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

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

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

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

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

to change. 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1716 14TH ST. NW, STE. 200 

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

US Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

The Work Group convened via Videoconference at 

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

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

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

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

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

to change. 

2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal 

Official Dave Allen, DCAS 

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Elizabeth Brackett, ORAU Team

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Darin Hekkala, ORAU Team

Jenny Naylor, HHS

LaVon Rutherford, DCAS

Scott Siebert, 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

Welcome and Roll Call 4

Review Cases from Set 29 5

Discussion on Professional Judgment in Response to 

4/14/21 SDRR Report to Board 89

Adjourn 100
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

4 

Proceedings

(10:30 a.m.) 

Welcome and Roll Call

Dr. Roberts: So, welcome to everybody. I'm Rashaun 

Roberts. I'm the designated federal official for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and 

this is a meeting of the Board's Subcommittee on 

Dose Reconstruction Review.

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

NIOSH website under scheduled meetings for 

September 2021. So, we can move right into roll call.

Since the Subcommittee will be discussing dose 

reconstruction cases pertaining to specific sites, 

Subcommittee Members and others do need to 

acknowledge conflicts of interest and to recuse 

themselves from the discussion where their conflicts 

of interest apply. So, as we move through the roll 

call, please state where you have a conflict of 

interest. 

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: So, thank you and welcome to 

everybody. I just want to remind everyone because 

we have had a couple of interruptions already to 

please mute unless you're speaking. And if you don't 

have a mute button on your telephone press *6 to 

mute and *6 to take yourself off mute.

So as I mentioned the agenda for the meeting today 

can be found on the website under September 2021. 

Access to other materials was provided to Board 

Members and to staff prior to the meeting unless of 

course they had difficulty accessing the files.

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

5 

Dave, I'll turn the meeting over to you at this point.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Welcome, Subcommittee 

Members and others. Good to meet again and good 

to have access to data upon which to meet.

Just in terms of organization today, we're starting at 

10:30 Eastern Time. I figure we'll go until -- if it's 

okay, until around 12:30 and then break for lunch. 

And then come back at 1:30 and then sometime 

during the next few hours have a brief comfort break 

during the afternoon.

Member Clawson: Comfort break already? 

Chair Kotelchuck: Not yet. Hello, Brad. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I'm finally on. Sorry.

Review Cases from Set 29

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's fine. Welcome. So, we're 

ready to go on. And basically we want to review -- I 

mean, we have many cases from Set 29 to review. 

We usually start with the type 1 cases, which are 

relatively easier to resolve, and Rose from SC&A has 

organized things well for those of us who have access 

to the data.

I have been using -- in addition to the case files, I've 

been using her summary slides and would be 

interested in organizing our discussion now around -

- with the order that she has on the PowerPoint. And 

with that if people are ready then let's go to the type 

1 issues, and we would start with Case 563, 

Observation 1. And Rose, can I give it to you to take 

over and discuss with folks from ORAU and NIOSH?

Ms. Gogliotti: Absolutely. Actually, I'd just like to 

start by thanking Lori Marion-Moss. She's been 

working around the clock to make sure that the Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

and SC&A got access to the NIOSH Edge Computing 

Platform. Without her hard work we would not be 

able to meet today. So I just wanted to acknowledge 

that. She's been great and we really appreciate her 

help.

Chair Kotelchuck: Great. Thanks.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think everyone -- almost everyone 

has access to the platform now. Just so everyone is 

aware we're not back where we started by any 

means. There's still very limited tools available. We 

don't have access to a lot of data, and not all of our 

SC&A team has access yet.

But if anybody has any trouble feel free to reach out 

to me and I can do everything that I can to help you 

access things if you haven't already been able to do 

that.

This is a different format than I think we're used to 

seeing. As you know the BRS is down and it was just 

a little bit too overwhelming to try and go through 

this material without some sort of visual aid. I put 

everything in a PowerPoint. I know this is different. I 

tried to do the best I could of summarizing the issue, 

NIOSH's response as well as our response.

As we go through this I tried to use a pretty standard 

format. You'll see I broke it in a couple of places 

based on the actual findings. But there is a reference 

at the bottom of every slide back to the Excel file that 

has a bit more information about the case. And from 

there you can use that information to access all of 

the NIOSH files as well as SC&A review.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And again, new format so after the 

meeting I would very much appreciate feedback. 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. 

7 

is a temporary thing but I want to make it as easy as 

possible for the Board Members. So if you'd like to 

see something different, or more or less please let 

me know and we can address it.

Mr. Siebert: I apologize for interrupting. This is Scott 

Siebert. I'm not showing. Some of our team, the PPT, 

it does seem to be showing. Others of our team it 

disappeared from our screen. It says -- there's a 

note. There's network issues that interrupted the 

presentation. So I have presently a blank screen.

Member Beach: And ours, mine is still showing. This 

is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: So is mine. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad. Mine's showing.

Chair Kotelchuck: I have a suspicion, folks -- Dave. I 

have a suspicion that we'll be going in and out 

throughout the day and that individuals will be 

knocked off, or timed out and take a while to get back 

on. So I propose that we kind of slog ahead if we can. 

If there is someone who can deal with something 

while their screen is blanked out and someone else 

can take over that would be very good. If they can't 

we'll skip to the next one and then come back to the 

one that's in question.

So, would you say -- could we go on to 563, 

Observation 1? Scott, can you --

Mr. Siebert: I created a matrix for myself and I didn't 

have any of the other resources that we've been 

talking about. So I think I should be able to slog 

ahead.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that would be great. And I 

also -- we all have notes of different kinds. So, let'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. 

8 

go ahead with the discussion itself. Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Just a reminder, I'm not going 

to say anything about cancer types or years. That is 

on the screen for you and we can refrain from using 

that as much as possible just to prevent any 

inadvertent data releases.

So the first one is 563, Observation 1. And that's an 

INL case. This one we said that there were multiple 

dosimetry readings reported for the same badge 

exchange periods in this particular EE's files and it 

made it difficult to determine the exact number of 

missed doses. And we gave one year as an example.

This particular year the EE had 31 dosimeters and 

obviously there's 12 months in a year. So three of 

the monthly dosimeters were positive which would 

lead us to conclude that there should be nine missed 

doses or zeroes, but only eight were assigned in this 

case. 

And here NIOSH responded that it's common for 

multiple dosimeters to be issued in the same time 

period at INL. When this occurs there's guidance for 

that. In this particular year NIOSH agreed that one 

of the zero badges was removed during the 

determination of badges and the result should have 

been used. 

It also pointed out that observation didn't impact the 

final compensation decision. So since there's 

agreement on this particular observation we 

recommended closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: And in this Case 563, Observation 

1, it appears also that NIOSH used a higher LOD over 

2 than usual, 0.015 instead of 0.01.

Ms. Gogliotti: They did. This particular one, the LOD 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

changed midyear for this particular year and they 

used the higher LOD for the entire year.

Chair Kotelchuck: Aha. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Resulting in a slight overestimate. So 

it kind of zeroed out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Well, it was claimantfavorable, and because the PoC was less than 50 

percent. So it's claimant-favorable and that's fine. 

Okay. Good.

Is there any discussion by Subcommittee Members or 

others?

Member Clawson: Dave, can you hear me?

Chair Kotelchuck: I certainly can.

Member Clawson: Okay, I'm sorry. My phone's 

having troubles too. So let me get this right. It was 

okay to miss one badge zero because they were 

overestimating anyway. Is that why they were saying 

that it was okay to miss that one?

Chair Kotelchuck: No, no, it was not okay to miss. It 

was missed. Right, Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: I think they believed that it should have 

been done but it wasn't. But in this particular 

instance it was mitigated by inadvertently using the 

higher LOD for the whole year.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, it was mitigated. Now the 

question is there are differences about missed doses 

all the time, and the question is I don't believe this is 

a finding. I believe this is an observation, although 

that can be questioned.

Member Clawson: It's just an observation. I was just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

10 

trying to better understand how they justified the 

missing of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: Just wondering if that is something 

we normally always do because this zeroes and 

everything else like that has been issues at a lot of 

other sites. I was just trying to understand the 

rationale behind why they were able to say okay, this 

is acceptable because we did this and this and this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. What I said was really not 

directly related to that statement, but only to say that 

there were other things -- there were other aspects 

of the dose reconstruction that were more claimantfavorable than -- that is worth noting. 

Member Clawson: Okay. That's what I was trying to 

understand. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So folks, can we recommend 

closure? Is there any concern? I should say are there 

-- anybody wants to either speak against closure or 

ask questions before we close it?

Member Beach: None here, Dave.

Member Clawson: I'm good.

Member Valerio: I'm good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good. Fine. Hearing none 

then we close it and we go on now to 565 -- excuse 

me, Observation 1.

Dr. Roberts: I'm sorry, Dave, can I just interject 

here?

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

Dr. Roberts: Since there was a little bit of a rough 

start with the roll call, and then Josie and Brad came 

in a little bit late. They missed the reminder about 

the conflict of interest.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: So, Josie, if we could just circle back. 

Can you speak to your conflict of interest and also 

Brad?

Member Beach: Absolutely. I am conflicted at 

Hanford and I will refrain from any comments on 

Hanford Site.

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I'm conflicted at 

LANL. Sorry.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, no problem. Thank you so much.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. And actually when we 

go through the slides I should read the name of the 

facility so that it will remind people who are 

conflicted. So I will do that for the other slides as we 

go through. So 565, Observation 1, Hanford.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This particular observation we 

noted that we couldn't locate the exact information 

in the DOL files about where this particular cancer 

was located. You'll see it up there on the screen. 

Whether it was on the front or the back of the torso 

does make a difference for medical X-ray doses.

In the PAGE just due to the directionality, your back 

is going to get a higher dose than the front. And here 

NIOSH assumed the cancer was located on the front, 

and we pointed out that we thought it would be more 

appropriate to assign the higher dose which would 

increase the medical dose.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

12 

And NIOSH responded saying that they agreed that 

the exact location of the cancer couldn't be identified 

and lacking that information the higher dose was 

more claimant-favorable.

When they factored in the total combined PoC using 

the different results it did not impact the overall 

compensation decision so there is agreement. 

Because the additional dose doesn't impact the PoC 

we recommended closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And as I went through given 

that as we've spent time in the last couple of 

meetings we've often talked about professional 

judgment. This is actually an observation I would 

agree and would be open to closing it, but I would 

also note that this is a professional judgment that 

was made.

And Rose, as we are going through I wouldn't mind 

either myself or other people making note of 

professional judgments for the future. You're doing 

professional judgment right now on blinds where we 

have two independent reviews.

But I think in time we will be going over to the case 

reviews. Would it be useful to you, or would it -- to 

make a little note about professional judgment as we 

go through on a case?

Ms. Gogliotti: We can certainly add that to the things 

we start tracking. It's not something we've 

historically tracked with dose reconstruction so it 

would be starting with this set, but I see no reason 

that we can't add that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Well, okay. What I'd like to 

do is I'll tell you what. Put a note in it and I will come 

back to this question for the entire Subcommittee as 

to whether we should start doing this. It's not by fiat 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

by me that we should, but I think it might be 

worthwhile. So we'll do it today and then we'll come 

back to the discussion as to whether we really want 

to start doing this consistently at the end of the 

meeting.

So it seems to me it's -- you folks recommend 

closure. I think that makes sense. Are there any 

concerns about that, or any objections, questions by 

Subcommittee Members? Hearing none let's 

recommend and let's close it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is 566, Finding 1. And this 

is a Mound case. And here we said that NIOSH 

underestimated the missed neutron dose for certain 

years of employment. And this comes from -- in the 

TBD it indicates that a worker could be monitored 

weekly, biweekly, or quarterly. 

This particular EE was monitored quarterly. However, 

later in the TBD there is values listed for quarterly --

or there's not values listed for quarterly missed dose. 

There's only weekly and biweekly. So NIOSH used 

the LOD over 2 value for biweekly because there was 

no quarterly, but they should have been assigned a 

higher dose.

And that stems from at Mound they were using 

nuclear track emulsion type A film dosimeters to 

measure neutron exposures and there was a 

correction applied for track etching and fading in 

response to these low energy neutrons.

And NIOSH responded essentially pointing out the 

table. And there was not a value for quarterly in the 

table so they agreed with us on that. For these years 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

14 

not provided so they used the biweekly. In this case 

the dose reconstructor did not select the correct LOD 

value corresponding with the frequency found in the 

record. Since this claim is already over 50 percent it 

doesn't change the compensation decision and 

doesn't impact the claim.

And then they go on to say that this issue is being 

discussed with the Mount Working Group and the 

next revision of the TBD will address using

neutron/photon ratios during the time period for 

assessment, and a PER will be issued to address the 

changes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, even though this does not 

impact the compensation decision because the PoC 

was above 50 percent I wonder if this -- oh, right, 

this is a finding. Excuse me. I was thinking it was an 

observation. 566.1 is a finding. And agreed. And the 

two parties are agreed on that. Scott, do you have 

anything you wanted to add?

Mr. Siebert: No. Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then it seems to me we 

should --

Member Beach: So does this get sent over so that the 

Mound Work Group will make sure to keep track of 

this? We haven't met for a long time -- this is Josie -

- and the only other Site Profile we're waiting for is 

the external. I just didn't want to lose this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. My understanding is that it 

has already been discussed, this generic issue had 

already been discussed and the decision to go to N/P 

ratios rather than these fading factors and so on had 

already been agreed to which means it would be part 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

of the next update.

Member Beach: Yes, you're absolutely right. I do 

remember that. So thanks for clarifying that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Beach: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Thank you for raising that. 

Any other questions, concerns? Unless I hear such --

anybody? Hearing none. So we'll close on that. Okay? 

All right. Fine. Moving right along.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is 569.1. And this is the 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. And here the 

finding indicates --

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon me, but 567.1?

Ms. Gogliotti: That one is actually a type 2 finding. 

Somehow or another that one got copied and pasted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh okay, fine, fine. That makes 

sense. That does make sense in terms of what I read 

about it. Okay, good, 569.1, Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And this finding indicates that 

NIOSH omitted and reported zero for neutron dose 

during two years. And NIOSH agrees. These zeroes 

were accidentally omitted, increases the dose 

slightly. And actually this claim was returned this 

year to evaluate a change in the claim information. 

And NIOSH indicated that it would be completed 

soon. This was back in May that I got the response 

so I don't know the status of that currently, but that 

was the status in May at least. So there is agreement. 

It doesn't impact the compensation decision. It was 

a few millirem dose increase and the case is already 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

being reevaluated so we do recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: And this is Scott. Yes, we did complete 

that one with additional cancers. And we actually 

didn't have to go back and address this because it 

was already over 50 percent dealing with the other 

cancers as well. So it is fully closed out on our side.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. And then let's see. 

Okay, so that's a finding. Folks, can we agree to close 

that?

Member Beach: Agreed.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I have no problem 

closing it. Scott, my question to you is you didn't

have to do anything to this case, but (audio 

interference) do to make sure this didn't happen in 

other cases, or was this just a unique thing that 

happened? This isn't a site-wide issue, was it?

Mr. Siebert: You're correct, it's not a site-wide issue. 

It's not a problem with the tool or the direction. It's 

just the dose reconstructor missed that information 

when they were working through it.

Member Clawson: Okay. That sounds good. I just 

wanted to clarify that. I'm good with it, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good.

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. All right. Then hearing either 

by affirmative or silence we will close it. Okay. And 

go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Next one is from the same case. It's 

Observation 1 of 569. And here the finding was -- or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

17 

observation was that uranium dose was not correctly 

adjusted for the date of diagnosis. Here I think the 

uranium dose was simply not prorated for one of the 

cancers. And NIOSH agrees with this observation. 

It was a tool issue with the WebCAD. It's since been 

upgraded, but this case was done slightly before the 

tool was upgraded. 

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Okay. All right. So the tool 

has been upgraded. We're really talking about when 

folks -- I don't know, when it was not adjusted, 

correctly adjusted for the date of diagnosis. We're 

talking about a time of less than one month that it 

was off.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, not necessarily. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Really not? I thought it was. Okay. 

I was looking at it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, actually in this particular case it 

was, but not necessarily -- it applied to a different 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, surely, surely. The question is 

to my mind observation or finding. That was really 

what was behind my looking at that. But we had not 

made the change in the procedure, and the 

procedure was correct as of the date it was done. 

Within a month. Right?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. We agree that should have 

been adjusted. The issue is it wasn't a tool error or 

anything, it's just the original version up until that 

time of WebCAD did not automatically do that 

prorating so the dose reconstructor had to do that 

individually off the side and they missed it in one of 

the cancers. So we agree it should have been done 

for a best estimate case, and just pointing out 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. 

18 

WebCAD was updated so that problem is now -- it 

won't exist because now it's automated in the tool.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. And my own feeling is 

it's rather minor and it's not worthy of moving from 

observation to finding. Because it was not -- it was a 

really minor error at the time that it was done and 

therefore not worthy of moving from. And it was 

changed soon thereafter. So I'd be open -- I would 

be open to closing it as an observation. Are there any 

concerns by other Subcommittee Members, or other 

folks on the line? Staff folks. Any concerns?

Member Valerio: None here Dave. This is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Member Clawson: Brad. I'm good.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Then let's close it as an 

observation. Okay. 

Ms. Gogliotti: And the next one is 570, Finding 1. And 

this is a Lawrence Livermore National Lab case. And 

in this particular case the dose reconstruction report 

indicated there were no bioassays. And we located a 

plutonium and an iodine urine sample in the EE's 

files.

Here NIOSH agrees these bioassay samples from an 

EE's visit to another site and acknowledges they 

should have been mentioned in the dose 

reconstruction report. They noted that the plutonium 

sample appeared to be a baseline and the iodine 

sample would add an insignificant amount of dose.

But the case was over 50 percent so omitting these 

did not affect the compensation decision. So we have 

agreement and we recommend closure.

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. 

19 

Member Beach: So why was that iodine dose 

overlooked? Does anybody know? Was that a tool, or 

just an error on the dose reconstructor's part?

Mr. Siebert: Sorry, I had to get myself off mute. I 

believe it was just because it was at the opposite site 

it may have been overlooked. 

Chair Kotelchuck: But once the PoC goes over 50 

percent then for efficiency one could simply ignore it.

Mr. Siebert: You're absolutely correct. I forgot the 

fact that it was over 50 percent. So yes, that's true 

too.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, they can ignore it, but in this case 

they said there were no bioassays in the report which 

was incorrect.

Member Beach: Which is why I asked that question 

because understanding they can ignore it, but in this 

case it wasn't. So I guess my question is how do you 

keep that from happening. If it's not an over 50 

percent case that might have made a difference 

potentially.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. We would have asked -- I 

think we would have asked people to redo it. Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: That's kind of human error I would 

assume is what happened. Sometimes you have to 

dig through hundreds of pages of records and not 

unlikely that something gets missed. We don't want 

it to happen, but I think that that's probably what 

happened here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, yes. Okay. So, there's a 

recommendation for closure. Is there any concern or 

disagreement, Board Members?

Member Beach: None here, 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. 

20 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And --

Member Valerio: None here, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. So we have 

agreement and we will close this. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is a Savanna River 

Site case, Tab 572, Observation 1. And the 

observation indicates that NIOSH assigned a 

diagnosed cancer, a full year of missed dose. 

However, the cancer was actually diagnosed 

midyear.

And it was straightforward. NIOSH agrees with this 

observation. It doesn't impact the compensation 

decision. At the time of the dose reconstruction an 

update was made to the DR consult tool that provides 

a warning now when the diagnosis is before the end 

of employment. So there's something in place now to 

prevent this from happening in future. We're in 

agreement and we recommend closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Beach: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Valerio: I agree, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, then let's close. I agree as 

well. Okay, closure on that.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Moving right along. The next one 

is an Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, so K-25 as 

well as the Y-12 plant case, Tab 574, Finding 1. In 

here NIOSH assigned a duplicate occupational 

medical X-ray to one year. NIOSH agrees. Had 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. 

21 

impact on the compensation decision so we 

recommend closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Probably a copy and paste error.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds like it. And the PoC is 

greater than 50 percent anyhow which is why -- for 

those who don't have access to the data when 

something is over 50 percent one does not have to -

- the dose reconstructor does not always have to 

complete every single thing.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, in this case it was a duplicate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Which is the opposite of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. Okay. All right. Do we 

agree? On compensation. Excuse me, on closure.

Member Beach: I agree, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Me, too. Okay. So it is closed. We 

have an observation on that same --

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct, Observation 1. Here the dose 

reconstruction report cites a value from OTIB-6 and 

that doesn't agree with the value that's in the 

workbook. And what happened here was the skin 

doses in the Y-12 workbook are from OTIB-6, but 

they're from the 2005 version. But the DR report was 

referencing the current revision at the time which 

was from 2011.

Chair Kotelchuck: They used 2005. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And should have used 2011.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. And that's certainly an 

observation because what was done was done 

correctly at the time it was done.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think that it was not. I think they 

should have been using the current revision than 

using old revision in the workbook.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. 

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. Let me clarify what's going 

on here. The OTIB-6 which has the values was 

updated. However, the Y-12 TBD which does not give 

the actual numbers. It references back to the old 

version of the OTIB-6 still was referring to the old 

version. Until we get the TBD updated -- we need to 

get the documentation updated to use the more 

recent version of OTIB-6 in the TBD.

So it was following what the TBD says to do, it's just 

we should not have referenced OTIB-6 at the time 

until the TBD gets updated.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: So to clarify I am understanding that 

correctly because the TBD references an old version, 

even though there's a new version available they 

should have used the old version.

Mr. Siebert: Yes. They need to follow the TBD until 

the TBD is updated.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling. There's mention 

here of the Y-12 workbook. Has that been updated 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. 

23 

the most current TBD 6?

Mr. Siebert: No, because once the TBD is updated 

then we validate all the numbers and we update the 

tools and we follow and use those. And then 

everything is covered under that PER.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. When the workbook is 

changed then you go back and look at everybody, 

every claimant who had some work in that facility. 

Mr. Siebert: Or that process, correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, right, right. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: And that's not something that would be 

included in like a DR guidance document to go to the 

newer version? That surprises me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Scott.

Mr. Siebert: It is not at this point.

Ms. Gogliotti: Isn't that typically where things go?

Mr. Siebert: Well, for a change, yes. Generally that is 

a true statement, but for change of a different 

document for a PER process that would be a change 

in midstream for a different reference. So we would 

generally want to have the TBD updated so then we 

could follow the PER process and deal with everything 

in a logical following manner rather than in the 

midstream.

Member Clawson: Scott, this is Brad. Then how do 

you track all these so you know you're not missing 

something when you change it? 

Mr. Siebert: When the Y-12 medical TBD is updated 

it's noted that the OTIB-6 would be out of date and it 

would be updated at that point, and then the PER 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

would follow.

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. I'm a little surprised by this 

because, I mean, in past discussions when there's 

been changes in DR methodologies those can happen 

pretty much immediately. And I didn't think that we 

waited for official TBD revisions to actually change 

the way that the calculations run. So I guess I'm a 

little surprised by this.

Mr. Rutherford: Bob, this is LaVon. It's kind of hard 

to -- I mean every time that we made changes which 

we're continuously making changes it's hard to 

update TBDs and tools as quickly as all the changes 

are made.

So what we try to do so we don't have claims in flux 

all the time is to get those revisions together and 

then we make all of the changes at one time, and 

then do the PER based on those changes. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: So that comes back to my 

question. Where do you put this down that this needs 

to be changed so that you can track it so that you 

make sure that when you make these changes that 

this is done?

Mr. Rutherford: I mean, Scott may have additional 

information. One thing I would say, that every time 

you revise the TBD you look at the references that all 

of the documents that are used in support of that 

TBD, and you make sure the current reference, 

current document is referenced within that Technical 

Basis Document. Scott, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Siebert: Yes. Another step is the fact that we 

have a document control system that we can make a 

comment into that, or for something to be looked at, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

25 

the next version when the TBD is updated to ensure 

it's not missed and that's what we'll do with this 

issue.

Member Clawson: Well, that's where you would put 

it to make sure that it's not missed.

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Member Clawson: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So the one-word answer to how 

would you keep track, and the answer, one word, is 

carefully. And folks are trying to be careful about 

that. It is an administrative -- I wouldn't say 

nightmare, but it's an administrative problem. 

Member Clawson: And I understand that too, Dave. 

It's just usually when we've been going through this 

process we have the process in place to make sure 

because we all understand that we can't do all these 

updates sometimes right on the moment. And so we 

always had a tracking system to say this is -- we've 

got to look at this, we've got to do this when we do 

this update so that we don't miss anything. That's my 

only concern.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. And I think folks have 

demonstrated that it is -- careful attention is paid to 

that. So could we -- do we want to now have closure 

on this if things are in order now?

Ms. Gogliotti: I just have one more question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: Are there plans to update the Y-12 

medical dose TBD then? Because 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. 

26 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Rutherford: I'm sure that we do plan to update 

that. I don't have the project plan in front of me to 

identify where it is on the current project plan, but 

I'm sure based on that PER -- based on this that it 

will be if it's not already on the project plan.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. So unless I hear 

objections to closure we will close it. Are there any 

objections or other concerns?

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: I'm good also, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. All right. We're in 

agreement and we'll close this observation. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And moving on then the next one 

is from Tab 575, Finding 1. And this is an Oak Ridge 

site case, so Y-12, X-10 and K-25. And this one is 

very straightforward. Neutron dose was not assigned 

to a positive neutron result. NIOSH agrees that the 

monitoring result should have been acknowledged in 

the report. In this case the claim was over 50 percent 

so it did not impact compensation so we recommend 

closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Clawson: So, I understand --

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait a minute. INL. 

Member Clawson: Oh, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, I don't know. I think you may 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

be --

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't know where this neutron dose 

was. I don't have pulled up where the EE was working 

at that time. Sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, what I have in my notes is 

that there was left out INL dose in 1959. The person 

had a brief time at INL, or a visit there. So, however, 

it is a finding. It could -- although it could be 

considered an observation in that with the PoC above 

51 percent they may -- and the main work sites in 

the Oak Ridge complex, the person may just have 

decided not to bother. 

Member Beach: So Dave, this is Josie. Is that the 

case, or do we know why it was missed or how it got 

missed in this case? Specifically this case.

Chair Kotelchuck: No. I don't believe we do. Is that 

correct, Rose? Or Scott?

Ms. Gogliotti: We don't know.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: -- or a mistake.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. In a sense -- go ahead.

Mr. Siebert: Well, what we're saying is either way it 

probably should have been documented in the dose 

reconstruction report that it existed even if we didn't 

use it. So we agree we should have definitely 

discussed it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. That would normally be 

called an observation because it's -- once you exceed 

50 percent there's no need to go on to complete 

everything. However, people have to put the -- note 

something that's left undone in the dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

28 

reconstruction report. And that would make it an 

observation. And I'm open to considering it an 

observation because -- just in terms of finding there 

was not an error. There was something that should 

have been in the report that was not done. 

If this had been a PoC less than 50 percent it would 

be a finding, there's no question about that. 

Member Beach: I guess I'm not clear why because 

it's over 50 percent and we're not sure why it was 

missed you would change that to an observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, because -- and Grady has 

said this before in several of our meetings, that once 

you go above 50 percent they have to (audio 

interference) want to be efficient and move along. 

And sometimes things that could be added and 

increase the PoC are just not done so that people can 

go on, and go on to other dose reconstructions.

So it's above 50 percent. Above 50 percent (audio 

interference) not doing the best estimate. You're not 

necessarily completing the entire process. You want 

to report it, and that's an observation. But am I 

correct, Grady?

Participant: I know Grady's on but he's dealing with 

something right now. But you are correct. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. Fine, Scott.

Participant: You are correct. I mean typically what we 

would do -- I mean what should happen is as Scott 

mentioned. We should have acknowledged in the 

report and we should have said this would be one of 

our reasons why we've actually underestimated the 

dose. But we should have identified in there that this 

existed but it was not necessary to use it. And that's 

one of the things on our end. Actually during our 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

HOSPITAL meetings internally for DCAS when we 

review the dose reconstructions we talk about the 

importance of acknowledging the other portions of, 

whether it's the external dose that they left out, or 

the other things that were left out because of the 

overestimate. I've heard Grady in the past definitely 

say that he thought this was an observation as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And I feel part of it is that a 

finding is an error. A finding is far more serious than 

an observation. I mean, a finding is serious if you will. 

That is, a mistake was made of some sort. And I think 

this wasn't necessarily a mistake. It could well have 

not been particularly given that the person worked 

primarily over their 30 years in the Oak Ridge 

facilities. I mean, an INL visit was done in '59. So I 

mean, I would actually prefer to call it an 

observation. I think I will suggest that and ask other 

Subcommittee Members how they feel about 

changing that from a finding to an observation, or 

keeping it as a finding. Do I have some opinions? Or 

leanings?

Member Beach: I'm leaning more keeping it as a 

finding. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Because?

Member Beach: Because (audio interference) how 

that was actually, if it was a mistake or not at this 

point.

Chair Kotelchuck: Calling something --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Valerio: -- very difficult to indicate intent 

versus error.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. But calling something 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. 

30 

mistake goes down in our records. When we make 

annual reports or semiannual reports to the 

Secretary we count findings quite seriously, right?

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. I'm talking Oak 

Ridge so that's not a problem but here's the thing. 

You can't intend -- so there's got to be something in 

there saying that, okay we stopped right here. This 

is what we're going to do. Other than that you have 

to take it that this was a mistake.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well --

Member Clawson: I understand and I'm not -- we all 

make mistakes, and we're trying to make this 

program the best that we can for this. But the thing 

is there's got -- there's a lot of these that we go 

through. We can surmise what we think that they 

were doing, what they possibly could have been 

doing, but we really don't know for sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, we don't, but I would say 

finding we're sure -- to me a finding is far more 

serious. But I (audio interference) write those reports 

to the Secretary and findings really count. Let's hear 

from some other folks.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. So, the 

finding, and I understand that a finding is much more 

serious than an observation, and I understand that it 

really doesn't impact this case because the PoC was 

over 50 percent so basically the dose reconstruction 

stops and the claim is we assume compensated.

My question is, and I believe that Idaho National Lab 

used various types of dosimetry records, correct? Or 

dosimetry, the way they reported they used different 

dosimeters. 

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. 

31 

Member Valerio: So, was this -- and I did read this, 

and I took notes on all of them, but remind me, was 

this something that was not forwarded to NIOSH 

accurately for all the sites? Or was it again, and I 

believe what I heard was that this was just something 

that NIOSH didn't catch at the time or didn't 

document. 

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. As far as I'm aware we had 

the records as needed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Do you want to take another look 

at that? Maybe we would just -- should we come back 

to try to answer that question?

Mr. Siebert: Well, we clearly had the records if the 

finding was asked in the first place because SC&A 

asked why we didn't consider it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Right, right. 

Mr. Siebert: And I just can't give you the answer as 

to whether it was intentionally left out or overlooked. 

I just can't tell you that question, the answer to that 

question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: And Dave, nothing has really 

changed. It was overlooked. It's a finding. It should 

in my opinion remain a finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right. I'm still leaning to 

observation, but that's -- I would say, Loretta -- Jim 

Lockey, I haven't heard from you?

Member Lockey: I don't have the data in front of me 

so I'm going to just abstain from it because I can't 

objectively comment one way or the other. I heard 

the conversation and I would tend to go your opinion, 

but again I don't have the data in front of me so 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. 

32 

can't look at it. I'm sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that's really fair enough. I 

understand and I think that's a reasonable decision 

for you to make. So you want to close it out, 2 to 1 

finding? And leave it and close it as a finding I think? 

We polled and there's a difference of opinion, that's 

fine. So Loretta, unless you'd like to cast a vote one 

way or the other. You can well abstain.

Member Valerio: Well, I think I'm going to go with 

the finding, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So the vote is 3 to 1 for a 

finding. I propose that we close this. So we are 

agreed to close this as a finding as it was originally 

done. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I recommend also indicating that that's 

a QA issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Including reference to it in the report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, sure. Okay, let's go to 

Finding No. 2.

Ms. Gogliotti: Finding No. 2 is actually a type 2 

finding. So the next one is Finding 3 from the same 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, indeed. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And here what happened is the method 

that was mentioned in the dose reconstruction report 

did not match what was actually assigned in the case. 

Here the report said that environmental dose was 

assigned to this period of time, roughly eight years, 

the EE's employment -- or I'm sorry, more than eight 

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

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

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

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

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

to change. 

33 

But they actually used K-25 50th percentile coworker 

data for roughly eight years and then the remaining 

of their employment was environmental which took a 

while for us to figure out what happened. But the 

larger issue is that the dose -- the method that's used 

in the dose reconstruction report should match 

what's discussed in the report. 

And NIOSH does acknowledge that incorrect wording 

appeared in the report, and it should have reflected 

the actual assignment based on the EE's exposure 

potential. 

They indicated that they believed it appropriate to 

assign coworker dose to this period of time because 

the work that the EE was doing had them potentially 

going into production areas to remove samples, and 

the EE did have positive external dose during this 

time period.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: So I think this comes down to a 

professional judgment issue. I think it would have 

been appropriate to assign environmental doses 

based on this EE's job title. I don't think it's 

inappropriate to assign coworker doses either. I think 

this is a really professional judgment type issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: The PoC is already over 51 percent and 

the coworker dose is absolutely more claimantfavorable than the environmental. So I recommend 

closing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And this could be what we 

did earlier which is to say that where there was a 

statement in the dose reconstruction report that was 

in error, right? There's no question that they did not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

34 

describe what was actually done. That would be a 

finding and there is professional judgment you could 

use. And I agree with you that's something to take 

note. But in terms of having made an error in the 

report we should keep it as a finding.

And you recommend closure. What do other people 

think? Other Subcommittee Members. Any 

comments? I hear none. 

Member Beach: No, I'm in agreement with that, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. So --

Member Valerio: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, okay. So let's close it as 

Finding No. 3.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one is 577, Observation 1, 

and it's from a Hanford case. Here we thought that 

NIOSH appeared to have mistakenly assigned 

reported shallow dose to one year instead of another 

year. I think what happened was we didn't see any 

records corresponding to the first year so we were --

didn't really understand why the dose was being 

assigned there.

NIOSH responded saying essentially it was an editing 

error in the Excel spreadsheet and shallow dose was 

removed from a portion of the spreadsheet but not 

the entirety of it, resulting in it being erroneously 

included. It did not actually impact the other year.

Chair Kotelchuck: Because there was no report in the 

other year, 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. 

35 

Ms. Gogliotti: The other year did have a report and

was assigned dose, I believe. And we did look at this 

and the revised PoC did increase slightly but it didn't 

push it over 50 percent so it didn't impact 

compensation. And we're recommending closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Right. Although the issue 

wasn't pushing it over compensation. I thought I 

understood it, but I thought that there was nothing 

in '97. So what you're saying is '97 -- it should have 

been put into 1998 and --

Ms. Gogliotti: I've been trying not to say years, Dave. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon me.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think I've been trying not to say years 

specifically to avoid --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, thank you. Good. But so 

something was ultimately left out, a missing shallow 

dose.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think it was mistakenly assigned 

when it should not have been.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: That's a correct statement. It should not 

have been in the first year. That's correct. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And wouldn't that make it a 

finding? I don't think -- the notion that the PoC 

increased slightly but there's no impact on the final 

decision is not actually a criterion that we should use 

as the Subcommittee. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I agree. This is kind of a gray area 

where it's an error, but it's a small error.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is really a small error.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: If that's something that you want to 

elevate to a finding we can do that. I think in the one 

on one observation was decided upon, but it could go 

either way I think.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think so and my sense of it 

was more a finding. What do other people think? It is 

really minor. But it's a mistake. 

Member Clawson: Well, I don't see any criteria in 

ours that says if it's big or small that makes what it 

is a finding or not. I do understand this one isn't, but 

it was still -- let me ask you this. So was this a human 

error, or was this just a process that was done 

wrong?

Mr. Siebert: This would be a human error where they 

made the change. They removed the cycle data for 

that first year, but did not remove the summary data 

for the same year. They should have removed both 

of them. So it carried on through for that first year 

when it shouldn't have been. So it was a human 

error.

Chair Kotelchuck: It's a QA error, is it not?

Member Clawson: For me that would be a finding. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. 

Member Clawson: Not that, you know. I take these 

serious myself.

Mr. Rutherford: I've got a question. It's LaVon. I 

realize I've only been coming to the Subcommittee 

meetings for like the last three or four times. And so 

I obviously have not seen how things are consistently 

handled, and whether they're -- and what criteria you 

guys are using for findings and observations. 

For me it would be wonderful if there was some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

general criteria that I could think of and look at and 

say okay, yes, to me this looks like this is a finding. 

Because over time I don't know how that's going to 

change. I mean, because if we don't have a clear 

defined and a criteria on how we're calling things then 

if this Subcommittee changes with Members, or it 

changes, it comes down to how a person is feeling 

that day. 

It would be nice, at least I just would like to say it 

would be nice to have some kind of defined criteria. 

How have these been handled in the past?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I thought that -- and other 

Members of the Subcommittee should chime in. For 

me it has always been clearly a finding is a mistake. 

It can be a human mistake, or it can be a human 

mistake of not noticing something and not putting it 

in, or it can be a different kind of -- a QA mistake. 

But it could be a mistake using the wrong method. 

But it's a mistake.

An observation says that there was nothing done 

wrong at the time that the work, that the dose 

reconstruction was done. So a lot of times the dose 

reconstruction will be wrong -- will be out of date 

when it was done, but it was done properly according 

to the rules at that time.

Mr. Calhoun: There's a key there, Dave. This is Grady 

Calhoun. I think in my world, my past life a finding is 

a violation of a procedure usually. Is that what we're 

thinking?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: Not exactly. 

Chair Kotelchuck: -- violation of a procedure. No, that 

is always a finding. The question is -- is a quality 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

assurance error, is that a finding. And my feeling, my 

understanding is yes, it is a finding. But errors in 

procedures are definitely findings. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I think we decided to call this an 

observation rather than a finding because it was in 

favor of the claimant. I think something else must 

have changed for the revised PoC to increase when 

they were assigning extra dose and then taking it 

away.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I can address that. Even if 

you remove a small amount of dose the PoC can 

fluctuate upwards slightly just based on the fact that 

it's Monte Carlo calculations at the endpoint. So that's 

not surprising. It's unusual. Usually we lockstep 

those two things in our minds, but for a very small 

change the PoC can fluctuate upwards slightly or 

downwards slightly. So that's not really surprising to 

me.

Chair Kotelchuck: My understanding, Grady, is that 

except if the PoC is above 50 percent and therefore 

the best estimate dose reconstruction is not 

completed, the movement of the PoC as a result of 

something is not a criterion by which we decide 

whether a mistake was made or not. 

Certainly the mistake in procedure. If there's a 

mistake in procedure it doesn't matter whether it 

changes compensation or not. Of course if it changes 

compensation we'll so note and send it back for 

revision. But -- which has not happened -- I think it's 

happened once over the last decade. 

But the human error is still an error. And I believe 

that would be a finding. Those can be eliminated by 

administrative means, right, by training the dose 

reconstructors. LaVon, does this help?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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. Rutherford: It does help, it does help. I just, you 

know, it does help.

Member Clawson: LaVon, there's a lot of things else 

that comes into this. This was not just black and 

white like this. Because we've been going through 

this. Remember what the bottom line is -- is that 

what we're trying to do on this. At the very beginning, 

you know, you look back 10 years what we have 

changed because of this Work Group here, and the 

QA processes that we do, and everything that we're

trying to do. We're trying to get this to be the best 

that it can be.

So when these observations come up there are 

usually a lot of times, you know, when we have a 

finding not like this one or whatever they can say this 

was corrected by changing this and this and this. And 

we have taken care of the issue. This is what I see as 

one of the biggest things that we're trying to do on 

this is to get the best product out that it is.

Because I'm not glad happy to go out there and say 

findings or not, but if we've missed something and 

we haven't caught it, you know, a QA error or human 

error or whatever else it falls towards a finding. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Rutherford: I totally agree with you on making 

the program the best program we can make it, and 

making sure that we try to find ways of eliminating 

errors. My only question is really only because I 

haven't been on this committee for that long or 

actually been doing this for that long, I just wanted 

to make sure that we're applying observation and 

finding as fairly consistent that we could. And that 

was just it.

Chair Kotelchuck: And we should. And by 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. 

40 

that could precisely for 577 observation. In the 

course of the discussion I believe that they had 

simply moved a dose from -- moved it up, moved it 

off by one year. But there actually was -- there was 

something in 1997 -- sorry, excuse me. I don't want 

to talk about the years. Pardon me.

I think that we have -- this discussion has indicated 

that there was a mistake, and that it turned out it 

had a minor impact. But that's not really of 

consequence in terms of deciding whether a finding 

or an observation. This is a finding based on the 

criterion that a mistake was made. It happens to be 

a quality assurance mistake, but it was a mistake. 

So actually the argument here -- this discussion has 

led me to believe that the 577 should actually be a 

finding. A minor finding to be sure, not a major 

mistake certainly, very small.

Mr. Calhoun: Hey, Dave, this is Grady. I agree with 

you. I agree that it's a finding. I think it's time to 

move on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I'm ready. Are folks open to 

calling it a finding? And then closing it.

Member Clawson: Yes. This is Brad.

Member Beach: I'm good, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Very good. And thank you, 

LaVon. Okay. So it is closed. Let's go.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is 579, Observation 

1. And this is a Y-12, X-10, and K-25 so the Oak 

Ridge facilities. And this is very straightforward. 

NIOSH did not include all the chronic annual dose 

workbook files for assigning internal dose. 

I believe what happened here was usually 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. 

41 

EE works at these three facilities they look at all three 

and they assign the highest. Here only the highest 

was provided in the files that we had available to us.

NIOSH agrees that the additional files demonstrating 

the lower doses for the other facilities should have 

been included. And so there's agreement it only 

relates to the documentation. We recommend 

closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. This becomes a similar 

discussion to the one we had on 574.1 in that there 

was something left out, and but the PoC was greater 

than 50 percent and therefore it could have been left 

out inadvertently or it could have been left out 

because it was not necessary to do.

Ms. Gogliotti: I want to clarify. They did it correctly, 

they just didn't include all the documentation 

showing why they chose one versus --

Chair Kotelchuck: So. Okay. Thank you. My notes 

were in error. Okay, well that would make it certainly 

an observation. Other people, other Subcommittee 

Members' thoughts, or other folks on the line?

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

Brad.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I'm also good with that.

Member Valerio: I'm good with that, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, so it's closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Can I suggest calling that a QA 

issue also?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And moving on the next one 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. 

42 

from Tab 580 and this is Finding 2. And this is an INL 

case. Here what happened was cesium-134 was used 

to model dose instead of cesium-137 and IMBA from 

the whole body count result. And when you're 

selecting a radionuclide in IMBA it's a dropdown 

menu and you select the one that you want. And here 

it looks like maybe somebody just flipped their finger 

a little bit when they were selecting it and didn't 

notice. Due to the biological half-life of cesium-134 

versus cesium-137 it was a claimant-favorable error. 

It didn't increase dose excessively. And NIOSH 

agrees that the wrong isotope was selected.

They recalculated dose and slightly decreased the 

dose that was assigned in the PoC. So there's 

agreement, correcting the isotope reduces dose. We 

recommend closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: That makes sense. There was an 

error in the choice of the isotope. And it's 

acknowledged and agreed upon. I would suggest 

closure on that.

Member Beach: I agree, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: I agree, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, we'll close it. Thank you. 

Let's go on.

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

case, Observation 1. Again this is an INL case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And here the assignment of shallow 

dose for this particular organ which -- particularly 

complicated, appeared to have an uncertainty 

correction factor twice. When we did the calculations 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

we were consistently less than NIOSH's values by a 

certain amount which led us to believe that the 

uncertainty correction factor was being applied twice.

However, we didn't have enough information

available to us to confirm that that's what happened. 

NIOSH responded saying the INL tool used to 

calculate the doses was evaluated and it was 

discovered that indeed it was being applied twice. 

Applying it twice does increase the dose so it was 

claimant-favorable.

This type of issue, this is a kind of unusual cancer and 

the shallow dose component of it is a small fraction. 

So the amount of claims that they believe would be 

impacted are small. It was a claimant-favorable 

error. They are agreeing to update the tool to correct 

this.

So there is agreement, the small impact on dose and 

it was claimant-favorable so we do recommend 

closure. However, I do have one follow-up question. 

It sounds like a PER is not necessary for this because 

it was claimant-favorable and small. Am I 

understanding that correctly?

Mr. Siebert: That is correct. This is Scott.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. But there is agreement. I 

mean, you had -- SC&A had no basis to decide 

whether the correction factor was being applied 

twice. But the discussion with the NIOSH folks 

indicated that that was probably the case, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: I think they agreed that that's what 

happened.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So then if they agreed that 

what's happened then -- and a tool is being 

developed to correct this that's fine. On the other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

44 

hand something was applied twice. There's an error 

in the procedure. That was not taken care of by the 

tool. It will be and that's fine, but it seemed to me 

this was a finding.

Ms. Gogliotti: I would agree with that. I think we 

didn't have enough concrete evidence at the time 

that we reviewed the case, but since then --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- that was in fact the problem. I don't 

think -- I think it's appropriate --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And the decision came 

because you had a chance to speak to the NIOSH 

folks and there's agreement. So I would like to 

recommend closing as a finding. How do others feel?

Member Beach: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Folks.

Member Valerio: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. We will close it. Let's go 

on now.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, so Tab 580, 

Observation 2. Again it's an INL case. Here we just

pointed out there were several errors in the dose 

reconstruction report regarding dates that were 

identified. 

They were done correctly in actual dose 

reconstruction. We agreed that the correct dates 

were used when they were being used for modeling, 

but they were simply incorrect in the actual report.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good. That's a pure 

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

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

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

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

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

to change. 

45 

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH confirmed that the errors were 

in the text of the report. It didn't impact the actual 

doses that were assigned.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Closure, suggest closure. 

Any concerns or objections? Hearing none it's closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Observation 3. 

Again, INL. Here there was an error in the unit 

conversions for calculating recycled uranium intakes. 

I think what happened was for the U-234 isotope it 

was listed as picocuries per day, but it was treated in 

the calculations like it was deployment per day. This 

in fact was an error in the calculation. I'm sorry, 

there's a typo here.

NIOSH agreed that it was an observation. And then 

they pointed to the best available information, to the 

table in the TBD. So there is agreement. Correction 

of the units results in a smaller dose than was 

actually assigned in the DR report so we recommend 

closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Closure as a finding or an 

observation? 

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't think it would be inappropriate 

to up this to a finding, but that's up to you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. To me that sounds like a 

finding, something -- there was an error in the 

procedure. A minor one to be sure. Okay. So, 

recommend closure as a finding. 

Member Beach: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay. Fine. We'll go ahead 

and that's done. We can do a few more. It's noon 

right now and we talked about moving -- keeping 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. 

46 

till close to 12:30. If folks still feel comfortable with 

that let's go on to the next one. But if anybody would 

like -- feels like we would prefer to take a lunch break 

now I'm more than open. It's up to our people. 

Member Clawson: Coming in late like I did I think we 

could just keep going.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds good. Let's keep 

moving on. Two hours is kind of a Zoom maximum, 

but we can do that. Good. Okay. Let's go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 580, Observation 4, so same 

case. Again, an Idaho case. And this is an 

observation. We couldn't locate the entries for this 

particular cancer's IREP input table that 

corresponded to recycled uranium dose to a certain 

organ let's call it. 

This type of cancer is -- a lot of files are generated. 

And we had trouble piecing through them. NIOSH 

specified the file names and pointed us in the right 

direction. And they indicated that that's where we 

could find things.

Then they also did a dose comparison in a different 

file, and then those were consolidated. They pointed 

us to the line in IREP and we were able to track 

everything through. So with their additional guidance 

we were able to follow the calculations through.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Very good. So that's 

certainly an observation. And you recommend 

closure. I support that. Do others -- any concerns or 

questions? 

Member Valerio: I agree, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and 

close 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. 

47 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Next case here, it's from Tab 

581, Finding 1. And this is a Fernald case. And here 

there were two years of uranium intakes that were 

modeled but not assigned in IREP. 

And what happened here is the TBD indicates that 

recycled uranium up through -- needs to be factored 

in beginning in a certain year. However, because the 

intake went into this year NIOSH modeled the 

recycled uranium component, but it appears that the 

dose reconstructor just forgot to go back and actually 

include the earlier non-recycled uranium component. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: It was just a few millirem. NIOSH 

agrees.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. I agree.

Ms. Gogliotti: No impact on compensation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: So we're in agreement and it didn't 

impact the compensation decision so we recommend 

closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. If I were writing it up 

I would delete the sentence, "The omission did not 

impact." There is agreement. SC&A recommends 

closure as I think is proper. So let's close it. Unless 

there are concerns or objections. You don't have to 

remove the omission sentence. I'm just saying in 

passing that a lot of times we focus on it doesn't 

change things as if that -- not changing things, I'm 

very glad that we don't -- the kinds of concerns where 

it's going to change the compensation decision. But 

the issue (audio interference) we're reviewing the 

dose reconstruction, and the question is: is 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. 

48 

properly done or not? And so, that said, that's a little 

insert by me, but not -- okay. Recommend closure? 

Agreed?

Member Beach: Agreed, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. 

Member Clawson: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good, okay.

Member Valerio: Agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Excellent. Now let's go to the next 

one.

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

it's a Fernald case. Here our observation was that 

NIOSH assigned thoron distribution was inconsistent 

with what was recommended in the TBD. The TBD 

indicates that a constant should be used, but NIOSH 

used a log normal distribution. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And NIOSH responds that the WebCAD 

tool was correct, and did include this information at 

the time of diagnosis, but the dose reconstructor in 

this instance hand entered those points rather than 

using the default WebCAD values and mistakenly 

used the wrong distribution. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- no impact on the compensation 

decision. I believe log normal distributions tend to be 

more claimant-favorable than the constant.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, yes. But it was -- the tool was 

not properly used, and the person entered -- the dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

49 

reconstructor entered it personally. But it would --

while a minor error, I think it is an error and to me 

this should be a finding. Do other people agree?

Member Beach: I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. The issue is the error and 

procedure. The issue is not whether it affects the 

compensation. Of course it's very important if it does, 

but -- and it's good to hear that it doesn't. It rarely 

does in anything we do. 

Okay. Folks, close as a finding? Last word? Okay. 

Close as a finding. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Scott and Rose, I guess we're 

doing a lot of changing of observation, finding, and I 

know that's an administrative problem for you folks 

as to what gets labeled what. But I know you know 

what to do.

Ms. Gogliotti: We just have to update a couple of 

records. It's not a big deal at all.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, well I'm glad, glad to hear 

that. Let's go.

Ms. Gogliotti: We're happy to make them whatever 

you'd like.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And should we call that a QA 

issue also?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes indeed. It is.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I'll make sure that that gets 

labeled as such. Moving on, the next one is from Tab 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

583 and this is Observation 1. And the EE worked at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Los Alamos, and 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. 

And here the observation had to do with it not being 

clear where the -- in the documentation where the Xray was performed. Specifically, there were two Xrays in the record from Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. One of them was stamped Lawrence 

Berkeley Lab Medical Services. And that particular 

one was actually during the time that the EE had due 

while verified employment at Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory. 

And we believe that it would have been more 

claimant-favorable to apply the occupational medical 

guidance based on Lawrence Berkeley rather than 

what was used in this case which was the Lawrence 

Livermore because it was more claimant-favorable. 

There was some uncertainty about where it was 

actually performed. 

And NIOSH responded saying essentially that they 

agree with us it was unclear where the examinations 

occurred, and it was more claimant-favorable to use 

the Lawrence Berkeley. A small difference in dose 

didn't impact the final compensation decision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. That certainly fits our 

observation. There was nothing done wrong. There 

were three measurements and they were all properly

recorded. It was also completely proper to say that it 

would have been better to use Lawrence Berkeley for 

all three. It would have been more favorable to the 

claimant.

That's really a professional judgment, isn't it? But it 

is an observation that falls in the professional 

judgment category. But nothing was done wrong. So 

I agree it's an observation and I suggest we close 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. 

51 

How do others feel?

Member Beach: I agree and I also agree with the 

tracking of the professional judgments that you 

mentioned earlier.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. 

Member Clawson: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good.

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: Because Los Alamos is mentioned 

here I'm not going to vote on this one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you very much. Right. This 

is -- as we're going online we can't say to people 

leave the room, right. Very good. And good. And 

you're not -- you're conflicted there.

Okay, so this is approved. We now are closing it as 

an observation. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one is from Tab 584 and this 

is Finding 1. It has to do with the Clarksville 

Modification Center as well as the Pantex Plant. And 

I want to point out that this one is essentially the 

same as the next one. It was an apron correction 

factor of 1.5 was not applied to missed photon dose 

and the follow-on one is for reported shallow dose. 

So just keep both of those in mind while we're 

talking.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And what happened here is the 

current TBD, so that's the one that is current 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. 

52 

had specific language that says that all measured and 

missed dose for everything not covered by an apron 

should use an apron correction factor. 

But the document that was in place at the time didn't 

have that statement. I think the intent was for it to 

be implied, but it wasn't explicitly clear in the TBD at 

the time. It's since been updated.

NIOSH responded, indicated that they verified that it 

wasn't included and the TBD in place at the time did 

not directly tell the dose reconstructor to do this. 

Although it is very clear in the new TBD. But this 

claim is part of the Pantex PER and all of these TBD 

changes are going to be addressed in that PER. So 

we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. And that's good. This 

is a finding. The PoC is at 45 percent. Putting the 

apron factor on would reduce the exposure to -- wait 

a second. The badge is on top of the apron. So this 

would -- this would -- the claim, the PoC if that factor 

is put in will --

Ms. Gogliotti: Go up.

Chair Kotelchuck: Will go up. Right. And so it is being 

reevaluated.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. So the --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- wasn't being protected by the apron. 

I believe the badge is underneath the apron and so if 

you're not being protected then your doses are -- the 

TLD isn't capturing the dose from something that 

wasn't underneath --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, yes, yes. Okay, good. No, 

thank you for clarifying. Okay. So recommend 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

closure for this finding. Seems pretty clear. And there 

are the next two, 584.2 and 3 are I believe the same 

issue.

Member Valerio: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: It's Loretta. I'm conflicted out of 

Pantex.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Thank you. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. The next two are the same, I'm 

sorry. The third one is missed shallow dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So anyway I recommend 

closure for 584.1, .2 and .3 all of which are just the 

same correction factor, the apron. Okay? Folks 

agree?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: I agree also, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Fine. Closed, all three. Now 

1, 584.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This is the same case. An 

observation said that the DR report discussion on 

offsite exposures was insufficient to interpret. And 

what happened here is the DR report mentioned 

offsite dose for one year at Pantex, and Pantex 

specifically has offsite adjustment factors for certain 

offsite doses. But that's not what they were 

referencing, and I think that's what caused the 

confusion.

Offsite in this instance was being used to refer to 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. 

54 

visit to another facility rather than the Pantex offsite 

doses. But it was just a little confusing. NIOSH agrees 

the connection between the offsite doses and the 

records could have been explained more clearly. So 

we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. The procedure was proper. 

Okay. So recommend closure. Folks agree?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Closed. All right. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Observation 2. 

Again, Clarksville Modification Center and Pantex. 

This was an observation. We just pointed out that the 

current guidance for Clarksville would not include or 

would not allow internal doses to be assigned in the 

absence of monitoring data. So essentially the 

current revision only allows for internal doses to be 

assigned when there is monitoring data, but it was 

assigned in this case without. So it was just pointing 

out that if the case was revised all of that dose would 

disappear. 

And NIOSH agrees that the internal dose at 

Clarksville would not include this based on the 

current guidance. The previous method was an 

overestimate compared to the current practice. So 

there's agreement. We recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And this is an update if you 

will, but everything was done properly according to 

the rules at the time.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. 

Chair Kotelchuck: 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. 

55 

Ms. Gogliotti: More of an informational purposes only.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And that's very good, what 

observations should be for among other. Okay, 

recommend closure. Any concerns or objections? 

Member Beach: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Member Clawson: I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. It will be closed. 

It is closed. Okay. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one is a little complicated, 

but it's from Tab 585, Finding No. 1, and it's a 

combination of Pantex and Albuquerque Operations 

Office. And here we pointed out that we believe there 

was a mischaracterization of the EE's employment at 

Albuquerque Operations Office.

So what happened is the Department of Labor 

verified the employee's duty location was in Amarillo, 

Texas while they were working at the Albuquerque

Operations Office. Now, the Albuquerque Operations 

Office is located in Albuquerque, but Pantex is 

actually located in Amarillo, Texas.

And in the EE's CATI report they explained their job 

function which really could only be done at a site that 

had certain materials that is not present in 

Albuquerque Operations Office. So it was clear to us 

that the EE, although they were employed by 

Albuquerque Operations Office they were actually 

visiting Pantex Plant for those exposures.

So we felt that it was inappropriate, or certain things 

had been missed based on the EE's work location.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, 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. 

56 

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH agreed with us that the EE 

would likely have received onsite ambient exposure 

from Pantex based on their work location rather than 

the Albuquerque Operations Office.

Chair Kotelchuck: Agreed, I agree. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Others, agreement?

Member Beach: Yes, absolutely.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. Closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I did have one question here 

though. It mentions that the SEC limitations were 

added. It doesn't mention a PER. Is that also in the 

plans?

Mr. Siebert: Yes, there's a Pantex PER. Correct. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I just wanted to verify. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Siebert: Sure.

Member Clawson: That being said, I'm sorry. LaVon, 

we talked about this at the last Board meeting. Do 

we have enough data for Pantex?

Mr. Rutherford: You caught me off guard there.

Member Clawson: Sorry. It just popped into my head. 

I believe it was -- it wasn't our last meeting, but the 

one before we talked about Pantex and the updates 

on that. If 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. 

57 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: I'm not going to put you on the 

spot. If you would just email me just when you find 

out would you just like a heads up I'd appreciate it.

Mr. Rutherford: No problem. I'll do that as soon as I 

can after the meeting.

Member Clawson: Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, that's good. So we have 

closure on 585.1. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Pantex and 

Albuquerque Operations Office, Finding 3. And here 

the finding was that missed neutron dose was 

assigned twice for several years. And NIOSH agrees 

that this happened. Removing that decreases dose. I 

think it was a copy and paste error, so we 

recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. And since the PoC was 

under 50 percent decreasing the dose does not --

could not result in a compensation change. But I 

shouldn't be talking about that, compensation 

change. Okay, sorry about that. It's getting near 

lunch time. I'm -- we're wobbling. I'm wobbling. 

SC&A recommends closure and of course I support 

that. Questions or concerns?

Member Clawson: I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. 

Member Beach: Yes, I'm good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. So, closed. All right. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Finding No. 4. 

Pantex Plant and Albuquerque Operations Office. 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. 

58 

here the finding has to do with an incorrect MDL being 

assumed for two years of the EE's employment. 

NIOSH used an MDL of 100 millirem and they should 

have been using 50 millirem. So it reduces the dose 

when you correct for this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- result of the tool not updating.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Okay. So the error is 

corrected. And I suggest we close. Other folks? 

Agreed? Closed?

Member Beach: Agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Closed, 585.4. 585.4.

Ms. Gogliotti: 585.4 and now this is 585.5. Okay. This 

finding has to do with the examination years assigned 

not being consistent between cancers. With one of 

the cancers two scans were assigned in one year and 

none in the second year. And in the other two scans 

were assigned in the second year and none in the 

first.

But the records indicate they were all in one year is 

actually correct. NIOSH agrees.

Chair Kotelchuck: That does it really. Right? 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. So we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: An error was corrected. Minor.

Ms. Gogliotti: Small difference in PoC, probably not 

something that would even notice. But it happened 

nonetheless.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, let's close. Again, 

colleagues, Subcommittee Members.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

59 

Member Clawson: I'm good.

Member Beach: Agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're all colleagues. 

Subcommittee Members, we agree we're closed. And 

maybe 586 I believe has a few --

Ms. Gogliotti: It has four parts.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And we have '89 -- '86 and 

'89. It is close enough to 12:30 that I think I'd like to 

call it lunch break. It's 12:25. We get together at 

1:30. Would folks be in agreement with that? All of 

the folks on the line?

Member Beach: I agree.

Member Clawson: Sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right. We'll see you all 

again at 1:30 and we'll take those last two cases, 

have some time to talk about. I'm not sure if we can 

do any type 2 or if they're appropriate for discussion 

now, if we're ready for it. And then possibly a little 

discussion, professional judgment and we'll finish up. 

Take it easy. Have a good lunch, folks. Or a good 

breakfast in some cases. Bye.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:25 p.m. and resumed at 1:32 p.m.)

Dr. Roberts: Welcome back everybody. Sorry for the 

disruption. Our court reporter is on so we can 

proceed. Let me take a quick roll call.

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. All right, everyone is here. 

And just be reminded if you have a conflict of interest 

to please recuse. Thanks.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

Member Clawson: Hey, Rashaun, and also if you have 

to go away from your phone don't put it on hold. 

That's why the music was playing.

Dr. Roberts: Yes, yes. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye.

Member Clawson: Hey, Dave, this is Brad.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: Before we start into the new ones 

and stuff like that, I hate to do this but I need to go 

back to 574, Observation 1. I just need something 

clarified. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure. Why don't we do that first, 

after we finish.

Member Clawson: All right. Rose, can you get back 

to that? There's something here and it's just kind of 

eating at me and I'm trying to figure out what 

actually happened and I just need to be clarified on 

this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's finish the roll call and 

then we'll come back to that. Rose will be scrolling 

while we're waiting.

Member Clawson: Okay, sorry about that, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, that's okay. Go ahead, 

Rashaun.

Dr. Roberts: No, I think we're done. Everybody 

except for Richardson so I think you're good to go.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. You're not going 

to do a staff roll call.

Dr. Roberts: No. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. Fine. We're ready 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. 

61 

go then. So, folks, could we go back to 574, 

Observation 1? 

Ms. Gogliotti: Can everyone see my screen?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Clawson: My question is on this it sounds 

like we've been using an outdated guide document 

for almost 10 years. Is this correct, or -- because the 

TBD hasn't been updated. Is this what created this 

observation? Mr. Siebert: Correct. And we're 

updating the TBD to reflect that at this time.

Member Clawson: Okay. So, Scott, when you're 

doing something like -- we've been using -- this is 

what's bothering me. I'm just going to throw it out 

there. We've been using an outdated guide document 

for (audio interference) years. Is that correct? 

Mr. Siebert: Yes.

Member Clawson: Holy cow. Okay. Do we have 

anything in place to help this, or are we just -- are 

we going to update the TBD and go back all these 

years and re-look at everything?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. That's typically what we 

do, but we've got to prioritize the work we do. We 

typically have more work on our plate than we can 

get completed. So yes, that is the case and once that 

TBD is approved then we'll go back and do a PER to 

address any non-compensable claims and see if the 

dose goes up and those would be compensated.

Member Clawson: Go ahead, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Grady, is that something you could 

look at to see if things are out of date? Hold it just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

62 

one second, please. Could you check into whether --

what kind of dating the TBDs or what kind of lateness 

the TBDs are in? I mean, there may be -- that may 

be one thing --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: We go over our project plan every week 

internally and that's on there. We also go over it with 

ORAU every five to six weeks. So we are painfully 

aware of where everything is. Sometimes there are 

side discussions that cause things to get delayed 

because we've got to get number one done before we 

get number two done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: Unfortunately it's just one of those 

things we've been dealing with for 20 years really. 

And we just kind of internally have to prioritize what 

is going to get us the most bang for the buck as far 

as getting cases out to claimants.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. Let me also clarify one 

thing. The reason this didn't get -- I shouldn't say the 

reason it didn't get changed, but the reason we're 

still using the out of date version is because the 

specific numbers are in the Y-12 medical TBD. It 

doesn't just refer back to OTIB-6, it actually gives the 

numbers which means there's two competing areas. 

So, in most cases what we've done more recently is 

when we update a TBD like this, and I know we're 

doing it with Y-12, is we will no longer have the actual 

numbers in the Y-12 medical TBD. It will just refer to 

OTIB-6 itself. And that way when OTIB-6 gets 

updated that can just pass right through rather than 

having to await the TBD to be updated to state that. 

So that's a little bit of learning on our part over 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. 

63 

years on how to document some of these paths 

through things. But I hope that puts your mind at 

least somewhat at ease that we're working through 

the process and it shouldn't be a continuing issue.

Member Clawson: Scott, this is what I'm looking at. 

I sit here and I look at all this, 10 years. It makes me 

feel a little bit better to know that we've actually got 

the numbers that we're working with in there, but I'm 

sitting there looking at petitioners that are right on 

the borderline and this could change. And it just --

10 years is a long time to wait. I'm glad to hear that 

we're using those numbers, but I'm just wondering 

how many before we started using those numbers 

are still sitting out there that need to be changed, 

especially the ones that are sitting right on the 

border.

Because we have several that were 49.75 and stuff 

like that. I just -- so, my question to the group is do 

we need to close this, or I think we did close it and 

I'm just -- I'm -- 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, we did.

Member Clawson: I just want to understand how we 

are going to know that this has been rectified I guess. 

I guess, Scott, you're basically telling me that it 

already has been rectified because you guys are 

actually using the numbers, correct? 

Chair Kotelchuck: I'll let Scott answer and then I'll 

speak. Scott?

Mr. Siebert: No, we are still using the TBD values in 

the current TBD. The TBD is in the process of being 

revised right now to remove those specific values and 

just to reference the OTIB itself. At that point those 

numbers are updated and we will in the PER for Y-12 

handle any differences between those numbers. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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: And my -- excuse me. One sec. I 

think this is out of our purview. It is -- I'm glad that 

Grady was here, and they have a procedure which 

they follow. And he heard you loud and clear as he 

hears all of us when we speak.

But I don't think there's anything we as a 

Subcommittee can do about that. As long as it's being 

prioritized on a regular basis, and -- but I don't feel 

as if there's anything we can do here. And so --

Mr. Barton: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is Bob. I might be 

able to move this thing along a little bit because I'm 

going to have to admit I was a little confused by the 

discussion that occurred earlier.

But I think it's important, especially for any members 

of the public on the line to understand that in this 

program we're not necessarily beholden to every TBD 

revision. That is, the dose reconstruction process 

itself, and correct me if I'm wrong, is a much more 

fluid situation. To every extent possible the latest and 

greatest methods are used in dose reconstruction 

even if the TBD is lower down the list of priorities to 

be revised.

And I think that needs to be just stated and clarified 

unless I'm wrong about that. Because I think it was 

a little confused because it almost sounded like the 

DR was beholden to the TBD until it gets revised, and 

I don't think that's necessarily the case, that DRS are 

much more fluid. When there are changes, for 

example, in Work Groups about Site Profile issues, 

even though those issues may not be officially 

updated in the TBD for several years the methods 

that are agreed upon are used as soon as is practical. 

And I think that's the distinction that was maybe 

muddled or lost in my comments earlier. I think that 

needs to be clarified. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

Chair Kotelchuck: I wonder, Grady, might you 

answer that? I'm not sure if what Bob -- if what 

you're saying is correct. 

Mr. Calhoun: Typically we follow what's in the TBD. 

And we don't deviate from that much. Now there may 

be a workbook that gets updated ahead of time, but 

I'm going to defer. I'm going to pass the ball to Scott.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Barton: -- there's a DR template that gets 

updated. That's not necessarily published on the 

website, but it is up to date for the dose 

reconstructors on what specific steps and values to 

use. So I think that's where the confusion is on this 

issue.

Mr. Siebert: Well, we will not update a template in 

something that is directly in violation of one of --

actual documents such as a TBD. We do have interim 

ways to deal with it, and looking back since it's been 

a long time perhaps we should have done this. We 

can use a DR guidance document to reflect that 

change if there's other things that are holding up the 

TBD. In this case the TBD is in process right now so 

I'm not really sure that that's an appropriate way to 

do that.

We won't just make changes without clear 

documentation as to why we're making changes. And 

that -- actually all that comes out of this 

Subcommittee in the first place is why we have those 

type of documents in the first place.

Ms. Gogliotti: I thought the data hierarchy forced the 

newer procedure to take precedence even for these 

site-specific issues. Is that not the case?

Mr. Siebert: Not necessarily in a case where -- in 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. 

66 

case you have two specific documents that are clearly 

giving values for a specific process. In that case the 

TBD would generally override something else 

because it's much easier to deal with the PER process 

in that way for a clean cutoff as to when you need to 

do your PER changes.

But I think Grady's covered this. It's something that 

we're making the change right now and we just have 

to work on it from a prioritization basis.

Mr. Barton: So if we were to have a Y-12 case today 

are you saying that the older version of OTIB-6 would 

be used because that's what's cited in the TBD?

Mr. Siebert: Yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, that's my understanding as 

well. 

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen. I want to clarify that 

statement just real quick. No, the older version of 

TBD for OTIB-6 would not be used. It's -- the problem 

is the numbers from the old version are in the current 

version of the Y-12 medical TBD.

Mr. Siebert: Thanks Dave. That's a better way to 

state it.

Mr. Allen: So we would be using the current version 

of the medical TBD and we would not be using OTIB6. The problem is that that means when we update 

OTIB-6 we have to update the TBD and that hasn't 

been done yet.

Ms. Behling: And this is Kathy Behling. To go back to 

Brad's point how will the Board be made aware that 

this Y-12 TBD and the workbook have been updated? 

Is there still a Y-12 Work Group that's active? 

And I guess the only other thing, and I 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. 

67 

mentioned the workbook earlier. I have seen in the 

past I believe that when there are changes that need 

to be made to the TBD because that's a more timeconsuming process sometimes the workbooks are 

updated and corrected. So that this type of issue is 

taken care of much sooner. But that doesn't seem to 

have been the case for this particular -- for the Y-12. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Siebert: I can address that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Mr. Siebert: Yes, that has been historically done, and 

actually was determined that is not a good way to do 

it because you don't have a reference-able document 

that's being clearly delineated. And you can't be clear 

as to where the values came from.

So we will continue to ensure the tools reflect the 

actual documentation that we have rather than an 

interim change.

Ms. Behling: Okay. And what about --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- done consistently for the whole 

program? 

Mr. Siebert: I believe that is correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, there has to be a consistent 

procedure. And I will -- I mean, I will say that from 

the work of this Committee there are often changes 

that are made in workbooks and things like that 

rather quickly. But clearly we've identified one, things 

are lagging. They're working on it.

But if there's concern by Board Members about this 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. 

68

do think that it becomes a discussion or a Board 

discussion, not a Subcommittee discussion. I mean 

Grady is the responsible person for NIOSH and ORAU, 

and he's given a clear statement. One may feel like 

no, no, somehow priorities ought to be revised. If so 

-- or there's further concerns, or additional concerns. 

I would raise it in terms of a Board meeting but not 

the Subcommittee. I just don't feel like we're -- we're 

not a designated Subcommittee to investigate the 

procedures by which the DRS are done. We're looking 

at whether the DRS that are done are done correctly. 

Member Clawson: Well, and Dave, I understand that. 

I'm just going to, you know that I'm pretty blatant in 

what I'm about to say, but holy crap, 10 years? And 

we know we're using the wrong one.

Here's what I'd ask is Rashaun, maybe at the next 

Board meeting we could bring this before the Board 

and it would give NIOSH and ORAU a chance to be 

able to tell us exactly where we're at on the OTIB and 

everything else like that. Just looking at it from the 

outside I'm just going to -- I don't think it's normal. 

I think this is -- actually I think it's ridiculous. But I 

don't know what year it was on NIOSH's plate. But I 

would like to bring this up as you said, Dave, at the 

next Board meeting, discuss this on a whole. And I'd 

like SC&A to get the possible ramifications of some of 

this.

It will also give NIOSH and (audio interference) a 

chance to be able to let us know exactly where it's 

at.

Chair Kotelchuck: Update us on the status of various 

changes that are being worked on. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Go right ahead. Sorry.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Dr. Roberts: Okay. At the end of the meeting there is 

-- there will be an opportunity to talk about prepping 

for the next full Board meeting in December. So why 

don't we, you know, we can certainly circle back 

around at that point.

Member Clawson: Okay. I just wanted to let the Work 

Group and NIOSH and SC&A to know what we felt. 

Because I'll be honest, I'm really having a hard time 

dealing with this one. So we'll bring this up at the end 

of the meeting. We'll discuss it from there and then 

we'll go forward.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. As I say I think 

bringing it before the Board is the appropriate thing. 

I would like to go on now to go back to 586 unless -

- okay. I would like to continue on unless I hear 

objection. 

Member Clawson: Thank you for indulging me and 

going back.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't consider it indulging. You're 

a Board Member and you raised a concern. It's 

appropriate. It's just the Committee does not have 

purview in here, and other folks who are here do. 

Okay, let's go on, 586.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So this one, 586, Finding 1. And 

the EE was employed at Argonne National Lab East 

and West as well as INL and Fermi. And this is the 

four-part one that -- I'm not sure how detailed we 

want to get into it or not.

The finding has to do with we thought the method of 

determining the assignment of missed neutron dose 

was not consistent in this particular case. We had a 

really difficult time following it to be honest. And we 

identified four different examples. I'm not saying that 

they were the only examples, but they were just four 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

that we pointed out, of things that felt inconsistent 

when we were looking at this particular finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: And the record documents. If folks 

go back to the case study and you'll see, there were 

just all sorts of different methods used for assessing 

the neutron exposure. And different things were done 

at different times, and at different sites. Sites got 

mixed up. 

This was a really fairly -- to my mind a serious 

concern. So this is raised and what is --

Ms. Gogliotti: Are you interested in going into each 

one? Do you just want a summary?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, no. The summary to my mind 

is just fine. I'm just -- I'm saying to people if you go 

back into the record I think -- I just looked at it a 

while ago. I think it's page 17 of 586 case study and 

you'll see in detail. No, I back up your -- I agree with 

you that it's inconsistent and inappropriate. And this 

really needs to be looked at, or is there -- NIOSH 

agrees with this portion of the finding.

Ms. Gogliotti: They agree with some, but not all. And 

I don't think that we were by any means saying that 

everything is wrong. We were just pointing to 

different ways that it felt that these were being 

addressed. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Is this something that will be 

-- so is there a commitment for NIOSH to reassess 

this? This particular. To check on the dose 

reconstruction again. I don't think it's in a state --

Mr. Siebert: Are you talking about this specific claim, 

Dr. Kotelchuck?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, 586.1.
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. 

71

Mr. Siebert: Yes. Actually we took all those things 

into account. We're going to talk about some other 

findings, but we did reply. In Finding No. 3 our reply 

does include that if we look at all the findings in toto, 

including .1, there is no change to the PoC. So we did 

actually reflect that, just in a later finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, but that -- as I mentioned 

earlier today I don't believe that the change in the 

PoC is determinative. The question is whether there 

are a number of findings found, and then the 

question is how are they dealt with. And I assume 

that in these -- that you've redone it correcting what 

was pointed out in the findings. And I guess actually 

I take it back.

If we agree we're not passing on this finding, we're 

approving that it's a finding, and then you're dealing 

with it, and you'll point out later that it has been dealt 

with and appropriately. So I'm ready. Right. I'm 

ready to say that we'd approve. We approve. You 

agree, both sides agree that it was inconsistent.

Member Beach: Dave, can you let Rose go through it 

because I don't think she has gone through it yet, 

has she?

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Beach: Has Rose gone through this one?

Ms. Gogliotti: I have looked at it, yes, but we haven't 

gone over it in the meeting.

Member Beach: That's what I meant, in the meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: You know what, my apologies. 

Rose, I cut you off, did I not? Is that what we're really 

saying? And if so my apologies.

Ms. Gogliotti: No, I wasn't sure how detailed 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. 

72

wanted to go to because they are just examples and 

we weren't seeing -- we just had a hard time 

following it.

Chair Kotelchuck: I didn't see the examples. 

Ms. Gogliotti: So the first example, there were three 

specific years where we saw zeroes in the record but 

no missed dose was assigned. And NIOSH clarified 

that a zero in the neutron column of some of these 

records is not actually a reliable indication that the 

EE was being monitored for neutron exposures.

And they did agree to add a clarification in the next 

TBD. So in these particular years I believe my 

interpretation -- if this is correct, that this individual 

was not being actually monitored for neutron 

because there was a beta gamma dosimeter result, 

but it wasn't a beta gamma neutron result. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. Siebert: That's correct.

Ms. Gogliotti: So that was the first one. Now the 

second one had to do with missed dose being 

assigned in one year without a record, but not in a 

year with a record. And here NIOSH agrees that one 

of those years should not have been assigned zeroes, 

and believes that those should have been removed. 

And this was again an instance of the gamma beta 

dosimeter versus the gamma beta neutron.

And then a third example had to do with a similar 

example with zeroes listed for the EE while they 

worked in the same location, but they were treated 

differently. So several years were assigned missed 

dose, but then an additional year where they were 

doing the same thing, or at least in the same location 

was not assigned.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

73

And here NIOSH essentially said the same thing. The 

badge type doesn't have a BGN or a BGNC to ignore 

the zero in the neutron column. And they're going to 

add an explanation in the TBD to that effect. I think 

some of these zeroes were also -- they intended on 

removing them.

And then a fourth example was that NIOSH did not 

assign missed neutron dose to certain years, and the 

EE did have a beta gamma neutron dosimeter. And 

so it wasn't really clear to us why those weren't 

assigned either. And NIOSH agrees with these and 

will be adding zeroes to those years. And again the 

clarification. 

So I think the takeaway from this is there are a lot of 

intricacies in assigning missed neutron dose, 

particularly at this site. And NIOSH is going to add 

guidance to clarify things to help improve consistency 

in the future.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. Thank you. And my 

apologies for interrupting and then going on without. 

SC&A and NIOSH recommend closure on this. It's 

being taken care of. And I think I accept closure. Do 

others feel comfortable with that?

Member Beach: I'm comfortable with that. It just 

goes back to that tracking issue again on that last 

notation that SC&A made that NIOSH will add 

additional guidance to clarify.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, that's what 

they are committed to in the discussions that were 

held. Other thoughts, concerns, comments?

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. I agree with 

closing it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay. 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. 

74

Member Clawson: I'm conflicted so I haven't been 

able to talk.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, of course you are. Yes, yes.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: But I do worry about tracking this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, but that's -- I'm sorry. I 

forgot that this was conflicted. So we've all --

somebody. Okay. I think that those of us who can --

and Jim Lockey, I suspect you are probably going to 

abstain on this. I don't know. Do you have any 

comments? 

Mr. Barton: Dr. Kotelchuck, this is Bob Barton. I 

wonder if this might be one that we put in abeyance 

because the finding is essentially pointing to a TBD 

revision to happen. And so typically, at least in other 

Work Groups when that happens and it's supposed to 

be a revision we'll put it in abeyance as in there's an 

agreed upon path forward, it just hasn't happened 

quite yet. I wonder if that might be applicable here?

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that might make sense. 

Would others agree that we could put this one in 

abeyance?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: If I wasn't conflicted I sure would 

say that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, but you are and so you're 

not. I'm sorry. Why don't we -- we should put this in 

abeyance. Okay, I agree.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I mean, this is up to Grady 

to say something if he would like to, but I do not 

believe that's historically how we've handled this in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

75

the past.

Chair Kotelchuck: I -- looking at my notes.

Ms. Gogliotti: For other Work Groups we generally do 

that, for procedure revisions and things. We don't 

typically do it in dose reconstruction because it's a 

guidance that's not exactly impacting the case, or 

things won't change. That's not to say we couldn't do 

it, or start doing it.

It would change some of our metrics on how we 

report back to the full Board unresolved issues.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. 

Mr. Calhoun: It would leave an awful lot of cases in 

abeyance.

Chair Kotelchuck: In abeyance. It would, yes.

Mr. Calhoun: And you know that we're going to revisit 

them anyway once we get the revised TBDs done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So that's -- there's a 

commitment by NIOSH to make the changes.

Ms. Gogliotti: I guess I could add another layer to my 

tracking to say that, and then when procedures are 

updated and a PER is issued we could see if this case 

was updated if that's something that you're 

interested in.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I'm trying to think about 

consistency of procedures. I think I'd opt to stay with 

closing. And there will -- we will hold in abeyance, 

but I don't think this.

Member Clawson: Rose, this is Brad. Aren't you 

saying that you could put another level on there so -

- can this coming back. I'm not talking about 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. 

76

case, I'm talking about all these other cases that 

possibly could be like this. Are you talking about 

putting another search bar or reference that we are 

waiting for this change? I didn't understand quite 

what you were saying.

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh yes, absolutely. In my tracking 

metrics I could add an additional column that just 

said it was waiting on this update, the case was 

resolved. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, but then do we go back to the 

one we just started this afternoon with? And I think 

--

Member Clawson: Dave, I think what she's saying is 

just that this is kind of how we're tracking it so that 

when we're looking at like if this went to the Work 

Group, Procedure Work Group or whatever else like 

that we have a tracking of what it is, what's still 

needed on that.

And I'm kind of leaning toward that because that 

helps me understand the flow of where we've gone, 

plus it takes care of Grady's and those issues of 

having open ones. This we could close, but under the 

understanding that we are waiting for this TBD to be 

changed or whatever.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I want to point out there 

was an error in the last one which we agree on that 

we should have assigned neutrons during a specific 

couple of years. The rest of them which are the 

clarifications to the TBD, those are exactly that. 

They're clarifications. It's not changing the way 

things are done. The TBD is going to be updated to 

clarify specifically what we already did in this case on 

how you handle the neutron dose from my 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

So all that would happen is you go back to the TBD 

afterwards and say yes, it now says what they 

already did in that previous case.

Ms. Gogliotti: I think it's just a way of tracking to 

make sure that those changes happen. In most cases 

we don't have any problems with it, but I know we 

have identified in the past things that inadvertently 

were missed in documentation updates. And that 

would help --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead.

Member Clawson: When you guys do this clarification 

and stuff like that all Rose is going to do is just go in 

and this is taken care of at this time. Because you 

and I both understand that one of the things that's 

very hard to track a lot of this stuff. I sometimes feel 

like I forget some of it and where we're at on it.

This way we'd be able to close it, and this way when 

it does get updated we'd be able to say this was taken 

care of on this date.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: -- anything. And I agree with that from 

a tracking point of view. The only reason I mentioned 

this is because it was also mentioned that it was --

whether it was handled down the road in a PER 

acceptably. Such as this claim would not come up in 

a PER probably because clarifications are exactly 

what was already done in the claim. So I just wanted 

to make sure we weren't going too far down the road 

looking for things. But from a tracking mechanism I 

can agree with that. That makes sense.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. But I don't think -- we won'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. 

78

call it holding in abeyance. We'll call it clearance and 

Rose will keep. Because I don't want to have to -- I 

mean, in abeyance means it comes back to this 

Subcommittee. 

Member Clawson: Correct. I'm looking at more from 

tracking and being able to have a point A to B and 

everything else like that, especially for the Board. 

Just like what we got into dose reconstruction. The 

dose reconstructor understands what he's done, but 

he never put it in his paperwork that this is why I did 

this which I know that you guys have done now. In 

newer cases we're seeing we did this because of this. 

I stopped at this point because we were already over

50 PoC. And that's what I am trying to create in our 

Work Group is that we have mechanisms to be able 

to track.

Chair Kotelchuck: I would say that I would be open 

to clearance with tracking on this. But I would like to 

think further about this procedure and consider 

whether we want to consistently do this in the future. 

And I'm not sure it is a good idea. But I would 

certainly say let's check if this has been raised in this 

case, and then -- but we may want to discuss at some 

point in the future whether -- and think more about 

it, and discuss sometime in the future whether we 

want to do this consistently. And what is the 

consistency that we want to do.

Member Clawson: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So clearance with tracking 

by Rose. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

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

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, which is, as a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

79

reminder, Argonne National Lab East and West, as 

well as INL and Fermi. And here there was a 

statement in the dose reconstruction report that said 

that the zeroes were being assigned as electrons 

because it was claimant-favorable which is not 

claimant-favorable, or it's certainly not the most 

claimant-favorable option. And NIOSH agrees with 

this finding. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. This sounds like an 

observation. I mean, and professional judgment was 

used.

Ms. Gogliotti: This was a wrong -- an error. I don't 

think that any NIOSH dose reconstructor, and I say 

this because I have faith in them, would think that 

that was claimant-favorable. I think this was just an 

error. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Others comments?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I would agree with that.

Member Beach: Yes, I was going to say I would agree 

with that also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then I think we're in 

agreement that this is -- both NIOSH and SC&A are 

in agreement and we should close it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Let's go on.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one, same case. Finding No. 

3. And this says that NIOSH should not assign dose 

for this year X-ray examination. And NIOSH agrees 

with this finding. And then they went on to say that 

all the changes that impacted this case showed this 

as well as the past several that we've been discussing 

were evaluated and it didn't change the PoC.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay. All right. Sounds good. 

Do we agree, folks? Subcommittee Members? Sounds 

like we agree so let's close it. Now we have one more 

I believe. Observation 1.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Here the method described in 

the DR report is not consistent with NIOSH's actual 

missed dose calculations. And this related to a 

neutron-photon ratio that was an artifact that was 

left in that probably shouldn't have been left in. 

NIOSH said that it should have been removed and 

this change does not affect the dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I think this one said that a neutronphoton ratio was used when that was a related case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Other comments? Folks? Do 

I hear further comments? 

Member Beach: No, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. Then we'll close 

it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, 589 I believe is the next one.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, 589.1. This is a Batelle

Laboratories - King Avenue Facility. Okay. This one is 

a little confusing. It has to do with the last or the next 

one as well. Here the dose reconstruction report 

referenced the Hanford TBD rev 4 when rev 3 was 

used. And the rev 4 versions are double that. So we 

were under the impression that neutron dose was 

being underestimated.

At the time there was no guidance for the Batelle Lab 

King Avenue Facility for this and so NIOSH was using 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

the Hanford guidance because it was close to the 

values that they suspected should have been at King 

Laboratory, or King Avenue.

Really -- Scott, you're going to have to jump in here. 

I'm having trouble with my words.

Mr. Siebert: Well, basically, yes. For the way you do 

a best estimate Monte Carlo calculation back in the 

days this was done. And we all have to remember 

this claim was done in 2010. So you need the 

parameters to put into the Monte Carlo calculations. 

And for Batelle King Avenue there were no specific 

parameters to use for that facility yet. 

So what the dose reconstructor did was to find a 

location that had parameters that are very close to 

that which has to be Hanford prior to the change. So 

they used the Hanford which was at the time correct. 

They used those values in the Monte Carlo calculation 

to get as close as they could as a reasonable 

representation of what was being done at Batelle 

King Avenue.

So it's not that we were actually using Hanford 

information, but the Hanford information itself. We 

weren't referring to Hanford saying this is just like 

Hanford. We're saying the parameters were familiar 

and close enough to the parameters at Batelle for this 

specific issue to use those Hanford numbers. So 

that's what was done.

We've actually looked at this one and because there's 

additional information that's come in since then 

we've done a PAD, a post assessment dosimetry look 

at it, and it still turns out to be the same with the 

actual parameters done under those these days. We 

didn't have to fake it, or we didn't have to estimate 

it. That's probably a better way to put that. We didn't 

have to estimate it. So the answer is still going to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

82

the same. Did that help you a little bit?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, thank you. That was much better 

than what I was going to say.

Mr. Siebert: I can't imagine. This isn't complicated at 

all.

Chair Kotelchuck: In a way what you're saying 

though is it was appropriate at the time that it was 

done.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. I think that we were unclear on 

why they were doing that. And with that additional 

clarification it makes a lot more sense. And when we 

adjust for the current guidance things are 

comparable or claimant-favorable. So it didn't really 

impact anything.

Chair Kotelchuck: It does sound a bit like an 

observation. 

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. Wait a second. Unless I'm 

reading this incorrectly the DR referenced revision 4 

of the Hanford TBD but didn't use revision 4 values. 

They used the outdated revision 3 values. Is that not 

correct? I mean, I understand now there's a specific 

Site Profile for this place, but at the time they 

referenced revision 4 but didn't use revision 4, and it 

sounds like that should have been used instead of 

revision 3 of the Hanford TBD -- go ahead, Rose, I'm 

sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, that is correct, but I think that 

they were trying to use revision 3. And I bet some 

kind of QA procedure said you're using an old 

outdated revision and updated it without realizing 

there was a reason they were using the old one. Is 

that correct, Scott?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Mr. Siebert: Yes, that's a reasonable assumption as 

to what happened at that time.

Chair Kotelchuck: That they did use 04.

Mr. Siebert: Right. No, they used 03 and they meant 

to reference 03. It's just one of the QA things 

ironically enough that we have is to use -- make sure 

we're using the most recent version. And I believe 

the reference was updated at that time rather than 

asking the question are we really using the outdated 

reference and is that appropriate.

Ms. Gogliotti: And in this case it probably would have 

been good to indicate why these decisions were being 

made in the report. And that was maybe a 

shortcoming also of this particular --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Siebert: Correct. But I think that's all a 

documentation issue rather than -- it was done 

correctly, just it was not documented as well as it 

probably should have been.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Which is what we -- sounds 

like an observation. Although I'm perfectly -- look, 

it's settled and I'm certainly comfortable with closing 

it. If anybody else wants to move it to a reference. 

But there were enough problems that maybe we 

should just say it's a finding and leave it at that. 

Anybody? Subcommittee Members? Well, then let's 

leave --

Member Clawson: Now that I'm off mute I'm okay 

with that, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay.

Member Clawson: And I'm okay with Scott's word 

change that he used too.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Let's close it as a finding. 

Okay? All right. Good, thanks. Closed.

Ms. Gogliotti: And actually this one is the same. It's 

just a different --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: I would recommend closing this one as 

well. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. To close. Really it's the same 

issue. Okay, 589, Observation 1.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So this one when we're using the 

term coworker we mean coworker which is different 

than normal coworkers, so I just want to point this 

out before I get into this. And this was a coworker 

with the same job title that they were using to help 

where records might have been missing at the time.

And it was one year that neither the EE nor the 

coworker were monitored. NIOSH did not assign 

(audio interference) or measured dose to that year. 

And we believe it would have been claimantfavorable because records were missing or absent 

possibly to assign the surrounding dose basically. So 

to assign the year before or the year after to 

represent this EE's work exposure during this 

particular year. 

And NIOSH agreed and said it would be preferable to 

use the actual claimant's surrounding data. And it has 

no impact on the compensation decision. So based 

on that we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Issues? Anybody? 

Member Clawson: I'm good, 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. 

85

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's close it. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case, Observation 2. Here 

the case files did not contain documents (audio 

interference) of the ambient dose calculations that 

were performed. I'm having a lot of feedback on the 

line. I don't know if it's just me.

Chair Kotelchuck: I am having some too, yes.

Dr. Roberts: If everyone can make sure they're on 

mute. Press *6 if you don't have a mute button. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Mr. Barton: Rose, you were scrambled there for a 

second but I think you're clear now.

Ms. Gogliotti: So at the time that this case was done 

Batelle did not have ambient dose guidelines. So a 

default procedure was used and we weren't able to 

track exactly what was going on there, and there 

were no files for us to follow to see exactly how that 

ambient dose was assigned.

And NIOSH responded that the spreadsheet should 

have been generated and included to indicate which 

sites were used in order to recreate these doses. 

Since then there is now ambient dose guidance for 

this particular site and that's contained in the current 

TBD and it's a lower dose than what was assigned to 

the claimant.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And it's appropriately an 

observation because in the case report they just 

didn't say. They just said this is what we did and they 

didn't give documentation. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I think there was not enough 

information to clearly follow what was done. I would 

say that. It's unusual to not have the case files 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

include a file for ambient dose calculations of some 

kind or another. So that was unusual with this case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And so this is an observation. 

I would agree with closure. Comments, concerns? 

Sounds like we're ready to close it. Okay. Let us close 

it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. That was the end of the type 1 

issues.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Congratulations. Really, 

really. I'm not joking. It's very nice to get back to 

operations. Thank you and thank Laurie also on our 

behalf. In fact I'll email her later and thank her for 

getting things done.

So now I -- how about now that we start type 2 

issues. The question is are we ready to discuss type 

2 issues? I believe not, is that correct?

Ms. Gogliotti: SC&A is ready to discuss it. NIOSH has 

only had our responses for a little over a week so 

whether or not they are comfortable --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- not ready or we could go on if people 

are too burnt out which I fully understand we could 

just skip ahead to the professional judgment and 

then come back to these at the next meeting. That's 

also fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: I -- go ahead.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. We prepped for it so I think 

we can probably go through them. If there's 

something that we have to put off we can let you 

know that there wasn't enough time. We're prepared 

to at least discuss 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. 

87

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, okay. Now, I will admit I 

don't know if I'm prepared as one person on the 

Subcommittee. Other Subcommittee Members? 

Look, I figured we would just finish up the type 1's 

today. What do other people feel? I think I might hold 

it off till the next time till we get ready on our end. 

Do other Subcommittee Members feel as I do?

Member Beach: Yes, Dave, I think I feel the same 

way. This not having access to the material at the 

same time that we're discussing them is difficult too. 

I've read them all.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So Scott, I'm happy to know 

that you folks are ready. I think we're not quite ready 

as Subcommittee.

Mr. Siebert: Happy to do whatever you need so that's 

great.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, well that's good. And you 

guys are on top of things and that's appreciated. But 

I think we'll do that. We'll start and do the type 2's 

next time. And we can talk a little bit right now about 

professional judgment although maybe before we 

begin that, Rose, you spoke with me earlier today, 

just before the meeting today about asking folks how 

helpful the PowerPoint slides were. And you'd like to 

get some feedback on that. And I'll just start off by 

saying they were very helpful in navigating us 

through. And my feeling is as long as we are not able 

to meet in person and don't have -- and/or do not 

have clear access to all the data your PowerPoints 

were very helpful and helped move the meeting along 

with dispatch. How about other people? What are you 

-- how did you find?

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I feel exactly the 

same. She's done a wonderful job on it. It helped 

things, it helped it be a little bit clearer for me.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

88

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: Well that and having the 

presentation with the cases that we could go back 

and pull those up too, I found that to be helpful as 

well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, yes. 

Member Beach: The hardest part for me is during a 

meeting I tend to go back and forth between the 

slides, and not being able to do that because they're 

in -- and maybe I could if I didn't try while we were 

on this website.

Chair Kotelchuck: I feel the same way. I feel the 

same way.

Member Beach: Yes (audio interference) take better 

notes on each individual's issue. So anyway, yes. But 

thanks, Rose. That's not a reflection on you at all. 

That was very helpful.

Ms. Gogliotti: Good, thank you. And if anybody thinks 

of anything they'd like to see in there that wasn't 

there, or things you'd like me to condense let me 

know what I can do for the next meeting.

You should be able to pull things up in the Edge 

Computing Platform. It might slow things down for 

you and it wouldn't surprise me if it crashed things. 

And there's also some time limitations. But in theory 

you should be able to pull them up, but in practice I 

don't know.

Mr. Rutherford: This is LaVon. I had mine up. It does 

slow things down a little bit and you've got to watch 

timing out, but I had my stuff out.

Member Beach: Okay, thanks. I didn't try that, 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 

Chair Kotelchuck: I had several times wanted to look 

back at the cases and the case files, but I was afraid 

to for fear that I would lose what I had. I just barely 

have been able to get on and review what we have. 

So Rose, if there's a way that you might send us an 

email about how to jog back and forth between the 

cases and the material that you have without losing 

them. I'm not sure.

I suppose -- I mean, I can get off -- if I get off the 

slide then I go over to the set 29 share which we have 

and I can look at the case files and then come back. 

But I don't think I know how to toggle between them. 

Ms. Gogliotti: At the top of the screen when you're in 

the environment you have an option to go back to 

your home screen or stay in the environment. And 

then when you're in your home screen you just click 

on the icon on the bottom of the screen. It should 

allow you to do that I believe.

Member Beach: Yes, I'm doing that right now and it 

absolutely is letting me.

Chair Kotelchuck: That little line down at the bottom.

Member Beach: I just went into the Edge and just 

typed in the website and I'm able to get in so that I 

could have went back and forth.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay, fine. Then I will learn 

how to do it too.

Member Beach: I was hesitant as you were to try it.

Discussion on Professional Judgment in Response to 

4/14/21 SDRR Report to Board

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right. For me it's still a 

fragile system. Okay. Well then that's done. Let's talk 

just a little about professional judgment. I did note 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

at the beginning right now the professional judgment 

we're doing on blinds, right? The blinds (audio 

interference) and Rose put together an Excel sheet 

which I showed at the last meeting I believe, or the 

previous of what we're doing.

The problem with using blinds to assess professional 

judgment is that we go through blinds. If we only go 

through six for every set then it's going to take a long 

time before we have enough data to be useful. 

And I wondered whether when we're going through 

the regular cases for review as we did today whether 

it might be helpful to look for professional judgments, 

particularly for things that are observations. Many 

observations have nothing to do with professional 

judgment, but some do. And I remember looking up 

some earlier at lunch time.

There was -- like the 583 choice of examination site 

for medical X-rays, choice of skin cancer location on 

shoulder. Those observations in fact involve 

professional judgment. And I wondered -- and Rose 

of course, whether folks and Rose and others think 

that this would be a worthwhile thing to try to gather 

professional judgments out of the regular case 

reviews, case file reviews. What do people think?

Ms. Gogliotti: My concern with this is that sometimes 

we look at a professional judgment in a DR while 

we're doing a review and it's clear to us that it was a 

professional judgment and that it was acceptable so 

we don't document it there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's only when we think that something 

feels more questionable that we bring it forward. So

I feel like you would be missing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh there's no question that if we 

were to, for example, use observations as a trigger 

that we would only be getting some professional 

judgments, not comprehensive. On the other hand 

the question to my mind is that we're gathering 

information so slowly that maybe it's something to 

consider.

Maybe I leave this in abeyance. It's a thought. And 

people might want to think about it, and think 

whether gathering information that's not 

comprehensive but essentially anecdotal I guess 

would help us at all.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I just kind of wonder what 

the ultimate goal would be. You know, you get to a 

point where you say oh, there's too much 

professional judgment. I mean what's the goal?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the goal is to try -- if there 

are professional judgments in some area, consistent 

professional judgments, can we transfer this from the 

professional judgment onto a mandate, a TBD or a -

- so that we cut down the amount we could have this 

done through the computer and through commands 

to the dose reconstructor such that we would be 

doing fewer professional judgments than we do 

currently.

Ms. Gogliotti: (Audio interference) the issue is 

professional judgment. I don't think that we would 

need health physicists to be doing these if there 

wasn't a fair amount of professional judgment. I think 

the concern is more that making consistent 

judgments when applicable. For instance, the case on 

the torso.

Chair Kotelchuck: Excuse me?

Ms. Gogliotti: The X-ray case that we talked about at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

92

the beginning of the day when there's uncertainty 

selecting the higher one. That's an easy fix. But I 

don't think that we should be aiming to get rid of --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, that's not going to give us 

anything -- you're saying consistent.

Member Beach: No, and Dave, this is Josie. I think 

we originally wanted to track them just so we could 

see where they were being used, how they were 

being used, and then like Rose said a consistency. 

Not necessarily we're going to change anything, but 

it gives us a better idea than always thinking oh, it's 

professional judgment, it must be wrong. Anyway, 

that was just my take on it. It was just kind of to try 

to get a handle on all of them.

Chair Kotelchuck: To me that's --

Member Beach: We're not changing anything 

potentially, but just giving us more information.

Chair Kotelchuck: But it's a little loose in such that 

what advantage are we gaining for the process is 

ultimately what Grady was asking a moment ago. 

What advantage is there to the system to look for --

Member Beach: Well, you don't know until you see 

what you have and we don't really know. And we 

have a Work Group that's not the Subcommittee, but 

the Methods Work Group that discussed and had a 

report on the professional judgment and we have 

never done anything with it so it almost seems like 

we might want to shift it over there.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I'll tell you, maybe we should 

have a meeting of the Methods Subcommittee. But I 

would say this. It was the report too that was 

commissioned by Jim Melius that started this whole 

thing off, and saying that professional judgments are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

an area we should look into. So we started to track it 

through the blinds.

Would folks, would some of you who are in the 

Subcommittee are also on the Methods 

Subcommittee --

Member Beach: I am, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay. Maybe we should meet 

and talk about this.

Member Beach: I think we should. We have that 

report we never discussed. But I also think we should 

continue tracking them in this forum also until we 

decide what we're going to do.

Chair Kotelchuck: You mean with the blinds.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So we're tracking them with the 

blinds. Okay. That sounds like a good idea and maybe 

that is an appropriate place to begin. Also there are 

some folks who are not on the Subcommittee who 

will be part of the Methods. And Paul I believe, some 

others. I'll talk with Rashaun about setting up a 

meeting. We haven't met in two years. We haven't 

met since Jim's death actually.

Member Beach: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: And so we'll move ahead on that. 

That seems to me that will get us moving in this area 

of professional judgment. Meanwhile we'll stick with 

what we're doing and not adopt anything with respect 

to the case reviews. 

Rose, you can scratch out professional judgments 

from this meeting which you have a few I think we 

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

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, I'll leave them in the column 

when you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And if we want to do something with 

them later we can. Otherwise it's just as easy to 

delete them.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Member Beach: Thanks. I was going to suggest that 

also, to not delete them, so thank you for that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Well, I think it's time 

now folks to set a date for our next meeting. And talk 

then about set 29 type 2 cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, the other thing I think that we 

need to discuss. SC&A has delivered three of the six 

blind cases from set 30. We're kind of in a holding 

pattern on based on some of the tools that we lost 

access to.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: We have gained access to some of the 

tools, not all of the tools, and my whole team does 

not have access yet. When we gain access, when 

everyone gains access I'll be able to better assess if 

those three can move forward or if we still need to 

wait on other tools.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Let's say if we were to 

suggest a meeting time coming from this -- for our 

next meeting would we have enough materials on the 

type 2 -- Set 29, type 2 cases to have an entire 

meeting without the blinds? Just in case we don't

have access to them.

Ms. Gogliotti: It would be a significantly shorter 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

meeting than we typically have, but I don't think 

there's anything wrong with having a shorter 

meeting. I know other Work Groups have shorter 

meetings all the time. We're just known to having 

long meetings.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: But we can certainly discuss the three 

that are submitted.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- a new set of non-blind cases where 

we don't necessarily need access to the tools if that's

something you want to discuss. I don't know.

Chair Kotelchuck: You know what, we need to make 

progress and we finally have access to data which we 

have today. And I'm certainly open to saying let's 

schedule another meeting with whatever type 2 

cases we have and the blinds if we can. And if we're 

forced to a shortened meeting we'll do that. I'm open 

to that. Other Subcommittee Members?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. Is it safe to say that 

Laurie or somebody knows what you would like to 

have access to as far as tools go?

Ms. Gogliotti: I would have to officially clarify with 

her. She probably knows, but just to make sure.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. I just want to make sure that if 

there's something we can get to you we do.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Definitely getting the rest of my team 

access would really be helpful.

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. Yes, just go through Laurie. She'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. 

96

a great go-to person on this. So I just want to make 

sure that I'm doing everything I can for you guys.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, thank you. Okay, great. Now 

we have an Advisory Board meeting December 8 and 

9. We need at least two months to announce a 

meeting. So we could meet in December or maybe 

early January. My January calendar is pretty open. 

Member Clawson: I'd go with January. December is 

too --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, yes. So how about -- what day 

of the week, Rashaun? The Tuesday, Wednesday, 

Thursday usually are meeting days.

Dr. Roberts: Right. And how about instead of pushing 

it at the beginning of January maybe push it a little 

bit further into January.

Chair Kotelchuck: You're right, because we're getting 

into the year again after the holidays.

Dr. Roberts: Right, exactly. 

Chair Kotelchuck: How about the 13th of January, 

18th, 19th, 20th.

Dr. Roberts: Yes. How about 18th, 19th, 20th. How 

does that sound?

Chair Kotelchuck: Those sound good. I'm free on all 

those dates, 18th, 19th, 20th of January. Tuesday, 

Wednesday, Thursday.

Dr. Roberts: Although I don't want to miss the federal 

holiday. 

Chair Kotelchuck: The federal holiday, the 17th is 

Martin Luther King Day. So 18th, 19th, 20th would 

fit. Then there's President's Day I believe the week 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

after. But we'll be okay. Those are all on Mondays.

Member Beach: Tuesdays are not great for me. 

Wednesdays, Thursdays are much better for me. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. How about Other people? 

Wednesday, Thursday?

Member Valerio: I can do any day. As long as I have 

enough notice, Dave, I'm good.

Member Clawson: I'll tell you the 19th would be good. 

Wednesday.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. Why don't we then 

choose Wednesday the 19th is our first choice, and if 

there's any problem that develops with other folks 

like Dave Richardson or Other people at NIOSH or 

SC&A the backup will be Thursday the 20th. Okay? 

Okay. Good. So.

Dr. Roberts: And then for clarification, Dave, I just 

wanted to ask about your agenda item on the 

December meeting. And kind of what that would look 

like. I got that you wanted to open up a discussion of 

some of the things we've talked about today, but how 

do you want to do that agenda item?

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me think about it. I wasn't -- I 

didn't know that today's meeting would open up an 

agenda item. But let's us talk. Maybe it would be 

appropriate. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. We do have the October 

teleconference as well. I just thought that since it 

came up we would circle back around. But we can 

certainly talk in the interim and then revisit in the 

teleconference next month.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I just haven't had a chance 

to think forward. I wanted to make sure that the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

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

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

to change. 

98

meeting today went well as it has and I'm pleased 

with that. So anyway, the 18th/19th. Excuse me, the 

19th/20th. I haven't put it down yet. Okay. All right. 

Folks, I think we're finished for the day and I thank 

all of you.

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. I just have one 

thing. Just so we can discuss it at the next Board call 

or whatever else like that. One of the things is I want 

to look further down the future because we've kind 

of hit a roadblock on these and I guess my question 

is to SC&A. Do we need to be working on this next 

set to be able to get something rolling out to you guys 

to be able to keep this process going?

Chair Kotelchuck: Good question. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. We generally get six months with 

a set, and then it takes an additional two months or

so to get through all of our one on one calls and 

reissue them based on one on one comments. So the 

longer we wait the longer it pushes when we'll be able 

to discuss the next --

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, call on us to make -- thank 

you very much, Brad. Call on us to make choices of 

the next set. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: We need to be working on that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, and I also recognize -- I 

recognize that consultants don't get paid until they 

have work that we give them. And then when that 

work is completed the government case and their 

whatever was agreed upon. So they do need 

materials. Anything we can do to help.

Ms. Gogliotti: I wonder if it would be beneficial to 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. 

99

Subcommittee if I put together some graphics or 

some tables showing you the cases that we've 

reviewed so far to maybe identify areas that might 

be good to target with the next set. Is that something 

that you would find beneficial?

Member Beach: Absolutely.

Member Clawson: Rose, I think that is a marvelous 

idea. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Member Clawson: I think that is really good. Because 

things have changed over the years. We were 

targeting certain areas at the very beginning, and I 

think it's a good opportunity to go back and look at 

what we've been doing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Member Clawson: I think that would be great.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Also if it helps too we could 

do six blinds. Not necessarily in one meeting but we 

might. Normally we do three, we review them, and 

then we do another three and we review them. But if 

it helps you folks move things along we're flexible.

Member Clawson: Also too Dave from the Board 

standpoint too we don't hit a big lull either. We need 

to keep these going and so forth. I really (audio 

interference) Rose. I think that would be a great idea. 

I know it would really help Rashaun out too and the 

rest of us.

Ms. Gogliotti: Great. I can certainly do that. If I can 

request NIOSH, in the past they have put together 

this great Excel file, I think it was probably 

downloaded from a database that said how many 

cases NIOSH has processed at each site, and some 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

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

not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

just basic information about the things that they have 

done so we can compare our things to. That would be 

helpful. I don't know if you still have access to that 

with the pause. 

Mr. Calhoun: Right now we do not. We don't have 

access to any of our statistics at all. I may be able to 

get ORAU to run that, but if you tell me what you 

want, or if you specifically requested this through 

Beth or somebody we'll see if we can get that done.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can send you an example of a 

previous one you sent me and we can go from there.

Mr. Calhoun: It may take a while, but right now we 

don't have access to any of our databases.

Chair Kotelchuck: Comprehensive data I suspect is 

hard to come by as opposed to little tranches that we 

can use as we did today for our meeting. That's the 

only thing. 

Ms. Gogliotti: We’ll do the best we can.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: We'll do the best we can with what's 

available currently.

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely. So and then just you'll 

speak with Grady and also keep Rashaun and me 

informed.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sounds good.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, folks, until our next meeting 

next year we -- I think it's time to finish today. Any 

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. 

101 

Member Beach: No, no. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Do I hear a motion to conclude?

Member Clawson: I move that we adjourn.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So moved.

Member Beach: I second that.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Very good. Thank you all. 

Have a good rest of the day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:55 p.m.)