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

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

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

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

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

to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST. NW, STE. 200 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 http://www.nealrgross.com 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Wednesday, January 19, 2022 

The Work Group convened via Videoconference, at 

10:30 a.m. EST, David Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Dave Allen, DCAS

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Finn Black, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Liz Brackett, ORAU Team

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rosanna Gogliotti, SC&A

Michael Rafky, HHS

Scott Siebert, ORAU Team

Matt Smith, ORAU Team
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee for 

Dose Reconstruction Reviews Wednesday, January 

19, 2022 1

Welcome and Roll Call 4

Review Cases from Set 29 6

Review Cases from Set 30 70

Adjourn 132
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

4 

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.) 

Welcome and Roll Call

Dr. Roberts: Okay. I do have 10:30 a.m. Eastern, so 

I will go ahead and get started, if everyone can hear 

me okay. So, good morning, everybody. And, first 

things first, Happy New Year. I'm Rashaun Roberts 

and I'm the Designated Federal Official for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. And 

this, of course, is a meeting of the Board 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review.

There is an agenda for today. You can find it on the 

NIOSH website under scheduled meetings for 

January 2022. 

And with that behind us, it's time for roll call. Now, 

since the Subcommittee will be discussing dose 

reconstruction cases pertaining to specific sites 

today, members and others do need to acknowledge 

-- hello?

Okay. We need for people to put their phone on mute, 

please. We can hear some conversation in the 

background. 

Okay. So, Members and others do need to 

acknowledge conflicts of interest, and to recuse 

themselves from the discussion where that conflict 

might be present. So as we move through the roll 

call, please state your conflicts. 

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: All right. Let's circle back around to 

Dave. Have you joined us or able to speak at this 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

5 

Member Valerio: Rashaun, this is Loretta. I can hear 

Dave in the background. He says he's have trouble 

with the audio.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And he's left a note here, so he's 

going to call the bridge line. Oh, that's a message 

from Nancy to Dave. So, Loretta, you said you can 

hear him?

Member Valerio: I can hear him. I can hear him on 

Skype.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Yeah, he's going to need to call 

the bridge line. And we're going to need to wait until 

he can get on, so we'll take a pause.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 10:37 a.m. and resumed at 10:44 a.m.)

Dr. Roberts: And we're actually ready to go ahead 

and get started with you joining us.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Very good. Thank you.

Dr. Roberts: Great. So let me just remind everybody 

before you get started, Dave, that to keep things 

running smoothly today, just make sure that if you're 

not speaking, you're on mute. And that is if you don't 

have a mute button, it's *6 to mute. If you need to 

take yourself off, press *6 again. And, again, the 

agenda can be found on the NIOSH DCAS website 

under January 2022. Okay. And with that, I'll turn the 

meeting over to you, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you very much, 

Rashaun. I'm terribly sorry, folks, that I am coming 

in late. I had some trouble connecting. And to tell the 

other folks, my computer crashed late Friday 

afternoon and -- my CDC computer. So I can't look 

at the data that Rose sent down. With that, however, 

Rose is going to give me a little extra help today. And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

6 

I think thing will work. I hope so.

The first case we're going to talk about is Nevada Test 

Site, and that is the 564 Observation 1. All right.

Review Cases from Set 29

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Great. This is the same 

PowerPoint that we went over at our September 

meeting, but we did not get to the type 2 issues 

during that meeting, so this is the continuation of 

that discussion.

So we will start with Tab 564 Observation 1 which, 

as Dave said, is an NTS case. And this is kind of an 

interesting observation. Here, I think this is the first 

case that we've seen where a whole body count was 

done offsite at an uncovered facility during a covered 

employment period.

And here, the whole body count was negative, but it's 

unclear to us how to treat this whole body count had 

it been positive. We know that there's clear guidance 

for medical x-rays that were done offsite, but unlike 

a medical x-ray that actually is causing exposure, the 

whole body count is really only quantifying intake 

that's already occurred.

So unlike -- or unless this source term was really 

sufficiently different between the offsite uncovered 

facility and the covered facility, there's not really a 

clear way to differentiate where the exposure 

occurred. So, at least in our opinion, we must assume 

that 100 percent of the exposure was at a covered 

facility if you can't differentiate that. But we're really 

unaware of any guidance that documents that 

process.

And so we thought it was an important to bring to the 

subcommittee's attention. And that's why this is an 

observation, not a finding because there's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

7 

procedurally nothing out there that we're aware of, 

but we thought it was important to bring up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Pardon my --

Ms. Gogliotti: And NIOSH responded saying that at 

the time this claim was completed, there wasn't 

sufficient data to evaluate these offsite whole body 

counts. However, in a recent data capture, they did 

obtain enough documentation for whole body counts 

that were done at this particular site, EMSL Las 

Vegas, which is Environmental Monitoring Systems 

Lab Las Vegas.

And NIOSH in the process of incorporating that data 

to develop methods for evaluating these whole body 

count results both positive and negative. And they go 

on to say that the use of any internal monitoring that 

occurs after potential exposure can be used if there's 

enough information to interpret the results. And they 

intend to discuss this with future dose reconstructors 

as well as add guidance to OTIB-60 to address this 

situation.

Chair Kotelchuck: So that would appear to resolve it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. But we're really curious what 

additional discussion they're adding to OTIB-60, and 

we would just appreciate being more aware of what 

exactly they're adding to OTIB-60. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Would this be done through 

technical -- would this be done through a technical 

conversation? Or do you think it should come back to 

the subcommittee? Or do subcommittee members 

think it should come back to us?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I don't know if NIOSH is prepared 

to comment on this now, or -- I'm sure that they 

don't have a response developed for OTIB-60 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

8 

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, this --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- at this point in time.

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Mr. Siebert: Basically because this is an OTIB-60 

issue, we're going to be adding guidance, very 

specific basically to this information saying that if we 

do have in vivo counts regardless of where the count 

was performed and we have enough information to 

interpret it, we will use that data in the dose 

reconstruction even if it is outside the employment 

period because it could have limiting effects. I don't 

know if you want any more specifics than that, but 

that's, I mean basically adding stuff to say exactly 

what we've just been discussing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Member Beach: This is Josie. Dave, is there a timeline 

for when that is going to be redone, OTIB-60, or 

when it's up for review?

Mr. Siebert: We're actually in -- yeah, we're in the 

midst of -- this is Scot again. We're in the midst of 

updating it right now. It's part of the revision that 

we're working on right now. So as soon as this 

revision goes out, it will be in there. Liz is on the call, 

Liz Brackett, I just want to have her verify that that's 

the case. But I believe it's already in process.

Ms. Brackett: Yes. Although, you know, it will be 

incorporating a couple of years' worth of updates. So 

it's not the only thing that will be included in there. 

So it's still a little bit of time before it comes out. But 

I don't have it open in front of me, I can't remember 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

9 

if I already added words for this. But it will be in 

there.

And I just wanted to clarify, part of this, this body 

count, this specific one for NTS, I believe it was done 

during the employment period at NTS, and it wasn't 

a matter of a person going to another site and 

working there. It was a matter of NTS using that body 

count, they're sending somebody there to do a body 

count for work at NTS. And that's no different than 

collecting a urine sample and sending it to an offsite 

lab. That still counts. So this particular whole body 

count falls into that category. So that will be clarified 

in the OTIB also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. I'm not quite -- I don't 

see the need to come back to this by the 

subcommittee. But do others think differently?

Member Clawson: Dave, can you hear me?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I can, Brad.

Member Clawson: I would just like have an update 

back on this so if we see this at different sites or 

whatever else like that. I'd just like know that it's put 

in to OTIB-60. And it'd just be a refresher for me, is 

what I would like, Dave. I just would like to know that 

it's in there, because a lot of these changes happen 

and stuff with that, and it changes the dose 

reconstructions a little bit and stuff like that. I would 

just like to know that it is in there and that we've 

addressed the issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, could we ask the NIOSH folks 

to just report back to us, then, when it's done?

Member Beach: Well, Dave, this is Josie. I made a 

note for the Procedures Subcommittee. And Rose is, 

of course, on that Subcommittee.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

10 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: So it will get reviewed by us. Rose, 

can you answer if the Subcommittee for Dose 

Reconstruction will review it also, or will it just be 

reverted and reviewed in the Procedure 

Subcommittee?

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't think there's a reason for it to 

come back to our committee, unless you want us to 

evaluate the specific issue included in the new 

update. 

I would recommend, however -- at the last meeting 

you asked us to start tracking specifically what 

documents we're committed to changing, and then 

following up on that in the future. So I would suggest 

we tabulate that or mark that down here. And then, 

also, Josie, you keep track of this and make sure that 

when this revision is issued, if you're interested in us 

reviewing it further, that we do get tasked to do that.

Member Beach: Well, it sounds like there might be a 

lot of changes, so it might be one that we do, you 

know, just a look at to see what changed. So, okay, 

I'll track it also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Could you do that, Josie? In 

other words, you'll just give us a look-back when it's 

done.

Member Beach: Yeah.

Ms. Behling: And this is Kathy Behling. Also, Josie, 

yeah, this is something that would certainly come to 

your attention once this OTIB is revised. Definitely 

would be coming to the subcommittee and we'll make 

sure that happens.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. That's good. All right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

11 

Member Beach: I think --

Chair Kotelchuck: And then I think back to --

Member Beach: Yeah, Dave, this is Josie again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Member Beach: I think there's another one that we'll 

talk about later on, OTIB-49, that'll under fall under 

this same category. So I'll be tracking all of these as 

much as I can.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, great. And that's 

appreciated because I understand Brad's concern 

that things happen and we don't know that they 

happen. Although, we believe that they will or they 

have been. But it would be nice to find out. So thank 

you for doing that. And I think that would mean that 

we would close -- formally speaking, we will close this 

observation. Correct, folks? Okay, we'll close it here.

Member Beach: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Members, subcommittee 

members?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it, Dave. This is --

Member Lockey: Dave, this is Jim Lockey, it's fine. 

It's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay. Very good. So we'll 

close. All right, good. Now let's go on, I think that the 

ORISE will be the next one. I forget the case number. 

Or I don't have the case number in front of me.

Ms. Gogliotti: That's okay, I've got it up on the 

screen. Actually, can everyone see my screen? I want 

to just reconfirm.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. Sure, sure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

12 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: 567.1, thank you. I'm busy taking 

notes.

Ms. Gogliotti: If it stops sharing on the screen, let me 

know because sometimes it doesn't --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- relay that information to me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right. So this is 567.1, which is an 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education case, and 

this particular one was originally an observation, but 

during the one-on-one conversations, Dave and Josie 

requested that it be made a finding.

In this particular case, the DR report indicated that 

there was not monitoring of the external exposures, 

but when we reviewed the case files, we did find 

evidence that the EE was at least partially monitored 

while they were there. This was in the form of an 

annual dose record. So not through typical dosimetry 

readings where we have every dosimeter that was 

issued. Just annual readings. And these were all 

zeros, but it did show monitoring records for this 

individual.

And in the CATI report, the EE also reported that they 

wore a badge every single day. And when we looked 

at the EE's job title, it made sense that they were 

wearing a badge. And so we thought that something 

should have been done about this.

And NIOSH responded and indicated essentially what 

I said, it was an annual dose reading in the records. 

It was not a breakdown of shallow and deep dose. So 

only annual zero dose was provided for several years 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

13 

of the EE's employment.

Because of this EE's particular job title, I don't want 

to give away their occupation, but it is on the screen 

here for you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: But here the EE was working for UTAEC which is the University of Tennessee had an 

agreement with AEC to work on this particular animal 

research work that was occurring. And the EE 

indicated that they were working in a lab for around 

a decade, and then had a different occupation at the 

facility for the rest of their employment.

NIOSH indicated that ORISE employees typically 

when they're monitored have a different record than 

what was shown in the EE's files in this case. And 

because the EE indicated in the interview that they 

were physically working at UT-AEC facilities during 

their employment, and the ORISE response indicated 

that the EE was not monitored, it was assumed that 

the annual summary information provided in the DOL 

initial case files was the result of the EE periodically 

visiting the other Oak Ridge facilities.

They did acknowledge though that it's reasonable to 

conclude that the monitoring information provided in 

the files was a result of the claimant that being 

monitored by the University of Tennessee or some 

other third-party vendor. So what NIOSH did in this 

case was compare the onsite ambient doses from the 

three other Oak Ridge facilities and assign the higher 

for every year.

And since the EE indicated that they were primarily 

working in animal research, especially in the early 

years, the co-exposure doses from the other Oak 

Ridge facilities would not be suitable for their 

occupational radiation dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

14 

And then we responded back that UT-AEC is actually 

a part of ORISE. They physically were located at 

ORISE doing this work. They went by a lot of names 

over the -- even the course of this EE's employment 

history, but I believe this work is all covered.

I don't have access to the full NOCTS database and 

SRDB that I normally have access to verify all these 

things. But everything that I've read seems to 

indicate that it should be covered, and I'm sure legal 

could discuss that.

But based on the EE's statements in the CATI report 

and their job description, I think it supports that they 

probably did have occupational exposures above and 

beyond what would be assumed as ambient. And I 

think, at least while the EE was monitored, these 

zeros should be -- it would be reasonable to assume

the maximum missed dose for that period of time.

In the CATI report, the EE does indicate that they 

worked around sealed sources, X-ray machines, and 

analyzing contaminated tissue samples. And I don't 

think ambient dose from the other Oak Ridge facilities

is really appropriate to cover this because ambient 

background is designed for elevated background 

exposures, not these particular occupational 

exposures that the EE was receiving.

Chair Kotelchuck: So what is NIOSH saying? When 

we talked about this before, and we elevate it from 

an observation to a finding, is there -- well, what is 

NIOSH's position on it or ORAU's?

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Is that --

Mr. Siebert: -- Scott. Going back to the original 

response, one of the things we pointed out was when 

employees at that facility, ORISE, are monitored, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

15 

there is annual summary information provided. 

However, the format is different than what is being 

seen in this specific case.

It doesn't appear to be the same as when we get 

summaries from them for people who actually had 

monitoring response information at ORISE. So it 

looked different enough that it didn't appear 

necessarily to be a summary result of what was going 

on at ORISE. Maybe more of the person was also, you 

know, dealing with the other Oak Ridge sites in the 

area. We don't really know. But it doesn't match your 

normal format that we have.

Now, be that as it may, we went back and we looked, 

and we would still generally say that it did make 

sense that it is ambient. There's no indication 

through the records that the individual was actually 

exposed. But we did look at it as if we took that 

assumption and said, well, let's say they were 

actually exposed to missed dose because what we did 

was we assigned the largest ambient from all the Oak 

Ridge sites during that timeframe.

And when we did the comparison and made the 

assumption, the person was actually monitored and 

used missed dose for that timeframe, we did a 

comparison and there actually wasn't a -- there was 

a reduction in the PoC because the dose actually goes 

down based on zero monitoring results compared to 

the maximum ambient at all the different Oak Ridge 

sites which was assigned. So even if we had assigned 

it differently, it certainly would not have gone up. It 

would have gone down.

Ms. Gogliotti: Scott, to clarify, you mean the 

maximum missed dose possible? Not assuming one 

zero for each year, correct?

Mr. Siebert: Correct. It was assuming they were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

16 

monitored those timeframes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, we took your comment from 9/13 

and said, okay, well, if that was the case, let's go 

ahead and look at it and see what impact there is, 

and that's what we found.

Chair Kotelchuck: That the PoC went down?

Mr. Siebert: Correct. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And it was a noncompensated PoC initially?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Mr. Siebert: Correct

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So it sounds like you folks 

are in agreement on the dose reconstruction.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, this isn't a blind. This is a regular 

review. But if the PoC is going down, then I think that 

it's reasonable that we can close this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds okay. Other 

subcommittee members, are you comfortable with 

that?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I'm wondering if it should 

still be a finding and not an observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Hmm. Well, we did go through this 

at the last meeting, and the subcommittee decided 

that we wished it to be a finding. I --

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I want to clarify.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: This was discussed at the one-on-one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

17 

call. So this was the call that you and Josie had where 

we discussed this case. This was not in the full board 

setting.

Chair Kotelchuck: That, thank you for saying. So this 

is -- well, I think let's consider that. Grady, if you 

would make -- well, if you would make the argument 

now about why this should be an observation.

Mr. Calhoun: Well, my argument is that I don't think 

that there was anything that was done against the 

current procedures that we have.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, it was -- but this is a rather 

unusual setting. I mean this was the person going 

back and forth between two covered facilities, but 

two covered facilities that were very different. One 

was an academic setting as well as the main site at 

Oak Ridge. What do other members of the 

subcommittee think?

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. Rose, I'd like to 

have your opinion, Rose. What do you think?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, they did follow their procedures, 

I will say that. However, in the report -- or in the 

CATI report, the EE clearly states that they were 

monitored. At least one of their job titles is something 

where you would expect them to be monitored, which 

makes me question whether or not they actually 

received all of the records. Perhaps UT-AEC was 

collecting them separating and they're being stored 

at UT-AEC versus ORISE.

I simply don't know, and I don't have access to 

enough records to see if they simply weren't 

monitored, if the records no longer exist. So 

personally, I would have assigned maximum missed 

dose. You could make an argument that this was a 

professional judgment. I understand why NIOSH did 

what they did.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

18 

Mr. Barton: Yeah, this is Bob Barton. If I could just 

weigh in real quick. You know, I think --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Barton: -- ultimately, it's clear that dose 

reconstruction was done correctly. In particular, in 

light of NIOSH going back after it was originally 

discussed and saying, okay, if we consider that 

missed dose based on that DOL record, you know, 

how does it compare with what we were assigning 

based on the maximum ambient dose and a claimantfavorable decision was made.

I think with a discussion about whether this is really 

a finding or not is whether in the original dose 

reconstruction, that those annual dose summaries 

contained in the DOL files were considered, or 

discussed, or evaluated in much the same way that 

NIOSH went back and did that comparison, which is 

absolutely correct in the end, the DR was done 

correct in the end. But the first time it was done, 

perhaps that annual record should have at least been 

considered or discussed. And I guess that's the way 

I kind of see it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. This is Scott.

Member Beach: -- Josie. Dave, this is Josie. I was 

going to jump in and say that I thought we didn't 

have the information that Grady just gave us that the 

doses wouldn't have gone up when we considered 

this to be a finding. So I don't think that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: -- was part of our original discussion. 

So I believe Bob is absolutely correct.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

19 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah. And it does seem to 

me -- I mean and Rose said, you know, they carried 

out the -- they carried out the dose reconstruction 

correctly according to the rules if you will, the 

procedures, the accepted procedures.

So it does seem to me that things are suggesting that 

it may really -- should really be an observation. And 

it sounds to me as if we're moving towards that 

conclusion. Again, any other subcommittee or other 

staff persons want to say something? So --

Member Clawson: This is Brad. We've taken a look at 

what's gone on with this and the further information 

we've got, I don't think that it's really a finding 

myself, personally.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay. Well, therefore, you 

know, several of us are now moving towards the 

finding. Can we call it -- revert it back to observation? 

I don't know whether it's Observation 1 or 2. So 

would folks agree to that? Are there objections to 

moving it back to an observation?

Member Beach: No objection.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Not hearing -- okay.

Member Lockey: No objection.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. So --

Member Valerio: No objection, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. So let's close it, 

and as an observation. Okay, very good. Observation 

1. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

20 

Chair Kotelchuck: Excellent. And now the next one.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is from Tab 568, 

Observation 1, and this is a Rocky Flats Plant case. 

Here this observation has to do with RFP DR guidance 

documents. So, not the TBD, but the informal 

guidance document that exists somewhat behind the 

scenes.

And here what happened was I think more of an 

interpretation of that record that is leading to 

problems. Here our observations states that there 

does not appear to be guidance for a best estimate 

dose reconstruction that is not compensable, and the 

X-ray does not make a difference in the 

compensation status.

And I have a copy of these records here on this next 

slide, and this is a copy and paste directly out of the 

record just to give you an idea of what we're 

discussing here. It's medical X-ray dose. So to 

summarize, it say beginning in February of 2009, the 

records group goes through the actual films providing 

a list of all the procedures. And I don't need to read 

all this for you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: But the issue in question is this first 

bullet, the lower case A. Here NIOSH believes that 

this is indicating that the guidance did not include Xray information. So, essentially, they say that if the 

X-ray isn't present in the record, and the case was 

processed after February of 2009, then nothing 

should be done.

This case was processed in 2010, and so if there are 

no X-ray records present, then no dose should be 

assigned. We, however, when we looked at this didn't 

read that essentially, and I think that has to do with 

the hierarchy of these. If C and D were a separate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

21 

hierarchy under B, I don't think there would have 

been this confusion. And A doesn't explicitly state 

that these records should be processed in that way.

When we looked at it, it seemed to be that the 

guidance was absent. So our recommendation would 

be to update the guidance document to include more 

precise language to prevent this in the future or 

simply to update the hierarchy of Parts C and D to be 

subsections of Part B.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. Yeah, I can see the point 

that's being made. We clearly understand how it's 

been used for years over here, which is fine. But 

clarification is never a bad thing. So we've already 

actually updated the Rocky Flats occupational 

medical dose TBD back in 2019, and all this 

information was clarified in that document, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So we have agreement on 

that, so it would sound like something that we should 

close, right? Again, any concerns by subcommittee 

members or others? Hearing none, I'll close it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I'll just point out --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- that if this case was originally 

received later, we would have been using the 

guidance that was current at the time of the dose 

reconstruction. So if it's since been updated, we 

wouldn't have been looking at that guidance. So if 

they've --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- already made the change, that's 

great, and I think we can move on.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

22 

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. All right. Okay. So close 

here. Do we want to go to INL? And by the way, I 

assume before I came on that Rashaun went over the 

people who are -- should step aside. And I know at 

least we have -- INL we have at least one person who 

is conflicted. So --

Member Clawson: I understand, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. But do hang on and --

while you will not participate, since it's not -- I don't 

know how long it will take, but instead of having --

and not only for you, but for all others, we don't -- it 

would be -- rather than having us -- having you hang 

up and us call back, let's just stay on the line but not 

participate as you indicated.

Member Clawson: I'll just hang on there. It's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good, if you would.

Member Clawson: But this does bring the question 

what Grady was talking about earlier because where 

these have already been adjudicated, they've already 

been through everything, it's kind of an interesting -

- so that's kind of why I'm interested in what Grady 

was saying earlier. But I'll just hang on.

Mr. Calhoun: And, Dave. Dave, this is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady, and I don't know if you 

heard me, but basically what I brought up before you 

got on was that a couple meetings ago, we had 

discussed COI and it was even relevant to the 

discussions we're having.

And so I didn't say that I don't expect any changes 

for this meeting, but we are locating the transcripts 

of that discussion that we had with OGC at that time. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

23 

And Jenny's gone as we all know, but the other OGC 

people covering DCAS are going to take a look at that 

and give us another opinion on that once they take a 

look at that. But no changes --

Member Beach: And, Grady --

Mr. Calhoun: -- for today.

Member Beach: -- will you send us an email, or will 

somebody letting us know --

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Member Beach: -- because I was pretty interested in 

that discussion also?

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. Yes, I definitely will.

Member Beach: Okay, thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe that there was -- didn't the 

Board have a training session with OGC about that, 

Rashaun? I thought that --

Dr. Roberts: Yes. They did. And there is another 

person in OGC who advised on this also. So, anyway, 

I think this is something to be dealt with later. So, 

you know, if we could just kind of proceed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Because there were different, you know, 

different folks weighing into this, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So you're suggesting we 

move on and we'll come back to this at some future 

time? Or --

Dr. Roberts: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

24 

Chair Kotelchuck: -- I was not -- yeah. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Maybe we could just have the 

conversation offline.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, it would be sometime -- it would 

be sometime after this meeting, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Certainly. Right.

Mr. Calhoun: No changes today.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Exactly because the person advising on 

what happened the last meeting had a different 

opinion than Jenny. So, anyway --

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it.

Dr. Roberts: -- we do need to, you know, maybe deal 

with this later. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good. Give me the 

case, I don't -- somehow -- whoops. Connecting, oh, 

hold it. I'm having just a little bit of --

Ms. Gogliotti: That's okay. I can't read it to you until 

you get back online.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I just wanted the case 

number just for my notes.

Ms. Gogliotti: 571 Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this particular EE worked at several 

facilities, INL, NTS, General Atomics, Area 4 of Santa 

Susana, SRS and Hanford.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right. Then let's go on 

now to -- and we'll come back to it at a later meeting, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

25 

and --

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, we can do this finding now. We just 

don't need -- everyone will just, if they're potentially 

conflicted, they won't comment. I think that's --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that the consensus that everyone 

took out of that?

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: That would be my consensus on 

that, which I'm the only one that's conflicted, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Well, -- okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Well, this --

Chair Kotelchuck: So let's go on and talk about it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sure. We questioned the prorated 

fraction of the year that was applied to this particular 

case. It was a little unusual. The EE, as confirmed by 

DOL, was a consultant for a period of time. And at 

that time, the EE was working an estimated one day 

a week, and that is in the DOL confirmed 

employment. But DOL did not specify the date range 

beyond the years that the EE was doing this 

consulting work which is somewhat unusual. 

Normally there's a day associated with it also.

Here, NIOSH assumed that the EE was exposed 10 

percent of the years for both the start and stop year. 

And looking further into it, the SRS workbook, this 

dose was calculated and indicated that this was one 

day a week, so 20 percent of employment for half of 

the year, or 50 percent. So it works out to 10 percent 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

26

But when we reviewed the records, we found 

evidence suggesting that the EE only worked at the 

site beginning midway through their first year and 

ending midway through their last year. And since 

DOL only verified the year range, we thought it was 

appropriate to assume a full year of one day a week 

exposures. And this, of course, would increase the 

dose only by a few millirem. But we thought it was 

important to point out anyway.

And here NIOSH responded indicating that NOCTS 

had two types of date fields. I know that this is a little 

bit dated at this point because we're not even using 

NOCTS, but to conclude this record, we'll at least talk 

about it.

One part was visible, that everyone could see on 

NOCTS that was formatted as text for the dates. And 

the other is a hidden field in the database, the actual 

had numerical values. And in this particular case, the 

text fields provided year-only values, but the dateformatted fields was through July 1st in both the start 

and stop year.

And the data source that dose reconstructors use 

draw from the date-formatted fields which led to kind 

of this discrepancy. And NIOSH did go ahead and 

review the DOL files and agreed with us that the July 

1st date was not supported by the records, and that 

ambient dose should have been assigned for the full 

years of employment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. When --

Ms. Gogliotti: And dose reconstructors should have 

cross-checked that, but apparently did not in this 

case. But at least at the time they corrected this to 

prevent it from happening in the future, but we're 

obviously not using NOCTS currently, or at least 

SC&A doesn't have access to NOCTS, so.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

27

Chair Kotelchuck: So folks are in agreement on that 

on the observation itself?

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that NIOSH acknowledged that 

this was a problem. Our remaining question would be 

were other claims impacted by this date range, 

discrepancy. I don't even know if they have the 

ability to check on that currently.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, this is Scott. It was a great 

question because this is, as we said, it's a NOCTS tool 

consistency issue. It's not really a dose 

reconstruction issue. And it's something that NOCTS 

has been this way since day one. So this has always 

been something we've looked at, and it's always the 

dose reconstructor's responsibility to ensure that 

they do that cross-check.

As was said just a minute ago, we've actually updated 

our tools to it doesn't make an assumption now, it 

specifically says, hey, it stops the dose reconstructor 

in his tracks and says you have to make your decision 

at that point. So it can't just be using the default like 

happened in this case and it didn't get cross-checked.

When it comes back to going to older cases, we 

looked at all the dose reconstructions that this dose 

reconstructor and the peer reviewer did that had this 

same issue of those non-matching fields. We didn't 

find any other incidents of them missing that fact and 

not correcting it.

To be on the safe side, we also did a wider pool of 

dose reconstructors looking at -- I believe we looked 

at from 2015 on any claim that had this mismatch 

issue, and we didn't run into other claims that had --

that weren't addressed by the dose reconstructor. So 

they've been doing it correctly, it's just now our tool 

is very in your face about ensuring they can't go 

forward until they do it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

28

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So that should bring --

Ms. Gogliotti: Didn't you have to access to --

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry?

Ms. Gogliotti: Do dose constructors have access to 

NOCTS again?

Mr. Siebert: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: We do not though. This is Grady. NIOSH 

does not have access to NOCTS. I cannot look at 

NOCTS even a tiny bit. ORAU has a version of NOCTS 

going and we are not allowed to access that, even 

me. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Wow.

Mr. Calhoun: -- right now -- yes. So right now we are 

working with just the files and folders. So I don't 

foresee that changing significantly for many, many, 

many, many, many months.

Ms. Gogliotti: Don't tell me that. I want the 

cybersecurity stuff to go away.

Mr. Calhoun: Don't tell me that. I wish that -- believe 

me, it hurts me worse than it hurts you. Yeah, that's 

where we are.

Chair Kotelchuck: That is where we are. Well, it 

sounds to me that --

Mr. Calhoun: Chances are there will not -- chances 

are there will not ever be NOCTS again. That's about 

a 95 percent chance. There'll be something else. And 

we're working with our ODIP staff to try to figure out 

what that is. And as you all know, if you've entered -

- if you've played with NOCTS, it's a very complicated 

system. So we're revising it, starting it over, 

replacing it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

29

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, we don't envy you. That's a 

tough call, a tough task. But in terms of this INL 

observation, I think we've taken care of it, have we 

not, folks? Hello?

Member Beach: I would say yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So can we close it, folks? 

Unless I hear an objection, we will close 571 

Observation 1. Okay. All right. Fine, so closed. And 

what is the next one? And Brad, do come back on 

now. Going to the Y-12 plant. Is anybody conflicted 

on Y-12, if I may ask?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, Y-12, K-25, and X-10 is the 

employment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. Right. Is anybody 

conflicted for that? Okay. I didn't think so, but I just 

wanted to check. All right. Let's -- Rose, would you 

like to start us off?

Ms. Gogliotti: Sure. This was kind of an unusual one. 

Here the DR report indicated that Y-12 coworker data 

was used. But when we looked at what was actually 

used to calculate the dose that was assigned in this 

case, we found that they were actually using the X10 coworker data, which is inconsistent with what 

was reported in the DR report, and didn't really 

coincide with the EE's work location at the time.

And we ran CAD, you know, chronic annual dose 

workbook separately and calculated our own internal 

dose, and it was less than that was assigned in this 

case. So it was claimant-favorable to assign this 

coworker dose, but we thought it was questionable 

to assign doses because the EE wasn't working at 

that site at the time.

And NIOSH responded saying essentially that they 

agreed that the DR report did indicate the incorrect 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

30

coworker location was used. And X-10 coworker 

intakes were assigned for all years based on the fact 

that this EE's internal and external monitoring was 

done by X-10, and he worked on X-10 experiments 

while in a Y-12 facility.

During the timeframe that the coworker intakes were 

assigned according to the Y-12 site information, it 

indicated that the work location was for the purposes 

of performing fusion experiments, and therefore, 

NIOSH concluded that X-10 was the appropriate site 

to use.

We agree completely that the EE was monitored by 

X-10, but we disagree that X-10 was the correct 

location to be using. Coworker intakes in general are 

assigned where the EE is actually physically working 

because it is supposed to be describing the exposure 

potential.

Chair Kotelchuck: And, Scott?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, we maintain that it is an X-10 --

and this is a difficult situation, and it's also an issue 

with X-10 having facilities that they did experiments 

specifically on the Y-12 footprint, but their facilities 

were actually X-10 facilities. So the work that's 

actually being done at Y-12 outside of those facilities 

is extremely different than the work that's going on 

inside those X-10 laboratories on the Y-12 facility.

So we looked at the data for this individual. The type 

of monitoring they had, the bioassay, it all lines up 

with the type of work they would do at X-10. It's just 

at this point they were doing some of those 

experiments on the Y-12 facility in very specific 

areas.

So basically -- and a good point, you know, uranium 

isn't the focus of X-10 work, which is what you would 

be assigning most of it at Y-12. They were doing a lot 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

31

of other types of work. As was mentioned, it was the 

fusion research and some other things. So this 

individual was monitored for plutonium, gross alpha, 

uranium, strontium. Those are much more indicative 

of work that is done as an X-10 worker.

And it's one of those -- like I said, it's an unusual 

issue, but it's basically as if there was a piece of X10 inside the Y-12 fence because they were doing 

that type of work. And we assumed that most of their 

exposure actually comes from the work they're 

doing, not from the surrounding facility. So that's 

why we maintain that X-10 still is the appropriate coexposure.

Mr. Barton: Scott, this is Bob Barton. This might help 

clear this up a little bit. Do we know when formulating 

the X-10 and the Y-12 co-exposure models, so for X10 specifically, were those facilities that were in use 

at Y-12, but doing X-10 work, were they pulled out 

and included in the X-10 co-exposure model because 

that wouldn't make a lot of sense?

But, alternatively, if those facilities that were doing 

X-10 work at Y-12 were, in fact, included in the Y-12 

co-exposure modeling, then really that work would 

be reflected in the Y-12 co-exposure model. Though, 

I completely see --

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Mr. Barton: -- your point was saying, you know, the 

exposure profile might be more akin to what would 

have been experienced at X-10 even though the EE 

was at Y-12. And I'm just wondering how that works 

when you have essentially satellite locations doing 

work for X-10 at a different facility like Y-12. I'm not 

sure if that's --

Mr. Siebert: Yeah.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

32

Mr. Barton: -- legally an obtainable answer.

Mr. Siebert: No, actually it's a great question. And, 

yes, when we put together the co-exposure 

information, it's based on the monitoring program. 

And this individual was doing X-10 work and was 

being monitored by X-10, so this individual's data 

was in the X-10 data set.

So they were included in the X-10 internal -- or they 

would have been included in the external coexposure data set because they were monitored by 

X-10 even though their physical location might have 

been inside the Y-12 footprint. And it would not have 

been included in the Y-12 co-exposure data.

Member Clawson: So this is Brad, I've got a question 

on that. So you're telling me that they were having a 

badge from X-10 wearing it in Y-12. Is that correct?

Ms. Gogliotti: It sounds that that is the correct 

interpretation.

Member Clawson: That's kind of at a conflict with the 

way the DOE orders were running earlier in that 

because I just have to go by my past experience, 

anytime I went into another facility, I had to wear 

their badging. And even though I was an employee 

of the other place, once I went in to their facility, I 

had to be under their badging program. So that's --

Mr. Siebert: Well, once again, this was a very specific 

program that was run by X-10 in a specific facility 

that happened to be on the Y-12 property. So it 

appears that they actually did separate out and use -

- it was X-10 who was monitoring this individual. The 

individual is an X-10 employee, and they're using X10 monitoring while they're doing X-10 work. It's just 

they're physically located at the other facility.

I know what you're saying, but this is a specific case 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

33

where I don't think it's -- this is a -- it appears from 

our work at looking at X-10 and Y-12 how they 

handled the situation, that this is exactly what 

happened. The person was an X-10 employee and 

was monitored by X-10.

Member Clawson: Okay. I'm understanding what 

you're saying now. So this whole thing was cut up. 

This whole project was an X-10 project inside of Y-12 

and --

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Member Clawson: -- X-10 was actually operating this 

portion of the test. So, okay.

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Member Clawson: I understand what you're saying, 

Scott. That makes more sense to me. I was under 

the impression it was a little bit different. But I 

understand now, that makes sense to me.

Mr. Siebert: Great. Good clarification. Thanks, Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: So based on Scott's comments that this 

work would have been included in the X-10 coworker 

modeling, which I am not familiar enough with that 

data to know that that's true, but I can believe him 

on face value. If that's true, I think we can accept 

this though there is still the problem with the DR 

report not agreeing with what was actually done in 

the dose reconstruction.

Mr. Siebert: Well, we agree there was a misprint.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. My audio was fine, but my 

screen has gone off, so I'm not sure. This case, is it 

a finding or is it an observation? I --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

34

Ms. Gogliotti: It's currently a finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay. And what's the case 

number? Pardon me.

Ms. Gogliotti: 575 Finding 2.

Chair Kotelchuck: 575, okay. So there is agreement 

to close it. Again, subcommittee folks comfortable 

with closing it? Acceptable?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it. This is Brad.

Member Beach: Yeah, this is Josie, I'm good also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good.

Member Lockey: Dave, Jim Lockey, I'm conflicted on 

Y-12, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Good, good. And all 

right. So is that all of us? Okay.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. I'm --

Chair Kotelchuck: Loretta.

Member Valerio: -- good with closing it as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Thank you. Okay. All 

right. Very good. So we're closed. Closed on that one. 

And let's see, is the next one Clarksville?

Ms. Gogliotti: No. The next one is from the same 

case, 575 Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can I confirm that everyone else -- it's 

just Dave's computer that he can't see me, or can 

anyone not see my --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. In fact, I was tempted to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

35

simply go off and come back on.

Member Beach: I can see it.

Member Clawson: I can see it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Clawson: I can see it, Rose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Clawson: This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I'm sure --

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- it just went off. And if we could, 

maybe, Brad, if you can see it, would you mind just 

taking over for a -- taking over for a moment while I 

go out and come back in, and I'm sure it'll come, the 

screen will come back up as well as the phone?

Member Clawson: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, Brad, could you?

Member Clawson: That's sounds --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you very much. I'll be back 

in a few moments, folks. Bye-bye.

Member Clawson: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. There you go.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one is an observation, and 

so we're not necessarily --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

36

Member Beach: What --

Ms. Gogliotti: --saying something was wrong. But I 

want to caveat all of that, this conversation here so 

no one jumps on me. Here we believe that the 

coworker doses were calculated correctly and 

entered into IREP as -- incorrectly entered it as lognormal distribution with a GSD of three.

What happened here was the dose -- or at least it's 

very unusual. We're not used to seeing it, and 

actually it was probably one of the most challenging 

cases I've come across in terms of trying to identify 

where all the doses came from that were assigned in 

IREP.

And what was done in this case, and we don't see it 

done a lot, but this one really amplified the changes. 

Here they used a single chronic annual dose 

workbook to calculate a lot of dose components all at 

once. Seventy-five to be exact. And then several of 

the dose components were intermixed.

So your chronic annual dose workbook, when you use 

it, it says your uranium dose, this was the dose. And 

it summarizes it for every single radionuclide. So 

generally it's very easy to tell what dose came from 

where.

But in this case, what happened was because there 

were so many entries that came out of this workbook, 

possibly because they used so many entries going 

into the workbook, they combined dose components 

when they were actually assigning them in IREP.

And anything less than 0.0005 rem, so anything that 

didn't round to a millirem was deleted, which 

according to the program guidance is totally fine and 

allowed. But what happened in this particular 

instance was it made it very difficult to track numbers 

because once you're deleting doses, then things start 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

37

not adding up anymore.

So this was very difficult for us to follow and audit. It 

took a lot more time than we're used to. We were 

able to get through it, but we thought it was 

important to point this out because it was so unusual 

in this particular case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Hi, folks, I'm back. Dave. 

Still no screen, but that's okay. We'll continue on. 

Brad, thank you. And what do the NIOSH folks say or 

ORAU?

Ms. Gogliotti: They essentially agreed that it can be 

difficult to determine the specific dose from each site 

component based on the number of IREP entries that 

they came up. It was necessary for them to truncate 

these and to minimize the number of entries in order 

to go into IREP. But we have a question. What is the 

maximum number of entries that can actually go into 

IREP?

Mr. Siebert: One thousand lines.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wow. Okay. But --

Member Beach: This is Josie. I know this case was 

compensated and such. But do you see that, Scott, 

very often where there's 75 and a lot of them are 

dropped off? I know SC&A hasn't. But do you see that 

quite a bit?

Mr. Siebert: I'm not going to say -- it is relatively 

infrequent that we have to do that process. I'm not 

going to say it's, you know, a one-time deal. But, you 

know, it is very -- it's uncommon to have to deal with 

it because it's just -- right, it's when we have to deal 

with many, many different types of intakes at the 

same time over many different years. You can get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

38

many, many lines of output and that can happen.

It tends to be long -- somebody who's worked at 

either multiple facilities or long periods of time, 

different type of radionuclides, that kind of thing. So, 

as I said, it's not unusual but it's not horrendously 

rare.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Siebert: That's a technical term.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. All right. I mean it's clear. 

It's hard to track, and understandably. On the other 

hand, there's nothing -- this was done properly and 

there was nothing that needed to be changed, and it 

does seem to me something that we can close this 

observation. Right?

Ms. Gogliotti: I did have one more question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: I know it's acceptable to remove things 

that sum to less than a millirem and they're regularly 

excluded from the program. But we did have a 

remaining question. Has it ever been evaluated the 

cumulative impact of having so many of these entries 

being removed? If you could have a thousand entries, 

theoretically the maximum that you could be getting 

rid of is fairly high then. Like a thousand entries of 

less than a millirem can equal a half rem dose.

Mr. Siebert: Well, back up a second. It's not that we 

can remove a thousand lines. The upper limit that 

IREP can handle is a thousand lines. And we only do 

this limitation when we exceed that limit.

Ms. Gogliotti: So I don't know how much was 

removed in this case. I'm sure that it wasn't an 

exorbitantly high number of millirem. I was just kind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

39

of curious when --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- at what point does that start to make 

a difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: And has that ever been done --

Chair Kotelchuck: It is an interesting question. It 

could be checked on a case where there are 500 and 

a whole bunch of zeros, and you can leave them in, 

right? You can leave 500 -- you can leave another 

couple of hundred in that are, you know, that would 

otherwise be knocked out by being too small and see 

what kind of impact it has. You can't see this in every 

case. It could be looked at.

On the other hand, I'm not sure -- because it's 

unusual, I don't personally see that it would be -- it 

would have that much of an effect. But I can't tell 

without somebody putting the work in to do this 

checking a few cases. And I'm not sure, Scott, how 

much, you know, whether it's worth the time frankly. 

It doesn't seem to me to be a serious error, and it's 

an appropriate way to handle lots of small doses, so.

Member Beach: Dave, I guess my --

Mr. Siebert: I can't speak to that. I have to leave that 

to Grady.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: This is Josie and I was going to ask 

if that was something you all tracked when you did 

start dropping lower doses like that.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I don't know if we, quote, 

track it. But I'm going to look back because I seem 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

40

to remember that we did something many years ago 

about the less than one millirem. But I don't recall for 

sure. So I'm going to check and see if there's 

something, if someone else remembers.

Chair Kotelchuck: That would be nice. It would be 

good if you would do that. And could you just send 

an email to the subcommittee if you find something?

Mr. Calhoun: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: If you find that information.

Mr. Calhoun: The email might be that -- might be that 

I misremembered. So just to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that's okay, or you just 

couldn't find it. But I don't see keeping this open until 

you get a chance to look for it because, as you said, 

you may have misremembered. Or it may just be, 

you know, buried so deep you can't find it, too many 

years ago. So although --

Ms. Gogliotti: I would agree with that, Dave. I just 

know that the decision to drop things less than a 

millirem happened -- must have happened in the 

very early years of the program because it was --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- well established when I started in 

2010.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. Absolutely. Well, look, I 

would like to close this with Grady's taking a look for 

that, and telling us what has happened. Or if you 

want to just say work, Grady, just tell Rashaun and 

she'll contact committee members, pass it on to 

committee members, or pass it to me and Rashaun. 

Okay. Let's close.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

41

Mr. Barton: This is Bob Barton. Grady, maybe what 

you're remembering, I know in past SEC discussions 

at least, and we're talking eight, nine, maybe even 

10 years ago, there was a lot of work done about 

what is a dose's significance. And I think the crux of 

that was trying to look at if you're comparing 

populations of workers, you know, what actually 

amounts to a significant difference even on a 

necessarily qualitative level. Does that sort of ring a 

bell as to what you were talking about, or am I 

remembering something different?

Mr. Siebert: No. I think I remember that that was 

done. I want to make sure that there's not something 

else, too.

Chair Kotelchuck: It would be nice to know.

Mr. Barton: Okay, great. I just wanted to throw that 

out there.

Chair Kotelchuck: It would be nice to know. But I 

would say --

Mr. Calhoun: Well, Bob, I appreciate you giving me 

an out on that. That was really nice. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Mr. Calhoun: -- I'm still going to look.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good, good. All right. And 

you're going to look at -- and we're going to close, 

right, unless I hear some objection as opposed to 

more questions. Okay, no objection. Closed. So let's 

go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: What would we come to next?

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is from Tab 580 and it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

42

Finding 1. And this is an INL case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right, very good. Brad?

Member Clawson: I understand.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So this finding has to do with: 

the EE had a record of continuance dosimeter 

external monitoring for their entire employment 

period, with the exception of several months during 

the later years of their employment. And at that time 

NIOSH did not assign recorded modeled or missed 

external doses to those periods, and so they assigned 

the ambient dose.

And NIOSH essentially responded and said that they 

assigned missed dose in the dose reconstruction 

using the actual zeros, and that the unmonitored 

periods in question had onsite ambient dose assigned 

in accordance with their TBD.

And they go on to quote section 6.31 of the INL and 

the ANL West external TBD that says, "It was INL and 

ANL West policy that personnel who were exposed to 

receive any radiation dose or the work was centered 

at the site were assigned a radiation monitoring 

badge." End quote.

Based on that, all INL and ANL workers with the 

potential to receive any radiation dose were 

monitored for external dose, and then they assigned 

environmental dose accordingly. And because 

ambient dose was assigned for the EE's INL 

employment including the unmonitored periods, the 

external dose doesn't make sense essentially for 

them to assign. And they say that based on OTIB-88.

And here we responded, I know this comes up a lot, 

but a lack of records is not always useful in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

43

establishing whether or not the EE was monitored. In 

the CATI report, the EE indicates that they were 

always monitored by TLD. And at the period in 

question, they worked at the waste processing facility 

Advanced Mixed Waste.

Now the TBD also states that all workers that entered 

through a security access checkpoint were required 

to wear a dosimetry including administrative and 

clerical personnel. And Advanced Mixed Waste is, of 

course, behind the security checkpoint. So if the 

worker was working at that location, they should 

have been required to wear a badge. And so we 

believe it's reasonable to assume that the EE wore a 

badge and that record was not available.

Chair Kotelchuck: And these were the last months of 

the person's employment?

Ms. Gogliotti: No, they were several months --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- within the last years of the EE's 

employment. And actually, NIOSH also assumed 

during the same period of time for internal dose, that 

the EE was a radiation worker. And we believe that if 

the assumption was made that the EE was a radiation 

worker for internal exposures, a similar assumption 

is also appropriate for external. And, of course, we 

don't --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- think that assessing a missed dose 

in this case would have an impact on the PoC or the 

outcome of the case, but it was brought forward 

nonetheless.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Just the question is what's 

proper, not what the result was. Right. Comment on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

44

that?

Mr. Siebert: Okay. This -- yep, this is Scott. Yeah, I 

understand the whole idea of lack of records isn't 

always used to establish the lack of monitoring. 

However, INL when we're talking about timeframes 

in the late 2000s, under 10 C.F.R. 835, we have a 

pretty good indication they are actually monitoring 

the way they were supposed to be doing so.

And there's no indication that we don't have the 

monitoring records from this individual. They 

wouldn't just drop off a couple months here and 

there. We have what appears to be their full 

monitoring record. It's just they weren't monitored 

for specific timeframes. So we really don't have an 

indication of that. Matt Smith, are you on the phone?

Mr. Smith: Yeah, this is Matt Smith with the ORAU 

team, and for the record, I do not have a conflict with 

Idaho. Yeah, in this time period, if someone were to 

be on monitoring, but for some reason didn't turn in 

their dosimetry, eventually a lost dosimetry report 

would be expected and estimated dose would have 

gone into the dose of record. And we're not seeing 

that.

And just going back to the observation that I read 

from the SC&A report, that the EE did not have 

internal bioassay records during these periods. So, 

again, it's appropriate given the hierarchy of data 

sources that's in OTIB-88 and that stems from 001 

that the ambient dose would be the appropriate dose 

to apply for those periods.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't understand why -- maybe 

I'm misunderstanding -- why you can't extrapolate 

the doses before and after that weren't monitored. 

Right? 

Mr. Smith: There is provision in the TIB and in the IT 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

45

for filling in gaps. And there's actually several 

paragraphs of description of going into that process. 

In this application though, for these years, it is 

appropriate to step in and go ahead and apply the 

ambient dose as was done here.

Chair Kotelchuck: So --

Ms. Gogliotti: It's just strange because if the EE were 

--

Mr. Smith: It would be like -- if we're going to do gap 

-- just let me finish real quick.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Smith: If we're going to do gap filling, we really 

would prefer that to be as tight as possible. So, in 

other words, January had a dose. March had a dose. 

But February's missing. So, yeah, we have that 

bookended and we fill in that one month. When we've 

got in this case, you know, months of -- in 2007, 12 

months in 2008, three months in 2009. Now we've 

got an extended period. And so, again, per the 

hierarchy of data, we would go with ambient to 

assign to the EE. Bless you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Rose, you were trying to say 

something.

Ms. Gogliotti: I just think it's unusual that this EE 

could possibly be working at Advanced Mixed Waste 

and not have dosimetry records. That's my point.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Member Beach: If they were working at Advanced 

Mixed Waste during the time period should have 

dosimetry.

Mr. Smith: Again, this is -- as Scott pointed out, we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

46

in the -- yeah, as Scott pointed out, we're --

Mr. Siebert: Let me step in --

Mr. Smith: Go ahead.

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry, Matt, let me --

Chair Kotelchuck: One person.

Mr. Siebert: -- hit this real quick. Matt, this is Scott. 

One of the things that's not being said here also is, 

yes, the individual worked in that location or with that 

area, but it also stated in the CATI that during that 

timeframe they were writing procedures, which is 

generally not something that is a high-risk job.

So it would make perfectly good sense for the 

individual to not necessarily be in the areas 

themselves while they were writing the procedures. 

It doesn't seem surprising to me the person doesn't 

have monitoring.

Member Beach: He could still have TLD even if he's 

assigned to that area, even if he was writing 

procedures.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Member Beach: They wouldn't pull it for --

Chair Kotelchuck: Which is --

Member Beach: -- that time period because he may 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: -- enter in the ground in the course 

of his procedure writing I would think.

Mr. Smith: Well, I --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

47

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Josie --

Mr. Smith: This is Matt again. And again, as many 

people on the call are familiar, you know, this is 

occurring in 10 C.F.R. 835 timeframe, so if it was 

warranted that he be on a dosimetry program, and 

the dosimeters were not turned in for the period in 

2007, the whole of 2008, and the period of 2009, 

certainly my experience here at the DOE site near us 

in Richland would be that if the dosimetry 

department, if you will, were not able to retrieve the 

dosimetry from the employee, a missing dosimeter 

report would be generated and a dose estimate would 

also be generated and put into the dose of record.

Chair Kotelchuck: You know, I --

Mr. Smith: That was Matthew Smith with ORAU team. 

Sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Yeah, I feel as if -- if I'm 

thinking about claimant-favorability, while it is 

possible that the person was, in fact, in an office or 

not on the regular site that they had been working 

at. And it's not an unreasonable thing to think that 

that may have been the case.

On the other hand, having actually done the internal 

monitoring, treating it as if they were working all the 

way through, it seems to me that it's -- it just seems 

inconsistent. And I, you know, apparently the 

argument is you were following the rules. On the 

other hand, this seems to me to be a problem with 

those rules. And my sense would be that we should 

take claimant-favorability and simply extrapolate.

Mr. Smith: Well, let me clarify one thing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Smith: Let me clarify something as well.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

48

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Smith: During that gap period, we have no 

indication that individual entered those areas 

whatsoever. There's no monitoring results. There's 

no internal bioassay. There is nothing that that 

individual should be doing if they were entering those 

areas, and there's no indication that they weren't 

doing it and they should have been doing it. Just 

because the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Smith: -- individual was assigned to a location, 

doesn't mean they were physically entering that 

location. They may have been assigned to write 

procedures in a totally different area that did not 

require badging, did not require bioassay.

I will address real quick, the inconsistency between 

the two of internal and external. External, since it is 

discrete, is much more -- it's much more straight 

forward to start and stop. Internal, since it's based 

on after the fact and monitoring, is less clear as to 

start and stop times. It becomes much more 

convoluted when you do start and stop times.

In this case, even though it's a best estimate case, 

my assumption was the reason they assigned the 

internal -- the individual had bioassay monitoring 

after this timeframe as well based on entering 

different areas and did have badge results and so on.

And rather than do a start/stop, which increases 

complexity on the internal assessment, they were 

assumed that, yes, they were exposed during that 

timeframe as well even though we know they likely 

weren't. It's a slight overestimate case. Maybe it 

shouldn't have been done in a best estimate case. 

But, once again, that inconsistency doesn't sound like 

an inconsistency to me on what we believe their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

49

actual exposure potential was.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. You know, again, well, I 

understand and I accept the argument about the 

inconsistency about external and internal and why 

the internal had to be -- and needed to be done 

straight through.

Nevertheless, it seems to me you're really arguing 

then that the absence of a record, it's due to lack of 

information. And is that a reasonable interpretation 

of why this information was -- the external was 

lacking. And it doesn't -- I have to say it just doesn't 

appear to me a reasonable assumption.

Although, it may have been following the rules that 

we've set down, and after all, the procedures that we 

developed can't cover every single case, of course, 

which is why your, you know, why profession 

judgment is so important. But it does not -- I know 

I'm not comfortable. In that respect, I agree with 

Rose's perspective --

Mr. Smith: Well --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- that -- I don't -- what do others 

think? Others --

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. And I'll --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: -- add another thing here. It's not the 

case that we automatically assume that there was no 

exposure because there's no records. You have to 

couple the operations at the facility and the 

timeframe of those operations.

There are certainly facilities where if we don't have 

external records, or internal records, or whatever it 

may be, that we say, well, that's not uncommon at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

50

that facility. Therefore, we need to assign coworker 

doses during that period.

But in this particular case, you know, the history of 

that facility and that timeframe is that we are 

receiving all of the dosimetry records and they were 

monitoring appropriately. So there's a lot more that 

goes in to that thought than just no records equals 

no dose. You got to look at --

Chair Kotelchuck: But --

Mr. Calhoun: -- the facilities and the operations at 

the time.

Chair Kotelchuck: And I -- Dave, I mean I respect 

that. This is not a, if you will, a simpleminded thing 

that we don't have a record, and, you know? But it's 

still --

Member Beach: The one thing, Dave --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. The one thing we 

do have is the CATI report, and the CATI report, he 

clearly says he had dosimetry during that time 

period.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's true. That's true.

Member Beach: Wasn't like it was 50 years ago. It 

was pretty recent.

Ms. Gogliotti: And he was working at Advanced Mixed 

Waste during that time.

Member Beach: Yeah. And he was working at the 

waste site, so.

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

51

Ms. Gogliotti: And it's not beyond feasibility that he 

could have done procedure writing in town at Idaho 

Falls. But I just don't have record of that, and lacking 

records, I always favor the claimant.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: Well, he didn't mention that he was 

doing that during that time period either. You would 

think he would have mentioned that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And -- yeah, right. Right. 

And we have to assume that his memory is correct, 

and there's good reason --

Mr. Siebert: And this is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- to believe him.

Mr. Siebert: I also tend to look at the preponderance 

of evidence, and also, it has to work in the negative 

as well. Not only --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: -- did this individual not have external 

badging. But there were no internal monitoring 

results during that timeframe either. So that means 

two separate systems had to break down for us to 

assume this individual was going in there and there 

was no monitoring whatsoever. So it --

Ms. Gogliotti: No.

Mr. Siebert: -- just doesn't --

Ms. Gogliotti: He was writing procedures.

Mr. Siebert: -- doesn't make sense.

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't think that he would have been 

monitored internally. And Advanced Mixed Waste, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

52

you're behind glass so there would be limited 

exposure potential to begin with. They wouldn't be

actively working with materials hands on.

Mr. Smith: This is Matt Smith with ORAU team. I'll 

just repeat. Again, my experience being monitored 

during this same timeframe at a very similar DOE site 

under 10 C.F.R. 835, if I've been assigned dosimetry 

and it has not been turned in over the period of one, 

two, and three years, there would be the expectation 

of a missed dose. In other words, missed dosimetry, 

lost dosimetry report in the records. And then also an 

estimate of dose put into the dose of record. And, 

again, this is not being seen in this case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Member Clawson: It's not that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Scott, I accept your statement that 

there was no internal monitoring during those 

periods. That's significant. But I'm not sure how to 

resolve it. I tend to think that claimant-favorability 

alone plus the man's -- the person's, excuse me --

the person's CATI report would lead me to think one 

should do it differently. I'm not sure how to proceed 

given this difference of opinion.

Ms. Gogliotti: I will say that this does not have an 

impact on outcome of the case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah. I understand that.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we could chalk --

Chair Kotelchuck: But that --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- this up to different professional 

judgments.

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

53

Ms. Gogliotti: That's a reasonable path forward.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, I think this is Grady. This is 

Grady. No, I know this is Grady actually. I don't think 

it. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Mr. Calhoun: -- I think that all this discussion is good 

given the fact that, you know, it doesn't affect 

compensability. But either way, we're not likely to 

change what we're doing relative to a situation like 

this. So, you know, my recommendation would be we 

accept it as a finding, or an observation, or whatever 

it was listed as, and move on.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. I agree. I think 

there's strong data, the CATI report you want to 

believe what the gentleman is saying. The objective 

evidence indicates that he probably did not need to 

be monitored. So I don't think we'll resolve it. I think 

we just accept it and move on. Hello?

Ms. Gogliotti: We can hear you.

Member Beach: Yeah, Jim, I agree with that also, 

Dave.

Member Clawson: I'd tell you what I thought, Dave, 

but, you know, that's besides the point.

Member Lockey: Dave, are you there?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I'm here. It sounds like a 

bunch of people dropped off.

Member Lockey: Yeah, did something happen to 

David?

Member Clawson: See what you did, Grady. You 

made him hang up on us now. I can't believe that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

54

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: It sounded -- something sounded 

terrible on my end right before everyone dropped off.

Member Lockey: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, I had the same experience.

Member Lockey: Hey, Brad?

Member Clawson: Yes.

Member Lockey: What'd you do?

Member Clawson: Just one of those things, buddy. 

Just one of those things.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can a Board Member see if we still have 

a quorum? And if not, we need to go off the record.

Member Beach: So this is Josie, I'm still on. I know 

Brad's still on. Jim's still on. There's three of us. We 

can't go on --

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, I'm here.

Member Beach: We need four. We need four. So just 

Dave is missing.

Ms. Gogliotti: So do we want to proceed without 

Dave, or wait for him?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Lockey: Can you take over, Brad?

Member Clawson: Well, I can't, I'm conflicted on this 

one. I was going to suggest that Josie take over for 

Dave until he gets back on. I already had to change 

out one of my phones because my battery went dead. 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

55

Member Lockey: Okay. Josie. Take over, Josie.

Member Beach: All right.

Dr. Roberts: And in the meantime, Zaida and Nancy, 

can someone try to get in contact with Dave and see 

if, you know, he can get back on as soon as possible?

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. Are we still on the record, 

then, or are we paused for a moment?

Member Beach: No, I think we're still on.

Mr. Barton: Okay. Just let me ask, because I'm little 

confused about sort of what the end game was here 

with this particular discussion. Because as Grady 

mentioned, you know, if they'd, for example, gotten 

this case or similarly identical case, they would have 

treated it the same way. And a lot of this, obviously, 

the discussion comes down to a professional 

judgment on how you treat those periods when there 

wasn't a dosimetry record.

I guess I'm wondering, you know, if we were to come 

across this case again in a dose reconstruction audit, 

I just envision us bringing forth the same finding or 

observation however this one pans out. And I'm 

wondering, you know, I guess what did we really 

accomplish with going over this case if we're, you 

know, NIOSH has stated they're going to do it the 

same way.

I mean do we just agree to disagree and going 

forward these types of professional judgments should 

be noted, but not necessarily become the type of 

discussions repeatedly that we have over and over 

again?

I know each case would be different, but I'm just 

wondering going forward -- I mean we can close this 

out and move it on, move on to the next one, but I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

56

wondering if a case came up like this again in the 

future, I mean how do we deal with that? Just note it 

as a professional judgment, briefly discuss it and then 

move on, just sort of like we did here today, or is that 

something that we shouldn't necessarily be pointing 

out?

I guess I'm just confused how we sort of resolve, not 

just this case, but as a general rule going forward 

because, you know, part of the subcommittee is to 

look at the actual procedures themselves that would 

direct the dose reconstruction to reach certain 

decisions. And as Grady noted, they would have in 

theory reached the exact same decision were a case 

like this to come up again. So I guess I'm just a little 

confused what the sort of conclusion to this is beyond 

closing it and moving on.

Chair Kotelchuck: I wonder --

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. Bob, I think it can't hurt 

to discuss it, you know? I don't think that this 

discussion's going to hurt. It clarifies it and, you 

know, where you guys are coming from and where 

we're coming from in future cases. I don't mind 

discussing these things.

Mr. Barton: Right.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. I think you're 

right. I think when it comes up again, we discuss it 

again, because each situation may be a little 

different, maybe subtly, that pushes us one direction 

or the other. I think they deserve to be discussed 

when they come up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Except, Jim -- Dave, I'm sorry, I 

got cut off by the way for a moment. But what we're 

looking at are -- we're looking at dose reconstruction 

of 1 percent of the cases that NIOSH is handling, the 

dose reconstructions. So, I mean, it is a concern, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

57

what do we do if it came up again? And the answer 

is it would come back here.

Well, one percent chance it will come back here, 99 

percent chance a dose reconstructor at ORAU would 

go over it and follow the rules, which they obviously 

have. And they put thought into this. This is a 

thoughtful exchange.

Member Lockey: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think -- and let me ask, is this 

something that the Procedures Review 

Subcommittee might want to look into whether there 

needs to be a -- whether this kind of a decision has 

an impact beyond the cases that -- these cases that 

we're looking at, and therefore, there should be some

sort of change in the protocol? We can't do much.

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't think that you can even 

proceduralize something like this. This is professional 

judgment.

Member Lockey: No.

Member Beach: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: That's professional judgment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Well, and professional 

judgment we do monitor with the blinds at this point. 

We are beginning to keep track, but we don't have 

enough material. We don't have enough data to say 

anything useful at this point, and we will not for a 

while. That is one thing that we will hopefully in time, 

this would come up and we could take a look at other 

professional judgments.

I do think it makes sense to close it however. That 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

58

we cannot do anything further. And we do have a 

disagreement. But in this case, I am willing to say it 

doesn't affect compensability. In fact, not the way we 

try to make decisions, and we avoid that.

On the other hand, here's a case where there is a 

professional disagreement and that's not terrible. 

These are complicated cases to do those 

reconstructions. So I think we can close it. I do buy, 

Grady, your suggestion that we close it despite the 

disagreement. Can I ask other Subcommittee 

Members how you feel about that?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I agree, close it and 

move on.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I'm going to have to 

agree because I don't know what the next step would 

be.

Member Lockey: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, Dave. I say we close 

it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And Brad is conflicted so 

he's not speaking. So I think we're going to close it. 

So I'm ruling it is closed. And now it is a quarter after 

12, and generally we close around 12:30 for lunch. 

What is the next one, Rose, coming up? Is that 

something that may be resolved in 15 minutes?

Ms. Gogliotti: We have three more slides to go, so I 

would suggest that we just power through this and 

then take --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- lunch afterwards if that's --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

59

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- good with everyone else.

Chair Kotelchuck: It's okay with me. Anybody have 

problems?

Member Beach: No, it's fine with me.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Member Lockey: Good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let's go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: This one is Tab 584.4, and I don't know 

if we want to say the site in this particular case 

because it is such an unusual cancer. It is on the 

screen there, and I know that there is a conflict at 

the second site there on the screen.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I'll leave you folks to talk more 

about it because my screen is not up. I tried going 

off and coming back on, and it never came up. And 

I'm going to work on that during lunchtime. So let's 

proceed as we will as if everybody has access to the 

information on the monitor. And I will probably not 

say very much except Chair. So do go ahead, Rose.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. In this particular case, we saw 

that there was a lip correction factor that was applied 

to the measured shallow dose, but it was not applied 

to the missed shallow dose. And a lip correction factor 

is discussed in OTIB-17, and specifically it states, 

"That a claimant-favorable approach would be to 

apply a correction factor of 3.6 to the nonpenetrating dose component of beta particles." We 

interpret that to mean that for skin cancers of the lip, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

60

all dose components, whether that be missed, 

measured, coworker should be assessed using the lip 

correction factor.

And, of course, the lip correction factor is intended to 

account for the lips' thinner epidermis layer and other 

skin locations. And because of that, we believe it's 

reasonable to conclude that the electron doses below 

the LOD over 2 would still have the same impact per 

millirem to the lip as those that were above the LOD 

over 2. And so, therefore, we believe that it would 

have been appropriate to apply the lip correction 

factor to the missed shallow dose in this case.

And NIOSH responded indicating that the missed 

shallow dose applied for employment at this site -- or 

is applied. Since the predominate material at this site 

is uranium and plutonium, no correction factor was 

required for a lip cancer unless the case was an 

overestimate.

But they do acknowledge that the correction should 

have been applied do both dose categories or neither 

for consistency purposes. So this is kind of a hybrid 

partial overestimate. And they go on to quote a 

different part of OTIB-17 that I'll paraphrase.

"The claimant-favorable approach would be to apply 

a correction factor of 3.6 to the non-penetrating dose 

component assigned as beta particles for cases with 

the factor results in a PoC greater than 50 percent, a 

more appropriate correction factor should be 

applied." And then it goes on to say, "Beta exposures 

from uranium are dominated by high energy beta 

particles, so these cases, a correction factor would 

not be needed for the lip."

So essentially NIOSH agrees with us that a correction 

factor should have been applied to both components 

or neither. And, of course, correcting this doesn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

61

have an impact on compensation. But we do 

recommend adding more guidance to OTIB-17 to 

clarify that that is the intent to improve consistency 

going forward.

Mr. Siebert: And this is Scott. OTIB-17 is presently in 

revision. And I've spoken to Matt Smith, we are 

adding clarification language to the attachment 

saying exactly that, that it needs to be applied to 

both or neither when it's not used for clarification. So 

we are doing that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Fantastic. All we could ask for, so I 

think it's reasonable to close this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. And I may not have 

copied down, but this is an observation, is it not?

Ms. Gogliotti: No, it is a finding currently.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is a finding, okay. Got it. Sure, 

sure. Yeah. Okay. All right.

Member Clawson: This is a Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Closed, folks?

Member Lockey: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, fine, so decided. So it is 

closed. And we have one more?

Ms. Gogliotti: One more, the last one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is from Tab 585 Finding 2. And 

it's a Pantex Plant as well as an Albuquerque 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

62

Operations Office case. Here what happens was our 

finding was that the correction factor for the 

rotational geometry dose correction factor value to 

the lung was not applied to the missed dose 

component.

To us, it appeared that it was being applied to the 

measured dose component. But according to NIOSH, 

the correction factor of 1.5 was not assigned for 

either of the measured or missed component to the 

lungs. They say that the job title of assembly worker, 

which the EE had in this case, and exposure geometry 

of 100 percent AP was appropriate.

But they acknowledged that the report should have 

provided more detail to indicate the reason for this 

application. And here we quote IG-001, which does 

specifically address this issue, and I can read that for 

you if you'd like.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, please do.

Ms. Gogliotti: "The AP dose correction factor values 

in Appendix A are not the most claimant-favorable for 

the bone, bone marrow, esophagus, and lung when 

the dosimeter is worn on the chest. For these organs, 

if the dosimeter is worn on the chest, multiply the 

Appendix A values of rote and isolateral by the 

factors in Table 4.1(a) instead of using the AP value.

In these cases, rote and iso geometries are more 

claimant-favorable than AP values in Appendix A. 

However, the correction factors need not be applied 

if it is determined that the most representative 

geometry is 100 percent AP or other compensating 

claimant-favorable determinations have been made 

in the dose reconstruction."

And here NIOSH is saying that they're using 100 

percent AP geometry. But we can't really find 

evidence that that is true. There is a record that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

63

indicates that 100 percent was used, but that 

particular file doesn't actually appear to be used to 

support the doses that were assigned in IREP.

There is another file in the EE's records, it was a 

complex-wide best estimate workbook. And that 

workbook shows that a correction factor of 

approximately 8.1 and 0.7795 was used for the 

measured and missed doses respectively. But these 

values don't correspond with any of the AP values for 

the lung in IG-001.

I will say that our interpretation of the measured 

dose came from the rotational dose correction factor 

for 30 to 250 KeV photons is 0.552. So if you were to 

multiply that by 1.45, you get approximately 0.8. And 

if you were using Monte Carlo assumptions, that 

appears to align with the values that were assigned 

in the workbook because there is such a range there 

and they were using some sort of Monte Carlo 

calculation for that. But we don't know where the 

values came from if they're using 100 percent AP as 

they claim to. So we need some clarification on that.

Mr. Siebert: Sure, and this is Scott. Yeah, it's 100 

percent AP that was assigned. Now we have to look 

back through the mists of time because this claim 

was actually done in 2010. This was prior to us using 

those. So at the time, OTIB -12, the Monte Carlo 

methods for dose uncertainty calculations, OTIB was 

being used and that's where those values come from. 

It's part of OTIB-12 which was applied in the tool at 

the time.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I will acknowledge that this 

is an old case. This particular set had a lot of very old 

cases which is unusual. But we just don't know where 

the numbers came from because they don't 

correspond with the ones from IGO one, and they're 

not close enough that we would expect that it was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

64

from Monte Carlo alone.

Mr. Smith: Yeah. This is Matthew Smith with ORAU 

team, and I did take a look at this into the appendices 

of OTIB-12. And confirmed that things matched up 

given the uncertainty that was part of this claim. It's 

a retired OTIB and I realize folks are -- maybe it's 

tricky to get hands on it. But I did go in and verify 

that the pre-calculated values for this particular claim 

were correct.

And as Scott, pointed out, before we had those 

technology to help with our tools, and currently 

Monte Carlo runs real time for each claim, back in 

those days of the project, doing a Monte Carlo 

calculation was taking a long period of time. And so 

what we did is we pre-ran a whole bunch of scenarios 

with different dosimeter uncertainties run against the 

various organ DCFs and compiled tables, and tables, 

and tables for each organ based on those 

parameters.

And what the tools would then do at that time was go 

and choose these pre-calculated values. So that DCF 

that you're seeing is what I would call a mixed -- or 

a calculated DCF that also includes the normal 

distribution of the air for the dosimetry. So, in any 

event, yes, we did go double check that and it looked 

to match up to me just right.

And then the response here from 9/27, based on that 

energy employee's work, 100 percent AP was 

assumed. And, Scott, I'll turn it back to you regarding 

how it was written up in the DR report. But the 

assumption is based on the work function looks to be 

appropriate.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, I have nothing else to at, it's OTIB12.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not familiar with OTIB-12 enough. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

65

That procedure is canceled and I don't know when 

the last time it was in effect was. But it seems to be 

higher than I would expect for Monte Carlo alone, but 

I don't have a way of verifying that because I don't 

have access to that procedure currently, and it's not 

posted on the website.

Chair Kotelchuck: So what are we being asked as a 

subcommittee?

Ms. Gogliotti: Now --

Chair Kotelchuck: There's a finding.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's currently listed as a finding because 

we could not verify where these numbers came from, 

and they don't match up with what we expected. 

NIOSH said that it comes from OTIB-12. We could 

get our hands on OTIB-12 and verify that if you'd like. 

Alternatively, we could take them at their word. This 

is a very old case, and close it out based on that. 

We're talking about a factor of --

Chair Kotelchuck: That would make me more --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- 1.45.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: It would make me more 

comfortable if you could get ahold of the OTIB-12 

because this is really that you don't have access to 

something that you would really need to check what 

they did.

Ms. Gogliotti: If someone --

Chair Kotelchuck: I think I may have missed the last 

thing you said, Rose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

66

Ms. Gogliotti: If someone could send it to me, that 

would be great. We could verify this and get it closed 

by the next meeting, or potentially even this 

afternoon.

Chair Kotelchuck: That would be nice.

Ms. Gogliotti: I just don't have access to the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- the full database of things that we 

used to have access to prior to the security --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- upgrades.

Chair Kotelchuck: Cybersecurity modification, right. 

Could somebody send that to her? It doesn't have to 

be done by this afternoon. We can hold it to the next 

time. What do other subcommittee members think? 

Is it worth asking them to run it --

Mr. Calhoun: Well, this is Grady, and let me just 

answer your question. I think that Lori and Rose have 

spoken multiple times in the past. So I think Lori can 

probably, and I haven't talked to her yet, but we can 

try to find that document and place that in a place 

where Rose can get to it and go from there.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that's reasonable. And actually, 

Lori is in the process --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- of trying to get me access to all of 

these published files that are not on the website 

currently anyway, so.

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

67

Mr. Calhoun: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So that sounds like a reasonable 

resolution.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. And then to me it looks like this 

might be bordering an observation too, but we'll wait 

until the end on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Shall do, and I'll make -- so 

note observation. Sure. And other subcommittee 

members, are you comfortable with that? I am.

Member Beach: Yeah, Dave, this is Josie, I'm 

comfortable with it. Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: Yeah, Jim Lockey, I am too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure, good.

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. And, Loretta?

Member Valerio: Dave, I'm conflicted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes, of course. I wasn't paying 

careful attention. You're right, you are. Okay. Well, 

then I would agree, and so this will be left open, rerun 

OTIB-12. And --

Ms. Gogliotti: In progress.

Chair Kotelchuck: In progress, right. Okay. Excellent. 

All right. Now we have powered our way to lunch I 

believe. Let me just see.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. That was the last of the Set 29, 

and so we have three --

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

68

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is Kathy Behling. Before we 

leave all of this, can I ask a question of NIOSH on the 

previous observation or finding? There was a 

discussion that OTIB-17 is in the -- or in progress, 

it's being revised. And I know that when I did a 

presentation for the full board on procedures that we 

have already reviewed and OTIB-17 was one that we 

discussed back in 2018, and at that time, we were 

told that the revision was coming, that it was around 

the corner. And I just wondered if NIOSH has any 

timeframe as to when OTIB-17 will actually be 

revised.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I don't have that in front 

of me, you know, since we got -- we literally have a 

project plan with 10,000 steps on it, so I'd have to 

go back and look at that.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Because I do know that there 

were a lot of findings associated with OTIB-17 and 

when that was discussed at the board meeting, there 

were a lot of questions from the board members, and 

that led to additional changes that were going to be 

made to OTIB-17. But it's been a long time. And I, 

you know, it was promised several years ago and I 

haven't seen any changes yet. Just curious as to what 

the timeframe may be.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Mr. Siebert: I can speak. Part of that is the fact that 

we're implementing and integrating ICRP 116 into 

OTIB-17 which was just hitting the streets back in the 

timeframe you were talking about if I remember 

correctly, and ICRU 95.

So all that information -- we haven't just been sitting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

69

on 17. We've been working on all that information 

including the ICRU that just came out last year to roll 

those together. So it is in the pipeline, it's getting 

much closer. I can't give a date off the top of my 

head, but I do know we're way closer and that's the 

reason it's been held up for that long was the ICRP 

116 and ICRU 95.

Ms. Behling: Oh, okay, thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. But before we -- we do 

have -- Rose, we do have cases from Set 29 

remaining, do we not, to discuss after lunch?

Ms. Gogliotti: No. That was the end of Set 29.

Chair Kotelchuck: And we have, however, blinds 

cases from Set 30, is that it --

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- after lunch? Okay. Very good. 

So it is now almost 12:40, so let's get back together 

at 1:40, folks. Adjourned for lunch till 1:40. Is that 

okay, everybody?

Dr. Roberts: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: Sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Have a good lunch. 

Speak to you all later. Bye-bye.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:38 p.m. and resumed at 1:41 p.m.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And before I turn it over to you, 

Dave, I did hear some interference in the meeting 

here and there, so if people can just make sure that 

their phone stays on mute if they're not talking by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

70

pressing *6. That would be great. So, Dave, back to 

you.

Review Cases from Set 30

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, we're going to start 

now with Set 30, blinds. So first one I think we call 

B45.

Ms. Gogliotti: Actually, we're going to start with B47.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That's fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: With this set, we got hit with a 

cybersecurity update right at the very beginning of 

this set. And so based on where we were with 

different cases, we were able to complete three of the 

six blinds within our normal timeframe. So those are 

the three that we have prepared for you today.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We're just starting to get up and 

running again on the remaining three. One of them 

we're still waiting on a workbook in order to proceed. 

But the other two we are finalizing now, and so we'll 

be starting the comparison reports

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so you should have those by the 

next meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: But I wanted to give you a status 

update on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. These are the blinds. As a 

reminder, because these are actual claimant files that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

71

we're dealing with, we're going to be extremely 

vague. Although, we try to remove all PII, some of 

this information could be used and filtered down. So 

we won't be saying cancer types and exact dates of 

employment. All of that's going to be on your screen 

as a remainder. But we're consciously trying not to 

say these things. So when we're discussing them, if 

everyone could also respect that, that would be 

wonderful.

And so the first case we're going to start with the 

Savannah River case, and this is B47. And, Ron, do I 

have you on the line?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. Can you hear me?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Member Beach: Rose, are you sharing?

Ms. Gogliotti: I thought I was, but apparently I'm not. 

Give me a second.

Member Beach: I don't see anything.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I don't see anything.

Member Clawson: I was going to say, I'm kind of like 

Dave, I'm seeing nothing here except all of our 

names.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Something's loading, 

something's loading. There we are. There we are.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry about that. Got ahead of myself.

Chair Kotelchuck: Not at all. Thank you.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. Rose, can you go to page 6, it's 

the --

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, got that up.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

72

Dr. Buchanan: Yeah. Okay. And go down a little bit. 

Okay. Okay. This is Ron Buchanan of SC&A, and 

today I'll be presenting a blind dose reconstruction 

comparison for an EE that worked at the Savannah 

River site in the 60s through the 90s, several 

different periods of employment there.

We see that Table 1-1 on Page 6 lists the cancers. I 

won't name them, but you can see them listed there. 

And so we'll analyze those cancers, and we see that 

at the bottom of the page that the combined PoCs 

were less than 50 percent. And that was both SC&A 

and NIOSH, so we'll be comparing two dose 

reconstruction methods, where they was similar and 

where they was different.

And so now we'll go to Page 7, Table 1-1, and we see 

that -- oh, excuse, 1-2. Page 7 and Table 1-2. And 

that lists the doses and the PoCs of the individual 

cancers. And we see we have a breakdown of the 

external and internal doses. And we see that at the 

bottom of each of the listed cancers, that the total 

doses in rems there are very similar and the PoCs are 

very similar.

So we keep going down that list all them till we get 

to Page 9, and we see that the combined PoC was 

just under 50 percent for both NIOSH and SC&A. Now 

we did have a note on our percentage there at the 

bottom of that page, it says that SC&A inadvertently 

assigned one cancer constant distribution for the 

ambient dose rather than the logarithmic which was 

intended. And when that was corrected, the PoC 

came up slightly as noted there.

So if we go to Page 11 now, we'll start off with the 

comparison, and this is in Table 2-1. This lists the 

methods used by both NIOSH and SC&A for the 

different types of doses, both external and internal. 

And what we do is under NIOSH's column, we list the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

73

method used or the documents. And then in the 

SC&A column, we don't relist them, we just put a 

dash if we agreed, and that's the method we used in 

our blind dose reconstruction. If there's a different, 

then we note that.

And you see that they pretty well all match. We did 

have slightly number of zeros under missed photon 

dose. We calculated a few greater than NIOSH did, 

and we'll go into detail that when we get into the 

external section. And, again, the IREP, we see that 

we noted there that we started out constant and lognormal, and found out it should all be log-normal and 

did that correction.

So that takes us to the external doses on Page 13. 

And so we had the general arrangement of doses, we 

had recorded photon dose. And the worker was 

monitored during quite a bit of the period of 

employment. Not all of it, but some of it. And then 

there was some of the later years when there was 

some missing periods of badging, and one year that 

was not badged. So look into detail on that.

We see that NIOSH used the recorded doses, 

assigned it as 3250 KeV, and also as greater 250 KeV 

according to the Savannah River site TBD using the 

correct dose conversion factors for the cancers.

And so we both, NIOSH and SC&A applied the photon 

adjustment factor of 1.119 for prior to '86, and 1.039 

for the year 1986. And NIOSH and SC&A assigned 

essentially the same recorded doses, slight difference 

in rounding when using the adjustment factors, but 

the doses were almost alike.

There wasn't a whole lot of recorded dose for this 

worker, brings us down to Section 3.2 on Page 13. 

And to missed dose, there was quite a few missed 

doses, or not missed in that they didn't record them. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

74

It was to less than LOD over 2, and so that assigned 

as a missed dose. And so NIOSH used a large number 

there as shown.

And now that's divided up into open window which is 

where the film is almost directly exposed or the TLD 

and it detects both a high and low energy, and 

whereas a shielded, the S, detects only the higher 

energy photons. And, of course, missed dose, 

according to OTIB-17, is assigned as 30 to 250 KeV 

photons. And we see that NIOSH assigned those open 

windows and shielded windows a number, and the 

LOD values are listed there in Table 3-1, for all the 

years that the worker was monitored. And then the 

final dose for that year in the right-hand column.

And we see that SC&A did a very similar process. On 

page 14 is a little bit of detail. You see we got a 

similar number of missed photon doses, slightly 

greater than NIOSH used, and our distribution 

between the open window and shielded is slightly 

different. This is detailed in Table 3-2 of the same 

information I just discussed for NIOSH, and we see 

that they're similar, but not identical.

So on page 14, second half of the page, we have a 

comparison of NIOSH and SC&A missed dose, and we 

both used the same guidance in the SRS TBD. Now 

it's a rather lengthy process and complicated when 

you get OTIB-17 and the SRS TBD, and you try to 

figure out what is considered open and what is 

considered shielded readings and one half LOD.

And so sometimes dose reconstructors come up with 

slightly different values. And in this case, SC&A did 

especially during the gaps. If there was a gap in year, 

which there was in this case, you have to fill in the 

gaps, and NIOSH counted those gaps as open 

window. SC&A counted them as shielded.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

75

And so that gave a slightly different number and also 

dose. And you can see that at the bottom of the page. 

SC&A assigned a slightly lower dose than NIOSH did 

because of the counting of the open window and the 

shielded window.

So it brings us to Page 15 which is missed shallow 

dose. Not that was for the 30 to 250 KeV photons, 

missed shallow dose in Section 3.3 is for the greater 

than 15 KeV missed electron shallow dose. And, 

again, in this NIOSH used a clothing attenuation 

factor for the electrons of 0.855 as recommended in 

OTIB-17 for any area of the skin that might have 

been covered, and so that would attenuate some of 

the electrons, and so they assigned that dose as 

missed on the top of page 15 to the covered skin. 

And then to the open skin a slightly higher dose 

because that dose conversion factor wasn't applied.

Now SC&A used the same number of missed shallow 

doses, and assumed the same dose conversion 

factor, and greater than 15 KeV electrons. But, 

however, analyzing the EE's work was mostly where 

the worker might have not have worn coverings on 

the arms, SC&A assigned the -- did not assign the 

attenuation factor due to clothing to the skin doses 

and assigned a slightly higher dose to all -- assigned 

the higher dose to all of the cancer sites. And so did 

not apply the 0.855 attenuation factor. That was the 

only difference, otherwise it was the same dose 

reconstruction.

Now still on Page 15, we look at unmonitored photon 

dose. Now the worker was periodically not monitored 

during some of the earlier years as listed there, and 

during one of the latter years, and a portion of one 

of the latter years also. And in this case, SC&A and 

NIOSH both assigned environmental external dose or 

missed dose for those unmonitored period, and no 

co-exposure external dose was assigned.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

76

And so in Section 3.5, neutron dose, the worker's job 

description didn't indicate that the EE was potentially 

exposed to neutrons, and so neither SC&A or NIOSH 

assigned neutron dose.

Brings to the occupational medical in Section 3.6, and 

the worker did have records of occupational medical 

X-ray exposure from exams. And both SC&A and 

NIOSH used those records and assigned the doses, 

and they both agreed and we had no differences in 

that.

That brings us down to the bottom of Page 15 and 

ambient dose for the external. The EE wasn't 

monitored during some of the earlier work periods, 

and just sporadically during a couple of the last 

years. And so NIOSH and SC&A both assigned 

ambient environmental external dose for this period.

And now SC&A assigned missed dose during one of 

those short periods to fill in the gap, whereas, NIOSH 

assigned an ambient dose. So it made a difference. 

And NIOSH used the guidance in Procedure 60 on 

Table 3.4-1 of SRS TBD to assign the doses. There 

it's given on top of Page 16.

SC&A used the same documents to assign dose, the 

only difference was a few months in one of the years 

they assigned missed dose instead of ambient dose, 

so that resulted in them assigning a slightly lower 

ambient dose and -- total ambient dose than NIOSH's

there in Section 3.7.3 on Page 16. So the external 

dose was fairly compatible. Both NIOSH and SC&A 

assigned very similar doses.

So that brings us to Page 17 which is occupational 

internal dose. And so the records indicate that 

because of the worker's job description, that the 

whole body count -- they had only one whole body 

count one year in the later employment period, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

77

was monitored for tritium during one of the later 

years too.

And the results of a whole body count indicated that 

fission activation products below the detection level, 

and most of the tritium bioassays were below the 

detection level except several were above the 

detection level. So we'll break those down into those 

two components.

And so we have Section 4.1 is tritium on Page 17, 

and NIOSH used the OTIB-11 to assign measured 

and unmonitored tritium skin doses from all the 

tritium bioassays that year. And it was assumed that 

the worker might have been exposed before that, so 

NIOSH assigned tritium dose from the earlier 

monitoring period through the time of the tritium 

bioassays. And so they assigned it as less than 15 

KeV electrons with a triangular distribution.

And SC&A went through the same process, used the 

same tritium bioassays from the same year, and 

assigned it using OTIB-11. And the tritium doses 

from uranium -- or urine workbook to assign 

measured and unmeasured monitored tritium dose. 

And they assigned it for the same period during all 

the time that the worker was monitored for external 

dose. And so they assigned it as less than 15 KeV 

electrons, and assigned a dose that was slightly --

well, it was lower than what NIOSH assigned. About 

half.

So we see on Page 17 there in 4.1.3, we have a 

comparison of the tritium assignments and 

assumptions. And we see that we used the same 

information and the same workbook. However, 

essentially, SC&A used the last LOD or minimum 

detectable activity divided by two that was listed for 

the last bioassay which was 0.1 microcuries per liter.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

78

Whereas, NIOSH went back and varied the minimum 

detectable activity from the earlier year through and 

stair-stepped it to the last year. And so what this did 

was that made NIOSH assign a larger intake for the 

missed dose, and so that resulted in NIOSH assigning 

a larger dose than SC&A did.

That brings us to Page 18, Section 4.2 for fission 

product intakes. Now NIOSH and SC&A viewed the 

whole body count that was done in the later year 

differently. NIOSH identified the single whole body 

count as a potential monitoring for potential 

exposure. And they used the nuclide chooser 

workbook and found Type M europium-154 to be 

most claimant-favorable and assigned it a year prior 

to the whole body count through -- to the whole body 

count. And the doses were less than 1 millirem in the 

IREP.

And so now the rest of the employment, NIOSH used 

the guidance in the Savannah River Site TBD and 

assigned fission products equal to the assigned 

tritium dose for each of the cancer sites. And so what 

the SRS TBD recommends is that if you don't have 

fission product monitoring, you assign a dose that's 

equal to the tritium dose and assign it as greater than 

15 KeV electrons with a triangular distribution as a 

missed dose.

And so we agree with that, and that's essentially 

what we did also. However, SC&A viewed the whole 

body count appeared to occur in between -- this 

worker had a number of periods of intake -- I mean 

of working, and so it looked like that the whole body 

count might have occurred in between employment 

periods, or just before or just after an employment 

period.

So SC&A took this as a pre-employment or 

termination baseline whole body count, and did not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

79

assign mixed fission products from that body count 

itself, but instead assigned mixed activation and 

fission products during the whole period using the 

tritium dose as greater than 15 KeV electrons with a 

triangular distribution.

And so, of course, this resulted in SC&A assigning a 

slightly lower fission activation product dose. On 

Page 19, we do a comparison there in 4.2.3. And we 

see that we both acknowledge the whole body count, 

treated it slightly different, and assigned it doses 

equal to the tritium dose when we felt it was 

appropriate. But there's a little difference in what we 

interpreted the whole body count to mean, or why it 

was done.

So that brings us on Page 19 to environmental 

intakes on Section 4.3. And so NIOSH used the 

maximum Savannah River Sites statewide 

environmental intake for tritium, Iodine-131, 

plutonium, uranium from Naval Sea Base 17 of the 

TBD for chronic annual dose workbook, CADW. And 

tritium was assigned for the years when missed or 

bioassay tritium was not assigned.

Iodine, plutonium, and uranium environmental 

intakes were assigned for all years of employment 

because the EE wasn't monitored for these 

radionuclides during those employment periods. And 

so NIOSH assigned it for those years, and prorated 

for the years of employment of course.

And assigned a tritium dose as less than 15 KeV 

photons. The plutonium and uranium as alpha. And 

iodine 131 as greater than 15 KeV electrons. And 

assigned that dose as stated in the middle of the page 

with a log-normal distribution.

Now SC&A used the same document, the Savanna 

River Site statewide environmental intakes for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

80

tritium, iodine, plutonium, and uranium from the 

same table. And now in this case as an efficiency 

measure, SC&A assigned all those nuclides for the 

complete appropriate period that the worker was 

monitored for external radiation, and assigned him 

the same, less than 15 KeV electrons for tritium and 

et cetera. And so SC&A assigned a dose there listed 

at the bottom of the page as, of course, with a lognormal distribution.

And now the reason that this was slightly greater in 

the comparison on Page 20, we compare that SC&A 

assigned a dose that was somewhat larger, and not 

a whole lot, but somewhat larger than NIOSH 

assigned. And the reason for that mainly is that SC&A 

assigned environmental tritium for all years in 

employment. Whereas, NIOSH cut out the section 

that the worker was assigned missed or positive 

tritium intake. And so that gave SC&A a larger 

environmental base dose.

Now we see on Page 20, we discussed OTIB-49 Super 

S type plutonium that's retained longer in the lungs, 

but it's not in other organs. And for these cancers for 

this worker, it did not apply, and the other types of 

plutonium resulted in a greater dose. And so that was 

used and Super S was not applied.

So that brings us to Page 21 which is decision points 

requiring professional judgment, and we've already 

seen that today, came into play a number of times. 

And when two separate groups do a dose 

reconstruction, you're always going to have some 

judgment calls. And we see that we had two of the 

main ones.

And this dose reconstruction was, number one, was 

the application of the clothing attenuation factor, 

which depends on whether the worker may have had 

the arms covered or not. And we see that NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

81

assumed that they did on certain of the cancers, and 

SC&A said we don't know so we're not going to apply 

the attenuation factor. And so that made SC&A 

assigning a slightly greater measured shallow dose to 

some cancers as compared to what NIOSH assigned.

The other judgment call was unmonitored tritium 

dose. They used identical records. However, NIOSH 

assigned it using a stair-step IMBA values. Whereas 

SC&A used the last bioassay IMBA to assign it for the 

whole period. And that resulted, of course, in SC&A's 

assigning a slightly lower dose than NIOSH. And this 

also dominoed down into the fission products 

depending on the tritium dose.

So that brings us to the summary conclusion on Page 

22. We see that Table 6.1 compares the total doses 

and resulting PoCs calculated by NIOSH and SC&A on 

behalf of this case. We see that the doses, like I said 

at the beginning, were very similar. And Table 6.2 

shows the comparison of the combined PoCs, they're 

quite similar. And that the main difference in the 

external and internal dose in PoC values arose from 

what we have listed on Page 22 there.

We take missed dose depending on how you interpret 

some of dosimetry readings, how you fill in the gaps, 

exactly how many open windows and shielded 

windows missed dose you get. And then also if you 

fill in the gaps with environmental or missed dose 

brings you to a slightly different numbers.

The doses were very similar but not exact. We stated 

unmonitored tritium, we just talked about there that 

NIOSH just assigned unmonitored tritium to periods 

that the worker wasn't monitored. Whereas, SC&A 

assigned it through the whole employment period. 

Plus they used the last IMBA. Whereas, NIOSH used 

a stair-step IMBA.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

82

And let's see, Page 23 then, we have the last 

differences and environmental intake, and I've 

covered that a little bit that tritium was assigned only 

during the time that the worker wasn't monitored for 

NIOSH. Whereas, SC&A assigned it throughout the 

full employment period. And that gave a slightly 

greater dose for SC&A than it did for NIOSH.

So, all in all, the doses are very similar, the PoCs of 

each individual cancer is very similar. And the final 

PoC, combined PoC was very similar for both dose 

reconstruction methods. So with that, I'll open it to 

questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: If I may comment, another fine 

level of agreement thinking about what we talked 

about earlier at the board meeting, the last board 

meeting. The NIOSH was within 1 percent -- it was 

49.4 percent, within 1 percent of changing the 

compensation decision. And SC&A got the same 

compensation decision within 1.3 percent of NIOSH's. 

So, awfully good agreement for something where our 

sensitivity would -- or where the compensated --

where we were near the compensation point. So, 

good. Really good job. Other comments or questions?

Member Beach: I agree, Dave. I don't have any 

questions. This is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah.

Member Valerio: No questions here, Dave. This is 

Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay.

Member Clawson: This is Brad, no questions. I think 

they both did a fine job on this.

Chair Kotelchuck: They did, I agree.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

83

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: So I think we accept this and 

unanimously, and we're ready to move on. And 

congratulations, good job.

Dr. Buchanan: Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thank you, Ron. Okay. The next one 

we have here, oh, there we go. Let me get it ready 

for you here. It is an Oak Ridge sites case, and 

Kathy's going to present it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. This is B-40 --

Ms. Gogliotti: Eight.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- five or six?

Ms. Gogliotti: Eight. Forty-eight.

Member Beach: Forty-eight.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, of course. Pardon me, of 

course.

Ms. Behling: Okay. If you're ready, this is Kathy 

Behling from SC&A. And Rose --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Behling: -- we can start on -- okay. We can start 

on Page 7.

Chair Kotelchuck: Fine.

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is going to be a process, so 

a lot going on here. All right, we're going to start. As 

Rose said, this particular case, the EE worked at the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the X-10 facility, 

and the National Security Complex Y-12 in Oak 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

84

Table 1-1 shows you the cancers that the EE was 

diagnosed with. And if we move on to Page 8, that is 

our Table 1-2, which compares NIOSH and SC&A's 

dose reconstruction. And although there were some 

differences in the calculated doses, which we'll 

discuss as we go through each dose component, the 

total doses were similar for each cancer, and the 

combined PoCs, which are shown on Page 9, were 

close and on the same side of compensation. In other 

words, this case was -- PoCs were less than 50 

percent.

I'm going to move on to Page 10 where Table 2-1 

shows the EE's employment history and occupations. 

And as you can see, the individual worked off and on 

for 16 years. And then at the end of his employment, 

there was a 10 year period -- consistent 10-year 

period at X-10.

The EE was monitored for external and internal 

exposure. And at the bottom of Page 10 you can see 

the primary guidance documents that were used to 

do these -- that both SC&A and NIOSH used to do 

this dose reconstruction.

If we move on to Page 11, that's our Table 2-2, which 

summarizes the documents, and assumptions, and 

dose parameters that were used by each method. 

And as Ron pointed out, if SC&A and NIOSH did the 

same thing, we put a dash there and it shows that 

the process was the same.

I'm not going to go into detail on this table because 

we'll discuss it as we go through, but if you look down 

through this table, you can see in most instances the 

procedure and the process was the same. 

Assumptions pretty much the same. There's just one 

significant IMBA issue that I'll point out in the 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

85

Okay. So we will move on then to Page 15, and start 

with the external doses. Okay. And as I mentioned, 

the EE was monitored for penetrating and nonpenetrating dose based on quarterly exchanges in 

the early years, and most of the records indicated 

some greater than LOD over two readings, some 

positive readings.

However, during the later years of employment, most 

the external monitoring records shows results less 

than LOD, and therefore, they were treated as 

missed dose.

NIOSH assumed work locations that are cited in the 

second paragraph there, if we can just back up a little 

bit, Rose, because this always is an important aspect 

as to where do we think that this individual worked. 

And based on NIOSH's assumptions, those work 

location assumptions, for the early years they 

assumed that the photon dose was 30 to 250 KeV. 

However, in the later years based on the TBD 

information, it was assumed 25 percent, 30 to 250 

KeV, and 75 percent greater than 250. And that was 

based on their decision as to where this individual 

worked.

Shallow dose was also assigned as less than 30 KeV 

for certain years for the earlier year, and greater than 

15 KeV electrons for later years. Now SC&A's 

assumptions were a little bit different, and they 

resulted in assuming that all photon doses were 100 

percent 30 to 250 KeV, and all of the shallow doses 

were electrons greater than 15 KeV.

So we'll move on to recorded photon doses, and there 

were positive recorded doses at the X-10 facility. And 

both NIOSH and SC&A calculated record photon 

doses using identical methods and deriving nearly 

identical doses. Both assumed the same surrogate 

organs and DCF values. And both also assumed the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

86

EE worked with glove boxes during the early years 

and applied a glove box correction factor of 2.19.

NIOSH and SC&A's doses are nearly identical. SC&A 

entered the doses into IREP as constants for two of 

the four cancers. NIOSH applied the DCF using a 

Monte Carlo method which resulted in those doses for 

those two cancers to be entered as a Weibull 

distribution. So that was the only difference between 

SC&A and NIOSH for the recorded dose for X-10.

There were also recorded doses at Y-12. Same 

methods were used, and nearly identical doses were 

calculated. Again, there was a difference between 

entering the data into IREP as a constant and Weibull 

distribution because of the Monte Carlo approach 

used by NIOSH. And SC&A entered all their doses as 

constant.

For missed photon dose at the X-10 facility, NIOSH 

calculated or counted 73 zeros. They used an LOD 

value of 30 millirem for the early years and 10 

millirem for the later years. They also applied a glove 

box correction factor of 2.19, and for five years of the 

employment.

A 100 percent of the photon dose was entered for two 

of the cancers as 30 to 250 KeV. And for the other 

two, it was entered as 30 to 250 KeV for the early 

years, and the 25/75 percent split between 30 to 250 

and greater than 250 for some of the later years.

Again, because NIOSH applied this Monte Carlo 

methods, they entered the doses into IREP as a lognormal distribution with varying GSDs. NIOSH doses 

are shown in -- you can see them there in Section 

3.2.1. Okay. Okay. So there are the NIOSH doses.

SC&A calculated missed doses and they calculated 

them based on -- they counted 75 zeros as opposed 

to 73, fairly close. They also used an LOD of 30 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

87

millirem for the early years, and 10 millirem for the 

later years. And also applied a glove box correction 

factor for five years.

Doses were entered as 100 percent 30 to 250 with a 

log-normal distribution and a GSD of 1.52. And, 

obviously, SC&A's doses are slightly higher, and

that's due to the number of zeros that were counted. 

A little bit of difference there.

Okay, moving on to missed photon doses at Y-12. 

Missed photon doses were calculated in a similar 

method and with similar assumptions. Both counted 

13 zeros. They applied the appropriate DCF values, 

and identical or near-identical doses were calculated. 

SC&A entered the data into IREP as a log-normal with 

a GSD of 1.52. And again, the NIOSH distribution for 

the geometric standard deviation varied because of 

the Monte Carlo.

Okay. Recorded shallow dose. NIOSH assumed that 

the recorded shallow dose was greater than 15 KeV 

electrons three years of employment. And for the 

remaining years, they assumed that the shallow dose 

was a low-energy photon, less than 30 KeV photon.

NIOSH applied a clothing attenuation factor of 0.855 

to one of the cancers that would be considered to be 

protected by clothing. And they also applied a film 

badge overresponse correction factor of 0.6. Again, 

two of the -- because of the Monte Carlo method, two 

of the doses were -- two of the doses associated with 

two cancers were entered as a Weibull distribution 

and a constant for the others.

SC&A also calculated shallow dose by subtracting 

penetrating from the non-penetrating, but they 

assumed 100 percent electrons greater than 15 KeV. 

They also applied a clothing attenuation factor for 

one of the cancers, and all doses were entered as a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

88

constant distribution.

In this particular case, because NIOSH assumed -- or 

SC&A assumed that the shallow dose was all electron 

dose, they were only assigned to two of the cancers 

because it wouldn't have an impact on the other two 

cancers.

All right. Moving on to missed shallow dose. There 

was no missed shallow dose, and neither SC&A nor 

NIOSH assigned any. There was a recorded neutron 

dose, the EE was monitored for neutron dose for one 

year of employment at X-10. Both assigned missed 

dose based on a neutron to photon ratio.

NIOSH stated that they multiplied the photon dose 

by a 4.39 ratio and appropriate DCFs. They also 

applied an ICRP 60 correction factor of 1.9 for two of 

the cancers. For the other two cancers, based on our 

assessment of what was done, it appears that NIOSH 

used a photon dose times the Monte Carlo DCFs, and 

an ICRP 60 correction factor of 1.9, and a glove box 

correction factor of 2.19. And that led us to believe 

that the neutron to photon ratio that they used was 

1.1. I know that that was specifically stated.

If we move on then to Page 19, SC&A calculated their 

neutron dose based on a neutron to photon ratio of 

2.5. That was assuming the work location that they 

had selected and taking data from attachment D of 

the TBD. They also multiplied that by the appropriate 

DCF values, the ICRP 60 correction factor of 2, and a 

glove box correction factor of 2.19 for two of the 

cancers. And SC&A's doses are shown in Section 

3.5.2.

Now the doses differ just because of the difference in 

the neutron to -- yeah, neutron to photon ratios that 

were used. For missed neutron dose, there was one 

single reading at the X-10 facility where missed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

89

neutron dose was calculated.

NIOSH calculated the dose based on missed photon 

dose times neutron to photon ratio of 1.13, 1.13. 

They also applied the ICRP 60 correction factor of 

1.9. And the doses were entered into IREP as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 1.52. And that dose 

is shown in Section 3.6.1.

In addition, for the other cancers, a missed photon 

dose was based on neutron to photon ratio of 1.2, 

and again, applying the ICRP correction factor, and 

glove box correction factor. And doses are shown in 

the last paragraph of Section 3.6.2, and were entered 

as log-normal distribution.

SC&A calculated the missed photon dose based on a 

neutron to photon ratio of 2.5. Also applied the ICRP 

correction factor, a glove box correction factor, and 

the doses were entered the same as a log-normal 

distribution with a GSD of 1.52.

Okay, we can move on to Page 20. Again, the 

differences in doses between SC&A and NIOSH is that 

the difference in the ratios, the neutron to photon 

ratios that were used by the two different methods.

Occupational medical dose, the individual did have 16 

occupational medical records, and SC&A and NIOSH 

used the same methods and the same assumptions, 

and calculated doses in accordance with TIB-6. And 

that resulted in them identifying or calculating the 

exact same dose, and they were both -- both 

methods would enter those into IREP as a normal 

distribution with a 30 percent uncertainty. And no 

onsite ambient dose was calculated by either 

method.

Okay. We're going to move on to internal. All right. 

At the X-10 facility, the EE was monitored by 

urinalysis for gross alpha, uranium, and strontium. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

90

And also there were fecal samples for thorium. And 

at Y-12 there were urinalysis for uranium and lung 

counts for uranium and thorium.

So to calculate doses associates with these 

bioassays, that there were nine urinalysis for gross 

alpha. One of those showed a result that was greater 

than the MDA value. So to calculate those doses, 

NIOSH assumed the exposure was to plutonium 239 

and they assessed a chronic intake when the results 

were less than MDA or considered a missed dose.

And a one acute intake regime was used to calculate 

the positive results. It was determined that type 

Super S resulted in the highest dose, and doses are 

shown in Section 4.1.1, and were entered as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 3.

When the EE was not monitored but had positive 

external doses, NIOSH calculated a co-exposure dose 

based on 50th percentile of the plutonium-239. And 

that was calculated for a six year unmonitored period 

at X-10. Again, they used type Super S solubility, log 

normal distribution, and all doses were 

approximately 200 millirem.

Okay, if we move on to Page 22. SC&A also assessed 

a chronic intake for plutonium results that were less 

than MDA. They assed Type S and then adjusted for 

Type Super S, and that data was entered as a 

triangular distribution where the minimum dose is 

zero, the mode is the calculated value, and the 

maximum value is twice the mode.

SC&A also assumed an acute plutonium intake, found 

Type Super S to be most claimant-favorable, and 

entered the data into IREP as a log-normal with a 

GSD of 3. And you can see most of those doses were 

around 3 rem. That's measured in missed doses 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

91

In addition, SC&A also calculated co-exposure dose, 

but for three years of unmonitored period at X-10, 

also based on a 50 percentile of the co-exposure. And 

they modeled M, S, and Super S, but inadvertently 

did not exclude the button in CADW to -- and included 

all doses from the three solubility types. But they did 

not adjust for Type Super S. And this resulted in 

doses of less than 100 millirem that were entered into 

IREP as a log-normal distribution.

Okay. If we move on to Page 23. For chronic 

exposure, NIOSH used an MDA value of 0.26 dpm for 

24 hour sample, and they took that value from Table 

5-9 of the X-10 TBD. SC&A calculated their chronic 

exposure based on an MDA of 0.45 dpm for 24 hours, 

and they took that value from Table 2 dash -- no, I'm 

sorry, Table A-2 from Appendix A of the X-10 TBD. 

And SC&A's doses were nearly double because of the 

difference in the MDA values used.

Co-exposure dose was calculated by SC&A for three 

years, where NIOSH calculated it for six years. And 

NIOSH used Type F, S, or Super S plutonium. And 

SC&A used solubility from three types of -- the three 

solubility types. And Table 4-3 shows the differences 

in the co-exposure doses as an example for one of 

the cancers.

Okay, moving on to Page 24. The EE was monitored 

for strontium by urinalysis at X-10. So NIOSH 

assigned a strontium and associated fission product 

dose for five years when the EE was monitored. They 

assumed two chronic intake periods. One for the 

missed portion of the dose of those values less than 

MDA, and one that included this sample that was 

above the MDA value.

The missed dose was calculated based on an MDA 

value of 6.3 dpm per sample from Table 5-9, it was 

previously done. And the greater than MDA value was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

92

adjusted for a urine volume of 1.1 liters.

NIOSH also calculated an unmonitored dose for three 

years based on co-exposure data from OTIB-34. And 

using OTIB-54, which is the fission and activation 

product workbook, NIOSH calculated associated 

fission product doses that are shown in the last 

paragraph of Section 4.2.1.

Okay. Moving on, SC&A also assigned strontium and 

fission product doses and assumed two chronic 

periods. The missed dose was based on an MDA of 

12.26 dpm per hour from Table A-2. And measured 

results were adjusted by a urine volume of 1.4 liters 

as opposed to NIOSH's using 1.1 liter.

SC&A's doses all resulted in less than 1 millirem, and 

they were not included. SC&A also used the OTIB-54 

workbook to calculate the associated fission product 

dose, and that resulted in doses somewhere around 

40 millirem.

Okay. And in this case, NIOSH's doses were slightly 

larger, and that was primarily due to them including 

co-exposure doses for three additional years that 

SC&A did not include those doses for.

Okay. Uranium and thorium at X-10 was measured 

by urinalysis and fecal bioassay. NIOSH calculated 

urine uranium doses by comparing the bioassay 

results to uranium MDA values, missed doses, and 

selected the higher for each year.

This thorium was based on the fecal sample results. 

Type F was assumed as the highest for the uranium 

and Type M was the higher solubility for thorium. All 

doses that were calculated by NIOSH were about 50 

millirem, and entered as log-normal distribution with 

a GSD of 3.

Okay. They also calculated an unmonitored dose for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

93

three years that was based on 50 percent of the X10 co-exposure data, and that resulted in a very 

modest dose. SC&A used the uranium bioassay data 

to calculate the doses since there were several 

results that were greater than MDA. They didn't 

compare missed to actual recorded. They used the 

bioassay data.

Type S was assumed at the most claimant-favorable 

for uranium. And the thorium dose was based on the 

fecal bioassay. Type M thorium was -- the Type M 

solubility was the higher, you know, resulted in the 

higher dose. All the thorium and uranium doses were 

calculated to be about 50 millirem. And they were 

also entered into IREP as a log-normal distribution 

with GSD of 3.

Okay. In addition, SC&A calculated unmonitored 

uranium dose based on 50 percent of the coexposure data at X10, and compared the F, M, and S 

solubilities, and all doses that were calculated were 

less than 1 millirem. NIOSH and SC&A used similar 

methods and derived doses that were nearly identical 

for this component.

Okay. Environmental internal dose at X-10, NIOSH 

assigned environmental internal dose for the periods 

when the EE was not monitored. In addition, they 

assigned a potential exposure from cerium, tritium, 

radioiodine, ruthenium based on data in the X-10 

TBD, and that resulted in a modest dose.

SC&A did the same thing. They used the CADW 

default general area environmental data, which also 

includes the cerium, and iodine, ruthenium, tritium 

doses, and calculated same very modest dose.

Okay. Uranium intakes at Y-12. As we mentioned, the 

EE was monitored for uranium via urinalysis and lung 

counts. And if we go to Page 27, NIOSH compared 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

94

the bioassays and the lung data to derive their 

uranium 234 intakes. They compared all of the 

solubility types and found Type M to be the highest. 

And they also included the recycled uranium 

component based on ratios identified in the TBD. And 

all doses were around 100 millirem.

SC&A followed a similar method. However, they used 

both the bioassay and the lung count data to 

calculate the uranium intakes. They concluded Type 

M resulted in the highest dose, and they included the 

associated recycled uranium component and derived 

similar doses.

NIOSH entered their doses as a log-normal 

distribution while SC&A entered it as a triangular 

distribution. So that's a little difference there. The 

slightly increased or higher dose that was calculated 

by SC&A was because of SC&A using both data sets 

to derive the U-234 intakes.

Okay. Let's go on. Thorium intakes at Y-12, the EE 

was monitored for thorium through lung counts. All 

of the lung counts showed results less than MDA. So 

NIOSH calculated a missed thorium 232 dose using 

one half the MDA value for the lung counts. They 

compared Type F, M, and S solubilities. Type M 

resulted in the highest dose.

And they entered this dose for the years of the lung 

-- that the lung counts were taken. However, they 

inadvertently added one additional year to the lung 

count data one year after the actual lung count had 

been done. So they added one additional year of dose 

calculated in their thorium.

So they also calculated a thorium 228 chronic intake 

which is 80 percent of the thorium 232 based on the 

TBD guidance, and that resulted in all doses being 

somewhere around 2.5 rem. And that was entered 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

95

into IREP as a triangular distribution.

Okay. SC&A employed the same methodology. They 

used MDA values. Type M was the most claimantfavorable. They also calculated the thorium-228 dose 

based on 80 percent of the thorium 232. Their doses 

resulted in somewhere around 400 millirem and were 

entered as a triangular distribution. And the 

significant difference between NIOSH's doses being 

so much higher than SC&A was just the additional 

year or exposure that was inadvertently entered into 

IREP.

Okay. Environmental dose at Y-12. NIOSH assessed 

environmental dose for the unmonitored Y-12 period 

of exposure -- or employment and based it on TBD 

guidance, and that resulted in doses of less than 1 

millirem. SC&A did the same thing, used CADW 

general area environmental intakes, and the doses 

were all less than 1 millirem. SC&A did not include 

those doses in IREP. NIOSH choose to include those 

doses.

All right. We are done to Page 2, decision points. And 

as is the key thing -- the key decision point that I 

know I always talk about is the person's work 

location. We have to dig through a lot of records and 

try to come up with some clues as to where did this 

person work.

In this particular case, SC&A and NIOSH made similar 

work location decisions in the early years, but a little 

bit different in the later years. And what that really 

did was just change the energy distributions that 

were used for the photons. It didn't really have an 

impact on the dose. But it can have an impact on the 

PoC.

Also, the assignment of shallow dose. Should it be 

assigned as all electron dose greater than 15 KeV, or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

96

should it be assigned as low energy photons? And a 

lot of that has to do with whether you determine if 

the individual was monitored for the internal gross 

alpha during the time period because of exposure to 

Plutonium.

NIOSH assumed, yes, that there was exposure to 

plutonium, and assumed the less than 30 KeV 

photons. And SC&A assumed that all of the shallow 

dose was the greater than 15 KeV electrons.

Okay. I can go through the summary of conclusions. 

You can look at the table. I think we've touched on of 

the points. The only thing I do want to point out in 

this case, and there may clearly be a justification for 

-- the point that struck me was that the MDA values 

used by SC&A and NIOSH were different, but they 

were taken from the same document.

And it struck me that the blind dose reconstruction 

process really was designed to ensure that the 

guidance is clear enough that each dose 

reconstructor will make similar decisions, and that 

there really are no inconsistencies.

And in this particular case, it looks like that, 

obviously, the two methods choose MDA values from 

different locations that were quite different. And even 

if this can be justified and NIOSH dose reconstructors 

know exactly what to take and where to take it from, 

it does show that this blind process to me is working.

It's highly improbable that we would have pointed out 

or we would have identified something like this in 

doing a dose reconstruction review. It's really this 

blind process that brought this MDA value to light in 

my mind.

So there it is. And I also just want to make mention, 

I do go through how all of this data, the uncertainties 

are entered, as tedious as it is, how the uncertainties 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

97

are entered into IREP just because that does play a 

role in the final PoC values.

But in this particular case, final doses that are shown 

there on Page 31 and PoCs matched fairly closely. 

Though I do think we do need to address this MDA 

value issue. So that's it, sorry to go on so long. But 

if you have any questions, I'll attempt to answer 

them.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thanks, Kathy.

Ms. Behling: You're welcome.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I think you did an 

excellent job of explaining everything to it.

Ms. Behling: Thank you.

Member Clawson: And, you know, some of those 

things I think can also be NIOSH's side as trying to 

be as claimant-favorable as possible, too. But it's 

amazing how two independent people can come this 

close. I think this is a really, really good show for us 

to tell you the truth.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott for ORAU team. Just to point 

out that the question on the MDAs, the table that's 

given in the text of the TBD, which is Table 5-9, those 

are the values for the MDA that we used in the dose 

reconstruction report.

The name of the table is actually Recommended In 

Vitro MDAs, and that section in the text actually 

states they are the historical MDAs. It goes on to 

detail that Attachment A is given that gives more 

supporting information for discussion of it and a 

decision for the values that are in that table.

So, granted, there are additional values in the 

attachment, but they're source material for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

98

determination of the recommended MDAs which are 

in the table in the text. So that's why there's a 

difference.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy. So in other words, the 

dose reconstructor would not use the Table A-2 MDA 

values. It is just there to support the data that is in 

Table 5-9?

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Ms. Behling: So you would not have a dose 

reconstructor that would inadvertently use table A-2 

for calculating any of the MDA values or -- yeah, 

assuming any of the MDA values?

Mr. Siebert: Well, I'm not going to say nobody --

Ms. Behling: That would --

Mr. Siebert: -- can ever inadvertently do anything. 

But, yes, they know to use that table in the TBD.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Yeah, it -- okay. Any questions 

from the Board?

Member Beach: Kathy, this is Josie. Does that satisfy 

your question on the MDA values in the Table 5-9?

Ms. Behling: Well, you know, SC&A doesn't do dose 

reconstructions obviously as often as a full dose 

reconstruction. We just do the blinds as we were 

given them. It did strike me that we selected the 

values from Table A-2.

I'm hoping that the guidance in the TBD is clear 

enough that the NIOSH and ORAU dose 

reconstructors understand that they are supposed to 

use. And Scott's correct. Table 5-9 does say 

recommended in vitro MDA values. So I think that 

answers that. I don't know if Rose or Bob have any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

99

additional comments.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not familiar enough --

Mr. Barton: Well, this is Bob. I do agree. I mean you 

do have two tables. And it's been a while since I 

looked specifically at that TBD. But as I recall, the 

values in the attachment that SC&A used seem to be 

more specific to given facilities and time periods. And 

I think that might be the reason why we opted for 

that as in they seem to be a more specific value to 

use for this specific case.

However, if the intent of that attachment is really just 

to provide the technical basis for the recommended 

values in the body of the TBD, I mean I wonder if 

that's something that's worth clarifying moving 

forward. I mean I suppose if it's understood by all the 

dose reconstructors at ORAU, then it's not much of 

an issue.

But certainly our reading of the technical basis 

document seem to leave it open for either choice. And 

that's what I recall. Is that in line with what we're 

looking at, Kathy? And I think the attachment had 

many more values for specific locations that we could 

have chosen from.

Ms. Behling: Well, I don't know that there are a lot of 

different values, or a lot more values. The only thing 

I will point out, that Table A-2, the title is MDAs 

Calculated from Recovered Data for Radionuclides. 

So I'm not sure that we would have interpreted that 

as data that should not have been used based on that 

title.

And like Bob says, I think it needs to be very clear 

that this is not data that should be used in dose 

reconstruction. Obviously, we felt it was appropriate. 

And based on that title, MDAs Calculated from 

Recovered Data for Radionuclides, I don't know it has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

100

all the same column headings and saying years as to 

Table 5-9.

And I know that in the past, a lot of the TBDs in 

various things have appendices that sort of 

summarize everything for the dose reconstructor to 

make it a little bit easier rather than paging through, 

you know, each and every section of a TBD. And they 

often include an appendix that summarizes data that 

can be used by the dose reconstructor. So maybe 

that was our thinking also. Don't know if that helps, 

but --

Member Clawson: So, Dave?

Ms. Gogliotti: Did we lose him again.

Ms. Behling: I think we may have lost him again. I 

must have bored him with my presentation.

Member Clawson: Well, I haven't heard any snoring 

yet, so that's a good sign.

Ms. Behling: Thank you. I know this was quite long 

and there was a lot of dose components.

Member Clawson: No, I think it was really quite well 

done myself. I still stand amazed that -- how you 

guys can at least get this close. I was worried about 

the distance between them, but I think you went over 

that very clearly.

Ms. Behling: Great.

Member Beach: I agree with that also.

Dr. Roberts: Do we still have the other members of 

the subcommittee on? I know I don't hear Dave 

anymore.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, I'm still on.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

101

Member Beach: And Josie.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Beach: I'm still on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sorry. Here I am. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Bob, you know what happened? A 

fire engine came by and I put myself on mute. No, 

we're here, I think. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Brad, Josie.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. I'm still here.

Chair Kotelchuck: And Jim. Yeah, and Loretta.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I was going to suggest, 

incidentally, rather than calling -- it's almost 3:00. 

We usually take a five or 10 minute comfort break 

right now and then we have one more blind to go. 

And --

Member Beach: So we're finished up with this one, 

Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Oh, I was saying, yeah, that 

we accept. And I thought we had agreed. Okay. Oh, 

of course, I was talking and said, do we accept, and, 

of course, nobody heard me, which is why I got no 

response. All right, folks. Pardon me. When you're 

living in New York City, you've got to deal with the 

fact that fire engines go by, ambulances, trucks. 

Noise is prevalent. I'm not living in --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

102

Member Beach: Idaho.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, Idaho, right. So, folks, let's 

take 10 minutes. It's 2:55. 3:05, we're coming back. 

And we'll do the last blind. Okay. See you in 10 

minutes.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:56 p.m. and resumed at 3:05 p.m.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Well, everybody, I have 3:05. I just 

want to check one more time if the court reporter has 

made it back. Okay, excellent.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Dr. Roberts: And we'll do a quick roll call just to make 

sure we have the quorum. So, Dave, you're there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: Josie, are you back?

Member Beach: I'm back.

Dr. Roberts: Brad?

Member Clawson: Yep.

Dr. Roberts: Jim?

Member Lockey: Yes, I'm here.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. And Loretta? I don't hear her yet.

Chair Kotelchuck: But I'm sure she'll be coming back 

in a moment.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: And we have a quorum.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

103

Dr. Roberts: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Shall we begin?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, we've got one more blind for 

you, and this one is much less exciting than the last 

one, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can everyone see my screen?

Chair Kotelchuck: Not yet. I can't, but --

Ms. Gogliotti: Anyone else?

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't see --

Ms. Gogliotti: It says sharing, but I can try again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Loading. Okay, looks good. 

There we are.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Perfect. All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: So this is a GSI case, a General Steel 

Industries.

Chair Kotelchuck: If I may ask, pardon me for 

interrupting. This is by our designation, B what?

Ms. Gogliotti: Fifty. B-50.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So we skipped around in 

terms of the, right, because today we --

Ms. Gogliotti: We did because I assign the cases 

when they come in their case number. And just based 

on what was in progress when we lost access to the 

security thing --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

104

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- some cases were further along than 

others which is why these --

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- a little piecemeal.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I think I numbered them, but I was 

concerned that that would cause problems later on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right, very good. We're 

glad you got the three done, life has been hard for 

getting data in this period. So B-50 it is. And I'm 

sorry interrupting you, it's General Steel Industries.

Ms. Gogliotti: That's All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So this case, the EE only worked 

for a short period of time, a few years in the 1960s. 

And they had a single cancer which you can see here 

on the screen in Table 1-1. And that was diagnosed 

fairly recently in terms of cases that we look at.

This was a blind dose reconstruction, and both NIOSH 

and SC&A had a PoC calculated of less than 50 

percent. Therefore, neither one of us came to the 

conclusion that it was compensable.

Here up on the screen you'll see Table 1-2, and when 

you look at these, you'll notice something, they are 

identical. The only difference is the uranium dose. 

And it is a very small difference. And that is the only 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

105

difference is in the uranium in this entire case.

And the reason for that, as we'll get into, this EE did 

not have any external monitoring results, or internal 

monitoring results, or X-ray records. So this is 

entirely assigned dose rather than based on the EE's 

actual record which tells you how prescriptive the 

TBD is. And you'll see here our combined PoCs are 

very close.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This case, there weren't a lot of 

guidance documents that we needed to review 

because there wasn't a lot of manual dose 

reconstruction that had to happen. The main one that 

was used here was TBD 6000 Appendix BB, and that's 

the GSI TBD.

And you'll see here in Table 2-1 the summary of the 

differences. And you'll notice all the dashes here 

because we did them identically. The only difference 

you'll see is in the type of uranium that we assigned 

and the distribution. And I will go through these 

quickly because there really isn't any difference.

For occupation external dose, both NIOSH and SC&A 

used TBD Table 6 for the operation period and Table 

11 for the residual period. We use the same dose 

correction factors from IG-001, and assigned dose in 

the same way as a constant distribution, and no 

differences there. Neither of us assigned electron 

dose, and that's because of the location of the cancer. 

Dr. Roberts: Excuse me, I can hear some noise in the 

background. Please go on mute please.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thank you, Rashaun. Our assigned 

neutron dose, we both used Table 8 for the 

operational period. There was no residual period 

neutron source term so we did not assign residual 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

106

period neutrons. But we did assign identical neutron 

doses which is about 3 rem. The occupational medical 

dose. Again, the EE didn't have any records.

Both NIOSH and SC&A assumed an annual posterior 

chest X-ray during each year of employment during 

the operational period. Neither one of us assigned 

occupational medical dose during the residual period 

because they're not covered. And here you'll see we 

assigned a dose of about 0.3 rem. And for ambient 

dose, because we assigned dose all during the entire 

external period, we did not have any assigned 

ambient dose.

For operational internal doses, again, the EE was not 

monitored. But both NIOSH and SC&A assigned 

uranium inhalation and ingestion using Table 10 and 

Table 11. NIOSH used Table 10 and 11, and when 

they did their modeling in the chronic annual dose 

workbook, they modeled dose from Type M and Type 

S uranium.

And the difference between that and SC&A, SC&A 

modeled Type F, M, and S. So we modeled an 

additional solubility type. And because of that, we 

found that Type S -- F, I'm sorry, was more claimantfavorable than Type M. So we choose to assign Type 

F while NIOSH assigned Type M.

In both cases, the annual doses were less than a 

millirem per year, and so neither one of us actually 

needed to even assign this dose in IREP, but we both 

choose to. NIOSH assigned theirs as a constant 

distribution and we assigned as a log-normal 

distribution. That's the only difference in that case.

The only professional judgment involved came down 

to the professional -- or the potential uranium 

solubility types. The appendix BB of TBD 6000 is 

silent on the appropriate solubility types of GSI. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

107

NIOSH only modeled Type M and S, while SC&A 

modeled all three solubility types. The difference 

there is the only difference in this case.

So in summary, you'll see in Table 6-1, all the doses 

that were assigned in this case, the difference being 

here in the internal dose section, and that does have 

a small impact on the PoC. But very modest and you 

could contribute part of that just to a simple seed 

selection in IREP which you're going to get some 

variation no matter what.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: Were there any questions?

Chair Kotelchuck: Thanks. We challenged ourselves 

to go talk to PoCs up right against the 50 percent 

mark, and again, got agreement. And that's, again, 

impressive. And that ends for all three today that 

were reported today. So, good. Are there any 

questions?

Member Beach: I don't have any on this one, Dave. 

Josie here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Nor do I.

Member Valerio: None here, Dave. This is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: And none here, Jim.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Very good. And I think 

we're in agreement here, and I think we should just 

accept -- unless I hear -- I've heard from everyone, 

too. We'll accept -- okay. Accepted. And I'm 

impressed. And continues the good record that we

were able to show the board at our last meeting.

Rose, you had -- we had asked you at the last 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

108

meeting, I did not remember I have to say, but you 

remembered, which is great, that you had some 

remarks about choices for cases in the future. And I 

don't know if you sent out a note or if you just want 

to tell us for the first time.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sure.

Member Beach: Yeah, we got that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Of course, I didn't get it, 

because my machine's out. So everybody else got 

that?

Member Lockey: Yep.

Chair Kotelchuck: Other folks got -- Rose is --

Ms. Gogliotti: I just kicked out of the Skype meeting. 

Hold on one second. All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay, sure.

Member Valerio: I'm not sure I got that. Josie, when 

did you get that?

Ms. Gogliotti: It came through on December 20th, so 

right before --

Member Beach: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- Christmas.

Member Valerio: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: It might have gotten lost.

Member Valerio: Okay.

Member Beach: And it was emailed to us. It's also in 

the work folder for today's meeting. But I know not 

everybody got to get into that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

109

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Okay. I'll look for it. 

There's no need to -- there's no need to repeat. But 

we should all take a look at it, those of us who haven't 

seen it. So I think we're ready to plan when we should 

have our next meeting. We'll finish --

Ms. Gogliotti: Do you want me --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- just a little early.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- to talk about this at all? Or do you -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure, sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- want to keep it in the back of your 

mind when you're collecting cases? It's entirely up to 

you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, do others want to have 

-- people want to make some remarks about that? As 

I say, I haven't seen it so I don't --

Member Clawson: I'd like -- Dave, this is Brad. I'd 

like to have Rose just kind of go over it a little bit 

with us, what her thoughts were.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well, I'd certainly appreciate 

that. And I assume Loretta would too since neither of 

us have seen it yet. So do go over it --

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- if you would.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sure. Well, at the last DR meeting, we 

had talked about selecting new cases, and we haven't 

selected new case sets yet. And I don't know if NIOSH 

is in a position to provide more cases to us because, 

at least at the last meeting, they weren't able to 

access old case files. I don't know if that's still the 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

110

But we went back and looked at just basic summary 

statistics on the cases that we've reviewed 

historically as well as the ones in the past few years 

just to see what we've been reviewing so far and how 

that compares to the general population as a whole.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: So NIOSH was not able to provide us 

with current statistics. Again, the cybersecurity 

modernization initiative is presenting us problems. 

But I used the most recent historical data that they 

had provided us which, unfortunately, is 2015. But a 

lot of the data I assume follows a very similar trend. 

And we can make some assumptions and 

recommendations based on that.

So in this memo, we just looked at a series of just 

different things, so the PoCs of cases we're looking 

at, the decade the case was first employed, 

employment duration, the gender distribution of 

cases, when the case was initially completed by 

NIOSH as well as our representativeness of 

employment sites.

And so in each attachment here, I went over and did 

a comparison just of what was done. And then my 

recommendations are summarized in the beginning 

here, but we can go through each attachment first if 

you'd like.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Could you put it up on the 

screen? Is there --

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, can people not see my screen?

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm not seeing it.

Ms. Gogliotti: It says sharing, but --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

111

Member Lockey: Well, it's on my computer.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm sorry, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Nothing left to say. Go 

ahead. Stand by.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Do please go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: We historically have been targeting the 

PoC range of cases close to 50 percent. So those are 

the cases that are the 45 to 52 percent.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the rationale for that is we want to 

get the cases that are closest to the compensation 

decision. Those are the cases that are more likely to 

apply the assessment's assumptions. And so these 

are the cases where we really have been targeting 

because if there is an error, it's less likely to be offset 

by the over and under estimating efficiency 

assumptions that are being applied. And, of course, 

we don't like errors at all, but if there is an error, we 

don't want it to be impacting the compensation 

decision.

So here in Figure A-1, we just looked at the 

population of claims that NIOSH has reviewed versus 

what the subcommittee has actually looked at. And 

these are percentages. As you remember, we're only 

reviewing about 1 percent of cases. And you'll see 

here that we review a lot of cases in a very short 

window, the 45 to 49 percent when it's really only a 

very small percentage of the cases that NIOSH 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

112

actually evaluates.

And while SC&A, we totally want to stay close as 

possible to the 45 to 52 percent, we'd recommend 

maybe expanding it a little bit just so we can increase 

the population of claims -- the pool of claims that we 

have available to us for target selection because 

there is such a small window there.

So we recommend switching -- or updating it to 40 

to 55 percent simply so we have a bigger pool of 

claims to pick from. I do think it's worthwhile to keep 

targeting close to 50 percent, but we're just running 

out of claims to be reviewing. So I think expanding 

that might be something worth considering. Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sound --

Ms. Gogliotti: Decade of first employment.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good.

Ms. Gogliotti: We don't specifically target this, but we 

do report this metric to the secretary of health and 

human services. So I did look at just the data that 

we have to see what we're doing and what we've 

reviewed so far in comparison to, again, the 

population of claims that NIOSH has reviewed.

And overall, we're here in the orange. You'll see that 

for the most part we're doing a pretty good job, 

especially in the early time periods. But in the later 

time periods, we're dropping off a little bit in terms 

of representativeness.

So SC&A just simply recommends that we select 

cases with the decade of employment beginning in 

the 1970s and more current. And just target 

specifically some of those cases to see if we can get 

more representativeness in these cases.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

113

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I'm not saying we should stop 

looking at earlier cases by any means, but simply if 

we could increase the number of cases that we're 

looking at in that window, I think that would be 

beneficial.

Chair Kotelchuck: It certainly sounds good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Similarly, for employment duration, I 

looked at the same statistics, and you'll see here in 

orange again, we are doing a great job of looking at 

the really long cases. The long cases I agree or long 

employment period cases, there is value in looking at 

these cases.

Longest employment period if covering more time. 

There's a greater chance of error in these cases. But 

we might be missing some of these shorter cases. So 

I recommended looking at just some of these shorter 

employment cases also simply because we're under 

representing them currently and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Gender distribution. You know, 

we have been making an effort to target, making sure 

that we're getting enough female employees in our 

data set. And way back in 2015, we decided to start 

taking that into account when we were selecting 

cases because at that point in time, we only had 10 

and a half percent of cases that we were looking at 

that were female and that didn't represent NIOSH's 

statistics.

Back in 2015, NIOSH provided us with this table that 

I have printed now, D-1, and you'll see that they had 

an average of 13.6 percent of cases were female. But 

you'll notice it's trending upward here, and I suspect 

this number is low. And if we were to look at more 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

114

current data, I suspect it's closer to the 16.7 to 19 

range only because of the changes in employment 

distribution over time. As more women enter the 

workforce, we should be expecting to see more of 

them in our data sets.

But when we look at what we've actually reviewed, 

and I update it with the newest material, we're still 

sitting in only at 10 and a half percent. So we haven't 

really increased the number of females that we're 

looking at even if we were thinking we were targeting 

them. So going forward I would recommend that the 

subcommittee select at least five, maybe even six or 

seven female cases per 30 set of cases just to 

increase our representativeness over time.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And then DR completion date. We 

historically have not tracked this, but beginning with 

the 27th set, I did start tracking this information 

because I thought it was important. And this is the 

date that NIOSH completed their dose 

reconstructions.

And so we only have two sets of data on this so far, 

the 27th set which we evaluated in 2017, and the 

29th set which we evaluated in 2019. And if you look 

at figure E-1 here, you'll see that despite these being 

cases that we looked at in 2018 and 2019, we have 

a lot of really old cases here.

In fact, the 29th set, seven of them, or 23 percent of 

that set, were more than a decade old. And not that 

there's not value in looking at some of the older 

cases, but I believe that targeting newer cases has a 

greater value to the subcommittee. That way we're 

inputting --

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

115

Ms. Gogliotti: -- the most current procedures that are 

being used. We run into problems constantly where 

we're talking about a 10-year old procedure and new 

procedures are in place now that have corrected 

issues that we were talking about.

So I'd recommend focusing more on cases that were 

evaluated fairly frequently, or more recently than 

these older cases. I think there's more value in that. 

That way we're seeing the newer guidance 

documents, and if we find problems, we can get them 

addressed quickly rather than waiting for 10 years or 

more.

Chair Kotelchuck: Although you have, if we do take 

your recommendation to do more in the 1970s and 

going forward, that would take care of that, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Not necessarily.

Chair Kotelchuck: But isn't that the same -- isn't that 

the same --

Ms. Gogliotti: That's the decade of the --

Chair Kotelchuck: That would give the same advice.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- start of employment. Eventually, we 

would expect the earlier cases should -- not to be 

very many of them just simply because more time is 

passing and a lot of those claimants are --

Chair Kotelchuck: That's right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- more likely to pass away.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: But certainly these newer claims, I 

think there's value in reviewing them. We haven't 

looked at anything that was done in the past two 

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

116

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, I see. Okay. Really new. Okay. 

Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Just something to keep in mind as 

you're selecting cases.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: And then for a final thing, I looked at 

our goal of 1 percent claims, and although we're not 

explicitly targeting the representativeness of claims 

for sites, we have historically looked at the number 

of claims that the subcommittee has evaluated 

versus the total population of claims just to see what 

percentage we've evaluated at each site to see how 

it compares with the population.

And I had to do some guesswork here because we 

have old data, and my process is clearly described 

here, that we can go into if you'd like, but I had to 

estimate the number of claims that NIOSH has 

reviewed simply because we don't have current 

statistics for each of these yet.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: I assume at some point this can be 

updated.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's always been difficult figuring 

out that number, and I remember consulting Grady 

on it each time we did a report to the secretary.

Ms. Gogliotti: It is. And there are definitely numbers 

associated with these that are better, but this is my 

rough estimation until we get those better numbers. 

And for the most part, we're doing a great job, but I 

did identify a number of sites that were under our 1 

percent goal. And I think it would be beneficial to 

select some cases from these sites if possible.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

117

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And those are all summarized in this 

beginning table here in the report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And not to say we need to select only 

cases from here, but these are underrepresented 

currently. And there may be some reason why we're 

underrepresenting them. For instance, if there was 

an SEC or something that is changing the distribution 

of cases. That is something to keep in mind while 

you're selecting cases.

Member Lockey: Yeah. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Comments? Thank you.

Member Beach: And I thought this was -- this is Josie, 

I just thought this was very helpful. I didn't give a 

real thorough read, but a quick going through it, and 

there's a lot of good points here. So thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. While --

Member Lockey: Jim, is -- but --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sorry, go ahead, Jim.

Member Lockey: Yeah, I agree. I actually did read 

through this pretty in detail, and I think she did a 

great job. And I think there are paths on either side 

that we can pick up on and you've identified those. 

So I think that's great, especially the female 

population.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Okay. Hey, maybe, 

Rose, you can write the next secretary's report if 

you're still inclined.

No, but this is exactly what one does as one develops 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

118

a report. You did a very good job, and a lot of really 

good ideas here. Till I get my new machine, you can't 

send it to me because it hasn't been PA cleared. But 

might it be PA cleared? Is there information in there 

that might be -- I think because it's profile 

information.

Ms. Gogliotti: My concern with this was only that in 

this last table here, some of them -- we have only 

evaluated one claim and one claim was evaluated for 

the site.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so I was concerned that that would 

give away claimant information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: If you were interested in, I could redact 

some of these lines, I wonder if we could get it PA 

cleared if that was the case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I'm interested enough that 

I'd love to get it before I get my new CDC laptop. So 

if it was possible, if it wasn't too big a bother to just 

delete some of that information, and then get what 

you can PA cleared and send it to us.

Well, for the other people, you have your CDC 

computer, just go back to December 20th. But I 

appreciate it if it -- again, if it's not a big bother. If it 

is --

Ms. Gogliotti: I'll see what I can do.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not 100 percent sure, again, 

because it's some of this information. But if we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

119

remove --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- some columns, I think --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- we can get it PA cleared.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That would be really nice. 

And if it can't be, it can't be because I will get a --

that long I hope -- will get my new machine. Good. 

Other comments, other --

Member Clawson: Rose, you gave -- this is Brad. You 

gave us a lot to think about here. But, you know, 

Rose, there's some of these sites that are not going 

to have later claims.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. And I can --

Member Clawson: You know?

Ms. Gogliotti: -- completely agree 100 percent.

Member Clawson: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: I was just looking at Tonopah, you 

know, there was a switch from Nevada Test site to 

theirs. So I was just looking at some of those and 

stuff like that. But you have given us food for thought 

on this, and I really appreciate getting this put forth 

for us. But my big question is basically to Grady now 

is when would we be able to look at the data to be 

able to make these picks?

Mr. Calhoun: Well, this is Grady by the way. I cannot 

see what's going on here, but I'm listening intently. I 

pulled a Dave here on that. But if you could tell us 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

120

what you want, I can certainly -- I think once we 

know what cases you want or what your criteria are, 

I'll see if I can find that because I think that ORAU 

may be able to do those searches for that information 

for us.

So you narrow it down to what you want, ask me and 

I'll let you know if we can do it. But I think we 

probably can.

Ms. Gogliotti: To clarify, you mean pulling new cases

to review or new statistics?

Member Clawson: New cases.

Mr. Calhoun: New cases --

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: -- to review.

Member Beach: Well, this would be for Set 31, 

correct? That's our next -- right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Because we are basically caught up 

right now. We have the three blinds outstanding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: Two of which you should have soon, 

and one we're waiting on a workbook. But other than 

that, there's not really anything left for the 

subcommittee until we start to review some new 

cases.

Chair Kotelchuck: So there is --

Member Beach: And we haven't even picked -- we 

haven't even picked the Sets 31 for the board to 

review. That's correct, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

121

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: I guess that's the question -- that's 

the question before we get --

Member Clawson: Well, like --

Member Beach: -- together.

Member Clawson: Yeah. Here's what I was going to 

say is I was going to suggest, Rose, because you 

have a better kind of idea of on this, is there any way 

you could kind of get with Grady or whatever, and 

kind of put out a criteria that we're possibly trying to 

look at and see what they could come up for cases 

for us to review?

Ms. Gogliotti: And I think they're going to need to 

come up with a fairly large list of case that the Board 

can then whittle down to what they're looking for 

specifically.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Clawson: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't know how many --

Chair Kotelchuck: But there is a priority on this.

There is a priority in getting that out because, as you 

said, we're near the end of our cases for review. Can 

we even pick a date for the next meeting? I'm not 

sure we can at this point.

Member Beach: Well, so right now the next meeting 

we have the three blinds that should be done, the 

comparison blinds, right?

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Two I can commit to being done by the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

122

next meeting. I don't know when the workbook that 

we need for the final one will be added to the portal.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well, that would be a 

relatively short meeting just the two blind cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: It would be short, I agree. And then 

just a handful of things that are left open historically. 

And even those are hard to track down because we 

don't have the BRS currently.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I don't think we can set a 

date. I mean when we say setting a date, what it 

really means is we have to get it -- it's at least three 

months and we have to put it in the Federal Register. 

And we can't put anything -- I think, Rashaun, we 

can't put anything in the Federal Register until we 

know that we have cases.

Dr. Roberts: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: And there's no reason we can't have a 

shorter meeting also if you only wanted to discuss 

two blinds.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I think it --

Member Clawson: Dave. Hey, Dave --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- cost money and resources.

Member Clawson: Dave. Here's an idea for stopping 

it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Go ahead.

Member Clawson: Here's food for thought, Dave. If 

we do set a meeting now and we can be able to go 

through it, depending on what Rose and Grady come 

up with and so forth, like that, we may have time at 

that meeting to be able to discuss kind of a path 

forward with how we're -- for our dose reconstruction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

123

how we're going to be able to do things.

I hate to put off -- because we've been playing catch 

up for years now, and now we have caught up. I just 

don't want to get -- I don't want to get behind it 

again, and we're doing a lot better. Everything else I 

get. But I think what we ought just take the 

opportunity and try to set it up now. And if something 

changes, then, of course, we can always cancel it or 

whatever. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: -- I'd hate for us to lose 

momentum.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, you know, we can always 

cancel. That's one thing that doesn't take three 

months. As one matter -- and we do have -- we have 

to -- to get it in the Federal Register and we're going 

to have to have a three-month waiting period.

So, folks, do you want to just set a date now with the 

feeling -- I will say with the feeling that we can cancel 

in three months. But in response to whether we 

should have a meeting with two blinds, my feeling is 

it costs money to have this transcribed. It costs 

resources. And I actually would look to Rashaun who 

has to deal with finances.

Member Beach: It may -- when we know -- Dave, 

maybe when we know we'd have all three completed. 

And then we also have this memo that should be on 

the agenda as a discussion for the subcommittee to 

decide which ones we're going to go with and which 

ones we aren't on this suggested list.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that's a good point. That's a 

good point. That is to discuss this group, the 

December 20th, a lot of good ideas. But which ones 

do we go with?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

124

Member Beach: Yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: I buy that. I buy that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, and --

Chair Kotelchuck: So let's --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- I do hesitate to wait another three 

months even with tasking another sets because that 

puts you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: It takes us at least six months to review 

them, factoring in the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- one-on-ones is another two or three 

months with NIOSH responses. We're talking about 

not having anything for the Board to do a year from 

now if we were to get them passed on today.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah. True.

Ms. Gogliotti: So that's something to keep in mind.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And I must say the other 

thing that I'm -- the number that you just reported 

that I was listening to most carefully was the 1 

percent because that is our productivity as a 

subcommittee, and I'm glad it's still at 1 percent. So 

I think we have pretty well decided that let's schedule 

something for three months from now. So --

Member Beach: And then, Dave, before --

Chair Kotelchuck: Josie.

Member Beach: -- we close out.

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

125

Member Beach: I know we're going to on to 

scheduling. But I have a question on the NOCTS 

database for Grady.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: I know he said ORAU has access to 

that. Is there some reason why SC&A doesn't have 

access to that? They're kind of in the same spot as 

ORAU in needing it.

Mr. Calhoun: It just can't be done or we'd have it. 

And it's not exactly NOCTS. It's something similar. 

But I can't even access it, you know?

Member Beach: Well, I understand --

Mr. Calhoun: It --

Member Beach: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: It's a secure --

Member Beach: I kind of understand how --

Mr. Calhoun: -- the potential -- there's potential 

security issues and other data governance issues 

with somebody from outside the organization 

accessing that information. That's my understanding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: I am not an IT person, and I'm 

struggling to understand it myself. But I know I can't 

get to it, so it's been very frustrating as you know, 

so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Beach: So what --

Mr. Calhoun: We're still trying to get you all the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

126

information that you request, and, you know, as 

quickly as we can --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: But usually that involves asking ORAU 

to come up with a report and do some searches, and 

then saving the files and dumping them into an area 

that you can access.

Member Beach: So that workbook that SC&A needs, 

is there a timeline on that for that third blind review?

Mr. Calhoun: I don't know. I'll ask about Lori about 

that.

Ms. Gogliotti: It is on Lori's high priority list.

Mr. Calhoun: You know, we've been able to get -- it 

is on her list?

Member Beach: It is?

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: I've communicated that with her.

Member Beach: Yeah. And then one more question 

for you, Grady. What's it take for you to be able to 

put together the sets for Set 31? Is there any kind of 

a timeline for when you could get that put together 

for the next meeting?

Mr. Calhoun: Well, I think -- right now I think -- do I 

understand it right, you're not sure what you want 

yet, right? So if you give me the -- I think what I'm 

hearing you say is that there is some criteria you're 

going to give us. And then we're going to try to come 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

127

up with several cases -- well, many -- that fit those 

criteria, dump them into the ADW or a secure area so 

you guys can go through them, and you pick from 

those cases. Is that my understanding? Am I 

understanding that right?

Member Beach: That's generally --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Member Beach: -- what we do. Oh, go ahead, Rose.

Mr. Calhoun: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think normally you give them a very 

broad summary table of each case, so the years the 

EE was employed, the final PoC, the types of doses 

that were assigned in an Excel file. And then the 

subcommittee goes through and selects 30 cases 

from that to review. Is that --

Mr. Calhoun: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- everyone else's perspective?

Mr. Calhoun: And --

Member Beach: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: -- we used to have the criteria of, what, 

45 to 52. And then if we couldn't get enough of those, 

we'd go a little bit in each direction. But now you've 

got new criteria for us to look at. So once you get 

these --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: And I don't know that these are new 

criteria for you.

Chair Kotelchuck: No.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

128

Ms. Gogliotti: I think these are just --

Chair Kotelchuck: No.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- new criteria that the Board needs to 

take into -- or should take into account --

Chair Kotelchuck: Exactly. The subcommittee and the 

board need to take this into account. So for the next 

round, I think you really should just use what we've 

always done, which is 45 to 52.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And we will talk --

Mr. Calhoun: All right. Well, that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Just do the old --

Mr. Calhoun: I'll just --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- the old one -- good. And the next 

meeting of --

Mr. Calhoun: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- our subcommittee, we'll move 

ahead on the report, make some changes. And then 

the next 33, we'll --

Member Beach: Thirty-two.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thirty-two.

Member Beach: It would be 32.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, blind, we usually do blinds 

and --

Member Beach: Oh, right, right, right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay. Let me make a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

129

suggestion.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let's get a date. Three months 

from today is April 13th, Wednesday April 13th.

Dr. Roberts: Well, it's actually Tuesday the 19th if 

we're doing three months. Okay?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, is it? No?

According to my calendar --

Member Lockey: The 19th is good for me. The 19th 

is good for me. The 13th is not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that's a good reason. The 

19th is Tuesday the 19th. That would be fine. How is 

it for other people? It's fine by me.

Member Beach: That's fine. The 19th or 20th, we 

usually meet on a Wednesday.

Chair Kotelchuck: We usually do.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: What's the 20th like?

Member Lockey: Twenty is fine for me.

Member Clawson: Good for me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like it's good.

Member Valerio: The 20th is --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- anybody -- right, April 20th.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta.

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

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

130

Member Valerio: Dave, can you hear me? This is 

Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: I can.

Member Valerio: The 20th works for me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Terrific. Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Dave, the only thing --

Chair Kotelchuck: You guys --

Dr. Roberts: This --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Dr. Roberts: Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Dr. Roberts: The only thing I want to point out is the 

week prior to the board meeting in April, does that 

cause any conflicts for anybody?

Chair Kotelchuck: That's a good question.

Member Lockey: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, doesn't for me.

Member Beach: Okay. It won't for me, but I was 

concerned with NIOSH and SC&A for prepping other 

things.

Ms. Gogliotti: It shouldn't present any problems for 

me and my team.

Member Beach: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: Good.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

131

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good. So did we 

decide Wednesday the 20th with say a fallback to the 

19th? Is there anybody who's missing? Yes, Dave 

Richardson. So let's make Wednesday the 20th as 

our first choice of April. And Tuesday the 19th will be 

our fallback because we're all okay with that.

Member Beach: Yep. Sounds good.

Dr. Roberts: And, Dave, just one question for you. I 

was trying --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Dr. Roberts: -- to -- try to avoid confusion, like make 

all of the start times of work group meetings and 

subcommittee meetings about the same.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: So 11:00 a.m. remember? And you said 

that you wanted to discuss it with the subcommittee 

if we could just move it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that --

Dr. Roberts: -- to a later --

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Appreciate that because I 

didn't want to do it myself. What do people think?

Dr. Roberts: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Can we do it at 11:00? It would be 

helpful to Rashaun.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So we're not --

Member Beach: That's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's fine by me.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

132 

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Lockey: Yes, it's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Member Valerio: Yes. This is --

Chair Kotelchuck: We're all --

Member Lockey: It's still early in the morning, so 

that'll be fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. You'll sleep till 8:00 

o'clock. Hey, you're lucky.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Dr. Roberts: So I have Wednesday -- the first option's 

Wednesday, April 20th starting at 11:00 eastern. And 

if that doesn't work, the 19th.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: Correct?

Chair Kotelchuck: Precisely.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Wonderful. Folks, we've 

had a very good meeting, and we look forward to the 

next one. And I hope cases will be coming forthwith 

so we don't have to postpone.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you, all, very much. 

Again, good meeting. Okay. So move to close.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 

552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for 

information only and is subject to change. 

133 

Member Clawson: I second it.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Member Clawson: Take care, everybody.

Chair Kotelchuck: Me and Brad, that makes it 

unanimous. All right. Bye-bye, folks.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:49 p.m.)