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

Wednesday, November 4, 2020

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

Standard Time, via teleconference, David 

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding
2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chairperson

Josie Beach, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Dave Allen, NIOSH ORAU

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, NIOSH ORAU

Duane Demore, SC&A

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Jenny Naylor, HHS

Katherine Owens, Member of the Public

Beth Rolfes, NIOSH ORAU

LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH ORAU

Scott Siebert, NIOSH ORAU

Matthew Smith, ORAU Team
3 

Contents

Welcome/Call to Order 4

Review cases from Set 28: Three blinds cases

5

B39 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant 

(K25) and Y-12 Plant 5

B40 - Savannah River Site (SRS) 22

Discussion - Set 25: Review remaining open 

and in progress cases 68

Hooker Electrochemical and 

Carborundum 68

Metals and Controls Corp. 72

Nuclear Metals Inc 74

West Valley Demonstration Project 76

Discussion - Set 27: Review remaining open 

and in progress cases 87

Adjourn 117
4

Proceedings

(10:31 a.m.)

Welcome/Call to Order

Dr. Roberts: So, good morning, everyone. I'm 

Rashaun Roberts. I'm the Designated Federal Official 

for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health. This, of course, is a meeting of the Board's 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews.

We do have a full agenda for today. You can find it 

on the NIOSH website under scheduled meetings for 

today's date. I will tell you that to help maintain a 

quorum of subcommittee members today the 

meeting is divided into two sessions. The first will run 

from now until approximately 12:30 p.m., and the 

second part will run from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 

4:30 p.m.

Since the agenda for today is pretty full, let's go 

ahead and move right into roll call. Since the 

Subcommittee will be discussing dose reconstruction 

cases pertaining to specific sites, 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. So, let's go ahead and 

start with our Chair.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, thank you so much for that 

and welcome to you all. Before we officially move into 

the meeting, I just want to cover a couple of brief 

items again.

In order to keep everything running smoothly and so 

that everybody speaking can be heard, I would ask 

that you all just make sure periodically that your 

telephone is on mute, of course, unless you're 
5

speaking. If you don't have a mute button, you can 

typically mute by pressing *6. And if you need to 

come off mute, you just press *6 again.

So, as I mentioned earlier, the agenda for the 

meeting can be found on the NIOSH DCAS website. 

Access to other materials was provided to Board 

Members and to staff prior to the meeting.

So, with that, let's go ahead and get started and I'll 

turn the meeting over to our Chair of the 

Subcommittee, Dave Kotelchuck. Dave?

Review cases from Set 28: Three blinds cases

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. 

Welcome, folks. We have a full agenda today and I 

want to give special thanks. We've had a little bit of 

issue about having a quorum today and I really 

appreciate the effort by Members of the 

Subcommittee to try to make themselves available 

so that we will maintain a quorum at all times and be 

able to do our work today.

So, let us start with the blind cases and why don't we 

just go in order.

Rose, if that is okay with you, start with B39, the Oak 

Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. with K-25 and also Y12.

B39 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K25) and Y12 Plant

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Can everyone see my screen?

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Let me just get this case pulled 

up here.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't need to see the screen, but 

I don't -- for the record, I don't see it. I have it on 

my CDC computer, however.
6

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. But everyone else can see my 

screen?

Member Beach: This is Josie. I can see it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Thanks, Josie. Now, this is the 

first case of the 28th set. And the 28th set is a blind 

set and so there are six cases as part of this set. And 

just as a reminder, our blinds follow a little bit 

different procedure than our normal dose 

reconstructions.

For a blind case, SC&A is given a case file. So, the 

DOE and the DOL files for a case. We're not given 

anything that NIOSH uses. So, none of their 

workbooks. And we do our own independent dose 

reconstruction. Once we complete that dose 

reconstruction, we send out a memo that locks in 

both the doses and the PoCs that we assign in the 

case.

And then a second independent SC&A reviewer then 

takes on the case and does a comparison between 

the dose reconstruction that was completed by SC&A 

and the dose reconstruction that was completed by 

NIOSH. And that comparison is what we'll be 

discussing today.

This case set was assigned to us in December of 2019 

and we completed our initial review of the blind in 

March of 2020. This particular case, the EE was 

employed at K-25 for under a decade, and then at Y12 for over a decade beginning in the '80s.

I will be intentionally very vague when I discuss this 

case because the characteristics of this case could be 

very identifying. So I won't be mentioning the 

number of cancers. You can see they are listed here 

on Table 1. They are very similar and they were 

diagnosed between the '90s and the late 2000s -- or 

fairly recently.

As you'll see here, each cancer has a number. This is 
7

not designed to have any sort of meaning other than 

it's the order of cancer diagnosis. There's no implied 

value associated with that. Because so many of these 

cancers are very similar and they have similar 

diagnosis dates, it really just helps make the case 

and report easier to read and adds more specificity 

to things.

So, as you can see in Table 1, all the cancers are 

listed here, as well as ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. This 

case set is the first one that you're going to start 

seeing ICD-10 codes. You won't see it on every case, 

but you will see it on several. And that just has to do 

with when the initial case was reviewed or when the 

documentation was created surrounding the case.

Just as an overall, broad summary of the case before 

we really get into things: both SC&A and NIOSH did 

come up with a PoC [Probability of Causation] of 

greater than 50 percent, and so we believe this case 

was compensable.

You'll see here, in Table 1-2, our comparison of all 

the doses that were assigned in the case by both 

NIOSH and SC&A. The main takeaway here is that 

doses are very similar and PoCs are very similar. Our 

recorded dose and missed dose that was assigned by 

both SC&A and NIOSH are virtually identical. There 

are some small differences in the medical dose that 

was assigned, as well as some differences in internal 

dose that we'll discuss in more detail. But as I scroll 

through here you'll see the doses are all very similar 

and the PoCs are all very similar.

And, not surprising, because we have similar doses 

and similar PoCs for each individual cancer, NIOSH 

came up with the PoC of 50.34 percent and SC&A 

came up with a PoC of 50.45 percent. So they are 

very close.

I won't say them out-loud, but on the screen you can 

see the exact employment dates and professions of 

this particular claimant. Again, less than a decade at 
8

K-25 and greater than a decade at Y-12.

While SC&A was doing this review, we did go through 

and review all of the TBD documents for K-25 and Y12, as well as TIB-10, OTIB-17, PROC-60, and PROC61.

On page 17 here you'll see our Table 2-1. Now, this 

is still a fairly new table. We added -- or we've 

modified this table significantly with the last blind set. 

You'll see in the middle column there is what NIOSH 

did for their dose reconstruction. And then the last 

column simply highlights the differences to what 

SC&A and NIOSH did.

As you might guess, because we have very similar 

assigned doses, there's not a lot of differences. SC&A 

does not use the workbooks that NIOSH produces, so 

that will be highlighted here. And then there are 

some other differences that we'll go through in more 

detail as we go through this.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on recorded and 

missed dose because they were so similar, basically 

identical, but I will briefly discuss each here. Starting 

on page 20, our occupational external doses that 

were assigned. For K-25 recorded doses, both NIOSH 

and SC&A assumed 100 percent 30 to 250 keV 

photons and assigned a dose of 104 millirem. And 

those were both assigned as a constant distribution.

Similarly, at Y-12, both SC&A and NIOSH assumed 

100 percent 30 to 250 keV photons again and 

assigned a dose of 4.216 rem to most of the cancers, 

with the exception of cancers that would be impacted 

by a glovebox, because this EE [employee] did work 

with a glovebox. And so cancers that would be 

impacted by that were multiplied by 2.19, which is 

the glovebox correction factor from TIB-10. And that 

increased the dose to those cancers to 9.233 rem. 

And that's a pretty big chunk of the dose that was 

assigned in this case.
9

For recorded shallow dose, both SC&A and NIOSH 

assumed greater than 15 keV electrons and followed 

the guidance in OTIB-17 to assign dose. Any cancers 

that were typically underneath clothing were 

adjusted by a factor of 0.855, which is the clothing 

correction factor recommended in OTIB-17. So, any 

cancer that was not covered by clothing had a dose 

of 0.721 rem. And the cancers that were covered by 

clothing consistently had a dose of 0.616.

SC&A and NIOSH also assigned recorded neutron 

dose based on the dosimetry records. There were 

some in the '90s that were identified using a 

correction factor of 1.91. SC&A assumed 100 percent 

100 keV to 2 MeV neutrons, and that resulted in the 

neutron dose of 235 millirem. There also was a 

glovebox correction factor for the cancers that 

wouldn't be impacted by a glovebox. And so that 

multiplied the dose of those cancers by 2.19.

For missed photon dose, both SC&A and NIOSH at K25 counted three zeroes in the EE's dosimetry record. 

And when we used LOD divided by 2, it resulted in a 

dose of 30 millirem. Any cancer that was impacted 

by the glovebox, again, got multiplied by 2.19, which 

did increase the dose to 66 millirem.

For Y-12 missed photon dose, again NIOSH and SC&A 

both counted three zeroes in the dosimetry record. 

Using the LOD divided by 2 it resulted in a dose of 30 

millirem. And any cancer that was impacted by the 

glovebox, again, that got multiplied by 2.19.

There was a small difference here. NIOSH assigned 

missed photon dose to cancers impacted by a 

glovebox with a log-normal distribution with a GSD 

[geometric standard deviation] of 1.69. And SC&A 

assigned those same cancers a GSD of 1.34. So that 

doesn't impact the dose assigned, but it does have a 

slight impact on the PoC. And the remaining organs, 

both SC&A and NIOSH assigned a GSD of 1.52. 

Both SC&A and NIOSH did not assign missed shallow 
10

dose. And that's based solely on the dosimetry 

record. Similarly, we both did not assign ambient 

dose in this case. And that was because the EE was 

monitored for external exposures during the entirety 

of their employment.

Now, occupational medical dose is where we see our 

first difference. I would call it a minor difference, but 

we will point it out. Both SC&A and NIOSH assumed 

the EE received occupationally required medical Xrays, and they assumed an annual PA examination 

for each year at Y-12, plus a termination scan. And 

then used the K-25 TBD to assign the frequency for 

K-25.

I'm going to jump down because I think it's a little 

easier to understand. SC&A assumed 21 

examinations, and that includes 10 recorded 

examinations. So, those are actual documented 

examinations in the files. And then we also assumed 

11 additional scans, which includes annual 

examinations and termination scans. And that's 

based on the frequencies listed in the TBD.

And so, NIOSH assumed those same examinations 

occurred, but they also assumed an additional two 

scans, a PA and Lat scan, done at the initial year of 

employment. We assume this was likely intended to 

be a new-hire examination, and that does add a few 

millirem dose to some of the cancers and less than a 

millirem to others.

And then the second diagnosed cancer was also 

assigned an additional examination. So they had 24 

examinations. And we believe that was likely a copyand-paste error based on how the dose was assigned, 

but, again, it's a very small dose.

And then there was also a very small difference, less 

than a millirem, by NIOSH using their workbook. And 

we used the TBD and there was a small difference in 

the number of six-sigs that were provided.
11

So, that summarizes the external dose. Are there any 

questions before I move on?

Dr. Roberts: None here, Rose. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: No questions.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thanks. Good to hear someone talking 

to make sure I didn't drop off and I'm just rambling. 

Okay. 

And so, moving on to occupational internal doses, the 

EE was not monitored for internal dose while working 

at K-25, but they were monitored at Y-12.

So, at K-25, both SC&A and NIOSH assumed the EE 

received the 50th percentile coworker intakes. And 

we derived that using the CADW and modeled Type 

F and S uranium and settled that Type S was the 

most claimant-favorable. And we both used recycled 

uranium components, but we did have a very modest 

difference in how we treated technetium.

I'll start with SC&A again because I think it's a little 

easier to understand. SC&A used Table 5-1 from 

OTIB-35 to assign all of the dose, including 

technetium-99. And we assigned all of those doses 

with a log-normal distribution and the GSD of 3.5.

NIOSH did the same thing for all the other 

radionuclides except tech-99. Instead, NIOSH 

assumed that the EE was at a greater risk of 

technetium-99. And so, instead of using the values in 

Table 5-1, they used the values in Table 5-2 of the 

same document. And that increased the intake 

considerably of tech-99, but the dose from tech-99 

was still a millirem. And SC&A from tech-99 was less 

than a millirem. So, a fairly small difference. And 

NIOSH assumed a GSD of 3 for that tech-99, but 

that's a very small dose, especially over a longer time 

period. So that did not impact the PoC at all, or in 

any meaningful way.
12

And then, moving on to Y-12, which is Section 4.2, 

both SC&A and NIOSH did acknowledge that the EE 

was monitored frequently for uranium via urinalysis, 

as well as lung counts. And many of the urine 

samples were greater than the detection limit. 

And this is really the biggest difference of the case. 

NIOSH assumed two long chronic intake periods and 

three acute intake periods. SC&A instead modeled 

the doses at IMBA, and we assumed two shorter 

chronic intake periods and ten acute intakes. And I 

think it's easier to understand if I scroll down here to 

Figure 4-1 on page 26.

We did a comparison timeline of when the doses were 

assigned, because it gets a little confusing. You'll see 

on the top is NIOSH in red, and the bottom is SC&A 

in blue. You'll see those red boxes there indicate 

when the chronic intakes were assigned. And you'll 

see that NIOSH assumed the much longer chronic 

intake periods. 

Notably, three of the acute intakes that NIOSH 

assumed, SC&A did assign the acute intake on the 

same day, but we just assigned several more acute 

intakes.

And you'll see a comparison here in Table 4-5 of the 

doses assigned by NIOSH and SC&A. And they're 

fairly close. Based on when the cancer was 

diagnosed, there was a difference between 73 and 5 

millirem, which, considering the difference in 

modeling, is pretty good. 

I will also point out that NIOSH ended up assuming a 

Type M uranium intake, while SC&A selected a Type 

S. NIOSH selected theirs according to the TBD -- or 

according to the Dose Reconstruction Report because 

they believed that Type S did not have a good fit to 

the data. So they only compared Type M and Type S 

intakes, and thus found that Type M was the most 

claimant-favorable. SC&A also modeled all three and 

we just assigned the most claimant-favorable. And 
13

some of that has to do with having different modeling 

intake regimes.

Okay. Moving on to tech-99 intake, in NIOSH's report 

they did acknowledge a lung count that was done for 

the EE that was above the action limit for the EE's 

employment at Y-12. And they indicated that they 

believed it was caused by an elevated uranium air 

activity. And NIOSH modeled that intake and 

calculated a dose of less than a millirem. 

Now, SC&A did not specifically call out this positive 

result, but we did have a statement in our report that 

indicated that further analysis of other radionuclides 

would not increase the PoC. And, as you know, after 

you hit the 50 percent threshold, you don't need to 

keep going. So, similarly, SC&A called out an 

actinium-228 lung count that was also done during 

employment.

And we modeled that dose and it resulted in a dose 

of less than a millirem, and we omitted it from the 

dose reconstruction. And NIOSH did not model this 

intake, but they also have a similar statement in their 

report saying that the PoC was above 50 percent and 

additional dose would not change the compensation 

decision. So, that summarizes the differences in this 

case. If you remember with the last set, we did add 

this additional Section 5, which is our discussion 

points -- or decision points that impacted the case. 

These are professional judgments that were made 

throughout the case that were noteworthy, or 

differences in professional judgment. Sometimes 

we'll call out when we both made the same decision, 

but here we felt that the only real difference in 

professional judgment was the modeling or uranium 

intakes.

As we discussed previously, NIOSH assumed the 

Type M with two longer chronic intakes and three 

acute intakes of uranium, whereas SC&A modeled a 

Type S exposure with two shorter chronic intake 

periods and ten acute intakes of uranium. And the 
14

absolute value difference of the model doses ranged 

from 5 to 73 millirem, and that just depends on the 

year of cancer diagnosis.

So, here again you'll see a summary of the doses that 

were assigned in each case. I think the main 

takeaway here is the external doses are pretty spot 

on. I think the largest difference is 5 or 10 millirem. 

And for internal dose, we're very similar again, but 

the main difference comes from the uranium 

modeling. And our PoCs are all very close, which led 

to a final PoC that was very close, 50.34 versus 

50.45. And, again, the main differences in the case 

were the assignment of X-ray doses where NIOSH 

assumed an additional two to three scans and the 

uranium modeling.

Are there any questions?

Chair Kotelchuck: Any questions, folks?

Member Beach: So, Dave, this is Josie. As I read 

through all the reports -- and I appreciate the 

professional judgment section, because as I was 

taking notes, when I got to that section, I realized 

most of my questions had to do with that professional 

judgment period of time.

And I'm wondering, it's just a thought, that since we 

started tabulating in September of 2018 the 

professional judgment differences, is it possible to 

task SC&A with tracking the professional judgments 

that occur from report to report on kind of a 

spreadsheet so we can maybe see any similarities 

throughout the years in the reports?

And I know that's a Work Group discussion, so that's 

why I'm bringing it up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. In 

fact, it may well be being done, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: We were tasked, actually, I believe at 
15

the November/December timeframe meeting last 

year, with proposing something. And we did put out 

a proposal around that timeframe and then we have 

never discussed it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: Rose, was it in the Methods meeting, 

the Work Group, or was it in this one?

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe it was in Dose Reconstruction, 

but I could be wrong.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: Could you re-send that out so we 

could maybe take that up if that's something that 

everybody is interested in?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I think that would be a good 

idea. I was wondering, when was that memo sent 

out?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's not a formal memo. It was just an 

Excel file that had the suggested --

Chair Kotelchuck: I wonder if we lost track of it, or if 

I lost track of it, in the course of our going into the 

whole period of the pandemic and, you know, 

changing to all meetings being online like this 

because -- but I think we should have discussed it. 

And if we haven't, I believe that, if you wouldn't mind 

sending it out again -- and I think, by all means, we 

should discuss it and put it on the agenda for our next 

meeting.

Member Beach: Dave, can I suggest that, not just a 

question, but maybe an actual memo from SC&A 

would be more appropriate? Is that something you 

can do, Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, I can certainly put it in a memo 
16

format.

Member Beach: Expand it a bit, maybe?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, absolutely. We're open to things 

that -- we threw out a strawman, at least, to see what 

the Board was interested in tracking. And if we want 

to change something, that's absolutely okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And I think, for myself, I'm 

not sure if I remember precisely earlier discussions, 

but I think I wanted to wait until we had enough 

professional judgments to sort of see how they 

distribute it.

Member Beach: Yeah. That makes sense. Also, we 

have the paper from Mark from our Methods Work 

Group that lays out some of the professional 

judgment items, too, and we've never gone back and 

taken that up. So that might be something for that 

Work Group. I know you're chairing that as well, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: So, maybe we need to revisit that, 

as well, when you're thinking about this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thinking about it, but the question 

is, the Methods group has not met for a long time, 

and it seems to me that this group, the 

Subcommittee, is sort of uniquely concerned about 

the professional judgment and putting it together. So 

I would wonder whether it wouldn't be better to have 

the discussion within this group.

Member Beach: Yeah. I guess that's why I'm bringing 

up his report, because it may coincide with this memo 

we're talking about, also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: Just something to think about.
17

Chair Kotelchuck: Actually, you know, I'll take 

responsibility to make sure that, as Rose puts out a 

memo for us, that we make sure that we send out 

the relevant sections of the report that was made 

earlier. Okay?

Member Beach: That sounds good. Thank you, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you for raising this. I 

also wondered, Rose, as we went through this, you, 

at one point, said -- I'm trying to -- let me see if I 

can go back to the page here.

By the way, I have been on the screen that you are 

scrolling through throughout. I did get on it pretty 

quickly after we started. But I wanted to raise the 

question -- you said, well, it's over 50 percent and 

something was stopped, some part of the process. 

Maybe you can help me or others with --

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, yes. So, the 50 percent is the 

threshold for compensation, as you know.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Oh, yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: Once a DR hits that 50 percent 

threshold, no additional dose that is assigned is going 

to change the compensation decision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so, as an efficiency measure, 

generally --

Chair Kotelchuck: No, that's perfectly good when 

folks are doing the assessment. But for blinds, it 

seems to me for blinds, the task in blinds is not only 

to assess the Probability of Causation, but to see 

whether there is precision; that is, to whether the two 

groups get similar results.

And while the results are remarkably similar, and 

impressively so, it seems to me we do want to know 

if one is 51 percent and the other is 59 percent --
18

they are not, but let's just take that for example --

then we would say, well, there's quite a difference, 

and what's the problem?

So, in that sense, it seems to me blinds should never 

be cut off above 50 percent, because that's not what 

our goal is. Our goal is not to make a compensation 

decision, but to see if our PoCs are calculated 

similarly. And that would, of course, hold for both of 

those.

Ms. Gogliotti: But NIOSH completes their dose 

reconstruction as if they're -- well, they are 

completing a real dose reconstruction.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's true.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so that doesn't really impact them.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right about that. They don't 

know that we're doing -- well, they know that there 

is a blind on this, do they not? Or don't they?

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH is aware of the blind, but when 

they did their dose reconstruction, they were not 

aware that it would be selected for us to review 

further.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay. Well, if they don't 

know, then they can't -- then what they were doing 

is absolutely the right procedure.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we attempt to follow their 

procedures as much as we can.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. But that --

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is somewhat of a professional 

judgment issue, though, because if the PoC was 

lower, say, below 45 percent, we could be applying 

overestimating assumptions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.
19

Ms. Gogliotti: And that would be completely within 

procedural guidelines.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'd like to think that over. You're 

absolutely right. NIOSH does, as it should, follow 

these procedures. Then we really don't have quite the 

same process, or we may not have quite the same 

process, when the blinds are gone over by --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, some of it does come down to 

professional judgment and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah. Do any of the other 

Subcommittee folks, do you have any thoughts on 

that? Or is that something that concerns you or --

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. 

Mr. Calhoun: Dave, this is Grady.

Member Beach: Go ahead.

Mr. Calhoun: Let me just try and give you an 

illustration here why I think it would be really hard 

for us to try to task SC&A to do this. And here's why.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: Let's just say hypothetically it's a lung 

cancer, okay? Our initial approach is always going to 

be, let's look at internal dose. And we look and the 

guy's records has plutonium and uranium, just 

hypothetically. We do the plutonium dose and it gets 

him at the 52 percent. We would stop then, and we're 

perfectly good. We wouldn't look at uranium dose. 

We wouldn't look at the external dose, even he has 

100 rem external dose. We wouldn't look at X-ray 

dose. And so, you know, it's like where would SC&A 

stop? 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: I'm just saying that they could use -- in 

that ridiculous example, if we had 100 rem external 
20

dose, they could have gone the external dose route 

and compensated it based on external and not do 

internal.

So, trying to compare an underestimate or an 

overestimate is really -- you know, once you get to 

the desired point there through each of those 

deficiency methods, trying to compare those 

afterwards is very, very difficult, in my opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: And I think Rose would probably agree 

with me.

Ms. Gogliotti: I do.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, and I see that. I see that. It's 

a bit of a conundrum that I had not thought about 

before, but --

Ms. Gogliotti: I would like to point out I think the 

Board's main focus -- and I don't mean to speak for 

the Board --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- with these blinds is to make sure that 

the right compensation decision is being reached, for

us to give you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. Well, that certainly is the 

bottom line. And when we started doing blinds, we 

would often go fairly far, a fairly wide range from 45 

to 52 percent. Those were the ones we chose to look 

at.

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe that's still the range that was 

selected.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. No, it is. It is still the range. 

So, this wouldn't come up often, but I think you're 

right. I mean, ultimately, it must be that the 

compensation decisions are the same.
21

Oh, what I was going to say is, as we get closer to 

50 percent, and we're starting to deal with PoCs very 

close to 50 percent and then putting them up for 

blinds, of course there will be differences in the 

compensation decision because one of the PoCs will 

be just barely above 50 percent, another one will be 

just barely below.

We haven't come across that too often, but it's 

something that will happen from time to time, and 

we should expect that. I think you're right, and I 

think we are -- I think, my concern, I think both of 

you and Grady have addressed and that there really 

is no practical way of doing it precisely with either 

underestimates or overestimates.

So, okay. Well, as far as I'm concerned, that answers 

it. If other folks have other -- other Subcommittee 

Members have any comments about that, or 

agreement, disagreement, do say.

Hearing none, are there any other questions 

regarding this? And it's just, as I said, remarkable 

agreement for a multiple cancer situation, multiple 

cancer sites. 

Anything further?

Member Beach: Nothing here, Dave. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Hearing none, should we 

consider this accepted and closed?

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Okay. Good. Good. 

Loretta?

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. So, we are all in 

agreement and that is -- and thank you for that, 
22

Rose.

So, let's go on now to the next, to No. B40, which is 

an SRS case.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Kathy, are you still on the line?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I'm on the line.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

B40 - Savannah River Site (SRS)

Ms. Behling: Okay. Good morning. As we stated, this 

is a case from the Savannah River Site, and I am 

going to begin my discussion on page 7 of the report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Behling: And, as Rose indicated, we are going to 

be very elusive in our description here. So, I'm going 

to hope that you can follow along with the 

information that Rose is presenting, or if you have 

the report in front of you.

This is an EE that was employed at the Savannah 

River Site for more than two decades. And Table 1-1 

summarizes the numerous diagnosed cancers 

involved in this claim.

If we move on to page 8, both SC&A and NIOSH said 

that they used best estimate methods and both 

calculated PoCs that were greater than 50 percent. 

And, therefore, we assume that this claim was 

compensated.

Table 1-2 compares the doses calculated by NIOSH 

and SC&A and the resultant PoCs for each of those 

calculations. And, as you can see in Table 1-2, both 

DR methods calculated identical, or nearly identical, 

external doses.

And there were some minor differences in the 

internal doses because NIOSH calculated doses 
23

associated with uranium, plutonium, and fission and 

activation products, while SC&A only calculated 

environmental doses. NIOSH also calculated 

environmental doses, and we'll go into more detail on 

that as we proceed.

Both SC&A and NIOSH calculated doses that varied 

by only a few millirem. And, as I mentioned, both had 

PoCs greater than 50 percent.

And, as shown on page 17 of the report, the total 

PoCs, the combined PoCs, were within two 100ths of 

a percent of each other. In other words, NIOSH 

calculated a PoC of 51.34 percent and SC&A 

calculated a PoC of 51.32 percent.

If we move on to page 18, we have a list here of the 

key guidance documents that both NIOSH and SC&A 

used for estimating the doses. And these included the 

Savannah River Technical Basis Document; OTIB-17, 

which is your interpretation of shallow dose; PROC60, which is associated with onsite ambient dose; 

PROC-61, which is associated with the medical X-ray 

doses; and the IG-001, which is your External Dose 

Reconstruction Implementation Guide.

Table 2-1, as Rose explained, that's our comparison 

of pretty much trying to point out similarities and 

differences between NIOSH's approach and SC&A's 

approach. And, again, the minor differences, which, 

as I said, will be discussed a little later, were 

associated with missed photon dose -- some very 

minor differences there -- unmonitored photons, and 

the internal dose, as I previously mentioned.

And if we move on to page 20 I'll start to go through 

the details of the doses. For the external dose, the 

EE was periodically monitored for photon exposure. 

However, there was only one badge exchange that 

was greater than the LOD over 2 value.

This recorded dose of 20 millirem was multiplied by 

a dose correction factor of 1 in accordance with OTIB-
24

17. And the photon dose of 20 millirem was entered 

into IREP as a 30 to 250 keV photon with no 

uncertainty or a constant distribution.

There was also only one badge exchange showing a 

greater than LOD over 2 value for the shallow dose. 

And, again, this was multiplied by a DCF of 1. 

And for cancers that were covered with clothing, 

there was an electron dose attenuation factor of 

0.855 that was applied. And, again, this is in 

accordance with OTIB-17 guidance. This resulted in 

a dose of 15 millirem for the cancer locations that 

were not affected by the clothing attenuation, and 13 

millirem for those that were underneath clothing.

For missed photon dose, both NIOSH and SC&A used, 

again, OTIB-17 for assessing the missed photon 

dose. There was one quarter of monitoring where 

there was a gap in that monitoring, and both NIOSH 

and SC&A filled that gap with adjacent data. And so 

they assigned a zero dose for that gap.

Table 3-1 shows NIOSH's missed photon dose 

calculations. And Table 3-2 shows SC&A's annual 

missed photon dose calculations.

The only difference between the two methods is that 

SC&A, for one of the years of monitoring for cancer 

number 1, counted eight zeroes. And that was due to 

the fact that the cancer was -- the date that the 

cancer was diagnosed. NIOSH used a more maybe 

claimant-favorable approach and they assigned 12 

zeroes for that particular year. So, that was the only 

difference in the missed photon dose. And this 

resulted in NIOSH assigning a total dose for cancer 1 

that was 40 millirem greater than SC&A's calculation 

for missed photon doses.

Both methods entered all the annual doses into IREP 

as photons 30 to 250 keV with a log-normal 

distribution and a geometric standard deviation of 

1.52.
25

Okay. Now, for missed shallow dose, in accordance 

with OTIB-17, when both the open window and the 

shielded window are at zero, missed doses should be 

assigned using the open window LOD value divided 

by 2 and considered 30 to 250 keV. So, all missed 

shallow doses were incorporated into Tables 3-1 and 

3-2 above. So they were already considered in the 30 

to 250 keV range. 

Onsite ambient, the EE was not monitored for a 

period of approximately 14 years of the employment. 

And, therefore, NIOSH and SC&A calculated onsite 

ambient dose for this unmonitored period based on 

values cited in the Technical Basis Document, Table 

3.4-1. And both methods calculated identical doses. 

And the annual doses were entered into IREP with a 

log-normal distribution and an uncertainty of 1.3.

And if we move on to page 22. Okay, you're there. 

NIOSH and SC&A also assigned occupational medical 

dose based on the actual number of X-ray exams 

reported in the DOE records using dose data. In the 

Savannah River Site TBD, Table 3-12, both methods 

calculated identical occupational medical doses. And 

those doses were entered into IREP as a normal 

distribution with 30 percent uncertainty.

So, that's the external dose in a summary. Does 

anyone have any questions at this point? If not, I'll 

move on to the internal --

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Do others?

Member Beach: No, nothing.

Member Valerio: I'm good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay.

Ms. Behling: Alright. Now, you'll find this interesting, 
26

but, for the occupational internal dose, the DOE 

records show that the EE was monitored for uranium, 

plutonium, and fission and activation products. All of 

the results were less than MDA. And, in this particular 

case, NIOSH calculated doses associated with those 

monitoring results and SC&A did not.

And the reason for that was SC&A determined that 

the PoC was going to be greater than 50 percent by 

only using environmental internal dose. And so 

therein lies the difference between why the internal 

doses were calculated a little bit different and the 

doses were slightly different.

So, I'll go through NIOSH's internal dose calculations. 

As I said, the EE was monitored --

Dr. Roberts: Excuse me. Hi. I'm sorry to interrupt. I 

just want to make sure that it's not just me having 

some problems with hearing you. Are other people 

having some difficulties with the line or is that just 

me?

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't have any problem.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. I have no problems.

Member Beach: Yeah, and Josie, it's clear here.

Chair Kotelchuck: And, more importantly, is the court 

reporter having any problems?

Court Reporter: This is the court reporter. It sounds 

good to me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. 

Dr. Roberts: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Hopefully you can resolve 

that. Thank you.

Ms. Behling: I'm sorry about that. I'll try to speak 

louder and maybe slower. And if you are not hearing 
27

me, just stop me at any point.

I was about to say that I'm going through the 

calculations for NIOSH's internal dose. And, as I 

mentioned, the EE was monitored for exposure to 

fission and activation products via a single wholebody count. And so, doses were calculated based on 

one-half the MDA for ruthenium-106 and assumed a 

Type S solubility. And, using IMBA, a chronic 

inhalation intake of 907 picocuries per day was 

calculated.

This intake rate was then entered into the CADW 

program to generate a dose of 10 millirem. And that 

dose was entered into IREP as electrons greater than 

15 keV with a GSD of 3.

For the uranium intake, the EE was monitored several 

times using urinalysis for uranium. All results again 

were less than the MDA values. IMBA was used again 

to estimate a chronic inhalation by using one-half of 

the MDA value for assuming 100 percent of uranium234 and comparing solubility Types F, M, and S. And 

it was determined that Type S generated the highest 

dose.

Then the IMBA-calculated intake rates were entered 

into CADW and doses were calculated that range 

between less than 1 millirem through 3 millirem. And 

the annual doses were entered into IREP with a lognormal distribution and with a GSD of 3.

Then we'll move on to plutonium intakes. The EE was 

again monitored for plutonium via urinalyses, and all 

results were less than the minimum detectable 

activities. NIOSH assumed, in this case, a 10-year, 

12 percent fuel-grade plutonium-239/-240 material.

Chronic inhalation using one-half of the MDA for 

plutonium-239 was used to calculate an intake rate. 

And they compared solubility Types M and S, and 

Type S resulted in the higher dose. They also 

included the isotopic ratios associated with other 
28

radionuclides in this calculation.

Because this was plutonium for the Savannah River 

Site, they also considered Type Super S plutonium. 

And, in accordance with OTIB-49, the annual doses 

after the last urinalysis were multiplied by 4 to 

account for this Type Super S plutonium retained in 

the body longer. This resulted in doses ranging from 

less than 1 millirem to 86 millirem. And, again, the 

doses were entered into IREP as a mode of a 

triangular distribution with the minimum being zero 

and the maximum value being two times the mode.

In addition, NIOSH assessed a dose for 

environmental internal exposure, and estimates were 

based on maximum annual intakes of tritium, iodine, 

uranium, and plutonium. Now, the environmental 

uranium and the plutonium were not calculated when

missed dose was assigned, for those periods that 

missed dose was assigned for uranium and 

plutonium.

This resulted in the assignment of a dose that ranged 

from 15 millirem to 27 millirem based on the cancer 

diagnosis date. And data was entered into IREP as a 

log-normal distribution with a GSD of 3.

And, as I mentioned, SC&A chose to only calculate 

dose for the environmental intakes and that decision 

was based on the fact that they concluded that the 

external dose, plus the environmental internal dose, 

was sufficient to put this claim over the 50 percent 

PoC.

So, for efficiency measures they did not go to the 

calculations associated with uranium, plutonium and 

fission and activation products. They simply did 

environmental internal intakes. 

They used the Savannah River general environmental 

intake information as incorporated into the CADW 

program.
29

And they also calculated doses that matched NIOSH's 

environmental doses that range from 15 millirem to 

27 millirem.

And SC&A, again, entered the data in the same 

fashion into IREP with a log-normal distribution with 

a GSD of 3.

And if we move on then to the professional judgment 

decisions, when it comes to unmonitored periods, 

that always requires some sense of professional 

judgment.

And I found it interesting that to make that decision, 

you have to look at the EE's monitoring data, his job 

functions, the length of the unmonitored period and 

it can be filled either with recorded doses, gaps can 

be filled with adjacent doses, coworker doses or 

environmental doses.

And it was interesting to me that both SC&A and 

NIOSH used the same philosophy for the 

unmonitored doses, and that was for small gaps in 

data they used adjacent dosimetry cycles to fill in 

that gap. 

And for more extended unmonitored periods they 

used the environmental external dose. And again, 

that was based on job functions and other monitoring 

data.

So, those are -- that was the only decision --

professional judgment decision point that we felt was 

-- could be identified in this particular case.

We go on to the summary/conclusions. Table 6-1, 

again, shows a comparison of the total external and 

internal doses and individual PoCs.

And if we move down to page 28, we can see that, 

again, the total PoCs were -- the combined PoCs were 

nearly identical at 51.34 percent and 51.32 percent.

Again, just a summary of the differences. Missed 
30

photon dose, SC&A calculated -- or counted a few 

less missed photon exchanges for one particular year 

of monitoring because of the date of the cancer 

diagnosis, and NIOSH used a full year of missed 

doses -- missed cycles.

And, also, the discussion of the internal doses where 

NIOSH calculated internal doses for all of the 

monitoring that was provided by the DOE, and SC&A 

chose just to use the environmental internal dose 

calculations.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Behling: So, that sums it up. Do you have any 

questions?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that's very good. Again, a 

remarkable agreement. And I must say just to 

comment, again, on the professional judgement 

page, I find that, as I review the blinds, the -- one of 

the most interesting pages -- well, one of the most 

interesting sections of the report.

And at least for myself, I kind of read over them very 

carefully and try to think about its larger impact and 

we'll be talking further about putting all this together 

-- the professional judgments together and kind of 

seeing the patterns and seeing what we might learn 

in terms of procedures.

So, excellent. I don't have any questions. I have 

comments, but I don't have any questions.

Do others have questions?

Member Beach: Yeah. Dave, this is Josie. I did have 

-- I wrote down a question on the 12 badges versus 

the 8, but I think you answered that, Kathy.

The other question I had was if the PoC was not 

greater than 50 percent, would SC&A's approach 

have been different or similar to NIOSH's? I was just 

curious about that as I was reading through this.
31

Ms. Behling: Yes, definitely. We would have certainly 

calculated internal doses based on the monitoring 

records and calculated doses for all of the monitoring 

records. There's no doubt about that.

We were using a more efficient approach here and 

running the environmental internal is -- it's set up in 

CADW. It's very simple to run. And once we realized 

that that would suffice in putting the PoC over 50

percent, it was just done as an efficiency measure.

And as we were discussing previously, I think SC&A, 

as we go through this process, we do -- we have 

looked at enough of NIOSH's and ORAU's work to 

realize what they -- to anticipate what they may do 

also.

And, you know, according to, you know, the 

regulations, they do state for efficiency purposes you 

can stop calculating doses as soon as you are aware 

that the case will be compensated.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Owens: Excuse me. May I ask a question? I 

realize I'm from the public, but could I ask a 

question?

Chair Kotelchuck: Who is this speaking?

Ms. Owens: This is Katherine Owens (phonetic). I'm 

listening from the public and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh.

Ms. Owens: -- my question is you stated --

Chair Kotelchuck: Ma'am. Ma'am. Excuse me. Excuse 

me, ma'am. Normally for meetings of the 

Subcommittee like this there is no public input.

Ms. Owens: Okay.
32

Chair Kotelchuck: At a public meeting, that is, at a 

Board meeting, there is always a chance to ask 

questions. I'm sorry, but that is our practice. 

Ms. Owens: That's fine. I understand.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Owens: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. But next meeting please feel 

free to make sure that you, or someone representing 

you, has a chance to talk about it, if you wish to.

Dr. Roberts: And just to add to that for the public, we 

will be having a full meeting of the Board in 

December where there will be a public comment 

period.

So, please keep that in mind and check the NIOSH 

website for additional information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Owens: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Subcommittee Members, any 

further comments?

Member Lockey: David, Jim Lockey. I wanted to 

follow up on the professional judgment question. 

SC&A and NIOSH agreed in regard to how that was 

approached in this case.

I assume that when we go back and record these, 

we'll be recording both SC&A's approach and NIOSH's 

approach in regard to professional judgment?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. 

Member Lockey: And are we looking for discrepancies 

there or what are we looking for? If they agree, is 

there something above and beyond that we're 

concerned about?
33

I'm just curious about that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I've always understood that 

there may be ways that if [we] professional -- to 

minimize -- if there were to look at the results and 

ask are there ways of limiting the degree of 

professional judgment or is there something that 

professional judgment is used on that we really don't 

need to take advantage of professional judgment, 

that we can set up a rule, you know, and a guide for 

people.

So, that's kind of what I've always understood or 

what I'm looking for.

Member Lockey: I guess what I was -- I would say 

both SC&A and NIOSH use the same approach in 

regards to professional judgment.

If they thought there were different approaches and 

one was making -- one would make a significant 

difference in the calculations, then we would see that 

when we review these cases.

So, I'm just trying to get what's the end of looking at 

the professional judgments if both NIOSH and SC&A 

agree? We're not going to change something, I don't 

think, right?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, no. I think, in my opinion, the 

Board could look at it at a later time and say that 

both SC&A and NIOSH used professional judgment in 

some particular situation that it is no longer -- not 

necessary, or no longer necessary, and ask that there 

be perhaps a change in the procedures such that 

rules can be written down and professional judgment 

can be limited.

So, they could agree and we could, as a Board, feel -

- and instruct the staff that we think we could do 

better and limit the degree of -- the amount of items 

-- the number of items that we do use for 

professional judgment.
34

At least that's my --

Member Lockey: I understand that. That's what I 

thought you were thinking. 

And I would ask SC&A, you're on the phone, if you 

would run across something where you think that 

there's something above and beyond professional 

judgment that would be indicated, would you let the 

Board know that in these case reviews?

Ms. Gogliotti: Above and beyond -- we do not make 

value judgments. If SC&A and NIOSH had made an 

entirely different decision in the case and we thought 

that there was a problem, we might indicate that we 

had made a significant judgment difference and then 

we would discuss it here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- say right versus wrong in these 

blinds because that's kind of outside of the purview 

of -- or the scope of these reviews, but we do --

Member Lockey: So, it would be in your scope to say 

we agree with NIOSH's approach, but there's 

something else that we should consider looking at 

this, so we take it out of the professional judgment.

That would be beyond your scope; is that right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Within our scope would be to say there 

were differences in professional judgment. But if I 

thought there was an error made, we would just 

indicate --

Member Lockey: No, I don't mean error. I meant that 

there's -- there may be another approach that we 

could take where professional judgment would no 

longer be indicated, but there's a more systematic 

approach. That's what I'm saying. 
35

Chair Kotelchuck: I really do think that's a Board 

issue, not for SC&A.

Member Lockey: Okay. Thank you. Alright. I was just 

curious where we --

Chair Kotelchuck: Errors they should point out, but 

professional judgments about procedure, I think, is a 

Board responsibility.

Although, look, there's never any problem with folks 

from SC&A or NIOSH pointing out to committee 

members that there are some problems. And if they 

have some ideas, they might want to more informally 

raise it, but I don't think it's a matter of the writeup 

for each of these. I don't think they should make 

value judgments.

Member Beach: And I think that's why we're asking 

for tracking -- this is Josie again -- so that we can 

just see -- keep track and see what's being judged 

professionally.

And like you said, Dave, if there's changes in the 

documentation that need to be made or the 

procedures --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, for instance, in this case, we 

could have added to professional judgment -- or to 

the Professional Judgment section the way that 

internal dose was assessed because of the PoC that 

was reached.

And the SC&A team felt that the PoC was greater than 

50 percent and ran the numbers prior to assessing 

the positive intakes and that is a professional 

judgment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, it is. It is -- well, actually --

but we now know, as the Subcommittee, that this is 

the way it is done and needs to be done. 

That is, our earlier discussion for the first blind, I 

think, certainly resolved that for me that any time 
36

we're over 50 percent there is no -- there may be 

differences in procedure because compensation has 

been decided upon.

So, I don't -- in a sense, I don't think -- I think it 

would be repetitive to do it, to put that in as a matter 

of fact that there may be differences stopping at 50 

percent.

Ms. Gogliotti: And that may have been why we left it 

out. I don't recall the exact decision process for the -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Well, these are -- look, Jim, 

this is -- it's good that you raised it and I think it's 

good that we think about it as a Subcommittee.

I mean, this is a process that we're developing, you 

know. We never did blinds before putting in 

professional judgment and I'm so glad that we 

decided to do so with the Board's approval.

And I think it may -- it will help us see what's going 

on and make sure that all is well.

Member Lockey: No, I agree with that. I was just 

curious where we were going to go with it. 

I would be really concerned if SC&A and NIOSH got 

to the professional judgment and there was a 

discrepancy as to how their approach was. That 

would be raising all kinds of flags for me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. And that 

would be in the report because there is a 

disagreement, there is a different approach.

Member Lockey: Right. Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And SC&A would point that out. 

Okay. Well, should we accept now this blind? Does 

everybody agree?
37

Member Lockey: I agree.

Member Beach: I agree also.

Member Valerio: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wonderful. We're in agreement. 

So, it's accepted. 

Now, we have about a half an hour. I think that would 

be the amount of time that we could use for the last 

blind.

So, what do you think, Rose? Well, I guess you can't 

know, but given that we've been moving along and 

there was agreement on that blind as well, I think we 

can finish it in a half an hour; do you agree?

Ms. Gogliotti: We can certainly try to. And if we have 

to stop midway through, we'll just --

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- pick up after we come back.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right. We certainly can 

continue at 2:00. Sure. Let's go. 

B41 -- Savannah River Site (SRS)

Okay. So, another SRS blind.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And we still have Ron on the 

line?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. I'm here.

Ms. Gogliotti: Alright. Take it away.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is Ron Buchanan with 

SC&A and I'll be doing Blind No. 41, which, again, is 

a Savannah River Site blind.

And we start out on page 7. Rose, if you can come 

up with that? I think that's where we're at.
38

Okay. On page 7, we see that this is, like I say, 

Savannah River. The person worked there about 20 

years in the '70s, '80s and '90s off and on in several 

employment periods.

We see that Table 1-1 on page 7 lists the cancers. 

And we see this is similar to our last case.

And I won't go into detail, but you can all see that. 

And so, if we go down to page 8, we see that in both 

DR methods, they used best estimate and estimated 

the PoC slightly under 50 percent.

And at Table 1-2 on page 8 there, lists the radiation 

that was assigned, the doses that were assigned, 

PoCs and we had a recorded dose, shallow 30 to 250 

keV photons, greater than 250 keV photons, and we 

had missed dose also, environmental external and 

occupational medical.

We had internal tritium, fission and activation 

products, actinides, uranium, plutonium, 

environmental.

If we page down through there, we see that the doses 

assigned and the resulting PoC for each individual 

cancer site was very similar and we see that we come 

out with -- on page 16, then, we see that the 

combined PoCs were all around the 49 percent range 

within a few hundredths of a percent. So, that is 

slightly under the 50, but both agreed pretty closely.

That brings us to page 17. We see that this worker 

had internal dose records and external dose records, 

and that the documents reviewed was of course the

TBDs for Savannah River Site and OTIB-0017 and 

0049 and Procedure 61, some of those that are listed 

there, and TIB-006.

And we see that Table 2-1 on page 17 compares 

again our dose reconstruction methods and NIOSH's 

and any differences [from what] SC&A used. 
39

And, as previously stated, of course we don't have 

the workbooks, so we used manual calculations plus 

the TBD scores. NIOSH uses the TBDs plus their 

dedicated workbook for that site. In this case, 

Savannah River. 

So, on page 18 we have a slightly different number 

of zeroes for missed dose. Quite a few off by probably 

one percent there. And we'll get into a little more 

detail on that.

The biggest difference with missed dose 

reconstruction was NIOSH's use of reversed 

attenuation factor for the shallow doses, both missed 

and recorded.

And that the person was wearing a plastic suit and 

they did a reversed attenuation for the electrons 

increasing the dose to the outside skin surfaces, and 

SC&A didn't.

That's the first time I'd seen that used, but we'll 

discuss the differences as we go through this and we 

get into that section.

That brings us to page 19 for internal doses. We see 

that -- pretty much agreed on that except for the 

tritium. 

This worker had a lot of tritium monitoring, over 100

[cases]. And depending on how you divided it up on 

what you considered to be dose intake periods, 

resulted in using a different number of results and 

what was considered significant and what wasn't.

And that other slight difference was fission and 

activation products. NIOSH assigned all the doses 

and SC&A didn't assign any that were less than 1 

millirem.

Well, that's the introduction part. We'll go to page 20 

and we'll start looking in detail on the occupational 

external doses.
40

In Section 3.1, both parties calculated the dose using 

100 percent 30 to 250 keV for the first period.

The worker changed location. So, a second -- so, the 

following period is 50 percent 30 to 250, 50 percent 

greater than 250 keV and of course assigned the 

lower doses as electrons.

NIOSH did assign those doses and SC&A assigned a 

very similar dose. The only difference was in oneyear NIOSH assigned 210 millirem and SC&A 

assigned 215 millirem.

And this was dependent on how you defined the dose, 

the open window, the shielded window, the LOD over 

values -- over 2 value right near the recorded dose.

And also, for a few years, Savannah River listed 

tritium as an external dose. And so, you had to 

subtract that out. 

And so, that resulted in a difference of 5 millirem 

between the two dose assignments, SC&A and

NIOSH.

And so, that brings us to Section 3.2, recorded 

shallow dose. And, again, it was assigned to both 

parties as greater than 15 keV electrons as 

recommended in OTIB-17.

And NIOSH assumed -- now, this is where the 

difference came in. The CATI report indicated that the 

worker wore a plastic suit and protective suit. 

And so, NIOSH assumed that the dosimeter was 

under the suit and in direct contact with the skin.

And so, what the dosimeter read was what the -- any 

scan that wasn't exposed was assigned. 

And that assumed that the hands and face were 

outside the plastic suit and assigned a reversed 

attenuation factor of 1 over 0.855, which effectively 

increased the dose to the hands and face. 
41

Whereas NIOSH assumed that the person had some 

-- had the regular coveralls or clothes on and the 

dosimeter was taped or in the pocket of that clothing 

and then had a plastic suit over that.

And if you had that, then NIOSH assumed that they 

would have some sort of hand covering such as 

gloves and some sort of head covering or face shield 

to attenuate the electrons coming through to those 

skin locations.

And so, SC&A did not apply any reversed attenuation 

factor and applied the 0.855 to skin that was located 

under the inside normal protective clothing.

And so, we see on page 21 there the comparison is 

summarized there, and this is how they explained. 

This would result in NIOSH assigning a slightly higher 

shallow dose than SC&A.

And, again, there's a little -- other additional -- small 

amount of dose in one year and NIOSH assigned an 

extra 10 millirem, and 12 millirem to some of the 

other cancer sites depending on whether it had the 

reversed factor or not.

And this difference came about because in these 

records sometimes they'll have a -- many pages of 

detailed dosimetry information. And then in the front 

of it they'll have just several pages of yearly 

summations.

And so, sometimes the yearly summations will be 

slightly different than the detailed badge exchange 

information. 

And so, how you reconcile those two differences?

Sometimes it's assigned as a missed dose, 

sometimes it might be assigned as a gap dose, and -

- or to reconcile those differences.

And so, that's where the difference of a few millirem 

came in also on that shallow dose assignment.
42

Now, on page 21 we also had -- Section 3.3 we had 

recorded neutron dose. There was no recorded 

neutron dose -- a positive neutron dose on neither 

was assigned. So, it wasn't assigned by either party. 

[We] agree with that.

Then we looked at missed neutron dose in Section 

3.4, starting on page 21. And NIOSH assigned about 

188 [zeros] and assigned about just slightly under 2 

millirem [for each].

SC&A then we see on page 22, we see -- excuse me. 

There was no recorded neutron dose. Okay. Section 

3.4 is missed photon dose. I misspoke, I said 

neutron. Missed photon dose. NIOSH used 188

[missed doses] and assigned slightly under 2 millirem 

to each of the sites.

Now, SC&A identified 185 difference of 3 zeroes there 

missed dose. And, again, it depends how you extract 

out the tritium-3 external dose and the LOD over 2 

value, how you assign doses that are right around 

that area. And so, we assigned slightly lower dose, 

but very similar to NIOSH for missed photon.

So, that takes us to page 22, Section 3.5 and we have 

missed shallow dose. And, again, NIOSH identified 5 

missed shallow doses. SC&A identified 5. 

We used same procedures and assigned similar dose. 

However, again, NIOSH did a reversed attenuation 

factor for shallow dose and SC&A did not for the 

hands and face. 

And so, that came out very similar doses, same 

procedure, but slightly lower dose assignment for 

SC&A than NIOSH.

So, that brings us now to Section 3.6, page 22, which 

is missed neutron does. And SC&A and NIOSH both 

identified missed neutron doses for several periods.

The worker was not monitored continuously for 
43

neutrons. The worker had different employment 

periods in different areas.

And so, both assumed that the worker was monitored 

for neutrons, if needed, and all the neutron records 

showed zero. 

So, we assigned -- and worker was assigned missed 

neutron dose, and both identified 9 missed doses. 

And both assigned the same dose at around 133 

millirem, and NIOSH 134.

The 1-millirem difference was the difference between 

the rounding off, whether you carried it all the way 

through and rounded it or rounded the multiplication 

factors as you went. And so, that was essentially the 

same dose.

So, that brings us to Section 3.7, the ambient dose 

on page 23. Now, the worker was not monitored for 

external radiation for several periods at Savannah 

River. So, both parties assigned an external ambient 

dose using a TBD.

And NIOSH assumed 2500 hours a year and prorated 

for a partial year of employment and assigned the 

maximum ambient dose at Savannah River Site.

Now, SC&A did very similar assignment, except SC&A 

looked at the internal monitoring records and 

assumed a given area was where the worker spent 

most of the time. 

And so, used that out of the TBD, used that Table C19, used that for that particular area and assigned a 

similar, but slightly higher, dose for external ambient 

dose.

And so, that -- in addition, we see on page 23 at 

Section 3.7.3, we see that SC&A also assigned 

ambient dose for an extra few months, whereas 

NIOSH stopped the ambient dose assignment slightly 

earlier than that. So, that gave a slight difference in 
44

the ambient dose assignment also.

That brings us to occupational medical dose on page 

23. There were no records in the EE's files. 

And so, we assumed that the medical X-rays were 

taken according to the TBD for the first period and 

there were X-ray records for the second period. And 

so, both SC&A and NIOSH used the TBD and the 

recorded exposures to assign medical X-ray.

And of course NIOSH used the TBD dose assignments 

and assigned it as shown on the bottom of page 23, 

a range depending on the date of diagnosis of the 

cancer.

We go to page 24 and we see that SC&A, in Section 

3.8.2, assigned the same except SC&A included a 

pre-employment scan and an annual scan for the first 

employment period in addition to what NIOSH 

assigned. 

And so [we], assigned a slightly different -- slightly 

higher dose. Used the same procedure, just included 

pre-hire and one more annual exam. 

So, in Section 3.8.3, we see that it was similar, but 

the additional exam increased SC&A dose slightly.

So, that's the external -- yeah, external dose 

assessment. So, if there are any questions on that 

before we go to internal dose?

Member Beach: Hi, Ron. This is Josie. I had a 

question on the ambient doses.

I think SC&A assigned the 8.8 months more. Is there 

a reason why that -- the extra months were added?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. Because the worker wasn't 

monitored during that period. There was no external 

monitoring records. 

There were gaps in the records for that -- about nine 
45

months. And so that's the reason SC&A assigned it. 

NIOSH assigned environmental dose up into part of 

that gap period, but not for the full period.

Member Beach: So, is that -- and I didn't go back and 

look after I made my notes for questions. Was that 

part of professional judgment again on the time 

gaps?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. I'd have to go back and look, but 

we'll probably get to that. But, yes, that's part of the 

professional judgement. 

Chair Kotelchuck: I noticed that as well, that issue on 

3.7.3. I don't understand why NIOSH didn't include 

the partial months.

I mean, it seems to me, if you will, an error, I mean, 

that they could have -- they could have taken the 

result from 1995 and extended it to 1996 for eight 

months. Wouldn't have been a bad estimate.

There's a difference there, but I'm not sure that that's 

really professional judgment. 

If we were reviewing this as just simply a case, I 

would say SC&A -- if we were discussing this as a 

case, SC&A would, I believe, call this out as a finding 

and I would agree with that. So, there is a difference.

I'm not -- to me, it's not a -- it is a difference, but it 

is not a professional judgment because it could easily 

have been -- it could have been consistent, and 

would have been, had we done this as a regular 

review.

So, I don't know where to -- what to do with that --

what to do with that comment or observation on my 

part, but that's somewhat bothersome, the 

difference, to me. 

Enough said. Any other comments before Ron goes 

on?
46

Member Beach: No. Dave, this is Josie. I know it's 

only eight minutes after and I'm going to sign off at 

a quarter after.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: And I had probably five or six 

different questions. So, hopefully if I miss that part 

of the discussion, the last 15 minutes, if I could go 

back and ask those questions --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. By all means. But, in fact, 

folks -- you were going to leave at 12:15 anyway. We 

do not have a quorum as you leave.

And so, I would like to just simply call an end to this 

session and resume it at 2:00. It's more than a lunch 

period, but I thank you for being on this morning 

because you had other obligations and you managed 

to re-arrange them.

And you'll be on this afternoon, I gather, and also 

David Richardson will be on. But, for the moment, if 

we don't have a quorum, I think we have to adjourn. 

I don't think we have any option on that.

So, thank you. So, folks, I can continue to talk to 

people to just say I think we have to call an end, 

because we have no quorum, and resume at 2:00. 

Okay?

Member Beach: That would be great. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Thank you.

Okay, folks. Okay. So, we will all get together at 2:00 

and continue with our good work. Thank you very 

much, folks.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:10 p.m. and resumed at 2:02 p.m.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Well, we don't have 

Richardson, but we do have Beach. So, I think we do 
47

have the quorum.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Dr. Roberts: Dave, how are you feeling about moving 

ahead?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. We are.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: I did not know originally that Josie 

would be able to join us at 2:00. 

So, I alerted David because David has a conflicting 

meeting at the same time --

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- a UN Commission meeting. So, 

I alerted him. So, I said, why don't you come on, you 

know, and check things. But then if you have to leave 

earlier, So, he may be a little late or he may not be 

on. We'll see.

We have enough to go ahead and I --

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I'd like us to go ahead.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, I will turn it over to you 

except to say that just be mindful of your mute 

button. If you're not speaking, make sure that it's on 

mute.

If you don't have that button, press *6 to go on mute 

and *6 to come off it. Okay. It's all yours, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you. 

So, as I recall, we were on the 41st blind, the SRS 

blind. And I believe we had stopped at when we were 

getting ready to begin occupational internal dose.
48

Is that correct, Ron?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: Actually, Mr. Kotelchuck?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott Siebert. Hey, I know we had 

some discussions at the end of the last session about 

the ambient and the differences and I can shed some 

light on that.

I wanted to verify it over the lunch break, so --

Chair Kotelchuck: Excellent. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Please go ahead and tell us.

Mr. Siebert: Absolutely. 

Yeah, the difference is we, the NIOSH team, switched 

over to a quarterly monitoring -- quarterly badging in 

1994, which is where you start seeing the 

differences.

Savannah River went to quarterly badging at that 

time unless there were apparently job-specific 

reasons for them to do more frequent monitoring.

So, as long as an individual has quarterly monitoring 

after '94, we will take into account that they were 

monitored and determine it as missed dose based on 

the actual monitoring results.

If there are additional monthly results outside of the 

normal quarterly, we'll take that into account and we 

may fill the empty spaces with ambient, if needed. 

But as long as we see quarterly, we assume that 

they're on quarterly monitoring. So, there would be 

no reason to assign ambient because they're already 

being monitored.

And in this specific case, we are talking about '96 and 

'97. And that's -- from the records, that's exactly 
49

what that individual appears to be on quarterly 

monitoring.

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it. Okay. Well, thank you very 

much.

Mr. Siebert: Absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good. So, let's go on. Were 

there other questions? 

In particular, Josie, I believe you had some questions 

before we get into the occupational internal dose or 

do you have such questions?

Member Beach: No. I did have a question on that, 

which Scott answered. I have questions as we move 

through.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. Very good.

Member Beach: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. 

So, Ron, why don't we continue ahead now starting 

with Section 4, occupational internal dose.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. I did want to say that the DOE 

records show that the person was externally 

monitored at 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 [months] 

for 1996. 

So, that's -- SC&A had indicated a monthly badging 

with a few gaps. So, I understand what NIOSH is 

saying, but that was our reasoning because it looked 

like they could have been badged for monthly.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay.

Member Beach: Wait. Ron, could I break in on that 

note? 
50

So, Scott had said that they were badged quarterly 

unless there was a reason for them to be badged.

So, in this case, based on what you just said, Ron, 

this individual could have been badged because of 

whatever work he was performing. Is that a 

possibility?

Dr. Buchanan: Yeah. Okay. You can look at it one of 

both ways, the way NIOSH looked at it and the way 

we looked at it.

[The person] was badged a number of times, nine 

times, during 1996. And it's true the badges coincide 

with the quarters, but there are also some months in 

between that the person was badged maybe on an 

as-needed basis.

So, it's hard to say. Was he badged on an additional 

as-needed basis or were these periods unbadged? 

And so, that's the two scenarios you could operate 

under. 

Member Beach: Okay. Thanks. Good.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. So, now we're on page 25 and 

we stopped in Section 4 with occupational internal 

dose.

And the EE was monitored for intakes and all of them 

were below the detection limit except for the tritium 

urinalyses. 

And so, both SC&A and NIOSH followed the guidance 

in the TBD and we'll start out with Section 4.1 tritium 

intake.

There was many of these samples. Some of them --

a number of them were above the lower limits of 

detection. 

And if there was no tritium sample submitted, then 

they didn't fill in gaps, and neither did SC&A, but that 

was accounted for in environmental tritium when we 
51

get to that point.

So, NIOSH identified over 100 tritium analysis results 

during the approximately 20 years. 

And they used the tritium dose uranium data 

workbook to calculate the dose, a little under 200 

millirem, and assigned it as a log-normal distribution.

Now, SC&A, in Section 4.1.2, there we reviewed it 

and what we did, we came up with a slightly less than 

100 significant tritium bioassay data points. 

Some of them -- a number of them was less than the 

LOD. And so, we did not include those in some of the 

analysis. 

Both parties used three major intake regime periods. 

And so, we came out with a dose that was slightly 

higher, just under 200 millirem also, but slightly 

higher than NIOSH.

And so, the comparison on the bottom of page 25,

there in 4.1.3, it was the approach we used. 

NIOSH used the -- what appeared to be significant 

positive tritium bioassays, and NIOSH modeled all of 

them. So, again, slightly different intakes and doses.

Now, the EE was also monitored for fission and 

activation products in Section 4.2 on page 25, and all 

the results were below the detection limit.

The worker was monitored by both in vivo and in vitro 

measurements. And so, both NIOSH and SC&A 

divided those up, beginning on page 26, into two time 

periods. One when the urinalysis was conducted and 

when the whole-body counts were conducted.

And what we did there since it was all less than 

detectable, NIOSH went through the TBD and used 

the intake rate of 4400 DPM (disintegrations per 

minute). And then also they associated fission 

products associated with ruthenium and cesium and 
52

cerium, and cobalt was also factored into that.

And so, that was put into the CADW and the -- doses 

model resulting in about a little over 100 millirem 

from that dose.

And then for the second period, when whole-body 

counts was the bioassay method, again that was 

below detection limits.

And so, looked at what the fission and activation 

products that would create the greatest dose to the 

organs of interest in this case. That was europium154 metastable. 

And used that as -- to be modeled and put that in the 

IMBA program to determine an intake rate. 

And used the dose modeling in the CADW and came 

out with doses that were just 2 to 3 millirem 

depending on the cancer [diagnosis] date.

So now, also, there is a third isotope, strontium-90 -

- or strontium in general. NIOSH did not address that 

in the DR report.

However, in their CADW, they did have a strontium 

dose model from that bioassay, and they showed a 

missed strontium-90 dose Type F during this period 

and -- but the dose was less than 1 millirem.

So, the total doses NIOSH assigned is on page 23 

there. It ranged from around 100 millirem depending 

on the diagnosis date of the cancer.

So, SC&A in Section 4.2.2 did a very similar thing, 

used the urine bioassays for the first period at 4400 

DPM, put that in the CADW and determined the 

appropriate doses.

Second period again used the whole-body counts, 

found that europium-154 metastable -- or Type M, 

excuse me, provided for the greatest dose and used 

the radionuclide chooser to determine that and we 
53

derived doses of around 2 to 3 millirems from the 

whole-body count results. Additionally, we modeled 

the strontium-90 intake and determined that that 

dose would be less than 1 millirem.

So, adding those up, we come up with about 100 --

around 150 millirem. And so, comparing those two, 

they were very similar, same methods and same 

technique except that NIOSH started the intake one 

year prior to the first urinalysis.

And SC&A considered that the EE could have been 

exposed from the beginning of the second 

employment period.

And so, NIOSH -- or SC&A's dose was slightly larger 

than NIOSH's dose because of the different start 

dates on those that were assumed.

Okay. So, the worker was also monitored for 

uranium. That's Section 4.3 on page 27. And -- for a 

period and all the results were below detectable. 

Therefore, SC&A and NIOSH assigned missed dose 

assuming it was uranium-234 100 percent, which is 

claimant-favorable for this organ and the organs 

involved.

So, when you look at Section 4.3.1 there, NIOSH's 

missed dose, they checked the three solubility types 

and found that Type S was most claimant-favorable. 

And they used the intake as derived from the IMBA 

program and beginning with the date the worker 

began working in a certain area at Savannah River 

until the last day of bioassay and derived skin doses 

from 3 to 6 millirem.

So if we look at SC&A on page 28, we see we did 

similar calculations, found Type F uranium. We 

divided the intakes. 

The only slight difference was we started the second 

employment period instead of the employment -- the 
54

date that NIOSH used. It was a longer period of time 

and we derived 1 to 3 millirem also.

Comparing them we see that the main difference was 

the start date. NIOSH assumed a later start date and 

SC&A selected the start as the second employment 

period.

So, the worker was also monitored for plutonium 

intake, Section 4.4 on page 28. Had urinalysis with 

plutonium. None of them was above the detection 

level. And so, both NIOSH and SC&A assigned missed 

dose. 

So, Section 4.4.1 there on page 28 lists NIOSH's 

method for assigning missed plutonium dose and that 

was -- they assumed a 10-year age, 12 percent fuelgrade plutonium-240 was chronically inhaled over 

two intake periods. 

And these corresponded with the approximate times

the worker began and ended in certain work areas 

and the last plutonium bioassay.

They used IMBA and found out -- for both Type S and 

Type M and calculated that Type S was claimantfavorable. 

And used the plutonium ratios and recalculated this 

plutonium -- let's see -- plutonium-240. Then used 

the plutonium radioisotope ratios to determine the 

other plutonium isotope intakes. 

And then adjusted this for Super S type plutonium 

according to OTIB-0049, and assigned anywhere 

from 6 to 160 millirem to the cancer sites depending 

on the dates they were diagnosed.

So, we look at SC&A's method on page 29. We see 

it's very similar to what NIOSH used except we used 

a different change date in the areas and used the last 

bioassay date as the end date. 

And we used twice the detection level from the 
55

bioassay listed in the bioassay data sheet and derived 

that Type S was the greater dose. 

We used the plutonium ratios to determine the 

different isotopes of plutonium for the 10-year age,

12 percent fuel grade plutonium-240.

And put that in the CADW and adjusted the resulting 

doses for Super S type plutonium from OTIB-0049 

and derived 6 to 160 millirem.

So, very similar dose. Almost identical. Slightly 

different intake periods as shown in Section 4.4.3 on 

page 29.

And there was not much difference even though it's 

slightly different in the intake period.

The worker was also monitored for actinide intakes in 

Section 4.5 on page 29. And it showed that a 

urinalysis for trivalent alpha-emitters and americium, 

curium and californium all below the detection limit.

And so, NIOSH's method is shown there in 4.5.1. And 

so, they adjusted it for the daily excretion rate and 

used IMBA to determine the projected intakes for the 

different types, those three isotopes.

And then derived the potential doses and they range 

from less than 1 millirem to 7 millirem assigned as a 

triangular distribution.

Section 4.5.2 on page 29, SC&A used twice the 

detection limits adjusted for the excretion rate and 

used MDA values as listed on the bioassay data 

sheets.

And used the date that started from the previous 

alpha-emitting radionuclide bioassay. So, slightly 

different again in the assumption date.

And SC&A then, on page 30, used IMBA to derive the 

potential intakes and then counted americium-241 as 

the most dose-significant and assigned all the intake 
56

to that, which resulted in very similar doses less than 

1 to 10 millirem and whereas NIOSH had less than 1 

to 7 millirem. So, slight claimant-favorable 

assumption there.

And so, we see in Section 4.5.3 on page 30, compare 

that and, again, we started a couple months earlier 

than NIOSH in our intake scenario. And we also 

bundled all the trivalent as americium-241 and gave 

it a moderately greater dose.

That brings us to the environmental intake on page 

30, Section 4.6. And the worker worked in various 

areas during the employment there.

It was assumed that he was occupationally exposed. 

Environmental intake and that may not have been 

accounted for in the bioassay.

So, Section 4.6.1 there on page 30 NIOSH models 

iodine-131, Pu-238 and U-234 and tritium 

environmental exposures. 

And, again, they were adjusted for employment time 

and the time that the EE was actually monitored for 

some of these radionuclides.

Using these assumptions NIOSH found that only 

tritium contributed to dose greater than 1 millirem. 

And dividing it up into 7 unmonitored periods resulted 

in a dose of 24 millirem. 

And so, Section 4.6.2, same page, describes SC&A's 

method. And, again, same thing as NIOSH did and 

found that tritium was the only significant dose 

contributor and derived a dose of about 30 millirem.

So, compare these in Section 4.6.3 and the main 

difference was that remember back when we did 

tritium dose, NIOSH used all the data points and 

whereas SC&A only used the most significant data 

points.

And so, that left more data points less than LOD, 
57

which SC&A then incorporated into this 

environmental dose, which resulted in a slightly 

greater dose you see there at the bottom of page 30. 

SC&A had about 15 percent more days as compared 

to NIOSH because we didn't use all the smaller doses 

back in the original tritium dose analysis workbook.

So, that brings us to page 31, which compares the 

start and stop dates. We all had -- most NIOSH and 

SC&A had the same number of periods and similar 

periods, but slightly different dates.

And so, that is why we had a few more days than 

they did in our environmental tritium intake.

Okay. So, that brings us to page 32, Section 5. And 

that's the professional judgment [section]. And we 

find that when we interpret these records, it depends 

on when you start the intake to a certain extent.

For example, for missed uranium intake, NIOSH 

assumed the exposure one year before the first 

uranium analysis, whereas SC&A assumed the start 

of the employment period. And both used the last 

urinalysis as the stop point.

We see that this makes some difference in 

assumptions, but only usually results in a few 

millirem difference in actually assigned dose,

especially to the organs we're talking about in this 

case.

Similar assumptions also are applied to plutonium, 

fission products and actinide intakes.

Now, shallow dose, we discussed that in that OTIB0017 provides guidance for attenuation by clothing 

or PPE. However, it doesn't say anything really about 

if the dosimeter is worn under the protective clothing.

So, in this case, NIOSH assumed that the dosimeter 

was next to the skin and then they had protective 

clothing on the outside of that, and so that the hands 
58

and face may not be covered.

SC&A assumed that the dosimeter was hooked up to 

a pair of inner clothing such as coveralls and the 

worker was wearing a plastic suit, which would cover 

the dosimeter and also would assume that the 

person's hands had gloves and head gear and face 

protection.

So, we did not apply a reverse attenuation factor, as 

NIOSH did, to several of the cancers that would be 

exposed potentially without shielding.

So, that brings us to page 34, Section 6, which is a 

summary of the conclusions. And now, we went 

through this table previously, Table 6-1 compares the 

PoCs and doses. As we can see, they were very 

similar down through page 35.

And we see that in Table 6-2, we compare the PoCs 

to see they both were under 50 percent, and so --

but very close.

And so, as we said before, the shallow dose 

attenuation factor and the starting of the potential 

internal intakes were the main differences in this case 

that gave a little variance in the total dose taken in.

So that concludes the internal intake. I'm open for 

questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay. Folks, people 

have questions again? Very good agreement. 

This time, of course, we are PoC below 50 and, 

therefore, best-estimate dose evaluations were 

made. So those are [methodologically] identical.

And, of course, for PoC less than 50 percent that's 

good. Those are the most important ones that could 

change and we have agreement with both NIOSH and 

SC&A following the same procedures except for the 

differences that Ron talked about.
59

Other questions?

Member Beach: Yeah. This is Josie. I had a question.

Did we cover the medical doses on page 20 -- starting 

on page 23? I feel like we missed that or else I missed 

it. 

And there was a disagreement on the amount of Xrays. NIOSH chose 11, SC&A chose 12, because of 

that first employment period.

Was that discussed or did we know that? 

Chair Kotelchuck: I thought we did go over that, but 

this is time for question and --

Member Beach: So, I'm just curious. Is that 

considered a professional judgment on that X-ray?

It's a small difference in dose, but where you have 

those really close ones, that could be something that 

would tip somebody over, the difference between the 

11 and the 12.

Can you expand on that just a bit? Could this happen 

more often?

Mr. Siebert: Yes. This is Scott. I'd be happy to do 

that.

Yeah, it's not actually professional judgment. It's 

implementation of how we do X-rays.

There can be default exam frequencies in TBDs. But 

if we have actual X-ray records, those take 

precedence over any of the defaults in the TBDs.

And at Savannah River for this specific claim, we did 

have the actual X-ray records. 

So, we assigned what they actually were -- the 

exams they actually had rather than making any 

default assumptions.
60

Member Beach: So, do we know that they didn't have 

X-rays during that first period or you're just assuming 

they did not?

Mr. Siebert: Well, we've never had an indication that 

their X-ray records, when they gave it to us, were 

incomplete.

Member Beach: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Siebert: Certainly.

Dr. Buchanan: What SC&A assumed was that the 

TBD says, you know, there could have been a prehire exam.

And so, there wasn't any in the record. So, we did 

assume that. And so, that was what you'd consider 

claimant-favorable, but, you know, that would be up 

to question.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Other questions?

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I have a question.

So, SC&A included a pre-employment scan. So, I'm 

assuming that there were records indicating that the 

pre-employment scan was done onsite?

Dr. Buchanan: No. There were records of X-rays 

being done onsite after the employment period 

began. 

And so -- and the TBD said there could be preemployment exams. And so, SC&A assigned that 

even though it wasn't in the record.

And NIOSH is saying, well, they've never seen when 

it wasn't included in the record. So, they didn't assign 

it.

Member Valerio: Okay. Thank you.
61

Dr. Buchanan: Um-hmm.

Mr. Siebert: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, no. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, this is Scott. 

Just -- there was another -- one thing that was 

mentioned that I just wanted to cover just because it 

has an issue to do with professional judgment or not.

When we talked about the fission product dates, 

SC&A went back to the beginning of employment and 

we used one year prior to the actual first fission 

product and activation products monitoring.

That's actually proceduralized in OTIB-60. So, we 

were following the specific procedure that outlines 

how to do that accurately.

So, I just wanted to point out that one actually is not 

a professional judgment difference.

The uranium one, however, is because it is based on 

-- SC&A took it back to the beginning of the 

employment period, whereas we took it back to the 

beginning of working in an -- we had an indication of 

working in an area that had uranium that started on 

a certain date. 

That's why those dates were different and that one is 

a professional judgment decision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you.

I'm just looking at the professional judgment page. I 

guess, is there anything that needs changing? Well, 

I guess what you're saying is in the record. So, we 

don't need to make any changes.

I was looking over the professional judgment page to 

see if we said -- if something was said that suggested 

that the -- let's see.
62

You said the -- which product? The uranium is a 

professional judgment and the other is the -- what is 

the other --

Mr. Siebert: The fission and activation products are 

not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Fission, right. Right.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. That's outlined in OTIB-60.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Right. Okay.

Member Beach: Well, and on page 33, Dave, of the 

professional judgments, it says both assessments 

use reasonable professional judgments to interpret 

the statements in the CATI and NIOSH's assumptions 

are modestly more claimant-favorable. 

So, I thought that was a good paragraph to add also. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Yes. Okay. Good. I 

see it now, yeah. 

Alright. Anything else, folks?

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: I was just going to ask a question also.

When -- obviously when SC&A does these blinds, 

we're following the procedures and the guidelines 

that are available to us and I have never heard of this 

reverse attenuation factor that was used for the 

shallow dose.

And I've gone through OTIB-17 and I don't see 

anything specific to that reverse attenuation.

And so, I personally have never seen it and I 

wondered if that was documented anywhere.

Mr. Smith: This is Matthew Smith with ORAU team. 
63

Scott and I were talking about that earlier.

It's not explicitly documented, but we do always ask 

that our DR authors write up in the report exactly 

what their assumptions are with respect to applying 

that.

The data are in there in OTIB-17 to perform that 

operation. So, you know, again, we're capturing that 

assumption and application of it in the report itself.

Ms. Behling: Okay. I guess, in going through OTIB17, which is always somewhat confusing unless you 

use it a lot, which we all do, but it just seems to me 

if that's something that's being used routinely, it 

should be documented and it should be used 

consistently.

Like I said, this is the first time I've seen it and I've 

heard Ron say the same thing.

And I'm just wondering how often this does get 

applied and do your dose reconstructors apply it 

consistently.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. This is Scott. I can address that.

Yeah. The reason you haven't seen it is because it is 

relatively infrequent that we -- and I would say it's 

actually probably more the word "rare" -- that we 

have documentation from the claimant that states 

they wore their dosimeter, but underneath specific 

protective clothing. That's a relatively unusual 

situation. 

So, we have talked to the dose reconstructors about 

that and it's pretty much the logical extension of 

using an attenuation factor, if skin is underneath 

protective clothing and the dosimeter isn't, that you 

could go in the opposite direction.

I agree that the documentation of it is wise and our 

plan is to the next time we have OTIB-17 updated --

and, Matt Smith, you can correct me if I'm wrong, 
64

but my understanding is we're going to put more 

specific direction in that next version when we start 

working on that.

Mr. Smith: You are correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And certainly, the reversed 

attenuation makes complete sense. There's no issue 

about that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Have you looked at if the value is the 

appropriate value for just a layer of plastic versus 

what that value actually entails? I think it's two layers 

of coveralls and something else.

It's claimant-favorable, but I'm just curious why it's 

so rare. Does this ever come up?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. The DR staff are going to use 

what's available to them in that OTIB because it's 

citable.

If we get into a situation where we would really want 

to assess a particular type of PPE, we could certainly 

sit down with VARSKIN and so some modeling with -

- if we've got good knowledge of what the PPE is in 

terms of density and thickness. As you can imagine, 

that's not always easy to find.

So, as seen here with this claim, claimant-favorable 

choices are made using data that we can cite that 

comes from, you know, sources that themselves 

have a good lineage.

In this case, the citation is going to the -- is coming 

from the DOE good practices manual for uranium.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Good.

Kathy, does that --

Ms. Behling: Yes. I just --

Chair Kotelchuck: --- satisfy your concern?
65

Ms. Behling: -- like I said, I love the opportunity that 

we have in doing these blinds to make these types of 

comparisons to identify these types of things.

Because as you're seeing although we're close with 

numbers in PoCs, there's certain methodologies that 

we just -- SC&A wouldn't make something up like 

this. We wouldn't know what to do with that.

And that's why I said I just think this is something 

that needs to be documented and OTIB-17 is where 

it should be.

So, if that's something that is planned for the future 

and, like I said, I wasn't sure how often the NIOSH 

and ORAU dose reconstructors encounter this, but I 

do think it's something that should be applied 

consistently and so it should be documented.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me ask you -- let's say -- now, 

Matthew, you said it will be looked at and included in 

the next upgrade of 17, but how do we know that it 

will be done?

That is, what mechanism is there such that you or 

someone else who is on this call will bring -- of course 

Josie is chair of the Procedures Committee, but it's 

important that as these discussions go on, that we 

know there's some mechanism by which this -- that 

we make sure that this happens and doesn't get 

overlooked later particularly if it's a long time from 

now that the upgrade occurs.

Mr. Smith: Certainly that question goes to 

management of the project both for ORAU team and 

for DCAS, but, in short, I'll just repeat that Scott and 

I have talked about this earlier and Scott is in a 

position to do a review of whatever I write.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Smith: So, I'm anticipated to be the author who 

revises OTIB-17 and, you know, Scott will be in the 
66

position to review what I do.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that that topic actually came up 

at the last meeting and I just want to confirm that I 

understand the resolution correctly.

At the last meeting, Scott, you had mentioned that 

there is now a system in place to track these things? 

Am I misremembering this?

Mr. Siebert: No. I was actually going to point that 

out. Yes, there is in our document-control system, we 

can make notes on documents that need to be 

updated and we can make that note that that's 

something that needs to be addressed. So, yeah, we 

can definitely do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy again.

In the interim, until this OTIB gets updated, would it 

be appropriate to include this guidance in your DR 

guidance documents that now get incorporated into 

these files that will --

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott.

Really, DR guidance documents are specific to a site 

and this is more of a complex-wide issue that if we 

see this in the CATI, you know, we will address it.

So, there isn't a single, specific place we could put 

this information until we put it in OTIB-17 other than 

the fact that we've documented -- we've told all our 

dose reconstructors to address it this way and that's 

how we do it commonly.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Now, folks, are we ready to 
67

accept the -- subcommittee folks, are we ready to 

accept this report on the blinds?

Member Beach: Yes, I am. This is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Lockey: I am. This is Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Valerio: I am. This is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. And I am. So, this is 

unanimously accepted and now we're ready to go on 

to Set 25.

There was a --

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, can I stop you for one second 

while we're still on the blinds?

Chair Kotelchuck: Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: This is Rose, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Certainly.

Ms. Gogliotti: In the past, we've been tasked with 

creating a summary document for the blinds that 

summarizes our comparisons.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Would you like us to complete that 

again?

Chair Kotelchuck: I would. In fact, I was going to 

raise it at some point actually in the future as we 

finish up Set 28, but, in general, yes, I think that's 

been really very helpful to me.

But I think if you haven't updated it, you had it for 

the first summary. If you would, you could either add 

these three on to bring the list up to date or, if you 
68

would like, wait until we go to the next three,

finishing Set 28.

I leave that to you and your convenience, but, yes, 

definitely we want to have a summary --

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: --- and look at it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Great. We will make that happen.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good.

Alright. Set 25 -- and I may also say, Rose, you 

suggested to me that when you had -- and we have 

a particular interest in the Paducah Gas Diffusion 

Plant 551, which is in set 27. Our agenda says go on 

to 25.

Grady, are you here now?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, I'm here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, if you'll be here, we 

can -- if there's a reason you may be called away --

I know often you are -- but if you'll be here through 

the end of today, as far as you know, then let's just 

go ahead with Set 25 and we'll get to Set 27.

If you had to leave earlier, I would have said let's go 

to 551 right now, but --

Mr. Calhoun: I will be here for the duration.

Discussion - Set 25: Review remaining open 

and in progress cases

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good and we appreciate that. 

Good. Well, then let's go with Set 25 as it is on our 

agenda.

Hooker Electrochemical and Carborundum

Chair Kotelchuck: And I think if folks will put that on 
69

the screen. This is the Hooker/Carborundum case 

520. I'll go locate it myself on my machine.

(Pause.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 520.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Ms. Gogliotti: This one we discussed back in 

September.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Observation 2. At that point, NIOSH 

was asked to go back over the issues for 

Carborundum and see if this particular issue was 

addressed in pending TBD revisions, but they have 

not responded in the BRS. It has to do with a 10-hour 

workday being assumed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Will that be -- do we know -

- Can we hear from NIOSH folks if they --

Mr. Allen: Yes. This is Dave Allen. I was going to 

respond to that one. 

And as far as -- if you look down below that on this 

Carborundum/Hooker Case 520, you see a number of 

findings. All of which have been transferred to the 

Carborundum Work Group.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Allen: And if you go back to this observation, 

even -- there's an added-on statement there saying 

it was transferred to the Work Group. It was just the 

status was not changed.

So, the best I can tell, it was intended to be 

transferred to the Carborundum Work Group. And I 

think that's where it belongs because I know they 

were assessing the whole dose modeling associated 

with this.
70

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Allen: And it seems like that's where --

Ms. Gogliotti: I thought that this one had a specific 

reason because this is a TBD issue rather than a SEC 

issue. I believe that's why this one was still here.

Mr. Allen: Well, it goes right along with all the other 

ones that are basically why is it so many -- so much 

dose rate? Why is it so far away? Why is it so much 

time? It goes right along with those.

I mean, bottom line, I don't even know for sure if this 

is a legitimate comment anymore because those 

models have changed quite a bit.

I mean, it might be a moot point for all I know. So, I 

really don't understand why it's not transferred in.

Like I said, it is listed in there as being transferred. 

So, I was under the impression it was just a mistake.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I'm going through it and 

there just seems to be -- it's clearly in there, David, 

that you said that we should go to Carborundum. And 

Rose said that, no, it should be discussed further 

presumably here.

So, is there anything else?

Mr. Allen: Well, if you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Is there anything else? --

This sounds like something that -- there were other 

references to the Carborundum group here and other 

decisions to move things to Carborundum.

Mr. Allen: Right. And you will see that exact same 

statement from Rose in those other findings and stuff 

that they were transferred.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I'm seeing that.

Mr. Allen: Yeah. So, I think -- you know, like I said, 
71

I'm pretty sure that was a mistake. 

And if you look in the original comment section, you 

know, before you expand it into additional comments 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm.

Mr. Allen: -- there is a sentence added to the bottom 

there that says it was transferred. It says to the 

DCAS PER-0054.

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm. Let me just see. I'm 

going up -- scrolling back up.

Mr. Allen: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think I would have to go back to the 

transcripts to remember this exact discussion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: But if we want to relegate this to the 

Carborundum Work Group, I'm fine with that. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Then let's do that.

Mr. Allen: Yeah. There have been discussions -- I was 

going to say if there was some discussion not to, I 

would argue against that because this is clearly some 

specifics to the modeling, which is what they're 

doing.

It clearly belongs there in that Work Group.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And, Rose, you're open to 

that. So, let's just await then -- for 520, we'll just 

await results from Carborundum, and I think we 

should just move on.

I don't have any idea when the Carborundum Work 

Group will meet and consider this.

Does someone else know?
72

Mr. Allen: I know -- this is Dave Allen again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm.

Mr. Allen: I don't know a lot about the specifics on 

that Work Group, but I do know Bob Anigstein was 

asking for some files just yesterday. So, I know he's 

looking into the modeling.

Metals and Controls Corp.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Good. So, there's 

movement on that. Fine. Then let's go on. 

The next one was the National Metals; was it not?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, Metals and Controls Corp.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: It is Tab 510, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, I missed that. Okay. I 

overlooked that, yeah. Go ahead, please.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we have had some discussion on 

this one and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah. Metals and Controls. As 

I recall the last discussion, Josie and I had suggested 

that since we're considering that actively in the Work 

Group, that we would like to just hold off moving on 

that, acting on that, and let -- we're trying to get 

things cleared up in the Work Group.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So, we would like to keep this 

one open?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: That was my understanding as well, 

Dave --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.
73

Member Beach: -- that we --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. That's what I thought.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: And then this one also has two other 

observations. So, we'll just make a note of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And whenever Metals and Controls 

Corp is resolved, we can come back to them --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- if that's your preference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Yes, it is.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. There is one observation for 

here, though, that I believe we can close out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's see.

Ms. Gogliotti: Our initial observation had to do with 

the approach used in the SEC and Site Profiles for 

GSI and Carborundum and we had recommended 

using the NUREG/CR-5512 approach.

And NIOSH came back --

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm --

Ms. Gogliotti: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: No. No. Nothing to be sorry. I'm 

sorry I interrupted you. However, I intend to raise 

the issue of inadvertent ingestion in the Work Group 

and that will be coming up at some future meeting. I 

wanted to go over that.

So, let's just keep -- I would ask that we continue to 

leave that as something to be -- is being considered 
74

by the Work Group or may be considered by the Work 

Group.

Nuclear Metals Inc

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. We can certainly do that.

The next one that's open is 503.5.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. NMI. Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this one had to do with external 

dose from the chronic deposition of uranium onto the 

skin and clothing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And, again, this came up in September 

of last year and NIOSH was asked to provide an 

updated response.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Allen: Okay. This is Dave Allen.

I wasn't aware of the coming-up-in-September part 

of that and I apologize for that. I had to miss that 

meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Allen: Our original response was that -- well, to 

back up just a hair, this response was about 

accumulation of uranium particles on the skin. In 

other words, deposition from airborne onto the skin.

Our original response was that there's no reason to 

believe it wouldn't also be deposited on the film 

badges and, therefore, since the doses in this TBD 

are based on film badge readings, it would already be 

accounted for.

And then John Mauro came back saying that's a longestablished precedence. And this is a September 

meeting or September comment, anyway, that I 
75

missed.

And he said, long-established precedence in the 

project to assume film badge readings for beta is 

from the source located at a distance from the 

worker.

I can't find a single time where we've ever assigned 

film badge -- I mean, I cannot find a single time 

where we've ever actually assigned beta dose to 

somebody from skin deposition.

So, there is -- John's going to have to explain to me 

what this longstanding precedence is. We cannot 

come up with it. We can't find it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I do not have John on the phone.

Mr. Allen: Okay. And I --

Ms. Gogliotti: I can certainly get him on the phone at 

the next meeting or a response to be written.

Mr. Allen: Yeah, because I'm at a loss on this. It just 

makes no sense to me why it's going to be -- why the 

dose is going to be positive on the skin, but not on 

the film badge.

And to me it seems like the skin is more likely to get 

washed from day to day than the badge. 

So, it's even a, you know, leaving deposition on the 

film badge, it seems like, is a favorable way of 

accounting for it honestly, you know, assuming all 

that is skin dose in that kind of environment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm. Okay. Well, then that is 

-- look, you followed up and you couldn't find 

anything. 

So, John -- Rose, you will ask John to write 

something up or put something in the BRS, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.
76

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. And then we will deal with 

that the next meeting. Let me make a notation 

myself for my own note. I'll certainly have -- I have 

this listed from our last meeting also in July.

Okay. I have it in my notes. Alright. So, the next one 

I see is West Valley.

West Valley Demonstration Project

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. 519, Observation 2. And this 

one we discussed at the last meeting. And the 

discussion kind of evolved and essentially there was 

a -- new information that came up after the dose 

reconstruction was completed.

NIOSH did a rework and determined it didn't have an 

impact on the case. They notified the claimant of this, 

but they did not actually do a rework.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And NIOSH, I believe, said that a 

rework would only be done if the claimant requested 

the rework. 

And we questioned whether or not the claimant was 

offered that, the option of a rework, or whether or 

not they had to know in advance that they could 

request this. And Scott had to look into it, and he's 

responded here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. He has. 

And it's the -- I think this is an important issue in 

terms of claimants knowing what their rights are.

And it is equivocal as to whether -- well, they are 

given the -- they are not certainly given the 

information.

Ms. Gogliotti: Scott, just for the record, do you want 

to expand on your response so it's in the notes?
77

Mr. Siebert: Sure. I can summarize this.

Basically, yes, if it makes a difference in 

compensability, we will automatically do a rework for 

that individual.

If it does not, we will explain the information in detail 

during the closeout interview, or follow-on phone 

call, as many times as it takes to get the information 

to the claimant and have them understand what's 

going on with it.

But, yeah, unless it's a change in compensability, we 

have not historically done a full documented rework.

It's documented in the phone interview so that if we 

ever need to come back and rework the claim again,

based on an additional cancer or change of 

employment or anything like that, we have the 

information that we addressed to the claimant at that 

time, but we do not do a full, new written reply unless 

they specifically request it.

It's not that it's required for us to do so. But if they 

do request it, we will give that to them.

Chair Kotelchuck: The question is, why -- I mean, it's 

a lot of work to do a redo and to send it off.

On the other hand, why not do it? Why not have them 

know that they can do it? If they have a right and 

they don't know the right, then it's not a right.

I wonder what other people on the Subcommittee --

maybe I'm being overly concerned about this.

What do other people think on the Subcommittee?

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen.

I'm not on the Subcommittee, but just to point out, I 

mean, the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.
78

Mr. Allen: -- the idea of correcting whether they know 

they have a right or not would be to give them --

make them a phone call, which is what this is.

I mean, we notify them, we document the 

notification, told them it's not going to change the 

compensation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Allen: I don't understand why that's not 

correcting that notification.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, but that's -- to say that 

there's a phone call and not at the same time say if 

you want to have a written documentation of the 

change -- and I admit they will probably -- if I guess 

right, many of the claimants will say, sure, why not? 

And that's work for you.

But on the other hand, why do we -- if it was decided 

by us that that should be part of their right, then it 

seems to me it should be part of the phone call.

Mr. Allen: Well, I think some of these phone calls --

because we've done a few of these. I mean, it's not 

super frequent, but it does happen and some of these 

are a phone call to tell them that it won't make, you 

know, won't change the compensation and they drop 

it.

And that prevents us from having to go through an 

evaluation on how big of a difference this makes, how 

much the right factor is, where do we, you know, 

whether it even is legitimate or not, you know, and 

that sort of thing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Allen: If it's not going to matter, it's not going to 

matter. We contact them to cure the issue you were 

having there.

And at that point, you know, they're okay with not 
79

putting it in there and we're done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, let me ask, Grady, if you're 

on -- and you're on the line. So, because that's an 

administrative thing.

Obviously if everybody had any change made, 

particularly changes that maybe they're frequent that 

don't actually change the compensation, then is that 

putting a heavy burden on your staff?

I'm not aware -- I mean, I'm not sure how heavy the 

burden is. I'm open.

Mr. Calhoun: Well, since we're actually going through 

and talking to them about the changes and they don't 

voice any objection and seem to be somewhat 

satisfied with our responses, I consider our work 

done. It is when we've gone out and communicated 

with them on that level.

Now, if we -- I don't know -- I can't tell you off the 

top of my head what kind of an impact that would be 

if we just said, and, by the way, if you want a rework 

of this, we'll do it.

Now, we have had people that have said, you know 

what, you put -- I don't know. I'm going to make 

something up -- you put the wrong date of this cancer 

diagnosis that was off by three days.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: Will you change that? And we'll say, 

sure, we'll change it. And we've changed the cover 

sheet and sent it to them.

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm.

Mr. Calhoun: Now -- but if we were to offer that, I 

think that, you know, I can't gauge how much work 

that would be, but if a documented telephone call 

with the individuals explaining what the potential 

issues were, if they're satisfied with that, I figure that 
80

we're done at that point.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I'm just sitting here --

Mr. Calhoun: I mean, I don't know what impact it 

would have to -- I mean, not on my staff, but what's 

the point of offering it and reworking it? I don't know 

what that changes here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: Customer service, but I figure the fact 

that we call people and communicate with them so 

frequently, I mean, I'm fairly comfortable with our 

customer service on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm. Um-hmm.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. Can I ask a 

question about -- a follow-up on that?

So, do you ask them, in return, do you understand 

everything we talked about today? Do you have any 

questions?

How do you lead into the final conversation that they 

do have an understanding of what you're talking

about and are satisfied with the conclusion?

Mr. Calhoun: I don't know that because I don't do 

that very often. So, I don't know if Scott or somebody 

from ORAU can deal with that, but, I mean, I don't 

know if it's in the log or not.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. I mean, I can't speak directly to it 

because I'm not a claimant communications 

manager.

But my understanding is absolutely they don't get off 

of any call until the questions have been answered to 

the satisfaction of the claimant.

Member Lockey: Has anybody actually looked at this 

phone log to see what it says?
81

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: I guess that's what I'm saying. I mean, 

when you're talking to -- I think I understand where 

Dave is going with it.

If you're talking to somebody and the language is

somewhat foreign to them and you have somebody 

from a technical background talking with them, they 

may just say yes. 

It's how you approach their response, which I think 

is important. And I guess that's the piece that maybe 

somebody should look at.

How are those questions -- how is that satisfaction 

level obtained from them? In what manner?

I just -- I'm not saying it's not being done correctly. 

It would just be interesting to see how it's performed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Grady, do the people -- are the --

do the communications people schedule the call and 

tell the person that they're going to be calling or is it 

for the person -- for the claimant, simply a call out of 

the blue?

Mr. Calhoun: Is this for a closeout interview?

Ms. Gogliotti: This one was a closeout interview.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. We always schedule that, yeah.

Mr. Siebert: I'm actually -- this is Scott. I'm looking 

at the phone log right now and the phone log states 

that the interviewer spoke with the claimant, 

explained the additional information provided, 

described the impact, explained that based on the 

location of the cancer and dosimeter worn, the 

correction factor blah, blah, blah.

I don't want to get into specifics --

Mr. Calhoun: Right.
82

Mr. Siebert: -- but Mr. X thanked me for calling and 

did not have any additional questions or information 

to provide and has already returned the OCAS-1 

Form. I provided my name and number asking him 

to call me back if he had any further questions on the 

report.

So, I believe it sounds pretty clear that the claimant 

was happy with the resolution and it was explained 

to them.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's good. Thank you for giving 

that to us, telling us about that. Because to leave it 

off with your giving them a phone number so that 

they can think about it and then call you back, that 

allows them to say -- to ask for reconsideration or 

that they are -- that they have some concern.

I mean, what will happen, I would expect, is that the 

claimant will hear and maybe would say, okay, thank 

you, because they appreciate the call. And then talk 

with their family or their lawyer or whatever, 

whomever they consult, and then have some 

concerns later.

But as long as you -- I'm satisfied that if you leave 

your name and phone number to get back to them -

- that they can get back to you, I'm satisfied.

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that standard procedure?

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that standard procedure? I'm not 

familiar with the interview process.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. 

David?

Mr. Allen: All of the individuals -- all the claimants 

have our contact information and many of them avail 

of it directly all the time to call our 1-800 number for 

specific information directly.
83

So, yes, we are not unclear that they can contact us 

again if they have additional questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. To me, that answers my 

question or my concern because I just don't want 

somebody, you know, hearing something and then, 

you know, just saying, oh, yes, because they don't 

quite follow.

As long as they have your number, then I don't see -

- I know it will be a lot of work to redo -- to redo the 

documentation -- write up the documentation when 

it's not going to change the compensation.

So, it's a lot of -- it will be a fair amount of work. 

They can always get back to you and that satisfies 

me that they have an opportunity to rethink what you 

said and to object to it, perhaps, or ask for some 

problem -- or ask you for follow-up in some way. So, 

that's -- I'm satisfied with that.

Jim, what do you think?

Member Lockey: I think that answers the question. I 

would just ask is there a standard closeout script that 

people follow? Does everybody follow it the same 

way?

I mean, I can imagine three or four questions that 

would be a standard closeout. Do you feel that I have 

answered all your questions? Do you understand the 

answers to all the questions? Do you understand you 

can call me back if you have additional questions that 

come up in the future?

Something along those lines, has that been 

standardized across all the people that do this or not?

Mr. Calhoun: The closeout interview process is 

covered in Procedure 92 and specifies the 

discussions, including -- one of the steps which 

ensures all questions have been addressed and 

advises the claimant to contact NIOSH by telephone 
84

or in writing using the contact information if they 

have additional questions.

So, yeah, that information is there and handled by 

procedure by all our closeout interviewers.

Member Lockey: Perfect.

Member Beach: Well, and I -- this is Josie.

I thought we handled that script when we reviewed 

the 10-year -- or went through the 10-year review 

process. I thought that was one of our big things that 

we looked at.

Member Lockey: I think you're right, Josie, and I had 

forgotten about that.

Member Beach: Yeah. And I have a question for --

back to Dave because early on it sounded almost 

contradictory that you know for sure when you tell a 

claimant it won't change the outcome. Do you know 

that before you tell them that? 

And then later on the way you worded it, it sounded 

like that stopped the proceedings. And so, I guess my 

question is, are you 100 percent sure, in all cases, 

that it wouldn't affect the compensation?

And if so, how do you know that for sure if you don't 

re-run it?

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, Dave Allen.

Mr. Allen: I think you're asking me.

Member Beach: Yes, Dave Allen.

Mr. Allen: In some cases, you can re-run some 

numbers fairly easy. It's the whole writeup of getting 

it all back and, you know, doing a whole bunch of 

administrative stuff that can be time-consuming and 

just confuse them even more by the time you're all 
85

said and done if they're tired of it and don't want to 

deal with it.

So, yeah, sometimes you can re-run it and many 

times you get something like this and honestly it just 

doesn't have an effect. 

It's not that it will go up, but not enough, it's that it 

has no affect such as, say, Super S plutonium. And 

that would only lower the dose for this particular 

organ that person has or something along those 

lines.

So, not every time, by any means. In fact, most 

times you probably don't have to run any numbers to 

inform them that their new information won't affect 

the dose reconstruction.

Sometimes it's very obvious that it's, you know, 

going to raise it only a little bit and dose 

reconstruction is at one or two percent and the 

person making the call talks to an HP and figures out 

that it's not going to be enough to push them over 

50 percent.

Other times, maybe you do run some numbers. By 

the time you start running numbers, you might --

you're not going to argue with them too much.

You're going to talk them out of it and say it's not 

going to be enough for compensation. Do you still 

want it? If they do, then we do it.

Member Beach: Um-hmm.

Mr. Allen: And the thing that hasn't come up here is 

that is if it is in-house. Sometimes we get these calls 

after we've already sent it to Department of Labor.

At that point, it gets much more difficult and we have 

to convince Department of Labor to return the claim 

to us in order to give them a new one and that's a 

whole different story.
86

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. That would be a whole 

different story because that's -- it's been decided 

upon --

Mr. Allen: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and approved.

Mr. Allen: Yeah. Once they get a final decision, that 

gets hard. And so, it is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Allen: -- much better for us to run a few numbers 

and say it's not going to make a difference, you 

know, do you really want us to go through this?

Chair Kotelchuck: Um-hmm. Well, frankly, you've run 

some -- you said you'll say to them in the course of 

not when it's decided, but while it's still being 

considered, you will tell them, look, this will not 

change things and, you know, just wanted to tell you. 

And then you have my phone number if you want to 

call me back further or if there's any concerns that 

come up at a later time.

And that's adequate, it seems, to me. So, as I say, 

I'm satisfied. And we have had this discussion and 

also the closeout interview is pretty well-defined, I'm 

sure.

So, I'm ready to move on. I'm ready to accept and 

close it. Are others open to that or do you want to 

reconsider or have a different take?

Member Lockey: I'm good. Jim Lockey. Moving on.

Member Beach: Josie is ready to move on. I accept 

the discussion.

Member Valerio: Loretta is ready to move on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, we all are. Thank you 

all. So, we're now on to --
87

Ms. Gogliotti: The 27th set.

Chair Kotelchuck: 27, fine. And since we had a long 

break before, we're not going to stop for a comfort 

break. Unless I hear a request, I will just go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: There's not that many more left.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, there really aren't.

Okay. Let's go on to 27.

Discussion - Set 27: Review remaining open and in 

progress cases

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And we can just start at [case] 

551 here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: This came up at the last meeting. We 

discussed it briefly, but Grady was not on the line and 

we voted to table the discussion until he was here. 

And he's here now, so I think we should talk about it.

What happened in this case is interesting. We've 

never seen it before. And that is why we have it as a 

finding because it's so unique.

The Claimant reported their initial employment to 

DOL. And DOL sent them a letter back verifying 

specific employment dates.

Here we go. In that letter, they say specifically we're 

notifying NIOSH of these employment dates and they 

will be using [these in] their dose reconstruction to 

summarize.

And then a NIOSH summary referral document was 

also sent to NIOSH from DOL and the dates do not 

match.

And then the claim was revised. The EE provided 

some additional employment information. And DOL 

again notified the claimant of verified employment 
88

dates that they informed the claimant they were 

telling NIOSH. And those dates again do not match 

the dates that were provided in the NRSD.

Now, NIOSH used the dates that were provided to 

them in the NRSD, which I believe is their official 

means of where they're supposed to get the DOLverified information, but the dates do not match what 

the claimant was notified about.

And this particular case has a PoC of 49.7 percent 

and even a few months did significantly increase the 

dose because of the uranium dose that was assigned 

in this case.

And at the last meeting we were talking about 

whether or not DOL should be informed of this.

I don't know what caused this or how this happened 

and we wanted to wait until Grady was present.

Mr. Calhoun: I'm back. So, this does happen 

occasionally. And whenever we find this area is a 

discrepancy in employment, we do, in fact, contact 

DOL.

And we have it documented that we contacted DOL 

and we said, hey, this person claims that -- and we 

contacted the specific district office [that sent] the 

claim to us from DOL.

And we say, hey, this claimant claims that they have 

additional employment, and we gave them the dates 

of this employment.

And then I also looked through the phone record. And 

when we talked to the individual and they mentioned 

that, we told them that we contacted DOL, but you 

need to contact DOL and tell them of that as well.

So, there were two instances. No. 1, we actually 

contacted DOL specifically. Then we, during a 

closeout interview, spoke to the claimant, told them 

they needed to contact DOL and at that point our job 
89

is done.

You know, how many times do you do it? I think it's 

really just a courtesy for us to do that. 

We certainly want to get it right any time we have 

any indication, but it's DOL's responsibility to verify 

employment, verify cancer.

And we'll advise them, you know, once when we find 

it, but I'm not -- I don't think it's appropriate for me 

to keep going back multiple times and telling them 

that they may be wrong.

Now, they may be right, you know. The employment 

very well could be something that wasn't covered for 

some reason. And we've seen that, too.

Ms. Gogliotti: May I interrupt you? Because I think 

we're talking around each other.

I agree that that communication absolutely 

happened, but the actual letter in the second round 

leaves the same dates and simply adds a new 

employment period to the dates.

But the initial dates that DOL notified the claimant 

were covered are not the same dates as DOL notified 

NIOSH were covered. There's a discrepancy between 

the dates that they told each party.

Mr. Calhoun: Right. And we used the ones that DOL 

sent to us, I would imagine.

Ms. Gogliotti: You did.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Which I assume --

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon me. I missed that last --

Grady, what did you say? 

Mr. Calhoun: I said we used the dates the 

Department of Labor sent to us.
90

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: Because this was actually -- this -- if --

I'm looking at the documents right now and this 

covers eight, nine months.

And DOL did send back new dates and you're correct 

they didn't actually -- they weren't the same dates 

that the employee claimed, but --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, but they're --

Mr. Calhoun: They requested us to do a new dose 

reconstruction to include the additional dates, and we 

did.

Now, they don't match with what the employee said, 

but, you know, how many times do you go back?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, not with what the employee said. 

They don't match what DOL told the employee was 

covered.

Mr. Calhoun: Right. And at that point, it's up to DOL 

and the employee to get their dates straight.

We can only use what DOL provides to us especially 

after we go back and request clarification and they 

gave it.

Well, clarification may not be great, but that's still 

their clarification, you know. Their job is to verify 

employment.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I don't disagree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Does --

Ms. Gogliotti: I just have an ethical problem with 

telling the Claimant that something is covered and 

then not actually covering it because it's not the 

same as what they informed another party about.

Mr. Calhoun: Right. I understand that, but I guess 

your ethical problem would be with the Department 
91

of Labor.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, yes. And so, we were discussing 

whether or not we should notify DOL and get to the 

bottom of how this happened and prevent it from 

happening in the future.

Mr. Calhoun: I don't really think it's your guys' place 

to contact DOL on anything, really.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Does the Claimant know that 

the dates given to NIOSH are different than the dates 

that were given to him or her?

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't believe.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes, he does.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: And in the phone log we tell him that. 

And just like the phone log that Scott told you about, 

it's documented and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: -- we tell them that, hey, it's different, 

they verified that and, yes, they are different, and we 

tell them they need to contact DOL.

Chair Kotelchuck: It seems to me -- I do agree it's 

not our responsibility to -- after calling DOL, to keep 

at it.

On the other hand, is this something for 

ombudsperson -- to refer the person to an 

ombudsperson -- one of our certified ombudspersons 

and ask them for help?

But I agree it's -- it does not --

Mr. Calhoun: Well, I'll tell you what. I can forward 

this to Denise Brock if you want to deal with -- if you 

want me to get the ombudsperson involved, but this 

is something not typical.
92

And I think that this shouldn't -- I mean, I guess you 

can call it an observation, but it really isn't that. It's 

certainly in the finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, it is. Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: And if we can --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead. Sorry, Rose.

Ms. Gogliotti: This one, there's several other 

observations that we made with this case being there 

were dosimetry records that were present and --

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry, before we move on to any 

others -- this is Scott -- I just want to point out that, 

yes, all that discussion is true, but the amount of 

employment the DOL verified for us that we base the 

dose reconstruction on is about six months more than 

they actually told the claimant.

So, the numbers that we used were claimantfavorable. It wouldn't make a difference from 

changing the decision in this claim. I just wanted to 

point that out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that's useful. Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Unless you all verified all of the dates.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: Which is beyond our purview, I know, 

but just for double-checking it there.

Chair Kotelchuck: If the dates are longer, then it 

doesn't -- it changes nothing.

Ms. Gogliotti: If there was more employment, it 

would change something potentially. We didn't run 

the complete numbers because that's outside of the 

scope of our review.

Member Beach: It seems like we're at a standstill to 

be able to handle this. I think the idea of the 
93

ombudsman is not a bad idea to make sure that the 

employment is verified correctly. I feel like that's a 

good move.

Mr. Calhoun: And I'll do that but I just want to be 

clear that, you know, I believe we actually went the 

extra step on these to try to get that information. If 

it comes back and there's extra data and this thing 

flips positive, that's great for the claimant but it's not 

a finding or an observation on what we were 

supposed to do.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, yes. Yes. I mean, this is --

here's a case where, you know, the person would --

I mean, as I recall, Rose, the person was fairly close 

to 50 percent. Although if the dose reconstruction 

was made for six more months, they're not going to 

get more. If anything, it would be less so there is no 

point to --

Member Beach: But, Dave, what Rose was saying is 

there actually should be more than the six months.

Ms. Gogliotti: Potentially. It's not my job to verify.

Member Beach: No, no, it's not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, can we -- I mean, I'm not 

sure this is a procedure or the question is whether 

this is a single case that we're deciding to function in 

this way. I think it sounds like we have a -- there is 

a reasonable procedure if there's a discrepancy 

between what the person is told and what we believe 

the work records show.

Mr. Calhoun: And generally our approach is that if the 

claimant says it, we'll add it if it ends up being a noncomped case without a lot of extra verification.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: Because this is so close, we can't just 

add that dose without DOL telling us they worked 

there. We just can't.
94

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yes. So let us -- let us 

contact the ombudsperson.

Mr. Calhoun: I will do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, wonderful. Wonderful.

Mr. Calhoun: I'm taking care of that. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I appreciate that because 

the next question was who's going to do it and you 

are an appropriate person, or the appropriate person. 

Thank you.

Okay. Then we've resolved that, right, folks? We can 

close it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, I think we can close that one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: There are some other observations.

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry. This is Scott. The only 

question I had -- I don't think Grady's question got 

answered -- is should this be an observation or a 

finding.

Mr. Calhoun: It's definitely not a finding. Definitely 

not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I think that's correct. It's an 

observation because there was nothing that was 

done wrong. NIOSH did nothing wrong and there was 

not an error in what they did.

Mr. Calhoun: We actually exceeded expectations by 

going and asking the question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I agree that it should be an 

observation. There are other observations, too, in 

terms of the numbering. I think that is an 

observation.

Ms. Gogliotti: We do not go back and re-edit cases so 
95

we would just change this to an observation but it 

wouldn't get its own number.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that's fine. Okay. 

Folks on the Subcommittee, do we agree that it's an 

observation?

Member Beach: I agree with that.

Member Lockey: Yeah, I do too.

Member Valerio: I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, then it's an observation and 

it is now closed. Good, thank you. Alright.

Now, we just have a few more and not that many.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: There was a K-25 at 547.1.

Ms. Gogliotti: Do you want to formally close out the 

rest of the ones associated with [case] 551 before we 

move on?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I believe so, yeah. They all 

relate to that same issue, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Um --

Chair Kotelchuck: Most of them do.

Ms. Gogliotti: Somewhat. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Let's check.

Ms. Gogliotti: Observations 1, 2, and 3 are the same 

except they are for recorded photon dose, missed 

photon dose, and missed neutron dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: EE had monitoring outside of the DOLverified period of employment.
96

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH didn't define dose because they 

are not allowed to. But a more fundamental question, 

we kind of had the question if there's evidence of the 

EE being on site and being exposed during an 

uncovered period of time. Are they procedurally 

required to notify DOL? Do they ignore that? Do they 

include it unless it makes a difference? 

Chair Kotelchuck: You're talking about Observation 

4?

Member Beach: One.

Ms. Gogliotti: One, two, and three.

Chair Kotelchuck: I thought one, two, and three are 

the same issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: They are but these have to do with 

physical dosimetry records rather than statements 

made by DOL.

Member Beach: There are dosimetry records during 

that period. Is that correct, Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Member Beach: I thought I read that.

Ms. Gogliotti: There are.

Mr. Siebert: I can address that a little bit, Grady, if 

you want me to. This is Scott. Yeah, I looked very 

specifically into this and, as Grady mentioned, we 

had already gone back to DOL and requested that 

they re-examine the employment time frame. 

I went back and I looked at what they referred to us 

and what we originally had in the DOE files and I did 

a cross-reference and everything that we had in the 

DOE files, the monitoring data we have in 2000, 

2001, DOL also had that in their new referral to us. 
97

The exact same pages were in their referral so they 

had that information when they went through their 

determination on employment. There's no need to go 

back to them again because they had that 

information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So there's no potential that they 

might have missed it because they get hundreds of 

files?

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: We just accept that?

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen again. Can I say one 

thing to try to clarify this whole situation, especially 

this extra dosimetry information?

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Mr. Allen: The sites of Paducah and Portsmouth, at 

one point the U.S. government experimented with 

the idea of giving it to a private entity called U.S. 

Enrichment Corp. and they did that in this time 

frame, gave it to a private entity, blocked off what 

they called that, and that is not covered under 

EEOICPA because it was not part of DOE. There were 

people working there enriching uranium in a private 

entity that is not covered by this program.

Chair Kotelchuck: And that may be what happened. 

Right? 

Mr. Allen: Exactly. 

Chair Kotelchuck: That's what Grady was talking 

about.

Member Beach: What are the dates for that?

Mr. Allen: I'm sorry. They eventually gave it back to 

the Department of Energy but, as far as the 
98

Department of Labor is concerned, all the lawyers are 

concerned, that is not a covered time frame. At one 

or both of these sites, it's a piece of the site that is 

not covered, not the entire site.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Allen: So it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: Is there a way of verifying that the EE 

was in one area versus another?

Mr. Allen: There's a way of verifying who they worked 

for. If they worked for U.S. Enrichment Corp. it's not 

covered.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. 

Mr. Calhoun: That's DOL's issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's right.

Mr. Allen: That is DOL's issue. That is not a good issue 

to deal with. They are struggling. DOL is struggling 

with it so we're not going to just keep pinging them 

worthlessly over the head if they got it somewhat 

different than what we would have done. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Allen: It's not just their job, they are doing what 

they had the authority to do. We're just going to keep 

saying, are you sure this isn't U.S. Enrichment Corp. 

Are you sure this is U.S. Enrichment Corp? We'll ask 

them once and that's about it. We can't continuously 

ping them over the head on it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I agree with that and I accept 

that. As long as they have the records, as David said, 

as long as they had the records when they made their 

decision, then I would close it out and the 

ombudsperson should handle that. 
99

I mean, that gives the person a little bit more leeway. 

But it seems to me we have to close it. They knew 

about this and they didn't do it and now we hear a 

credible reason why they might not have. And since 

we know they had it, Grady called them once, I think 

by sending -- by Grady sending information over to 

the ombudsperson, then I think we're settled.

Mr. Calhoun: Even more on that, and I'm glad that 

Dave Allen brought that up actually.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Mr. Calhoun: Just this -- no, last week I'm dealing 

directly with Department of Labor on this exact issue. 

This exact issue. And telling them that this is a 

problem for us and it's a problem for them and I 

would really like for them to start looking closer at 

what is covered employment versus verified 

employment.

They are two different things. And I just sent a 

message over to DOL last week to try to encourage 

them to send us what is really important because it's 

confusing us and it's confusing the claimants. They 

are looking at it globally, too. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. 

Go ahead.

Member Beach: I've got one quick question. This is 

Josie. I think this is the first we're hearing about that 

employment period. Do you have the dates for that 

or can we know that?

Mr. Rutherford: This is LaVon. The dates are 7/28/98 

through May of 2001. 

Mr. Allen: Okay, Bomber [nickname for LaVon 

Rutherford], I think that's for Paducah or 

Portsmouth.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay, his one is for Portsmouth. You 
100

are correct, Dave.

Mr. Allen: For Paducah it looks like it is July 1998 to 

May of 2013.

Court Reporter: This is the Court Reporter. I'd remind 

parties to identify themselves when they speak.

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen speaking.

Member Beach: Thank you. That's helpful.

Mr. Rutherford: But, Josie, it's on the DOE website 

where it says the site description, what they did and 

everything. It's listed in there for both of those sites.

Member Beach: Okay, thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: I would like to close out the first 

four observations. Rose, let's come back to that. The 

fifth observation is about lung cancer. An employee 

reported having lung cancer and Scott indicated that 

they evaluated and determined that lung cancer was 

not diagnosed. To me that can be closed right now. 

That's not an ombudsperson issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, we will close Observation 5.

Chair Kotelchuck: Five. And then 1 to 4 we, the 

Subcommittee, will close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And Grady is going to take care 

of the others.

Chair Kotelchuck: Exactly, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Mr. Calhoun: That's going to be an FYI, too. There's 

really no follow-up on that other than me asking her 

to follow up on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, correct.
101

Ms. Gogliotti: That's fine because we won't come 

back to it if it's closed out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, okay. Good. Let's keep 

going.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. We'll jump then to Tab 547.1

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: This one has to do with strontium 

intakes. We had a urine bioassay for strontium that 

was negative but NIOSH did not assign missed dose. 

We did discuss this at the last meeting. Scott came 

back and initially said that strontium-90 was not part 

of the source term at the site that the EE worked at. 

It's an Oak Ridge facility. We just questioned whether 

or not it was claimant-favorable to exclude it because 

it's not unreasonable that the EE may have visited 

ORNL which would explain the strontium-90 

monitoring, and NIOSH was asked to respond at the 

next meeting and Scott has some input in here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Siebert: I can go over that just briefly. Basically,

what it comes down to is what we had previously said 

is there was no strontium-90 at K-25 based on the 

TBD at the source term in place. There is no 

indication the individual went to ORNL so there would 

be no reason to deal with strontium-90 at that point.

We have gone back and we've done more 

investigations and actually there's been over the last 

couple years since the claim was actually worked, 

there have been some data captures and there is an 

indication that strontium-90 may have been one of 

the source terms at K-25 based on the fact that they 

had an incinerator running at some point during that

[time]. 

We're going to be having that information put into 

the K-25 internal TBD. Until that time we've added to 
102

the DR guidance document that, if they see bioassays 

such as strontium-90 that doesn't seem to be part of 

the source term by the TBD, go ahead and include it 

based on this incinerator and then once we have the 

TBD up, that will be documented there as well.

Oh, and I should also mention we looked at it for this 

specific claim and it had no impact on the claim, the 

strontium-90.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling. Will this become 

a PER issue?

Mr. Siebert: Once the TBD is updated, I would 

assume that is a likely scenario.

Ms. Behling: Okay. David Allen, I assume this will 

become a PER.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And Rose, you're suggesting 

closure. You accept?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Member Beach: Can we get that written up prior to 

closure? It's not written up, is it?

Ms. Gogliotti: It is in here.

Chair Kotelchuck: I saw it. Yeah, I'm reading it. It's 

fairly lengthy, in fact, as they go.

Member Beach: Alright. I missed that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I'm looking at it now. It 

wouldn't make any difference in compensation, less 

than one millirem. I think we can close it unless there 

are other concerns. Shall we close, folks?

Member Beach: This is Josie. I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.
103

Member Valerio: I say to close it, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Jim?

Member Lockey: Close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. I think [case] 552 is our 

next one.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yep.

Chair Kotelchuck: Paducah, Observation 2.

Ms. Gogliotti: 552, Observation 2. This one we also 

discussed at the last meeting. To briefly summarize, 

the EE had a scan done. In the results of that scan, 

the technician thought there might be a problem so 

they suggested that there be a re-scan repeated in 

three months. That scan was completed and normal. 

We agree with the way NIOSH handled it but we 

thought that OTIB-6 was vague in the guidance for 

this where the second scan could reasonably be 

classified as diagnostic. Or it could be classified as a 

screening examination and the results of that were 

basically contingent on the results of the scan and 

NIOSH agrees that there's some ambiguity but they 

agree that it was handled correctly. 

They found it was fairly rare and didn't believe that a 

guidance document change was necessary. We do 

think it's an unlikely scenario that this is not very 

common but we're skeptical that the secondary scan 

would have been treated the same way if results were 

different and we do suggest procedural guidance for 

consistency. At the last meeting, we discussed it and 

Grady wasn't here. Scott said that was his call but 

Grady's here now.

Mr. Siebert: Grady, I will take it. I've actually noted 

a comment in our document control application as we 

discussed earlier for the next revision to address this 
104

situation and determine if clarity needs to be added 

so I do have a note in there for that clarification 

purpose already.

Mr. Calhoun: I see that. Okay. This is Grady. Yes, I 

see that. I think that's the right way to go forward.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. Where is the 

clarification going? What exactly is being clarified? 

Not what issue but what --

Mr. Siebert: What document?

Chair Kotelchuck: What document, yes.

Mr. Siebert: It's OTIB-6.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. That would seem to 

satisfy it.

Rose, you would agree to close it?

Ms. Gogliotti: I would agree, yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And I would agree.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I agree as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: I do, too.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, we're in agreement so we'll 

close it. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 557, Observation 1. This is 

essentially the same as 558, Observation 1, so we 

can actually tackle both of these at the same time.

Chair Kotelchuck: 557.

Ms. Gogliotti: This had to do with the application of 

an uncertainty correction factor when assigning 

recorded photon dose as it applies to skin cancer 
105

using OTIB-17. And we had some questions initially 

about when this correction factor was being applied 

and when it wasn't because we had some cases with 

similar PoCs that it wasn't applied to versus [some 

that it] was. 

I think we got that part answered. However, when 

we interpreted NIOSH's statement to mean that in 

overestimating dose reconstruction where cancer 

doesn't use OTIB-17 should have this uncertainty 

correction applied and we just requested 

confirmation of that which is the first aspect of this. 

Then the second aspect would be that we don't 

necessarily believe that OTIB-17 specifically says 

that it addresses uncertainty multipliers.

At the last meeting we had asked NIOSH to go back 

and look at whether or not OTIB-17 was claimantfavorable for all cases or all uncertainty multipliers 

and NIOSH responded that they had gone back and 

done that in the BRS since the last meeting. 

They said they evaluated the range of uncertainty 

multipliers across the complex as they are 

summarized in OTIB-8 and 10 and determined the 

provisions of OTIB-17 were claimant-favorable. But 

NIOSH said they would consider adding wording to 

address the observation in the next update of OTIB17.

We just had some follow-up questions and we think 

this probably needs to be discussed with the work 

group more. Is this evaluation documented 

somewhere? What does this evaluation entail? We did 

go back and look at OTIB-8 and 10. It looks like 

there's discussion of a correction factor of 1.6 and 2, 

I believe. Is that the range that was being discussed?

Mr. Smith: Yeah, this is Matthew Smith with the 

ORAU team. I'll put all these things in context. OTIB17 was authored in early 2005 and at that time 

certainly we didn't have all of the TBDs for every site 

available to us with information about the dosimetry 
106

uncertainty for the systems at all those different 

sites.

At the beginning of the project the two TIBs that we 

referenced there, OTIB-8 and OTIB-10, were written 

to help us deal with processing claims in an overestimating manner. Those factors of approximately 

times 2 that are in both of those documents were 

derived by looking at a wide range of the possible 

uncertainties and dosimetry system responses for 

both film and TLD.

The TLD TIB was released in late 2003 and the film 

TBD came shortly after that in early 2004. Both of 

those do mention not to use them with skin claims 

because, at the same time, we had TIB-17 under 

development.

As I mentioned last time, we followed the same 

process of being claimant-favorable and 

overestimating. I think last time I gave the example, 

and I'll repeat it again, with respect to electrons the 

ICRP-74 DCF, that the maximum energy for uranium 

electrons would be .5. If you drop down into the 

average energy of .4 and if you go downward from 

there, the DCF drops down to .2. 

One of the provisions in OTIB-17 that was even 

discussed earlier in this meeting is we've 

recommended DCF be 1, not just for electrons but for 

all radiation types and energies across the board. In 

addition, the TIB has other favorable provisions that, 

again, were mentioned earlier today. 

With respect to SRS and any other site when we have 

a 00 miss dose situation, select the LOD that is 

higher. For SRS it was higher for open window so we 

used that LOD. We then applied that to the missed 

dose as if it were 30 to 250 keV photons which is the 

more favorable energy -- I'm sorry, radiation type 

and energy range selection with respect to PoC.

The TIB-8, I believe, contains some language that is 
107

not in TIB-17 but it goes to the philosophy that was 

being used at the time. TIB-8 has a statement that 

says, in addition, it's not appropriate to apply 

estimates of uncertainty after the application of 

overestimating assumptions. 

That was the same rationale – the same provision or 

rationale -- that was being expressed in the 

uncertainty section of OTIB-17. Certainly we're a 

decade or more down the road. As we spoke earlier, 

this TIB is going through a review process and we will 

take this item and issue a new review as well to help 

clarify. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that actively undergoing the review 

process or is that just if it has to be updated, this will 

be done?

Mr. Smith: I can't speak to the exact scheduling and 

such. That's a management issue with ORAU team 

and DCAS. That's above my level to comment on.

Member Beach: So it's not going through review right 

now that you know of? This is Josie.

Mr. Smith: As Scott said, we've got these comments 

in there for the review cycle that is most likely coming 

up. This group has generated this issue and the other 

one so I just can't speak exactly to the when, where, 

and how of everything.

Chair Kotelchuck: Rose, so you asked the question. 

He said he can't authoritatively answer it. Are you 

satisfied since you, SC&A, believe that it warrants 

further discussion? I'm not sure I completely follow.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not -- we don't actually see OTIB8 and OTIB-10 applied, especially because they are 

overestimating and we typically review best-estimate 

cases so I'm not familiar with the quote that was just 

mentioned about how it says it's inappropriate to 

include additional uncertainty multipliers.
108

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, well --

Mr. Smith: What we're saying is, especially at the 

time, given the era the project was in, is that we were 

taking an over-estimating approach even in OTIB-17 

and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply 

additional uncertainty on top of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Rose, does this perhaps warrant a 

technical discussion between NIOSH, ORAU, and 

SC&A?

Ms. Gogliotti: Not necessarily.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't feel ready to act on it myself 

without understanding it better or, at least, minimally 

that you have understood it. You have raised the 

question and if you understand it better and move it 

to be closed, that would be helpful to me.

Ms. Gogliotti: Let me just -- so OTIB-17 is inherently 

claimant-favorable. That's fairly accepted. SC&A has 

reviewed it, but I think that, at least on SC&A's side, 

we were not aware of the discussion of uncertainty in 

OTIB-17 was implying that uncertainty multipliers 

such as that or a glovebox -- no, maybe not a 

glovebox correction factor, but we weren't aware that 

that was being done.

It's not clear on OTIB-17 when you read that that is 

the intended meaning. I was not familiar with the 

history with TIB-8 and that predates my time with 

the program. We have not looked at that. 

If the Board was interested in pursuing that further, 

I think that would be a tasking probably for the 

Procedures Subcommittee to look at that further. But 

from the dose reconstruction standpoint, I think 

that's outside of our purview.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So I'm comfortable --

Ms. Gogliotti: I would recommend at least updating 

the TBD to reflect that because it doesn't clearly state 
109

that now and, if you're not familiar with that history, 

I don't know how you would come up with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't feel that I'm able to make 

a proper evaluation of this. I would be open to 

sending it to the Subcommittee, the Procedures 

Subcommittee.

Member Beach: This is Josie. Is Kathy still on the 

line?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Member Beach: Have we looked at this in the 

Procedures Subcommittee? I don't know off hand.

Ms. Behling: Yeah, I was about to interject here. Let 

me be sure I understand what is being recommended 

here. We reviewed OTIB-10 and 8 a very long time 

ago. They are conservative procedures, conservative 

OTIBs. We use those -- I've been around 

unfortunately long enough. I'm giving away my age 

here, but I've used those procedures in the past. I'm 

not sure if you're suggesting that we look at OTIB-8 

and 10 again.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, no.

Ms. Behling: Okay. But I do think --

Ms. Gogliotti: We're discussing OTIB-17.

Ms. Behling: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: The specific instance of uncertainty.

Ms. Behling: Yes, but I do think obviously when OTIB17 is revised, that should be looked at by the 

Subcommittee but we have reviewed OTIB-17, yes.

Member Beach: And that would be part of our normal 

process, correct?

Ms. Behling: Yes.
110

Member Beach: To review the new, when it comes 

out again, OTIB-17.

Ms. Behling: A lot of times it's dependent on the type 

of changes that are incorporated. 

Member Beach: Right.

Ms. Behling: Sometimes there's a clarification of 

things. But, in this particular case, I think I should 

make note that we want to keep a watch for this OTIB 

being updated.

Member Beach: Agree. This is Josie again. I'd be 

happy and satisfied with that.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Will do.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, we will send it to the 

Procedures Subcommittee which will keep an eye on 

it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, but we will -- we can formally 

close out this issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, for us.

Ms. Gogliotti: And 558, Observation 1 also, which is 

the same.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, wonderful.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. 558, I believe, is similar.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's the same issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. So that can be closed out, 

too, again.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, those two issues go to the 

Procedures Subcommittee.
111

Ms. Gogliotti: That was the last of them in the 27th 

set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: So we just have a couple stragglers in 

other sets, but I don't think that they are ready to be 

closed out at this time so it wouldn't be worth going 

back through them.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, I think we've done a 

good job. I think it seems to me maybe we should 

just start -- it's 4:00. We should start talking about 

the next meeting.

Rashaun.

Dr. Roberts: Yes, great. So, again, because this is a 

subcommittee, I do have to prepare a Federal 

Register notice for this and it needs to be submitted 

60 days in advance. We need to take that into 

account as we're trying to identify when we would 

meet next. We would be into the next calendar year.

Chair Kotelchuck: We certainly would. I was thinking 

that early January would be a wonderful time to meet 

because things tend to be a little quieter after the 

holiday season, but I'm not sure we can make the 60 

days because it will take a while --

Dr. Roberts: Yeah, because we do have -- right. We 

have to include a draft agenda and some other 

materials with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Dr. Roberts: We really shouldn't jam ourselves up on 

the time.

Chair Kotelchuck: I agree. It seems to me we can't 

do it before the last couple of weeks in January, or 

perhaps in early February depending on people's 

availability. What would you think? I don't know how 

long it takes to develop the write-up for the meeting. 
112

Dr. Roberts: I think February could be a possibility.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: I do think January is pushing it a little 

bit.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Well, the first two weeks in 

February? The 2nd is Groundhog Day but I don't think 

we have to worry about that.

Dr. Roberts: (Laughter.) Right. I know we've got 

some things on the books in February for, I think, the 

18th, and the 24th is the full Board meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: The 18th. And when is the full 

Board meeting?

Dr. Roberts: The full Board is on the 24th of 

February.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Can we meet the week 

before? Early the week before? Well, Presidents' Day 

is the 15th. The 16th -- no. 16th, 17th, 18th, or the 

17th, 18th. It would be nice to meet --

Dr. Roberts: What about the 17th or 20th?

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: No, the 17th or 19th. It would be either 

a Wednesday or a Friday.

Member Beach: I would rather do after the 

Procedures Subcommittee. That's a lot to get ready 

for at one time.

Chair Kotelchuck: Uh-huh.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: When was the Procedures 

meeting?

Dr. Roberts: On the 18th.
113

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah, it is. That's a bit of a 

problem. Let's see. Well, I hate to have a meeting 

early in the week of a Board meeting. We're going to 

do --

Member Beach: The 24th --

Dr. Roberts: That's a planning -- yes, that's a 

planning meeting so I think we could, if you wanted 

to, do something earlier in the week like that Monday 

or something. We could certainly try to do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: That would work, the 22nd or 23rd.

Member Beach: The 22nd is Washington's birthday. 

Some people take that off.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, okay.

Member Beach: What about the 25th, a Thursday?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that certainly sounds good, 

the 25th. Now, David Richardson is not here so we 

need to make a date and alternate date. How about 

Thursday the 25th, folks?

Dr. Roberts: Sure.

Member Lockey: Yes, that's good for me.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Last time you came up with an 

alternative in case it didn't work. Do you want to do 

that again?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I think we have to.

Dr. Roberts: We would be looking at March.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah. Is there any chance we 

could push something to Monday the 22nd as a 

backup and hope that we don't have to use it?

Member Beach: What about the holiday?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, you said. You just said.
114

Dr. Roberts: The holiday.

Chair Kotelchuck: You just said that, yeah. What 

about the 23rd, Tuesday the 23rd?

Member Beach: As a second choice that would be 

okay with me. 

Chair Kotelchuck: It's a second choice. Hopefully 

David could make it. The rest of us are here.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So the second choice is the 23rd 

of March, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, February.

Member Beach: Oh, of February.

Dr. Roberts: February.

Chair Kotelchuck: First choice Thursday the 25th of 

February. Second choice Tuesday the 23rd.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Alright.

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. Folks are we -- I 

think we're settled.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, could I add just one more thing?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Between now and then we will be 

submitting the 29th set and we will have to do oneon-ones again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Last time we tried out the one case per 

call and that was very not popular.

Member Beach: It was nightmarish.
115

Ms. Gogliotti: (Laughter.) Well, try scheduling 30 

calls. 

Member Beach: I know. It was a nightmare for 

everybody.

Chair Kotelchuck: It was.

Ms. Gogliotti: Do we want to do three this time? In 

the past we've done six but I felt like that was 

pushing attention spans. Is there --

Member Beach: I'd be open to six but on two 

separate days versus the separating each and every 

one of them.

Ms. Gogliotti: So two days of three each.

Member Beach: Each, yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Two days of three each sounds 

reasonable.

Member Valerio: That works better.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, we'll plan on that. 

Rashaun, I'll be contacting you for assignments.

Chair Kotelchuck: When roughly are you thinking 

about that? Are we talking about that in January 

perhaps?

Ms. Gogliotti: We will be submitting them the first 

week of December.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Oh, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: That is a challenging time to have calls. 

We tried to do it last time with problems but I will at 

least try to start scheduling in the beginning of 

December, and then we'll take a two- or three-week 

break from scheduling and then I'll pick up scheduling 

again.
116

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good. That sounds 

very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And then one more thing. With 

the last set, we were asked specifically to not finalize 

the cases, to send out a pre-distribution draft, and 

then finalize them after the one-on-one calls. Is that 

still the --

Chair Kotelchuck: The blinds. Are they talking about 

the blinds?

Ms. Gogliotti: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: What are you talking about?

Ms. Gogliotti: The 29th set of 30 dose 

reconstructions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Because that saves us from formally 

having to revise them.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm not clear. I'm sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can talk to Rashaun.

Dr. Roberts: Maybe these questions can be handled 

offline.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, yep. We can certainly do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Dr. Roberts: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're going to ask us to do the 

29th -- the choices for the 29th set sometime soon, 

before December 1st.

Member Beach: Yeah, and then the only up-in-theair question is the finalization either before or after. 

Right?
117

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it. Okay.

Member Beach: Sounds good.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, folks. Thank you very 

much and thanks for -- this was a challenging 

meeting because of quorum issues and it's most 

appreciated that we were all able to finish our work 

today and do a good job. Thanks much, everyone.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 4:12 p.m.)