NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST. NW, STE. 200 

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

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

143rd Meeting

Thursday, December 9, 2021

The meeting convened via Video Teleconference at

1:00 p.m. EST, Henry A. Anderson, Chair, presiding.
2 

Members Present: 

Henry A. Anderson, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Phillip Schofield, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Also Present: 

Roberts, Rashaun, Designated Federal Officer

Adams, Nancy, NIOSH Contractor

Barrie, Terrie, ANWAG

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Behling, Kathleen, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Cardarelli, John, DCAS

Fitzgerald, Joe, SC&A

Gogliotti, Rose, SC&A

Hand, Donna

Hughes, Lara, DCAS

McGolerick, Robert, HHS OGC

Rafky, Michael, HHS OGC

Rutherford, LaVon, DCAS

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
3 

Contents

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 143rd Meeting 

Thursday, December 9, 2021 1

Special Exposure Cohort Petition Status 

Update 5

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews Update 11

Work Group Board Work Session 27
4 

Proceedings

1:01 p.m.

Dr. Roberts: Good afternoon and morning and 

welcome, everyone. I'm Rashaun Roberts. I'm the 

Designated Federal Officer for the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health. And again, 

welcome to the final session of Board Meeting 143. 

All of the materials for today's meeting, the meeting 

agenda, presentations and other documents are 

posted on the NIOSH website for this program 

under Schedule of Meetings, December 2021 tab. 

If you are participating by telephone, you can go to 

the website to access all of the materials and you 

can follow along with the presentations. These 

materials were provided to the Board member and 

to staff prior to this meeting. 

On the website, there's also a Zoom link which will 

enable you to hear and watch the presentations 

through Zoom. If you've chosen to receive audio 

through Zoom, you should be able to speak to the 

group and hear the presentations. 

If you're not speaking, please be sure to select and 

stay on mute by muting the microphone on the 

lower lefthand corner of your screen. 

If you've dialed in, you'll only be able to hear the 

presentations and speak through the telephone line. 

If you're not speaking, please make sure that your 

phone stays muted unless of course you need to 

speak. 

If you don't have a mute button, press *6 to mute. 

If you need to take yourself off, press *6 again. 

Also, if you're only participating by telephone, 

please identify yourself before providing your 

comments or questions. 

Let me go ahead and move into roll call. As Board 

Members and staff register attendance, please 
5 

acknowledge sites where you have conflicts of 

interest, if any. Let's go ahead and start with the 

Board Members in alphabetical order. Anderson?

(Roll call.)

Dr. Roberts: Any other Members who would like to 

register attendance now? Okay, great. So let's go 

ahead and move further into the agenda. Again, 

please periodically check Zoom or your phone to 

ensure that you're on mute. On Zoom, the mute 

button is located in the lower lefthand corner of 

your screen. Telephone, press *6 to mute and *6 to 

take yourself off mute. With that, without further 

delay, let me turn the floor over to our Chair, Dr. 

Anderson.

Special Exposure Cohort Petition Status Update 

Chair Anderson: Thank you and welcome to Day 2. 

We'll start with an update on the SEC Petitions 

Status. I didn't see Chuck on the -- who's going to 

be -- 

Mr. Rutherford: Dr. Anderson, this is LaVon 

Rutherford. I'm going to do the presentation for 

Chuck. I'm going to pull it up right now. 

Chair Anderson: Okay. 

Mr. Rutherford: Can everybody see that?

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Mr. Rutherford: All right, great. Yes, I think I've 

done this a couple times in the past, so I should be 

able to handle it pretty good. I'm going to do the 

Special Exposure Cohort petition status update. We 

do this at every Board meeting. It gives the 

Advisory Board Members and the public an idea of 

petitions that are in qualification, under evaluation, 

currently under Board review, and potential 83.14s 

that we may be working on. 
6 

All right, a little summary. We've had 258 petitions 

to date. We have no new petitions in qualification. 

We have one evaluation in progress, and we have 

12 reports that are in various stages with the 

Advisory Board, and I'll talk about those. 

All right, petitions under evaluation. We have 

Lawrence Livermore National Lab 1990-95. This is 

an existing petition that the Board has taken action 

up through '89, however, we had reserved the '90 

to '95 period for further evaluation. 

We were working on that and getting close, then the 

pandemic hit, and our travel restrictions have 

prevented us from getting on the site for additional 

data capture and to perform some additional 

interviews that we'd identified. So I can't really give 

you a good date when those things would pick up. 

As soon as we can start traveling again. 

Petitions under Advisory Board review. We have 

Hanford SEC-57, all the SEC issues are closed with 

exception of the efforts related to the co-exposure 

modeling. Our co-exposure modeling efforts are 

ongoing at this time. 

Savannah River Site, we actually recently added a 

Class, however, there are still a number of issues 

that are open with that and with the Work Group. 

And I'm sure that that will be discussed during the 

Board work session. 

Los Alamos National Lab, we've been working to 

close a couple major issues. One associated with an 

assessment, and the other one with the previous 

infeasibility associated with exotic radionuclides. We 

have two reports coming out on that very soon. 

Sandia National Lab-Albuquerque, we have a Work 

Group meeting scheduled for March 3rd to address 

the remaining issues associated with that. 

Idaho National Lab and Argonne National Lab West, 

NIOSH is working on issues identified by SC&A and 
7 

the Work Group at this time.

Area IV Santa Susanna, we've had some difficulties, 

again, associated with the pandemic, unable to get 

into the records center. However, the records center 

has been -- that we had some time ago given them 

search terms and they have been pulling documents 

and sending them to us. 

However, we haven't been able to do a focus search 

on some items that we need. As soon as we can get 

access and we can be ensured that we've searched 

for all of the documentation, we'll get the Work 

Group an update on that. 

Metals and Controls, we had actually -- actually 

SC&A had reviewed the dose reconstruction 

methodologies that we had proposed and recently 

issued a report on that. And we're working on a real 

quick response, so we'll be ready for a Work Group 

meeting for this one very soon. 

De Soto Avenue Facility is very similar to Santa 

Susanna. We are working on a couple of issues that 

we need to clarify, but we are waiting on 

documentation from the records center. 

Y-12 Plant, I know that we presented the addendum 

in August and the Board had sent it to SC&A for 

review. And after discussion yesterday, we are 

looking at ways to get all the documentation 

available to SC&A for the Y-12 Plant as well as 

Pinellas. 

The Reduction Pilot Plant, this one went back and 

forth a couple times and we're ready for a Work 

Group meeting in February. And you see the 

February 17th date. And Pinellas we had actually 

presented yesterday, so that's just started on its 

merry path. 

Sites with evaluation periods awaiting action. All of 

these sites have had some action taken on them. 

These years that are identified are years that we 
8 

still have some remaining work. 

Although we took action on Savannah River Site 

from '72 to '89, some of the issues may actually still 

-- we didn't add all employees for that period, so 

some issues may roll over on that, I'm not sure. I'm 

assuming that's why Chuck hasn't changed that. 

And then all of the other dates, you can look at 

those again, and I'll answer any questions on those. 

83.14s, potential 83.14s. West Valley 

Demonstration Project, we'd added a class for this a 

long time ago. And we'd identified the '66 to '68 

period as a potential period where we may need to 

add more, add these years as well. 

And we received a large number of documents from 

West Valley. We've been going through those and 

we still haven't made a determination on whether 

this 83.14 needs to go forward or not. And that's it. 

Questions?

Member Beach: LaVon, this is Josie. I might have 

missed this on Slide 7, that Reduction Pilot Plant. 

Mr. Rutherford: Yes. 

Member Beach: Did you say -- the meeting's 

actually '22, right?

Mr. Rutherford: Hey, you know, I reviewed this 

presentation. I didn't put it together, but I reviewed 

it, so I'm just as much at fault as he is. Yes, it's 

February 17th, '22. 

Member Beach: I know, I reviewed it too and didn't 

notice it, but I did again this morning. Okay, so it is 

'22. 

Mr. Rutherford: Well, what's funny is actually I 

noticed it in the Work Group coordination document 

on another thing and I'm thinking, oh, I didn't fix 

that. But all right, yes, February 17th next year. 
9 

Chair Anderson: And that's on everybody's calendar, 

so we're good to go. 

Mr. Rutherford: Okay, good. 

Chair Anderson: Any other questions?

Member Beach: I guess while we're here, Metals 

and Controls, you said those are coming out real 

soon. And I think I'm going to ask during our work 

session to start planning a Work Group meeting. 

Can you give me a kind of a heads-up, what are you 

thinking. A month, two weeks? 

Mr. Rutherford: The only thing we've responded to 

was a couple of minor items that were identified by 

SC&A because we pretty much agreed with 

everything that they had in their paper, so it's only 

going to be a page, page and a half, our response. 

I've actually looked at the draft once, and it's back 

over with ORAU and it's going to come over. Tim's 

got to review it. And so, the next couple of weeks, 

that'll be out. 

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes --

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

Mr. Rutherford: -- ready to go. 

Member Beach: Great. Thank you. We'll move 

forward on scheduling that meeting, then. Thanks, 

LaVon. 

Chair Anderson: It's going to be a busy first quarter 

next year. We've got lots of meetings, getting 

caught up -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, we do. 

Chair Anderson: In one sense it's good to see, but it 
10 

makes everybody really get back up to speed and 

keep track of things. Okay, if there's no other 

questions, we can move on to our dose 

reconstruction reviews update. 

Dr. Roberts: Actually, Andy, sorry to interrupt. I 

received a note from Bill Field that he joined. He's 

on the meeting but was having trouble during the 

roll call. 

Bill, are you able to get off mute?

Member Field: Yes, I'm off mute now, I hope. Thank 

you. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay, could you just state any sites 

where you may be conflicted?

Member Field: No conflict today. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay, thank you. 

Chair Anderson: Okay, so we're with the 

Subcommittee.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Chair Anderson: Dave, are you on? I don't see you 

on the -- 

Member Kotelchuck: No, you don't see me because 

I could not -- although I was able to get onto the 

CDC computer and onto my email, the Zoom did not 

install properly. I gather Loretta had a problem with 

that. So I'm on the telephone. 

I'm looking at the slides and if someone would work 

the slides, I will note when we -- somebody would 

pull up the first slide and I'll indicate as we go 

down. And tell me if we're lacking coordination. Are 

we ready, is the first slide on -- 

Dr. Roberts: No, it's not up yet, Dave. 

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. 
11 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

Dr. Roberts: Now, we're ready. 

Member Kotelchuck: Tell me when it's on. 

Chair Anderson: It's on.

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews 

Update 

Member Kotelchuck: Okay, thank you very much 

and thank you whomever is working this for us. This 

is the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction 

Reviews. This is really a status report and update. 

Let me first mention the hardworking members of 

our committee, Josie Beach, Bradley Clawson, Jim 

Lockey, Dave Richardson and Loretta Valerio. Next 

slide. 

First, just status report. Despite setbacks and 

delays since the onset of the COVID pandemic in 

March 2020, and later the Cybersecurity 

Modernization Initiative, this Subcommittee has 

continued to hold at least two regular meetings per 

year since 2018. 

During 2021, we met on February 25th, and then 

we had a meeting recently on September 29th in 

which we started to go over Set 29, particularly the 

Category 1 cases which are relatively easy to 

handle. 

The next scheduled meeting will be on January 19th 

of next year, and we'll go into Set 29, the more 

challenging Category 2 cases. 

Next slide, please. 

Well, so there's not much really to report in terms of

our activity in general case reviews. The real issue, 

the one that I would like to talk about mostly today 

are the blind case reviews, which are so important 

to us.
12

Basically as soon as the Cybersecurity 

Modernization started in May of this year, we had to 

pause blind reviews until access to DR Tools was 

available again. 

Luckily, the last group of blind case reviews were 

completed at our February 25th meeting for Set 28 

just before the May -- later, the May cutoff. So we 

have a total of 44 blind case reviews since we first 

initiated this in the early years of our Board. 

Members, let's just say this, the next three slides, I 

presented at the April 14th meeting, but I want to -

- about the blinds. I wanted to reacquaint you with 

them, remind you about them, so I'll go to the next 

slide just to remind you that we have a good, broad 

selection of different sites that -- for which we've 

completed blind case reviews. 

You'll notice that the number of blind case reviews 

are large for a number of the larger facilities. But 

then as we go down to two or one blind case review 

for a facility, we're starting to get into much smaller 

sites. That is to say, fewer claims in those sites. And 

the 14 others for a single blind case are of course 

mostly small facilities. Small in terms of their 

employment. Okay, next slide, please. 

And you'll remember also that among the 44 blind 

cases, we basically had a smooth distribution 

between 10 and 40 years of employment. 

The next slide, just to remind you, of the 44 blind 

cases reviewed, 25 percent were female, which is 

interesting because as of our last report to the 

Secretary, 13.4 percent of claims involved female 

energy employees. 

So we are obviously in the blinds making sure that 

we not only review cases involving female 

claimants, but in fact we are a little bit high and of 

course those two numbers, the blind cases and the 

claims percentages, will be closer to the same as we 

continue our efforts. Okay, next slide.
13

In our previous Board report to the Secretary in 

2019, we included analysis of the first 32 blind 

cases reviewed and approved by the Subcommittee. 

These were drawn from the original contract and the 

various sets that I noted. 

The following slides that are coming now are the 

result for the twelve next blind cases in Sets 26 and 

28. We completed them in February. And really, we 

didn't have a chance to review them in the context 

of all 44 cases by the time of our next meeting on 

April 14th. So we will do that now. Next slide, 

please.

Our Set 26 blind cases. First, the first thing we want 

to look at is the fact that in blind cases B34 and 

B35, we have a difference in the dose -- in the 

compensation decision for each of them.

Let's, if I may, let me suggest that you look at the 

right-hand column, the probability of causation 

percentages by NIOSH. Now, you'll remember that 

when we picked the blinds, the cases that we 

choose among include cases for whom the 

compensation decision has been determined by 

NIOSH. 

So these are cases that were compensated or not 

before we began the blinds review, and then the 

SC&A people do their own dose reconstruction, and 

we compare. And as you see in B34, NIOSH had 

just barely above 50 percent.

The claimant was therefore compensated or in the 

course of being compensated, but SC&A found that 

the POC was just a little bit below 50 percent.

Nevertheless, we're choosing, and you see we're 

choosing numbers that are really close to the 

compensation cutoff point, critical point. 

For B35, we have just the opposite in terms of a 

difference. There is a difference in compensation 

decision -- or a difference in the decision between 
14

what NIOSH actually found, which was that the case 

would not be compensated, and the SC&A folks in 

reviewing this said, no, if they had done it instead of 

NIOSH, they would have compensated.

Nevertheless, those two are rather close, of course. 

I'll come back to some of these in a few moments. 

Let's go to the Set 28 blinds. 

Here, first if you look down the list of NIOSH and 

POC, you'll see that all the POCs above 50 are also 

above 50 by SC&A. And those below 50 are similarly 

below 50. 

I take note of Case B44 where there is a large 

difference in the POCs, although note that both 

POCs said the compensation decision in both cases 

would have been the same. But I want to come 

back to this later. 

Bottom line, there are no differences in 

compensation decision among these sets of cases. 

Okay, let's now go to the next slide on the selection 

criteria for those first 44 cases. 

Selection criteria for the earliest 14 choices of 

cases, we were not -- this was just the beginning of 

our work, and so we took best estimate cases with 

NIOSH POCs between 41 and 52 percent, i.e., a 

fairly broad swathe. 

We should note, people should remember that 

where dose reconstructions exceed 50 percent, as 

Grady has told us and others, often they, for the 

sake of efficiency, the dose reconstructions are just 

halted. That is, they're not necessarily completed. 

But the choice was between 41 and 52, and our 

focus was of course, there was significant attention 

paid to assuring a broad representation of types of 

covered facilities, which is what I showed you in 

Slide 4. 

However, starting with Set 22, which is to say the 
15

remaining 30 blind cases, the selection criteria were 

tightened to best estimate cases between 45 and 52 

percent. In other words, we are trying to push up to 

the boundary to see how precise, the precision of 

the decisions that we've been making. Go to the 

next slide. 

And for the first 32 blind cases reported to the 

Secretary in 2019, only one reviewed and approved 

by the Subcommittee had a different compensation 

decision. I've talked to Grady about this, and he will 

have some things to say, I hope, I look forward to 

later.

But as far as the Subcommittee went, our take was 

that there was a difference in compensation decision 

there. With the tightened selection criteria for the 

12 cases in Sets 26 (audio interference), the new 

ones, two more review cases, as I said, had 

different compensation decisions. The ones that I 

showed you, B34 and B35. Next slide. 

Both of these cases, which were in Set 26 you'll 

remember, had a NIOSH POC less than 1.5 percent 

from the compensation determinant percentage of 

POC equals 50 percent.

So out of a total of 44 blind cases reviewed and 

approved by the Subcommittee, including going 

very close to picking ones where the best estimate 

was very close to 50 percent, a total of only three 

cases, 6.8 percent of the 44, had different 

compensation decisions. 

This establishes and confirms a solid basis of 

confidence in the precision of the instructions and 

established protocols for dose reconstruction based 

on this group of 44 blind cases reviewed. 

And this is something I think all of us on the Board 

can take some pride in that it is asserting that the 

dose reconstructors, no matter which ones we have, 

that is to say, whether we will have typically dose 

reconstructors working on different claimant cases, 
16

that those will come out quite close to each other, 

with a few exceptions.

And the exceptions here are the last of the 44 blind 

cases, the two that we just started with are within a 

percent and a half of 50 percent. So it's not at all a 

surprise that with a little bit of variability and 

professional judgment and instructions that there 

might be a small difference. 

So I think, I believe people on the Board can take 

some pride in the fact that we've established good 

protocols and we're doing good instructions to the 

dose reconstructors. 

I want to go back to the Blind Case 44. Maybe we 

can go back up a couple more slides to the Set 28, 

which is Slide 9. Okay. Is that on your screens, 

folks?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, it is, Dave. 

Member Kotelchuck: Okay, good. Look, even though 

the decisions are the same for B44, there is a really 

wide range of POCs there compared -- and look at 

the other ones. I mean, things are close, but that 

one is not close and as happened in the previous 

sets when things were not close, even when there 

was the same compensation decision, we took a 

look at it. 

So let's go back down to that next-to-last slide, the 

issues related to the Blind Case 44, Slide 13. 

The calculated DRs by NIOSH and SC&A differ 

greatly. In seeking to understand this difference, 

the Subcommittee learned that after NIOSH 

received follow-up information from DOL on the 

dates when the claimed cancers were discovered, 

the DRs for the reported cancers with their 

corrected dates were accidentally run by NIOSH in 

addition to those initially reported.

That is, the numbers of cancers used in the NIOSH 

dose reconstruction were twice as many as those for 
17 

SC&A's. NIOSH's internal procedures have since 

been changed to prevent such an error in the 

future. And that was an error, and it was 

acknowledged. 

However, since the compensation decisions were 

the same for both dose reconstructions, and would 

be so even after NIOSH made the correction, the 

Subcommittee decided to close the review. 

Had we wanted to go back and actually correct the 

dose reconstruction of the POCs, it would have 

taken a long time and it was not -- since we were 

engaged in looking at compensation decisions on 

blinds, which was our primary goal, we just said, 

look, these were both not compensated; they would 

not be compensated if corrected, therefore, we are 

going to close the review. 

However, Subcommittee Members are concerned 

that there should be a note in the records that the 

NIOSH POC here is elevated but was processed 

properly for blind review purposes, right. And Grady 

has agreed to suggest an appropriate site for 

placement of this note. 

So there will be a note in the record if people 10 or 

20 years from now take a look at the records, they'll 

realize that, no, there was -- the standing POC for 

B44 is in fact elevated and if need be looked at 

again for any reason, it could and would have to be 

corrected if we were talking about compensation 

decision and not blinds determination. 

Okay, I believe this finishes it. Are there questions 

or comments? I know Grady and I have talked a 

little bit online and I'm sure he has some thoughts 

and others do too. 

Grady, did you want to say something now?

Mr. Calhoun: Sure, I can. Can you hear me?

Member Kotelchuck: Yes, sure can. 
18

Mr. Calhoun: Okay. Yes, this is Grady. 

First of all, I guess we'll start with B44 since that 

was the last one we discussed. Just to give 

everybody a little bit of an idea of the real details 

that happened here. 

Our initial dose reconstruction referral came from 

the Department of Labor with I believe was -- it 

doesn't matter, five, six cancers. Then what 

happened, before the dose reconstruction was 

completed, we got what we call an amended NIOSH 

referral summary document from Department of 

Labor. 

It actually said new cancers. And so when we input 

those new cancers, they were exactly the same 

cancers, but every single one of them had a 

different diagnosis date. And so we assumed they 

were all new cancers because it's not uncommon to 

have 5, 10, 20, 50 cancers. 

But anyway, that's what happened. We counted 

them twice. We probably could have caught it by 

looking at the descriptions of the cancers and 

saying, gosh, how can you have the exact same 

cancers in the exact same spots with different 

diagnosis dates. 

So that's how that happened, and we're just going 

to have to work something out into the process to 

make sure that that doesn't happen again. I'm sure 

Labor would have caught that, but I don't want 

Labor to have to catch that. That is something that 

we should have caught. So that's B44. 

I don't recall the numbers of the other ones, but the 

discussions that Dr. Kotelchuck and I were having 

this morning, I just want people to understand that 

there's two other cases that are listed as -- we said 

they did not reach the threshold for compensability, 

but SC&A in a blind found that they did. 

I just want to make sure that everybody knows that 
19

in no case were these determined to be true 

procedural errors that were an undisputable error. 

Had they been, we would have recalled those cases 

from Department of Labor and reworked them and 

paid them to make sure somebody got paid, but 

these were -- in a couple of cases, they were due 

to, most likely they were due to the inability to run 

the full Monte Carlo IREP EE calculations because 

SC&A just didn't have access to that at that point. 

That is what likely made the differences there. And 

then there was another one with the radon issue 

that -- I don't want go into a whole lot of detail with 

that, but that one was actually determined to be 

okay by the Surrogate Working Group as well. 

I just want everybody to feel good about the fact 

that none of these were errors that would -- that 

everybody agreed on were procedural, and had they 

been, we would have went back and recalled those 

cases and looked at our procedures to have those 

cases reworked. So I just wanted to make sure 

that's clear. That's all I have. 

Member Kotelchuck: Good, good. Absolutely. That is 

understood. And in no case was a NIOSH POC error 

indicated. Remember, as folks know, when we have 

two different groups or two different dose 

reconstructors looking at the same case, we don't 

assume one is correct and one is not. 

We look at the professional judgment, we look at 

the procedures, and if both seem proper and there

is a disagreement, then that's registered as a 

disagreement. 

But in none of these cases was there evidence that 

NIOSH had made a mistake in the original 

compensation decision or made an error.

And as I said during the talk, I think it's something 

that we can be proud of that we do things -- there's 

a degree of precision here in a complex dose 

reconstruction environment that is admirable, if I 
20

may say in support of our efforts. Okay, other 

questions or other comments?

Member Clawson: Yes, Dave, this is Brad. 

One of the issues that I had with this, Grady, was 

that when you looked at the phone records and stuff 

like this (audio interference) the petitioner that 

brought this forth that they had gone from the 

original six cancers to 12 cancers. 

From NIOSH's standpoint, they had the petitioner 

call DOL. One of the problems that I have, and I'm 

just giving a suggestion here, is we have heard 

numerous times of how hard that this is to be able 

to navigate through the systems. 

And when something like this comes up, it's a heck 

of a lot easier for NIOSH to discuss with DOL 

because they've got all the information sitting in 

front of them to be able to rectify this. 

This also being said, we should be documenting --

one of the problems that I've seen on the Dose 

Reconstruction Work Group is -- and it used to be 

done a lot with overestimates and stuff like that, 

and we still see it a little bit coming in, is they'll 

throw all this out and they can see that it is not 

going to be compensable or it is comped and they 

do some other stuff. 

But something in the records should always say, 

due to this, the reconstruction of this was stopped 

due to this not being able to be compensable or 

whatever. But it really shouldn't come down to the 

petitioner to be the one having to call DOL and 

explain the issues and the problems with this. 

And there should be some kind of record in these 

reconstructions so that we would be able to see it 

and the person that's doing the blind review of it 

would be able to do that, too. 

Mr. Calhoun: Yes, Brad, I agree. I mean, it was a 

mistake. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake. 
21 

Member Clawson: No, I'm not casting any blame. I 

look at this that we are all learning of this and 

things are changing through the years. I'm just 

giving a suggestion out there. 

Mr. Calhoun: Well what would happen in this case, 

and I can't look at NOCTS right now so I don't know 

if it's done, I would assume that it's been done, is 

that once we found out about this, when you 

opened up that case, those six cancers would be 

gone and it would be only be the confirmed six now. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I can confirm that that did happen 

before we lost access, but it didn't happen until 

after we had submitted our review. 

Mr. Calhoun: Right. Okay, good. I'm glad it 

happened. I didn't go back and look. 

Member Kotelchuck: And by the way, since that was 

Rose Gogliotti speaking, who has been our fine 

SC&A consultant to the Subcommittee, I also forgot 

to take note as we were talking that that September 

29th meeting that we had for the Subcommittee 

could not have happened without Rose's help as 

well as Lori Marion-Moss who was able to get us 

access so that we could look at the sets before the 

CMI initiative was completed. 

So let me, for the record, state that we -- the 

Subcommittee thanks them for that special help to 

get us going. So thank you both. Other questions or 

comments? 

Ms. Gogliotti: Grady, at our meeting you had said 

that you were going to check with DOL to see what 

happened to that case that came to them after it 

had 12 cancers when they had only verified six.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes, I have not done that at this point. 

I kind of got overwhelmed by events since the 

shutdown. DOL was in -- we were in discussions 

about trying to things back up and going, but I'll 

certainly bring that back up to them. 
22

Member Kotelchuck: Okay, and we'll talk about that. 

Probably not on our January 22nd Subcommittee 

meeting, but in the one that comes afterwards. 

We'll put that on the agenda so that we can speak 

about it and make sure everything is completed 

appropriately. 

Chair Anderson: Dave, a quick question for you and 

the Committee. Do you have a difference between 

the two that you then considered significant and 

worth looking into? I mean, there's differences in all 

of these and you could -- some of them would -- it 

appears that --

Member Kotelchuck: Right.

Chair Anderson: -- in the small differences, it's 

usually SC&A is low and if that's because they're 

using different statistical tools and that accounts for 

that, it would be helpful, I think, if you had a policy 

statement or something that would say just because 

of -- I mean, it could be greater than that. 

It could be a rounding error in going from two 

significant to three significant digits or whatever. Do 

you have any sense -- because I think that would 

be helpful to say these are really identical.

Member Kotelchuck: Right. Actually, I think that's a 

very good idea. We do not have anything formally 

that when we are looking at differences, these are 

in the case of the Set 28, the B44, we're talking 

about a difference between 30 and 48 percent. 

But I accept that as a suggestion, and let's talk 

about it in the Subcommittee about setting a formal 

standard when the differences are ten percent or 

greater or whatever. 

But what's impressive is how close these are. They 

tend to be within several percent in most cases. We 

have looked them over in the past. They really are 

close. But let's set up something formally so that we 

know that this is done. 
23 

Maybe we should consider -- I'm looking at Set 28 

slide for B43, and there's an 11 percent difference. 

Maybe we should have looked into that. Maybe we 

should look into that. So as Chair, I accept the 

suggestion that we put that on our agenda for the 

Subcommittee and we discuss it in a future 

meeting.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. It seems like 

during our calls, we do talk about those because 

SC&A describes as we're going through those cases 

why there's a difference. Once that is finished, I 

don't think there's anything formally done after 

that, but we do discuss them. 

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, we do, we do. But we 

discuss both of the dose reconstructions separately 

and also comparing them. There is no -- I feel like 

we have looked at this in the past. I've looked at it 

for our report to the Secretary, and there is no 

consistent pattern of differences whether it's in 

terms of just different decisions on internal or 

external exposures, et cetera. 

There's no clear pattern, but everyone is looked at, 

and we understand when we have accepted both 

dose reconstructions. We understand where they 

differ. But there's no pattern. At some point, maybe 

it would be time to do that. 

Member Beach: I guess, are you thinking a more 

formal tracking system for those, possibly?

Member Kotelchuck: Yes. 

Member Beach: Okay. 

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: I think the way that Rose is 

putting this together, we don't accept any of these 

cases if there was a big issue with it. We've been 

seeing very small ones, and I really like the way 

that SC&A and also how ORAU and stuff like that 

have been able to explain what the difference was. 
24 

And a lot of times, it was because we were using 

different tools that SC&A only had access to but that 

the ORAU had a newer setup on it. So this is what 

most of them have been, and the way Rose has put 

this together has really helped us put that together 

for this for each one of these cases. I think we're 

kind of doing that right now --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. 

Member Clawson: I know that it's not going into the 

NIOSH, but I know from the SC&A standpoint that I 

think it's being very well-documented what the 

difference is. 

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, it is. It is. As you 

indicated, we have a formal written report from 

SC&A from Rose about every single one of these 

cases. I don't know if it's online, actually, or

whether it's appropriate to put them online. But 

there's no question, there is a written report to the 

Committee about comparing, looking at each of 

them separately and then seeing where are the 

differences. Yes, she is doing a very good job, and I 

agree.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thank you. I just want to point out we 

also do a summary document with every set that 

points out the differences in each case that I can 

send out if anyone's interested. We also started a 

tracking matrix that Dave presented at the April 

meeting, I believe. 

Member Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. 

Member Clawson: Dave, this is why I feel that we're 

really tracking from the SC&A side of what they're 

doing. You know as well as I do that we have not 

accepted any case that there has been a major 

difference and it being an issue. It's been minor, 

small things -- 

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.
25

Member Clawson: -- different tools usually being 

used that SC&A did not have access to or whatever. 

Chair Anderson: It's not a data entry issue. That's 

why I say the tools, as long as you've looked at 

that, and I haven't looked at those summaries. 

Sounds like you understand from the public's 

perception looking at these, it's like doing addition. 

You don't have additions -- they should all be the 

same unless you've had an error in your 

methodology somewhere. So the small differences, 

I think you've explained them to me anyway, just 

so the public could be aware of the claimants that in 

fact these are really the same. 

Member Kotelchuck: That's right. 

Member Clawson: It would be very hard, Andy, to 

be able to put these out to the public because of the 

Privacy Act and everything else like that, but this is 

set up, and we've gone to great lengths with this. 

I know Dave has and all the members of the Work 

Group so that the other Board members if there 

were ever any questions, they would be able to go 

in there. And what has Rose done, it tells exactly 

what the differences were, why they were. It lays 

everything out there really good. It's just, you go in 

there and find that. 

Chair Anderson: That's great. Thank you. 

Member Kotelchuck: Yes, and I might add finally 

that of course we continue to -- on the blinds that 

we're doing. We started this awhile ago, but I'm not 

quite sure which blind we began this in. 

But we are also recording professional judgment to 

see whether there are instances where professional 

judgment -- where there are issues about the use of 

professional judgment, where we might be able to 

say that we should incorporate new protocols and 

say -- where are now using professional judgment, 

we should go and say this is the way it should be 
26 

done. 

So we're also gathering professional data, but we 

don't have enough data from the blind because it's 

only on the blinds that we can do it. We don't have 

enough of those yet to have any statistical validity, 

or put it this way, there are no trends that we've 

been able to detect with the limited data that we've 

gathered. But it's being gathered.

Chair Anderson: Are there any other questions 

people have?

(No audible response.)

Chair Anderson: Paul, you're on mute. 

Member Ziemer: Not a question, but I think for 

those of us who aren't on the Subcommittee, I just 

want to say I personally appreciate all the work 

that's been done on these blinds. 

I think it's been very helpful and very well done. 

The SC&A staff and Rose but also for the 

Subcommittee members who have gone through all 

this. It's been very helpful, and I'm certainly 

satisfied that they've done a great job on these. 

Member Kotelchuck: Thank you. 

Chair Anderson: Any other comments or questions? 

Member Clawson: Well, I guess I'm just going to 

ask Dave, were we going to discuss that 547 

observation of the ten-year-old workbook? 

Member Kotelchuck: I'm not sure what you're 

referring to. 

Member Clawson: This is the one where we got into 

one of the dose reconstructions, and they're 

working through a ten-year-old workbook. We didn't 

want to bring it right up then with Grady, because it 

was kind of blindsiding him, but I was just trying to 

figure out how come we're still working with a 
27 

workbook that hasn't been updated for ten years. 

Member Kotelchuck: May I suggest that we talk 

about that in the Subcommittee. 

Member Clawson: Okay. 

Member Kotelchuck: So we most certainly didn't 

blindside. You've alerted that there was another 

issue outstanding, and let's talk about it on the 

22nd. Well, we can't change the agenda for the 

22nd, but we'll talk about it. 

Member Clawson: We have time that we can discuss 

these issues. This was put in abeyance, I believe, 

and stuff like that, and we were going to discuss it 

in further detail. We can do that if you'd like to do, 

Dave. 

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Sounds good.

Dr. Roberts: And just to clarify, it's January 19th is 

the meeting of the Dose Reconstruction 

Subcommittee. 

Member Kotelchuck: You're right. Thank you so 

much, Rashaun. You are correct and it says so right 

here in my notes. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. 

Member Kotelchuck: All right. January 19th.

Work Group Board Work Session 

Chair Anderson: Okay, if there's no further 

questions, we can move into our Work Group Board 

Work Session. We have a number of things to go 

over there. 

Rashaun -- everybody, hopefully you've noticed that 

we have two attorneys that are on both days 

listening in. 

Rashaun, do you want to introduce?
28 

Rashaun and I asked them to say a few words. 

They're probably going to be interim, but how we 

operate until a final is made on replacing Jenny. 

They're going to be our standbys, and I appreciate 

their participating in the whole meeting. Thank you.

Rashaun, go ahead. 

Dr. Roberts: Thank you. I think you kind of provided 

the background. As everybody knows, Jenny Naylor, 

who was providing legal support and advice to the 

program and also to the Board has been gone for 

some time. Mr. Rob McGolerick and Mr. Michael 

Rafky have been kind enough to step in and provide 

interim support. 

Andy and I thought that it would be useful or helpful 

for them to provide an update to you on what's 

happening in terms of our planning, offer legal 

support and advice into the future. So I'll turn it 

over -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Anderson: We need to see their pictures, so 

we can recognize them. 

Mr. McGolerick: I'm having issues with my camera, 

unfortunately. My name is Robert McGolerick. I'm 

an attorney with HHS OGC, specifically the CDC 

branch. I actually started with HHS back in 2003 

working on EEOICPA and Board matters when David 

Naimon and Liz Homoki-Titus were the lead 

attorneys on the program. 

Through the years, I've worked on EEOICPA and 

Board matters when both Emily Howell and more 

recently Jenny were the lead attorneys on the 

program. Jenny left, as you know, HHS in early 

November. 

Since that time, Michael Rafky and I have been 

filling in to handle program matters. OGC is in the 

process of hiring an attorney to backfill Jenny's 

position, and we hope to complete the hiring 
29 

process in the next couple of months. 

Once we do, this new attorney will be the lead on 

EEOICPA and Board matters for OGC and will be the 

attorney that the Board will work with going 

forward. We will let you know when we get that new 

attorney in place. That's about all I have. 

Michael, did you want to introduce yourself?

Mr. Rafky: Sure, hi. I'm Michael Rafky. I've been 

with the NIOSH legal team since 2005, and as Rob 

mentioned, originally we did all EEOICPA matters 

until about maybe 2011 or so, and then we took in 

more sort of, things such as the World Trade Center 

Health Program and other general NIOSH matters. 

I've worked on some EEOICPA matters throughout 

my time here including SEC petitions and reviewing 

Site Profile documents. But as Rob said, Emily and 

then Jenny were the leads working with the 

Advisory Board. 

I'm happy to meet those of you I haven't met 

before and looking forward to working with Rob and 

all of you until we hire Jenny's replacement. 

Chair Anderson: I want to thank you, and if you see 

issues as you're listening in, don't be bashful in 

raising if you have questions or other comments you 

want to make.

Mr. Rafky: Okay, thank you.

Member Kotelchuck: Excuse me. I didn't catch the 

first person's name.

Mr. McGolerick: Robert McGolerick. 

Member Kotelchuck: McGower?

Mr. McGolerick: McGolerick.

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. Thank you. 

Chair Anderson: You can't see -- 
30 

Member Kotelchuck: No, I can't see -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Anderson: -- he's on row four on the far right 

on my screen.

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. You're right. I'm on 

the phone, that's why. 

Chair Anderson: Yes, exactly.

Member Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Chair Anderson: Okay, any other comments or 

questions people have for them? Want to go 

through our schedule, Rashaun?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, I can go ahead with that. 

Thanks, Michael and Rob, for that update. 

So we've been talking a little bit about meetings, 

Subcommittee and Work Group meetings, that have 

been scheduled or will be scheduled shortly here. I 

wanted to take a few minutes to kind of review the 

dates of our full Board meetings for the new year. 

Our first teleconference is scheduled for 

Wednesday, February 16th, starting at 11:00 a.m. 

Our in-person -- 

Member Beach: Rashaun -- 

Dr. Roberts: Yes?

Member Beach: -- can I ask? So we have been 

meeting at 7:30, so you are switching it back to the 

11:00 timeframe?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, we're doing 11:00.

Member Beach: Okay.

Dr. Roberts: I think we've met for a number of 

times at 11:00 for the teleconference.
31 

Member Beach: Okay. It was actually for me 7:30, 

so I just wanted to be clear, because I was late one 

day. Okay, thank you. 

Chair Anderson: It's 11:00 Eastern. 

Dr. Roberts: Yes. 

Member Beach: Yes.

Dr. Roberts: Eleven Eastern. Okay, so the first one, 

and it's just a teleconference in which we kind of 

plan for the quote-unquote in-person meeting, 

February 16th at 11:00. 

The next thing on the schedule would be an inperson meeting assuming that we will be clear to 

travel by HHS, and that is set for April 27th through 

the 28th, both days. 

We have another teleconference on the schedule for 

June 15th at, and we'll keep it at 11:00 a.m. 

Eastern. 

And then the next in-person meeting that we 

previously scheduled is August 17th and 18th. So I 

just wanted to throw those dates out there and 

hope that we're on the same page. Sometimes 

there's been a little bit of confusion with the date. 

But I did want to go through and finish scheduling 

out the rest of 2022, so we would need to schedule 

a teleconference for October and our in-person 

meeting for December.

So for October this year, I think the date was 

around the 20th of October that we had a 

teleconference. If we want to keep consistent with 

that timing to that calendar, the 20th would fall on 

a Thursday. Again, we're looking at an 11:00 a.m. 

start time. Is that a date we can tentatively put 

down?

Member Beach: Works for me.
32 

Chair Anderson: Yes. Works for me. 

Member Kotelchuck: That's fine.

Dr. Roberts: Okay, great. Anyone for which that is a 

problem?

Member Clawson: What was the last date, I'm 

sorry. I was putting stuff in my phone. 

Dr. Roberts: For the teleconference? We're looking 

at October 20th, 2022. 

Member Beach: Good for me. 

Dr. Roberts: Brad, is that okay from your 

standpoint?

Member Clawson: Yes, it is. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Well, hearing no objection to 

that date, I'll go ahead and tentatively put that 

down. This year, we're meeting the 8th and 9th. 

Next year, the 8th falls on Thursday; the 9th falls 

on Friday. Could we do the 7th and the 8th? 

Chair Anderson: Which one?

Dr. Roberts: December 2022. 

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. Those dates 

aren't good for me that week. The 14th to 15th is 

better, but the 7th and the 8th I have something 

else scheduled. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay. 

Chair Anderson: 7th and 8th is okay with me.

Member Beach: 7th and 8th is okay with me. When 

you get into the 14th and 15th, it's getting close to 

the holiday. 

Dr. Roberts: Yes.

Chair Anderson: As long as you avoid the 10th. 
33 

Member Schofield: 7th and 8th works for me. 

Member Ziemer: I'm okay for either.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Roberts: I'm wondering if then we can bump it 

up a little bit and do November 30th and December 

1st. 

Member Lockey: Well, since the 7th and 8th is all 

right for everybody else, why don't I see if I can 

rearrange the other meeting I had? It's early

enough that I should be able to do that. It's a DOL 

meeting, but I can ask them to rearrange it. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: That would be appreciated. 

Dr. Roberts: Yes, that would help. That would help. 

Okay, so we'll tentatively put on December 7th and 

8th, 2022. Okay, so that brings us out the whole 

calendar year, so that's great. Any questions or any 

issues with the other dates that I've mentioned 

about some schedule?

(No audible response.)

Dr. Roberts: Okay. Hearing none, I did want to 

circle back to the April 27th and 28th date. Again, I 

don't know that we are for certain going to be able 

to meet, but I thought that if there's a possibility 

that we can meet, it would be good to do that 

meeting in person.

We do need to nail down in this meeting where that 

meeting would be, so that Zaida has enough lead 

time to start putting arrangements and things in 

place for us to have that meeting face-to-face. 

And again, it may be the case that ultimately we 

cannot meet face-to-face, but I think it would be 

good for us to go ahead and identify a location. I did 

want to open that up for discussion in the Board and 
34 

see what people's perspectives are in terms of 

where to meet. 

Member Clawson: Rashaun, this is Brad. I think that 

we ought to be looking at Pinellas or Tampa or 

Savannah River. I'd throw those two out, because 

we both got actions there pending on those two 

sites. That would be my suggestion. 

Member Ziemer: On Pinellas, it sounds to me like 

we won't have any more progress than we have had 

today or yesterday in terms of SC&A's ability to give 

us anything by April. I don't see that we would gain 

-- but your other suggestion was Savannah River, 

and maybe we'd be good to go there. I don't know, 

what do others think about, I mean I'm glad to go 

to Pinellas. I'd love to go to Florida, but I don't --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Schofield: I think that would be a stretch 

for Pinellas. 

Member Ziemer: That's what I -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Schofield: Maybe in the fall. 

Member Beach: We may have some work at Metals 

and Control also by April if we can get a Work Group 

meeting scheduled.

I agree with Pinellas, that was going to be my 

suggestion, but it may be that we hold that off until 

the December meeting. 

Member Clawson: Well, we've got some other issues 

at Savannah River. This SEC's coming out, but there 

are some other things in the background that it may 

be beneficial for the Board to meet at that location. 

You understand what I'm saying, Rashaun. 

That's one of the reasons why I put Savannah River 

out there. 
35 

Member Beach: I can agree with Savannah River 

also. 

Member Schofield: I have no problems with 

Savannah River. That sounds good. 

Chair Anderson: Rashaun, do you have a kind of a 

drop-dead date that we need to know for your 

scheduling? Because these are two sites. You could 

begin -- we've been to Savannah River before, so 

hotels haven't changed that much. Some of the 

planning can go on. 

If things move faster with Pinellas, which I don't 

have any great hope it will, but it's the same as I 

don't have a great deal of confidence we'll be in 

person. What would be your timeline?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, I'd just, for the sake of giving us 

enough time to do all the clearances and all the 

work that we need to do with our procurement 

system and all of that, we really do need to identify 

the place. 

It sounds like Savannah River, unless someone has 

an objection for one reason or another to that, then 

I would probably recommend going with that. 

Because Pinellas, as people have pointed out, we're 

not sure kind of what our progress will be. Perhaps 

it's better just to go with Savannah. 

Chair Anderson: That's fine with me. Yes. 

Member Clawson: Sounds good. 

Member Schofield: Sounds fine. 

Dr. Roberts: Okay, perfect. Well, I'm glad to get 

that nailed down. I will keep you posted as we get 

more guidance in terms of travel. We'll assume at 

this point that the face-to-face will be in Savannah 

for now. 

Okay, I did want to -- let's see now that we've 

gotten those things taken care of --
36

Chair Anderson: Public comments. Response to 

public comments?

Dr. Roberts: Yes, go onto that. I want to let you 

know that no written comments were mailed to me 

for this meeting, but there were a number of 

comments made in August in our August 2021 full 

Board meeting. 

The Board members were provided a summary of 

those comments prior to the meeting. Most of the 

comments pertain to Pinellas and Y-12. 

Many of the comments really ranged from 

expressing an urgency for the Board to consider the 

petitions and make recommendations regarding 

them to raising issues about how NIOSH calculates 

dose, or what data it uses for co-exposure models. 

That's just a brief summary of those comments. 

Moving on from that, let's go ahead and move into 

the Work Group and Subcommittee reports. Prior to 

this meeting, I did circulate the latest draft of the 

document that contains who's assigned to what 

Work Group or Subcommittee. 

That document is actually evolving as we speak, so 

I know that DCAS, for instance, is still trying to 

identify consultants or whatever they want to add to 

the various Work Groups or Subcommittee. I do 

want to note that there was an omission in the 

version that I sent. As you know, we did revive the 

Pinellas Work Group, and I wanted to let everyone 

know that Bill Field has been added to that group, 

but it wasn't noted on the document. 

Again, there are some other additions that will need 

to be made to the document, so I will be revising 

and recirculating it. With that, I think we can open it 

up, Andy, to the Work Group and Subcommittee 

reports. 

Chair Anderson: We have lots of meetings coming 

up, so Work Group Chairs, comments? 
37

Member Schofield: Gaseous Diffusion Plant in March 

14th. 

Dr. Roberts: Actually, Phil, we're still in the process 

of scheduling, so it's not solidified yet. We're trying 

to identify the date for that Work Group. It will 

likely be that week, though. 

Member Beach: So, I'm on that Work Group, and 

I've not received any notices about any Work 

Groups. 

Dr. Roberts: Right, that's why I'm saying it's in 

progress.

Member Beach: Okay. 

Dr. Roberts: We will --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: I think there was something on 

that, Phil, about SC&A needed to be tasked to do a 

review of a memo concerning the neutron dose 

assignment. Can we do that today and give them a 

head start on that? It was from January of 2021. 

(No audible response.)

Member Beach: Am I still on? 

Chair Anderson: You are, but maybe he's on mute.

Member Beach: Oh, okay. 

Member Schofield: Yes, sorry. I had muted myself 

again. 

Member Beach: Did you hear what I asked you?

Member Schofield: Yes, I did. Yes, let's give that to 

SC&A. 

Member Beach: It was a memo --

Member Schofield: That sounds like the same thing 

we've had with Fernald, isn't it? Member Beach: I 
38

don't know. I just looked at the ones I was on, so I 

know that that one came out, and SC&A needed to 

be tasked to review it. 

Member Schofield: Then if it's okay with Rashaun, 

let's go ahead and task them. Maybe they can have 

something by then. 

Mr. Barton: Josie, you are correct. There's one of 

the items still hanging out there from Portsmouth. 

Like you said, it was a memo in early 2020, I 

believe, and we just never were tasked with taking 

a look at it. 

I think there have been a lot of discussion preceding 

that. I'm not fully versed on the subject per se, but 

I think that's something we could probably turn 

around pretty quickly. 

Member Beach: Great. I can go on LANL. As you 

heard from LaVon today, there's two documents 

coming out. I think we could start a Work Group or 

we could schedule a Work Group, but I think we 

should wait until the reports come out. They're a 

few weeks away. 

I know Metals and Controls is sooner, but let's wait 

until the reports come out. Once the reports come 

out, then move to schedule a meeting. It's RPRT101 and 102. If that seems sufficient to the Work 

Group. That one should be in the spring, also. 

Something that will be coming up soon. 

Chair Anderson: Metals and Control?

Member Beach: So the one I just said was LANL. 

LANL has two reports coming out. Metals and 

Control, I think we should go ahead and schedule a 

Work Group call. We never got finished with the one 

call, we're kind of halfway through. 

So when we're looking at the agenda, we may have 

to go back to rediscuss some of the things. And 

then there's two reports out from SC&A that we all 

have, and NIOSH, as LaVon said, those should be 
39

out within a week or two. 

I think if we give ourselves a month or two, we 

should be able to schedule, which is how we 

generally end up doing it anyways. I think Rashaun 

can kind of get busy on scheduling on Metals and 

Control.

Member Ziemer: Yes, we can go ahead and 

schedule that for sure sometime after New Year's. 

Chair Anderson: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes. I'm thinking more in the 

March-April timeframe, but we'll see what the 

schedule looks like. 

Member Ziemer: Yes. 

Member Beach: The rest of my Work Groups, we're 

just waiting for reports, and you guys have all that 

information. So I'll let someone else have the floor. 

Dr. Roberts: Brad, it looks like you're talking. 

Member Clawson: Yes, I am. Sorry. 

Anyway, I was going to ask LaVon, he was talking 

about Hanford, and we have a couple of files with 

that, and I haven't had any update on that. But if 

this is coming closer, LaVon, if you wanted to 

mention that. 

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, now the co-exposure model is 

still a ways away. Yes. We'll keep you updated on 

that, and I know there was one issue that we had, 

Issue 6 or Issue 8. I can't remember what the 

number was. Yes, Issue 8, and we are working on 

that as well. But there's nothing else, and I haven't 

really a good date for when that's going to be 

complete. 

Member Clawson: Okay. Well, that's what I was 

wondering. What about Savannah River? You said 

there were some outstanding issues on that.
40

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, I was going to say that I know 

SC&A put out a matrix of what they believe were 

the remaining open issues. And Tim can jump in on 

this. He knows this better than I do. But I think the 

Work Group probably needs to get together and 

come to agreement that that's the remaining issues 

or not. That's just a suggestion from me. 

Tim, what do you have to say?

Dr. Taulbee: Great summary, because that's exactly 

what I was going to say. SC&A put out that memo 

kind of outlining where we're at with everything. I 

think it'd be appropriate for the Work Group to get 

together to discuss those remaining issues that 

we're all on the same page if we're moving forward. 

Member Clawson: Okay, I'll go with SC&A and 

Rashaun, and we'll try to set up a Work Group 

meeting, then. 

Mr. Barton: This is Bob. Yes, we put out the memo 

that has just been referenced, and it was really to 

try to get a baseline of what issues are still out 

there, since a lot of the concentration has been 

fixed on, obviously, the subcontractor issue over the 

past couple years. 

But there have been several White Papers and 

exchanges that have happened that had just not 

been put forward before the Work Group that need 

to be discussed. I'll be working with Tim and John 

Cardarelli to refine that and obviously any input 

from the Work Group members themselves to make 

sure when we can finally meet up that we're all on 

the same page and hopefully close out a lot of these 

things. 

Member Clawson: Okay, I'll wait for you to get back 

with me, Bob. I'll work with Andy and Rashaun on 

another issue that's there, and we'll just kind of 

brainstorm a little bit and see what else we can do 

there. Thank you. I appreciate it. 
41

Chair Anderson: Okay, I can talk to the URAWA 

group. We have a meeting planned for the review of 

the Reduction Pilot Plant. And the other is Sandia. I 

think we also have a meeting scheduled for that. 

Member Beach: Do you know when the Sandia 

documents will be out? 

Chair Anderson: I don't know. 

Member Beach: Okay. Rashaun --

Mr. Barton: I don't have the exact update on that, 

but I know it went out to DOE ADC review in the 

past two weeks, maybe two weeks ago. Or maybe 

last week it was. So it's with DOE, and then it 

should be back before Christmas, and then it should 

be distributed before the end of the year. 

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Mr. Rutherford: What's the Work Group meeting 

date on that, again?

Member Beach: I think it's March 3rd. 

Chair Anderson: 3rd, I think. Yes. 

Mr. Rutherford: Yes, I just want to make sure that 

we're going to get ample time to review it. As long 

as the DOE gets it out before Christmas, I think 

we'll be fine. 

Member Beach: That's March 3rd. 

Chair Anderson: Any other groups?

Member Beach: Can I ask about INL? Where we're 

at with INL? If we're getting close to any type of a 

meeting?

Mr. Rutherford: Tim can jump in on this one. I don't 

think we are. 

Tim, go ahead.
42

Dr. Taulbee: No, we have requested additional data 

from the sites with regards to the burial grounds 

and have basically ran into a lot of difficulty trying 

to get that the past several months due to the 

pandemic and COVID and so forth. We are working 

with the site on that to try to get better -- try to get 

access to the records and trying to refine some of 

that. We're not ready for a Work Group meeting 

yet. 

Member Beach: Okay, thank you for that. 

Member Schofield: Tim, this is Schofield. It looks 

like you've got a number of things on your plate still 

to do this. Does it look like things are going to 

speed up any time soon for you?

Dr. Taulbee: Unfortunately, no. And you're meeting 

with INL, is that correct?

Member Schofield: Argonne West, INL, Santa 

Susana. They're all in your ballpark right now. 

Dr. Taulbee: Right. Well, many of these sites we are 

trying to do data capture on, Santa Susana and De 

Soto definitely, as well as INL from that standpoint. 

Not being able to do travel, to do good data 

captures at this time has been the point of major 

hindrances as far as moving forward on some of 

this. 

I don't have a clear path yet as to when some of 

these data captures are going to be able to take 

place. When travel opens up, that's when -- our 

folks are geared and ready to go. But until that 

happens -- I will say our folks are very busy right 

now.

As Grady mentioned, the manual processing of dose 

reconstructions is not trivial, and it's not simple. So 

with the Cybersecurity Modernization, our folks are 

very busy just trying to process claims right now. 

Some of this are not being worked on, frankly. 

Member Schofield: I appreciate that. 
43

Mr. Barton: Tim, I don't want to put you on the spot 

here, but had there been some talk about gaining 

access remotely to systems like the EDWS, which I 

believe is INL, and then possibly the EDMS, which is 

down at Savannah River. Any movement on that 

while we're on the subject?

Dr. Taulbee: I have not had or heard an update on 

that. I can get with the project leads for both of 

them to get you an update, but I don't know off the 

top of my head. I know there's been work on that, 

but I don't know -- I know it's not been successful 

yet.

Mr. Barton: I just want to say I certainly appreciate 

the efforts to get SC&A involved in that so that we 

can have access to those search platforms, and it 

would greatly help out the entire program. So I 

appreciate all the work that you folks are doing on 

that. Thank you.

Dr. Taulbee: No problem. 

Chair Anderson: Any others? Do we have anything -

- I know our Special Exposure Cohort Issues Group 

kind of worked with Savannah River, but I don't

know if we have any other issues that are ready to 

be discussed, do we? 

Dr. Taulbee: I'm the, I guess, the DCAS point of 

contact for the SEC Issues Work Group, and no, not 

at this time. 

Chair Anderson: Okay, I didn't think so, but I 

thought I would ask.

Member Kotelchuck: By the way, this is Dave. Can 

you hear me?

Chair Anderson: Yes. 

Member Kotelchuck: Bob just raised the issue to 

me. We didn't get any report today on what people 

know about the Cybersecurity Modernization 

Initiative and when, I hope, it will finally end. Is 
44

there any update that anybody can give us on that?

Member Beach: I think Grady did that yesterday 

during his report, Dave, but maybe there's more.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. I was still fussing around 

trying to get on at that point. 

Member Beach: Oh, yes.

Member Kotelchuck: I read his materials, but I 

didn't get to listen to him.

Mr. Calhoun: What were you specifically wondering, 

Dave?

Member Kotelchuck: I just want to know if you have 

any idea when this CMI is going to end. Any clues?

Mr. Calhoun: CMI?

Member Kotelchuck: The Cybersecurity 

Modernization Initiative.

Mr. Calhoun: Oh, wow, you used acronyms I don't 

even use. That's great. 

Member Kotelchuck: Whoa. I only know what I 

read. 

Mr. Calhoun: That's right. Okay. Well, we are -- I 

don't have any hard and fast dates. We meet on 

this for hours every week looking for longer paths 

forward. We're in the process of trying to still 

improve shorter processes so that people can gain 

access to different materials. 

We're going to continue to do that, but it's not going 

to be as nice -- with NOCTS, how it used to be, and 

all of the other applications. I don't see that 

happening for at least six months, probably longer. 

But we're going to continue to make improvements 

as we can to get you guys all the information and all 

the documentation that you need. 

Don't hesitate to ask me, like I told everybody. I'll 
45 

do everything I can to get you the information, 

documents, tools that you need. 

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, thank you. It's 

taking a long time. What can I say, but okay. It is 

what it is and I understand the reason that we need 

to live with it. To protect our security, quite frankly. 

Thanks.

Chair Anderson: Okay, other committees or groups? 

Brad's talking again. 

Member Clawson: Yes, I'm talking.

Chair Anderson: Go ahead. 

Member Clawson: I was just going to throw out --

Tim, when we do get this travel restriction lifted, 

and you guys are able to go out on these data 

captures, I hope you'll keep the Board and also 

SC&A in the loop on that, because there's several of 

us that would like to be involved with that. You 

always do, I know you do, but just when 

everything's starting to start back up, I'd like to just 

be in the loop with that. 

Dr. Taulbee: We will definitely spread the word to 

all of the points of contacts to reach out to the 

Board members for those. 

Member Beach: I wanted to mention to Dave that 

Grady told us yesterday if there is a specific SRDB 

number that we have that we would like, if we get it 

to him or Lori or Megan or whoever the site rep is 

from NIOSH, they'll work to get those for us also. 

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, very good. Great. Thank 

you. 

Chair Anderson: Okay. I don't think we said 

anything during it, but there's been no word yet on 

new Board members. I wouldn't expect -- only new 

word was, well, they didn't shut down the 

government. 
46 

Papers are being processed, and this is not a good 

processing time of the year. I suspect if we don't 

meet in person in April, we probably won't have 

heard by that time either. So we'll see. 

Member Beach: Do we know how many? Are there -

- 

Chair Anderson: We know names were sent, but we 

don't know what was accepted. 

Member Beach: Okay, thank you. 

Chair Anderson: Rashaun, anything else?

Dr. Roberts: No, nothing more here. Thanks.

Ms. Gogliotti: Henry, I just want to point out I know 

that we have the new portal, and if any Board 

members are having trouble accessing it or want 

training to please reach out to me. I'm more than 

happy to go over it with you. 

Chair Anderson: Okay. Are people using it? Do you 

know?

Ms. Gogliotti: Some people.

Chair Anderson: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: I know Brad has struggled a little bit, 

and Josie's --

Chair Anderson: I'm wondering if it's -- as you say, 

it's fairly new. Is there something that we ought to 

do a little conference call and a demonstration so, 

rather than wait for people, it's going to be when I 

need to get something, and then I'm going to try, 

and then I'm not going to know what to do. But if 

you give me a date and a time, we could set it up. 

Member Beach: And Rose, I was just going to say 

that with these upcoming Work Group meetings, the 

Work Group members probably need to know where 

to access the documents for their meetings. That 

might be a good way to start is just do a quick 
47 

tutorial for the folks that are going to be meeting 

soon. 

My biggest problem is once I get in there, it's such a 

long line of where you have to go, and to be able to 

scroll through each one, it's cumbersome. It's 

doable, but it's a lot, as you know. 

Chair Anderson: There's no word search function. 

Member Beach: No, no. 

Chair Anderson: Come on, Josie, don't sugarcoat it. 

It sucks. 

(Laughter.)

Member Beach: The next meeting is the dose 

reconstruction. 

Lori and Rose, you guys sent out somewhere where 

we could go exactly step by step, and that's been 

helpful for other things that I've been searching for. 

But yes, you have to remember that path. 

Ms. Gogliotti: I know that only the Dose 

Reconstruction Subcommittee has been trained so 

far. So if you're not that committee, you might not 

even know what we're talking about. 

Chair Anderson: I was subtly trying to say that. I 

didn't want to say that I've been remiss at what I 

should be doing. I have not been there, and I don't 

know what I heard about it now. 

Member Beach: Well, and it's going to change too, 

isn't it. So if you train everybody, then I don't know 

if this is going to be the path that it's going to be 

from now on. I mean we can learn it, and then it 

may change. Is that correct? Or do we even -- 

Mr. Calhoun: Yes, there's no sense not learning this, 

because it's going to be here a while. 

Member Beach: Okay.
48 

Mr. Calhoun: There's not going to be any changes 

soon. We just recently spoke about trying to get 

you guys documents and whatnot. You're going to 

have to go there to get that.

Member Beach: Okay. So, yes, maybe we need to 

set something up. I guess Rashaun and Rose, if you 

guys can work that out, make it a little more formal 

so we can all learn together. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, I know that I spoke with Jim, and 

we're talking about doing one next week if anybody 

wanted to just join in on that. Otherwise, we can 

definitely set something up formally for the full 

Board. 

Member Beach: Okay. Maybe have a couple of 

different options available. When we have time, we 

can jump on them. That'd be great. 

Chair Anderson: Is it simple enough that if you do it 

over and over, you could record it to make it 

available -- 

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Anderson: -- for people to watch?

Ms. Gogliotti: Probably. 

Chair Anderson: Otherwise, you're kind of going to 

be the crunch point of having to do trainings for 

individuals or smaller groups, so you might want to 

think about can you put it together in a concise way 

so again you can train me. If I don't use it in the 

next two weeks, I'm going to forget, and you're 

going to have to train me again. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. I did make a slide show that a lot 

of people have found helpful -- 

Chair Anderson: Sure.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- that I can also provide you. 

Member Beach: What I found was the step-by-step 
49 

that I used that Lori sent out for the dose 

reconstruction and then doing it the first time using 

the step-by-step. And then going, like Andy said, I 

didn't use it for a month or two, and I went back 

and it's like, oh, my goodness. So I just pulled that 

back out, and it was helpful. To a point. Yes. 

Member Clawson: Also, too, you've got to download 

some different stuff to be able to go through it, too. 

You don't use your Internet Explorer anymore, and 

you got to get that Zscaler and go from there. So 

there's a few things you got to do to be able to do 

it. 

Chair Anderson: Okay, any other complaints people 

have that we want to share? Make work for staff. So 

I think we're near enough to the end, if there's 

nothing else, we'll have another meeting in 

February. There'll be a couple of groups before 

then, but not many. 

Rashaun, anything else?

Dr. Roberts: No, nothing further. No. Thank you. 

Member Beach: I make a motion that we adjourn 

our meeting.

Chair Anderson: I was going to say I'm hearing a 

meeting to adjourn. 

All in favor?

(Chorus of aye.)

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:39 p.m.)

 
50