This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Thursday, February 25, 2021 

The meeting convened at 10:30 a.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, via teleconference, David Kotelchuck, 

Chair, presiding. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

David B. Richardson, Member 

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Dave Allen, DCAS

Bob Barton, SC&A

Nicole Briggs, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Duane DeMore, SC&A

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Beth Rolfes, DCAS

Lavon Rutherford, DCAS

Scott Siebert, ORAU Team

Mutty Sharfi, ORAU Team

Matthew Smith, ORAU Team

Tim Taulbee, DCAS

Diane Whitten
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Subcommittee for 

Dose Reconstruction Reviews Thursday, February 

25, 2021 1

Welcome/Call to Order 4

B44 from LANL Review 5

B43 from Hanford Review 55

B42 from Rocky Flats Review 75

Adjourn 138
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

4

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.)

Welcome/Call to Order

Dr. Roberts: Good morning everybody. I'm Rashaun 

Roberts, the designated federal official for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

This, of course, is the meeting of the Board 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review. There 

is an agenda for today. As per usual you can find it 

on the NIOSH DCAS website under scheduled 

meetings for today's date.

Let's go ahead and move into roll call. Now, since the 

Subcommittee will be discussing does reconstruction 

cases that pertain to specific sites today, 

Subcommittee members and others do need to 

acknowledge conflicts of interest and to recuse 

themselves from the discussion where their conflict 

of interest applies.

So as we move through the roll call, please state 

where you have a conflict of interest. And I am going 

to start with the Chair of this Subcommittee, Dave 

Kotelchuck.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Hearing none. Thank you everyone and 

welcome again. Just a quick reminder; to keep 

everything running smoothly for this meeting and 

again, so that everyone speaking can be clearly 

understood, please make sure that you are on mute 

at all times unless you need to speak.

And I'm actually hearing someone right now. So 

please check your phone. If you don't have a mute 

button press *6 to mute. If you need to take yourself 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

5

off press it again.

And two, if Nancy or Zaida is on, if at any point you 

hear any background noise, if you could try to mute 

phones that would be very helpful to this process.

As I mentioned the agenda for the meeting can be 

found on the NIOSH website. Access to other 

materials was provided to the Board members or 

Subcommittee members prior to this meeting.

So with that let's go ahead and get started. And I will 

turn the meeting over to our Chair, Dave Kotelchuck.

B44 from LANL Review

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. Welcome folks. And we 

have our basic, our most important discussion or the 

center of our discussion today will be the review of 

three blinds.

As I mentioned yesterday in our conference call, I 

would like to go in the order of the B44 from LANL, 

and then 43 from Hanford, and then 42 from Rocky 

Flats.

So quite a few of you are or a few of you are 

conflicted with B44, the LANL because the person 

visited a number and worked at a number of different 

sites, which are established on the record.

So let's see, if I am correct there are three of us, 

there are three of us who are conflicted on B44.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello? Jim Lockey.

Dr. Roberts: Hello. Please make --

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello? Can people hear me?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

6

Member Clawson: Hello?

Member Beach: Yes, we can hear you.

Member Clawson: We can hear you. Yes, I --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay good. The people who are 

conflicted on B44 are Jim Lockey, Josie Beach, and 

Loretta Valerio.

Three of us are not conflicted --

Member Beach: So --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- on that.

Member Beach: So Dave, wait --

Member Clawson: I see that.

Member Beach: -- I've got a question on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: So I have a Hanford, I'm conflicted 

at Hanford, but there's a small percentage of this B44 

that's Hanford, so does that preclude any discussion?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I thought about that too 

because the person visited and was documented at 

several sites. And some of them --

Member Beach: For one day.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- are for a day or two --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: Yeah, for one --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- some are a week. I think that to 

be appropriately, legally conservative that if there 

are, if we are considering any, if we are considering 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

7

people to be recused, it would better to have them, 

to have everyone who has any involvement with any 

of the sites that that person worked at to be recused.

Now, it seemed to me that if there were too many of 

us, if you will, that were conflicted, we could ask for 

a legal opinion and perhaps get permission for people 

to participate even if they were involved with 

something that involved a very small amount of the 

person's work.

However, just to be conservative appropriately, I 

think that I would prefer that we simply say everyone 

--

Sorry, are you getting an echo folks?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, we are.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Now, I did not see on, let's 

see --

Dr. Roberts: Yes. Jim, did you just call in?

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I did not call in.

Member Beach: Loretta. Loretta, Skype that you're 

on --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Valerio: Yes, I'm seeing if I can get out of it.

Chair Kotelchuck: How could I --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- Skype audio, I'm on the phone 

right now.

Member Valerio: Is that better?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. Certainly is.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

8

Member Beach: That was it.

Chair Kotelchuck: How's that for everybody else?

Okay. Anyway. The bottom-line Josie, is that it would 

be absolutely fine if people who were involved in any 

one of the seven sites or eight sites total were to be 

recused.

We could get, we could get, possibly get permission 

for legally allowing people to come in who were 

involved in very small --

Member Beach: Dave, Dave, I'm fine with that. It's -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: -- not a problem. I was just curious 

because it was such a small percentage, but that's 

fine as long as you have --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes.

Member Beach: -- folks on the phone.

Ms. Naylor: Hi. This is Jenny, this is Jenny with OGC.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, Jenny.

Ms. Naylor: I'm sorry, please let me clarify that. You 

know, waiver of conflict of interest is not what that 

was. It's not a yes or no question that could be given 

promptly in a telephone call.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Naylor: That leads to that, you know, waiver. 

Whether someone's qualified for a waiver so that can 

participate in the conversations that involve the 

subject matters that implicate their financial interest.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

9

It's a very in-depth analysis. So if so many people 

are conflicted for discussion of certain blind cases, 

then we would not be able to proceed with that 

portion from the event and a separate waiver we'll 

have to get, or exception would have to be obtained.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Naylor: In this case, my understanding of the 

Committee's evaluation of these blind cases is 

primarily to see if the dose reconstructors, you know, 

faithfully follow the procedures that have already 

been reviewed and that the data from these facilities 

have also been reviewed.

And so I am not entirely -- if you're performing a 

QN/QC process, not directly reviewing the data that's 

being used, such as the quality and the sufficiency of 

the data, or you're not reviewing the validity of a 

certain dose reconstruction model.

I was not really understanding what is the conflict of 

interest here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, there's a blind and we're 

reviewing each of the dose reconstructions and 

comparing them.

And if we just simply exclude everyone who is 

involved in any one of the sites that this blind review 

isn't, any one of the sites that they're involved in then 

we are absolutely in compliance with what we should 

be doing.

And I have recognized if we wanted to ask for a 

waiver, if we needed to ask for a waiver, that would 

involve a long, something we could not review it right 

now.

And so my feeling was we could review it now. We 

have three people who are not conflicted of the six 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

10

who are on the call and that's sufficient.

Mr. Siebert: Well, if this --

Chair Kotelchuck: And we'll just go ahead with it.

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry, this is Scott Seibert with the 

ORAU team. I want to jump in because --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Sure.

Mr. Siebert: -- this is new. We have never done this 

this way in the past, which is okay, but I do have to 

point out I have a Mound conflict, which makes this 

blind audit, I cannot, I am part of the presenting 

what's going on and the claim has very little Mound 

employment and nothing in the -- the comparison 

has to do with Mound, so, I just want to throw that 

out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That's fair enough. I'm glad 

you did and my -- I actually --

Ms. Naylor: Dave --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes? Rashaun, did you?

Ms. Naylor: No, this is Jenny Naylor --

Chair Kotelchuck: Jenny, okay.

Ms. Naylor: -- with OGC. Dave, what I'm trying to 

convey is that your constructions of how the conflicts 

is applied is much broader than what OGC has 

previously advised individual Board members.

So I am not entirely sure that your broad stroke of 

preventing every individual Board member from 

participating in these blind reviews is consistent with 

OGC's advice.

Chair Kotelchuck: I have always understood that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

11

when a person had any involvement with the site that 

was being reviewed, that that person was recused. 

And since there are --

Ms. Naylor: Generally.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- eight. Generally, that's the case. 

There are eight sites here for one person.

Ms. Naylor: So generally speaking, that is correct. 

Because this is an open forum, I do not want to 

comment of individuals situations. But individual 

Board members have been issued specific guidelines 

about how to engage in these conversations.

And the basis of their conflicts is so -- also differ. 

Okay? It's a very fact-driven and it depends on how 

the potential conflicts arise.

So I'm going to stop there. I think I'm sort of giving 

you a sense of where OGC guidance is and, you 

know, I will defer to how you want to run the 

Subcommittee meeting.

Member Lockey: Well, I was going to say as soon as 

Scott talked about his conflict at Mound, I recognize. 

What I was doing, as Chairman of the Subcommittee, 

was looking at the members of the Subcommittee 

and their conflicts.

And three of us have no conflict with any of the sites 

and three of us have conflicts with a site or one or 

more sites.

But I did not consider, and I should say right off, I 

did not consider staff conflicts that may interfere. And 

there I would like to ask your advice.

If, in fact, we need to consider the staff conflicts as 

well and that they cannot participate because of their 

conflicts, then I think we need an advisory from you, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

12

which would involve considerations beyond this 

meeting.

Mr. Calhoun: Dave, this is Grady. And Jenny, correct 

me if I'm wrong here, but number one, we're not 

going to be discussing the individual sites. We 

shouldn't even list their names. Okay?

I know there's a lot of sites associated with this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: We're not discussing the individual 

dosimetry, whatever, can (telephonic interference) 

dose reconstructions. We're discussing the process.

So it seems to me that we can discuss that process 

because the dose reconstruction is done. It's already 

been adjudicated. It's been done according to all the 

conflict of interest protocols that we have in place.

And like Scott said, we've never done this before and 

just discussing the processes, I don't know how we 

would jump in conflict-of-interest territory here.

And it will kind of hinder us if we can't discuss the 

processes of the dose reconstruction, because we're 

not getting into the details of how the dose and what 

dose was available at each site. It's an overall 

process description and discussion, in my opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Which as I understand it certainly 

suggests that, in terms of the staff, whatever 

conflicts you have would not enter into our 

deliberations.

On the other hand, I think that for, the question is, 

what about the Subcommittee members? And it 

seemed to -- and I thought, and thought I was 

functioning in the way that we have always 

functioned, which is Subcommittee members who 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

13

have conflicts in the blind should not participate in 

evaluating that blind.

Or are you saying both would be appropriate? And 

Jenny, obviously you're here on the line and you will 

say what you believe or what is appropriate.

I just want to make sure that we're doing things 

properly. So Grady --

Ms. Naylor: I suppose -- I'm sorry that I think my 

ability is to comment on the specific conflict of 

interest situations is not appropriate on a public 

forum.

So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it.

Ms. Naylor: -- you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it.

Ms. Naylor: -- you would just have to proceed with 

however you see fit. You're the Chair of the 

Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: So you would not -- if I decide to 

go ahead, you're leaving it to my judgment. I would 

defer to whether it's appropriate legally, in terms of 

what's proper.

Since we don't have lots of meetings, I would like to 

go ahead with this, with the three people who are not 

conflicted of the Subcommittee members, and have 

all of the staff members who have conflicts, since 

they're simply talking about processes, as Grady 

said, to participate.

Now, let me put it, let me ask you this. Does that 

seem, I don't want to say, I don't want to ask you for 

a legal opinion, but if I'm going ahead improperly in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

14

your judgment and you request that you have a 

chance to review this then we will postpone it.

I'd rather not, obviously, since folks are prepared to 

go over this and we've all reviewed it.

Ms. Naylor: Dr. Kotelchuck, it's really not -- it's not 

my place to tell you whether you should close the 

meeting or to terminate a meeting.

If you determine that it is more appropriate for the 

three Board members who have no conflicts with the 

sites being discussed for the blind dose 

reconstruction, then please feel free to proceed.

And we can definitely have a more in-depth 

conversation offline so that we can actually discuss 

the sort of the individual conflicts of interest 

situation.

The conflict-of-interest analysis --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh --

Ms. Naylor: -- is applied with much more nuance than 

what I'm able to discuss here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. I understand that. So 

then I would like to go ahead, given that we're all 

prepared. I would like to go ahead with the 44th 

blind.

And with the staff participating fully and the 

Subcommittee members, myself, Dr. Richardson, 

and Brad Clawson being part of the review. And the 

other folks being recused for the next probably, half 

to three-quarters of an hour.

Member Lockey: So David, Jim Lockey, do you want 

us to call back in or just go on mute or what?

Chair Kotelchuck: It would be easier, given that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

15

there's more than one person if you folks were to 

come back in and it's five of 11 now.

So if you might come back in in about half or threequarters of an hour. There may be some discussion 

on this one, a little lengthier.

I would prefer if you could just come back in. Of 

course, you can listen, it's just a matter of not 

participating.

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. That's a biggest 

thing, they cannot just participate. They don't have 

to leave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. They could be on the phone 

--

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- listening to the --

Member Valerio: Hold --

Member Clawson: Right, they can --

Dr. Roberts: You know, in the past, in the past 

though when we've done recusing, we have had the 

member go ahead and disconnect and then call back.

Member Beach: But that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: -- that's new, Rashaun. We never 

have done that in the past. We were either, we could 

sit at the back of the room, we just couldn't 

participate, as Brad pointed out. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: When's the --

Member Clawson: There's another part to this you've 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

16

got to think about. And that is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: -- these blinds, we are learning of 

how different processes work, how these things go in 

and stuff like that. And it's not pertaining to just a 

site. It's pertaining to all sites.

So it makes a person that's able to be able to listen 

to what the process has gone through, why this is 

come out the way that it has.

I've always sat at the back of the room, but I'm 

paying attention because this is what we're learning 

from these blinds of how they were done.

And each one of these sites has uniqueness's to them 

and how that they've dealt with it. So I've always felt 

it's been important for them to be able to still listen 

to it, they just cannot participate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well, that is, that has always 

been their option. When we were meeting in-person 

sometimes folks sat in the back of the room and I see 

the good reasons to doing that, but sometimes 

people left the room.

And that's up to them, it seems to me. So I would 

think that that would be true here if that people could 

listen in but not participate.

Or they can leave and just come back online in about, 

I would suggest checking back in about half an hour. 

We have time to finish.

Ms. Naylor: You can leave your Skype up and I'll post 

into chat also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Let me just check in and have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

17

some, you know, we have had just purely virtual 

meetings --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: -- and we haven't had in-person 

meetings, so we have used the disconnection before 

for recusal. But let me, Jenny, is it permissible for 

them to listen and not necessarily disconnect?

Ms. Naylor: So first of all I think my understanding of 

the review of the three blind cases actually doesn't 

give rise to a conflict of interest for any of the 

members here.

Since you're not specifically reviewing the dose 

reconstruction models or the dose reconstruction 

data, but you're reviewing how they're being applied 

as a quality control of the dose reconstructors 

process.

So, I mean, this is where Dr. Kotelchuck and I 

actually depart, diverge on our understanding of how 

the conflict of interest is applied, which respect to the 

three blind cases.

So that's the starting point. Secondly, you know, 

whether you want to, I mean, on the remote 

platform, we would prefer that people just leave the 

entire platform because they can still carry-on private 

chats.

And this really is to the benefit to the Advisory Board 

members who have financial conflict of interest that 

there is no questions that they have entirely left the 

platform, that they were not participating.

And as for telephone, if this is purely a telephone 

meeting, then you know, we can be sort of assured 

that they wouldn't participate in the conversations, 

we can say that they have fully recused.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

18

So I think because there is actually a platform that 

provides for another avenue of communication

between of the recused Board member or Board 

member who's not recused, or that there is a chat 

function that allows a recused Board member to 

communicate to those that who are making 

decisions.

I think it's actually, you know, just in terms of an 

abundance of caution, it's probably better for Board 

members to sign off the Skype platform itself.

If you decide to remain on the telephone, just, like 

you say, you know, you can listen but do not 

participate and don't make comments.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I think you're legal counsel 

and so I think that what you said says to me that Jim, 

folks should actually sign off and come back on in 

about an half an hour.

And if we're still going on that, signoff. I do not think 

it will take more than an hour. It probably will take 

somewhere between half an hour and three-quarters. 

And I'd check in at half an hour or three-quarters.

And if you come in in the very last moments, you 

know, that's okay if the conversation is clearly 

closing, but that you should leave now since that is 

our best legal advice at this point.

Okay? Jim, and Josie --

Member Lockey: I got you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And we'll get back together 

with you. And now I think we'll start with the 

presentation of B44.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Can everyone see my screen?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

19

Chair Kotelchuck: Not yet.

Member Clawson: I just see the agenda.

Ms. Gogliotti: Right. That's what I've got up --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that 

--

Member Clawson: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- that was showing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Alright. We have three cases from the 

28th set that we'll be presenting today. Just because 

of this, most of the case actually have some aspect 

of the case that we're going to be especially vague 

on.

As you know, with the blinds, any little bit of 

information that we reveal about the case lets you 

perhaps filter down into the individual that the claim 

was about.

So we're going to be necessarily vague while we 

discuss these cases. I have the case pulled up on the 

screen so if you have any questions on that it should 

be there.

If you have any more detailed questions we can, of 

course, have the conversation offline, but with that, 

I will turn this over to Kathy.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Let's get started.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Ms. Behling: Alright. I'm going to start on page 7 of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

20

our review. And as we've been discussing this Energy 

Employee, this EE primarily worked at LANL and for 

a 30-year period.

But he also visited numerous sites. So to get started, 

we have our Table 1-1, which is the summary of the 

individuals diagnosed cancers.

And this is a unique case because SC&A interpreted 

the DOL records as showing six cancers and we 

believe what may have happened is NIOSH actually 

calculated doses for 12 cancers because they 

inadvertently added duplicates of the first six 

cancers.

The reason we've come to that conclusion is DOL 

initially, when the initial case and reported this to 

NIOSH, and they had incorrect cancer diagnosis 

dates.

And thereafter, they submitted a report to NIOSH, an 

amended referral, indicating that they needed to, 

they should have replaced the dates and disregarded 

the other cancers and replaced the correct diagnosis 

dates that they reported in this event and referral.

So what Table 1-1 shows is SC&A calculated doses 

for the first six cancers listed in that table and NIOSH 

calculated doses for 12 cancers.

The cancers that are listed there from seven to 12, 

I've put in a parenthetical number behind that 

because it's our interpretation that those are a 

duplicate of the number that is in parenthesis behind 

the seven through 12 cancers.

Okay? And if we move on then, we'll move on to Table 

1-2, which is a comparison of doses that were 

calculated by SC&A and NIOSH. And the comparison 

shows for the first six cancers that NIOSH and SC&A 

calculated doses that were nearly identical or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

21

identical.

There was one environmental dose that we'll discuss 

later that shows some differences. We'll discuss that 

as we move through.

And if we move on, pages -- let's see here, 13, 

actually pages 13 through 17 show the doses that 

were calculated by NIOSH for the remainder of the 

six cancers that SC&A did not consider.

Even though NIOSH and SC&A calculated doses for a 

different number of cancers, both resulted in PoCs 

that were less than 50 percent. And so this case was 

not compensated.

If we move on now to page 18, this is a comparison, 

or this is a table of the individuals employment 

history. And you can see it's a lengthy history and, 

as I said, the primary work location was LANL and 

then there were seven other sites that the individual 

visited.

For calculating these doses, both NIOSH and SC&A 

relied primarily on the Technical Basis Documents for 

these specific sites. They also used OTIB-5, which is 

to determine your IREP models.

OTIB-17 for the shallow dose, interpretation of the 

shallow dose. The implementation guide one, which 

is your external implementation guide.

And also OTIB-54, which is for calculating fission and 

activation products. We move on then to Table 2-2. 

This table shows us a comparison of the data that 

was used by both methods and the assumptions.

And in the last column, when there's just a little line 

there, that indicates there were no differences in the 

data or the assumptions used by NIOSH and SC&A.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

22

And, as you can, by scanning down through Table 2-

2, there were very few areas where NIOSH and SC&A 

had any significant differences.

And we will discuss those in more detail as we work 

through this dose reconstruction. Okay. We can move 

on now to page 24. And --

Member Clawson: Excuse me. Kathy --

Ms. Behling: Yes?

Member Clawson: Rose, is this supposed to be shown 

as she's going through this? Are you guys showing 

this on the screen, because I still just have the 

agenda.

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh. I apologize, I thought my screen 

was showing, but let me try this again.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is showing for me. The screen 

has been showing fine for me.

Member Beach: It's showing --

Member Clawson: Oh, has it? I've still got the agenda 

up. Maybe I need to log out and log back in. Because 

it's still just -- I just have the agenda --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: -- go ahead. I'll figure it out.

Ms. Behling: Okay, Brad? I can wait if you'd like.

Member Clawson: No. You go ahead. I've got 

paperwork here I can follow along too.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Member Clawson: I am just going to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

23

Member Clawson: -- use this. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Very good. Alright. We're going 

to start with the external doses. And unless I hear 

something to the contrary, I am going to, because 

we have a lot of ground to cover here, I am going to 

try to focus on the areas where there's differences.

I will mention when things are the same, but I'll try 

to move along. If there are any, at any time 

somebody wants to stop me, I'm moving too fast, 

please, you know, please don't hesitate to --

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. Do you want to cover the 

process of why there were 12 versus six? Or do you 

want to wait until after the individual doses are 

covered? Whichever way is fine with me.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Now, okay when you say it's a 

process, as to why there were six rather than --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the discussion of six versus 

12, that would say, Grady, that's certainly a matter 

of concern to me and I was going to raise it at the 

end of her discussion in the discussion period.

Mr. Calhoun: I'll just --

Chair Kotelchuck: So why don't we --

Mr. Calhoun: -- just wait till the --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- hold that till later and then talk 

about it toward the end in the discussion toward the 

end?

Mr. Calhoun: Alright.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

24

Ms. Behling: Okay. And I hope I've explained, I can 

go back if for just briefly to explain why SC&A or how 

SC&A interpreted the records differently than NIOSH 

perhaps.

But SC&A gave --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Why don't you, why don't you 

finish what you have prepared and --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I thought you covered it briefly 

--

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and clearly Grady was wanting 

more discussion. I would like more discussion about 

that point, but let's come back to it later --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and let you go on as you have 

been.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Very good. Again, we're now on 

page 24 for the external doses and I will start with 

the LANL photon doses.

There were some recorded photon doses while the 

individual worked at LANL. NIOSH and SC&A treated 

those the same. They assumed, they both 

interpreted the records the same, applied the same 

DCF values, entered the dose as 30-250 keV photon 

dose, and they calculated the same dose value, which 

is shown on the screen.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

25

Again, for recorded dose, SC&A and NIOSH 

approached the calculation of this dose the same. 

And they calculated the same dose, used the same, 

interpreted the records the same, used the same DCF 

values.

However, the only difference in this particular dose is 

the way it was entered into IREP. SC&A assumed that 

the recorded shallow dose was less than 30 keV 

photons and NIOSH assigned that dose as greater 

than 15 keV electrons.

Moving on then to missed dose. There was a slight 

difference in the number of zeros that were counted 

for the missed photon dose. NIOSH counted 39 zeros 

and SC&A counted 40.

This resulted in a slight difference of 15 millirem total 

difference in the missed photon dose. And I show in 

Table 3-1 where that difference occurred.

There was one additional zero added in the 1991 

timeframe that NIOSH did not include.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Behling: And you can see your doses there in 

Table 3-1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Moving on to page 25, missed 

neutron doses. Again, there was a difference of one 

zeros counted by NIOSH and SC&A.

SC&A counted 41 zeros and NIOSH counted 40. This 

resulted in a 10 millirem difference between the total 

doses assigned for the neutrons.

Both NIOSH and SC&A assigned the doses as 100 keV 

to 2 meV neutrons with a log normal distribution GSD 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

26

of 1.52. We move on now to the visited case.

A visited site, can I say where he --

Chair Kotelchuck: No. I think not. I think --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think because this --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- is public. And that --

Ms. Behling: Okay. Okay. So as you see on the 

screen, this individual visited another site. There was 

recorded photons, the individual was monitored while 

he was at this facility.

Again, NIOSH and SC&A calculated the doses, they 

interpreted the records the same and calculated the 

doses the exact same doses. They were (telephonic 

interference) 30 keVs.

Okay. I'm hearing a little background noises --

Dr. Roberts: Yes. We need to mute.

Ms. Behling: Okay. And I'll move on. They were both 

entered at, both methods entered the doses as 30-

250 keV photons. And they were entered, the annual 

doses were entered as a constant distribution.

There were monitoring periods where missed photon 

dose needed to be calculated. In this particular case 

I'm showing on Table 3-2 there was some difference 

in interpretation of the records.

SC&A counted ten missed doses and NIOSH counted 

five. And the other thing that was different in the 

calculation of the missed photon doses, SC&A used 

LOD values for the penetrating dose from OTIB-17, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

27

touch and see.

And NIOSH used the non-penetrating LOD values. So 

you can see the difference there. And because there 

was a difference in the LOD values used even though 

SC&A counted twice as many zeros, the doses were 

only ten millirem different.

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Ms. Behling: Okay. We'll move on then to missed 

shallow dose. And again, SC&A and NIOSH calculated 

missed shallow doses in the same manner, 

interpreted the records the same, and calculated the 

exact same missed shallow dose.

It was entered into IREP as less than 30 keV photons 

with a log normal distribution and a GSD of 1.52. No 

differences there.

We'll move on to missed neutron doses. In this 

particular case, and I have to apologize and make a 

change to Table 3-3, NIOSH interpreted the record 

as, they counted five zeros for missed neutrons and 

SC&A counted eight, and I have ten listed in that 

table and that should be eight.

Page --

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right. You're right. Yes, 

adding up the column on your SC&A zeros, that's 

right.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So that's a --

Ms. Behling: My --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- if you will --

Ms. Behling: My apologies.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

28

Chair Kotelchuck: -- typo.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: But the numbers in the table, in 

fact, are correct.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: The other numbers, the individual 

--

Ms. Behling: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- years.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Behling: All right. And both methods used the 

same LOD values and they applied the ICRP-60 

correction factor of 1.91.

And so as you can see in the table, there was about 

150 millirem difference in the doses calculated, and 

that was based on the fact that there were different 

number of zeros counted between the two methods.

All right. We will move on then in Section 3.3, the 

individual also visited another site. And there was 

monitoring. There was one recorded photon dose.

And NIOSH and SC&A calculated the same values for 

that, used the same assumptions, and those are 

listed in Section 3.3.1.

There was also one positive recorded shallow dose. 

And again, NIOSH and SC&A calculated the same 

dose, used the same assumptions.

Entered the data into IREP consistently as less than 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

29

30 keV photons with a constant distribution.

Okay. We'll move on then to missed photon dose. 

Here again, there was a slight difference in the 

number of zeros that were counted for the missed 

photon dose, and NIOSH assumed one zero and 

SC&A assumed three.

The other thing I'll point out at this particular site, 

when SC&A did their dose reconstruction there was a 

newer revision of the occupational external dose.

So NIOSH used a Revision 2, and SC&A used a 

Revision 3. Okay. NIOSH assigned a missed photon 

dose based on a beta LOD of 15 millirem and SC&A 

used the photon LOD of 10 millirem and this resulted 

in a very slight difference in dose, a 3 millirem 

difference in dose.

The data was entered in IREP. Consistently, between 

the two methods as photons between 30 and 250 

keV, with a log normal distribution and GSD of 1.52.

Okay. And we'll move on to missed neutron dose. 

Again, there was a little bit of difference in the 

interpretation of the records.

NIOSH counted two zeros and SC&A counted three 

zeros for the neutron. NIOSH used an LOD value of 

15 millirem, where SC&A used an LOD value of 10.

Both calculated a total dose that was the same 

because of the difference in LODs and number of 

zeros counted. And that dose was entered into IREP, 

split into the various energy distributions for the 

neutrons of less than 10 keV, 10-100 keV, .1 to 2 

meV and 2-20 meV neutrons as specified in the sites 

Technical Basis Document.

Okay. Now we will move on to, I think we're on the 

fourth site that this individual visited. Here the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

30

individual was again monitored while visiting this 

site. And all of the doses were zero.

So they were treated as missed photon dose. NIOSH 

and SC&A both counted five zeros. They used the 

same LOD and day and this resulted in the same total 

missed photon dose.

Missed neutron dose in Section 3.4.2, again, NIOSH 

and SC&A did most things the same here. Both 

counted five zeros. They used the same LOD values, 

applied the ICRP-60 correction factors and that 

resulted in the same total dose.

And again, that dose was entered as a log normal 

distribution with a GSD of 1.52.

Okay. We'll move on to page 28. This is an additional 

site that the individual was monitored at. Although 

he was monitored, the results of the monitoring were 

all zero.

And so again, there was just missed photon dose 

calculated. And both NIOSH and SC&A interpreted 

the records the same. Assumed two missed photon 

doses and calculated the same total dose.

And that was entered into IREP as 30-250 keV 

photons. Again, with a log normal distribution and 

GSD of 1.52.

Same thing with missed neutrons. NIOSH and SC&A 

made the same assumptions, they used the same 

LOD values, applied the appropriate ICR P-60 

correction factors, and both calculated the same total 

dose.

Okay. We're going to move on into Section 3.6. This 

is another facility that the individual visited and was 

monitored. All the monitoring records were zero.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

31

So there was missed dose calculated. And again, 

NIOSH and SC&A used OTIB-17, Attachment B to 

calculate this dose, and that resulted in them 

calculating the same missed photon dose.

And they entered it into IREP in the same fashion, 

30-250 keV with a log normal distribution and GSD 

of 1.52.

Okay. We'll move on then into Section 3.7. Individual 

was also monitored at another site. Monitoring 

resulted in zero dose.

And so missed photon dose was calculated and again, 

NIOSH and SC&A used the same assumptions, the 

same approach and calculated the same dose.

Moving onto page 29, Section 3.8. Again, the 

individual visited another facility and was monitored 

on two occasions or at least, the missed photon dose 

was calculated by NIOSH and SC&A and NIOSH 

assumed two zeros and SC&A assumed one zero.

This resulted in a five millirem difference between the 

total dose calculated by the two methods.

Okay. We're going to move on now to onsite ambient 

dose. And this was calculated based on when there 

was partial monitoring. And again, some 

interpretation of the record.

In Section 3.9.1 both NIOSH and SC&A calculated 

onsite ambient dose for the LANL employment and 

they used the mean environmental dose values, 

partial years of employment, and monitoring, and 

also they calculated employment hours and applied a 

correction factor for the employment hours.

And although they approached it, the onsite ambient 

dose the same, there was a small difference in the 

total doses. Very small and it was, the result of that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

32

was because of prorating for partial years of 

employment and periods of the EE was not 

monitored. There was a little bit of a difference there.

Okay. And moving to Section 3.9.2, this is another 

facility where NIOSH evaluated onsite ambient dose 

using the guidance in the Technical Basis Document

for this facility.

The doses calculated were less than 1 millirem and 

SC&A did not assess doses for this, onsite ambient 

doses, for this particular facility.

Okay. We'll move on to 3.9.3 on page 30. Here again, 

SC&A interpreted the records that the individual was 

at one of the sites for a 20-year period off and on.

And so because of that they calculated onsite 

ambient dose for that time period. And that resulted 

in a dose of 285 millirem.

NIOSH did not calculate an onsite ambient dose for 

this facility because they assumed that the DOE 

records represented the entirety of the individual site 

visits.

Okay. Now we'll move on to occupational medical 

dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: If I may interrupt.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let's just say this was, if you will, 

the home base of the person whose dose is being 

calculated. And that might --

Ms. Behling: The onsite ambient --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- that's the base, if you will, the 

home base.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

33

Ms. Behling: No. No. This is a facility that the 

individual visited. However, if you look at the DOE 

records for that time period, it was listed for not, 

what was it, 17-year periods.

And we know --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, and then you are right and I 

am wrong. That's right. I'm looking at both what you 

have here and also my own notes in reviewing it and 

--

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- that was not the home base.

Ms. Behling: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: That was another site that was 

extensively -- the person was extensively involved 

there. Okay. Good.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sorry.

Ms. Behling: All right. Then we'll move on to the 

occupational medical dose. And both SC&A and 

NIOSH calculated doses based on the records. And 

both used information from the Technical Basis 

Document.

There was a very slight difference in one or two of 

the cancers and this was the result of just 

mathematical rounding. It was a 3 millirem difference 

and it only had to do with a mathematical rounding 

issue.

So virtually, they calculated the same doses. Okay. 

We will move on to page 31 and this is occupational 

internal doses. And the EE was monitored for internal 

dose by a whole-body count and chest counts.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

34

And all of those results were left in the minimum 

detectable activity. So for the individual's home base 

location, both SC&A and NIOSH chose to calculate 

doses based on coworker intakes.

NIOSH assumed that the internal dose occurred in 

one quarter of one of the years, and SC&A assumed 

a full potential for exposure for that year.

In calculating that dose, they used default values 

from the WebCAD program, and both calculated 

doses that were less than one millirem.

For this home base location, both NIOSH and SC&A 

also calculated environmental internal dose for the 

entire employment period. They used the same 

approach, used the WebCAD program, and calculated 

the same doses.

And if we move on to Section 4.2, one of the internal 

monitoring records seemed to be associated with a 

visit at one of the sites, and so again, NIOSH and 

SC&A assumed coworker intakes at the 50th 

percentile assuming cesium-137 Type S.

And additional radio nuclides were based on .15 

times that cesium-137 value.

They compared the solubility types of M, S, and 

Super S and found that type M resulted in the most 

claimant-favorable dose. And they calculated small 

doses, but they were very similar.

In addition, both considered fission and activation 

products with this facility, and they used the OTIB54 workbook and assumed a 50th percentile values 

and used strontium-90 as their indicator radialnuclide.

And this resulted in both of them calculating a dose 

of less than one millirem. Moving on to Section 4.3. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

35

There was also internal dose calculated for another 

site visit.

Let me see here, both calculated again, internal dose 

based on a 50th percentile coworker mixture of 

weapons-grade plutonium, and they compared 

solubility types and type Super S was the highest, 

but the doses that resulted from these assumptions 

were less than one millirem.

Okay. That sums up the internal and external doses. 

And I'll move on to Section 5. And Section 5 we 

recently added, and it's those areas there was 

professional judgment impacted this particular case.

And as you can gather, based on my description of 

these two dose reconstructions, because the 

individual visited many sites and there were a lot of 

DOE records and some of these records were difficult 

to interpret.

There were duplicates of the same dosimetry cycles 

and overlapping data and some inconsistencies. This 

led to professional judgments being used in areas 

such as missed photon dose, missed neutron dose, 

and whether to assign onsite ambient dose.

So if we move on then to our summary conclusions 

in Section 6, page 35 lists differences and, as we 

talked about, we started out with the assessment of 

the number of diagnosed skin cancers.

And there was obviously a difference between SC&A 

and NIOSH in that regard. Again, missed photon 

doses, NIOSH assumed five zeros, SC&A assumed 

ten.

Again, this is interpretation of the records. For missed 

neutron dose, again, a difference between NIOSH 

assuming five zeros, SC&A assuming eight.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

36

And just going back to that interpretation of the 

record. And for the environmental external dose, 

NIOSH assigned environmental dose to one particular 

facility that the individual visited and SC&A did not 

and vice versa.

There was one facility where SC&A assigned dose, 

environmental internal dose or external dose and 

SC&A did not, or I'm sorry, NIOSH did not.

And again, this is just a lot of interpretation of some 

maybe confusing records. So that sums up my 

review, my comparison, and I'll try to answer 

questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So this was I would argue a 

difficult case for NIOSH and SC&A to try and do the 

dose reconstruction because the person worked at 

many different sites.

And there was good agreement for the six cases 

where they both reviewed them, but SC&A looked at 

12, excuse me, SC&A did calculations for the other, 

excuse me, NIOSH did calculations for the other six 

sites, and both agreed that the combined PoC was 

less than 50 percent, but the PoCs were significantly 

different, both below 50 percent.

Comments or concerns, and certainly the issue of 

calculating six versus 12 cancer sites is certainly on 

the table. And Grady, you had some thoughts about 

that before and I would be interested in those.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. Yes, this is Grady. And I have 

looked at the whole process pretty in depth here. And 

so basically what happened is the case was originally 

referred to us with six cancers.

They were all diagnosed on the same date. A little bit 

later, DOL issued a clarification. And so they had six 

cancers all with different diagnosis dates.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

37

The crux of the issue started when rather than 

replacing the existing six cancer dates, we added the 

six cancers. And so those were added to NOCTS and 

at the time the dose reconstruction was done there 

were 12 cancers in there.

And that's what the dose reconstruction was based 

on. And so we didn't catch that, we probably should 

have. Ultimately it was caught, and it was caught 

during the close-out interview with the claimant.

So before the dose reconstruction was final, it's still 

considered a draft at that point, we discussed this 

with the claimant and we, you know, we came to the 

conclusion, well both of us said, oh, well, this is not 

correct.

We have six cancers not 12. And so then what I 

believe was a relatively poor decision on our part, we 

said, well, it's still less than 50 percent. Delaying it is 

not going to change the outcome because it's still less 

than 50 percent. So we let it go like that.

We won't do that anymore. I've talked to my staff 

and especially something that's in the best estimate 

realm, if something comes up in a close-out 

interview, we could've went back to DOL, verified 

that there were truly just six and then revised the 

dose reconstruction and sent it back out.

So that's the details and that's exactly how it 

happened. So it's not pretty, but that's where it is. 

And you know, luckily for us it was caught at the end.

I wish it would have been caught a little earlier, but 

I also think we probably should have gone back and 

changed it at the close-out interview process and 

issued a new dose reconstruction with, you know, 

probably close to half of that PoC number.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay. Thank you, because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

38

that really answers an important question and I'm 

very glad to hear that, first, that the process involved 

you actually had a close-out interview, and the 

answer is there were six cancer sites.

And certainly there is agreement on the decision of 

NIOSH and SC&A, right? That is that the PoC, the 

combined PoC for the person was less than 50 

percent.

So in terms of the decision, the decision was correct 

or the decision, as the blind reviewers with a blind 

review, both the groups got the same compensation 

result.

And I'm pleased to hear that there was a follow-up -

- there wasn't a follow-up, there was a discussion at 

the conclusion and that this was found.

So that satisfies my primary concern about this. Brad 

and David, would you want to weigh in on things and 

ask questions, concerns?

Member Clawson: Well, no, I think it was explained 

well and stuff. It's still an issue and it's a Finding, but 

that's why we're going through these dose 

reconstructions is to be able to find out when we are 

making issues, being able to make it better, be able 

to go from there.

And I do agree with Grady that we probably should 

have taken care of this before then, but I can also 

understand why we didn't, but this is why we're here 

and I'm good with what we've got.

Chair Kotelchuck: David?

Member Richardson: All right, this is David. Yes, 

David Richardson. I've got a question. Prior to a 

close-out interview, so there's a dose reconstruction 

and then there's a secondary review where a second 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

39

person had signed off on it.

Does that secondary review not include sort of the 

assessments at the endpoints or the outcomes, you 

know, the cancers, the sites? Is that sort of outside 

of that secondary review?

Mr. Calhoun: I think generally what happens -- this 

is Grady again. I think generally what happens and 

I'm not sure what level review.

We've got a ton of reviews in there and it should have 

probably been caught somewhere in those reviews, 

but typically what happens in the review is you get a 

split screen that pops up and you get one that has 

NOCTS data that has verified cancers, and verified 

employment and whatnot, and you compare what's 

written in the dose reconstruction to what's written 

in NOCTS.

At that time the 12 were still in there. That's since 

been fixed. So I'd imagine that's why it was sent out 

through that.

Member Richardson: Yes. I just, you know, and I 

appreciate the explanation and it makes complete 

sense how it ended up like that.

I mean I'm just thinking we don't want a process that 

relies upon the claimant for catching kind of errors 

that we could catch through a process of checks.

And this one was a situation where, regardless of 

that, it didn't change the decision. If it had, the 

claimant would have been put into the uncomfortable 

position of saying yes, let's say it was a positive 

decision, but yes, it was a positive decision, but no, 

you've made a mistake and so reverse that.

We don't want the claimant to be in that position 

either. So I'm trying to think about where those other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

40

checks failed. And it wasn't an error, which agency? 

Is this a Department of Labor issue? Should they 

have corrected it or was it a NIOSH issue?

Mr. Calhoun: Based on what I have looked at in the 

last couple of days, I believe that we should have 

caught, we, NIOSH, should have caught the referral 

from DOL said that these were revisions to the cancer 

diagnosis states and not additional cancers. I think 

that's where the whole problem started.

Chair Kotelchuck: I also understand that, at the 

point, as you move to the exit interview and realize 

that, in fact, there really were only six cancers, at 

that point you also had the option of delaying 

compensation, delaying the decision and 

reevaluating the numbers and coming back with the 

same decision.

So you understood that, although there was an error, 

the decision was going to stand. And therefore --

Mr. Calhoun: I think that --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- let the decision go through with 

12.

Mr. Calhoun: I do but I don't like that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Me neither.

Mr. Calhoun: And --

Chair Kotelchuck: Me neither.

Mr. Calhoun: -- we won't be doing that again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And so that's a proper, that's a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

41

proper change of procedure to deal with something 

that came up as it did there.

And certainly, looking at the six cases where both 

NIOSH and SC&A did the evaluation, your numbers 

are quite similar. There really is, they really were 

pretty much the same.

So --

Ms. Gogliotti: I have a question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: With this particular case, obviously we 

do it blind, but once we uncover the blind, once we 

submit our memo blocking out all of our numbers, we 

obviously went and looked to see what NIOSH came 

up with right away because we were interested --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And --

Chair Kotelchuck: Of course.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- at that point in time, NOCTS still had 

12 cancers listed, which would imply that when 

NIOSH became aware of the change, they didn't 

update NOCTS?

I'm just kind of curious why they didn't make that 

change --

Mr. Calhoun: I'd have to come back and find out 

when NOCTS was changed. I don't know that one.

Ms. Gogliotti: I know that it was fixed now. It just, at 

the time, did not.

Chair Kotelchuck: So I am, yes, I am comfortable 

now with approving this blind with the explanation 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

42

that Grady gave. And certainly satisfies my concerns.

I would, in approving this, I think I would like almost 

to append the statement or have something in the 

record that of what you basically said, Grady.

And I don't know where to put that. Whether we 

should append it to our decision. Our decision has to 

be, the most important one is are the compensation 

results the same?

And the answer is yes. So on that basis, we approve. 

It would be, I think it would be nice somehow to put 

in the record that there is an understanding that 

there, in fact, there were only six cancers and that 

the procedure will be changed, the procedure will be 

improved in the future.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can I suggest adding it to our 

comparison report table? I got it pulled up here on 

the screen, where we always --

Chair Kotelchuck: How would you do that? And --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well we typically explain the cause for 

the differences. Here you see, I've done it for the 

cases we've already discussed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I could add a statement in the 

comment section explaining that.

Chair Kotelchuck: On page --

Ms. Gogliotti: With this particular one --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- like 36 or 35, 36.

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, no. The Comparison Report that I 

have, I'm sorry, we're calling multiple things 

Comparison Reports.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

43

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We do these summary tables where we 

compare the PoCs. It's just a short-hand way of 

looking at what was discussed in the case and where 

the differences lie that we summarize that the Board 

puts out.

This particular one though, I don't think we would be 

able to PA-clear just because of the number of 

cancers might be too, reveal too much about a 

claimant.

But we could certainly put it here and we might have 

to add the comment in the next secretary letter also 

explaining what happened because that's going to 

throw off your statistics.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well but I would say we are looking 

for -- they might, but the most important number is 

the comparison of the decisions in the blinds that we 

review. And there we will approve, at least I will 

suggest we approve and apparently the others will 

too.

So Grady, what do you think in terms of how, if you 

might give us advice on how you would feel about 

Rose's suggestion of putting it in that comparison or 

--

Mr. Calhoun: I mean, I don't --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- whether we might --

Mr. Calhoun: I don't know what it would buy us or 

not buy us. If it's a matter of, you know, we know 

where the mistake was made, we're going to do what 

we can to fix that mistake.

Had it been over 50 percent and we found that out, 

we would have changed it. Now, you there, there still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

44

is another piece of the pie that I need to look at and 

see about the final decision and what DOL said about 

that.

Because if they included the 12 cancers in their final 

decision and didn't find that as a mistake, then they 

accepted it as 12 cancers as well.

So that's another piece of the puzzle, but I do agree 

with you. Regardless, it wasn't pretty, but it still came 

up on the right side of 50 percent.

And we're all aware of that now. So I'm not sure 

adding it would do anything good or bad.

Chair Kotelchuck: You know --

Mr. Calhoun: You know, there certainly are findings 

there and we accept those as findings, didn't change 

the comp decision. I'm not proud of it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: -- but, you know, that's where it is.

Chair Kotelchuck: I wonder if that's something we 

should not allow you to look into? Perhaps discuss 

with Rose and think about what would be an 

appropriate place and recommend to us next time.

So I would say we will approve with perhaps an added 

statement or we could hold approval until we clear up 

that. I recognize you can't, it's hard to make a 

decision like that right now. There are things you 

have to consider that the Subcommittee doesn't have 

to, the Subcommittee doesn't have to consider.

So --

Mr. Calhoun: I mean what was Rose considering 

adding? Just, you know, more details to the Finding 

or what? I'm not sure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

45

Ms. Gogliotti: We don't have --

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm not exactly sure --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- Findings with blinds.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- either. Huh?

Ms. Gogliotti: We do not have Findings with blinds. 

That --

Mr. Calhoun: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- policy --

Mr. Calhoun: That's all right. Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: These are just --

Mr. Calhoun: -- yes --

Mr. Buchanan: -- just a way of documenting the 

reason for the differences.

Mr. Calhoun: Well if I find out, even if I don't find out 

anymore, I'll just send you what my look into this has 

found.

But that we may go back and ask to see the final 

determination from DOL. We typically don't get 

those. So I can take a look at that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. In a way it's clear that the 

approval on the compensation decision or at least I'd 

like to recommend that we approve the 

compensation decision from the Subcommittee.

And then we can either say we will approve and get 

a report at the next, our next meeting about how to 

modify the statement to take into account what 

Grady explained on the six versus the 12.

Would you, would other Subcommittee --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

46

Ms. Gogliotti: How about we let Grady --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- members --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- investigate what the final 

compensation decision was as determined by DOL 

because neither one of us have access to that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Correct.

Ms. Gogliotti: And if there was a problem, perhaps 

DOL also needs to investigate how that happened. 

That's somewhat outside of our purview though.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. And actually, I would 

like there to be a statement somewhere.

The question only is do we approve and then look at 

a statement, look at what Grady suggests and with 

consultation with you if need be, or do we simply say 

that it's in progress and actually formally make the 

decision later?

I would like --

Member Clawson: I suggest that we --

Mr. Calhoun: I don't --

Member Clawson: -- table it.

Mr. Calhoun: -- I don't think if there's a reason not 

to close this out because this is basically just going 

to be FYI at this point, there's not going to be any 

additional actions.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's correct. That's correct. So I 

would agree that we should approve and just the FYI, 

if you would report to us at the next meeting.

(Simultaneous speaking.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

47

Member Richardson: This is David Richardson --

Member Clawson: Sorry, David.

Chair Kotelchuck: So I think -- go ahead.

Member Richardson: We don't do that many blinds, 

and I feel like we've encountered a qualitatively 

different type of error then we are typically looking 

at.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Richardson: So for me, given that the 

sample of blinds is so small, you know, it just raises 

a concern in my mind about was there a process in 

place where as information was updated on cancer 

outcomes, it was generating redundant records?

I mean, that seems like -- and that's not something 

which, you know, many of our, the kind of, the 

procedures we had in place for selecting cases, 

weren't targeting, you know, that flavor of problem -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Member Richardson: It's not like we attempted to 

oversample where there's, you know, multiple of, you 

know, large numbers of cancers in a single claim.

So we don't really have a good handle on it, I think. 

I think it's, you know, if you want to close this one 

out, but that's fine, but I'm, I think it's worth putting 

this on the table as a different category of problem 

which we haven't encountered before.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Richardson: So it's one of these sort of black 

swan things. Once you see it it's unnerving a little bit.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

48

Chair Kotelchuck: It is. It is. Should we, perhaps, as

we for a Subcommittee, just put in in our professional 

judgments table, which we're going to be talking 

about at the end of this meeting?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well I'm not sure that this was a 

professional judgment. This was an error that got 

propagated through.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. Well one of the things 

that bothers me about it is missing six cancers. That's 

pretty big. You know, I can understand a little bit 

there.

I do have to agree with Grady though. Nothing's 

going to change on this. Everything is what it is, but 

I do agree with David that this kind of does make us 

-- well it makes me feel uneasy that we could 

honestly miss this big of an issue there.

But it's not going to change anything with this and I 

think that we need to, I think that we ought to push 

forward with it. This one's not going to change, but I 

also agree that we need to look at what DOL, because 

this is not just problem with us now because it's how 

does it come out in DOL, everything else like this?

We need to look at each one of these cases as in 15 

or 20 years they're going to come back and we'll have 

to be to understand how we did it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: And this one will be, this one would 

be a little bit different.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Clawson: We've got to cover our bases on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

49

this to make sure that everything is clear of what 

happened, what we did with it, and that things were 

corrected with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, you know I'm thinking as 

you're talking, this discussion will be in the transcript. 

And therefore, in the public record for anybody --

Member Clawson: That, that --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- reviewing what we did.

Member Clawson: -- that's true, but I do not know if 

years down the road if there was a question with this 

that they would be able to come back into the 

transcripts.

There has to be something put into this file to help 

understand what went on with it. And I'm not, see 

this is a blind, this is one pick that we've taken out of 

how many thousands --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Clawson: -- to be able to review. It's got to 

go into the NIOSH's original dose reconstruction so 

that people will be able to see that we realized that 

there was an issue there, we took corrective actions, 

we corrected the problem and went forward.

But there's got to be something, somewhere that 

addresses this to make sure that people know that 

this has been handled right.

Chair Kotelchuck: So --

Member Clawson: And that has nothing to do with 

what we're doing here today. Today we are taking, 

we are comparing that we've got a dose 

reconstruction here.

We have found a problem with it. It's not going to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

50

change any of the compensation or anything else like 

that, but somehow as this group we need to be 

assured that the information is going to be put into 

this file. It's going to be taken care of.

And also too, you know, just like what Grady says, 

this is one of them that bothers me a little bit is what 

is DOL showing? Are they showing six cancers or 12 

cancers?

But that is, in my opinion, that is not the purview of 

this group.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is.

Member Clawson: But we need to make sure that this 

looks and that this is taken care of correctly.

So my suggestion would be we accept it, but that 

Grady reports back to us what they've done to be 

able to assure that people down the road would be 

able to see this and be able to understand what went 

on with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Grady, would that be 

acceptable to you? To report back to --

Mr. Calhoun: Sure. I'm going to give you the 

information I got as soon as I get it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay. So I think Brad, 

what you said, I agree with you.

So I'd like to formally move that we approve and also 

with the understanding that Grady will provide us 

with the discussion, will report back to us at the next 

meeting.

Member Clawson: Right and that, I guess, I would 

like something in Rose's report because, you know, 

this is a big difference between NIOSH and them.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

51

And help them understand why there was a 

difference. I just want to cover our bases as a Work 

Group that we have evaluated, yes, there's a problem 

here, it was taken care of, this is how, you know, this 

is why and maybe later on we can take the 

information from Grady's report and even put into 

SC&A's.

Chair Kotelchuck: I suggest that when Grady checks 

out and makes a decision about how he would like to 

handle it, he will transmit that to Rose, I'm sure, to 

SC&A, and then SC&A people can tell us also at the 

next meeting how they would like to address, if at all, 

a change in our report.

Or how they would like to address this issue. And the 

Subcommittee can consider it.

Ms. Behling: And this is Kathy Behling, if could just 

make a comment or just a --

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Ms. Behling: -- suggestion. I believe in our 

Comparison Report in Section 1 we attempted to 

explain, you know, we took an entire paragraph to 

explain what we think, what we thought happened 

and we also looked at all of the records obviously, 

and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Behling: -- the DOL records clearly state in there 

that this is to replace information that we provided to 

you previously.

So that from my perspective, just as a suggestion, 

we have included that, I think, in our background 

information.

But I agree with Rose, with regard to the way the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

52

Subcommittee has chosen to document what, 

especially for these blinds, is that Summary 

Comparison Report that Rose was referring to.

And I think that is consistent by putting a statement 

in that comment section, that was the design of that 

report. It was to, at a glance, be able to see the 

differences, put in a comments section that says, this 

is why there were differences.

And so I strongly agree with Rose that that's the 

place to document this, and that is consistent with 

what we have done in the past. That's just my 

opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. But let me understand 

exactly. The Summary Report. Are you talking about 

the table in which we give the PoCs for both of the 

NIOSH and SC&A, the table, which is now 44 blinds -

-

Ms. Behling: Yes. It is.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- long?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Is that what you're referring to as 

the --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, this is --

Ms. Behling: Yes. Rose --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- just for the 28 set. But yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That's fine. I think that may 

be appropriate. I would like to move on though, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

53

we've got three other people --

Member Clawson: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I mean if we're going to approve, 

let's approve and then we can go on and have reports 

on this.

And you can perhaps fill in the Subcommittee folks a 

little bit before the next meeting or for the next 

meeting about how you're going to insert it.

And I think what you say sounds appropriate. And 

Grady will --

Member Clawson: Hey, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. I just want to 

make one thing clear in this. The biggest concern that 

I have with this one, and I know that Grady has 

acknowledged it and everything else like that, but 

that they saw that there was a problem there and I 

just want to go on the record with this, that they saw 

that there was a problem there and they did not 

correct it.

That is what my total issue with this one is. Because 

if we take a look at this, this is a ripple effect through 

the whole process from NIOSH, DOL, everything.

By correcting this, I think that we'll be good. I think 

that we will be able to proceed on, but my number 

one concern with this is that it wasn't fixed.

Grady has acknowledged that. We understand that, 

but that is my only real issue that we have here. Plus 

documenting our findings. And I think that we're 

doing that right now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

54

Member Clawson: I just wanted to go on the record 

of what my issue is with this. It's because it was not 

fixed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And I would like to -- well 

the discussion about this, the broader discussion, I 

would like to hold off for the next meeting and 

approve this at this point.

What you suggested before as the resolution, 

approve now, have a report back from Grady and 

SC&A at the next as to how they would like to 

document the concerns that we're raising.

Member Clawson: That's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. Is that okay with you, 

David?

Member Richardson: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So let's consider that taken 

care of and approved. I agree as well.

And I will ask, I will ask Jenny to clarify for me when 

we have the follow-up discussion, the issue of the 

folks who had been recused from this discussion.

And also discuss with her the overall procedure if this 

were to come up again.

Okay. Now we need to, it's noon, five after 12. I 

would like to go on a little bit and start, if we could, 

start the next B43.

If that -- what do you, can we do that for half an 

hour, maybe three-quarters of an hour and then 

break for lunch?

Member Clawson: Sure. I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Does anybody need a --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

55

Dr. Roberts: Dave, for --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Dr. Roberts: -- for this one, do we need the folks that 

signed off back?

Chair Kotelchuck: That's right. We need Jim Lockey 

and Loretta Valerio.

Member Lockey: David, I'm back.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Wonderful. Glad to hear it.

Member Valerio: I'm back too.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, wonderful. Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

B43 from Hanford Review

Chair Kotelchuck: So folks, is that okay if we go 

ahead and begin on B43?

Member Clawson: Yes. I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: SC&A folks? Okay. Do people need 

a comfort break right now for five minutes? Anybody? 

Do I hear a call for a break for five minutes?

Member Clawson: Sure. Why don't we take a quick 

five-minute break, come back? We'll --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And it's --

Member Clawson: -- we'll hit this one.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- 12:09. We'll be back at 12:15 

and we'll start on B43. Okay?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

56

Member Clawson: Okay. Sounds good.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:09 p.m. and resumed at 12:17 p.m.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Terrific. Okay. So, we're ready. 

Rose, are you ready?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Oh, sorry. My screen isn't sharing 

anymore. Let me get that back up for you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Excellent.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Can everyone see that?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I can. I can't speak for 

everybody. I can see, yes. Everybody else okay?

Member Clawson: Yeah. This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Well, our next case --

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. We're having 

internet issues. So, I'm trying to get back into Skype. 

I'm logging back in now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. We'll wait for a 

moment, then.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Is Nicole on the line still?

Ms. Briggs: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Actually, I will hand things over to 

Nicole now while we wait.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Briggs: Okay. Should I start or should I wait for 

Loretta?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

57

Chair Kotelchuck: Loretta, are you on the line on the 

phone?

Member Valerio: Yeah. Yeah, I'm here. Go ahead and 

start.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thanks.

Ms. Briggs: Okay. Okay, this is Case B43 for Hanford. 

We'll start on page seven, which Rose has already up 

on the screen.

So, this case involves multiple cancers, which are 

summarized there in Table 1-1. And both SC&A and 

NIOSH, the dose reconstructions resulted in a PoC of 

less than 50 percent for this case.

We'll move onto page eight. And that's where we 

have Table 1-2, which lists the individual dose 

assignments for each cancer. And for each cancer 

you'll see that the total dose that was assigned by 

SC&A and NIOSH, they're actually very close. I'll just 

sort of glaze over it, not to be too specific, and say 

they all were in the neighborhood of six rem. But you 

can see the exact value from the screen.

But, interestingly, the associated PoC values for each 

of the cancers do differ. So, although the combined 

PoCs were both below 50 percent, NIOSH calculated 

a combined PoC of 49.4 percent and SC&A's was 

38.33.

I should also say that both NIOSH and SC&A used the 

enterprise edition of IREPs to calculate the PoCs with 

the 10,000 iterations and the 30 runs to determine 

their PoCs following all the protocols.

So, I think now we'll move down to page 10, where 

you can see Table 2-1, which lists the employment 

dates. So, I'll just generally describe this individual 

as a construction trade worker who worked all over 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

58

the Hanford for many, many years.

Now, I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking 

about the work locations, because that is an issue 

that's important to this case. In the CATI report, the 

EE lists numerous work locations, but the individual 

does emphasize some particular locations where 

there was exposure potential. They mention the 

waste handling area, and also the reactor area.

So, of the many years that the EE worked, there are 

actually only two where the work location is specified. 

And for that, one year was for waste handling and 

one year was for the reactor area.

Now, since it was not apparent where this EE worked 

for any of the other years, it's hard to pin down where 

they were at a specific time, NIOSH and SC&A used 

their judgment to assign work locations. So, NIOSH 

chose the plutonium production area for the majority 

of the employment. And also included the reactor 

area for one particular year, which was mentioned in 

the records and also in the CATI.

Now, SC&A chose a different approach. They split the 

employment between the reactor area and the waste 

handling area.

So, choosing a work location will affect the assigned 

energy fractions of photons, neutrons, and electrons 

that are used in the dose calculations. And then those 

energy types and fractions are put into IREP to 

calculate the PoC.

Now, for this case, those different choice of work 

locations sort of rippled through the dose and the 

IREP calculations, which resulted in that difference in 

the PoC values.

So, we'll, I guess, move down to Table 2-2 on page 

11. So, this is the table of a comparison of all of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

59

data assumptions used by NIOSH and SC&A for each 

of those dose assignments. And I'm going to discuss 

each of those differences in detail as we move 

through the specific dose assignments.

So, let's start on page 13 with the external dose 

section. So, we'll start with the recorded photon 

dose. Both NIOSH and SC&A assigned a recorded 

photon dose, which were essentially identical. I'll say 

about in the neighborhood of one rem, but you can 

see the exact values on the screen. But, due to the 

different work locations, the assigned energy 

fractions differed slightly in terms of the assignment 

between low energy photons, 30 to 250 keV, and 

greater than 250 keV photons.

So, for the recorded shallow dose, which is on the 

same page, both NIOSH and SC&A assigned recorded 

shallow dose. This is the dose assignment that we 

think may have had the biggest impact on this PoC 

difference.

So, NIOSH assumed that the shallow dose was due 

to exposure from low energy photons, which is 

appropriate given the assumption that the EE worked 

in the plutonium facility. But SC&A assigned recorded 

shallow dose as electrons. And that assumption is 

appropriate given the assumption that EE worked in 

the reactor area and waste handling.

There were a couple of other differences in the 

shallow dose assignment. So, this is sort of gets into 

the details, but we found that it was possibly these 

little decisions that added up at the end. So, for the 

measurements that were positive but below one half 

the limit of detection, NIOSH assigned those as zero 

readings. But SC&A included those as recorded 

shallow dose. So, as a result, SC&A's recorded 

shallow dose values were slightly higher. SC&A also 

included a closing attenuation factor, which was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

60

appropriate for electrons and for the particular cancer 

location.

All right. I'll move onto missed photon dose, on page 

14. So, both NIOSH and SC&A used the same 

Hanford guidance for the assignment of missed 

photon dose. There's a lot of detail in these Tables 3-

1 and 3-2. They explain the breakdown of the dose 

readings, and also the small differences in dose 

assignment.

So, the Hanford guidance states that if both the nonpenetrating -- I'm sorry, I'm hearing a little back 

noise.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Member Clawson: Yes, we can hear you.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, okay. Let's see. The Hanford 

guidance states that if both the non-penetrating and 

the penetrating readings are zero in the records, then 

the non-penetrating limit of detection, which is often 

higher, is used to calculate the dose. Now, if only the 

penetrating dose reading is listed as zero, then the 

penetrating limits of detection is used.

Now, I wanted to explain this, because even though 

the missed photon dose totals were very close and 

the number of assigned zeros was very close, NIOSH 

and SC&A actually used slightly different methods to 

arrive at those values. You can see there's a different 

distribution of penetrating and non-penetrating zeros 

that were assigned. And the difference in the 

assigned dose, which you can see, is due to the 

different proportion of those doses from nonpenetrating and penetrating assigned zero readings.

So, I'll move ahead to the missed shallow dose, on 

page 15. So, as I mentioned before, recorded shallow 

dose, as in the recorded shallow dose section, NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

61

assigned shallow doses as low energy photons and 

SC&A assigned them as electrons.

So, for this assignment, NIOSH had two zero 

readings for missed shallow dose and SC&A assigned 

nine. These small differences require a little bit of 

explanation and can be confusing. Okay. When the 

dose records list a positive reading for the 

penetrating dose, and list a zero reading as the nonpenetrating dose, SC&A assigned those as zero 

readings for missed shallow dose, which totaled nine 

in this case.

Now, NIOSH only assigned missed shallow dose for 

the instances that the non-penetrating dose reading 

was positive, but below the limit of detection 

provided by two. So, those low shallow dose 

readings, which are below the limit of detection 

divided by two, are therefore turned to zeros as a 

claimant-favorable assumption. And so NIOSH only 

assigned missed dose for those instances, of which 

there were two. So, in this case, it's a small 

difference, but it explains the small difference in the 

dose totals.

I'll move onto the missed neutron dose, on page 16.

So, this EE was monitored for neutrons during 

employment, but all of the results were below the 

limit of detection. Both SC&A and NIOSH assigned 

missed neutron dose. Their dose totals happened to 

be nearly identical, but they arrived at those values 

using different methods. So, NIOSH assigned 62 

zeros and SC&A assigned 79. 

Let's see. So, you can see on page 16 that some of 

the dates of the assignment of neutron dose differ. 

From what we can tell from the records, NIOSH only 

assigned missed neutron dose for a certain time 

period. So, later during the employment, the EE 

appeared to have been issued a basic dosimeter, so 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

62

they were technically not monitored for neutron at 

that time. But SC&A assigned missed neutron dose 

throughout the employment period, which explains 

the higher number of assigned zeros. 

And, let's see, as with the photon and shallow dose, 

the choice of work locations are going to affect the 

energy fractions that are used in the dose and the 

IREP calculations.

So, I'll go to the onsite ambient dose, which is on the 

same page here, 16. So, for several years at the end 

of employment the EE was not monitored for external 

exposures. And both NIOSH and SC&A assigned 

onsite ambient doses, which were nearly identical. 

The only small difference is that NIOSH assigned 

ambient dose for a portion of the last year of 

employment, and SC&A did not, presumably because 

they did assign missed dose for that year, as well. 

And as I said, that accounts for the very small 

difference in the assignment of the ambient dose.

Okay. Occupational medical dose on the same page 

16. The EE had documented X-rays for several years, 

and both NIOSH and SC&A assigned nearly identical 

doses from these procedures. The small difference is 

attributed to the fact that, for one of the cancers, 

NIOSH and SC&A chose slightly different locations on 

the body as the target location to model the dose.

So, without going into too much detail, this was 

understandable given the description of the cancer 

locations, which I believe, as you can see in that 

paragraph, is described in the report. I don't want to 

go into too much detail about the cancer locations 

because that maybe a little too revealing in terms of 

Privacy Act issues.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right.

Ms. Briggs: So, let's see. In addition, the EE had a PA 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

63

and also lateral exams performed in the last year of 

employment. Now, NIOSH assigned dose from both 

of those exams. SC&A did not include the dose from 

the lateral exams because that was indicated as 

being performed at an offsite location. So, according 

to the guidance in OTIB-79, it does not need to be 

included in the dose reconstruction if it was 

performed offsite. So, we believe that's -- and that's 

why SC&A didn't include that one as part of the 

occupational medical. But, as I said, the doses were 

extremely close.

Alright. We can move onto the internal doses 

comparison, which begins on page 18. And we'll start 

with plutonium. The EE was monitored for plutonium 

exposure with urinalysis bioassays and chest counts, 

all of which were below the limits of detection. And 

both NIOSH and SC&A assigned missed plutonium 

dose by assessing both the urinalysis data and the 

chest count data.

So, NIOSH and SC&A doses were very close. The 

doses range between about 10 and 40 millirem, 

depending on the cancer location. The only issue --

not really an issue, the only difference -- NIOSH and 

SC&A used the same parameters, but they did use a 

slightly different approach.

So, they both chose to assign the doses calculated 

from the urinalysis data. But SC&A chose the Super 

S absorption type and NIOSH chose Type M 

absorption. So, NIOSH explained that they chose 

Type M intakes from the urinalysis data because they 

found it to be consistent with the chest count data 

that was all below the limit of detection. And also, 

since the Super S type is retained in the lung longer, 

they found doses from the Type M intakes to be 

higher for this particular cancer location.

But SC&A used the guidance in OTIB-49, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

64

explains their approach. They explain that for a Super 

S plutonium, it maybe released more slowly into the 

urine than Type S, which results in a larger dose after 

the last urinalysis measurement than is normally 

predicted. So they followed the guidance in OTIB-49 

and applied the multiplier of four to the internal doses 

that were calculated after the last urinalysis 

measurement.

So we think it's this difference in choice in the 

absorption type that accounts for the small difference 

in the missed plutonium doses. But these differences 

wouldn't have that great of effect on the PoC.

So, I'll go to the uranium intake on page 19. So, the 

EE was monitored for uranium exposure with several 

urinalysis bioassays, one of which was above the 

detection limit. NIOSH and SC&A used nearly 

identical methods to assess dose from recycled 

uranium and its associated radionuclides. And they 

both calculated total doses that were below one 

millirem for all of the cancers. And both NIOSH and 

SC&A calculated doses from both the positive results 

and from results that were below the limits of 

detection.

So, NIOSH compared those doses and assigned the 

higher one for each year, whereas SC&A included 

doses both from the acute and the chronic exposures. 

Either way, though, they were so low that the doses 

totaled less than one millirem, as I had said.

Okay. We'll go to the fission product intakes on page 

20. The EE had urinalysis bioassays for strontium-90 

and whole body counts for cesium-137. All were 

below the detection limits. Both NIOSH and SC&A 

used the procedures in OTIB-54, which is specific for 

assignment of fission products. NIOSH calculated 

missed dose from fission products using the cesium 

as the indicator radionuclide.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

65

Just a little description of OTIB-54. The OTIB-54 

procedures and the workbook that's used calculate 

doses from numerous fission products and activation 

radionuclides for various types of facilities. And, in 

this case, it's in relation to the cesium intakes.

Now, SC&A assessed missed dose using both the 

urinalysis data and the whole body count data. They 

performed one assessment of the urinalysis data 

using strontium-90 as the indicator radionuclide, and 

another assessment of the whole body count data 

using cesium as the indicator. It was this difference 

in approach that accounted for the difference in the 

dose assignment, which is only about, I believe, 

about a 10 millirem difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: How much difference?

Ms. Briggs: About 10 millirem.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Briggs: Let's see. I'll move to the coworker 

intakes on page 21. At the beginning of the last 

employment period, the EE was monitored with 

urinalysis and whole body counts, which were 

specifically labeled as baseline measurements. And 

both NIOSH and SC&A acknowledge that it was a 

baseline and decided to assign internal dose for 

specific months during the last year of employment 

using the Hanford coworker intakes.

They both took into consideration the fact that the EE 

was in the construction trades and applied the 

appropriate correction factors from OTIB-52. And 

both came up with an identical dose of about one 

millirem for each cancer.

The environmental intakes, on the same page. Both 

NIOSH and SC&A assessed doses from environmental 

intakes for the years that the EE was not monitored 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

66

for internal exposure. NIOSH also included a dose 

from environmental intakes for the very last year of 

employment.

Now, SC&A did not include an environment dose for 

this year, presumably because coworker intakes were 

assigned for that year. But both NIOSH and SC&A 

ended up calculating doses that were less than one 

millirem per year anyway. NIOSH chose to include 

those small doses in the IREP calculations, but SC&A 

did not. Either way is appropriate here.

Okay, I'll go to, let's see, page 22 has SC&A section 

on decision points requiring professional judgment. 

So, here we featured the key issue that we believe 

impacted this case, which is the work assignment --

I'm sorry, the work location assignments.

So, you'll see Table 5-1 and 5-2 summarize all of 

those assignments and how they differed between 

NIOSH and SC&A and how they could have affected 

the assignment of energy fractions and their energy 

types. And this particularly illustrates how judgment 

is needed when the annual job locations are not 

known or are not clear. And, for this case, those 

choices affected the external photon, neutron, and 

the shallow dose calculations.

And we also mentioned here that some judgment was 

used when choosing the target locations for 

occupational medical dose for the one particular 

cancer.

Okay. I'll move to the -- to summarize, on page 24. 

This is where we summarize and reiterate all the 

differences in the dose reconstruction that we just 

discussed. And, as I mentioned before, I'll say that 

the same IREP addition was used, and the same 

methodology was used to run the IREP calculations 

for the PoCs for both of the dose reconstructions.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

67

So, Table 6-1 summarizes the comparison of dose 

estimates for external and internal doses. And you 

can see how the dose estimates are all, like I said, in 

the neighborhood of about six rems for each --

(Telephonic interference.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello?

Member Clawson: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello?

Member Clawson: Hello.

Dr. Roberts: Hello.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think the speaker got cut off. 

(Telephonic interference.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, we may have lost Nicole.

Chair Kotelchuck: We did. We did lose her for a little 

bit. If she can go back. She's going over the Table

6.2.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Someone is definitely not on mute. And 

they may be giving away more information then they 

want on a public line. Thank you.

(Telephonic interference.)

Dr. Roberts: Hello. Please put your phone on mute. 

Thank you. Okay, hello?

Ms. Briggs: I'm sorry, can you hear me? I'm sorry. I 

got dropped from the call.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

68

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. That's all right.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, my goodness. That's never happened 

to me before.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, that's all right. We do this often, so

you're fine.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, okay. Yeah, we're finishing up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could you --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Sorry that person isn't off the line. 

Could you go back to Table 6-1?

Ms. Briggs: Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, I really apologize 

for that.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's all right. Those things 

happen. I'm not --

Ms. Briggs: Is it possible to get that line muted? 

Sorry.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: So, back to Table 6-1.

Ms. Briggs: Okay. Are we good? Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. 

So, Table 6-1. So, as I said, you can see, as I said 

before, the individual dose assignments were very 

close. And then right below it you'll see the PoC 

values which differ. And the difference isn't 

necessarily proportional. And that ended up with a 

combined PoC different value of --

Participant: Hello?

Member Clawson: Hello.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

69

Ms. Briggs: I'm sorry. I just --

Member Clawson: We still hear you.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, okay. I heard someone keep popping 

in and speaking, and I wasn't sure what was going 

on.

Chair Kotelchuck: That was Brad. That was Brad. But, 

we're listening.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Let's see. Let's see, 

where did I end? So, NIOSH 49.4 percent, SC&A 

38.3. And, from what we can tell, it appears that it 

was the job location assumptions and the 

accumulation of those small differences for energy 

types and energy ranges which caused that 

difference in the PoC.

So, that was actually pretty interesting results.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, it was. It was a little -- oh, 

and you haven't finished, perhaps. Let me --

Ms. Briggs: Well, actually, I'm done. That's pretty 

much --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Briggs: But, you know, any questions, I'll try to 

answer.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the difference -- I mean, it's 

interesting, because your total dose was really quite 

similar in all of them. And yet the difference in the 

PoCs was a little larger than we normally experience 

when there's basic agreement. So, here's a case 

where the --

Participant: Hello?

Chair Kotelchuck: If it looks -- ma'am, close off.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

70

Dr. Roberts: Hello, please mute your phone, please.

Chair Kotelchuck: Here's a case where those small 

differences really did accumulate in the PoC. And 

that's -- but I think you did -- it seems to me you 

described them properly as to where the differences 

were. And this is just a little bit greater difference 

than we normally see. But the compensation 

decisions were identical.

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. I would like to 

talk about that. I'd like to go back to that job location, 

because this has come up numerous times in 

different places, especially with sites like this where 

there's so many areas they can be. And, you know, 

this shows a substantial difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: And that's kind of what's worrying 

me. I'm wondering if we could go back to the energy 

-- what was it, work location 3.2, or something like 

that, I thought it was. Because I'd like to understand 

how come. And you said it was because of job 

locations.

Ms. Briggs: Right. We had -- there really wasn't any 

-- when we were doing this comparison, we couldn't 

find any, sort of what I'll all a smoking gun, to point 

it in one direction. So, we realized that the difference 

had to have come from -- particularly, we think it was 

the difference between assigning a shallow dose and 

part of the photon dose as low energy photons, 

versus the 30 to 250 and greater than 250 keV 

photons.

And that goes back to NIOSH's assignment of the 

work location as the plutonium area, which was 

correct. You know, so, if that person worked in the 

plutonium production, then some of the doses would 

be from a low energy photon. So, that was correct. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

71

It really had to do with making that decision as to 

where you want to put the individual.

Now, SC&A's assignment was actually consistent with 

some of the information from the records and the 

CATI. It's tough, because I can't describe particular 

years and particular locations.

Chair Kotelchuck: Correct.

Member Clawson: I understand. 

Ms. Briggs: Yeah. So, I'm not --

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm looking at Table 2-1, though.

Ms. Briggs: You're looking -- oh, okay. I'm sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: That summarizes it for us here.

Ms. Briggs: Oh, okay. Rose, can you put that one up?

Ms. Gogliotti: I have 5-1 and 5-2 up, which I think 

does a really good job.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's okay. That's fine.

Ms. Briggs: Okay. There we go.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Briggs: So, yeah, there's the differences you can 

see on the tables, and the different assignments.

Member Clawson: Right. And I'm looking at the 

shallow. There's almost -- it's almost half versus 

NIOSH's. Okay, well, that's what was interesting to 

me on this.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

72

Mr. Siebert: Let me just -- yeah. This is Scott Siebert. 

Yeah, basically, it came down to the dose 

reconstructor. As Nicole said, it's very hard to place 

this individual in a location. Even with the interview 

information, it was clear that they were in various 

places on the site. I'll just leave it at that.

The records also kind of give that indication also with 

plutonium monitoring, as well as neutron monitoring. 

So, once we see that information, and there wasn't 

enough to really hang our hat on, the dose 

reconstructor made the decision to go with the 

claimant-favorable assumption that they were 

working in the plutonium areas.

That's really where they made their professional 

judgment. And you're right, the less than 30 keV and 

especially a larger proportion being the 30 to 250 keV 

DCFs, when it comes out of IREP that's going to be a 

very big PoC change.

Member Clawson: Well, and Scott, I give credit to 

NIOSH for the more claimant-favorable and stuff like 

this. I guess I'm really looking at this from a, not just 

this site, but other sites when we're dealing with this, 

of how we're placing people and how we're trying to 

give them a claim. It's above and beyond what we're 

doing in here, but it just brought a lot of questions to 

my mind, especially with the energies and how we're 

going to handle those.

So, that's what was interesting to me. I understand 

what you guys did there. I give you kudos for taking 

a more claimant-favorable position. I give SC&A 

kudos for, you know, trying to go through the CATI 

and do the best that they can in this. But it was just 

interesting to me that we had such a difference and 

it came down to just the energies. So, I appreciate it.

Mr. Siebert: Absolutely. There is one other thing that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

73

Nicole mentioned, which I think is a wise thing to 

point out. We were talking about the whole less than 

the LOD over two, that I believe SC&A considered 

those as positive readings and NIOSH considered 

those as zeros. Actually, that process is outlined in 

OCAS-IG-1, where the decision was made originally 

that if a numerical result exists that is greater than 

zero, but less than the LOD over two, that it's 

counted as a missed dose zero and we assess missed 

dose accordingly.

So,- that will have an impact on these things as well.

Member Clawson: I understand.

Chair Kotelchuck: Any other comments by other 

Board Members?

Well, I certainly -- I also was, you know, concerned 

about the difference in PoCs, as I indicated before. 

And I hope as we identify in terms of professional 

judgment, the issue is not simply the lack of records 

as to where the person was working, because that 

person worked all over, you know, the large facility, 

but, really, the underlying problem was that this was 

a journeyman trades person, and that this problem 

occurs often when we're dealing with somebody who 

is a trades person at a site. At many sites this 

problem occurs. And I hope, as we record 

professional judgment, we also denote what the 

person's occupation was within the facility.

So, folks, well, are there any other -- again, any other 

comments?

Should we move to approve? I would like to move 

that we approve.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

74

Mr. Barton: Dr. Kotelchuck, yeah, this is Bob Barton. 

If I could just -- if I could ask just a quick clarifying 

question on what Scott just said.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Barton: Which, if I heard correctly, was that even 

if you have a numerical result, if it is less than the 

LOD over two, it is considered a missed dose for the 

dose reconstruction process.

Is that purely for the assessment of external doses? 

Or, I mean, does that apply generally for even 

internal doses where you might have a numerical 

result that is less than the MDA over two?

Mr. Siebert: That is only for external.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Just for external. Okay. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That's okay. Other 

questions, concerns, comments?

So, hearing none, I'd like to move approval by the 

Committee.

Member Clawson: I'll second that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Comments?

Okay. So the lack of comments suggest to me that 

we're all in agreement. Is that correct?

Member Clawson: It is for me, Dave. This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: That's correct, Dave. This is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. David?

Member Richardson: Yep.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

75

Member Lockey: And Jim Lockey --

Chair Kotelchuck: In agreement.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. Okay. We're in 

agreement, and it's so approved.

Now it's time to break. Of course, it's getting even a 

little late, a little later then I thought. It's 12:55. So, 

why don't we take a lunch break from now, consider 

it one o'clock. We'll take a lunch break until 2:00. And 

then resume at two o'clock with the last of the three 

blinds, in which all of us will participate.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:54 p.m. and resumed at 2:02 p.m.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I think we can go on.

B42 from Rocky Flats Review

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Sounds good. We only have one 

more blind case to go over today. And that is Blind 

42, which is a Rocky Flats case. And Duane is going 

to present it.

Mr. DeMore: Alright. Hello, everybody. Yes, as Rose 

said, we'll go through this comparison here. This is 

for a Rocky Flats case, as she said. If you look at 

Table -- I guess we're going to start on Table 1.2 

where we can talk about the -- well, yeah, we'll start 

on Table 1.2, the introduction information there. I 

don't think there's anything too important there. If 

you look at the table here, it outlines the doses for 

the multiple cancers as calculated by both NIOSH and 

SC&A. In general, NIOSH calculated about 14 rem 

per cancer. SC&A calculated doses, on average, say. 

400 millirem higher per cancer. The combined PoC 

for these, on page 9, NIOSH calculated 47.87 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

76

and SC&A, with the slightly higher doses, had a 

slightly higher PoC at 49.34 percent. But, as you all 

know, importantly, those are both below 50 percent, 

so this was a non-compensated case.

Going through the methodology, this employee 

worked at Rocky Flats in two different stints for about 

25 years total. Again, there's two different periods of 

time there. All the dose assessments were done in 

accordance with all the listed TBDs, the normal 

references.

I'm on Table 2.1. We're comparing the data and 

assumptions used by NIOSH and SC&A. In most 

cases, they were the same. You can see everything 

is all outlined here. If you go down, there's -- and 

we'll talk about it more in detail -- there's some 

differences in the number of zeros assumed for 

missed photon and missed neutron doses. There's 

some slight differences with the standard deviations 

assumed for some log-normal distributions. And 

those are all very minor. And the big one we'll talk 

about later is some assumptions related to the 

internal plutonium missed dose and the absorption 

types.

Okay. So, now we're on the photon dose. They were 

generally -- this individual was generally monitored 

during their employment periods. They had some 

varying bad badge exchange frequencies, a fair 

number of zeros, but also recorded dose. Nothing too 

complicated or off-normal related to the reported 

photon dose.

There's a slight difference in that NIOSH assigned a 

total dose of 302 millirem and SC&A assigned a total 

recorded photon dose of 303 millirem due to a 

difference in one particular assumed year. And I'll 

lump that into the recorded shallow dose. We'll kind 

of talk about why that is off by one millirem.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

77

Again, under 3.2, under the recorded shallow dose, 

again, all the same assumptions were there. Nothing 

too abnormal. NIOSH assigned a shallow dose of 160 

millirem and SC&A assigned a total of 177 millirem. 

Now -- and these are related to differences, in this 

case, related some 1986 differences. So, the 

recorded deep dose was a difference in '85; shallow 

doses in '86.

The differences here is the approach to the neutron 

dose. The neutron dose should be separated out from 

the recorded deep or shallow dose to determine the 

deep or shallow dose. NIOSH -- in those cases, there 

was identified neutron dose, but it was below the LOD 

over two. NIOSH subtracted that out from the 

reading to get a value, whereas SC&A, because it was 

below LOD over two, considered it zero and did not 

subtract it out. That's the reason for those differences 

in both the recorded photon and the shallow dose.

Okay. And then neutron dose, again, we've got listed 

all of the assumptions, everything there. And there 

was no differences there between NIOSH and SC&A. 

And we assigned the total neutron dose of about 450 

millirem.

Missed dose. Here's another case where there's some 

slight differences, but they're explained 

fundamentally in how the different groups counted 

the zeros. NIOSH assigned a missed photon dose of 

995 millirem with the associated standard deviations. 

Their issue, the difference was of the number of 

zeros. NIOSH assumed 89.7 zeros. If you look right 

below that, SC&A counted 85 and a half, 85.5 zeros. 

And that's just the difference in NIOSH uses the VOSE 

calculation, the VOSE methodology. So they get 

different zeros, if you're comparing these tables in 

3.1 and 3.2, Tables 3.1 to 3.2, you can see where 

NIOSH has extra fractions of zeros in certain years. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

78

That accounts for the difference in number of the 

number zeros when you have --

Chair Kotelchuck: Could you -- could I just ask -- I'll 

just interrupt. I'm sorry to interrupt a little bit.

Mr. DeMore: No, you're fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: But I don't -- I hadn't heard of the 

VOSE, the use of that, the VOSE methodology. Could 

you just say a word, or could somebody say a word, 

about that?

Mr. DeMore: Yeah, I'd need someone else to help me 

out on how the VOSE methodology -- the VOSE tool.

Mr. Smith: Hi, this is Matthew Smith with ORAU 

Team. And when you hear the term "VOSE," V-O-SE, it is describing a software package that ORAU 

Team uses to do the Monte Carlo calculations. It is 

used to take the components of dose that have 

distributions associated with them, normal 

distributions, log-normal distributions, and then it's 

processing them arithmetically, as dictated by IG001 and/or the site TBDs. So it is taking care of the 

uncertainty, would- probably the quick bottom-line 

way to describe it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Smith: -- using a Monte Carlo method.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay. Thank you very 

much.

Mr. Smith: You bet.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Let's go on now.

Ms. Gogliotti: And SC&A doesn't use that technique. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

79

That's why Duane had trouble explaining it.

(Laughter.)

Mr. DeMore: Yeah, I've never used it. But, 

regardless, depending on the number of zeros you 

have, the missed doses assigned based on the LOD 

over two methodology, and those methodologies are 

all the same. So SC&A has a dose of 935 millirem 

compared to NIOSH's 995.

Alright. Now, missed neutron dose. Here, again, they 

were all based on the zeros and the doses, again, 

some of those similar issues. NIOSH assigned a 

missed neutron dose of 1.681 rem, whereas -- 1.681 

approximately for all the cancers. SC&A, because 

they have fewer zeros, SC&A had 79 and a half zeros 

compared to NIOSH's 83.4. SC&A assigned only 

1.612 rem to the cancers. And, again, this goes to 

the -- just as we said before, the VOSE methodology 

versus just coming up with the zeros based on the 

frequencies. So, again, that's the reason for SC&A 

being lower there.

And on page 17, under the unmonitored photon dose, 

there was -- they were mostly monitored, but there 

were periods of without monitoring during this 

employee's employment. NIOSH assigned an 

unmonitored photon dose of 1.043 rem, whereas 

SC&A assigned 1.042. This is basically just some 

dose rounding and spreadsheet working. So, 

effectively, those are the same doses there.

The same can be said for the unmonitored shallow 

dose, where both SC&A and NIOSH assigned 

approximately 466 millirem. SC&A was 466, NIOSH 

was 467. Again, this is due to rounding errors in the 

calculations.

Section 3.8, unmonitored neutron dose, again, very 

close agreement here. They were periodically 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

80

monitored for neutrons, and that's why we had the 

issue with the recorded doses. SC&A derived a total 

dose of 8.382 rem, whereas NIOSH has 8.387. And, 

again, they had unmonitored periods. There were 

varying portions of their employment where they 

were unmonitored there for a few of the years of their 

employment.

Again, this is basically rounding. But really, in this 

case, it's about the time that they were unmonitored. 

As you can see, NIOSH assumed 6.9 months of 

unmonitored time in a given year, whereas SC&A had 

6.87, or 4.08 by NIOSH versus 4 months by SC&A. 

So, basically, it's just the number of significant 

figures and assumed months without monitoring.

3.9, occupational medical dose, again, there was --

the individual did have medical examinations. SC&A 

and NIOSH handled these similarly and assigned, you 

know, depending on the different cancers, between 

20 millirem to about 300 millirem, depending. Again, 

there was no differences in how those doses were 

calculated and assigned.

Under 3.10, onsite ambient dose. Again, the onsite 

ambient dose was assigned in a similar fashion for 

both SC&A and NIOSH. It was only 32 millirem for 

each cancer, and that was all in agreement. 

So, that's it for the external doses, really nothing too 

significantly different there. Just a couple minor 

different assumptions.

Member Beach: Matt, can I ask a question before you 

move on to internal?

Mr. DeMore: Yeah.

Member Beach: This is Josie. Can you hear me?

Mr. DeMore: Yes, I can.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

81

Member Beach: Okay, sorry. So, on your Table 3.1, 

the zeros, the 3.2 -- for an example, in 1967, it was 

3.2. I don't recall the zeros not being zeros. Does that 

capture, like, three months point a few days? Or how 

do you get the .2 or the .5 or whatever when you're 

looking at the zeros? I probably should know this, but 

--

Ms. Gogliotti: Is Ron on the line? Rocky Flats does 

something a little bit different --

(Telephonic interference.)

Member Beach: It did? I just didn't recall it and was 

curious.

Mr. Buchanan: Yeah, this is Ron. Okay. Because -- if 

you say that what's a minimum amount of zeros and 

what's a maximum amount of zeros, depending on 

the exchange frequency, Rocky Flats didn't always 

have the same exchange frequency throughout the 

worker's employment, or from one worker to 

another. And so it had the possibility of, say, like, 

four a year or 12 a year. And sometimes the 

monitoring records aren't clear on what the exchange 

frequency was. 

So you look at the minimum and you look at the 

maximum, you add those two together and divide it 

by two. So you'll come out with a fraction of a zero. 

And that's kind of counterintuitive because you think, 

well, you either got a zero recorded in the records or 

you don't have a zero, and so you just count them 

up. Well, in some cases where there's a gray area, 

you don't know what the exchange frequency was. 

Then you do an average. And then that's why it 

doesn't come out a full number. Is that the question 

you asked?

Member Beach: Yeah, I was just curious on that. 

Thank you for clearing that up for me.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

82

Mr. Buchanan: Okay. You're welcome.

Member Beach: Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Mr. Smith: And this is Matthew Smith with the ORAU 

Team. And Ron ran through that just right. And the 

source of that guidance is in IG-001.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Thank you.

Member Beach: Thank you. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, let's go on to 

occupational internal.

Mr. DeMore: Okay. Now we're on page 19, the 

internal dose. And this is when we'll get into a couple 

of the bigger differences that we have. So, this 

individual was monitored for internal dose via 

plutonium and uranium bioassay for different periods 

of their employment. They also received chest 

counts. All that will be important here.

But I guess one thing to say: all the internal 

monitoring was negative, all below the LOD for each 

different type of analysis. For the missed -- so, the 

only doses assigned were missed doses. NIOSH, for 

missed plutonium dose, calculated a chronic intake 

rate over the course of the full employment based on 

the LOD over two, if you will, to calculate what a 

potential intake was.

NIOSH looked at it. They ran it for Type M or Type S 

intakes. They got different values, different potential 

intakes, of course, whether it was Type M or Type S, 

and settled on assuming a Type M intake based on 

the associated chest count americium values of the 

chest counts, to make sure, because if they didn't --

they lowered the assumption from the plutonium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

83

urinalysis results to make sure it lined up with the 

americium chest count results.

This resulted in Table 4.1. You can see the assumed 

NIOSH intake rates for the plutonium and the 

associated americium. And that results in a dose of 

approximately 200 millirem for each cancer. And that 

was entered into -- used in IREP.

SC&A did it a little bit differently. They used the same 

negative bioassay results for plutonium, and 

calculated the assumed intake rate, and calculated 

basically the same intake rate as NIOSH did. 

However, what SC&A did was then compared what 

the assumed intake rate would be based off of the 

chest counts, and determined that, based on the 

assumption of the chest count, Type S would match 

up between the chest count and the urinalysis.

So, as a result, SC&A shows a Type S intake for 

plutonium. So, you can see the intake rates that 

SC&A has assumed. They're very different intake 

rates, largely because of the different solubility 

types.

And then the impact there is, because of assuming 

the Type S, in accordance of OTIB-49, SC&A then 

modeled it as Type Super S plutonium. So that 

results in excess dose assigned after the final 

urinalysis results. So, the later year doses were even 

higher under SC&A.

So, this results in SC&A calculating approximately 

700 or so millirem to each cancer site. Again, that's 

under 4.1.3. Comparing that to NIOSH, you can see 

that's where we have the biggest difference there, of 

four or five hundred millirem per cancer site, because 

of the choice to use Type S and Type Super S for 

SC&A compared to NIOSH using Type M. Does that 

make sense? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

84

So, with that, that's the difference for plutonium. 

Moving on to the missed uranium intake. Under 

uranium, again, they had all negative bioassay 

results. Only missed uranium intake was assigned. 

NIOSH assigned an intake based over the period of 

the bioassay, calculated as a solubility Type M. 

You've got listed the intake rates for the uranium, as 

well as the RU intakes. So that's where you get all 

the associated radionuclides, and you get about 80 

millirem, 77 or 80 millirem, for each of the cancers.

SC&A did almost identically the same thing. But the 

one subtle difference, I guess, they used the same 

data, the same chronic intake period. As you can see 

here under Table 4.4, SC&A calculated the exact 

same intake rate of 185 dpm per day of U-234, as 

well as the associated radionuclides.

One difference, though, on this is plutonium. 

Plutonium-239 is scaled in under the RU workbooks 

and RU process. NIOSH scaled that in when they 

calculated their dose. SC&A did not, because the 

thought was that the plutonium was already handled 

directly via the missed plutonium intake. So the 

plutonium was not added in under the missed 

uranium portion, and that results in slightly -- you 

know, 3 millirem or so lower uranium doses. And, 

again, that's just because of whether or not you 

assume plutonium-239 as part of the uranium dose.

Section 4.3, unmonitored tritium dose. Again, both 

SC&A and NIOSH did it the same way. They had a 

total dose of about 200 millirem to each cancer. And, 

again, there was no difference there on unmonitored 

tritium. 

And that's it for internal. And then Section 5 here, 

there's the decision points requiring professional 

judgment. It's what we just talked about, and we can 

continue to talk if you have any other questions or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

85

issues. But it's just the issue of how you determine -

- or what inhalation class should be assumed for the 

missed plutonium intake, whether it should be Type 

M and the way that NIOSH did it, or Type S and Super 

S the way SC&A did it.

So we've got a little bit more of a discussion about 

how that came about, why there was the two 

differences in the end. And as a result of these 

cancers and everything else, it has not a significant 

impact on the PoC. Remember before, I think SC&A 

was one or just about a percent or so higher than 

NIOSH. But that's the results of their differences --

or caused a difference, I should say.

And that's it. So, in summary, under the summary, 

we have about one and a half percent difference in 

this combined PoC, 49.3 to 47.9. The differences are 

summarized by how you handle subtracting -- how 

you handle the doses as a result of neutron dose, 

what is actually subtracted out when it is below the 

LOD over two; and the number of zeros based on the 

different methodologies, how we calculate zeros; and 

then the assignment of plutonium intakes. And that's 

twofold. It's with the inhalation class -- or absorption 

class, I should say, and whether or not plutonium 

should be included with uranium when plutonium has 

already been assessed directly. 

I think that's it for this case. What kind of questions?

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, folks. Comments and 

questions?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I don't have any.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. If you'd like me to, I can 

go over the plutonium difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, that would be nice.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

86

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, happy to do it.

Duane, it's great to hear your voice. I haven't heard 

you for years. Good to hear you.

Mr. DeMore: Yeah, nice to hear you, Scott.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, the plutonium-239, and the whole 

plutonium intake issue, as Duane was mentioning, 

we ruled it out based on the fact that if you get a 

Type S slow intake based on urine and project it out 

to the chest count, actually, it overpredicts the chest 

count values. You need to -- and I did check that, 

actually, pretty specifically, because in our submitted 

version, the Type S intake that we use to look to see 

if it was overpredicted actually is identical to what 

SC&A assigned. 

So, the intake was done correctly. But when you 

project it out to americium-241 in the lung, including 

the ingrowth from plutonium-241, actually it ends up 

overpredicting what you would see in the -- what we 

didn't see in the chest count. The chest count was 

negative. It would have been positive.

And the extension from that is, with Super S, that 

actually would have even more in the lung if you're 

starting from urine. So both of those would be ruled 

out by the fact that the chest count doesn't show any 

americium positive. So that's the difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And that's helpful. Both are 

based on the measurements of chest count and 

urinalysis and the way you handle those. Okay. 

Sounds good to me. That helps my understanding. 

Any other comments or concerns?

Not hearing any, should we consider this approved?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

87

Member Clawson: This is Brad. Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Beach: And I agree with that also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree.

Member Lockey: Lockey. I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good. Okay. And that was 

Loretta and Jim. 

Alright. Is David on the phone? David, are you on the 

phone? David Richardson.

I don't hear you, and you were not on the roll call 

before. So I think you have -- then I think we will say 

it's unanimous, except for David's vote. 

And, Rashaun, you will poll him later, I guess. In the 

Subcommittee like this --

Dr. Roberts: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We have a quorum, so I don't know 

that his vote is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Actually -- that actually leads to 

my question. If this was a vote of the Board, she 

would certainly have to call anybody who misses a 

Board vote. Since it's a Subcommittee issue, say, I 

think actually the Subcommittee vote, as long as a 

quorum is present, is done and we don't have to 

check it.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree with you, 

David, on that. We don't need to go for his vote. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

88

may let him know we voted on that, but that's just a 

preference of ours to make sure everybody 

understands what we've done. But I don't think we 

need his vote.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I think you're right. I think 

we're in agreement on this, then. So, the vote is 

unanimous that we approve. And that finishes the 

blinds for us.

Now we have some remaining in-progress cases. 

And, Rose, I don't know if there's anything updated 

on them. Do you want to go over them, the 

Monticello, the --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, I would be happy to go over it. 

Before we close out the blinds, do you want us to 

update the summary table for the blinds to reflect 

these three cases?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes, absolutely. The decisions 

are made, yes, by all means, the table that you 

made, sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: We will certainly do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And we'll come to the 

professional judgment tracking a little later after we 

finish the in-progress cases, or finish what we can.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. But we only have four issues that 

I think are at a point where we should talk about 

them. So, we'll just go through those.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And those are the cases that are -- they 

correspond with the agenda.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: The first one is from the 14th or 18th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

89

AWE grouping, and that's Tab 432. And this is Finding 

4.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'll get to it here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Member Clawson: Hey, Rose. Let me ask you a 

question real quick, because is anybody else on the 

Board having trouble getting into the Board Review 

System? They've sent out some stuff to me. I've had 

a heck of a time trying to find it in there. I was 

wondering if anybody else is having any trouble 

finding it.

Member Beach: Sorry, Brad. No, I found it.

Member Clawson: Did you?

Member Beach: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can call after and I'll help you get on. 

But do you have access to this link?

Member Clawson: Yes, I do. I get into that, but I'm 

just having a hard time finding it after I get into it 

because I can't go back and pull up a number that 

they gave me. So I'm typing in the information. I'll 

get together with you one of these days and have you 

go through it with me. I appreciate it. I was just 

watching how yours was lined up, and that's not how 

mine comes up.

(Laughter.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Absolutely. I can help you with that. 

Not a problem.

Member Clawson: Okay. Thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

90

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one dates back quite a 

ways. It's a uranium mill in Monticello case. And what 

happened with this one, way back when, was we 

were unable to match NIOSH's dose correction factor 

values for exposure to radon.

And we brought this to the Board's attention. NIOSH 

agreed that it should be better documented. And they 

indicated that they intended to update the 

documentation either as part of an update to TIB-11 

or as a standalone document. Later on, they decided 

it was going to be in TIB-11 and they were revising 

it. But it hadn't been revised yet, and that's kind of 

where we left things. 

It has since been issued. Rev. 5 of TIB-11 was issued 

in 2018, and we did confirm that that revision does 

address radon dose correction factors. And we 

compared those to the ones that were used in the 

dose reconstruction of our revision. There were some 

very small differences. I believe they were rounding 

errors. But, more or less, they were the same. And, 

of course, it doesn't impact the compensation 

decision. So we recommend closing the finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Well, glad to hear 

progress. That's really an old one. So, sounds like this 

is something we should approve. I would agree. How 

do other folks feel? Approve?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I also agree with that.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I agree.

Member Valerio: Loretta, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I agree. And that is 

approved. Okay, good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

91

Ms. Gogliotti: It's nice to get some of these really old 

ones off of our --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, it certainly is.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next ones are in Sets 19 through 

21. And these are in the AWE site cases matrix. Give 

it a second to pull up. Sometimes it takes a little 

while. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And the first one is a GE 

Vallecitos case, and this is Tab 473.2. 

Okay. This one we questioned if onsite ambient dose 

was being calculated appropriately. This review 

NIOSH originally completed back in 2013. And so we 

had some questions when we did our review about 

whether or not natural background was being 

included with the ambient dose calculations. Of 

course, typically, according to the PROC-60, those 

would be removed because natural background is 

different than the ambient dose that we're 

considering.

Since this case was done, NIOSH has completely 

reworked the way that they do ambient dose at GE 

Vallecitos. So, assigning is kind of an artifact in a 

way, not really worth talking about beyond that. 

NIOSH did agree with us that the inclusion of 

identified natural background was inappropriate. At 

least, it would be inappropriately unless you were 

overestimating the dose.

This is kind of where I don't understand their 

comment, and maybe Scott can elaborate. They said 

that this claim wasn't impacted by this decision. And 

when we look at it, we see that it clearly was. So, 

maybe, Scott, you can elaborate.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

92

Mr. Siebert: Let's see here. The natural background 

impact discussion only impacted post-1965 ambient. 

Prior to '65, actually, there was no background to 

strip out until '65, if I remember correctly. This claim 

only had ambient in '59 and '60, prior to the time 

where you would strip it out. So --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, that's where we were confused, 

because the case actually had ambient dose assigned 

in '59 and '60, but also '79 through '80 and '83 to 

'94.

Mr. Siebert: And that could be my mistake.

Ms. Gogliotti: In any event, the current method does 

decrease ambient dose for all years except the chunk 

of time between '67 and '85, based on our 

preliminary research of what's being done currently. 

But this case is no longer impacted by this, or cases 

done in the future are not impacted by this.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, do both of you agree on that?

Mr. Sharfi: This is Mutty Sharfi. I can explain the 

post-'65 thing. In this particular claim, the employee 

actually has dosimetric records for the later time 

period, but they're summary data. So that was used 

to cover exposures post '65. The only thing that they 

were unmonitored for was in '59 and '60. Therefore, 

the onsite ambient was used just for those two years.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that we -- maybe I'll have to 

take a second look at this. But, at least the case that 

we reviewed -- and I don't know if this case has since 

been updated -- we had identified that ambient dose 

was being assigned in those later years also.

Mr. Siebert: In the methodology that's part of these 

include-all AWE DRs, it does include the tables that 

have the dose from all years. But when you read into 

the print, the record actually provided a summary 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

93

dose from 1961 to end of year of a total dose 

assigned through all his dosimetry. They didn't give 

individual dosimetry, but they gave a total dose. So, 

the individual was monitored post-1960. And so that 

monitoring record was used to cover his exposure 

post-1960, but he started employment prior to 1961. 

And, therefore, ambient was used just to cover those 

two years.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think there's some confusion about 

this, so maybe we should --

Chair Kotelchuck: Is that something you should talk 

about?

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm pretty confident when I looked at 

this in IREP there was ambient dose assigned for 

those later years. So, either they were labeled 

incorrectly or we're talking past each other.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, it seems to me you 

folks should talk and then bring it back. And it sounds 

like you will come to an agreement.

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Siebert: Honestly, regardless, one way or the 

other, I think we all agree that it's been updated. So 

I don't necessarily think there's a need to continue 

holding this out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Except --

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that's a good point, Scott. At 

the end of the day, this is no longer impacting cases, 

which is our goal.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's certainly true. The issue is 

whether this was -- we were reviewing this case and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

94

whether this was correct or not. So, whether this was 

correct or not, it is no longer a problem.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. And, actually, the current method 

does decrease ambient dose for a significant length 

of time. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: So it would actually decrease the dose 

if the case --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. So, I don't know, what do 

other folks think on the Subcommittee? Should we 

just approve because it's no longer an issue? Or 

should we make sure that this one is nailed down 

between the two of them and then approve it?

Member Clawson: Well, Dave, this is Brad. It's 

appearing to me that there's been an issue, so 

they've corrected the issue. My only question is, will 

this affect this case, is the only thing I'm --

Chair Kotelchuck: That's right. That's correct.

Member Clawson: That's the only thing that I'm 

hesitant about. I see that we've corrected and 

everything else like that, but have we corrected this 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's exactly the issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, with this case, if it were to be 

reworked, I think that we're saying that the dose 

would go down.

Member Clawson: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, that's true.

And you're in agreement, though, on that?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

95

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay.

Member Clawson: Okay, then I don't have a problem 

with closing it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Nor do I. Anybody have any --

Member Lockey: Doesn't affect the case, so I'd close 

it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Approved.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree to close the 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good, good. Sorry, I was 

premature. And, Josie, I didn't hear from you, but I 

assume you approve.

Member Beach: That's okay. When you said you 

closed it I was going to agree also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: So that's fine.

Member Richardson: This is David Richardson. I'm on 

the phone as well. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: David. Okay, great. You should 

know that we approved the B-42 Rocky Flats 

unanimously. And so that's taken care of, as well. 

Okay, good. Glad you're back. Now let's see. 

So, let's go back to the in-progress. It's there 

anything on Texas City Chemicals?

Ms. Gogliotti: Actually, we have one more on this 

case.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

96

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, very good. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Same case, GE Vallecitos. This is from, 

again, Tab 573 and this is Finding 3. And with this 

one we initially had problems replicating the recorded 

photon dose that was assigned. And when the dose 

reconstructor initially did this case -- this was, again, 

a fairly old case -- it appeared that more records were 

being used than we had available to us. So we've 

requested those records, and we had a little back and 

forth, and NIOSH did give us the records.

And I completely know what happened now. They 

directed us to a page in a document that we already 

had. And when I went back and looked at it, I see 

what they did. It's a little bit different than what we 

normally see, and I think that the reviewer was 

confused in this case. This was one of the first Weibull 

cases that we saw where the doses in IREP don't 

necessarily all match because of the way uncertainty 

is handled with that distribution.

And so it looked like they were assigning doses based 

on individual or annual dosimeters, when really what 

they did was they took the lifetime dose estimates 

that were reported at several time periods in the EE's 

career and subtracted out various parameters, and 

then averaged that over the yearly span, which, for 

recorded doses, is absolutely a claimant-favorable 

approach. And we have no problems with that. I 

completely understand what they did with the new 

information or with the information that they 

provided us.

For missed dose, it kind of ignores the impacts of 

missed dose. But this case was compensated, so it is 

a reasonable efficiency measure. So, based on that, 

we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds good, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

97

recommending closure. Are there any objections or 

concerns?

Member Beach: None here.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. Would that no longer be 

a finding, then?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, let's just finish the 

Subcommittee and then we'll come back to that. So, 

folks, no objections from the Subcommittee 

Members, right?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Then let's go back to 

Grady. Is this a finding?

Member Clawson: So, Grady, you're saying -- this is 

Brad. You're saying that this was found as a finding 

when we were going through it. Is that correct?

Mr. Calhoun: It sounded to me it was listed as a 

finding, and I think it might just be an observation 

since they realized what was done. But it took a 

while. Maybe I'm wrong there. I'll defer to Scott, but 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I think you are. I mean, it was 

there. They came to understand what you had done 

and agreed that was appropriate. So, that would 

normally be an observation. So, I would be open to 

changing from finding to observation. Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not going to disagree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then let's say it's an 

observation, unless I hear disagreement from Board 

Members.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

98

I do not. So it is now an -- it's approved as an 

observation. Good, making progress. Now Texas City 

Chemicals?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, last one, which is Tab 442. Last 

one here, and this is Observation 2. And what 

happened with this one was initially we had trouble 

replicating the inhalation rate for uranium that was 

used in the case. NIOSH responded essentially saying 

that when they looked at how we calculated intake 

rate, we did it a little differently than them.

They were, in fact, using a 2,500-hour per year work 

year, as well as a 365-day calendar year, as opposed 

to a shortened calendar based on work days. And we 

understood what they did, but we had some 

remaining concerns at the time. We understood the 

rationale and why they were doing the doses the way 

that they did, and it has to do with how IMBA and the 

chronic annual dose workbook handles doses. 

But we had some remaining concerns regarding the 

method. We felt that it might lead to an accidental 

dose dilution, as well as an inconsistent application 

between sites. And NIOSH responded, essentially 

saying that the way that the information is presented 

in the workbooks or in the guidance documents, they 

don't have to make any changes, dose 

reconstructors, so that they felt that this would lead 

to less consistency issues. 

And we just have some remaining questions, I guess, 

regarding documentation for NIOSH, just to make 

sure that, is there internal guidance that specifies 

how this should be handled to ensure consistency in 

guidance, as well as application throughout the 

program?

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen. That sounds like a, you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

99

know, what you'd call a systemwide comment, then, 

right, or program-wide comment is what it amounts 

to?

Ms. Gogliotti: Potentially.

Mr. Allen: It's not really for this particular case?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, programmatically, yes. We're just 

curious. I was looking, trying to find guidance that 

specifically said that all NIOSH guidance documents 

do this, and I couldn't find it. And it doesn't mean it 

doesn't exist. If you can point me to somewhere or 

maybe bring up how this is handled, that'd be great. 

I just can't find anything.

Mr. Allen: Yeah, there's really no guidance that says 

this. The TBDs and stuff themselves generally say 

how we calculated. And sometimes it footnoted 

saying it's on a calendar day basis. Sometimes it just 

says per day.

The SC&A report itself, when it reproduced the table 

out of the Texas City Chemical Evaluation Report, 

said essentially it's a calendar basis, a 365-day 

calendar day basis. There's a footnote toward the 

table that you recreated, even though that footnote 

was not in the ER. So, the ER was plain enough. It 

had enough text in it to say that they could determine 

that it was a calendar day basis, which was what we 

were using to do this dose reconstruction. I can't 

remember what else I was going to say here.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Mr. Allen: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, no. Do go ahead.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

100

Mr. Allen: I was going to say, since the time that this 

dose reconstruction was done, we've created a TBD 

for Texas City Chemicals. And the current revision, I 

guess Rev. 1, it has this table in it. And underneath 

it says a footnote that it's on a per calendar day basis.

That's about as good as I think we can do. I mean, 

this is an issue that sounds like it is simple. But, in 

all honestly, when you dig into it, you find out that 

people -- if you say per calendar day or per work day, 

people still don't know what you're talking about. All 

they know is it says per day. And when they go to 

punch something into IMBA or into CADW or any 

other internal dose software, they're going to put that 

number in because it says per day, without 

considering whether it's work day or calendar day. 

And if they do that and we put it in there as a 

calendar day basis, like we do, it'll still be right.

If we do it on a per workday basis, I can absolutely 

guarantee you it will mess up a lot of different dose 

reconstructions. So there's really no way I intend to 

do that in the future. It's going to be on -- it's 

definitely going to be on a calendar day basis, is what 

it's going to be listed in the TBDs.

Ms. Gogliotti: And that's consistently done 

throughout the program? And there's no internal 

guidance that says that's the way it should be, 

everyone just knows. Is that how I'm interpreting 

that?

Mr. Allen: Yeah, I believe so. In fact, the only time 

I've seen this become an issue was during SC&A 

reviews. And this is about the third time it's shown 

up, but only about the third time. Any other time it's 

listed, people just realize what it is.

Chair Kotelchuck: "People" meaning the dose 

reconstructor?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

101

Mr. Allen: Dose reconstructors, as well as SC&A 

reviewers. There's been plenty of AWE reviews that 

they've done. They're run through IMBA. They've had 

no problem with it just saying per day. There's only 

been two or three, I think. I might be wrong, but I 

think two or three different reviews and different 

Work Groups that have raised this issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: It seems like if other Work Groups 

have mentioned this, there should be some kind of 

tracking of it, shouldn't there, somewhere?

Mr. Allen: It is. But trying to find that is -- it's tough, 

because some of it, I think, might be this 

Subcommittee. It was DR Subcommittee and you've 

got to go through each and every case in the past.

Member Beach: Right.

Mr. Allen: But, I mean, it's always come out the same 

way that -- I don't think anybody has argued it as 

much as with this case before. It's always been, we 

can't reproduce, and we say, well, it's on a calendar 

day basis. Oh, okay, we got it. And close the finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, you are going to put it into -

- you have put it into Texas City Chemicals.

Mr. Allen: We put a footnote to the table. We put a 

footnote on that table, and there's a number of other 

TBDs who have that footnote. I can't guarantee all of 

them do. I can pretty much guarantee some of them 

don't.

But, I mean, like I said, even saying it's on a calendar 

day basis doesn't guarantee you it's going to be 

realized by the dose reconstructor. And if you look at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

102

page 18 of the SC&A review for this particular case, 

you will see they did a calculation using eight hours 

per day and then called it a calendar day basis, even 

though calendar day would be seven days per week. 

So even they -- I mean, they messed this up even 

realizing that there's a difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that sounds like an issue 

about instruction of dose reconstructors.

Mr. Allen: Well --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: And you say, well, they don't 

understand it, whereas it does seem to me clear 

calendar day versus workday. I don't know. I know 

the difference, and I would expect that most people 

do. I'm a little bit ---

Ms. Gogliotti: I think what happens is when you're 

hearing per calendar day so then you're converting it 

into a workday, because there's the assumption that 

you're not working on weekends. I think that that's a 

reasonable interpretation of that.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: And I understand what you're doing, 

and I'm not saying that's wrong. But I think that's 

what happened here.

Mr. Allen: Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Mr. Allen: Can you do me a favor, Rose, and call up 

the first finding for Texas City Chemicals? It has this 

review, a link for this review. And if you call that up 

and go to page 18.

Chair Kotelchuck: It's there.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

103

Mr. Allen: Well, that's where this comment comes 

from. I can show you what I'm talking about, that it 

seems clear to me -- it always has, but I'm kind of 

biased that way; I've done this quite a bit.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I think you have.

Mr. Allen: But for others -- let's see. I can show you 

exactly what I'm talking about here in a second. 

Okay. Yeah, this is page 18. The table you see here 

comes from Table 7.3 of the Evaluation Report, and 

that is what we were using to do dose reconstructions 

at the time this that this DR was done.

In the Evaluation Report, there is text describing 

what we did, how we came up with this table, but 

there is no footnotes to it. If you look at this table, 

you see an asterisks that says the values are 

normalized at a 365-day calendar year. So, 

somebody realized it makes a difference and put that 

footnote in here, the author of this report from SC&A.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, very good.

Mr. Allen: If you go down a little -- okay. But if you 

go down further, then you see the calculation that 

says eight hours per day as part of that calculation. 

And they come up with 46 picocuries per day. Right 

underneath it, the sentence says, it is unclear why 

we derive 46 picocuries per calendar day.

So the author of this report is writing calendar day 

and per day and still mixing it up. So it's not like they 

just ignored it and just forgot about there being a 

difference. It still got mixed up here. If they put 

calendar day when, in reality, they're using eight 

hours per day, it's clearly not a calendar day. 

So if we were to put a footnote on all of our tables, it 

wouldn't make as much of a -- it's not going to make 

a difference for everybody. There's still going to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

104

mistakes. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I agree. I agree. I was just asking if 

there was an overall guidance document to make 

sure that in every single TBD or Site Profile document 

that gets attached instead of a Site Profile that it's all 

done consistently there so that dose reconstructors 

know that it's consistent across the program. That 

was my --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: There's not, and it's written into most TBDs 

as far as the derivation of the numbers. And the main 

reason there's not, and I hesitate to say it's got to be 

a complex, wide, definitive thing as some of these 

AWEs we deal with are a one-week or a three-day 

thing. And you want to be careful about saying it's a 

per calendar day basis even though they would 

probably put it over a three-day chronic intake on a 

calendar day basis. Yeah, that would be true.

But that is where we ended up really confusing 

people, saying calendar day, work day when it was 

only, like, a one-week or one-month operation. It got 

things messed up. So it's usually best just to describe 

it all and to realize putting this in the top of a table 

on a header is really not going to solve much of 

anything. It's still going to confuse people if they 

think about it. It is, flat out, just not as clear as it 

seems like it should be.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, we certainly have it cleared 

up for Texas Chemical -- Texas City Chemical.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: It's just that -- and I would say it 

seems a reasonable observation for SC&A to say, why 

can't we do this consistently? We've gotten a -- we 

had a discussion from NIOSH saying it's not as easy 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

105

as you think which, okay, I respect. So I think we 

should just simply approve Texas City Chemical as 

it's an observation and approve it and go on because 

-- unless people -- other -- maybe other Board 

Members could say. Do they think this is important 

enough that despite the problems that somehow this 

should be put in and further clarified?

Mr. Allen: I have to say the conversation has left me 

less clear about the language than -- I don't think it's 

been clarified.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I would agree.

Member Richardson: I would agree with Dave. It left 

me less clear of what's going on.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling. Can I ask a 

question?

Chair Kotelchuck: Surely.

Ms. Behling: Not to add -- yeah, not to add confusion 

to this. But David, would something like TIB-5000 

would be appropriate place to put this type of 

information? Or am I completely missing the point 

here?

Ms. Gogliotti: That only applies to AWE facilities, I 

believe.

Ms. Behling: Yes, okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't know. I can't answer your 

question. And I think --

Ms. Behling: That is -- it is --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- you're talking --

Ms. Behling: -- for AWEs, yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

106

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: And I thought that we were worried 

about the AWEs because they're not -- they don't 

always have Site Profiles associated with them. But 

perhaps that's not the appropriate --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, I understand what you're saying. 

That's not a bad idea, to be honest. But I know that 

that document hasn't been revised since, I want to 

say, 2007 or so.

Ms. Behling: Right. In fact, we're considering 

reviewing this in the Procedures Subcommittee. And 

so this might be an area where you could reduce this 

type of guidance.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could it --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Mr. Allen: I'm sorry. This is Dave Allen. I really don't 

think 5000 would be the best place to put it. If we 

had to make the program guidance, I would put it 

somewhere else. But I can come up with some other 

place. But it wouldn't be 5000, I don't believe.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me suggest that maybe the 

SC&A folks and NIOSH folks talk a little bit. I'm 

inclined to approve for Texas City Chemicals 442. But 

if you folks would talk and then could SC&A put those 

results in some consistent way of putting it in. And 

the fact that it is confusing to us -- to some of us, 

maybe all of us, that we just simply ask for technical 

discussions and report back next time to see if there 

is a way to think through a little further.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

107

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I'm not sure that we would come 

to a solution necessarily because SC&A --

Chair Kotelchuck: That you'll talk for a long time 

about it, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, we're aware of this issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: I respect that. No, no. I mean, 

you're saying we've talked it out. So --

Mr. Allen: Well, SC&A, I mean, do you have proposed 

language? It's my understanding that you're asking 

for sort of just an explicit statement of an assumption 

of a standard for hours worked per day, days worked 

per year, and becomes a glossary and a language for 

what those assumptions are and how those words are 

used.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, essentially. I know that this 

created a problem, at least with the application of 

ingestion doses in the past.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, I mean, there's certainly a lot of 

occupational settings where these are important 

issues and assumptions. And to kind of standardize 

the language to just make them express it is helpful 

and not have to reinvent it each time.

Mr. Allen: Yeah, I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: It would be, yes. I'm waiting for --

Mr. Allen: Well, this is Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- suggestions how to proceed 

from other --

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

108

Chair Kotelchuck: -- Subcommittee --

Mr. Allen: One last -- I want to make one last little -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Allen: -- I don't know -- jab at this is that you 

could see in that table by the footnote that's been 

created that they understood it was a calendar day 

basis and then turned around and used it wrong and 

called it a calendar day basis. So I don't believe this 

is a verbiage issue. I believe it's just a simple 

mistake. And a simple mistake --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: -- happen with SC&A, not with the dose 

reconstructions.

Mr. Siebert: But the place you're --

Mr. Allen: I really have heartburn on --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: -- changing the program based on 

(telephonic interference) having problems.

Mr. Siebert: The place you're contending that they 

made a mistake is by equating 8 hours per day to a 

work day, not to a calendar day. Am I right?

Mr. Allen: No, no, no, no, no.

Mr. Siebert: And that's what you think --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: They called a calendar year on the footnote 

for the table, and then they used -- this is their own 

-- that's not in the TBD. That's not in the ER. They 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

109

used this calculation with 8 hours and called it --

Mr. Siebert: Exactly.

Mr. Allen: -- a calendar day basis.

Mr. Siebert: And now this is what I'm saying.

Mr. Allen: They called it a calendar day basis.

Mr. Siebert: No -- yes, exactly. What I'm saying 

you're saying because they say 8 hours, it's not a 

calendar day.

Mr. Allen: Correct, 8 hours --

Mr. Siebert: That was a mistake.

Mr. Allen: More than likely, 8 hours would be a work 

day, five 8-hour days, you do 40 hours. 

Unfortunately, in those cases --

Mr. Siebert: But those two -- right, those two things 

don't -- that's just where there's a lack of clear 

mapping between these concepts. And I'm saying 

now you've made an assumption about what they 

think or -- but I think this --

Mr. Allen: No.

Mr. Siebert: -- could be clarified.

Mr. Allen: No, I don't think I made an assumption at 

all. They wrote 46 calendar days -- or 46 picocuries 

per calendar day. I didn't --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: Yes, and they said 8 hours, and you're 

saying that that's impossible.

Mr. Allen: Well, that would have to be 8 hours per 

calendar day to get 46 for seven days.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

110

Mr. Siebert: Yes, right.

Mr. Allen: Meanwhile --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: -- 8 hours per work day.

Mr. Siebert: Is that a mistake, or were they explicit 

about the assumptions there and they made a 

calculation under those assumptions?

Mr. Allen: Are you saying they're assuming 8 hours 

seven days a week?

Mr. Siebert: I believe that's what they said and what 

they calculated.

Mr. Allen: Okay. So they assumed 8 hours seven days 

a week, came up with a number different than ours, 

and said we need to explain why they --

Ms. Gogliotti: Which has been addressed.

Mr. Siebert: I think it's --

Ms. Gogliotti: We've addressed that point. We're now 

talking about documentation as an overall 

programmatic issue. We understood what happened 

there. We agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: On such a basic point as this, there 

ought to be clarity. I don't even find it persuasive to 

say that our consultants calculated wrong and 

Members of the Subcommittee are saying, we're 

confused. So it certainly is not resolved and 

understanding is not resolved among all of us.

And for something as basic as how many hours a day 

the exposure is, is pretty basic. I mean, which is to 

say there ought to be clarity. I don't know how to 

proceed, I mean, in terms of Rose simply said, look, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

111

we've talked it back and forth a lot. And obviously, 

you're not in agreement.

So I guess if you're not in agreement, unless you 

want to have further discussions, then I think it's in 

the hands of the Subcommittee. And the 

Subcommittee folks here should decide. This has 

been hanging around a long time.

Ms. Gogliotti: Let me just clarify. I understood what 

happened in this case. I think SC&A would love it if 

there was some kind of programmatic guidance 

somewhere, whether it's a standalone document, a 

5000 or wherever else, somewhere that says this is 

the way it's done so the two eliminate ambiguity in 

the future.

Chair Kotelchuck: I have an idea. How about we 

transfer over to the Procedures Committee as we're 

talking about the larger overview, right, of this entire 

dose reconstruction process, right?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady, and we could do that. But 

what we got to think about here is that it seems to 

me that SC&A and DCAS agree on this individual 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, they do.

Mr. Calhoun: It's also been brought to light that we're 

working on CBDs that come around that we clarify 

this and those. It seems to me that our dose 

reconstructors know what they're supposed to be 

doing on a case-by-case basis. And it also seems to 

me that an overarching this is the way we do all cases 

isn't going to work offsite.

So doing it on a site-by-site basis and trying to 

include it in the TBDs as they get and if they get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

112

developed seems like the best approach to me. And 

this case here is done. I mean, I think everybody --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: -- agrees that it was done correctly.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: So I just can see us trying to do more 

work to make it clear for reviewers. If it's clear to our 

dose reconstructors, that's our goal. But if you want 

to punt it over to the procedures Work Group, I 

mean, that's fine. But it would just be a discussion 

with no predetermined outcome.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well --

Member Beach: And this is Josie, Dave. I mean, we 

could take that on. But maybe Rose, are you -- I 

know we're satisfied with closing this Texas City 

Chemical.

Is there more work that we should consider possibly 

in a memo form to us and NIOSH, something you're 

looking for? Or is SC&A satisfied? I know this is a 

complex issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that -- I guess we're satisfied. 

We'd like to see the documentation obviously. If 

NIOSH doesn't want to do that, that's kind of not our 

place to say. We only advise. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- I don't know that more would come 

out of doing a memo.

Member Beach: I guess the memo would just keep 

maybe tracking down more --

Ms. Gogliotti: Tracking this discussion --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

113

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: -- issues where it has occurred. 

What's that?

Ms. Gogliotti: Just tracking as it happened. Is that

what you're looking for more?

Member Beach: That's exactly what I was just saying 

at the same time you were. Yeah, just tracking where 

-- and trying to get a handle on if this really is an 

issue or just isolated here. And I guess that's up to 

the other Subcommittee Members.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm persuaded by what Grady said. 

And I think I would just argue we should just approve 

Texas City Chemicals as an observation and leave it 

at that. Would others agree?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree with that. This 

is a lot more complex and it comes out in a lot of 

different things. But we're looking at this case, and 

let's deal with this case. If this comes up again, 

maybe we may need some guidance. But let's just 

take care of this case and go from there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good to me. What about 

others -- other folks?

Member Valerio: I agree with Brad too. This is 

Loretta. I agree with what Brad just said.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: I agree also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, Josie. Good. David 

Richardson?

Dave, are you on mute?

I guess I've heard from everybody but Dave. No, Jim 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

114

Lockey also I haven't heard from.

Member Lockey: No, I agree in this case we can move 

on. But I'm still confused by -- I mean, I was just 

sitting here trying to figure out how you calculate 

2,500 hours -- work hours. David Allen, how did you 

get to 2,500 work per year? Where does that come 

from?

Mr. Allen: The 2,500-hour per year was an 

assumption, and that was another point I was trying 

to make out there. It was never going to be 8 hours 

for work day or calendar day or any basis at all. It's 

just a simple mistake in the review. The 2,500 was 

the assumption, and the way we got the 39 picocuries 

per calendar day was 2,500 hours divided by 365 

days.

Ms. Gogliotti: So the 2,500 hours comes from 

ambient dose. That's the assumption that we use for 

best estimate cases. It assumes a 40-hour -- or a 50-

hour work week, 40 weeks out of the year.

Member Lockey: So it's an assumption on a 50-hour 

work week, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Member Lockey: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Member Lockey: So it would be nice to have a map 

as David suggested just so -- because I can see how 

this would get confused -- people can get confused 

from this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: But in this particular case, I would 

say close it and move on.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

115

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. David Richardson, we 

haven't heard from you.

Dr. Roberts: He may be off the call.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Lockey: Off the call.

Dr. Roberts: He may be -- yeah, he may be off the 

call.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah. Well, then I think we 

have agreement, not happiness but an agreement. 

And it's been going on long enough. So I would say 

that we have approved this Texas City Chemicals, the 

observation. And we'll keep an eye on it, folks, as 

these things develop and if it ever comes up again.

So we've gone over a little bit from the time that we 

had thought we might finish. But unless there's some 

problem, I'd like to go on to the last item on the 

agenda which is looking at the professional judgment 

tracking. And Rose has put together a letter and a 

very nice table, or at least I think it's a nice table.

And we want to show it to you and talk about it, let 

folks look it over, the Subcommittee folks look it over 

and the staff online and see what you think. So could 

we -- unless there's some objection, I'd like to open 

up that Excel file. Or Rose, how do you want to handle 

it?

Ms. Gogliotti: I'll just introduce it if that's all right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Way back in September of 2018, this 

idea of tracking decision points requiring professional 

judgment in cases came up. And during that Work 

Group meeting, it was decided that they wanted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

116

SC&A to start including the decision points for 

acquiring professional judgment section in our blind 

comparison reports. And you've seen that done now 

in Set 26 and 28.

Then at the May 2019 Subcommittee, a dose 

construction meeting -- so different group now but 

the group that we're in, I guess, now -- you 

requested a way of tracking those items that came 

up. And you tasked SC&A with putting together a 

strawman type tracking matrix as a way of potentially 

tracking these issues. So we did that.

And then at the November meeting, you asked us to 

put together a proposed tracking matrix memo that 

documents what was actually in the Excel file. And so 

that's what you see on your screen now. These are 

just suggestions of things that we thought would be 

helpful to track.

If you hate it, that's fine. It's a strawman. We're 

willing to change whatever. We've only tentatively 

done this on the 26 set. If you like it, we'll go ahead 

and make sure that the 26 set is perfect and then 

also update the 28 set.

But we did this just as a way of potentially tracking 

the issues. And if something is important to you that 

we might've missed, we can certainly add that in at 

this point in time. I'll just pull up --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- the matrix.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, because that's not on our 

screen.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So the first column you'll see is 

the set. That'll obviously --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

117

Chair Kotelchuck: By the way --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- be improved.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I don't see it on my screen, the 

--

Ms. Gogliotti: That's what I'm currently --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- Excel file.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- sharing. Can anyone --

Member Valerio: Here it is. It just popped up, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I have it on my CVC machine. 

So that's fine.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: If other --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- when I do it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, all right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- versus when you see it. But it sounds 

like someone can see it at least.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: I can see it, Rose. Mine keeps 

freezing up. I've had to reconnect almost 10 or 12 

times, but --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, my.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: So that might be what it is. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

118

mine's good. I can see it.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Fine. Let's put it this way. Is there

anybody who can't see it or who doesn't have it?

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. I don't have it. 

My -- I keep getting booted out of Skype. But I do 

have the memo in front of me, so I'm good there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Then let's -- then we all have

it. Let's go ahead. Take a look at it. And I'd be 

interested -- I've already looked it over with -- Rose 

showed it to me before we put it out here. And it 

seems to me quite a nice table. It encompasses a lot 

of useable information.

I will -- I have one thing to suggest. But before I do 

it, I'd like to hear what other Subcommittee Members 

think of it and also any of the staff who are looking. 

If you would like to comment to help the 

Subcommittee, that would be most appropriate.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So --

Ms. Gogliotti: And I think I missed saying before, but 

the goal of this would be to eventually when we have 

it updated and populated to see if any trends are 

identified, seeing if this is a common problem that we 

see over and over again that it might be worth 

correcting or areas where the Board might want to 

look into further.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, exactly. I agree. And that's 

the spirit in which we ask you to set up this table. 

Looking at the --

Mr. Allen: I just want to make sure that just the fact 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

119

that these are on the list doesn't make it a negative. 

We're going to use professional judgment all the 

time. This looks like a tracking tool to me, and I don't 

want this to be just construed that anytime we use 

professional judgment it's a negative. And I don't 

think that's --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Allen: -- the intent. But I just would like to make 

sure of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: And --

Ms. Gogliotti: No, absolutely not.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- absolutely right.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: That's correct. In fact, that leads 

to the one concern or one -- not a concern, a thought 

I had after looking it over before. And that is we don't 

make any assessment as to what role the 

professional judgment -- how important that 

difference is in professional judgment or we always 

use professional judgment.

If people use a slightly different distribution and they 

get a couple of millirems difference, well, that's 

professional judgment. On the other hand, it's not 

one that is affecting the decision very much. There 

are some professional judgments that seem to be 

much more important.

Like today's work, I started looking at the 

professional judgments used in the internal dose. 

And I realized how complex it is and how much 

impact it could have as it had on the one -- I forget 

which one of our three today that it played a 

significant role. And it was the one major distinction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

120

between the two assessments.

So there might -- I wish there were some way of --

and I don't know how to do it right off, but I will think 

about it and maybe others want to -- how we talk 

about the impact of differences in professional 

judgment which is different than saying professional 

judgment was used. Right now, these are 

professional judgment was used --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and always will be for any 

assessment.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, absolutely. There's no way to 

eliminate professional judgment from --

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- a dose reconstruction. There's a 

reason that we have health physicists doing these 

and not someone without a background in this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: There's no way to --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: But this is --

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry, go ahead.

Member Clawson: But what Grady is saying is 

correct. This is not a tool -- actually, the way I see 

this tool, Grady, is this is more for the Advisory Board 

because there's so many times we go through so 

many sets of these and everything else like that. It's 

kind of -- for me, it is a way for us to be able to track 

areas where professional judgment is being used. 

And it's a tool for me to be able to understand what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

121

we're looking at for this.

But I do understand your concerns. And this shouldn't 

be used as a negative because no matter what, 

there's always going to have to be professional 

judgment. But I understand your concern on that. 

And my personal opinion on this right now is this is 

new enough right now that we're not going to be able 

to discern or track a lot of stuff from it right now.

Maybe down the road when we have more 

information into it and stuff like that, we may have 

something that we may want to start looking into that 

we're seeing a trend or something. But right now, this 

is still the baby steps of it and that it may grow into 

something a little bit more useful. But right now, I 

think it's very beneficial for us to see where 

professional judgment was used.

Chair Kotelchuck: Any other comments? It certainly 

is the very beginning and we don't expect -- we would 

be very surprised if patterns show up in the first five 

or ten or whatever on the first couple of sets. But 

they may.

And in time, hopefully they will in a way that suggests 

to us that maybe we could do this better and 

eliminate some elements of professional judgment 

that we now use. That would be my hope. Any other 

comments from maybe some of the other 

Subcommittee Members? Does this look useful to 

you?

Member Beach: Dave, I think -- this is Josie. I think 

it looks useful. I'm interested to just see. I feel like 

it's an ebb and flow document where we can make 

changes if we need to once we put it into place.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Well, that's certainly true. 

And it is not like having to go back to everything 

we've ever looked at but only go back to a couple 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

122

sets of blinds which we have on hand. That's true.

Member Beach: I think it'll just give us a good 

understanding too of professional judgments and 

how they're used if they're captured.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah. Sounds good.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. I think it's very 

useful. I looked at it and I do think that it's a very 

useful tool. How often would this be updated, 

though?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, we're only using it for blinds, 

right --

Member Valerio: Yes, so --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- where we have. So we only have 

-- and we only started in 26. So we have another six 

coming up in Set 28 which will be added for the next 

meeting, I expect. So it's going to go -- it will go as 

fast as our blinds go, going forward. So it's going to 

be a while before things mount up enough that we 

begin to feel like there's a big enough body of data 

to say something really useful or may change.

Member Valerio: Dave, I so apologize, but my call 

dropped just at the beginning of your response.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, bottom line is we were only 

doing blinds and we started with Set 26. We have six 

more coming for Set 28. And that's -- so it's slow. It's 

slow. But we're moving -- we'll move -- we're moving 

on it. It's going to be a while before --

Member Valerio: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, okay.

Member Valerio: But I do appreciate the spreadsheet. 

I find it, again, very, very useful. So thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

123

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay, great. Any other 

comments? Anybody want to make a comment? Is 

there anybody who finds this not very useful 

honestly?

Hearing none --

Ms. Gogliotti: Is there any information that you would 

like to be tracked that isn't currently on here?

Chair Kotelchuck: I would like to think about the 

differences in professional judgments that have a 

significant impact on the PoC. And I don't know how 

to do it. And frankly, I hadn't thought about it and I 

just started looking over the three blinds today.

So I don't have any suggestion for that. But I'd like 

to think of a way of trying to assess how important 

the professional judgments are. I mean, there are 

some that are --

Ms. Gogliotti: That --

Chair Kotelchuck: Maybe we can determine some are 

less important or some are quite important.

Ms. Gogliotti: That might have to come from the 

Board as we talked about it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- voting. I know that in our regular 

dose reconstructions, we have a low-medium-high 

ranking for findings. And even those, we have had a 

difficult time doing anything with it because so much 

judgment actually goes into that determination.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. We also don't have anything 

about the occupation of the person. For example, I 

think a lot of the construction trades and journeyman 

workers in --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

124

Member Clawson: But Dave, I think -- now is this 

going to just be on the Board Review System. I'm 

just looking at -- when we get into that depth of it, 

we're kind of getting into Privacy Act stuff. I'm just -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: I don't know what that would buy 

us. I'm looking at this as an overall issue of where 

professional judgment is being used mainly in these 

sites and so forth like that. And I don't know that a 

professional would do it, but I just want to make sure 

that --

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right.

Member Clawson: -- it does not divulge too much and 

--

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: You're absolutely right. That is a 

concern if we were to list occupation or --

Member Clawson: Yeah, and I looked at this --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: -- as this is in -- yeah, this is in --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: -- the baby stages.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: It's kind of in the baby stages right 

now. And I think as we get into this and the 

information starts kind of rolling in a little bit, Rose 

will probably want to tweak a few things or maybe be 

able to compare them. But right now, I think it's just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

125

gathering the information.

I really find this useful because I will be honest. I get 

confused sometimes when we're doing all these 

different blinds and stuff like that of what 

professional judgment and what it was actually for. 

And this really helps me with that and it keeps me on 

track of, no, I remembered it wrong and this did not 

have professional judgment in there.

This is -- really to me, it's beneficial. And I think it's 

going to grow as we come down. But right now, I 

think we just keep it in the back of our mind. And as 

we need something, let's discuss it and go from 

there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. In fact, I think we're 

all -- I think so far I've heard only agreement that it's 

useful. It's in its early stages. If we're asked to make 

a report from the Subcommittee to the Board, we 

might show them this document that we're -- what 

we're trying to collect and that we're trying to think 

through professional judgments and whether it might 

be --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: And Dave, this is a Board product. 

This is not anything to hold over NIOSH or anything 

else like this. This is just informational for us because 

I understand what Grady's concern is on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: And no matter what, even us 

laymen understand that there's going to have to be 

professional judgment. This I see for me as helping 

me understand the process better and being able to 

go someplace and see where we've been using 

professional judgment and why we have to. I think 

that, I think, has been very beneficial. But this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

126

actually just a Board product for us to be able to help 

us.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And actually, I consider that 

it had to come to the -- it's part of our Subcommittee 

work. We are carrying out. And I do think that it 

would make sense to introduce it to the Board, tell 

the Board that we're doing this, and give them some 

sense of what we're gathering. And they may have to 

--

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Very much so, and to lay out of 

what it is for and that this is for us to be able to kind 

of keep track of where this is being used and so forth 

like that because this is -- we've always -- every one 

of these sites, there's been some kind of a little bit of 

professional judgment or so forth like that. And it's 

just to kind of keep track. And in fact, it'd be a good 

idea to bring before the Board, let them know where 

it's at. And I do appreciate this, Rose. This, I think, 

will help us out an awful lot.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So let me additionally thank 

Rose. And if there are other colleagues who helped 

you, Rose, thank them as well.

Mr. Siebert: This is -- can I -- I'm sorry to jump in. 

This is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Mr. Siebert: I don't want to speak for Grady. But just 

one thing that might be important is something we 

haven't been doing but we may have to start doing if 

we're going to track this which I think is useful is 

getting everyone to agree if something in the SC&A 

report is professional judgment or not. And the only 

reason I say that is, for example, we had today one 

of the professional judgment ones was discussing 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

127

about the plutonium clearance type.

In my opinion, that's not a professional judgment. 

We followed our written procedures to make that 

determination. So I think that's another little nugget 

that we may want to talk about as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. Okay. Well, I think 

we've kind of had a say. I think this is useful, and I 

think we're ready to think about when we're going to 

schedule our next meeting, right? I think we're pretty 

well --

Dr. Roberts: Dave, if you don't --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: -- mind, since we were talking a little bit 

about presenting to the Board, I think that was a 

good segue into the April 14th and 15th meeting. And 

I did kind of have a placeholder for the Subcommittee 

on the agenda for an hour. That could be too much 

time or too little --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: -- time. But can you give -- maybe the 

Committee can talk about what they'd like to present 

and how much time that would take.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Can I preface that by saying 

that we have not in the past reported Subcommittee 

-- this Subcommittee has not reported regularly in 

the past to the Board. We had some particular needs 

to bring before the Board early on in your tenure. But 

I, for example, would not -- I don't see this as a 

regular thing.

We have particular information to bring about what 

we're doing on professional judgment and where 

we're coming on the blinds. But to me, there really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

128

isn't more than really 15 minutes to get the Board up 

to date, just a brief report. And I really don't see an 

hour's worth of material. But do other people?

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Maybe other people -- and maybe 

we should be reporting more often. So I'm open to 

hearing what other Subcommittee Members have to 

say in terms of what we should do.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. I agree with your 

assessment of what you need as far as the reporting 

time, unless you want to go into this document that 

we just covered to let the Board know what's 

happening with this professional judgment --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes.

Member Beach: -- and the tracking.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Oh, yeah. That, I intend to 

bring up. That would be an important part of the 15 

minutes or so. But I don't see a really lengthy report.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. I agree with 

you. I don't think we need that much. I think it would 

be beneficial for us to report to the full Board, given 

them kind of a heads up of where we're at and what 

we're doing. But I do believe that this professional 

judgment, this screen would not be able to be -- I 

don't think it would be able to be public.

Ms. Gogliotti: I could throw something -- like, dummy 

information into a PowerPoint slide with just 

examples of the things but not relating to any case. 

Would that be helpful?

Member Clawson: Yes, it probably would. I'm just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

129

looking at the information on this, Rose. And I would 

--

Ms. Gogliotti: No, I agree.

Member Clawson: -- hate to be able to express 

anything of conflict there. But I would like the Board 

to know what we're looking at and stuff because I've 

heard many of them question the same thing. And 

sometimes we've been questioned on the same issue 

of professional judgment but we were talked of 

different things. So I think this really would be 

helpful.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I think actually if we remove 

the site from each of these. The truth is I think the 

rest of the material would be okay to put in. We're 

not doing occupation. We're not doing site. And we're 

identifying the blinds by number.

So why don't we talk and also I will be talking with 

Jenny anyway. And I think we might be able to just 

change this a little bit so that we make it acceptable 

for public --

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

Mr. Rutherford: Dave, this is Lavon. Is there a way 

that we can get to see that before it's presented in 

front of the Board?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes, absolutely.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely. And it's good that you 

remind me. For sure.

Member Beach: And Dave, depending on the interest 

of the Board Members, you may have an extended 

time period of questions on this since it's a new topic.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

130

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: Not a new topic but a new --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: -- way of tracking it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah. We may. We may. 

That's a good point. But question is half an hour? 

Right, there may be questions. Why don't -- that's 

something that we can, I think, think about and I can 

talk with Rashaun and maybe some of you. Well --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Roberts: But it really sounds like really no more 

than, like, a half hour in terms of --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, absolutely not.

Dr. Roberts: -- the intent of --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Half an hour maybe.

Dr. Roberts: Perfect.

Chair Kotelchuck: And 15 -- somewhere between 15 

minutes and half an hour depending on questions. 

And I'd be happy to --

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- do it. Happy to do that, and I 

will make sure that we get this set.

Participant: Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello?

Dr. Roberts: Mute, please.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

131

Member Clawson: Okay. Well --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: -- this is Brad. I think that sounds 

good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds find. Do we 

want to set a date now or tentative dates for the next 

meeting? Or we can do that at the Board meeting in 

April. No, I think we actually need to think about it -

-

Dr. Roberts: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- now.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, let's think about it now. We can 

set something up tentatively. And then if it has to be 

adjusted, we can do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, with so much --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- suggestions.

Dr. Roberts: Right, exactly. And I'm not sure. It's 

kind of hard to be able to project without a tentative 

agenda. But would, like, six months out, would that 

be too soon?

Chair Kotelchuck: Actually, NIOSH and SC&A, I 

mean, basically, the question is, will we have 

material to review for the next meeting, cases not 

blinds. We finished --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, we just finished the 29th set which 

you should've gotten, like, in the last few weeks or 

so.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

132

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: I need to upload those into the BRS 

which I have not done yet. And then at that point, it 

just depends on how long it takes NIOSH to respond.

Chair Kotelchuck: NIOSH, what do you think?

Mr. Rutherford: Well, I'll let -- this is Lavon again. I'll 

let Scott respond a little bit on this because he knows 

how long it's going to take, if he has an idea.

Mr. Siebert: Sure, sure. I'd be happy to do that. Since 

we normally want the responses back to SC&A and 

the Subcommittee at least a month before the 

meeting so that you guys all have a chance to review 

it, I would say it's probably going to take us about a 

month and a half to do all our responses and work 

with NIOSH to get those in. So I'd say the earliest is 

probably about two and a half months.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And then we have to have 

notice. Let's see. So --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- February, March, April, 

sometime in May. Our meeting -- our Board meeting 

is in April. Sometime in May would be --

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Does that sound like that 

something --

Dr. Roberts: Yes. And remember, there's a -- we 

have to do the Federal Registry notice which needs 

to be submitted at least two months in advance with 

a draft agenda.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

133

Dr. Roberts: So is that giving us a comfortable 

amount of time?

Member Beach: I think June might be a more 

comfortable --

Dr. Roberts: Yeah.

Member Beach: That would mean you would be 

putting that in, in March, which is next month.

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Member Beach: Correct?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah.

Member Lockey: That's actually a few days from now.

Member Beach: Yeah, that might be pushing it.

Chair Kotelchuck: So it sounds like June.

Member Clawson: Yeah, but we already know what 

the information -- what cases we're going to be going 

over. All that information is already there. It's just 

NIOSH being able to return back. If we give them 

three to four months, we can still put it in the 

registry. I would really suggest that we put a time in 

on this for us to meet again because it's important 

we continue to be going through these.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: Plus we've got to send something 

up because the more we put it off, the more we're 

going to have things coming up too.

Chair Kotelchuck: True.

Member Clawson: And by the way, I just wanted to 

say that Lavon has really jumped into his new 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

134

position. I noticed how fast he passed that buck. 

Congratulations, Lavon.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Rutherford: You know, I'm just taking -- I'm just 

following my leader.

(Laughter.)

Member Clawson: By the way, I never got to say 

congratulations, Lavon. I was going to call Bomber. 

I'm trying to be more professional. Sorry. But 

anyway, congratulations.

Mr. Rutherford: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, congratulations indeed.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. So we were talking about June. 

Would middle of June -- would that be good? That's 

summer. I don't know what plans are like.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Lockey: The 16th of June?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, thereabout. That's a Wednesday. 

Dave --

Member Beach: Works for me.

Member Lockey: Works for me.

Member Clawson: Yeah, that would work for me. 

We'll tentatively put that in then.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And we'll do the typical 10:30 

Eastern start time. And Dave K., did I hear that that's 

okay with you, the 16th?

I'm not hearing Dave anymore. Dave --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

135

Member Beach: He might've --

Dr. Roberts: -- are you there?

Member Beach: -- dropped off.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, okay. Well --

Member Beach: Do you got --

Dr. Roberts: -- that's unfortunate.

Member Beach: Yeah.

Dr. Roberts: Well, why don't we just go ahead 

tentatively and say June 16th. And if there's a -- if he 

has an issue with it, we can certainly adjust it.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Roberts: And I think that --

Member Beach: -- see if he calls back in?

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. Let's see if he can make it back.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hi, folks. Sorry. I just got --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and had to come back in.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So what did you --

Dr. Roberts: Well --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- decide?

Dr. Roberts: Well, people seem to think June 16th 

which is a Wednesday would work okay for them. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

136

I just wanted to make sure --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: -- that was okay with you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I'm pretty sure that is. Let's 

see. Wednesday, June 16th would be just fine. 

Wisdom says --

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good wisdom says to pick an -- is 

there anybody from the Subcommittee who is not on 

the phone or the staff that can't make it?

Dr. Roberts: Well, we are missing Dave Richardson. 

So it could be that that doesn't work for him.

Chair Kotelchuck: A day before, a day after, the 15th 

or 17th as backups?

Member Beach: The 17th works for me --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: -- not the 16th.

Chair Kotelchuck: Not the 15th? Okay, 17th. How 

about the 17th for everybody?

Dr. Roberts: As a backup?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: As a backup. Wednesday, the --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, Wednesday --

(Simultaneous speaking.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

137

Chair Kotelchuck: -- the 16th.

Member Lockey: The 16th works, Jim Lockey, but not 

the 17th or the 18th.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: What about the -- how about the 

14th?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Lockey: What date --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: The 14th is a Monday.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, we try not to Monday or Friday.

Member Lockey: How about the 15th?

Member Beach: I can readjust is if it's a second. I 

have a standing commitment on that day, but I can 

reschedule if that's our second choice, not our first.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds good. I'll tell 

you why. We're only depending on one at this point. 

And the chances are that person can make it. And if 

they can make it, that'll be fine. There's a small 

chance we might need the 15th. And if so, we'll get 

back in touch with you ASAP.

Member Beach: Sure. Sounds perfect.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. So the 16th it is with a 

backup --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- on the 15th.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and 

personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has 

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy 

at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject 

to change. 

138

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. And Rashaun, you'll 

contact David and find out --

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- what he --

Dr. Roberts: Yes, I will do that.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. Folks, we've had 

a very good meeting and got a lot accomplished. 

We're ready to go on to start reviewing the next 

cases. Okay. Thank you all.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:48 p.m.)