extra quarter or a 

21 year or three quarters or what, or if he was 

22 unbadged for several quarters.

23 And so, this leads us to question if 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
165

1 it is a compensated case, then there is no 

2 problem. You assign exactly what is in the 

3 daily records. If it is not compensated, then 

4 you have to say, well, were they actually badged 

5 during, say, the third quarter and it wasn't 

6 recorded or did they wear it through the second 

7 and third quarter and turned in the fourth 

8 quarter?

9 And so, sometimes NIOSH will go 

10 ahead and assign a gap dose or an unmonitored 

11 dose or a coworker dose. And in some cases, 

12 they won't address the issue.

13 And so, I guess this brings up in 

14 general -- this is kind of a generic 

15 problem -- if a worker's exchange frequency 

16 appears to be quarterly, but they don't show 

17 four quarters exchanged per year, how should 

18 this be judged?

19 And even though the TBD may say, oh, 

20 this is annual and this is quarter -- some of 

21 them tell you annual or quarter or weekly, if 

22 they give you all three possibilities maybe for 

23 a certain time period.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
166

1 So, you know, what should SC&A do 

2 about this when they run into quarters?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ron? Yes, 

4 Ron, let me ask you, reading the numbers, is it 

5 possible that in the middle of the year 1980 the 

6 person was transferred to another job task, 

7 such that the quarterly findings were ended, 

8 say, in June or July, in which case they would 

9 start on a yearly basis and do four, do one in 

10 the fourth quarter of that year and one in the 

11 fourth quarter of the next year?

12 MR. BUCHANAN: But that would 

13 not --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

15 know. I'm not sure, I mean, how they would 

16 handle job transfers. Could this reflect 

17 that?

18 MR. BUCHANAN: In certain cases 

19 this could. Generally, we look for this to see 

20 if they changed locations or job titles or 

21 something that would make a difference in their 

22 badging.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
167

1 MR. BUCHANAN: But, like in 1980, 

2 they said one, two, and four. Well, what 

3 happened to the third quarter? You know, did 

4 they miss it?

5 And then, we will look deeper into 

6 it and see if they, like you say, changed jobs 

7 or something.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: But in these, if I 

10 recall right now -- it has been quite a while 

11 since we have worked on these -- but, if I recall 

12 right, there was no evidence that the badging 

13 would really change during these periods.

14 And I think there is three of them 

15 in the set like this, and I have one I am working 

16 on now like this.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. BUCHANAN: And so, I guess what 

19 we need to know is what the general ruling of 

20 them is. Should this be a finding or not, if 

21 we can't find out any reason for it in missing 

22 a third quarter, say, or a second and fourth 

23 quarter? Should this be a finding or should we 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
168

1 accept that they just wore the badge six months 

2 instead of three?

3 Like I say, some of the sites are 

4 very specific. They give issue, return date, 

5 and read date. And even if they leave one of 

6 those out, you can pretty well infer from the 

7 rest of it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: But some of the 

10 sites, the only information you have is issue 

11 date. And so you don't know. They issue one 

12 dosimeter and they issue another one later on, 

13 but you don't know what took place in between 

14 as far as reading it and when it was turned in 

15 and stuff.

16 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda.

17 We have certainly discussed this 

18 issue many, many times in a variety of fora 

19 throughout the Advisory Board's activities. 

20 And it seems impossible, to me it has always 

21 seemed impossible, to anticipate doing 

22 anything other than on a sitewide and 

23 individual case basis. I don't think you can 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
169

1 make those assumptions.

2 For example, in a case like this 

3 one, we have no way of knowing whether this 

4 individual may have been involved, for example, 

5 in a motorcycle accident and been out for four 

6 months and may have had to have extensive 

7 surgery a quarter-and-a-half later and again 

8 been out for a few months.

9 Unless there is evidence of some 

10 problem with that dataset from that site, if you 

11 have a situation where you have no reporting for 

12 missing quarters for many of the people, then 

13 that's perhaps an entirely different thing.

14 But, if you have a full set of data 

15 for many employees for those periods at that 

16 site, then, from my perspective, it is 

17 impossible to make a judgment as to whether or 

18 not this individual was actually carrying a 

19 badge during that time or if they were even at 

20 work during that period of time. It seems to 

21 me there is no way to do it except on an 

22 individual case basis. I think it has to be a 

23 judgment.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
170

1 MR. FARVER: Well, for this case, 

2 it looks like the employee was monitored for 

3 internal exposures during the timeframes in 

4 question.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Then one would almost 

6 automatically make the assumption that he or 

7 she was, in fact, at work.

8 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

9 MEMBER MUNN: If they were having 

10 internal measurements, then --

11 MR. BUCHANAN: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: -- then that would 

13 appear to qualify as a necessary -- the real 

14 question is whether or not the data was there 

15 in the employee records and was somehow missed. 

16 If it is just simply not there, then there is 

17 not much the dose reconstructor can do about 

18 making up a number. That judgment has to be 

19 made that there is a finding here, it seems to 

20 me. The finding is this was the data was 

21 incomplete from the site records.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: Either that or he 

23 wore the badge -- he missed the badge exchange.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
171

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

4 Or, just as likely, they changed his 

5 frequency. We know that there were changes in 

6 frequency during that timeframe and they were 

7 changing some workers over to annual badges 

8 during that time, is what I have been told by 

9 the site expert, which is why it seemed to make 

10 sense to the dose reconstructor in this claim, 

11 that it seemed more likely to them that that 

12 person was switched over to an annual dose, an 

13 annual dosimeter, rather than make the 

14 assumption that we are missing records when we 

15 don't have an indication we are missing 

16 records.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Wouldn't there be 

18 some indication of that on the next cycle 

19 readings?

20 MR. SIEBERT: That's the problem. 

21 This guy, then, left after this final 

22 dosimeter. He left in 1982, if I remember, 

23 [identifying information redacted] of '82.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
172

1 So, I mean, we have pretty good 

2 confidence that we are getting records from 

3 Y-12 past 1961, if I have been informed 

4 correctly.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Well, heaven knows 

6 they had a good system.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, and we know 

8 they were changing their frequency at some 

9 point and perhaps were not documenting it as 

10 rigorously as we would hope, because they 

11 didn't know we would be coming along 20, 30, 40 

12 years later.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, historically, 

14 that's hard to second-guess, yes.

15 MR. SIEBERT: So, I guess what I am 

16 saying is the dose reconstructor looked at 

17 this, made a judgment call that it seemed to 

18 make sense, knowing that that was a reasonable 

19 assumption in his mind, an annual dosimeter, 

20 and that is what was assigned.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, right. 

22 And what did the person do for 1980?

23 MR. SIEBERT: I believe they were 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
173

1 maintenance. Let me verify that.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: This is Doug.

4 I'm okay with that. I would be more 

5 concerned, if the PoC was up around 48 percent, 

6 I would probably be more concerned. It is at 

7 31 percent. So, this judgment call -- and it 

8 is a judgment call -- really did not impact this 

9 case.

10 MEMBER MUNN: But I don't see how we 

11 can avoid the issue of having judgment calls in 

12 individual cases when you have situations like 

13 this.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: I think that is the 

16 way we have to leave it.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I don't see how you 

19 can possibly codify something like this.

20 MR. FARVER: And I think it is going 

21 to come up again, but we will do them 

22 one-by-one.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
174

1 So that suggests that we close it, say that a 

2 judgment call was made, was needed to be made, 

3 a judgment call was made properly. Properly is 

4 not the word. A judgment call was made, had to 

5 be made, and we'll close it. And no 

6 disagreement?

7 MEMBER MUNN: No, it was accepted.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, 

9 accepted is the right word, yes.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 357.2 

12 is closed.

13 357.3, excuse me.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, the next one, 

15 357.3.

16 MEMBER MUNN: We have to half.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: Have to half, which is 

19 a quarter.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MR. FARVER: Which is not a good 

22 thing.

23 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's not.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
175

1 MR. FARVER: But it is a DR error. 

2 You know, the dose reconstructor went in and 

3 changed something that really didn't need to be 

4 changed.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. FARVER: And it didn't get 

7 caught through the reviews or anything. So it 

8 is a QA problem.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. FARVER: Let's see, if it --

11 MR. SIEBERT: Can I jump in on that? 

12 This is Scott.

13 I wouldn't necessarily agree they 

14 changed something that shouldn't have been 

15 changed. This is, once again, remember, this 

16 is the complex-wide estimate tool.

17 The dose reconstructor has to enter 

18 that information because it is a complex-wide 

19 tool that is specific to the site. They made 

20 a mistake in this case; I agree wholeheartedly 

21 with that.

22 However, it is not like a correct 

23 answer was there the first time and they changed 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
176

1 it.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, I get you, 

3 Scott. So, instead of entering -- taking half 

4 of the LOD and entering it, they looked at the 

5 LOD over 2 number and entered half that value.

6 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And this had 

9 no substantial impact on the result? It's an 

10 error.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Did it? It 

13 had no impact on the result, yes?

14 MR. SIEBERT: That's correct.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, okay.

16 MR. SIEBERT: And I do want to point 

17 out that last paragraph. We did review all the 

18 other claims that were assessed by that DR and 

19 determined if they made a mistake in other 

20 places.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. SIEBERT: And that's the only 

23 place we found it.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
177

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good. 

2 I saw that, and that is good. 

3 Programmatically, that is, methodologically, 

4 that's fine.

5 MR. FARVER: Scott, is this the 

6 same workbook that we talked about earlier with 

7 the LOD-over-2s?

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, and 1.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

12 closed.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 389.

15 MR. FARVER: 358 was no findings.

16 389, NIOSH did not use the correct 

17 solubility types. There's guidance in 

18 OTIB-34, I believe, that you are supposed to 

19 look at the different types of solubility and, 

20 then, you take the one that is the highest. 

21 Okay?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

23 MR. FARVER: In NIOSH's response, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
178

1 basically, they evaluated this and for systemic 

2 organs, you know, they kind of know where it is 

3 going to be Type S and Type SS.

4 And if you go further on down, I 

5 believe they are going to in the next 

6 revision -- or has it been revised?

7 MR. SIEBERT: It was revised.

8 MR. FARVER: Revised after this 

9 case was done, and this is not going to be an 

10 issue in upcoming cases.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

12 MR. FARVER: Is that correct, 

13 Scott? This is the plutonium.

14 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. So the 

16 plutonium one is not going to be a problem 

17 anymore because they have changed or they have 

18 revised the OTIB.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: The SR-90 is the same 

21 issue that we dealt with before, that unless you 

22 are in a specific building, it is not going to 

23 be an issue. And this is what is in the DR 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
179

1 Guidance that will eventually make it to the 

2 TBD.

3 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. Those I 

5 understand.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So close.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Is the next 

11 one an observation?

12 MR. FARVER: Okay, wait until I 

13 finish my update.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

15 MR. FARVER: Oh, Observation 1. 

16 Based on the analysis of the files accompanying 

17 the DR report, it appears that NIOSH assigned 

18 one yearly and four termination x-ray exams for 

19 1968. Similarly, SC&A found excess exams were 

20 assigned for 1983. NIOSH agrees that the 

21 x-rays assigned were extremely 

22 claimant-favorable. However, because Y-12 

23 doesn't supply x-ray records for individual 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
180

1 claims, the applied exams for 1968 and 1980 were 

2 based on professional judgment, leaning toward 

3 claimant-favorable application.

4 Technical Basis Table 3-1, all 

5 employees at Y-12 received pre-employment, 

6 annual and termination exams. Therefore, 

7 although the application of five x-rays for '68 

8 and additional exams for '80 to '83 may have 

9 been excessive, it would have been acceptable 

10 in this non-compensable claim at the time.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, that's 

14 an interesting observation.

15 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this is Ron.

16 One issue that comes to mind is some 

17 of these were contract workers who just came in 

18 and worked a few months. So if we have got five 

19 hiring and termination periods in one year, how 

20 many termination and hiring x-rays --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ah.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: And that's a 

23 judgment call, and we have a hard time, you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
181

1 know, really judging how many should you be 

2 assigned. I don't know really what the policy 

3 was. If they had had one, you know, if they 

4 terminate and they're gone a month, you do 

5 termination and then re-hire a month later, it 

6 is kind of up in the air. You know, there is 

7 no exact answer to that --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: -- as to where did 

10 that come from.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, but our agreement 

13 to accept worst-case scenarios in every single 

14 situation seems to apply in this case.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MEMBER MUNN: The dose 

17 reconstructor did what they had been instructed 

18 by the Board to do.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

20 Okay, let's move on.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay, 390, where there 

22 were no findings.

23 391.1, there was an inconsistency 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
182

1 in the unmonitored dose. Let me see if I can 

2 give you a little background on this.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Please.

4 MR. FARVER: Because I could use 

5 it.

6 Ron, was this one of your cases 

7 also? Did you do almost all the Oak Ridge 

8 cases?

9 (No response.)

10 MEMBER MUNN: Is Ron still on?

11 MR. BUCHANAN: If I take it off 

12 mute, it helps to hear me.

13 (Laughter.)

14 Okay. There are three parts to 

15 this. 1987, a gap, assigned electron gap dose 

16 but no photon because of the way you calculate 

17 the non-penetrating, and they should have 

18 assigned it. And we agree that this was an 

19 entry error and a QA error. So, that was an 

20 error on the dose reconstructor part; we agree 

21 with that.

22 No. 2, the gap, okay, this again was 

23 kind of how you look at it, but there was nothing 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
183

1 in '73, and the person didn't start to work 

2 until '74. So we can agree with what NIOSH did. 

3 They used gap later on. Why didn't they use it 

4 in '74? Because the person didn't work in '73. 

5 So instead of using it in some of '74, they 

6 didn't really have a bracket for it. And so 

7 they used the coworker or environmental dose. 

8 And so we can see the reasoning there and agree 

9 with that.

10 No. 3, okay, there again, this is 

11 the same thing we were just discussing.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon me?

13 Could we scroll up, so we can read 

14 No. 3? Thanks.

15 MR. BUCHANAN: This, again, the 

16 problem is, if there are indications that the 

17 person was quarterly exchanged in '80 through 

18 '87, why are there some quarters missing? And 

19 in this case, this is very similar to the one 

20 we just discussed. It is that, if there are 

21 quarters two, three, and four for '76, why 

22 wasn't there some exchange during some of the 

23 other periods?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
184

1 And so, let's see, in the DOE 

2 records, the badge was issued on 7/2/86 and read 

3 9/18/86. Now this case, though, I don't see 

4 there was a judgment call because that means the 

5 person wasn't badged after 9/18/86 because it 

6 was read on that date.

7 Another badge was not issued until 

8 7/1 of '87. Therefore, there was a gap 

9 for -- what? -- about 10 months there where 

10 there was no dose assigned.

11 Now, if the person changed jobs or 

12 out of work or something, I would think there 

13 would be some indication for 10 months. And 

14 so, that is where we stand on that one.

15 I can understand some of the other 

16 explanations for some of the other years, but 

17 when they do show an issue and a return and a 

18 read date, or an issue and a read date, and then, 

19 there isn't another issue for nine months 

20 later, that appears to be a gap to me. And so, 

21 that is our concern with that one.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
185

1 I am going to have to go back to the 

2 site expert and DR and look further into the 

3 specifics on those years. So I will.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So we 

5 will hold that open.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Part 3. Now 1 

7 and 2 we agree with, but 3 still remains open.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: Go on to 391.2.

10 Ron, would you just continue on, 

11 since you have done so well?

12 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Get it off 

13 mute here.

14 Missed neutron dose; it was not 

15 considered. Okay. Some of the earlier sites, 

16 these gaseous diffusion sites and such, the 

17 uranium sites, they would monitor for neutrons, 

18 but they would be recorded as zero or blank.

19 And so, we found out later -- this 

20 was an earlier review -- that we agreed that, 

21 if some of these sites, even though they had a 

22 neutron listed, but there was no dose, well, 

23 then, you get assigned a neutron dose.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
186

1 It wasn't necessarily like the 

2 gamma, where if you had a gamma and it was at 

3 zero, you assigned a missed dose. And so, we 

4 agree that that is an acceptable explanation.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

6 that can be closed.

7 Anybody have any further comments?

8 MR. FARVER: No.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 391.3, 

10 if there is one.

11 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, there is one. 

12 It was the technician in '99, and the wrong 

13 bioassay number value was entered. And NIOSH 

14 has agreed this was done; this was an error. 

15 And we agree that the workbook data entry was 

16 incorrect, and the case has since been 

17 compensated because of additional cancers. 

18 That was just an entering error.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay. 

20 Then that should be closed.

21 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because we 

23 agree. Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
187

1 MEMBER MUNN: Agree.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's see, 

3 Observation.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay. Hold on a sec 

5 until I catch up.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure, sure. 

7 Again, sorry to rush you.

8 (Pause.)

9 MR. FARVER: Okay, Observation 1. 

10 The CATI indicates that smoke incidents took 

11 place in '80 and '81, in '80, '81, and 1982, 

12 while the employee was at K-25 as an operator.

13 The records show that the employee 

14 was monitored for external exposure during this 

15 time with all results equal to zero. However, 

16 the employee was not bioassayed until 1988. 

17 Therefore, these incidents could have been 

18 missed.

19 The smoke incidents were noted in 

20 the Incident Section of the Dose Reconstruction 

21 Report with mention that it is likely that he 

22 would have received bioassay results had these 

23 incidents likely involved significant 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
188

1 potential for internal exposure. No 

2 information was identified in the DOE records.

3 Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: And this is just one of 

6 these things we pointed out, little differences 

7 in the CATI report.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: But in this case it is 

10 an observation.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, okay.

12 392.1.

13

14 MR. FARVER: NIOSH did not assign a 

15 dose for the first part of 1949. NIOSH is in 

16 agreement that the employee was not monitored 

17 in the first part of 1949, and the DR should have 

18 dealt with this unmonitored period.

19 In determining on this claim, a 

20 coworker dose of 75 millirem was assigned for 

21 this time period along with additional zero 

22 from Finding 2. The overall PoC remained under 

23 50 percent.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
189

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

2 Quality control.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. SC&A agrees. 

4 We can close it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

6 closed.

7 MR. FARVER: No. 2 or Finding 2 --

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: NIOSH omitted one 

10 missed dose for 1949. This goes back to the 

11 previous finding.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Agrees that the 

14 additional zero from the 53rd week should have 

15 been added. That darned 53rd week popped up 

16 again.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There it is.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that 

20 sounds good. That should be closed then.

21 MR. FARVER: Okay. 392.3. NIOSH 

22 did not consider Type S strontium-90 and 

23 associated -- it should be "associated 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
190

1 nuclides," I believe.

2 This is one we have talked about 

3 twice before today.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: And it is in the DR 

6 Guidance and will, hopefully, make it into the 

7 TBD, too. We have already addressed it.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, 

9 closed.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

11 Since we are at the end of one 

12 claim -- is that correct?

13 MR. FARVER: Yes.

14 MR. SIEBERT: Could I beg the Chair 

15 for a comfort break?

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I was 

17 thinking about doing it soon, but this is a good 

18 time.

19 It's 2:50. Let's take a 15-minute 

20 comfort break and get back at five after 3:00 

21 Eastern Time.

22 MR. SIEBERT: Thank you.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Fifteen 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
191

1 minutes. Okay. Good, folks.

2 MR. KATZ: Thanks, Dave.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

5 went off the record at 2:51 p.m. and went back 

6 on the record at 3:07 p.m.)

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, so David is back, 

8 so we have a quorum. We can carry on.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let us go. 

10 We have 393.1, which appears to be -- I mean, 

11 I've been reading it since we broke up or while 

12 we were broken up. And clearly, there was a 

13 notation that was missed that there was no film 

14 in the person's badge for a certain quarter, and 

15 they did not notice. That has very little 

16 impact. So I think we can just close it.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, agreed.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 393.2.

19 (Pause.)

20 Okay, and that's another one that we 

21 can close. I do not consider it the most 

22 serious error, given that it was written in the 

23 margin of the card. Those kinds of things 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
192

1 would drive people crazy trying to do a lot of 

2 analyses and not noticing something over on the 

3 edge where it shouldn't be.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Too many numbers in 

5 too many places.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. But, 

7 anyway, this should be closed. I mean, SC&A 

8 found an error. They are correct, and NIOSH 

9 agreed. So I propose we close it.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Agree.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, .3.

12 (Pause.)

13 Again, another simple error and a 

14 quality assurance error, although this is the 

15 third one by that same person, right? Because 

16 there is one person who is taking care of that 

17 case.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So a lot of 

20 quality assurance errors for a single person, 

21 but there it is.

22 And that may be something 

23 interesting to look at when we are doing our 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
193

1 later report, if we find, you know, multiple 

2 quality assurance errors for a given case.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, the roll-up 

4 report, though, isn't going to be case-by-case.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, it 

6 isn't, but we can analyze to see whether there 

7 is a lumping of QA errors for an individual 

8 case. We can do that.

9 MR. KATZ: You can ask SC&A to 

10 analyze for that, right?

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

12 Yes. And it might be interesting. I mean, we 

13 have had in the past times when there were 

14 several errors in a case of quality assurance. 

15 In the past, folks said that the supervisors had 

16 spoken to the persons doing the analyses and 

17 tried to get that corrected.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. So, Doug, can 

19 you take a note on this point, so it doesn't get 

20 lost? Because I'm sure we have not analyzed 

21 for that in the past summary report.

22 (No response.)

23 Doug, are you on the line? Hello?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
194

1 MR. FARVER: Yes, I'm talking to my 

2 mute button.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

5 Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: I'm talking away and I 

7 am wondering why you were trying to interrupt 

8 me.

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry for 

10 interrupting.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

12 right.

13 MR. FARVER: We have not done this 

14 in the past, but I guess we are just going to 

15 have to be specific in what you are looking for. 

16 Like, for this case, it is four findings in the 

17 case and --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Multiple 

19 quality assurance errors for a given case.

20 MR. FARVER: Five findings, and 

21 four of them are QA.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 MR. KATZ: Well, Doug, right. So 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
195

1 just what we would be analyzing for is exactly, 

2 as Dave said, where we have multiple QA issues 

3 per case.

4 MR. FARVER: More than one.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 After you finish, we'll go to 4. We can start 

10 reading.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes, No. 4. NIOSH did 

12 not include an americium-241 dose or intake. 

13 The coworker intake for americium-241 was 

14 omitted from the CADW input.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: It appears the DR --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: -- person did not do 

19 that. However, a newer CAD database contains 

20 predefined selections for assigning internal 

21 coworker doses.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

23 That's good, that that error is not going to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
196

1 occur again. And that is always good. We have 

2 programmed the error out.

3 But certainly we are going to close 

4 this.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes.

6 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me.

7 Doug, or maybe Scott, when you make 

8 a change like this to a CADW program, do you go 

9 back and look at other cases that might be 

10 impacted, like a PER almost?

11 MR. SIEBERT: This is not a change 

12 in CADW that would increase the dose. It is 

13 just a convenience change, so that the dose 

14 reconstructors don't have to enter it by hand.

15 No, I don't believe that -- Grady 

16 can correct me if I'm wrong -- but I don't 

17 believe that raises -- we have no indication 

18 that systemically it was done incorrectly. We 

19 just have it in this case that it would be solved 

20 by that issue.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

22 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. SIEBERT: There is nothing in 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
197

1 place to do that, as far as I know.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, but 

3 that's okay.

4 MS. BEHLING: Okay. Alright. 

5 Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Good.

7 Okay, continue on.

8 MR. FARVER: Oh, we have 393.5. 

9 NIOSH did not consider Type S strontium-90. We 

10 have discussed this three or four times today, 

11 and it is in the DR Guidance document.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: We will do it the way 

14 they did it.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay, 

16 so that is closed. That is really a repeat.

17 MR. FARVER: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Observation 1 from 

20 393. NIOSH used a dose conversion factor of 1 

21 for both the prostate and the stomach for 

22 environmental exposures. It was 

23 claimant-favorable. And it resulted in 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
198

1 approximately a quarter of rem of extra dose to 

2 each organ. They are to be using the 

3 appropriate dose conversion factors --

4 MEMBER MUNN: 19001.

5 MR. FARVER: Yes, the 19001.

6 Additionally, one missed dose was 

7 assigned for 1949 in addition to a full year of 

8 environmental dose.

9 Basically, the response is they 

10 understand it is not acceptable for compensable 

11 claims, but for non-compensable it is an 

12 acceptable overestimating approach.

13 This is a case where I suspect that 

14 is why it was made an observation and not a 

15 finding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

17 right.

18 MR. FARVER: Because it was an 

19 overestimating approach, which is okay for 

20 non-compensable cases, again.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
199

1 Let's go on.

2 MR. FARVER: 394.1. Correct dose 

3 values used and no PFT exam for X-10.

4 And if Ron is on the line, I'm going 

5 to turn this over to him, hopefully.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I'm here.

7 Yes, this is similar to a while ago. 

8 Part A, I just came across this on a case very 

9 recently. It is that we have OTIB-0061, which 

10 is X-ray guidance, dose guidance, and we have 

11 OTIB-0006. And in the -006 version, it says 

12 assign a gender lung dose which is the most 

13 claimant-favorable. So, even if it is a male, 

14 you assign a female, because usually they have 

15 a longer lung dose. However, OTIB-0061 does 

16 not contain that same note. It says the 

17 gender-specific lung dose should be used.

18 And so, there is a conflict between 

19 -0006 and -0061. Depending on which one you 

20 use, which lung dose you would assign if it is 

21 a male.

22 And so, this is what this boils down 

23 to. It depends on which of those guidances you 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
200

1 use, which dose is assigned, a female or a male, 

2 for a male lung exposure.

3 And so, the bottom line is OTIB-0061 

4 needs to be updated to reflect the correct 

5 protocol.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. And 

7 if it is corrected here, did somebody check it, 

8 check what the impact of correcting that would 

9 be for this case? Or maybe you haven't gotten 

10 to it yet?

11 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, they did use 

12 OTIB-0006 which they assigned the most 

13 claimant-favorable.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha.

15 MR. BUCHANAN: However, that is in 

16 conflict with OTIB-0061.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. I 

18 see.

19 MR. BUCHANAN: That is what we are 

20 trying to point out.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
201

1 actually, this was done properly when it was 

2 done, in that we changed --

3 MR. BUCHANAN: Depending on 

4 which --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- we 

6 changed the protocol.

7 MR. BUCHANAN: Depending on which 

8 OTIB you used --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. BUCHANAN: -- if it was done 

11 right or not.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. The 

13 question is, in my mind, just for this part 

14 already, should this be an observation? There 

15 was not an error. There was no error made. 

16 The people did what they were directed to do.

17 MS. BEHLING: However, if there is 

18 conflicting guidance -- this is Kathy -- I think

19 I would have made that a finding in order to 

20 ensure that the two, OTIB-0006 and OTIB-0061, 

21 are consistent with each other.

22 MR. KATZ: Right, but that's --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is fair enough.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, I was going to say, 

3 but it is still not a finding against the case. 

4 It is just an observation for something that 

5 needs to be corrected in the procedures to make 

6 them consistent. I would still call this an 

7 observation because it is not a problem with the 

8 case.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Ron?

10 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, yes, I mean, a 

11 while ago when the TBD was wrong and the DR 

12 followed it, we called it a finding. So in this 

13 case he follows one OTIB and assigns according 

14 to it, but not another OTIB.

15 MR. KATZ: So it depends on which 

16 OTIB is correct. If he followed the OTIB that 

17 is considered correct, then it is not a finding; 

18 it is not a problem with the DR. Right? Then, 

19 it is just an issue that needs to be sorted out 

20 in terms of the procedures to make them 

21 consistent, but it is not a problem with the DR. 

22 If, on the other hand, the OTIB he followed is 

23 incorrect and shouldn't be used, then that is 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
203

1 a finding.

2 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

5 I guess this comes into the

6 question, how do you know which OTIB to use?

7 MR. KATZ: Well, that is what the 

8 Subcommittee is supposed to sort out, what's 

9 correct.

10 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I 

11 have a clarification question here.

12 Ron, when you are talking about the 

13 footnote in OTIB-0061, which is actually, that 

14 is, Procedure 61, not OTIB-0061 --

15 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, you're right.

16 MR. SIEBERT: -- the footnote to 

17 what table are you referring?

18 MR. BUCHANAN: I would have to go 

19 back and look it up.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Because if it is the 

21 footnote to the Table C values, those are 

22 referring to skin cancers who have no 

23 connection to this claim.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
204

1 MR. BUCHANAN: I didn't look up. 

2 What was the organ on this one?

3 MR. SIEBERT: It is lung.

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes but it says to 

5 use a female lung. It said to use a lung as a 

6 surrogate organ. And so, apparently -- I 

7 mean, I haven't run back and looked at this 

8 whole case -- but, apparently, you are supposed 

9 to use the lung either for the lung or the 

10 surrogate organ. And so, at the footnote, you 

11 are saying, if this only applies to skin, yes, 

12 that's --

13 MR. SIEBERT: Well, I think you are 

14 discussing two different things.

15 And I apologize. It would be 

16 really nice if Elyse was on here. I apologize, 

17 she had to jump off the call.

18 But in one case you are talking 

19 about using, well, you do use the more 

20 claimant[-favorable] female lung dose when we 

21 are using it as a surrogate organ for organs 

22 that do not have their own DCF.

23 The tables in Procedure 61 that I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
205

1 think you are referring to are the skin tables, 

2 and those are specifically such as it is talking 

3 about the skin in the chest area and some other 

4 things, where it actually is appropriate to use 

5 values for the gender-specific, if I remember 

6 correctly, because they are not being used as 

7 surrogate organs such as being for the 

8 gallbladder, which doesn't have a DCF assigned 

9 to it.

10 But, yes, I can have Elyse look into 

11 it a little bit more clearly to ensure that I 

12 am correct, but I believe that is the case.

13 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Yes, I can 

14 check that, too, and see if that is correct. 

15 Because I was looking at the case here, and it 

16 says the liver is the organ and they are using 

17 the lung as a surrogate.

18 MR. SIEBERT: Correct, which, as it 

19 says in OTIB-0006, you're correct, it says to 

20 use the female because that is more claimant 

21 favorable when we are dealing with a surrogate. 

22 You actually wouldn't be dealing with that 

23 table in OTIB -- now you've got me saying 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
206

1 it -- Procedure 61 for this liver because it is 

2 not a skin case. So I think we are talking 

3 about two separate things.

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. I can go back 

5 and review that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

7 we will hold that open until you get -- I don't 

8 know if that’s something you can check. I

9 don't know whether you can check it before the 

10 end of the day or just we'll look at it next 

11 time.

12 MR. BUCHANAN: It would probably be 

13 best to look at it next time.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Keep 

15 that open.

16 Now there is a PGF exam. We have 

17 talked about A. I'm not sure --

18 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, this was the 

19 same as one of the others. It is a fine line 

20 between prime contractor and subcontractor.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: And I think it is 

23 almost the same as for the assignment if there 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
207

1 is a prime contractor. If it is a 

2 subcontractor, then they don't. And so, that 

3 is the reason it wasn't assigned. And so, we 

4 can go with their explanation.

5 MS. BEHLING: Ron, that was 

6 recently changed. Right?

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

8 MS. BEHLING: OTIB -- is it 49?

9 MR. BUCHANAN: Seventy-nine.

10 MR. SIEBERT: That would be 52. 

11 MS. BEHLING: It is a construction 

12 trade worker --

13 MR. SIEBERT: That is OTIB-0052.

14 MS. BEHLING: Yes. Thank you.

15 MR. SIEBERT: What we are referring 

16 to here is the version that was in place when 

17 the claim was done.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. 

19 Alright. So, what is the -- when it is at the 

20 last item, PG -- I can't see it. That's not on 

21 my screen.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: PGF it should be. 

23 The "P" is missing there.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
208

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

2 MR. BUCHANAN: In our response on C 

3 there, the PGF exam --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

5 Okay.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: -- is not assigned 

7 to a subcontractor. So, we want to change that 

8 C in our response to PGF instead of just GF.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 MR. BUCHANAN: And we want to 

11 change the OTIB-0061, refer to that as 

12 Procedure, PROC.

13 Doug, do you want to make sure that 

14 is done?

15 MR. FARVER: Will do.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And is that 

17 an observation?

18 MR. BUCHANAN: No, that was Part C 

19 of Finding 1.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Which we 

21 closed.

22 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, no, we have to 

23 get back on this lung business and the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
209

1 difference between OTIB-0006 --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. BUCHANAN: -- and Procedure 61.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 Right, it's open.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's good.

8 MR. BUCHANAN: Part A we still need 

9 to address; B and C we can close.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's what 

11 I mean, yes. Okay. So, Part A, open.

12 MR. BUCHANAN: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Yes.

14 Alright.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Are we up to 

16 406?

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We are.

18 MR. FARVER: NIOSH used the 95th 

19 percentile instead of the 50th percentile 

20 coworker dose for 1974. NIOSH agrees the 95th 

21 percentile trade worker dose was applied for 

22 '74.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
210

1 MEMBER MUNN: I guess if SC&A 

2 agrees, we can close.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it 

4 is. Okay, let's close it.

5 And go on to 406.2.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. Medical X-ray 

7 dose values for the liver contained in the Y-12 

8 workbook are not consistent with the values 

9 listed in the TBD.

10 Okay. The application of doses was 

11 performed within the tool, but the medical 

12 X-ray doses for the years of interest were 

13 changed in the tool by the dose reconstructor.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. And it 

15 was cleaned up and found to be correct. And 

16 NIOSH reviewed all the other Y-12 claims. 

17 Good. So, this was just a single error, and it 

18 sounds pretty clearly like it should be a 

19 closure.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

22 Alright, the next one.

23 MR. FARVER: 406.3. No dose was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
211

1 assigned for 1985. And this is the onsite 

2 ambient dose.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

4 MR. FARVER: Using the wrong onsite 

5 ambient dose for 1985 results in an increase to 

6 the dose of 33 millirem. Dose reconstructor 

7 and peer reviewer overlooked this.

8 Pretty much the same issue as the 

9 previous two findings on this case.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

11 Yes. Again, we have multiple QA findings in 

12 the same case.

13 Let's go to 4.

14 MR. FARVER: 406.4. NIOSH used 

15 incorrect coworker intake values. The first 

16 issue is the coworker intake values; it appears 

17 that the reviewer only looked at the CADW input 

18 file for the years in question. But, on this 

19 matter, the way the CADW database works, the 

20 input screen can be misleading.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

22 MR. FARVER: Is this the 

23 environmental dose again? Do you know 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
212

1 offhand, Scott, if that is what this is?

2 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, it is the same 

3 issue as environmental dose because coworker 

4 dose changes on an annual basis, as does 

5 environmental. You see the same issue.

6 MR. FARVER: Okay. This is one we 

7 have addressed previously.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But how do 

10 we -- before we get this through, too, how do 

11 we -- is there some way to avoid this?

12 MR. FARVER: Well, it's not going 

13 to happen again.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Because?

15 MR. FARVER: Because now we know 

16 it.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Just to be clear, 

18 there is no error. It is just SC&A didn't 

19 realize what the tool was saying to them because 

20 it wasn't necessarily clear in the input 

21 screen.

22 MR. FARVER: Right, and we have 

23 this in several findings up until the point we 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
213

1 have resolved the findings, and now, we know not 

2 to make this a finding.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, yes.

4 MR. FARVER: It is just taking a 

5 while for this to all come around. So this is 

6 not going to be a finding anymore.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

8 Okay. Excellent. At least for Issue 1. 

9 Let's see what Issue 2 --

10 MR. FARVER: Issue 2. The 

11 recycled uranium ratio used. The DR applied 

12 the best estimate ratios as opposed to the 

13 maximizing ratios listed in the TBD. Although 

14 not listed in the table within the TBD, the best 

15 estimate ratios are given in paragraph 5.2.4.1 

16 of the TBD in effect at the time of the DR.

17 And then, it gives a little quote 

18 from the TBD.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: And so the data in 

21 process at the time was used.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

23 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
214

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm a little 

2 unclear when I look at the screen because you 

3 can't see both screens at once. If you will 

4 scroll up? I'm a little unclear. Issue 1 

5 doesn't appear to be the same as Issue 2.

6 MR. FARVER: Correct.

7 MEMBER MUNN: No.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, 406, 

9 now Issue 1 is now an observation, and I guess 

10 Issue 2 is as well, right? I'm just hesitant. 

11 Whenever I see two issues in the same finding, 

12 I think, wait a minute, are they the same thing 

13 or shouldn't they be two findings? But, in 

14 this case, there should be two observations, 

15 right? 406.4 should be an observation?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Essentially.

17 MR. FARVER: At the time, Issue 1 

18 was not an observation.

19 MEMBER MUNN: No.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

21 right, right. Okay, it wasn't.

22 Sorry to bother you with a mess, but 

23 if you would go back and change, .4 change to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
215

1 observation. And you can probably change it to 

2 two observations.

3 MEMBER MUNN: No.

4 MR. KATZ: I understand that the 

5 first one was not an observation --

6 MEMBER MUNN: No.

7 MR. KATZ: -- doesn't become an 

8 observation. SC&A didn't understand how to 

9 read, review the material on the screen there. 

10 So it is not an observation. It is just a 

11 mistake in finding.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and it was --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Hm.

14 MEMBER MUNN: It was --

15 MR. KATZ: If it had been correct, 

16 it would have been a finding. It is just they 

17 are not correct about it, but it is still the 

18 category is a finding, not an observation.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

20 Okay.

21 MR. FARVER: Now I could split 

22 Issue 2 out if you would like to make that an 

23 observation.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
216

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. I see. 

2 Okay. You're right about Issue 1. I see that 

3 now. Okay. So that is a finding. So 406.4 

4 should be closed.

5 MR. KATZ: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then, 

7 change Issue 2 to an observation.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Can we just do that 

9 inside this comment space on the matrix, rather 

10 than trying to figure out how to break it out 

11 appropriately into a separate --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're 

13 talking to the bother in trying to get that 

14 separated out? I don't mind it.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, you just make it 

16 Observation 1 on this case, whatever.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, Yes. 

18 Oh, right, right. Yes. Okay.

19 MR. FARVER: Well, okay, it will be 

20 Observation 1. And Observation 1 will 

21 probably go to Observation 2, but --

22 MR. KATZ: No, I mean, Doug, it 

23 doesn't matter what number it is. It could be 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
217

1 the last observation in addition, or whatever. 

2 I don't mean to cause more work.

3 MR. FARVER: Do you want me to go 

4 back and revise the whole report?

5 (Laughter.)

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No.

7 MR. KATZ: No.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 People are trying to be thoughtful about giving 

10 you more work than need be, and that is always 

11 good.

12 MEMBER MUNN: And that is why I was 

13 suggesting we just keep it inside this same --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

15 MEMBER MUNN: And just in our 

16 comment say --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MEMBER MUNN: -- Issue 2 was --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: -- closed and reduced 

21 to the level of an observation now.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

23 good.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
218

1 MEMBER MUNN: That seems simpler to 

2 me than making another observation out of it, 

3 but, then --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Sure.

5 MEMBER MUNN: -- whatever is easier 

6 for whoever is doing the work.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

8 Alright.

9 And when you finish putting that in, 

10 sorting it out, we will go on to the next one, 

11 .5.

12 (Pause.)

13 Scroll down just a little bit. I'm 

14 sorry, scroll up a little bit. Sorry. There 

15 we go.

16 MR. BUCHANAN: Alright, if you want 

17 me to take this one, I will.

18 MR. FARVER: Yes, please, Ron.

19 MR. BUCHANAN: 406.5. This is 

20 Y-12, and this issue really can't be resolved 

21 in our meeting here. The TBD for Y-12 has been 

22 changed, internal TBD-5, to change the 

23 thorium-228/thorium-232 ratio from 1-to-1 to 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
219

1 .8-to-1, but they actually didn't count the 

2 thorium. They counted the AC-228 again. 

3 Alright.

4 Now we can't really come to an 

5 agreement here because this is actually being 

6 presented worked under PER 31. Now the dose 

7 reconstructor did use the recommendation in the 

8 TBD wrong. It said .8-to-1, and they assigned 

9 like .2 and .8, or something other than that.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MR. BUCHANAN: So there was an 

12 error there.

13 And the reason that we can't agree 

14 on the thorium intake is that it depends on 

15 which way you are calculating, backwards or 

16 forward. And so, their note there, they 

17 couldn't produce my numbers.

18 I illustrated how I got that, but it 

19 is really immaterial because, No. 1, the DR did 

20 use the wrong ratio. No. 2, we can't say what 

21 the right ratio is because PER -- he used the 

22 wrong one that was in the TBD at that time. So 

23 that is what should have been used.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
220

1 No. 2, the correct one has not been 

2 determined yet because they are still working 

3 on this PER 31 and what to do with the thorium 

4 count data for the chest counter at Y-12.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

6 MR. BUCHANAN: And so, that is 

7 where that stands. So, really, this finding 

8 could be closed in that we are in agreement the 

9 DR used the wrong ratio, applied it incorrectly 

10 at that time that was stated in the TBD. And 

11 this case will be reworked when the PER is 

12 settled.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, okay.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I'm so glad you 

15 explained that. I was reading through the 

16 calculations. It leaves some of us completely 

17 confused about what happened. So, thanks.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

19 Thanks. So we should close that one.

20 MR. FARVER: Okay. Is this a dose 

21 reconstructor issue?

22 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, in that he did 

23 not apply the right ratio in the TBD in effect 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
221

1 at that time.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. KATZ: So it is a QA.

4 MR. BUCHANAN: Right.

5 MR. FARVER: Did not use the ratio 

6 that was in the TBD?

7 MR. BUCHANAN: Correct.

8 MR. FARVER: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

10 when the PER comes out, it will be --

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now moving to 

12 Observation 1 of 406 --

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

14 (Pause.)

15 MR. FARVER: It looks like it has to 

16 do with the CATI report and identification of 

17 incidents, and it would have been helpful if 

18 there was a bit better explanation in the Dose 

19 Reconstruction Report about the incident. So 

20 we just kind of pointed that out.

21 NIOSH points out there is some 

22 discussion in there, and under the internal 

23 dose section of the report dealing with what was 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
222

1 done in the assessment and why it was done in 

2 intake. So I am not sure there is an issue 

3 here.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. 

5 That's an appropriate observation.

6 MEMBER MUNN: A slight difference 

7 in opinion as to how much is enough.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Yes. 

9 That's fine.

10 Then, we should go on.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. Now I have 

13 added Observation 2, which is just what we 

14 talked about the recycled uranium ratios.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: But I am not going to 

17 make you go over that again because you are not 

18 making me revise the report.

19 So, we will just move on to 414.1.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

21 MR. FARVER: NIOSH included the 

22 1966 neutron-proton Y-12 dose twice.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
223

1 MEMBER MUNN: As though once

2 weren't enough.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MR. FARVER: Okay?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. It was 

6 an error.

7 MR. FARVER: It looks like it was an 

8 error.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: A pretty 

10 clear QA. Close.

11 MR. FARVER: Okay. Any 

12 discussion? I mean, it looks fairly 

13 straightforward.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think it 

16 is.

17 MEMBER MUNN: It is obvious how 

18 complicated it could be with both plants' 

19 reports to deal with.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: Well, it gets very 

22 complicated because, then, you have the three 

23 plants, and the workers are just bouncing back 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
224

1 and forth among the three.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: And then, you add in 

4 the records that were handwritten back in the 

5 fifties, and I pity Ron sometimes.

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. SIEBERT: I just want to 

8 clarify; that "NP" actually stands for 

9 non-penetrating.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay. Thank you.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Sure.

12 MEMBER MUNN: Perhaps we ought to 

13 spell that out at one point, just to make sure 

14 that it is clear to the casual reader. 

15 Probably in the original summary finding, don't 

16 you think?

17 MR. FARVER: I will put it in 

18 somewhere here.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, if we say, 

20 "NIOSH included the 1966 non-penetrating Y-12 

21 dose twice," that ought to be clarifying 

22 enough --

23 MR. FARVER: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
225

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

2 MEMBER MUNN: -- to future readers.

3 MR. FARVER: Okay, done.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Thanks.

5 MR. FARVER: 414.2. The fraction 

6 of the years that was applied appears to be 

7 incorrect. NIOSH agrees. Details on how the 

8 ambient external doses were derived can be 

9 found in the K-25 calculation workbook.

10 It looks like the prorating was just 

11 done incorrectly.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay. 

15 Closed. So that is another closed.

16 MR. FARVER: Yes. QA concern. 

17 Closed. No further action.

18 Okay, and then, we are into Case 

19 415.1. Unmonitored quarters were not 

20 addressed. This will be the external dose. 

21 Well, NIOSH agrees with a portion of the 

22 finding.

23 The dosimetry records for the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
226

1 employee were evaluated in 1995. The employee 

2 had zero results, had results of zero for the 

3 second and third quarters for photon shallow. 

4 The first and fourth quarters reveal the 

5 employee did not wear her badge and no results 

6 were applied or provided.

7 Then the employee transferred to 

8 K-25 in [identifying information redacted] of 

9 '95. One record was provided from January of 

10 '95 to December '95, with the results being 

11 zero.

12 Overall, her unmonitored period at 

13 Y-12 would have been for that first quarter in 

14 '95 and [identifying information redacted] of 

15 '95. And then, she was monitored at K-25 from 

16 [identifying information redacted] through 

17 December of '95, even though the record states 

18 the timeframe for the entire year.

19 Okay. And NIOSH agrees that these 

20 two gaps should have been addressed in the 

21 assessment.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

23 MEMBER MUNN: This is another one 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
227

1 of those situations where it is fairly obvious 

2 that, to start making the case, you can't prove 

3 she wasn't there in this case is not 

4 well-substantiated. It appears that what has 

5 been done is what has been done. And SC&A 

6 agrees it was a DR error, and we should accept 

7 that and close the finding.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Okay.

9 Others?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad.

11 That's fine.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Closed.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright.

15 MR. FARVER: 415.2. 

16 Underestimated X-ray dose to the left shoulder. 

17 NIOSH agrees that the -- I'm not sure -- what 

18 AF values used for the left shoulder were used 

19 in error in the DR. Is that AP values?

20 MR. BUCHANAN: No, that is the 

21 attenuation factor.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.

23 MR. BUCHANAN: When you do the 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
228

1 X-ray skin dose, you use the interim skin dose, 

2 and then you have modifying factors, depending 

3 on where the actual skin was located. And so, 

4 it is off-beam. And so, you have to do an 

5 attenuation factor on other parts of the body. 

6 And they used the incorrect one for that 

7 location.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 MR. BUCHANAN: You have to do an 

10 interpolation of the charts to calculate it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It is 

12 clearly QA. And there is agreement. Let's 

13 close it.

14 MR. FARVER: And I added 

15 "attenuation factor," so that I know what that 

16 is next time I see it.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. So will 

18 we all.

19 MR. SIEBERT: And I do want to 

20 clarify. I don't want to skip over that second 

21 paragraph. That is something the dose 

22 reconstructors used to have to do by hand for 

23 skin cancers. And now, the external tools have 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
229

1 been updated to --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

3 MR. SIEBERT: -- do those 

4 calculations automatically.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

6 MR. SIEBERT: So we don't have 

7 those type of errors.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good, good.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

11 Then you have an observation, when you're 

12 ready.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay. Okay. 

14 Observation 1. SC&A's derived missed proton 

15 dose is a matched dose listed in the NIOSH 

16 worksheets, but SC&A found that the dose values 

17 entered in the IREP input for Tables 88, 90, and 

18 91 were increased by a factor of 1.2. And SC&A 

19 could not determine why this occurred, but it 

20 was claimant-favorable.

21 NIOSH: The values in the external 

22 calculation workbook were exact, but they were 

23 displayed in IREP format. The DR typed these 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
230

1 rounded values in the IREP sheet, resulting in 

2 a slightly higher assigned dose.

3 For example, the 1988 skin dose 

4 calculates to a small number, and this was 

5 displayed as .003, and that value was entered 

6 into the IREP sheet.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

8 good.

9 MR. FARVER: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good 

11 observation. Note that it has been discussed.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Rounding 

14 issue. That's fine.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

16 MR. FARVER: I'm just thinking, is 

17 there any time this could be a concern?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rounding?

19 MR. FARVER: Would this make a 

20 difference in some case?

21 MEMBER MUNN: It would sure have to 

22 be odd for it to do so.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It certainly 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
231

1 would be.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. For 25 -- ah, 

3 no, not likely.

4 MR. KATZ: Before we move on to 

5 another case, can I just raise a question in 

6 part for Doug, but also for the Subcommittee, 

7 as to whether you want this? I am just 

8 wondering if there is an easy way to search the 

9 cases when you get ready to do statistics for 

10 those for which there were QA findings and for 

11 which we have heard from NIOSH that they have 

12 instituted a systematic correction, meaning a 

13 workbook correction, or whatever, an automatic 

14 correction, I should say. So that those 

15 QA-type problems, we don't have to worry about 

16 them reoccurring.

17 I think it would be great if the 

18 report could have numbers on that, the number 

19 of sort of the proportion, or whatever, of cases 

20 of QA issues for which there has been instituted 

21 an automatic correction. But I don't know how 

22 easy it is to get at that, since, I mean, that 

23 would only be reflected in these resolution 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
232

1 matrixes.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it sounds 

3 enormously cumbersome.

4 MR. KATZ: But if it is easy to 

5 search the matrixes that way in some sort of 

6 universal search way, but that's what I am 

7 asking, I guess.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

9 think that would be easy.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, Doug would know 

11 about searching the matrixes I think better 

12 than we would.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, he 

14 would.

15 MR. FARVER: Search for "QA" and 

16 bring up all the QA findings.

17 MR. KATZ: And then, could you

18 also, similarly, search for -- I don't know if 

19 you have -- I mean, I know you have recorded 

20 somehow wherever Scott or Grady has told us that 

21 there has been a workbook correction.

22 MR. FARVER: Well, and it will 

23 either be in the finding, in the NIOSH response, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
233

1 or in the SC&A response, or in the final action.

2 MR. KATZ: So is that searchable?

3 MR. FARVER: Yes, it probably could 

4 be. I mean, we can search for "workbook" or 

5 "tool".

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, I guess I 

7 am just asking, then, for the Subcommittee. I 

8 mean, would you like to know that? I mean, I 

9 think it would be an important fact if it is easy 

10 to get at.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But I just 

12 feel like it is a small, a really small change, 

13 and it is always around --

14 MR. KATZ: No, what I am saying is, 

15 I think it would be nice to be able to say at 

16 the end of the day, you know, the Subcommittee, 

17 whatever percentage of cases with QA problems, 

18 you know, some percentage of those, we don't 

19 have to worry about them anymore because there 

20 is an automated correction now for that kind of 

21 QA problem.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, if we had had 

23 some programmatic language that we had used 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 routinely from the outset, that would be a 

2 really keen thing to do.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I can't imagine, 

5 though, that one could do it any way other than 

6 literally reading each one of the statements, 

7 of the response statements that were made, just 

8 because our language has not been that precise, 

9 I don't believe.

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, that might 

11 be, I guess. If you think you would like to be 

12 able to speak to that, then at least --

13 MEMBER MUNN: No.

14 MR. KATZ: -- Doug can consider 

15 that.

16 MEMBER MUNN: I don't --

17 MR. CALHOUN: I think we would like 

18 that.

19 MR. KATZ: That is sort of an 

20 important --

21 MR. CALHOUN: I mean, think about 

22 it. A majority of these changes --

23 MR. KATZ: -- sort of an important 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
235

1 impact, I should say.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes.

3 MR. CALHOUN: But these changes 

4 were not made as a result of SC&A's finding 

5 these.

6 MR. KATZ: No, I know. It doesn't 

7 really matter whether they resulted from SC&A 

8 finding them. What does matter, though, is 

9 that you can expect that they won't reoccur.

10 MR. CALHOUN: Well, it kind of 

11 does, in my mind, and I know, whether you 

12 mention it or not, it is because we have had a 

13 proactive approach to trying to minimize errors 

14 through automation.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 MR. CALHOUN: In a lot of these 

17 cases we find, you know, yes, back in 2008, when 

18 this dose reconstruction was completed, there 

19 were these errors, but six years into it we have 

20 made all these automation advances to help us.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes.

22 MR. CALHOUN: So it seems important 

23 to me because it makes us -- you know, it 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
236

1 actually portrays our program --

2 MR. KATZ: Look good. Yes.

3 MR. CALHOUN: -- more accurately, 

4 but --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You know 

6 what? Maybe what you could do, rather than 

7 trying to count how many cases, is to sit down 

8 and write, because we have been through many 

9 different changes where the errors will not be 

10 made because they were automated out. You 

11 know, the tools have changed, so that they are 

12 not dependent on the dose reconstructor.

13 If you could just list some of the 

14 types of cases, because you probably know those 

15 quite readily, things that we have been over 

16 that no longer can happen, that would be nice. 

17 Is that something you think you can just sit 

18 down and do?

19 MR. FARVER: That would be harder.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would 

21 be harder?

22 MR. KATZ: I think what I am saying 

23 would be easier, if Doug can -- I think Doug can 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
237

1 look into it.

2 And, Doug, if it looks like it is 

3 going to be too laborious, then don't bother.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it looks like a 

5 simple tradeoff. Do you have the time to do it? 

6 And is it worth the time that is going to be 

7 expended -- nobody except you folks can make the 

8 judgment on how onerous that task might be.

9 MR. FARVER: Right.

10 MEMBER MUNN: So if you can make the 

11 time to do it, it would be first-rate 

12 information.

13 MR. FARVER: Well, you are going to 

14 want us to sort out the QA issues and tell you 

15 how many there were?

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

18 MR. KATZ: That is going to be done 

19 anyway.

20 MEMBER MUNN: That we're going to 

21 do anyway, yes.

22 MR. FARVER: So all we are going to 

23 do is take that set and look at a subset of that 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
238

1 that contains "workbook" or "tool" as a word.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

3 right.

4 MR. KATZ: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great. 

6 Correct.

7 MR. FARVER: Put up those findings 

8 and review them specifically to see if it says 

9 the tool has been changed; this won't happen 

10 again.

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. I am getting 

13 the feeling it is not going to be that many.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, but it would be 

15 nice to know, Doug. So go ahead on that course. 

16 And if it proves workable, if you would give us 

17 that statistic, that would be great, too.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. I will caution 

19 you that you might come up with, you know, you 

20 have got 100 QA findings, and five of them are 

21 not going to happen again because the tool has 

22 been corrected.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, that's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
239

1 fine. That's fine. That is five classes of 

2 cases --

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- that will 

5 not come up again.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 MR. FARVER: But you still have 95 

8 others that --

9 MR. KATZ: That's fine. That's 

10 fine, Doug. Whatever the facts are, they are.

11 MR. FARVER: I just wanted to point 

12 that out.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, that's 

14 okay.

15 MR. FARVER: When we do the 

16 sorting, okay.

17 MEMBER MUNN: You might want to 

18 incorporate the word "change" in your search 

19 pattern because not always issuance of a 

20 workbook or a tool might be the reason that 

21 won't happen again.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

23 MR. FARVER: Okay. That's another 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
240

1 word. Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

4 MR. CALHOUN: Or even "screen".

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. KATZ: Anything is fallible, 

8 but thank you.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. FARVER: Okay, I made that 

11 note.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

13 424.1.

14 MR. FARVER: Okay, 424.1. NIOSH 

15 did not assign doses for the unmonitored 

16 quarters in 1980 and '81.

17 Ron, was this one of yours? This 

18 reads like you. Okay.

19 MR. BUCHANAN: I was on mute.

20 To answer that last case we were 

21 looking at, okay -- which number was it?

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: 424.1.

23 MR. BUCHANAN: Great. That, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
241

1 again, comes to be the same thing that we talked 

2 about in the past. It is that, if it is on an 

3 annual basis, which was the response, there 

4 were quarters missing in '80 and '81.

5 Can you scroll down a little bit, so 

6 we can see the whole thing? There, okay.

7 '80 and '81, why was there quarter 

8 one/two for '80 and quarter two and four for 

9 '81? And so, you know, if they switched to an 

10 annual basis, why was it there were quarters, 

11 different quarters sometimes in the two years?

12 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott.

13 I can answer that one. It would 

14 make sense if they changed into an annual badge 

15 after the second quarter in 1980, because, 

16 then, there is a year before his next badge 

17 becomes available in the second quarter of 

18 1981. And he terminated in [identifying 

19 information redacted] of 1981. So, his next 

20 annual badge for the past six months were on it.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That clears 

22 it.

23 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, I guess that's 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
242

1 okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

3 MR. BUCHANAN: If he didn't assume 

4 that, well, then, that would explain it.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, 

6 right. But is that an assumption or is that 

7 factual? I thought it was factual.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Well, once again, the 

9 type of dosimeter is in the record, and it goes 

10 back to the TBD. This one we do have more 

11 information on the TLD than the previous one, 

12 apparently. So, this seems pretty clear-cut 

13 as far as I understand it.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, the explanation 

15 seems acceptable.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

17 MR. FARVER: So this dosimeter is 

18 different than the other ones for 1980 and '81 

19 that we talked about before? Is that true?

20 MR. BUCHANAN: I think it is a 

21 different site. The other one was Y-12.

22 MR. FARVER: Okay.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
243

1 Closed.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Folks, it is 

4 about four o'clock here. We have another hour. 

5 Let's go for half an hour more, and then talk 

6 about our next meeting and any other 

7 administrative matters.

8 MEMBER CLAWSON: Dave, this is 

9 Brad.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: I have to be to 

12 some interviews in 20 minutes.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: I am afraid, 

15 though, that if I leave, it is going to break 

16 the quorum.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I believe 

18 it -- no, Mark --

19 MR. KATZ: Who do we have on now?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: David 

21 Richardson, Mark, myself, and Wanda.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Is Mark on?

23 Mark, are you there?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
244

1 (No response.)

2 I didn't know he was on.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: He was on 

4 earlier today.

5 MR. KATZ: Right, but I am not sure 

6 he is still on.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, we are 

8 calling him, and if he isn't on, he isn't on.

9 Mark?

10 (No response.)

11 MEMBER MUNN: I haven't heard him 

12 this afternoon.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, you're 

14 right, I haven't heard him since the break.

15 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: He was there 

17 after lunch, after our lunch break.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, Brad, 

20 thank you for telling us that. Then, we have 

21 15 or 20 minutes, and --

22 MR. KATZ: Well, Brad, when do you 

23 need to leave? Because he has got to be there 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
245

1 in 20 minutes --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Twenty 

3 minutes.

4 MR. KATZ: -- I thought he said.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, that's part 

6 of my problem. The interviews start here at 

7 1:30.

8 MR. KATZ: So, what time do you --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: When do you 

10 need to leave? How many minutes --

11 MEMBER CLAWSON: Ten minutes is the 

12 bare minimum that I can --

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, no, we 

14 don't want you to have to fly in your car, 

15 either.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we have 15 

17 minutes now to plan for our next meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: No, he has to leave in 10 

19 minutes.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Right.

21 MR. KATZ: We have five minutes. 

22 Let's just plan --

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
246

1 MR. KATZ: I think we should just go 

2 ahead and plan for our next meeting and wrap up.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

4 MR. FARVER: Can I interrupt for 

5 just a minute?

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

7 MR. FARVER: If we just look at 

8 424.2, this is the type of strontium-90 that we 

9 have talked about five times today. And it is 

10 in the DR Guidance and in --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right. We 

12 can close it.

13 MR. FARVER: Yes, let's just close 

14 out this case.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, that's 

16 very good.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Strontium-90 it is.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

19 Now let's talk about when we might 

20 have our next meeting. A little bit that 

21 depends on getting -- well, it might be helpful 

22 to know when some of the issues that were left 

23 open from 10 through 13 can get resolved, which 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
247

1 we don't know yet, right?

2 MR. KATZ: Right. So I am going to 

3 work on getting both the Uranium Refining AWE 

4 Work Group and the PPG Work Group scheduled. I 

5 am sure they can't get scheduled before 

6 January. So it will be sometime in January. 

7 So I think we have to get those scheduled 

8 first --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MR. KATZ: -- before we schedule 

11 this, because we are going to need --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then, we 

13 will need 30 days. Well, once you have them 

14 scheduled --

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: -- we will 

17 know when they will be resolved. And if they 

18 are not resolved at that meeting, if they need 

19 more than one meeting, then --

20 MR. KATZ: We can still continue on 

21 with Set 14.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Exactly.

23 MR. KATZ: So, actually, I think I 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
248

1 am going to try to get those scheduled for 

2 January. But why don't we just look at our 

3 calendars for --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For 

5 February?

6 MR. KATZ: We might as well just go 

7 ahead and schedule for February.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

9 you're right.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No matter 

12 what, we have --

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, because we will 

14 still have all --

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We have 14 to 

16 go.

17 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: Fifteen, 16, 17.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. So, 

22 February, I am just looking at -- yes, February 

23 right now is wide open as far as I'm concerned. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
249

1 So it is really --

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 

3 Presidents' Day is on the 16th.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So maybe the 

6 week following, later that week or, maybe 

7 better yet, the following -- not Monday. I 

8 prefer not Monday because, if things need to be 

9 checked, it is nice to have a workday before.

10 So how about Tuesday, the 24th; 

11 Wednesday, the 25th; Thursday, the --

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, go ahead. Someone 

13 was trying to say something.

14 We should have multiple days 

15 because we are lacking Mark and we are lacking 

16 John Poston to be able to schedule. So let's 

17 get some at least multiple options, and then, 

18 I will check with them.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Well, this is Wanda.

21 Unless I am mistaken, I believe we 

22 have Procedures scheduled on the 18th.

23 MR. KATZ: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
250

1 MEMBER MUNN: That is correct. 

2 Then that means either the week before or the 

3 week after that would be preferable from my 

4 point of view.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, the week before is 

6 going to be too soon.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MEMBER MUNN: You think the 23rd 

9 then?

10 MR. KATZ: We're not doing Mondays, 

11 I think is what Dave was saying.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, I 

13 would prefer not, but if we need to. How about 

14 would you be able to meet, Wanda, on the -- just 

15 to get some backup dates -- on the Thursday, the 

16 19th, or Friday, the 20th?

17 MEMBER MUNN: We could.

18 MR. KATZ: Friday is no good.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Not great, 

20 but yes.

21 MR. KATZ: Friday we can't do, but 

22 we could do Thursday, the 19th.

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
251

1 Thursday, the 19th, is possible, but not 

2 preferable. That's clear, because it is a 

3 little bit --

4 MR. KATZ: That's fine. I just 

5 want multiple days to send out to the others. 

6 So the 19th will be one.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MR. KATZ: And how about the 23rd 

9 through the 25th?

10 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes?

12 MR. CALHOUN: I will have to check, 

13 but we have a preliminarily-scheduled meeting 

14 out in Carlsbad for Joint Outreach Task Group 

15 meeting on the 25th.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. How about --

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 23rd, 

18 24th then?

19 MR. KATZ: Are you traveling on the 

20 24th?

21 MR. CALHOUN: No. What I am saying 

22 is that it is in Carlsbad. So we would 

23 certainly be traveling the 24th through --

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
252

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. CALHOUN: -- the 26th.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. No, I 

4 understand.

5 So, then, the 23rd would still be 

6 okay?

7 MR. CALHOUN: That's what I think, 

8 yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay, what about 

10 the 27th?

11 MR. CALHOUN: I think that would be 

12 okay.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We're 

15 talking about Friday, the 27th?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 That's alright.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Now just give me 

20 a couple more dates. March 2nd and 3rd, 4th?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, okay here.

22 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wait a 

23 minute. Wait a minute. I'm tied up all day 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
253

1 that Monday, that March 2nd.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: How about --

4 MR. KATZ: The 3rd and the 4th?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The 4th? 

6 How about the 4th?

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, the 4th. And how 

8 about the 5th?

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, this 

10 is good. Yes, 4th, 5th, 6th, they are all okay.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. The 5th is no 

12 good, but 4th -- okay, so I have a few days 

13 still.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

15 MR. KATZ: That means I have the 

16 19th, the 23rd, the 27th, the 4th, and the 5th.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: I will send those out to 

19 the other members, and then, I will get back to 

20 everyone, once we have got it.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay?

23 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, folks, 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
254

1 I think that is --

2 MR. KATZ: Right now, I have Wanda 

3 is good. Dave is good.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

5 MR. KATZ: How about David 

6 Richardson?

7 MEMBER RICHARDSON: I think those 

8 sound fine.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. DR is good.

10 MEMBER MUNN: What about Brad?

11 MR. KATZ: Brad?

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, you pick a 

13 date and I'll work my schedule around to come.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wonderful.

15 MR. KATZ: You're the best sport. 

16 Okay.

17 That's good. That's good.

18 So I will send this out to the other 

19 two.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

21 And I think we finished our work for 

22 the day. We got a lot done.

23 MR. KATZ: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
255

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I feel 

2 very good about that.

3 So thank you all.

4 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we 

6 will be in touch, folks.

7 MEMBER MUNN: And have a great 

8 Christmas, guys.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, happy 

10 holidays.

11 Okay, bye, everybody.

12 (Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the 

13 meeting was adjourned.)

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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