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

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

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

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

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

subject to change

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

United States of America

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

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

Time, via teleconference, David Kotelchuck, Chair, 

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

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

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

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

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

subject to change

2 

Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

David B. Richardson, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Dave Allen, DCAS

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Lara Hughes, DCAS

Beth Rolfes, DCAS

LaVon Rutherford, DCAS

Scott Siebert, ORAU Team

Mutty Sharfi, ORAU Team

Matthew 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

United States of America Centers for Disease 

Control National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1

Welcome 4

Roll Call 4

Instructions 4

Review Cases from Set 25 5

Review Cases from Set 27 50

Adjourn 130
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Dr. Roberts: I want to welcome everyone. I'm 

Rashaun Roberts, I'm the Designated Official for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

This is a meeting of the Board's Subcommittee on 

Dose Reconstruction. We have a full meeting 

agenda today. You can find it on the NIOSH website 

under scheduled meetings for today's date.

Since we have a fair bit to cover today, let's go 

ahead and move into the roll call. Now, since the 

Subcommittee will be discussing dose reconstruction 

cases pertaining to specific sites, we will need to 

deal with conflicts of interest as I do the roll call, so 

that Subcommittee members can recuse themselves 

from the discussion where the conflict of interest 

applies.

Roll Call

(Roll call)

Instructions

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. So welcome, again, to 

everybody who's on. Before we officially move into 

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

items.

In order to keep everything running smoothly and 

so that everyone speaking can be clearly 

understood, I would ask each of you to please make 

sure your phone is on mute, unless of course you 

need to speak.

If you don't have a mute button, press *6 to mute. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

If you need to take yourself off mute, press *6 

again.

This maybe a really long meeting, so I think we 

should probably take a couple of breaks, a couple of 

strategic breaks.

As I mentioned, the agenda for the meeting can be 

found on the NIOSH or DCAS website. Access to 

other materials was provided to the Board members 

and to staff prior to this meeting.

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

I'm going to turn the meeting over to our Chair, 

Dave Kotelchuck.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. Welcome, folks, to 

this, our first meeting since September 12, 2019.

It's an auspicious resumption of our activities. It's 

been a long break. But now we're ready to go and 

we're ready to move forward. And I'm looking 

forward to it. And we'll probably be playing catch up 

for -- on cases on the one percent review of cases 

for a while now.

Review Cases from Set 25

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, on our agenda, the first 

discussion would be about review cases from Set 

25. That's on our agenda. And I know Josie had also 

suggested that would be good to start with.

Rose, does that, and does that sound good to you 

and to others?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, shall we begin?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Can everyone see my screen 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Let's see. I can't. I don't see the 

screen. But, I'm one, or I was the one a moment 

ago.

Mr. Barton: Yeah, you're up on Skype, Rose.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: Rose, while you're doing that, let me 

make sure, I assume that the Court Reporter is on. 

So, let me just get verification.

I see them in the listing, but can I have verification?

Court Reporter: Yes. I'm on the line.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Behling: Rose, this is Kathy Behling, and I do 

not see your screen.

Chair Kotelchuck: Me, I'm glad to hear I'm not the 

only one. I was on the screen before. And then 

when I went into audio, I haven't been able to come 

back to the screen.

I might try to reenter, close --

Ms. Gogliotti: Can anyone see my screen?

Member Clawson: I can't, Rose. It went away. It 

says windows are minimized.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, let me ---

Mr. Barton: I see Excel and Aliquippa Forge, Tab 

501.

Ms. Gogliotti: That's what's supposed to be up.

DR. BUCHANAN: I can see it, too.

Member Clawson: Well, you guys are special, 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

7

all I got to say.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I certainly have the 

materials, and I can put them on independent of the 

screen.

I won't have any trouble following. But, if a few of 

us are having trouble, maybe there's a virtue to 

trying to go off and come back on again. What do 

other folks think?

Ms. Gogliotti: I can certainly try. Let's do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's give it a try. So, we'll 

take a moment and -- ah, here we are.

Well, I'm -- I have the screen up now. Okay. 

Excellent.

Member Beach: I don't. It went away when you --

Mr. Barton: I just lost it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Loading, loading. I see 

something. There we are, for me at least. I'm back 

on.

Member Beach: Okay. I'm back on. Brad, it says on 

my screen you're in the lobby. So, somebody --

Member Clawson: I've always been --

well, actually I've got the screen up there and it 

looks pretty good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Good.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right. Now we decided we were 

just going to cover the Type 1 issues with the 25 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Correct.

Ms. Gogliotti: And that's only because we changed 

the agenda last minute. And we couldn't get 

everyone prepped for the call in time.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now, we briefly started this major fall 

out meeting. However, we only did Type 2 issues. 

So, there's not that many Type 2 issues anyway.

The first issue comes from Tab 501. And it's an 

Aliquippa Forge case. And with this case our 

observation was the TBD needed to clarify the 

number of hours devoted to AWE operations from 

Table 4-2 for the years '48 through 1950.

The table seems to indicate there were two 

thousand hours per year exposure. However, when 

you actually look at the numbers, they were 

adjusted to account for the number of actual AWE 

operation hours.

And NIOSH essentially agreed with us and though 

that the document would benefit from a more 

concise listing of the hours used. And they intend to 

clarify that information at the next TBD revision.

So, based on that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Any of our members have 

any comments? It seems fairly straightforward.

Member Clawson: I don't, Dave. This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. All folks okay with 

that?

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very 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

9

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, fine. Very good. Let's 

say that's closed. It's certainly straightforward. Fine. 

Let's go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is kind of 

multifaceted. The case is a Hooker Electrochemical 

and Carborundum. And it's Tab 520.

And with this case we made a number of findings 

and observations related to the methods that were 

actually used. So, TBD-based rather than problems 

with the actual dose reconstructions themselves.

And based on that, NIOSH recommended that we 

transfer all of these issues to the Carborundum 

Work Group, because they're currently working on 

revising the TBD.

And this applies to Observation 2, as well as 

Findings 1 through 5 and 7 and we can go through 

each of them if you'd like.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I agree we have, we sent so 

many to Carborundum. Are there any that were not 

sent to Carborundum that we should be 

considering?

Ms. Gogliotti: For this case -- well, we have, we're 

recog -- NIOSH is recommending that we transfer 

them. So, we would actually have to transfer them 

in order for the Work Group to take these issues up.

There is one finding in this case that isn't related to 

that, though.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right.

Member Beach: Well, we haven't -- we haven't 

actually sent them to the Carborundum Work 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Group. NIOSH just recommended it.

I couldn't remember if we discussed this on our last 

call or not when I was reviewing.

Chair Kotelchuck: I believe we did. But I think --

let's see, that's a Category 2, which we were going 

to address too.

So, we should wait on that, I think.

Ms. Gogliotti: We can transfer them to the Work 

Group. And I think that's probably a more 

appropriate venue to take up these issues.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think so. Do others agree?

Member Beach: Other than the finding, correct 

Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. So, we'll --

Member Beach: Mm-hmm.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: It will be Finding 6 we'll leave open 

until we discuss it here. But the rest we could 

transfer?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Yeah, I agree.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So, in order to do that, I will 

change -- I will transfer them in the BRS.

And I believe Gen is the Chair of that Work Group. 

So, I will send her just a follow up message, to let 

her know that we're transferring 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

11

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The one that is open is 6. And 

that was obviously from the same case.

Here we have a finding that the incorrect 

uncertainty distribution was used to assign medical 

X-ray dose to the kidney. And NIOSH agrees they 

used a factor of .03 instead of .3.

And this only affected the kidney cancer in this 

case. And it was not a systematic error, it was just 

a simple typographical mistake that when they were 

entering information into the workbook.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so it resulted in a slight 

underestimate of dose in this case. And the PoC was 

already greater than 50 percent. So, we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds reasonable. 

Any comments by anyone? Further comments?

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Pretty straightforward.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. I think that's fine. So, 

we'll close that.

Ms. Gogliotti: And actually, if you don't mind I jump 

back to 520 for one second here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: I hope this isn't out of line to suggest, 

but I thought it was really beneficial with this case 

that we looked at this case while the TBD review 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

was going on.

Because it gave a different perspective on how the 

dose reconstructions were actually being executed 

rather than just looking at the TBD. And I don't 

know if this was an intentional Subcommittee move, 

or just a happy accident.

But I don't know that these issues would have been 

raised if we hadn't looked at a DR case. And so just

in the future, I thought, it might be beneficial to 

point out that at least for this particular case.

It was good to look at this case in parallel with the 

TBD review.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I don't know that we --

normally, I'm not sure that we would notice that.

I mean, it sounds like it was a very good accident of 

fate that we had a chance to look at it while it was 

being -- while the TBD was being reconsidered.

But I think in many cases we just say, we don't look 

at things. We say well, it's over. You know, TBD is 

coming, and we leave it.

I don't think there's a -- unless, do you have a 

suggestion? Is there any systematic way of doing 

that, what you suggest?

Ms. Gogliotti: Just perhaps when the next DR set is 

picked, look at ongoing TBD reviews and see if 

there's any that the Subcommittee would like to 

task us to look at in parallel with the TBD review.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's a very good idea. And that 

we could -- that's something we can do as we look 

at the next set.

Okay. That sounds good to me. Anybody else want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

to say something?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I just want to 

understand this. So, are you saying that when we 

start -- at what point are we going to say that we're 

going to review a TBD when we review a DR?

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, the TBD would already be in 

process. This is -- I'm not trying to just indicate --

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. So, only --

Ms. Gogliotti: One versus the other.

Mr. Calhoun: So, one TBD that's already in the 

review process. Yeah, just explain that to me again, 

how you would do that? Just so I understand.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, any site that had an active TBD 

review, when we are selecting cases for dose 

reconstruction, we could select the case that you, 

the TBD.

And that way we could tell if --

Mr. Calhoun: And so --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- TBD guidance was actually being 

executed. Because we --

Mr. Calhoun: So, would the starting point -- would 

the starting point then be, rather than looking at 48 

to 52 percent cases, we're starting with a site where 

a TBD is under review, and then selecting a case?

Ms. Gogliotti: The Board could select whatever they 

wanted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. No, I think as I 

understand, no. The Board would be selecting 

cases. And then you would point out that, you 

know, a TBD is going on for that case that we had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

selected.

So, no. We'd stick to 48 to 52. And so --

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. So then --

Chair Kotelchuck: Then when we open up a new set, 

I don't know how then like, 27 or 29, or whatever, 

then we take a look at it.

Mr. Calhoun: So, when we would be -- just like

normal, we would provide a list of cases between 

the percentage PoCs and then we would note 

whether or not a TBD revision affecting that claim is 

in process.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. That's my understanding.

Mr. Calhoun: Rose, is that what you're saying?

Ms. Gogliotti: Just this -- I mean, not necessarily a 

revision, because things are constantly being 

revised. But if it's actively in review, I think that 

those are worth targeting.

And it doesn't even need to be within the best 

estimate window. I know that with the 29th set, I 

believe we have 13 cases that are outside of that 

window. It could be approximately.

Mr. Calhoun: I'm still confused on the starting point 

then. If it's not necessarily within the window of the 

48 to 52 percent, and you're taking in review by the 

Board? Or versus in revision by us?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, yes.

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. Well, SC&A is the Board in my 

mind. So, we --

Chair Kotelchuck: So, we have a fixed time to take 

a look at whether there's something that this, 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

15

need to have more consideration of that.

Mr. Calhoun: I'm just still trying to think about what 

my job here is. I've got cases for you that have 

already been selected.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: And then do you determine if a TBD 

associated with that is under review?

Or are we going the other way and looking at TBDs 

that are under review, and then trying to select 

cases?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I do not want to change the 

way we select cases. We spent a lot of time on that.

No. I thought it was that when we -- after we 

selected cases and begin a new set that --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, can I make a suggestion?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Typically, NIOSH will give you a list of 

cases to pick from, to select the next regular set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Like they did with the 29th set. So, 

how about prior to selecting cases, SC&A makes a 

list of the ongoing TBD reviews that are currently 

active? Or that we're currently working on?

And NIOSH can select a handful of cases from those 

sites. And then the Subcommittee, while they're 

selecting cases, can choose to select from that 

subset or not, based on whatever is your priority at 

the time.

Mr. Calhoun: But are we still aiming for 48 to 52 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

percent cases?

Chair Kotelchuck: I would prefer that. And I mean, 

and I was wondering Rose, can we reverse that 

order?

That we select the cases if there happens not to be 

a TBD under consideration, then there isn't. But if 

there is one, I think the 48 to 52 is a very important 

criterion.

And I'd like to stick with that. I feel like I'd be 

happy to put it -- to do an add on.

Well, folks from the Subcommittee, what are you --

you're listening and what are you thinking? And 

what's your sense of?

Member Clawson: Well, I think what, if I understood 

what Rose was saying, is if any of these TBDs are in 

review, it was good for this.

I don't want to change the way we have selected 

things. I think that's good. But I don't want to waste 

a lot of time on this.

You know, I think that maybe we ought to in this 

set look at this. And maybe we can define a little bit 

further out what we need to be able to do to 

accomplish what Rose has been able to do.

But I understand from Grady's standpoint of, it's 

kind of changing the way he's looking at things. He 

wants to make sure that it's good for us.

I think that we ought to let Rose work on this a little 

bit. And give us kind of a more defined method 

when we could.

I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I think -- yeah. Yeah. 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

17

makes a -- to me that --

Member Clawson: I understand fully what Rose is 

saying, because I've questioned this numerous 

times.

And when we're in a review of the TBD as it is, it 

really helps us understand how these are being 

implemented and so forth. So, I understand what 

she's getting at.

I just, I don't think that we've got refined out right 

how we could do this and still keep our criteria that 

we were going with.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could you --

Mr. Calhoun: And I'm also a little bit concerned 

about scope creep here. And the reason I say that 

is, we typically don't -- we would end up throwing 

potential -- we would end up with potential 

comments on a TBD review that is in process.

And that would be automatically pushed over to the 

Procedures Review Committee. Because we don't 

want to start reviewing procedures in this 

Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Mr. Calhoun: Now, if somehow that would gain you 

information, insight, whatever, great. But you know 

what I'm saying, we've already got a subcommittee 

that deals with procedures. And typically when we 

have a procedural issue, we send it over to them. 

So, that's another thing to at least think about.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: And if it's just FYI, great. But if you 

plan on writing up comments from that, then I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

there's going to have to be some coordination 

between this Subcommittee and the Procedures 

Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I think it makes -- I think I 

go back to what, Brad, what you were saying.

I think, with this is our first meeting in a long time, 

we have a lot to go over. And I think if, Rose, if you 

might, and you may want to consult with Grady, 

and make some suggestions for next time, to clarify 

some of the issues that have been raised.

Would you be open to doing that?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And then we can discuss it. 

We'll have something even before the meeting, you 

know, that you'll send out.

And we'll be able to think about it a little bit and 

discuss it, discuss the specific suggestion or 

proposal.

Okay. So that's a task for the next meeting, I think.

Member Richardson: Yeah. Just for the record, 

David, this is David Richardson. I agree with that, 

as well. And with Brad's suggestion as well. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Great. Okay. Okay, so let us now 

continue. Rose, we're back.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is Tab 510. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: On the Metals and Controls Corp case.

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

19

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is Observation 4. Here when 

we looked at the dose reconstruction, this is also 

somewhat related to the method.

We believe that the approach used in the SEC and 

Site Profile Review for GSI and Carborundum for the 

approached recommended in NUREG-5512, was a 

more appropriate method to model inadvertent 

ingestion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait a minute. We're looking --

pardon me. I'm sorry. We're looking at, are we 

looking at Observation 1?

Ms. Gogliotti: Observation 4.

Chair Kotelchuck: Four. Okay. Thank you. 

Observation 4, do go ahead. Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And there has been some 

significant historical discussion on this issue.

And NIOSH responded that it used OTIB-9 to model 

inadvertent ingestion during the operational period 

and the NUREG during the residual period. And this 

generic approach was appropriately applied in this 

case. So, we do recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm looking it over. As a member 

of the Working Group on M&C, and I'm not sure of -

- Josie, you're the Chair of that Working Group.

Member Beach: Yeah. I reviewed this also and I 

wasn't sure it was ready for closure. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: We haven't closed on the SEC 

yet. So --

Member Beach: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: If we do not grant an SEC, this 

would be the -- but I think while the -- it would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

20

reasonable to go over this. I mean, absolutely 

appropriate. But since we haven't decided on the 

SEC, I'm hesitant to close items that imply -- have 

implications for SEC. And I know inadvertent 

ingestion is an issue that is, or will be raised, at the 

Working Group.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, not --

Chair Kotelchuck: It may or may not be. I'm 

personally as a member of the Working Group, 

thinking about that and looking at it now.

So, I just don't feel comfortable making a decision 

that may have impact on the choices that the 

Working Group is considering right now.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. Dr. Kotelchuck, this is LaVon 

Rutherford. This specific issue has not been raised 

during -- not in this manner.

This approach is an approved-upon approach that 

between the Board, the Board's review previously. 

So, I think in this instance, I believe it could be 

closed.

But, obviously, it's up to you and the 

Subcommittee, and obviously, the Metals and 

Controls Work Group.

But I do believe this issue could be closed, because 

it is not directly related to our issues.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. Well --

Member Beach: Is that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Member Beach: This goes back to using OTIB-009 

for this particular case, 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

21

Mr. Rutherford: Correct.

Member Beach: And we -- and like -- and as I said, 

we haven't --

Ms. Gogliotti: I think this applies to all cases.

Member Beach: What's that?

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe this applies to all cases. This 

is a more overall method, rather than an individual 

case.

Member Beach: Oh, okay.

Mr. Rutherford: I agree.

Member Beach: Mm-hmm. I'm okay with holding it 

open, Dave. If you're more comfortable with that, 

until --

Chair Kotelchuck: I would, until we make a decision 

on that. And I know that issue will come up.

It may well be appropriate. I just don't feel ready to 

make that decision. And I have to admit, in 

reviewing for today's meeting, I didn't pick up on 

that.

And I see this could have implications. I would like 

to hold it open if folks don't mind. Other Committee 

members?

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

leaving it open.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I am too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: So am I. This is Brad.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: All right. Then we'll leave it open. 

Okay. Now, let's go onto NMI.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is a Nuclear 

Metals case for them. And this is Tab 503, 

Observation 1.

And here we noted that NIOSH used a skin dose 

correction factor of .892. Which is consistent with 

the guidance in IG-001.

However, OTIB-17 recommends using a dose 

correction factor of one for skin cancer claims. And 

so there's somewhat of an inconsistency there.

And NIOSH agreed that the dose correction factor 

that they used was not necessarily appropriate for 

this case. And resulted in a minor underestimate of 

dose.

However, there were several larger overestimates 

that somewhat compensated for this. And the PoC 

was still less than 50 percent.

So, we do recommend closing this as a QA issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Comments? It seems to me 

there's agreements on that. Let me see, right.

It sounds like there is agreement. I see no reason 

not to close it. Put it that way. What do others 

think?

Member Beach: I agree also.

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. And David?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

23

Member Richardson: Yes. I think that's fine, as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you.

Member Richardson: This is David Richardson.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. We agree to close. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Observation 2 is the next one from 

the same case. And the observation, I'm just going 

to read it here, because it is a little confusing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Beginning in 1983, the reporting 

methods of the open window shallow doses and 

deep doses, changed from previous years. Prior to 

'83, the NMI dosimetry records clearly represented 

the shallow and deep doses with separate shallow, 

deep, and total columns.

After 1983, the records no longer included a total 

column. And it was no longer clear if the shallow 

column represented the entire open window with 

beta and gamma combined.

In this particular DR assessment, NIOSH assumed 

the shallow and deep doses were as reported. For 

example, in the year 1985, both the shallow and 

deep doses were reported as 110 millirems.

And then NIOSH assigned 110 millirem for the 

recorded shallow dose, and 110 millirem for the 

recorded photon dose.

However, SC&A believes it appears it was likely that 

the deep dose should have been subtracted from 

the total amount, making the shallow dose zero 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

24

the deep dose 110 millirem. And therefore, we 

thought it was an overestimate.

And NIOSH responded that they believed that we 

were correct in assuming that the shallow dose

included the deep dose beginning in 1983. And 

they're going to provide additional instruction to 

each piece performing dose reconstruction.

For this case, this causes an overestimate in the 

dose that was assigned. And so resulted in the dose 

of -- or PoC of less than 50 percent.

And therefore, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. Comments?

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hearing none, shall we close? 

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hello?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I say close.

Member Lockey: Close. Jim Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: Close. Okay, good. Good.

Member Valerio: Close, Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. All right.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right. The next one is from the 

same case. And it's Finding 1.

And the finding had to do with the failure to apply 

the MDL over two for missed photon dose. NIOSH 

used the full MDL rather than dividing it by two.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 NIOSH stated that it was an overestimating 

technique. It was not unusual, but should not have 

been used for this particular claim as the dose was 

close to 50 percent.

It resulted in an overestimate. And the PoC was still 

less than 50 percent. So, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. But I agree it's a 

finding. Because that was an error. But we agree 

that it was an overestimate.

So, it was allowable, but should not have been 

done. Right? I think that's what you're saying?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that's reasonable. Folks, 

unless there's concern, I would say close.

If somebody has concerns, please raise them.

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hearing none, --

(Telephonic interference)

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, somebody's in the 

background. Okay. So, we will close on that,

hearing no objection.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I'm going to go slightly out 

of order here, and jump down to Finding 3.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Which is the same finding, but for 

missed shallow dose. And it has the same response 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

by NIOSH.

So, I'm going to recommend also closing that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Abso -- it's the same issue. 

Of course.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And then going back up to Finding 2. 

The finding has to do with the failure to apply a 

closing attenuation factor for the measured shallow 

dose to the skin of the leg.

And NIOSH with similar response. This case was 

close to 50 percent. And the attenuation factor 

should have been used.

It resulted in the error that was an overestimate. 

But did not result in compensation. So, it didn't 

really affect this particular case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And therefore, we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Makes sense to me. To 

others, any objections or concerns?

Member Beach: None here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Valerio: None here, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: I'm good with it, Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: 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

27

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And then jumping down to --

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Finding number 4, is essentially the 

same as Finding number 2. However, it applied to 

the residual period.

And NIOSH had the same response again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And closing that, as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Same issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. If we're okay with closing that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Then the next case is Tab 527. And 

it's a Simonds Saw and Steel Company. Okay, and 

this observation, I'll go ahead and read again.

The uranium inhalation rate of 452 picocuries per 

day at the beginning of the residual period is based 

on airborne measurements of the gross alpha 

activity. It was likely it included the alpha emitters 

in Table 51.

Hence, the estimated inhalation rates are slightly 

overestimated. It's a small overestimate. And they 

can be considered the claimant-favorable.

And as applied in this case, we just had some 

questions if it was appropriate, because the worker 

was compensated. And we assume that the TBD 

approach was adopted due to the uncertainty and 

relative abundance in alpha emitting isotopes 

present in the observed air samples.

And NIOSH responded that the approach 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

28

actually not an overestimate, but a standard 

claimant-favorable assumption adopted in TBD6000. And the other argument and accept it.

But we just considered it a subtle difference that 

should be brought to the attention of the Board.

Chair Kotelchuck: The subtle difference is -- wait a 

minute. This was not -- this was an overestimate in 

a case that should have been a -- that was 

compensated.

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH is arguing that it's a claimantfavorable assumption rather than an overestimate.

Chair Kotelchuck: It's a claim -- pardon? Say that 

again, please.

Ms. Gogliotti: That it's a claimant-favorable 

assumption rather than an overestimate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. I see 

what you're saying. It sounds all right to me.

What do others think?

Member Beach: Well, Rose, I guess I question your 

-- John Mauro said that it should be brought to the 

attention of the Board.

Is it just so the Board knows what's happened?

Ms. Gogliotti: That there are a few subtle 

differences that happened. Where it's somewhat of 

an overestimate, but based on some of the 

uncertainties, we ended up using it as a more 

claimant-favorable assumption than an actual 

overestimate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. When you say this is, 

should be brought to the attention of the Board, 

you're really talking about the Subcommittee, 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

29

This is not --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, more that you're just aware that 

these assumptions are put into place.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I see. So, we're not really 

talking about bringing it to the -- well, bringing it to 

the Board, to the appropriate group within the 

Board.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, just to this Work Group so that 

you're aware of it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay. I'm comfortable with 

that. How about others? Any other, any concerns or 

comments about this? Or about this procedure?

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling. I'm wondering if 

I could ask a question?

Chair Kotelchuck: Always.

Ms. Behling: Rose -- okay, thank you. Rose, does 

this, this particular issue that John wanted to bring 

to the attention of the Subcommittee, is this 

because there's a difference in what the TBD is 

stating, as compared to TBD-6000?

Is there a conflict between those two? Because 

typically, I think the hierarchy of data documents 

should be that you use a TBD for that particular 

site.

There's no conflict there, is what I'm asking?

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't believe that there's a conflict.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Okay, I just wanted to be sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good, good. Okay. I think 

we should accept this, and to close it, unless I hear 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Let's -- that's fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is Observation 2 from 

the same case. And the observation reads that the 

DR appears to only address the internal beta dose 

of tech-99, and omits beta dose associated with 

radium-228 and actinium-228.

Because the DR calculated a PoC of greater than 50 

percent, evaluation of these additional intakes was 

not necessary and could be omitted.

And NIOSH actually explained that the guidance 

that they followed is available in OTIB-60. And 

essentially NIOSH explained that these isotopes 

have a long decay chain and the dose from 

inhalation includes the in-ground progeny.

And the table that they reference, A-1, provides a 

listing of the isotopes and radiation types to be 

assumed based on the type that delivered the most 

dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And based on that explanation, we 

recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I think that makes complete 

sense. Well, this is a case where the PoC is greater 

than 50 percent.

And it's perfectly reasonable to stop basically 

anywhere the dose reconstructors decide when you 

have -- when you are greater than 50 percent. 

Nothing in terms of compensation decision would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

31

affected if we were to handle the radium and 

actinium.

So, this is fine. I think we should accept it. Again, if 

there's objection or concern or question, please 

raise it.

Otherwise, if I don't hear further, I'll just say that 

we'll close.

Member Beach: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Hearing no further, we'll 

agree. And we will close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This is from the same case, Tab 

527, but Observation 3.

Here the TBD indicated that the solubility types 

evaluated for tech-99 should be consistent with the 

solubility types chosen for uranium. And in this case 

we looked at it and saw that uranium intakes were 

evaluated for Type S.

But tech-99 intakes were not evaluated for Type S. 

However, later on we go on to say that the internal 

DR methodology was seemingly a conflict of that.

That indicated that the tech-99 intakes should be 

Type M regardless of the solubility type for uranium. 

And that was true for neptunium also.

And here I think that we just got into -- there was 

confusion about the language that stems from the 

TBD.

The text reads that solubility for recycled uranium 

components should be selected consistent with the 

chosen associated uranium intake. And we 

interpreted that to mean that uranium and 

technetium solubility types should be the same.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

And NIOSH actually clarified that the Table 313 and 

the reference in OTIB-60 indicates that when Type S 

uranium is selected, Type M tech-99 is appropriate. 

In this case, consistent didn't mean the same and 

then corresponding exposure types.

And so based on that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'd appreciate hearing from others 

on this. I'm not quite sure of what to think.

I'd appreciate advice from other members of the 

Subcommittee.

Member Clawson: Well, this is Brad. I'm 

understanding what NIOSH is saying here. And they 

have done it correct.

I recommend closure on it myself.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Others?

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, and that sounds 

appropriate. Do people disagree, have concerns, 

questions?

If so, do say so. Otherwise, I would follow Brad's 

suggestion. Okay.

(No audible response)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And it sounds like we will 

close. Okay, good. Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And the next one is from the 

same case, Observation 4. And this actually is 

similar to the M&C observation that we discussed 

previously.

Where the ingestion rates used TIB-9 methodology 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

with a .2 rule. And John thought that it significantly 

underestimated the potential intake when compared 

to the methods derived from the NUREG.

While the increase of ingestion rates does not affect 

the decision in this case, it could affect other cases. 

And NIOSH explained why they were using TIB-9 in 

this particular instance. And we accepted that 

explanation. And if NIOSH wants to go into that 

more for the Board, they're welcome to.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Yes. But this does not 

come into the concern that we had with M&C, 

because Simonds Saw has been decided. And it's, I 

believe, not an SEC. So, we're just going over 

cases. This makes sense to me to close.

Do others -- what do others think?

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Okay, not hearing 

other concerns, then let's close on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the next one is from the same 

case, it's Tab 527, Finding 1. And here we noted 

that there was internal dose being assigned after 

the cancer diagnosis.

And NIOSH did agree with us when they stated that 

this type of DR only occurs in the year of cancer 

diagnosis.

And because of the latency and the risk factors 

associated with dose received during the year of the 

cancer diagnosis were very low, therefore it's 

unlikely that this DR would ever result in 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

34

significant difference in any claim.

In this particular case, changing the dose for the 

year in question did not change the PoC even at the 

100th of a percent level.

And based on that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. This is a standard type of 

problem about the year that the case is diagnosed. 

And this makes sense. It does not have much 

impact, so I would support closure. But, I would 

appreciate any other input.

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Richardson: And David as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. So, that's final.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I don't know that IREP actually 

prevents you from assigning dose after the year of 

cancer diagnosis.

But it can't prevent you from assigning dose in the 

actual year of diagnosis, because you have to go up 

to the date of diagnosis.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. Good. So, we're closed 

on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is a W.R. Grace, 

Tennessee case. And this is Tab 513, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: And here the Site Profile document 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

35

page 35, and also the NIOSH's W.R. Grace guideline 

states that the EE was monitored during the 

residual period. And recorded dosimetry doses may 

be used to limit the assigned doses.

And here when they did the dose reconstruction 

they found that they didn't -- the actual recorded 

doses did not limit dose. So, they ended up 

assigning the TBD doses instead, which is 

acceptable.

This is more just pointing it out for the Board that 

this had occurred. And it was more for information 

purposes only.

So, NIOSH didn't really have to respond to that. And 

that we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Any concerns folks?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree with that.

Member Beach: None here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Seems straightforward. 

Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next case is a West Valley 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: And closed, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is Tab 519, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: West Valley.

Ms. Gogliotti: And here this particular case lacked 

any mention in the dose reconstruction of potential

neutron exposures to the EE.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could you -- Rose, could you 

speak just a little louder, please?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

36

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, absolutely. Can you hear me 

now?

Chair Kotelchuck: Much better. Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Here we considered the lack of 

mention of any of the potential neutron exposures 

to the EE to be a preclusion are a shortcoming of 

this case.

And NIOSH completely agreed with us. And they're 

modifying the dose reconstruction template to 

discuss the potential neutron exposure and provide 

justification for excluding neutron dose.

In addition, as part of the issues resolution for the 

TBD, justification has been provided for seeming 

potential neutron exposures at West Valley to be 

incidental when compared to photon invaded 

exposure.

And based on that response, we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Thoughts? Concerns?

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I'm good with that, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I think we're -- it sounds 

like we're good on that. And I don't hear concerns.

So, I think we can close it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And this is from the same case, 

West Valley, Tab 519, Observation 2.

The DR was revised following the issue of the DR 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

report after a call with the claimant that resulted in 

an increased PoC. However, the PoC still did not go 

above 50 percent.

After that, the dose reconstruction report was not 

formally revised. It is discussed in the call 

information that's in the EE's file. However, it was 

not formally revised.

And we recommended that the dose correction 

factors change that was made and NIOSH's post-DR 

determination of a higher external dose due to the 

exposure, be better documented.

And here NIOSH responded that when this 

geometry factor is applied to external dose, the DR 

report will discuss the source and reasoning for the 

application of the factor.

In this case the glove box factor was evaluated after 

the DR report was issued. Based on new information 

the claimant -- and the results were provided by the 

claimant verbally over the phone.

If requested by the claimant when the doses were 

recalculated based on the additional information, 

the case would have been revised. And revisions 

would have been provided to the claimant.

NIOSH also noted that if the claim is returned for 

rework in the future, the phone logs will be 

reviewed. And this issue would be discussed fully in 

the rework.

However, we just had a question if this procedure 

would require the person conducting the phone 

interview to offer to revise the case for the 

claimant?

Or does the claimant need to know to request this 

change in order for it to occur?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: That's a very important question, 

the last paragraph. And I think it's worthy of our 

discussion.

Let's put it this way, it suggests that the person, the 

claimant who is on the phone, may not know. I 

mean your concern is, does the claimant know that 

he or she must request a formal revision?

Ms. Gogliotti: Or that they have the ability to 

request that revision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And it seems to me -- let's 

put it, if there's any question, then it should be part 

of the discussion that the person is so informed.

They have a right. And they should be so informed. 

Now, my view, they can -- if they have thoughts 

later and go to an Ombudsperson, the 

Ombudsperson would tell them, no, no, you can get 

it.

But I would think that should be part of the call 

itself. There may be reasons not to do it.

And if there are, I would appreciate somebody, one 

of the staff people, one of perhaps the NIOSH folks 

explaining what is done. And if --- well, and if it is 

not done, why it is not done?

Could somebody respond?

Mr. Calhoun: Scott, do you know that better then I 

do?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. I'm just about to say, our folks 

that do the telephone interviews, are not normally 

part of this call. So, I don't know off the top of my 

head.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Could you check 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

39

Mr. Siebert: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And report back to us at the next 

meeting?

Mr. Siebert: We certainly can do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And I, certainly from my 

personal point of view, just as one member of the 

Subcommittee, I would say that the person should 

have that information that they can ask for a formal 

revision.

Mr. Calhoun: One thing that should be noted, is that 

question is specifically asked in the CATI. So this 

question would have been specifically asked to that 

person before the DR was ever submitted.

And it sounds to me like they didn't respond to it in 

that way. And then afterwards if the case was to be 

reviewed -- or revised, I mean, the phone log is 

automatically reviewed. And that would have put 

events up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. But, you're saying 

you -- I thought I heard you say in the beginning 

that this question is asked.

That you know the question is asked. Or the person 

is given this information.

Mr. Calhoun: No.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I'm not sure that's the correct --

Mr. Calhoun: No, in the CATI the question is asked.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon? Pardon me Grady?

Mr. Calhoun: The question is asked in the CATI, I 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Ah-hah.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. But this is after the dose 

reconstruction was completed and the case was 

being -- was gone over with the claimant.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so this was post-CATI.

Chair Kotelchuck: This -- good. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: So, he wouldn't have the ability to --

Mr. Calhoun: Right. But we don't know -- I don't 

know off the top of my head if this person said no, I 

didn't work in glove boxes, and then all of a sudden 

remembered that they did.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. Thank you both for the 

clarification there. So, Scott will find out. And 

respond back to us at the next meeting.

I don't know if you need to write it up. But if you 

would talk to us about that.

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is Scott. I want to make sure 

I'm very clear. Because I just heard something 

different then what I thought I had heard originally.

The question is, do our close out interview people, 

when they get new information, and they relate the 

response to that information back to the claimant, 

do they also ask if the claimant wants a new copy 

with that reflected or not?

Is that the correct question?

Chair Kotelchuck: I think it is.

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

41

Mr. Siebert: Okay. I just wanted to verify I was 

getting that, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. 

Mr. Siebert: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. So, you'll tell us about that. 

I don't know if -- I don't know if there's any reason 

to write that up.

Just simply verbally come back to us at the next 

meeting and tell us. Unless other Subcommittee 

people feel like it should be in writing?

Member Beach: Well, I think it should be in --

Ms. Gogliotti: Should it be in writing in the BRS at 

least?

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh.

Ms. Gogliotti: Shouldn't the response be in the BRS?

Chair Kotelchuck: That would be good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Yeah.

Member Beach: Well, that's what I was going to 

say. It needs to be completed in the BRS.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Okay. Report to BRS. 

Very good. So, this is still in progress, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Thank you for raising 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

42

issue though. I think it's an important one, and I'm 

glad for clarification. Okay, is that our last one? Yes, 

on Set 25.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, that wraps up this matrix for Set 

25, Type 1 issues. Presumably, next meeting we'll 

come back and do the Type 2 issues when we have 

the appropriate staff on the line.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay, that sounds good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now, there is one open issue from the 

DOE sites matrix for this set, and SC&A had an 

action item, and I think we can get that one closed 

if it's okay with everyone.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

(Pause.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry, this is a little slow. Okay, and 

this issue is from Tab 520.

Chair Kotelchuck: 520. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm not sure why that isn't coming up. 

Oh, I'm sorry. This one is actually Tab 516.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- and PNNL case. And here we 

discussed this issue at the last meeting where we 

were concerned that NIOSH did not properly 

account for all missed shallow doses. And we -- at 

the last meeting we were tasked to reinvestigate 

the issue and provide a more in-depth analysis of 

the EE's dosimetry records.

And after we did that review, we believe that 

NIOSH's assessment of missed dose is actually 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

correct. It appears that the discrepancy arose from 

the term non-penetrating dose having multiple 

meanings.

Non-penetrating, in the historical records, refers to 

non-penetrating dose, not the non-penetrating 

reading. And this means that the recorded value in 

the dosimetry does not have a deep dose 

component.

The procedures for the assignment of missed dose 

to the skin described on page 16 of the Hanford 

external dose TBD refer to non-penetrating as 

synonymous with the open window reading.

And adding to the confusion, there are statements 

in the guidance for 1972 through 1974 that 

instructs dose reconstructors to determine the nonpenetrating dose by subtracting the reported 

penetrating reading from the reported nonpenetrating reading.

This guidance led us to interpret the nonpenetrating dose as if it included both dose 

components, when in fact it was only intended to 

present electrons and low-energy protons.

And we believe, based on this misunderstanding, 

that the Hanford guidance would benefit from 

additional clarification to reduce this source of 

confusion in the future.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I see what you're saying. 

Thoughts, folks? Sounds like --

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. My thought is that this -

- is this a finding? Because I guess it probably 

shouldn't be. I can't see from this if it is. I think 

from the numbering it might be.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. 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

44

Ms. Gogliotti: We have labeled it as a finding, but I 

think that it would be appropriate to change to an 

observation, based on --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Calhoun: All right, sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. But as an observation, do 

folks -- what do folks from the Subcommittee, any 

thoughts about this? Or concerns?

Member Clawson: I feel there should be a little bit 

better clarification. This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Which would mean we 

accept the report and would close on this.

Member Clawson: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I would agree. How do 

others feel on this observation now? Any concerns? 

I know at least one or two folks are not 

participating, that is, they're -- okay, that sounds 

fine. Let's -- I think we accept it. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Great. And there is one more in this 

set --

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- that it was -- it's a Type 2 issue 

technically. However, we discussed it at the last 

meeting, and we did have an open action item that I 

think we should just take care of.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

45

Chair Kotelchuck: Which case?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's Tab 520, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this one we discussed it in detail 

at the --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Has to do with review of all nonmetabolic organs and tissues when selecting a 

surrogate organ.

Mr. Siebert: I'm so sorry. This is Scott. Can I just 

verify that's actually in the AWE set, rather than the 

DOE set. Correct?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. Sorry.

Mr. Siebert: Okay. Sorry, I just --it switched over --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: Okay, thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And at the last meeting we 

were tasked to look into if this particular issue that 

was raised had previously been discussed when we 

were reviewing the procedures related to this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I had Kathy look into this. Kathy, 

you're still on the line, right?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I am. I'm on the line. Do you want 

me to take over from here?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

46

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, if you don't mind.

Ms. Behling: Okay. I'll make it brief, but I did 

compile a little memo here that we can forward out, 

and I apologize for not getting this out earlier. I 

wasn't sure this was going to be discussed at this 

meeting.

But, again, it was Tab 520, Observation 1. And we 

were questioning the assignment of non-metabolic 

organs and tissues in selecting a surrogate organ 

for, in this particular case, for the prostate.

And the question was should the urinary bladder be 

used. And there was some discussion as to it may 

be more appropriate to use the bladder.

And I was tasked to look at OTIB-5, which is our 

internal dosimetry organ, external dosimetry organ, 

and IREP model selection, for now ICD-10, but used 

to be ICD-9 codes, and also to look at OTIB-60, 

which is the internal dose reconstruction guidance, 

and to go back to those reviews and determine was 

this particular issue ever discussed by the 

Subcommittee, the Procedure Subcommittee.

And I did go back -- I provide a fairly long memo to 

identify all of the revisions of OTIB-5 and OTIB-60 

that were reviewed by SC&A, what our findings 

were, just so that you all can agree with my 

conclusion that we did not discuss this particular 

case -- or this particular issue previously.

So the short answer is SC&A did not address the 

issue of whether the surrogate organ selection for 

internal and external doses to the prostate was 

appropriate.

And so I think at the previous meeting we thought if 

that wasn't discussed, it may be something that we 

want to discuss further, perhaps in the Procedure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Subcommittee meeting, or at an overarching 

committee-type thing. So that's up to you.

But you can see my memo and see what we did 

have findings on, but this particular issue was not 

discussed during previous reviews. 

Are there any questions? And I can send out the 

memo so you can have a better understanding of 

this if you'd like.

Member Beach: Yeah, I reviewed the memo. I can't 

seem to find it right now. But is that something we 

can put into our Procedures Subcommittee to 

review? Or is it appropriate to go through it? It 

seems like a Procedures issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: We can transfer it to that committee.

Ms. Behling: Yes. That's what I would suggest.

Member Beach: Yeah, I would agree with that. 

Dave, are you still there?

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm sorry. I had mute on. There 

was stuff going on here. I'm sorry.

No, I say we should -- have you heard me before? I 

think everything I've been saying -- it should go to 

the Procedures Subcommittee. I don't think there's 

any question. We're not competent as a 

subcommittee to consider this. And you agree, 

Josie. Sorry about that. I had my mute on.

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Clawson: I agree. This is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, okay. All right, unless there 

are objections, we will transfer it. I'm listening. Any 

objections? Concerns? 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

48

Ms. Behling: One last -- I'm sorry, this is Kathy 

again. I'm --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Behling: I apologize for interrupting. One last 

question.

Chair Kotelchuck: You did not.

Ms. Behling: Did this memo get sent, or should we 

send it there after the meeting?

Ms. Gogliotti: It did not get formally get sent. I did 

load it in the BRS and put a copy in the meeting 

files for today.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: If the Subcommittee wants us to 

formally send it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- we can do that.

Ms. Behling: Yes, and I think we should share it 

with all members of the Procedure Subcommittee. 

Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that would be appropriate? I 

can include this memo also when I send my transfer 

email.

Ms. Behling: Okay, perfect.

Chair Kotelchuck: There we go.

Ms. Behling: Is that all right with you, Josie?

Member Beach: Yes, that sounds good.

Ms. Behling: Okay, thank you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

49

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, that's good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, so we are now finished 

with the Set 25. Right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, nice. Very nice. We had 

a minimum of disagreement. It went rather quickly, 

and I'm very glad that we are all in agreement and 

moved along.

It's not a quarter of twelve, East Coast time. And I 

wondered if this is now an appropriate time to 

consider a break for lunch for those of us here, and 

for breakfast for those of you on the West Coast. 

What do folks think? Is this appropriate if we -- it's 

11:45 -- to take our break now? It's a little earlier. 

Or do people want to go on with Set 27 for a little 

while? I await --

Member Clawson: You know, Dave, I'm going to --

tell you up front I'd like to just kind of proceed on 

for a -- least a little while there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: But if you guys are hungry, that's 

-- I understand fully.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I'm not. I'm happy to go 

either way. What about other people, first on the 

Subcommittee? Of course, or on NIOSH or SC&A, if 

there's any --

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

continue if we can.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

50

Review Cases from Set 27

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, we have two continues. 

Let's -- my feeling is that's two, we'll go on. Let's go 

on now to Set 27. Is that okay? Particularly, Rose, 

you're okay?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- of starting with the Type 2 or the 

Type 1. Now, there are more Type 1s, which are the 

narrative results.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: However, sometimes if we leave the 

Type 2s to the end of the day, people get mentally 

exhausted.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right. You're right. But 

since we're going a little extra and we're coming to 

the end of the morning, let's do Category 1, at least 

for a little while, until we break for lunch.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Give me a second to get that pulled 

up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right, I think it's stuck behind my 

little tab here. All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good?

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is the very first time we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

51

discussed this set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Correct.

Ms. Gogliotti: If you remember, we just finished the 

one-on-ones in January, so --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- have been discussed in that 

capacity, but that is it. Okay? So the first case is 

Tab 543, and this case is the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Lab, GE Vallecitos, and a Lawrence 

Livermore National Lab case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And his observation had to do with 

DOE records showing that the EE worked at GE 

Vallecitos between 1970 and 1984, and that was not 

included in the record, based on when the files were 

received.

NIOSH agreed that there was at least one location 

in the DOE records indicating that EE worked at GE 

Vallecitos at least on one particular day.

However, the employment period provided was 

sufficient to reach a PoC of over 50 percent, and 

NIOSH saw no need to contact DOL to get the DOLconfirmed or verified employment period adjusted, 

but NIOSH said that they would have pursued the 

issue if the claim was under 50 percent.

And then while SC&A does accept that the additional 

employment would not impact the compensation 

decision in this case, we're just kind of seeking 

additional clarification. We interpret what NIOSH 

said in their response to mean that if the PoC was 

below 50 percent and there was evidence of 

additional employment in the EE files, 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

52

would notify DOL of evidence so that DOL could 

reevaluate the employment dates. Is that correct?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah, this is Grady. That's 100 percent 

correct.

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that proceduralized? Or is that at 

the discretion of the dose reconstructor?

Mr. Calhoun: No. We're not allowed to use 

employment unless it's verified by DOL.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: But --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- evidence, are -- is there a 

requirement that the dose reconstructor actually 

forward that information on? Or how is that 

addressed?

Mr. Siebert: Hey, Grady, I could --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: -- answer that for you.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: If you like. This is Scott. Yeah, it's in 

Procedure 106. There's a note in there that if it 

makes a difference in being over 50 percent by 

either -- the bottom line is if we can include it and 

it's less than 50 percent, even without going to DOL 

we can include that and move forward.

If it makes a difference going over 50 percent, then 

we do go back to DOL and ask for information on 

whether they will reevaluate the employment 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: That was actually a Type 2 issue. I'm 

sorry, I've got my --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, so we're -- we'll close on 

that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Not a problem.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the next one is from the same 

case, Observation 2. And here in this case recycled 

uranium was not considered, and NIOSH responded 

or they acknowledged that recycled uranium should 

have been considered; however, inclusion of 

recycled uranium would only result in a slight 

increase to the PoC that was already over 50 

percent.

NIOSH did acknowledge that they're in the process 

of reviewing the methodology for this site and 

anticipates updating it shortly to include RU where 

appropriate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: When the update is completed, they 

said that they would be doing a PER under the 

normal PER process. So based on that we 

recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Of course. This is pretty 

standard. Again, if you're over 50 percent, then at 

that point one can truncate in many different ways 

the process, as appropriate. So` I would say let's 

close, unless I hear a concern or objection. 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

54

closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, Observation 3 from the same 

case. Here, the observation was essentially that the 

incorrect plutonium intake rate was listed in the DR 

report. They used the correct in the actual 

assessment. It was just listed incorrectly in the DR 

report, and NIOSH acknowledged that this was a 

typographical error. So we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Is this not a quality control 

issue?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, I would say that that was a 

quality control issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: But if it is, would it not be a 

finding?

Ms. Gogliotti: In this case it didn't impact the actual 

dose reconstruction. It was just --

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: If was more of a typographical -- it 

didn't impact the actual dose reconstruction, other 

than the error in the text. Typically, we would only 

have it a finding if it resulted in a change to the 

dose that was assigned.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. You're saying it's only in 

the report. It's not in the process.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then that certainly is an 

observation. And I would agree, it should be closed. 

Again, if I hear objection or concern or comment, 

happily. Otherwise, I'll wait a moment, and then if I 

don't hear anything, we'll close it. Okay, closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the next one is from the same 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

case. And this is Observation 4. This had to do with 

there being unmonitored uranium dose was 

assigned during a period when the EE was 

monitored. And I think this was perhaps more of a 

confusion on our part based on the language in the 

dose reconstruction report.

It wasn't clear to my reviewer at the time that the 

unmonitored uranium dose was being assigned 

because it was during the residual period, rather 

than because it was being assigned, because the DR 

report doesn't indicate that.

Based on NIOSH's response, we agree that they 

handled the intakes appropriately, so we do 

recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Again, fairly standard, and 

that sounds reasonable. I'll wait a moment. Okay, I 

think I don't hear any -- silence equals consent in 

this case, so move closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one, Observation 5, is 

the same issue but for plutonium.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, it certainly is. Same issue. 

And we'll close it. Again, always subject to comment 

or question. Okay, closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this one is also from the same 

case, but it's Finding 1. Let me pull this up here. 

And the finding had to do with the incorrect intake 

value being used in the OTIB-0054 workbook.

And NIOSH agreed that the incorrect intake was 

assigned for the years '78 and '79, and the change 

would slightly increase the dose in a case with 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

56

PoC over 50 percent. So we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay. Certainly agreed. 

Anybody have concern or objection? Okay, so we'll 

close that as well.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is from Tab 534, 

and that's a Fernald case. And it's Observation 1 

and had to do with the current RU guidance would 

increase dose. So the case was performed correctly 

using the guidance that was current at the time that 

the DR was performed.

However, the guidance has since changed, and

NIOSH intends to update this case as part of the 

PER process. So we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Right, so this really was 

done properly at the time that it was done, and 

there will be changes, and they will be considered in 

a future PER. Right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, that seems 

straightforward, and I say we should close, unless I 

hear objection.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. Close.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Close. Okay, fine. We're 

closed on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And if ever my Subcommittee 

members think I'm moving too quickly, slow me 

down because --

Member Clawson: Dave, you know that if we have 

something to say, we'll say it. I hope you know 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

57

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I guarantee I know you will, 

Brad. I want to make sure everybody will. Yes.

Member Clawson: Don't ever mess with Loretta. 

She'll take you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Hey, I don't mess with anybody 

on our Subcommittee. All right, let's go. Let's move 

on.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right. The next one is Finding 1 

from the same case. And this one had to do with 

Rn-222 intake values, and they were not consistent 

with the current TBD.

And NIOSH agreed that the dose reconstructor 

should have used the most recent TBD values. Here, 

the dose reconstructor used a previous version of 

the tool to assign intakes, and they should have 

used updated version which NIOSH, I guess, keeps 

on a server.

Using the radon values from the current revision 

would increase the working level month's 

assignment from .829 to 1.524, and the PoC did 

increase from 46.69 to 46.93.

And NIOSH reviewed all claims that were conducted 

by this particular dose reconstructor in the sixmonth period following the TBD update, just to 

make sure that this wasn't a reoccurring issue that 

happened for this dose reconstructor. And they 

didn't find any other impacted claims.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: So based on that response, 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

58

comfortable closing this issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good. Okay, that sounds 

good. Is this finding a quality control issue?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think it is. I trust, Rose, or 

someone working with you is keeping track of the 

QCs as we go along for a future report to the 

Secretary.

Ms. Gogliotti: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay, thank you. All right, 

and I -- okay, we're -- we agree. I agree. I'm 

waiting if there are other concerns. Any other?

Member Clawson: No, we're good with it. I would 

like to recommend, though I appreciate NIOSH 

looking at how they did that, I just want to 

compliment them on that that they looked at all the 

claims. But I thought that was very good. I 

appreciate them letting us know it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I agree with you. That's very 

nice. Okay, so we're going to close it, unless -- I'll 

wait a moment. Okay, we'll close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is Tab 535, and 

it's also a Fernald case. And this is Finding 1. And 

here we identified that there was a diagnostic 

examination that was included in the medical dose.

And NIOSH agreed that there was a diagnostic 

examination that was done in '95 that was 

mistakenly included. The diagnostic x-ray was 

removed and rerun, and the combined PoC was 

20.11 percent, and the combined PoC with the 

diagnostic x-ray removed was 19.93. So a marginal 

impact, but it certainly didn't impact the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

59

compensation decision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Other than that, we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, sounds good. Now, is this 

quality control?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, you could certainly say that was 

a quality issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think it is. I think it is. Okay, 

well -- and there's agreement now, and it's settled. 

So do -- I'll move that we accept closure. Again, I'll 

wait one second. Okay, closed. All right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the next one is 536, also a 

Fernald case, Observation 1. And here similar to one 

we had earlier, the recycled uranium contaminant 

levels used by NIOSH are not current.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: And, again, we agree that the case 

was processed correctly at the time, and NIOSH will 

update the case as part of the PER process. And 

therefore we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, now -- but this was 

evaluated properly at the time.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Changes had not been made, so -

-

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, which is where this observation -

-

Chair Kotelchuck: So, pardon me. Why, then, is this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

a finding?

Ms. Gogliotti: This is an observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: This is an observation, right. 

536.1 becomes 536 Observation 1, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Am I looking at the right thing?

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe it is --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: It is Observation 1. It is 

Observation 1, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Then I am perhaps off base or out 

of order. Hold it a second.

Ms. Gogliotti: If you're looking at the spreadsheet, 

it's important that you use the drop-down menu --

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm looking at BRS right now.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- when you sort.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: You're in the BRS?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's possible it was loaded incorrectly. 

I can verify that.

Chair Kotelchuck: There were -- yeah, no, some of 

those went for -- okay, thank you. This is -- we are 

on Observation 1, and we accept. Right?

Fine. So we'll accept Observation 1, and then go on 

to Finding 1.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Yeah, they're out of order 

in the -- I'm going -- I'm --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: If you're in the BRS, they're very 

much out of order from --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, and that's okay. I'll be 

careful. No problem. It's easy to resolve. I just --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: The BRS loads everything 

alphabetically, which creates problems for us 

because we don't care about alphabetically. We're 

concerned with keeping the cases together.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's go on to 536.1.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is 546, Finding 1, which 

is an Oak Ridge Diffusion Plant case. You're looking 

at the Type 2 issues also, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. Okay.

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

addressing all of the bioassay records. We found 

that NIOSH did not include a total uranium result 

that was submitted in 2001.

And NIOSH did assign fitted uranium intakes during 

this time when the positive sample was taken. 

However, the positive sample would only modestly 

impact the fitted intake.

NIOSH looked at this, and the addition of the 

uranium bioassay had a small impact on the fitted 

dose. However, the missed internal dose was 

assigned because it resulted in a higher 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

62

dose, both in the original assessment and the 

review when they added the sample. Therefore, the 

omitted bioassay sample did not affect the internal 

dose assigned. And based on that we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right, okay. Yes, right. 

Again, quality control. But I agree, closure. Any 

concerns, folks? Hearing none, approved.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Finding number 2. 

Here, we found that NIOSH did not acknowledge 

conflicting higher americium-241 bioassay results. 

We reviewed these bioassay records and discovered 

there were actually four records relating to a single 

date of urinalysis for americium. Three of the 

records were consistent; one was different.

NIOSH used the consistent record, which was --

happened to be lower than the one different. And 

NIOSH responded that assuming the data that is 

reported later is more accurate is not necessarily 

unreasonable, but they do agree that assuming the 

higher value of the two values is claimant-favorable 

and the records are not clear.

And acute intake of americium Type M was assessed 

based on the assumed positive bioassay submitted

in 2003. There was no impact to the overall PoC, 

and that's because the acute intake resulted in a 

lower annual dose than the already assigned 

americium missed dose during that period of time. 

So based on that we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, sounds good. Any 

concerns, folks? Quality control, right? Okay, good. 

So let's close on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Observation 1. 

Here, the K-25 guidance document included in the 

EE's files for the British Nuclear Fuels Limited 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

workers says that that LOD for the period was ten 

millirem. And this information is not actually in the 

K-25 external dose TBD. The DR guidance 

documents are not reviewed formally by the 

Advisory Board, as I'm sure everyone is aware.

But during our November conference call where we 

discussed this case, Board members Anderson and 

Valerio requested that the issues be elevated to an 

observation to highlight the guidance document's 

impact on the dose reconstruction.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And NIOSH responded that at the 

time the claim was performed the British Nuclear 

Fuels workers had an LOD of ten millirem, as 

discussed in the guidance document. And this LOD 

was used to calculate the missed external dose 

while working at the site.

But then there's an additional SRDB document that 

states that ten millirem is equal to the minimum 

reportable dose for neutrons, and they go in here 

and describe some other SRDB documents and what 

they state.

And NIOSH said that the issue has been 

investigated and is going to be incorporated in the 

next K-25 external dose TBD. And based on that, 

we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that sounds good. Sounds 

good to me. Folks, you agree?

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, Dave. I'm good 

with 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

64

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay? The next one is from the same 

case, Observation 2. There was an incorrect intake 

date listed in the dose reconstruction report. And 

NIOSH responded that the tech-99 intake was 

calculated correctly; however, the intake rate was 

transcribed incorrectly into the report. This is a 

typographical error. And so we recommend closing. 

This is a QA issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Good. That sounds good 

and agreed. Again, object to -- any comment. If 

not, I hear nothing, we'll close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is also a K-25 

case, Tab 547. And this is Finding 1. And here we 

identify that NIOSH did not address strontium-90 

intakes.

The DOE records showed a urine bioassay submitted 

by the EE in 1999 with a result that happened to be 

below the MDA. And the values, of course, are here, 

but I don't want to disclose any claimant 

information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And here NIOSH actually did not 

agree with us. NIOSH indicated that the strontium90 intake should have been -- or should not have 

been assessed in this dose reconstruction; however, 

the reason for the exclusion should have been 

discussed in the report.

Strontium-90 is not part of the source term at K-25, 

according to the TBD. They go on to say that during 

this time period, ORNL processed K-25 employee 

bioassay samples, and the strontium-90 was likely 

included as part of the source term for ORNL, and 

therefore not indicative exposure.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

And while we understand their logic, we do question 

if it's claimant-favorable. It's certainly not outside 

the realm of reason that the EE may have -- visited 

the other sites at Oak Ridge, and that would also 

explain the strontium-90 monitoring.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well, it does sound not 

outside the realm of reason, though I would -- I do 

agree that it should have been -- it could have been 

added, and I suppose it should have been.

I can easily -- it's not part of the source term, so I 

can easily understand why the dose reconstructor 

didn't put it in.

But once the issue was raised as a finding, I'm a 

little concerned why, Scott, in your response you 

didn't say well, okay, I see why you're doing this, 

but if we want it to be claimant-favorable, we 

should add it if it's possible that it's legitimate, even 

though it was not a source term.

Mr. Siebert: And this is Scott. The response from 

SC&A came after our initial response. So I didn't --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: But, I mean, I'm going to say 

something, but I'll leave it up to Grady as to 

whether he wants to -- because I'm speaking as a 

contractor, not as NIOSH.

From my understanding, we -- I've had people go 

back and look, and we have no indications 

whatsoever this individual was at X-10 at all.

And I agree that throwing that on top -- I wouldn't 

call that claimant-favorable --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

(Telephonic interference.)

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, we're having a little 

interference right now. Somebody check, and we'll 

come back to you, Scott, in a second, when things 

quiet down. Okay, Scott, continue, please.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. And this is a discussion of 

whether it's claimant-favorable, which is making a 

decision between two options that are equally 

reasonable, and being overestimating, where we 

just assume that the person was where we have no 

indications whatsoever they were.

As far as I know, the CATI never mentioned it, the 

EE never mentioned it, there's no indication 

whatsoever the individual was at ORNL at all.

So, I mean, like I said, I'll defer to Grady on this, 

but from our investigations, I don't think it's 

necessarily reasonable to make that overestimating 

assumption like that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Grady, what would you 

say? Because --

Mr. Calhoun: I agree with Scott on that one because 

we have at least a couple of different points where 

the energy employee or the claimant would have 

the opportunity to say they worked there.

And if that's not even claimed employment, let 

alone verified employment, there's no reason to 

jump to the conclusion that they in fact were there.

Ms. Gogliotti: Except I think that this is a unique set 

of sites, the Oak Ridge facilities, because they're all 

somewhat co-located, and going between one and 

the other might not even register to a claimant as 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: Yeah, but if they didn't mention it, and 

it's not verified employment, there would be no 

reason to include that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Is there any reason that a person 

could administratively go over to the other part of 

the site for temporary -- replace somebody on 

vacation or something like that, and go --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: And you wouldn't remember --

pardon? Go ahead.

Member Clawson: They can go all over the place 

there. It's not that outrageous to be able to do.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: Then we get into a situation where, 

okay, well now we have to assume everybody was 

at all three sites. And then we have to look at --

let's say, for example, the ambient internal dose at 

X-10 is much higher than other places, so do we 

assign that to everybody because it's possible that 

they might have, even though they didn't list it and 

it's not covered employment? It's just a slippery 

slope. It's just not a very --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: I understand exactly what you're 

saying on that, and this is very (telephonic 

interference) understanding on this (telephonic 

interference) a urine bioassay that showed 

strontium-90. Correct?

Ms. Gogliotti: It was below the MDA, but it was 

present in their sampling records.

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

68

Member Clawson: It was present in their sampling 

records. And I understand what you're saying, 

Grady. But I just see an issue where we're trolling 

something like this too.

I've said this from the beginning, because all of

these sites are intertwined like a spider web, and we 

go lots of different places. I realize that we can't -- I 

understand your position -- I really do. Also, too, 

when we're showing a sample that's showing this, I 

think it ought to be taken into consideration. That's 

just my personal opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I would --

I'm trying to think of a way to make an assessment 

on this without having to force you to go through 

every single case.

Mr. Calhoun: Well, we won't go through every single

case. I think --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: I think that -- nor that. But I think 

that with -- as I think Scott -- I heard Scott say that 

this response was provided after we provided ours. 

So we could always go back and look at this specific 

site and see if there's any more detail, not site, this 

specific case, and see if there's any more details we 

can add to the BRS.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could you do that? That would be 

helpful.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: Am I correct? Did I hear you correctly, 

Scott, that this was received after we had our 

response?

Mr. Siebert: That's correct. And, yeah, we can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

69

definitely do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: I appreciate that. So let's leave 

this open and take a look and then come back to it 

the next time.

Member Clawson: And, Dave, this is Brad. I agree 

with Grady. This -- we ought to look at just this 

one. I just -- I feel this has got to be on -- you 

know, I agree 100 percent with what Grady was 

saying about that, but when we see something like 

this, I think we ought to evaluate it a little bit more. 

So I'm in agreement.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good. Okay, and as long as 

it can be looked at a little bit more. And I also 

appreciate, Scott, that you looked into it further 

already between -- you know, after Rose's 

response, and didn't find anything.

And that was a good procedure, proper procedure. 

And you'll check it a little bit more and talk to us 

again the next time we meet when we will come 

back to this. Okay, folks? Okay, sounds good. All 

right, so it remains open.

Now are we coming up to a natural breaking point? 

It's 12:23. Are there a few more to go until 12:30 

here, and 9:30 there?

Ms. Gogliotti: We can keep going. We've got plenty 

more to cover. This would be a reasonable stopping 

point if we want to take a break. If you want to 

keep going, that's fine too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me ask Subcommittee 

members first. People want to take a break now or 

keep going? I'm open to doing as you folks would 

like.

Member Clawson: I'd like to keep going. But 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

70

just me.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I'm fine to keep going 

or take a break. It doesn't matter.

Chair Kotelchuck: I see 551 coming up from 

Paducah. A whole -- many, many cases for 

Paducah. So why don't we -- oh no, these are all 

closed. The next thing is 545 and -- that's it.

Ms. Gogliotti: 545 is next.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, 545. And then 551, there 

are many, many different pieces to it. So why don't 

we do 545, and then break.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: This is a Nevada Test Site, as well as 

an Amchitka Island nuclear test site case. And this 

is Observation 1. And this particular one has to do 

with the tritium dose that was assigned in 1971. 

NIOSH assigned .002 rems, so very small dose to 

account for tritium for the one week that the EE 

spent at the island, and that has to do with the 

tritium dose that was assigned to the NTS.

And NIOSH agrees that the NTS environmental 

default intakes do not include tritium, and that 

tritium was not assigned for the EE's NTS 

employment.

During the NTS SEC period, NIOSH assigned tritium 

dose based solely on the available bioassay data for 

the EE. However, the NTS environmental TBD has 

just been revised to now include tritium, and they 

will also be updating the Amchitka Island 

methodology to reflect 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: So based on that, we recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. I think that makes sense. 

This will be updated. And it's good you found it, but 

it should be updated. Okay, I'm open on that to --

or I should say I'm ready to close on that. I'm open 

to closing on this. Any concerns or objections?

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

So, yeah, seeing that the Nevada Test Site being 

updated.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. All right, then we'll 

close. And I think we're almost ready for 551. It's 

12:25, so we'll call it 12:30 and -- here on the East 

Coast. And can we return at 1:30, after a long 

break? Does that sound okay to people? And of 

course, an hour -- at the half-hour on the West 

Coast. That is 9:30 on the West Coast. Sound good 

folks?

Member Clawson: Sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, everyone. We've 

accomplished a lot this morning. We're moving right 

along. See you all at 1:30 or 9:30 and everything in 

between, on the hours and between for those of us 

in the middle of the country. Okay, bye-bye.

Member Clawson: See everybody in an hour.

(Whereupon the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:27 p.m. and resumed at 1:31 p.m.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Did you want to pick up where we left 

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

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

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

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

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

subject to change

72

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. The case 551, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: 552.

Chair Kotelchuck: 552?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. We didn't do 551, did we?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. That's a Type 2 case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We can certainly do that one now if 

you want to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh no, no, no, you're right. It's 

absolutely Type 2. I didn't make that distinction in 

my own personal notes. 552 is fine. And all of our 

Subcommittee members are on the line?

Member Beach: Dave, it's Josie, I'm back.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey is back.

Member Valerio: Loretta's back.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, wonderful. Dave 

Richardson? Well, we have a quorum and he'll be 

back in a moment, I am sure. I'm confident. Okay, 

so I think we can start.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, Tab 552 is a Paducah case, and 

this is Finding 1. Here we identified that there were 

ineligible examinations assigned as medical dose. 

There were two X-rays in particular that were listed 

as occurring at Western Baptist Hospital with offsite addresses. And NIOSH disagreed and thought 

that they were eligible for inclusion because the 

guidance document indicates that there were no offsite examinations that occurred at Paducah because 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

73

they had X-ray equipment.

While we acknowledge the guidance in OTIB-79 and 

the TBD, and we agree that there was X-ray 

equipment on site, we're not disputing that. We also 

don't think that that precludes the examinations 

from occurring off-site. However, assigning these 

examinations as claimant-favorable, if there was 

some doubt, NIOSH suggested perhaps that they 

were sent off-site to be read, but they occurred onsite. We have no way of knowing, so especially 

because these examinations aren't impacting the 

compensation decision, we recommended closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me ask you, in the past, 

always when things were done off-site, my 

understanding was it was not allowed for us to use 

them as medical dose.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: So why is this different? Because 

we know the --

Ms. Gogliotti: OTIB-79 says that they didn't occur 

off-site, essentially, even though the reference 

listed a hospital that's not on-site.

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it, okay. So there's 

affirmative indication that they were done on-site.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, there's just no evidence to the 

contrary.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, all right. Right, okay.

Ms. Adams: Excuse me, I have a quick question. 

Rose, are you showing anything?

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, I'm so sorry. I forgot to include 

my screen again. One moment.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Member Clawson: Thanks, Nancy. I thought I was 

the only one.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now can you see it?

Ms. Adams: I can.

Member Clawson: Yes, now we can.

Member Lockey: Yeah, Rose, you're up.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm just working off the BRS 

because it's easier on my machine.

Ms. Gogliotti: My screen looks the same either way, 

so --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, okay, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, if we closed that one, then 

we're on to the same case, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, let's see. I wondered what 

were people thinking on the Subcommittee.

Member Beach: I agree with closing. This is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree with 

closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Now hearing no 

objections, we close. Good, thank you. All right,

closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Observation 1. We 

identified there was a small TBD error in Table 6-1 

of the TBD. NIOSH agreed it was a typographical 

error. During the next revision of the TBD, they 

have agreed to correct this, and so we recommend

closing 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

75

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, all right.

Member Beach: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, sure, that's fine. Hearing 

no -- close.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one comes from Tab 553, 

and this is a Rocky Flats case. Here we identified an 

error in prorating the 1976 external ambient dose. 

NIOSH agreed that there was an error that was 

made in the prorating step, and they have improved 

the tool to include prorating. That was published in 

April of last year, but this case was performed 

before that, so it wouldn't have been caught.

They made that step to prevent these types of 

errors in the future. The impact of the finding was 

reviewed. The overall PoC would change from 49.05 

to 49.62, so there was no impact on the 

compensation decision. Therefore, we recommend 

closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: Rose, this is Josie. Did you guys go 

take a look at that tool or just --

Ms. Gogliotti: We did not look at the tool. We can 

certainly request that from NIOSH, though, and 

investigate further, if you'd like.

Member Beach: I don't think it's necessary. I was 

just wondering if you had or not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I mean, as usual, the PoC 

number is tantalizingly close to 50 percent. 

However, as always in the past, it is either 50 

percent or above or it isn't, and it isn't. So I'm okay 

with that, with what you report, and would be open 

to closing it. Any concerns, objections? It is worth 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

your looking at.

Ms. Gogliotti: This is actually the tool, so I don't 

have pulled up here exactly what tool they modified. 

However, it appears that the tool automatically 

prorates rather than the dose reconstructor 

manually having to do it, which --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. So if it said it was 

done, then it is done. Then I'm fine. Any concerns 

or objections? If not, let's close.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is from the same case, 

Rocky Flats, Finding number 2. Here we identified 

that there were duplicate --

Chair Kotelchuck: By the way, pardon me, before 

we go on. That was a QC, wasn't it, 553.1? Right? A 

quality control error?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, a QA issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I'm having a lot of feedback on the 

line. I don't know if it's just me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me see. Hold one second. I 

fear that may be mine. I just turned it off and it did 

quiet down. Let me go off or -- I'll go onto mute and 

I can get another device while we're talking. Would 

somebody take over the Chair? Our senior person 

here in terms of service on the committee is, I'm 

not sure now with all the new people.

Member Beach: It's Brad. He's been on the longest.

Chair Kotelchuck: Brad, okay. Brad, would you take 

over while I'm silent? I'm sure I can fix things soon.

Member Clawson: Sounds good. We'll go ahead 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry, Brad, you're stuck with me.

Member Clawson: You know, you can't win with 

Josie.

Ms. Gogliotti: Again, Tab 553, Rocky Flats plant. 

Here we noted that there were duplicate

examinations that were omitted from the dose 

reconstruction. There was a file in the dose 

reconstruction that listed all of the X-rays that 

occurred, and it indicated that several years had 

multiple X-rays that were performed. The TBD at 

the time, Rev. 2, indicated that examinations did 

not occur more frequently than annually, and so 

NIOSH, I guess, technically followed that guidance 

even though the examinations were clearly 

documented in the record.

The new rev of the TBD, Rev. 3, which was issued in 

2019, removed the statement and dose 

reconstructors are now free to use examinations 

more frequently than annually if they occur in the 

record. Based on the updated TBD, this method 

would then have to fall under the PER, so this claim 

theoretically should be reworked.

Member Beach: I would agree with that, because 

the extra -- he may have had an incident, so they 

may have taken extra X-rays. If it's not explained, 

you can't just arbitrarily take him out. So do we 

know if this is going to be reworked?

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH said the claim would be 

reworked under a future PER.

Member Beach: This is the one that's very close to 

50 percent also, 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

78

Ms. Gogliotti: 553, yes, it's 49.05.

Member Beach: Yeah, I would be interested in 

following up on this one.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. We've already taken that 

into account, as we talked about in Finding 1. 

Finding 1, we mentioned that the PoC went from 

49.05 to 49.62. That included this portion, including 

these duplicate X-rays, as well, not just the first 

finding. Dealing with both of them together, the 

impact still did not make that change.

Member Beach: Okay, thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good that you said that.

Member Clawson: I'll turn it over back to Dave now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, I'm back and I'm better. 

Okay, so we'll accept that, right? We'll close. Yes?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is a Savannah River 

case.

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry. This is Scott. Grady's not on 

the line, so I just want to ask this question. I wasn't 

sure if it was appropriate or not. Since we did follow 

the TBD in place at the time, would this be an 

observation rather than a finding?

Member Clawson: Good point, Scott.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, yes and no. You left a -- it was 

clearly documented. I think that it can be 

reasonably interpreted as that, so if you wanted to 

drop it to that, I guess we can't argue that. It's the 

Subcommittee's prerogative.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Actually I'm rethinking. Let me 

see. There were more -- the exam was more 

frequent than annually. I think we keep it as a 

finding. Yeah, because there could be good reason 

that they had more than one a year. A little bit that 

depends on the details of the case, but I think 

there's enough information here I would think that 

it should've been included.

Mr. Siebert: It's obviously fine. I just wanted to 

bring it up for Grady. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, all right, that's fine. 

Absolutely, and Grady will be back soon, if not later 

today. We'll listen to his advice and we'll reopen 

that. Okay, let's go on, but it is closed pending 

reopening. Do go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is Tab 555, and it 

is also a Savannah River case. Observation 1, we 

just identified a minor conflict in the guidance in the 

TBD between Section 5.41 and Section E.4.1.2. 

There were just differing by a year, and NIOSH 

acknowledged that there was a difference and 

they're going to correct it. The SRS workbook 

applied the correction vectors per the initial 

reference in the TBD, and we just confirmed that, 

and they will be correcting the discrepancy. So 

based on that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, and this seems to be, now 

going back to the previous issue, this is an 

observation, because they did things properly. They 

did the dose reconstruction properly at the time 

with the data that they had, although it was 

incorrect data, or needed correcting.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, in this case it was just a conflict 

between the advice in one section of the TBD versus 

another. It was just a difference by one year, a very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

modest impact.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Well, that certainly is not 

the fault of the people doing the dose 

reconstruction, though.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct, which is why it's an 

observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, so the directions being 

given were conflicting. They did what they saw in 

front of them, you know, as guidance. I would close 

it, but keep it as an observation. What do others 

think?

Member Clawson: Are you talking the previous one, 

Dave, or are you talking this one?

Chair Kotelchuck: 555.1.

Ms. Gogliotti: Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, now I know, okay, I know, 

thank you. And by the way, I did not know, I missed 

that. I was looking at Number 1. This is Observation 

1. First, thank you very much, Brad, for taking over. 

In the transition back, what is your advice on 

Observation 1? I didn't come back correctly. Why 

don't you address that?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it. I just wanted to 

make sure that we were all on the same one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, well, you're certainly right. 

Observation 1, there's no question about that it's an 

observation. We accept it. Pardon my --

Member Richardson: It's closed. It's closed. Let's 

move on.

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

81

Ms. Gogliotti: All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, all right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Observation 3, same case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: Here we identified the tritium intakes 

were applied after the cancer diagnosis, and NIOSH 

agreed for cancer 1, which was diagnosed in 

February. They assigned tritium dose from an intake 

that occurred in August. That should not have been 

assigned.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: It doesn't impact compensation, but 

we identified it. We recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, sure. On Observation 3, 

sure. All right, hearing no objection? Closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, next one is 556, also a 

Savannah River Case. This is Finding 1, and here we 

identified that in the year 2016, ambient dose was 

not assigned. NIOSH agreed that ambient dose 

should have been assigned in 2016. I guess here 

the dose reconstructor selected the wrong facility 

for that one year, and it resulted in no ambient dose 

being assigned by the workbook. It has a very 

modest impact on dose and doesn't impact the 

compensation decision.

Ms. Gogliotti: We recommend closure.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Folks?

Member Beach: Agreed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Member Valerio: Agreed.

Member Clawson: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, same case, Finding 2. We 

identified that the tritium intake was assigned to the 

wrong year. NIOSH agrees. Basically it was a typo 

when they were entering dose into the tritium dose 

workbook. It was entered as in '91 and really the 

record was from 1990. Correcting this date in the 

workbook does increase the dose from 10 millirems 

to 14 millirems, and thus increases the total internal 

dose assignment. Again, doesn't impact 

compensation, so we recommend closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, sounds good.

Member Beach: Agreed.

Member Clawson: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, closed on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is from Tab 558, 

and also a Savannah River site case. This one is 

Finding 1. We identified a failure to discuss 

environmental radioiodine intakes. NIOSH agreed 

that radioiodine should've been included in the dose 

reconstruction, at least the discussion of it. The 

dose to this particular organ from environmental 

iodine for the entire employment period was less 

than a millirem, so it clearly didn't impact 

compensation. Based on that, we recommend

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, correct, agreed. Okay. 

Any objection, concern? I don't think so. Okay, fine, 

we're closed. Closed on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

83

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is from Tab 548, 

and this is an Oak Ridge National Laboratory case, 

as well as a Y-12 plant.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait a minute, that was -- I'm 

sorry, I missed that. What was the next --

Ms. Gogliotti: It's X-10 and Y-12.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes, 548, okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is Observation 1. Here we 

identified that NIOSH had used VARSKIN to model 

some skin doses, and here the VARSKIN files were 

not provided in the dose reconstruction. VARSKIN 

has a number of inputs, so when we attempted to 

reproduce it, we couldn't exactly match it, but we 

got in the ballpark. Thus, we requested that NIOSH 

provide the file.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like a reasonable request. 

It's agreed?

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH essentially said that the file 

used to be in there when the claim was initially 

done, but when it was revised it was inadvertently 

removed. We requested that file. Beth sent me an 

email saying that the file was provided in, I believe, 

the file transfer portal, but I don't know what that 

is, so I still don't have access to it. I'm sure we can 

get that addressed quickly.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think so, but I think as far as 

the Subcommittee is concerned, this is resolved. I 

think we can close, folks. Again, unless there's 

some concern.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. Did you say 

transit portal?

Ms. Gogliotti: In the transfer portal, I just don'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

84

know what that is.

Member Lockey: What did you say it was?

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah, the transfer portal is actually 

a transfer mechanism between ORAU and NIOSH, 

so typically if they're sending files over to us they 

can send it through that. Then we can take those 

files and pass them on or make you aware of where 

they're supposed to be. Scott, do you have anything 

additional to add to that?

Mr. Siebert: No, you're right. I used that to get it 

over to Beth, and I don't know where it went from 

there. I don't mean to throw Beth under the bus. I 

just don't know where it went from there.

Mr. Rutherford: Sure, sure. Rose, I can make sure 

you get that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great. I'm sure that there's not 

a problem with it. We just want to verify to 

complete this one. 

Mr. Rutherford: It sort of sounds like a wormhole. 

Just saying, just saying.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Did you want to leave that in progress 

until we get that file, or do you just want to close it 

out?

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I think we can close it out. I 

think that's just a technical thing you can settle 

between you. But as far as the Subcommittee goes, 

no, I think we can close.

Member Clawson: I agree.

Member Richardson: You could bring it back to us if 

the model is not correct, 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

85

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, sure, right.

Member Richardson: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right so we'll close on that 

one. What is next?

Ms. Gogliotti: It is 559, and that is a Y-12 plant 

case, and this is Finding 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Here we identified some problems 

with the Recycled Uranium Workbook and the CADW 

entry, and there were some minor errors. NIOSH 

agreed things were labeled incorrectly and 

subsequently entered into the CADW wrong. NIOSH 

has corrected the workbook and re-ran CAD. The 

outcome resulted in dose to the skin and thyroid, 

approximately 25 percent of the previous dose. So it 

reduced the doses, but the claim was still under 50 

percent, so it didn't impact compensation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, okay. That's fair enough. I 

think we can close that, unless I hear somebody to 

the contrary. I don't, so we'll close.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is 559, 

Observation 1. This is a Y-12 plant case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait a minute, was there not a 

559.2? Oh, I'm sorry, no, that was 559.2. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, that was .1, the next one is .2.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, then I had it right in the 

first place. Okay, go ahead, please.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Here we had identified another 

CAD entry error. It was just a decimal point off 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

86

when it was entered for uranium for a certain time 

period. NIOSH agrees that the value used was not 

correct, and a minor difference doesn't impact the 

PoC in a significant way.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure, and it sounds good. Again, 

quality -- I thought it was QC, quality control.

Ms. Gogliotti: Assurance.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. You at one point corrected 

me previously to say QA.

Ms. Gogliotti: That's what they've always been 

labeled in here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, all right. I don't know 

where I got the QC -- I know where I got QC from, 

but maybe it's from somewhere else. Okay, good. 

Let's go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Same case, Observation 1. Here we 

identified that the ambient dose doesn't match the 

TBD. We have previously discussed this issue, and 

correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly, but 

NIOSH indicated that the original, when the TBD 

was last revised, guidance was removed 

inadvertently. So you were supposed to use the 

guidance in PROC-60, I believe? NIOSH states the 

DR was completed using a process discussed and 

closed previously. We're not really questioning that.

Here, our observation is a reference to the actual Y12 DR guidance document, because the technical 

way or the correct way that dose reconstructors are 

supposed to do this is not to use the correct 

hierarchy of data. So we feel that this should be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

87

documented in the Y-12 DR guidance document. 

Typically when a change is made to the guidance 

before the TBD is ready for revision, this gets 

logged in the DR guidance document until it is 

propagated forward into the formal document. We 

didn't identify that that had occurred here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Has it occurred?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, this is Scott. Just to let you 

know, we have updated that now. It's in the DR 

guidance document awaiting going into the TBD. So 

yes, we did update that for you.

Ms. Gogliotti: And was that new change, Scott, as a 

result of this? Or did that occur previously and we're 

just catching up to it now?

Mr. Siebert: No, as a result of this, yeah. We've 

discussed it before and we had never -- you're right, 

we never put in the DR guidance document, so we 

have added it now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. A -- thanks for 

following up so that we do get this done and it 

didn't escape somewhere in the process. So glad 

that it was done, and also glad that this observation 

was made. So seems to me we should close it, and 

kudos for good procedures so that we don't lose 

anything in the administrative stream. Okay, unless 

I hear, close and we'll go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right. Last Type 1 is Tab 560, and 

this is a Y-12 plant case, Finding 1. This is actually 

very similar to 559.2 where there was a CAD entry 

error. Intake was just slightly wrong in the CADW. 

NIOSH agrees it was a database input error. It was 

noted and corrected in the tool during the next PER 

for Y-12. This tool error will be included in the 

review for the PER. NIOSH did some preliminary 

calculations and found for the most impacted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

organs, this would impact that organ at 

approximately 3 millirems, so a small impact, and 

therefore we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, sounds reasonable. I'll 

listen if there's any concern? No? Okay, we'll close 

on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, well, good, well. Now I don't 

know what we -- I didn't know that we were 

necessarily going to talk about the blinds. You 

certainly sent them to us.

Ms. Gogliotti: On no, we're not to the blinds yet. 

Don't worry.

Chair Kotelchuck: That's what I thought. Okay, 

that's what I thought.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, no, no, no. I would need much 

more time to prepare for that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's good, okay, because 

you sent it along what you had, you know. I can 

certainly look it over.

Ms. Gogliotti: I just think that it --

Chair Kotelchuck: But I understand completely, no, 

no. Normally, and now that I remember, you asked 

me that early on and I said no, no, that's fine. We 

have just moved along very rapidly today and I'm 

very pleased.

Ms. Gogliotti: We do have a number of Type 2 

issues from the 27th that we --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes, yeah. Do you want to talk 

about those now? Start on those? Are you ready to 

do 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

89

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Are you and NIOSH? Well, that's 

fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can't speak for NIOSH, I guess.

Mr. Rutherford: Scott, are we ready?

Mr. Siebert: Well, I think it's reasonable to go ahead 

and go through them, and we can address what we 

can address since they're relatively new responses. 

If not, we can push off to the next meeting and do 

more investigation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that's absolutely good. So 

let's go back and look at the Category 2. What 

would be the first one? I didn't make notes in my 

own notes about which was 1 and which was 2 

because I was going through the BRS.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's 536.1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Part of it is on my 

computer screen, what you put up.

Member Beach: What number are we on again? I 

missed it, sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: 536.1.

Member Beach: Thank you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Mm-hmm. Can everyone see my 

screen still? It's in the BRS.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes.

Member Clawson: Yes, I can.

Chair Kotelchuck: I can now. I've got it. Good, 

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

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

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

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

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

subject to change

90

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, this case is a Fernald, as well 

as a Portsmouth case. Here what happened is the 

EE's DOE records contained a dosimeter result 

indicating that they were at Battelle Columbus 

Laboratory in 1983. This file is dated in May of 

2018. There is also record of a K-65 silo radon 

exposure at Fernald. This file was dated in 2017. 

However, this DR was completed in March of 2016. 

These files were not available to the initial dose 

reconstructor. As a result, they were not included in 

the dose reconstruction. 

We couldn't locate any documentation indicating 

that these new records were evaluated to determine 

if there was any impact on the case. We also 

couldn't locate any evidence that Department of 

Labor was notified, establishing the EE at an 

additional AWE employer facility outside of the DOL 

verified employment. This was specifically asked to 

be elevated to a finding during our Board 

conference call.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: With these, Scott, do you want me to 

go over your response, or do you want to respond 

yourself? How do you want to do this?

Mr. Siebert: I can do that for you, sure. Give your 

voice a little bit of a rest.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thank you.

Mr. Siebert: Absolutely, I understand. Yeah, what 

this comes down to is -- and it was stated exactly 

correctly. When we did the claim, this information 

did not exist in our sphere of influence, so we could 

not take that into account. I understand it's been 

elevated to a finding by the Subcommittee by 

request. Once again, I believe Grady wanted us to 

ask about this being an observation. Because we 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

91

exactly everything correctly based on the 

information that was in our hands at the time.

Now you kind of asked about the PAD process, and 

what this gets down to is when we get additional 

information, PAD stands for the Post-Assessment 

Dosimetry reviews. That's when we get any 

information that is new to the claim after the claim 

has been returned to DOL. This is a perfect example 

of us dealing with this type of an issue. Additional 

data came in after the claim was closed out and 

adjudicated by DOL.

On a periodic basis, we comb through all the data 

that exists and create a tracking of all the claims 

that have additional data. As we work through 

those, we determine if there's an impact based on 

that new information, and at that point if there is, 

then we -- I keep saying we. I'm thinking from an 

ORAU point of view, but basically NIOSH. If there is 

a difference, NIOSH will contact DOL and ask for the 

claim to be returned.

In this specific claim, you know, one of the 

questions was did we deal with the Battelle King 

Avenue data, because it's not a site that is 

employment-verified by DOL. As I said, when we 

originally did this claim, there was no reason to go 

look for it because it did not exist to us. We didn't 

know to go to DOL and talk about whether Battelle 

King Avenue employment was appropriate or not.

This PAD itself actually, we had started reviewing it 

about the same time as we started responding to 

these questions. We had gone through the PAD 

process with this claim and we are dealing with DOL 

on this specific claim. Basically the PAD process just 

works that way. As we find additional data, we will 

go back and look at it. We just didn't have it when 

we initially did the claim.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Ms. Gogliotti: So when new information comes in, it 

goes into somewhat of a queue and you look at it in 

the order it was received for cases, and then it 

gradually will come up and be reviewed at some 

point in time, but it's not immediate. Is that 

correct?

Mr. Siebert: Correct. We generally do, we try to look 

at the oldest ones first, but it's realistically also 

resource available, because we still are keeping up 

with all other claims and everything else that's 

going on. But generally we try to look at the oldest 

ones first because we want to get an answer to 

claimants as quickly as possible if there's an impact.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now if it comes up for review during 

this PAD process and you determine it's not going to 

have an impact on the overall compensation 

decision, so you don't need to go back to DOL to 

request the case, is that documented somewhere? 

How would we know that that process had 

occurred?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, there's a PAD process. There's a 

PAD form that's filled out. If we actually have to 

reassess the claim to determine the impact of the 

data, all the files, just like a full dose reconstruction, 

are placed along with that PAD document. As to 

where it is located on the NIOSH side, I can't state 

that. I'm sure that the NIOSH folks can probably 

help you with that at some point. But for this one, 

yes, you are correct. 

If there's no impact, we as NIOSH do not talk to 

DOL. But if there is an impact, we will request the 

claim back for assessment so that we can get that 

information to the claimant in a timely manner. This 

specific claim, actually you had mentioned the 

additional Fernald information that gave the idea of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

93

thoron exposure. We actually did look at that 

already and it does make an impact on this claim, 

so we have requested the claim back from DOL and 

we are presently assessing it again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like the procedure, there's 

no indication that the procedure is not working, the 

PAD process. It is in order, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Is there like, a time frame that you 

try to handle these by, like within a year of getting 

the new information? Or it's just whenever it 

happens to come up?

Mr. Siebert: No, it's based on the amount of 

resources that we have to work on that unless 

specifically -- I'm just speaking from an ORAU point 

of view at that point -- unless directed specifically 

by NIOSH to focus on anything in particular.

Chair Kotelchuck: But from a Subcommittee point of 

view, that is not an issue for us, interesting as it 

might be.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, it does impact -- we see this all 

the time where there is newer information in the 

files than when the case was completed. We 

obviously can't fault NIOSH for not using 

information that they didn't have, but I was just 

curious at what point in time that became a red flag 

with the information that hadn't been addressed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: It sounds like that's not something we 

should worry about. Is that --

Chair Kotelchuck: I think it's not a Subcommittee 

issue, I don't think.

Member Clawson: I also feel that should be changed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

to an observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Clawson: Because they did everything right 

that they were expected to do. We've found this in 

numerous cases. You know, we've always, as 

committee members on all of these Work Groups 

and everything else like that, when information 

comes in, how are we going to address it? How is it 

going to affect cases that have already been 

compensated and stuff like that?

This is showing us basically how the process is 

working. I don't think we can hold NIOSH or ORAU 

accountable for material that they didn't have.

Chair Kotelchuck: I agree.

Ms. Gogliotti: Did this move to the front of the list 

because of this finding or was it just a natural happy 

coincidence?

Mr. Siebert: I believe, I'd have to go look, but if I 

remember correctly, it happened to be in process 

when I checked on it. Now I did prioritize -- it was 

already in process. I did prioritize it getting 

completed, but it would have gotten completed 

relatively soon anyway. But I believe it was already 

in process when I ran across this finding.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, that's all --

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm going to suggest that we 

close this as an observation.

Member Beach: Yeah, and Rose, this is Josie. I'm 

trying to think back on when Gen and I were 

discussing this with you. I think that was our 

concern, if I remember correctly, that it would 

happen automatically. It sounds like it is. Is that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

95

what you remember from our discussion and why 

we wanted to push this up to a finding?

Ms. Gogliotti: My recollection is that, combined with 

the fact that we were concerned that the additional 

employment could push the PoC up, which elevated 

this to a more significant issue.

Member Beach: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, yeah.

Member Beach: And making sure that there was 

something in place that would capture the issue, so 

okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah.

Member Beach: Good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, shall we go on?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is 540, Finding 1. 

This is a Hanford case. With this particular finding --

Member Clawson: Hey Rose, mine hasn't moved 

and I'm still back there. Is yours updating or am I --

Ms. Gogliotti: Mine is on 540.

Member Clawson: Okay, I'll sign in again and see if 

it updates.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's hard to know if it froze or if it's a 

problem on my end or yours. I don't know.

Member Clawson: Oh, you know how it is. Okay, 

thanks.

Ms. Gogliotti: All right, again, 540, it's a Hanford 

case, Finding 1. Here there was evidence of a skin 

contamination in the EE's file. This is noteworthy 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

because of where the skin cancer was.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Here the records show that the skin 

contamination occurred on the right side of the face, 

directly in front of the ear, which we believe is 

pretty much the same location as the skin cancer. 

And this is not mentioned in the DR report. I'll let 

Scott handle this.

Mr. Siebert: All right, I guess that mute button is 

pretty important. Yeah, this comes down to the fact 

that, as SC&A said, there was a skin cancer that 

was in front of the ear and there was also -- I'm 

sorry, a contamination that was in front of the ear 

and a skin cancer that's on the jawline.

The dose reconstructors looked at the data that's in 

the file and determined that there was enough 

separation, ran it past our physician. They agree 

that there's enough separation from the information 

that we had that likely the contamination event 

wasn't impacting the area of the cancer. I 

understand that SC&A's additional response after 

ours said that you can't be sure because it says it 

was splashed and so on.

We looked at it a little closer. Generally, we still 

agree that there is probably enough separation that 

there is no impact, that there would be no 

contamination or, you know, it's not a wide enough 

area, especially based on the size of a normal GM 

pancake probe. But, you know, to be on the safe 

side, we also looked at the impact if we did include 

it. Not saying that it is accurate to include it or not, 

but we did just look at the impact to be on the safe 

side. 

It added a very small amount of dose and would 

make no difference in the PoC overall. I apologize 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

97

didn't get to put all this in the BRS. I've been 

getting the additional responses together recently. 

But generally, that's what we're looking at. It was 

really insignificant for the claim itself, a very small 

dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Is this a professional judgment 

call?

Mr. Siebert: I would tend to say yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, and that, I mean those are 

there. The question is was that a mistake? I think 

the answer is, particularly as Scott said, that they 

checked with medical people about that and 

rechecked the records, that it seems to me that that 

should be an observation. It's professional 

judgment. We have to accept that professionals will 

come to different conclusions about a particular 

point and accept it as part of the process. Try and 

keep it hopefully down to a minimum, and certainly 

not affecting, you know, compensation.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I agree with you. However, I 

think one of the shortcomings of this case was it 

wasn't mentioned, even in the DR report. I'm 

thinking if I were the claimant and I had this 

incident in my file where my skin cancer is very 

close to the location where I had an incident, it 

would bother me that it wasn't addressed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I would agree with you on 

that. I mean, even as an observation, it is an 

appropriate observation that that should be in the 

record to provide information to the claimant if the 

claimant wants to reconsider or in some way 

contest. But we are agreeing to this as an 

observation, that is, closing it as an observation. 

What you said is true, but the observation is that 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

98

should have been there. It could be a little more 

explicit, if you wish to make that change.

I mean, essentially what we're agreeing to is this is 

a case of professional judgment, but we agree that 

it should be in the record. I mean, to me, as the 

Subcommittee, that's what I would say. And that's 

not there, saying it should be in the record. I would 

be amenable to closing it, but also to adding 

something in the BRS to say that closed as an 

observation, but it is a legitimate observation and 

we could use an additional line.

I don't know if you can just put that in at this late 

point.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah, I can absolutely change 

anything in here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, I would say please do 

it, because that is not there and that is a fair reason 

to put down something as an observation. 

Nevertheless, I'd like to close this as an 

observation. I'd like to ask if other members agree, 

other Subcommittee members.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey, one question. 

When SC&A said they did not provide significant 

evidence to conclude the cancer was far enough 

away, does that mean they didn't document the 

procedure they went through? Or do you think that 

the doodle was close enough to cancer that that in 

itself does not represent significant evidence?

Ms. Gogliotti: What my reference to was I would 

have liked to see that in the actual DR report. But 

when we looked at this, we thought it was kind of a 

toss-up whether or not it was, because there's this 

drawing, the pathology report, and then 

immediately below it there's a different --

something that somewhat contradicts the drawing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: So there's somewhat of a disconnect 

there. It's reasonable to say you could go with 

either one. Apparently this doesn't make a 

difference in terms of the dose, but I think it was 

worth noting.

Chair Kotelchuck: But this is also now, once we act 

on it it's part of the record, is it not?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's part of the Subcommittee's 

record, but the dose reconstruction report isn't 

modified as a result of our conversations.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. But if this were challenged 

by the claimant this is available to them, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, the claimant wouldn't know 

necessarily we're even talking about their case 

because we classify these details. They're not made 

aware when we do a review.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. I guess what 

I'm asking is if documentation is provided how 

NIOSH determined that they thought the doodle 

was adequate enough to make their conclusions, 

that's good enough for you? Or are we actually 

saying in this statement that the benefit of the 

doubt should've been given to the claimant based 

on the facts that are currently known. That's what 

I'm trying to figure out, where you're coming from.

Ms. Gogliotti: Personally I would've given them the 

benefit of the doubt here because there are so 

many uncertainties, but that would be my 

professional judgment. There's also a drawing on 

the documentation of the skin cancer on the face, or 

of the incident, so these uncertainties are kind of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

100

compounding.

Member Lockey: How did NIOSH judge it, they just 

did it based on it's outside the doodle, is that right? 

Or we don't know?

Mr. Siebert: Yes. We looked at the information that 

was there and it did not seem to be in the same 

location as the cancer, so it was not considered as 

part of a skin contamination event for that cancer.

Member Lockey: All right, so this is where it goes 

down to a value judgment, professional judgment 

on either side, right?

Mr. Siebert: Correct. Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Close this on observation. 

Jim, thanks.

Others? Anybody else want to weigh in on this?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. That's fine. Hey, 

Rose, could I get you to restart your sharing? It 

says I had a network interruption, and I'm waiting 

for you to read -- there we go. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I stopped. And restart.

Member Lockey: Brad, that's what happens. You live 

in Idaho.

Member Clawson: Thanks, Lockey. Appreciate that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now can you see it, Brad?

Member Clawson: Well, it's still going through its 

thing, so I'll let you know. Just keep going. You're 

fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Are you 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

101

Member Clawson: Yep. I'm fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Well, the next slide is actually 

551. And so if you have your files that I sent you, 

there's a specific file in there that you can pull up, 

and that way you can see --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: 551. Okay. This is a Paducah case, 

and this is Finding 1. But it kind of spills over into 

everything else. So we're just going to talk about 

Finding 1, but there's implications for the rest of 

these, as well, for this case.

This case is interesting in that DOL notified the 

claimant of one set of employment dates that were 

verified. They notified NIOSH of one set of dates 

that were verified. There were discrepancies 

between the dates that were listed to both parties.

This is problematic because the EE was told that 

specific dates, including the dates that they 

requested, were covered. However, those dates 

were not necessarily provided to NIOSH that the 

same dates were covered. So NIOSH did their dose 

reconstruction based on the dates that DOL 

provided. However, the claimant was notified that a 

different set of dates were being used.

So we understand that NIOSH is bound to using 

only the dates that DOL verifies. However, there's a 

clear discrepancy here, and it doesn't appear that 

anybody noticed it until we did. And we put together 

kind of a summary of -- let's see -- these issues or 

the dates in question, just because they are kind of 

confusing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I found it confusing myself 

reading it over. So if you'll move us through it a 

little bit. Although, ultimately, does this not have 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

102

go back to DOL? I mean, if there's a discrepancy, 

we have to go back to DOL. It isn't going to be a 

Subcommittee decision.

Ms. Gogliotti: Ultimately, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're informing us that there 

was a discrepancy and that it needs to be looked 

into, and I assume we will be asked to approve that 

it be sent back to DOL, right?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. This is where I'm not 

comfortable necessarily answering for Grady.

Bomber, I don't know if you're up to date on this or 

not. This may --

Mr. Rutherford: No.

Mr. Siebert: -- one we want to wait until Grady is on 

the phone.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. We better do that. And, 

honestly, I'm not sure if Grady will be back on the 

phone this afternoon. He got pulled into a JOTG call.

Chair Kotelchuck: I see. Okay. Fair enough. This is 

important and this is certainly at Grady's level, if 

you will. So I think we -- is there any --

Ms. Gogliotti: We can certainly come back to this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Maybe while we're talking about 

it, you can tell us what you have found or -- I don't 

know.

Okay. Subcommittee members, tell me, should we 

ask Rose to tell us what she knows or wait until 

Grady is here, and he can hear that discussion as 

well and then respond?

Member Clawson: Unfortunately, I think that 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

103

ought to wait for Grady so that we're all on the 

same page and we can all go together forward with 

this. I think we better step away from this.

Member Beach: I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Fair enough.

Ms. Gogliotti: We can certainly do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then we should do that, 

and we will. And if Grady comes back --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: If Grady doesn't come back, can we at 

least decide to notify DOL of the discrepancy? 

Because this case is --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: That is where I'm saying that Grady is 

the guy who has to make that decision because I 

certainly can't and I believe there's information 

that, probably, we can discuss that determines that 

DOL does not need to be involved again. But that's 

a discussion that has to happen with Grady on the 

line.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I just don't want it to get 

kicked down another six months to a year because -

-

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, unfortunately, I think it may 

have to be. But hopefully it won't be six months.

Member Clawson: Rose, you know, let me just ask 

this, Rose. Can you not notify Grady of this, 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

104

we've stepped this off and that he can make a 

determination on that before we meet as he looks at 

that?

Mr. Rutherford: Brad, I can do that. I can pass this 

on to Grady, and we can make sure that if there's 

additional discussion needed with Rose -- and if he 

makes that determination, to go ahead and contact 

DOL. We can let the Subcommittee know ahead of 

time, but we can discuss this later at the next 

meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds excellent.

Member Clawson: That would be good. Thank you, 

Bomber. I didn't want to ask to have Josie push you 

into that position, so I thought I'd help Bomber.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. On the record laughter. 

Anyhow, good, because really, this is not a 

Subcommittee decision, ultimately. Eventually, that 

decision is in higher hands, if you will. So yeah.

Member Clawson: You're correct. This is NIOSH's

decision, but also, too, as Subcommittee members, 

we don't want to see this pushed out further. There 

needs to be an evaluation on this, and Bomber's 

going to take care of that. So, for me, I'm pretty 

good with that until we meet again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Hey, all right. Then I think 

we have settled what we want to do, and there's 

something that will happen as a result of this 

discussion with Grady.

Okay. So let's go on. Can we deal with any of the 

observations, or really, similarly --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: No, similar problems all the way 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

through on the observation. Aren't there?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. We made one finding, and then 

the observations all kind of tied back to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah, they all -- I see that. I see 

that. Okay. Then let's go on to the next --

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- open.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is Tab 552, and that is -

-

Mr. Rutherford: Did you say 552?

Ms. Gogliotti: 552, Observation 2.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: This one is also an interesting one. 

What happened -- this is a Paducah case. I'm sorry. 

What happened was the EE had two scans that were 

done in 1982. And in the record documenting the 

scan, the medical professional that evaluated the 

scan said that the lungs looked normal and aerated, 

but there were detectable changes in minimal 

nonspecific increased density in the lung.

And the medical examiner suggested that the 

patient's chest exam be repeated in three months. 

The scan was completed, and that scan was normal. 

NIOSH assigned dose to both of the scans, which 

we agree with. However, we believe that the 

guidance in OTIB-006 would benefit from a 

clarification of what constitutes a diagnostic 

screening examination.

In this instance, the follow-up scan was normal, 

which indicates that there was a problem with the 

original scan and the second is reasonably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

considered a re-scan. However, based on the 

current guidance could be easily interpreted to 

mean that if the second scan had identified a 

problem, then it was a diagnostic scan and no 

longer eligible for inclusion.

And our concern is that the results of the scan 

should not be used to determine whether or not it's 

eligible for inclusion in the dose reconstruction. And 

so we think that OTIB-6 would benefit from 

additional guidance to eliminate this potential 

problem in the future.

Chair Kotelchuck: Scott?

Mr. Siebert: Well, I mean, we basically said that we 

followed our procedures, and the answer came out 

in agreement with the way that SC&A suggested. So 

this is a really -- as said, it's a very unusual case. I 

don't necessarily see the reason to update a 

procedure for a relatively singular point of view, but 

that's not necessarily my call. That would be up to 

NIOSH if they directed us to do so.

I feel like I'm pushing all sorts of things on Grady 

when he's not here. That teaches him. But --

Member Clawson: Hey, Josie does it all the time. 

Don't worry about it.

Mr. Siebert: But, like I said, we followed the 

direction. Everybody agrees that the outcome was 

correct. So I'm open either way, but I don't 

necessarily see the reasoning for doing it at this 

point.

Chair Kotelchuck: When you say the outcome is 

correct, we're not talking about whether the PoC 

changes, right? We're talking about whether -- so 

I'm not clear. Did NIOSH use or did ORAU use the --

take into account both scans? You're saying it 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

107

Mr. Siebert: Both SC&A and we agree that it was 

done correctly.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, and that both scans were 

included?

Mr. Siebert: Yes, sir.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. All right. And they're 

raising a hypothetical.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Which did not occur.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, it is an important and 

interesting observation on SC&A's part, and indeed 

it could happen. The question is: is it enough of a 

concern that we ought to be checking whether this 

has occurred in other cases? That's what we've 

done before. Was this a singular case or does it 

happen often? I'm not sure if it's relatively --

Ms. Gogliotti: It's hard to say. I don't know the 

frequency in which re-scans occur. We don't see 

them very frequently in our reviews, but I can't say 

concretely how often a re-scan occurs.

Chair Kotelchuck: In the past --

Ms. Gogliotti: I just see the re-scan's not included.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. In the past, whenever we 

had issues like this, we would say, well, did this 

happen in other cases, or how many? I don't know if 

that can even be checked out in this case without 

an excessive amount of effort. And --

Ms. Gogliotti: No. That's not -- it's not possible to 

look at -- it would --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

108

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah. We'd have to have 

the X-ray -- somebody to look at the X-rays. Well, 

you're right. So it seems to me it is an interesting 

observation.

What do other members of the Subcommittee think 

about how we should respond to this?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I understand all 

sides on it. There's a little hypothetical to it. I think 

that we've got to deal with what we have on-hand 

that were done right. It is an observation. It may be

something we think of down the road, but I don't 

think there's anything we can do with it right now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Others?

Member Lockey: I agree. I think it's an observation, 

and it's a one-off. And if it happens more 

frequently, we may have to look at it, but I don't 

think -- it's not going to change the dose in this 

individual at all, so --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. And, actually, if you will, to 

look at it would involve medical determination.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I think that we're just asking for 

additional guidance so that if this were to occur 

again, the dose reconstructor would have concrete 

guidance that said, yes, these are both eligible for 

inclusion but not diagnostic.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. How would we incorporate 

that advice into the record such that if this ever did 

occur again, the dose reconstructors or ORAU or 

NIOSH would know what happened and take a little 

more of a look? I don't know how that would --

Ms. Gogliotti: The only way would be to update 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

109

OTIB.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: The only way would be to update the 

OTIB, to my knowledge.

Member Clawson: And that's what NIOSH is -- and 

stop me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is you 

don't say it needs this because it's a hypothetical 

situation. But --

Mr. Siebert: Well, like I said, that's my personal 

opinion at this point. But we are happy to do 

whatever Grady asks us to do. So I don't really 

have a dog in that fight at that point.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Member Clawson: Well, it sounds like Bomber's

stepping in.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. I'm just sitting listening to 

this.

I mean, how much language are you talking about 

adding, Rose? And I mean --

Ms. Gogliotti: A couple sentences that clarify that if 

there's a re-scan that's necessary because the 

original scan was questionable, that it's no longer --

it's not diagnostic, even if that scan identifies a 

problem.

Chair Kotelchuck: But that would have to go 

through the Procedures Committee, correct? Or 

Subcommittee.

Ms. Gogliotti: No.

Mr. Rutherford: No. I mean, we could make that 

change ourselves. That's not an issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, you could?

Mr. Rutherford: Mm-hmm.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, if it could be done easily, 

why not? That would be fine. I don't --

Mr. Rutherford: I mean, the only problem is, 

honestly -- and this is just -- we've also got to look 

at resources, and making a change like this would 

be really easy, but every time we want to make a 

little change like this, that does take resources and 

it takes a review. It takes time away.

So, I mean, I can see where adding a couple 

sentences would be simple, but if we do do it, I 

don't want to put any pressure on having it done 

that quickly and have it back in front of the 

Subcommittee.

Member Beach: Isn't that something, LaVon, that 

would be noted, and then when that OTIB is 

reworked, then it would be added at that time? So it 

wouldn't take special precedence or anything?

Mr. Rutherford: I think so. I would think that's the 

way we'd handle it.

Scott, I know -- I mean, if you have major concerns 

with this, go ahead and say it. I don't have a 

problem with it.

Mr. Siebert: No, it's -- like I said, I don't have a dog 

in the fight. That's fine with me. I'm making a note 

right now. Yeah. We can update -- the next time we 

deal with OTIB-6, we'll do some clarification in 

there. That's fine with me.

Mr. Rutherford: Okay. That sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good and not overly 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

demanding at all. So there's a note in there for the 

future.

Member Beach: And that can be noted in the BRS, 

as it's done all the time. Correct?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I will document this discussion 

that NIOSH has agreed to clarify that whenever the 

next revision is issued. But they would have to 

update the BRS when that actually occurred. I don't 

check for that frequently.

Mr. Siebert: Well, here's my question. At that point, 

would we still keep the -- we wouldn't need to keep 

this open. We could close it, and you don't 

necessarily have to circle around on the BRS when 

it's done.

We've done that many times.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, absolutely, we could. We can 

close this. It's a hypothetical. Right now, it's 

absolutely hypothetical. It's a concern that we see 

for the future. So I'm definitely in favor of closing 

this as an observation and putting a note for OTIB 

next time it looks at 006.

Member Lockey: I concur with that. Jim Lockey. I 

concur with that. I think that's a good idea.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, I think we're all 

pretty well in agreement now, aren't we, listening? 

Any other objection, concern?

Let's do that. Okay. So we'll close this, and it's a 

good discussion. And we'll go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is from Tab 555, 

which is Savannah River again. And this is Finding 

number 1.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

And the finding essentially highlights that the 

workbook was used differently than we had 

previously resolved on the issue. Here, they used 

the Alternative Radionuclides User Workbook, and 

I'm sure you know we've discussed this at length in 

this Committee, most recently at the June 14th, 

2016, meeting.

And, there, NIOSH indicated that the radionuclide 

that had the highest cumulative impact on PoC was 

selected when there were multiple organs and 

types. And, specifically, OTIB-60 they said 

precluded addressing each organ independently.

In this case, however, different radionuclides were 

applied to different organs, which is a direct 

contradiction of the process that we were told that 

they were adhering to. I think what they did was 

more claimant-favorable, but if that was a change, 

then it could be a PER-related change.

And I'll turn it over to Scott.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Well, just to 

address the last one first, it would never be PER 

because if you use individual radionuclides, it would 

always be more claimant-favorable than finding the 

one that is consistent between them because you'd 

be picking the largest for all specific organs rather 

than one --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yeah. That's a fair point.

Mr. Siebert: But yeah. We agree that we have 

discussed this in the past. Dose reconstructors have 

been told about it, but we did not close the loop on 

documenting it, and I apologize for that. We have 

specifically put this in the SRS guidance document.

We've also updated the chooser tool. There is a note 

very clearly denoted in the tool itself for best 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

estimate claims how to do it correctly. So we have 

addressed that from a documentation -- I think the 

only thing that was outstanding is you had asked to 

see those, and once again, I gave those to Beth, 

and I'm not sure where they went for you guys to 

look at them. But if you can see the Savannah River 

tools wherever you normally go to review those 

things, ours is replicated over there.

So the latest DR guidance document that you 

should be able to see and the latest chooser tool 

you should be able to see will have that information 

in it already.

Ms. Gogliotti: We only get access to the file that 

was used at the time of the dose reconstruction.

Mr. Siebert: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Are we looking at 555.1?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. However, it kind of ties in to 555, 

Observation 1. So there is a little bit of --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, it does.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- overlapping conversation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. But in this discussion, why 

is this a finding?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's a finding because they did 

something explicitly different than what they said 

they were doing and did something that the 

Subcommittee was told was not happening.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: And one thing I'll point out there --

yeah, I understand that. We talked to various other 

-- we've investigated a little bit to see if there was 

misunderstanding across the board or if this person 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

made a mistake, and it was really more the fact that 

this person did not recall that.

And, once again, it's our bad that we didn't get the 

documentation in place after we had already 

discussed it. And, like I said, we're already doing --

we've already done that. OTIB-60 is going to have it 

in the next revision. We'll talk about that in a 

minute, I'm sure.

But it was not a systemic issue. It was more of one 

or two people that had forgotten the direction, and 

we didn't document it well. So I don't want to say 

that we were ignoring what we agreed to do. It was 

more of an individual mistake that they didn't pull 

out what they could do for a claimant-favorable type 

of claim, and that's the other thing to point out.

If the claim is under 45 percent, to save time in the 

additional runs, our dose reconstructors can use 

different radionuclides for the chooser tool because 

it's claimant-favorable. It's only when you fall into 

the best-estimate territory -- and I have a feeling 

they forgot to do that at that point.

But, like I said, the documentation's been updated, 

and we're updating OTIB-60, as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I did misspeak earlier. It 

was Observation 2, not Observation 1, that relates 

to this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Folks, what do we do? 

There's no question that we close this. The question 

is close it as what? Do you want to close it as an 

observation or as a finding? Rose suggested that 

she wanted to -- she still feels like it should be a 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I agree with Rose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Others?

Member Beach: Yeah, I agree to leave it as a 

finding, as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. I believe it's 

a finding, as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, then we have -- it will 

be a finding, and that's -- several of us agree. And 

I'm open to what you guys are suggesting.

Okay. Closed finding. Finding closed. Let's go 

ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I definitely alluded to this 

one a moment ago, but Observation 2. As part of 

that discussion that we had back at the June 2016 

meeting, NIOSH committed to update OTIB-60 to 

include guidance on the Alternate Radionuclides 

User Workbook. And it was specifically requested to 

ensure that DRs are processed consistently because 

there's no formal guidance on how to use this 

workbook.

And OTIB-60 was revised in 2018, and that was 

considered a complete rewrite. However, the 

guidance did not specifically address this workbook. 

It did add a statement indicating that OTIB-54 

Revision 4, is an exception to the rule that 

consistent assumptions should be made for multiple 

cancer solubility types, but there was nothing 

specifically addressing this type of exposure other 

than the commitment that they had made to the 

Subcommittee, and it wasn't addressed.

And I guess Scott said that it's been corrected now, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

but I'm curious to know what process is in place to 

prevent this sort of thing from happening in the

future.

Mr. Siebert: Yeah. This is Scott, and that's a very 

valid question, obviously. And, as I said, dealing 

with the DR guidance documents and so on, what 

happened in this case is the author knew about it 

back in the day, made a note of it, and then when 

they made that update back in whatever, 2018, 

they missed it in their notes, which -- like I said, we 

would have rather catch it than not.

We now have a document control tracking system 

that is now in place where we can actually go back 

and make notes on documents so that when they 

are going to be updated, the author sees the notes 

so there's reminders of things that need to be 

addressed.

One of the things I'm doing is going back through 

some of the last matrices and determining where 

we've made that -- such as we've made that 

discussion a couple times today, and I will ensure 

that it gets put into that document control 

application so that when -- the next time the author 

pulls it open to make changes, they will see that 

note.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So this is a new process, then?

Mr. Siebert: Relatively new. We've been working on 

it a couple years but making refinements.

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

something was preventing this in the future because 

we don't necessarily go back and check to make 

sure that every commitment that is made is actually 

done. And we can certainly start doing that, but that 

would require more tasking from the 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

117

Mr. Siebert: No, I absolutely agree with this. It's a 

fair question, and it's not the reason we made that 

change to the document control application, but I 

think that will really help.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like it. So it seems now 

ready to close, and I think I'm open to closing it as 

an observation unless anybody wants to -- I mean, 

we had a discussion. It was agreed to be done, and 

it was in the process. And the process of change 

was a little bit off.

I would say let's close it as an observation. If 

there's disagreement or other thoughts -- hearing 

none, let's close. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is 555 -- or 557. 

I'm sorry. And this is also an SRS case, and it is 

Observation 1. And here we noted that NIOSH 

applied a correction factor of 1.1 to assigned 

recorded photon dose.

And this correction factor originates in Section 5.3.5 

of SRS TBD. But we questioned what instances 

actually prompted the inclusion of this uncertainty 

correction in a dose reconstruction. We have other 

claims in this set that were SRS that didn't use this, 

and we were curious why it was used in some cases 

and not others.

It's not wrong, necessarily, to use it. But we just 

were seeking additional clarification on what 

prompted this inclusion here and not in other 

places. And Scott responded to that.

Is Scott still here?

Mr. Siebert: Oh, I actually muted myself. I'm 

horrible.

Yeah. I'll cover that. The difference is, when 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

118

factor is applied, it pertains to the specific target 

organ. In the case where it's in, this uncertainty is 

not applied based on the information in OTIB-17. 

There's other assumptions that are in OTIB-17 that 

made the requirement for using a correction factor 

inappropriate, I guess, or unneeded.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you for that. You're 

treading carefully, and thank you for that.

Mr. Siebert: So the fact is, if it's a non-skin organ,

you will apply it. If it is a skin organ, you do not.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So my interpretation of that is 

any time there is an SRS overestimating dose 

reconstruction that doesn't use OTIB-17, the skin 

and also a handful of things that use OTIB-17 

should have an uncertainty correction factor 

applied. Is that correct?

Mr. Siebert: I'd say if it was being overestimated for 

this specific portion of it, yes. It's not required to do 

it that way. It can be done appropriately for a best 

estimate using actual uncertainties rather than a 

correction factor.

Either way is fine. If it's going to be estimated 

specifically for the correction factor, yes, it needs to 

be applied. But it's not required to be applied as 

long as -- if it is not applied, actual best estimate 

assumptions with the uncertainty are applied, once 

again, other than skin.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So we went back and looked at 

OTIB-17 in the section that you referenced, and we 

noted that it doesn't actually address uncertainty 

multipliers. It references only the distribution that 

should be assigned in IREP.

And so we're going to recommend that if that's the 

intended interpretation, that OTIB-17 uncertainty is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

subject to change

119

so great that there is no need to account for any 

uncertainty not only in how it's entered in IREP but 

the actual doses assigned, that OTIB-17 would 

definitely benefit from that because I don't think 

that any of us, at least on SC&A's side, knew that 

that was the intended meaning of OTIB-17's 

guidance.

Mr. Smith: Yeah, this is Matthew Smith with ORAU 

team. And that is the intent of the OTIB. The 

original author, when they wrote in to assign it as a 

constant, they were meaning to not apply an 

uncertainty as you would have for other organs like 

the liver.

And, again, OTIB-17 has a cushion there. The DCFs 

are rounded up to 1, for example, and for two MeV 

electrons, the DCF is really 0.5. So that was the 

reason for applying things as a constant. With that, 

the tools they're doing as the OTIB recommends it, 

and the claim was done in the correct manner, too.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I think that the OTIB doesn't 

explicitly say that. And it's great that -- if you're 

applying it consistently on the back end. But it 

doesn't say that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Is that something that should 

have a note, in your opinion?

Ms. Gogliotti: And I know that this particular issue is 

impacting SRS, but other sites like Pantex have 

different correction factors that are for uncertainty 

that are also multiples. And it would impact those 

sites as well. And is the uncertainty in OTIB-17 

great enough to account for all the uncertainty, or 

are there exceptions?

Mr. Smith: Yeah. The OTIB is meant to apply to skin 

cancers from any site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So what's the recommendation on 

this?

Ms. Gogliotti: From SC&A's perspective, I believe 

that OTIB-17 needs updated guidance to clearly 

state this because it is not clear at all that this is 

what's being done, from a consistency standpoint.

Chair Kotelchuck: Again, could that be handled by a 

note, such that OTIB-17 should be -- this should be 

put in when? In the future? Or perhaps if you're 

saying that it's impacting other sites, is that 

something that we should be sending to the 

Procedures Subcommittee?

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't necessarily think it warrants 

sending it to the Procedures Subcommittee unless 

the Procedures Subcommittee wanted to investigate 

that OTIB-17 is sufficiently conservative, that it 

accounts for any uncertainties at the sites that it's 

being applied to, which is most sites.

Mr. Smith: I believe that that review has already 

been done in the past. I know that OTIB-17 has 

been reviewed --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: We have reviewed OTIB-17, but I 

don't think the SC&A or the Board was aware of the 

full application of this as it applied to uncertainty.

Mr. Smith: Well, it's clearly stated that the dose is 

to be treated as a constant, and the reason for that 

is because of the inherent claimant-favorable 

assumptions made in the OTIB itself.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, it does say that. However, it does 

not address dose multipliers, such as 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

121

uncertainty multiplier that's being applied in this 

instance.

Chair Kotelchuck: Subcommittee members, what do 

you think? What do you think we should do? Clearly, 

close it, right? But SC&A is suggesting that this be 

dealt with further, and the question is are we going 

to recommend that that be done, or are we going to 

just approve and move on?

Member Beach: Well, has NIOSH agreed to put a 

note in for OTIB-17, or did I miss that as part of the 

discussion?

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't think they want to. I think 

--

Mr. Siebert: This is --

Mr. Smith: Well, let me be clear. I'm not speaking 

for NIOSH. I'm just providing the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I understand that.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Smith: -- on the document.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I was going to say the 

exact same thing, and I don't think we necessarily 

have the right players on the phone to make that 

commitment. Poor Grady, once again.

Mr. Smith: I know. You guys have really loaded him 

up here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Mr. Siebert: But we can't -- I know Matt and I can't 

make any commitments without NIOSH.

Chair Kotelchuck: So I think -- if I may, why don'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

122

we simply have a note? You'll tell Grady. It's 

perfectly okay for us to close this here now in the 

Subcommittee. And if there is a decision, Grady can 

make a decision as to whether he wants to follow 

up. And it's in his ball -- it's in his bailiwick.

So I'd simply move to close and ask you, Scott, to 

mention this to Grady if you would.

Member Clawson: How about having Bomber 

mention it to him --

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. I've got it written down.

Member Clawson: But I would like some feedback 

on what Grady's decision is on this. But we can 

close it. I have no problem.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, if it's going to come back up, it 

needs to remain in progress. Otherwise, it drops off 

the --

Member Beach: That's what I was going to suggest 

is leave it in progress. It doesn't hurt one way or 

the other. It's a simple matter to close it to the next 

meeting if everybody's satisfied with what Grady 

says.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. You're right. If it has to 

come back to us, then it's open. And I'll buy that.

Member Beach: Or in progress, as Rose suggested.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Good. All right, and that 

will give us a chance to look at it again and hear 

what Grady is thinking.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And then, actually, the next 

one, 558, Observation 1, is identical. So we'll just 

leave these both in progress and --

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

123

Ms. Gogliotti: -- revisit them when Grady is present.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Better check with him. 

Hope that he'll be here for the next meeting. He 

was here this morning. I'm sure -- he normally is 

attending our meetings. So let the record show that 

I'm not saying he hasn't been going to meetings.

Ms. Gogliotti: He just dropped off for the Type 2 

findings, the hard ones.

Chair Kotelchuck: Which is when he often gets 

called upon. Anyway, be that as it may, seriously, 

we'll leave that in progress. Where do we go next? 

It's a little after 3:00, by the way. Normally, if we're 

in the afternoon, we do take a ten minute break or 

so, just a comfort break.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes?

Ms. Gogliotti: I'll make it easy on you. That was the 

last one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, hey. This is nice and easy. All 

right.

Ms. Gogliotti: I will point out that at the last 

meeting, we were tasked to do kind of a dummy 

matrix on -- for the blind cases as a way that the 

Board could track any time where SC&A was 

flagging a consistency issue or a place where 

consistency issues could occur in a case. And we did 

provide that in the meeting materials if you want to 

discuss that, and it's on the agenda. Otherwise, you 

can just be aware of it, and Board members can 

peruse it on their own time.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I don't think so. I mean, 

when we discuss the blinds, let's be able to discuss 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

the blinds. I don't recall the consistency matrix. I 

certainly recall the reports on individual --

Ms. Gogliotti: It's new. You asked us to put 

something together as a means of potentially 

tracking --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: I was just letting you know it's there. 

We don't have to discuss it today, but I know that 

that was important to Josie, so I wanted to make 

sure that everyone was aware that it was done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for 

saying -- I would say we will -- I expect at the next 

meeting we will be discussing the blinds, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Mm-hmm.

Chair Kotelchuck: For Set 28. And I noticed five --

what is it, three of the six are completed by both 

parties --

Ms. Gogliotti: No, all of the 28 set are complete. It 

was just submitted to you last month, I believe.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. You did. Okay. Good. Why 

don't we talk about -- then I think we should simply 

talk about the next meeting and close. And we will 

be talking about the blinds. Are there further issues 

to be talked about or further sets or parts of further 

-- we have a few things hanging over from Set 25.

Ms. Gogliotti: There are a few items in Set 25 in 

AWE Type 2 that we do need to discuss, as well as 

the issues from Set 27 that we need Grady for. And 

then there's a few carryover issues from previous 

sets that I think are ready to be discussed now 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

125

the Board that we could also put on the agenda.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That sounds like a full 

meeting. So carryovers, blinds, and my feeling is 

that we -- now, normally, a Subcommittee meeting 

will take a few months, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: To schedule? Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And that will -- I wonder, is 

Rashaun on the phone at this point?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, I'm here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, great. Yeah, normally, Ted 

kind of takes over and talks to us about what kind 

of times are available. And we often sketch in 

roughly when we're looking to.

Dr. Roberts: I see. Well, for this Subcommittee to 

meet, I do need to put in the FRN package, and we 

need at least two months of a lead time to do that.

What I was thinking is that we could target 

something like October, November, if that sounds 

good to the Committee members.

Chair Kotelchuck: That does. The last that I 

remember Ted speaking to us about was saying that 

-- and maybe that was due to the virus delays, but I 

thought he was saying that at this point, we had 

moved from two months' to three months' notice 

needed to get it into the Federal Register.

And so it would certainly be good if we could do 

October, but we may have to be in early November, 

I would -- later in October, early in November, 

something like that.

Dr. Roberts: Yeah. That sounds good. It's probably 

good to give ourselves a little bit of padding. You'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

126

right. So I would -- yeah, late October, early 

November sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Something like the 

week of the 19th of October or the 26th, or the first 

week in November. Do we want to rough some 

dates in right now as a Committee while we're all 

here? Or, of course, you can check about what are 

possibilities, and then we could do it over the 

internet.

Dr. Roberts: Well, if people have a sense of when 

they may not be available in that timeframe, it 

might be good to talk about that now if people have 

their calendars. Otherwise, we can just handle it 

online.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, actually, I think we often 

have our calendars out. So we're talking about the 

week of October 19th, even though we don't meet 

on Mondays typically. But October 19th, week of 

26th, and the week of November 2nd. And that 

keeps us pretty well away from Thanksgiving, which 

is the other limitation.

Member Beach: If we go for Wednesday again, I'm 

available on any of those three dates you 

mentioned, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's good. Okay. 

Wednesday's a good time, midweek. How about 

that? 21st, 28th, or 4th? How's Wednesday for 

other folks from the Subcommittee and from the 

staff folks?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. Thursday --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Member Lockey: Go ahead, Brad.

Member Clawson: I was just going to say 

Wednesdays usually work the best for me there, but 

I'm leaning more towards the November timeframe 

because I've got a lot of other Work Groups that are 

coming up in September and October. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, that sounds 

reasonable. So -- but Wednesday is a reasonably 

good day. So all right.

Any other suggestions or --

Member Lockey: Yeah. Jim Lockey. The first two 

Wednesdays in November are good for me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, good. Okay.

Member Beach: The 11th is a holiday, so we should 

skip that one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. If I may -- what kind of 

holiday? Veterans Day. Oh yes. Okay. Sure. Well, 

4th seems pretty good for a lot of people. What 

about a backup if not the 4th? We often pick a 

second date, second day, like the 3rd or the 5th as 

backup for in November.

Member Beach: I'm good on the 5th, not the 3rd.

Mr. Siebert: I apologize. This is Scott. I just want to 

speak up for Grady since he's not here. I don't know 

his schedule, so it may be wise to pick a backup 

that's not necessarily right next to the 4th in case 

he can't make it and he's out of town. Just a 

thought.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Well --

Member Lockey: How about the first Wednesday 

and the third Wednesday in November?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: From SC&A's perspective --

Chair Kotelchuck: The third Wednesday in 

November starts getting close to Thanksgiving. 

Well, it's still a week before Thanksgiving. 4th or 

18th. How does that sound, folks?

Member Beach: Rose, you were trying to speak up?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: Our next DR case set is due to you 

immediately following Thanksgiving, and my team 

would really like to be done before Thanksgiving. So 

if we start having the meeting too close to that, it 

could create complications on our end.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. I'm wondering whether we 

might not look into -- since the 11th is Veterans 

Day, maybe Tuesday or Thursday of that second 

week.

Member Beach: Dave, how about the 28th, October 

28th, and then the backup as the 4th?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, let's see. October 28th, 

huh? That would certainly work for me, but a couple 

of folks said that they were preferring November. 

There were a few people here earlier in the 

discussion -- did we not hear -- well, let's 

affirmatively -- the 28th, does that sound good to 

people or is that a problem?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey here. I can work with 

that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Others?

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I can work with 

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

129

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So that's pretty good, the 

28th or the 4th, taking the 4th as our first choice.

Member Valerio: Do we have --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Valerio: I'm sorry. This is Loretta still. On 

my calendar, I have a Board teleconference on that 

same day. We might double check that.

Member Beach: It's the 27th I have.

Member Valerio: Is it the 27th?

Member Beach: Yeah, Tuesday the 27th.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, that's what I have. Yeah, the 

27th.

Member Valerio: Okay. Then I've got the wrong 

date.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like we're kind of honing 

in on the 28th or the 4th, or the 4th to back up 

28th.

Is that okay, Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, that's fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. So --

Dr. Roberts: And I had a quick question. So does 

the time of day -- does that feel pretty good, about 

10:30 Eastern? Is that okay for people?

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. That's 7:30 West Coast 

time.

Member Beach: That works.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

traditional at this point.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: We used to do it at 10:00, and 

mercy was asked. So it's 10:30.

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Great. Great.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. I think we're pretty 

well settling things, and I think we've had a very 

good, productive meeting. It's so nice to be back to 

normal, to have our conference calls for our 

Subcommittee like normal people again and like a 

normal Board. So all right.

Dr. Roberts: Well, you did a great job, Dave. Thank 

you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, thank you.

Anyhow, folks, so we are, I think, completed now. 

Okay? All right. Bye-bye, and thanks to all.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:18 p.m.)