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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, David 

Kotelchuck, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

JOEL ARANA, ORAU Team

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

LIZ BRACKETT, ORAU Team

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

GRADY CALHOUN, DCAS

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

JOSH FESTER

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

BETH ROLFES, DCAS

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

MATT SMITH, ORAU Team

JOHN STIVER, SC&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. 

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents 

Contents ....................................... 3

Welcome and Roll Call .......................... 4

Three Blind Case Reviews from Set 22 ........... 7

Final Case Review Issue Resolution for Sets 10-13; 

Hooker Electrochemical Case .................. 101

Case Review Issues Resolutions for Sets 14-18 (Oak 

Ridge, Paducah GDP, SRS, RFP, INL, NTS, AOO, and other 

Facilities) .................................. 158

Ajdourn ...................................... 225
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 10:44 A.M.

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome everyone, this is 

5 the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 Health, the Dose Reconstruction Review 

7 Subcommittee. 

8 And I apologize for the late start, we 

9 had some technical difficulties here. I am going 

10 to run through roll call. Dr. Poston, are you on 

11 the line yet? John Poston? 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: John said that 

13 he would be late. He won't be here --

14 MR. KATZ: Oh, I know, I know. But 

15 his late was going to be -- he should already be 

16 on. But, John Poston, are you on the line? 

17 (No response)

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, he's not yet. 

19 But I'm going to run through -- all of 

20 the other Board members are on. I'll mention 

21 their names and I'll run through their conflicts 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of interests to start with.

2 (Roll Call)

3 MR. KATZ: The agenda for today's 

4 meeting is posted on the NIOSH website, under 

5 meeting schedule, today's date, so you can see 

6 what's on the agenda. It's very simple though.

7 And, please, everyone on the line, 

8 mute your phones, except for whoever's speaking 

9 at the time. Press *6 to mute your phone, *6 to 

10 take your phone off of mute. 

11 And please, don't put this call on 

12 hold at any point, but hang up and dial back in 

13 if you need to. And then, Dave -- Dave, did you 

14 manage to get back on?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I did not. 

16 And I'm still doing different things that are 

17 coming on, and I don't quite understand it. 

18 However, what I would like to do is first say a 

19 word or two about the agenda.

20 I've had discussion with Rose 

21 Gogliotti, we have made a little bit of a change, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I wanted to note that before we started. We 

2 would like to start our first effort in the 

3 expedited process that had been discussed at our 

4 Board meeting. And we agreed that we would try 

5 to start out. 

6 So, on item number 3, the case review 

7 issue resolution. Instead of going back, as we 

8 traditionally have, finishing one at a time, we 

9 will go directly to the expedited order. Let's 

10 try that.

11 Rose convinced me that's there's a

12 better way to do it, to take the file that she sent 

13 you a while ago, about 10 days ago, and go in that 

14 order.

15 So, since I am having trouble -- for 

16 the record, since I'm having trouble getting on 

17 the Live Meeting, on the video but fine on audio, 

18 I have asked Wanda Munn if she would temporarily 

19 chair while I try to deal with the technical 

20 problems I'm having.

21 So, Wanda, if you would, would 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. 

7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 like to start chairing for item number 1, on the 

2 three blind case reviews in set 22?

3 Three Blind Case Reviews from Set 22

4 MEMBER MUNN: Alright, I need to ask, 

5 first of all, is anyone going to be operating the 

6 Live Meeting screen?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. This is Rose, 

8 I'll have the Live Meeting screen.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Good, alrighty. Are 

10 we up?

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If no one has any 

12 objections, why don't we start with the LANL case 

13 for the blind comparison? I believe Doug is on 

14 the line?

15 MEMBER MUNN: That would be fine. Do 

16 we have the document up?

17 MR. FARVER: Yes I'm here. 

18 MS. BURGOS: Excuse me. This is 

19 Zaida. For Dr. Kotelchuck, I sent him a link that 

20 should work. It should take you straight to the 

21 Live Meeting. Just put in your name and email.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, let's wait for 

2 just a moment to see if this will work.

3 MR. KATZ: Dave, did you hear that? 

4 Dave Kotelchuck, did you hear Zaida?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I did hear 

6 it. I'm calling back.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda, do go 

9 on.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Alright, very good. 

11 Let's just go ahead then. Who's leading us?

12 MR. FARVER: Doug Farver.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, Doug, it's yours. 

14 Go for it.

15 MR. FARVER: Okay. Rose, let's just 

16 go to the table.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The comparison 

18 table? This table, or the other table? 

19 MR. FARVER: There's a summary table 

20 -- that one. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Oh good, 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. 

9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Is that the one?

2 MEMBER MUNN: That's not the one that 

3 has all of them on it? You wanted --

4 MR. FARVER: I was looking for the one 

5 just for LANL. The one that shows the comparison 

6 report.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, okay.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This one?

9 MR. FARVER: Yes, that's the one. 

10 We'll start there. So, this is a government 

11 employee that worked at Los Alamos, with trips to 

12 Nevada Test Site from [identifying information 

13 redacted] through [identifying information 

14 redacted], working in [identifying information 

15 redacted] and then later on as a [identifying 

16 information redacted].

17 So it's about 36 years of information 

18 to deal with. And if we look at this table, this 

19 is a comparison between the SC&A numbers and the 

20 NIOSH numbers.

21 The person -- it says prostate, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the person had -- it's a [identifying information 

2 redacted] cancer. And we'll get to that in the 

3 next section. But we can look at the doses here 

4 and do a quick comparison. 

5 The electrons, pretty similar. A 

6 little difference in the photons. Neutrons, 

7 there was little difference. And we look down at 

8 the bigger differences that are going to be in the 

9 internal doses, which is typically what we see in 

10 the differences.

11 And that just gives you a little bit 

12 of a background. The total doses are not that 

13 much different, about a 2 rem difference. And 

14 you can see the total PoC of 46 versus 42.

15 In either case it was not compensable. 

16 Okay, we'll go on to the next page, Rose? 

17 As I mentioned, the person worked at 

18 Los Alamos and NTS, and there's some work 

19 locations given here.

20 And he was diagnosed in [identifying 

21 information redacted] with [identifying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information redacted] cancer, [identifying 

2 information redacted] and -- I actually did this 

3 case, and it was very interesting because it was 

4 my first [identifying information redacted] case 

5 that I worked on, and it's incredibly complex 

6 because you have to go through a number of 

7 compartments -- 15 compartments for external and 

8 30 compartments for medical X-rays and 19 

9 compartments for the internal dose. It's just 

10 incredibly time-consuming.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: Especially if you make a 

13 mistake. And then you go back and start over. 

14 So I have a great appreciation for these cases 

15 now.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and it's 

17 remarkable to me.

18 MR. FARVER: We reviewed the typical 

19 documentation for LANL and Nevada Test Site. And 

20 10 we talked about glove box correction factors, 

21 which we'll talk about later.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And Report 4, which is the report on 

2 [identifying information redacted], and gives 

3 the dose conversion factors, I believe, for 

4 [identifying information redacted]. And 

5 there's a big long table here, table 2.1, that 

6 goes through and shows who did what.

7 And we have a little difference in the 

8 work assumptions, and the locations. A lot of 

9 this will be taken from the CATI report. There's 

10 probably some little differences, but I'd rather 

11 go ahead and just talk about the individual doses 

12 because I think that'll make more sense than going 

13 through each item in a table.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I agree.

15 MR. FARVER: So if we go on to section 

16 2.1, recorded photon doses.

17 MS. LIN: Hey Doug?

18 MR. FARVER: Yes?

19 MS. LIN: This is Jenny, with OGC. 

20 Before we go any further, I just want to say a word 

21 of caution. Let's not release too much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information about this Energy worker.

2 So you're doing fine. But I'm 

3 looking at the document, and I just want to make 

4 sure that, while we're working of these 

5 documents, we're cautious about the amount of 

6 information that we release.

7 MR. FARVER: Okay, I'll try.

8 MS. LIN: No, not try, but do.

9 MR. FARVER: No, no, I mean I won't do 

10 it intentionally. In Los Alamos, we had reported 

11 photon doses for each year of employment, except 

12 for some time in the seventies and then later on 

13 in the nineties.

14 Both of the methods, NIOSH and SC&A 

15 used 250 keV photon energy. And since the 

16 employee worked as a chemical technician, we 

17 applied a glove box factor. 

18 And both NIOSH and SC&A applied a 

19 glove box correction factor of 2.19. The 

20 difference is when we applied it. NIOSH applied 

21 the correction factor through the beginning of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 1960, and for the recorded dose.

2 And SC&A began in 1976 through 1996, 

3 and applied a correction factor based on when the 

4 employee became a chemical technician.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, okay. That is the 

6 reason for the difference.

7 MR. FARVER: That is where your big 

8 difference is in the -- when we look at the 30 to 

9 250 keV photon dose. Where NIOSH came up with 13 

10 rem and SC&A came up with 11.

11 That is the difference right there. 

12 That's the primary difference. It's just the 

13 years of using the glove box correction factor, 

14 primarily.

15 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Do you 

16 all need to address something like that as it 

17 hits?

18 MR. FARVER: Scott, if you have 

19 something else to add, that's fine.

20 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, I can just tell you 

21 the reason that we applied the glove box factor 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is, we based it on the shallow-to-deep ratio. 

2 So, using that as an indicator that they may have 

3 been working in glove box factor, rather than just 

4 the change in their employment. So, that's the 

5 difference.

6 MR. FARVER: And we also based it on 

7 the shallow-to-deep for the years when he was a 

8 chemical tech. So it's the same method, just 

9 applied differently.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, that's good. 

11 Thank you.

12 MR. FARVER: Okay. So that's the big 

13 difference in the 30 to 250 keV photons. Any 

14 questions on those? We'll move on to the Nevada 

15 Test Site recorded photon dose.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Certainly not from 

17 here.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Anyone else? Any 

20 other Board members have any questions?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Doug, this is 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. 

16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Brad. I just was wondering how come you guys used 

2 different years versus what NIOSH did? What was 

3 the rationale behind that?

4 I understand what both of you did, but 

5 I was just wondering how come each one of you ended 

6 up with different years that you used it for.

7 MR. FARVER: Well, in general, it's 

8 applied when you look at the shallow-to-deep dose 

9 ratios. And if they're greater than 2.19, you 

10 would apply the glove box --- yes, you'd apply the 

11 glove box correction factor. Yes. So they did 

12 that for every year. We looked at it and said, 

13 well if there's more potential when they use a 

14 chemical technician, which began in 1976. 

15 But we looked at the years of 1976 

16 through 1996, and applied it to those years when 

17 the shallow-to-deep dosimeter readings were 

18 greater than 2.19.

19 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, so it wasn't 

20 -- okay, I'm understanding what you're saying 

21 there, it's just -- okay, I appreciate it. Thank 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you, go ahead.

2 MR. FARVER: Okay, the Nevada Test 

3 Site. With only a couple results that were 

4 recorded, both of us used the same assumptions. 

5 NIOSH came up with 760 or so millirem, and we came 

6 up with 800.

7 And the difference there is going to 

8 be in the distribution. NIOSH used a combination 

9 of Weibull and normal distribution. And we used 

10 a Weibull distribution. 

11 And that accounts for a, you know, a 

12 40 millirem difference in dose. Other than that, 

13 they were calculated the same.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Still, 40 millirem is 

15 not that big a deal.

16 MR. FARVER: No, and it's just 

17 basically a difference in distributions.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay, we can go on to 

20 2.1.2, which is the recorded and modeled neutron 

21 dose. At Los Alamos, we only had positive 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 measurements in three years, 1986, 1988 and 1996.

2 And all of the other years were zero, 

3 treated as a mixed dose. Both NIOSH and SC&A 

4 calculated everything pretty much the same way. 

5 The large difference there is -- I'll go back to 

6 my notes.

7 The difference in the years in using 

8 the glove box correction factor, like we talked 

9 about on the photon doses. That was a large 

10 difference in the dose.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: And, also for the later 

13 years, 1986 through 1996, NIOSH assigned the 

14 recorded dose. And I will take the hit. I 

15 missed the five results that were there. And I 

16 didn't assign any recorded dose.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. FARVER: They were there and I 

19 missed them. But that's the big differences. 

20 The glove box factor and a mistake on my part.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Essentially the 3 rem.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: And it worked out to be 

2 3 rem, an eight percent difference.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Just for the record, Dr. 

5 Parson has joined us. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, good. Hi, John.

7 MR. FARVER: And, again, just let's 

8 see if he's looking into it. If we look at table 

9 2.1.3, these are the [identifying information 

10 redacted] neutron dose conversion factors. 

11 And this comes from report 4. And if 

12 you've never take a look at report 4, it's an 

13 interesting report. You might want to just look 

14 at it.

15 That there's a lot of your different 

16 parameters. And this is an example of using 

17 Weibull distribution and the three parameters in 

18 Weibull distribution. 

19 And then, just to remind you, if 

20 you're looking at an IREP table that uses a 

21 Weibull distribution, you would, in general, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 adding up the last two parameters would give you 

2 the dose. That's kind of how we add it up.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

4 MR. FARVER: I just wanted to point 

5 that out. It is the whole document and, at the 

6 end of the document, they have all of these 

7 different conversion factors.

8 Okay, let's move on to -- oh, and there 

9 were no neutron doses at Nevada Test Site. So we 

10 can move on to the recorded electron doses, 

11 section 2.1.3.

12 At Los Alamos, both NIOSH and SC&A 

13 identified the recorded positive or greater than 

14 LOD over 2.0 values for electrons, for the years 

15 shown there - sixties through nineties.

16 We both applied the [identifying 

17 information redacted] electron dose conversion 

18 factor from report 4, as shown below. And we both 

19 came up with pretty much the same dose.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: One was 55 millirem, one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was 56 millirem. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: It doesn't get much 

3 closer than that.

4 MR. FARVER: So that was pretty 

5 straightforward. At Nevada Test Site -- let's 

6 see -- the TBD recommends using beta-gamma ratio 

7 of 1.04 for signups before 1966.

8 Both NIOSH and SC&A multiplied the 

9 single recorded photon dose by 1.04, to arrive at 

10 keV of .69. And for Nevada Test Site -- I was 

11 looking at the wrong one. It's about 6 millirem 

12 in both cases. Sorry about that. I was looking 

13 at the wrong one.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's quite alright.

15 MR. FARVER: Essentially the same. 

16 Both did it the same way, came up with the same 

17 number. So, not too exciting there. We'll try 

18 to move on to a little bit more exciting material.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

20 (Laughter)

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's good. 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. 

22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's an awful lot of that in this case.

2 MR. FARVER: There is. And, boy, you 

3 sure don't want to make a mistake.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: Missed photon doses, 

6 section 2.1.4. I'm going to move down to the -- 

7 Okay, and as we do with missed photon doses, we 

8 look for were the zeroes less than LOD over 2.0 

9 values. 

10 And it looks like we both came up with 

11 the same number, 321 badge exchange cycles. The 

12 difference is going to be --

13 MEMBER MUNN: The difference is what?

14 MR. FARVER: The difference is going 

15 to be -- I think -- oh, we're back to our glove 

16 box correction factor again. NIOSH assigned it 

17 more years than SC&A did. So, regular result in 

18 a little higher dose.

19 And the other difference is NIOSH used 

20 the [identifying information redacted] dose 

21 conversion factors from report 4. And SC&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. 

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 applied the lymphoid dose conversion factor from 

2 OTIB-12.

3 The OTIB-12, to refresh your memory, 

4 talks about using the Monte Carlo calculations 

5 and it provides dose conversion factors to come 

6 very close to the Monte Carlo calculation values.

7 So that's why we need to use OTIB-12. 

8 To be honest with you, I am not sure which is the 

9 proper one to use, whether it should use the 

10 report 4 or the OTIB-12.

11 I'm kind of thinking maybe report 4 is 

12 the best one to use.

13 MR. SIEBERT: That is correct. 

14 Because if you have the blended DCF that includes 

15 all of the different organs, rather than just the 

16 [identifying information redacted] organ, since 

17 that's not the only organ of interest for 

18 [identifying information redacted].

19 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Scott.

20 MR. FARVER: Thank you. So you'll 

21 see that as a difference as we go on here, where 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we use an OTIB-12 version as opposed to report 4. 

2 You'll see some rather large differences, which 

3 I will point out.

4 In this case, it's not that large - 3.9 

5 to 3.7 rem for the missed photon dose. Nevada 

6 Test Site, there were several years for missed 

7 photon doses.

8 We do it the same way. We count up the 

9 number of exchange cycles and so forth. And 

10 NIOSH came up with 42, we came up with 41. I 

11 thought that's pretty good.

12 MEMBER MUNN: That's fine, yes.

13 MR. FARVER: And we'll look at the 

14 total doses, about 500 millirem to 600 millirem. 

15 And it's going to come down to the dose conversion 

16 factors of using OTIB-12 versus report 4.

17 We looked at missed neutron doses 

18 next, section 2.1.5 of Los Alamos. I'm looking 

19 for the number of zeroes. Okay, NIOSH counted 

20 183 neutron zeroes, SC&A counted 194.

21 Both of the methods were pretty much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the same calculations. I went through the 

2 calculations yesterday, just to verify that 

3 everything is pretty much the same, all the way 

4 up to where you get to the dose conversion factor.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. FARVER: And, let's see, we've 

7 got a rather large difference here, between 33 rem 

8 and 19 rem total. And then that is the difference 

9 in the dose conversion factor because the dose 

10 conversion factor SC&A used from OTIB-12 was 

11 1.277.

12 Now the dose conversion factors in 

13 report 4 is something like .4. It's kind of a 

14 Weibull distribution, you would sum the two. But 

15 it works out to be like .4 of the dose. 

16 And that accounts for a large 

17 difference in our doses. We're using different 

18 dose conversion factors. But other than that, 

19 getting up to that point, you know, counting the 

20 zeroes and the number of, you know, applying the 

21 ICRP factor. It's all done very straightforward 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and the same.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Not being much of a 

3 statistician, I may be asking a question which is 

4 obvious to those of you who are. But it's not 

5 obvious to me why there seems to be that much of 

6 a difference in the two conversion factors 

7 between these two methods.

8 And is there any absolutely concrete 

9 reason for choosing one or the other when doing 

10 these kinds of --

11 MR. FARVER: Well, I think Scott 

12 described it when he said that the report 4 dose 

13 conversion factor takes into account all of the 

14 different compartments, because the B 

15 lymphocytes could be in many different 

16 compartments.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, yes.

18 MR. FARVER: As opposed to a lymphoid 

19 DCF from OTIB-12, which is a single location. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: And, so, I guess my 

21 bottom line question then is, why would one choose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the other --

2 MR. FARVER: The lymphoid

3 [identifying information redacted]? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Only the [identifying 

5 information redacted].

6 MR. FARVER: Because the person doing 

7 this probably wasn't that familiar with it.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

9 MR. FARVER: And since it was me, I 

10 can say that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Alright, that's 

12 reason enough. That's a good explanation.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is 

14 Dave. I've been on the line. It just dawned on 

15 me, also, that there's such a large difference. 

16 Let's say, experience is that you calculated the 

17 better one now. How do we avoid this in the 

18 future?

19 MR. KATZ: Dave, I think you're 

20 misunderstanding. Because Doug used the wrong 

21 calculation, which is why he got a 50 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 greater dose. 

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

3 Alright, okay. Thank you. By the way, Wanda, 

4 I've been on for a while, and all is well. But 

5 I would prefer if you continue to chair, at least 

6 until we get to the next blind. So, I'm just 

7 commenting here.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Alright, I'll be glad 

9 to have you take over anytime though, Dave. You 

10 don't have to worry.

11 (Laughter)

12 MR. FARVER: And I think this comes 

13 down to training and familiarity with working on 

14 [identifying information redacted] cases. Like 

15 I said, this was the first one I've ever looked 

16 at from scratch to try and reproduce.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I also want to point 

18 out that [identifying information redacted]

19 cancers were not covered until recently. I 

20 believe it was in the past few years.

21 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct, 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. 

29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe no more than two years, if my memory 

2 serves, which it often does not.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And this is only the 

4 second case that we have seen that was 

5 [identifying information redacted], at least --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's a very 

7 good point. Dave, that's a very good point to 

8 make.

9 MR. FARVER: I think we reviewed one 

10 case, but this was our first blind case, and only 

11 our second case of even looking at [identifying 

12 information redacted]. And so, we're early on 

13 the learning curve.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, and these are 

15 beasts when you look through the dose 

16 reconstruction report. They are very 

17 complicated, even from a reviewer's perspective 

18 it's very difficult to follow.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's obvious, 

20 certainly.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very good point.

2 MR. FARVER: The good news is that, 

3 you know, if you take away the dose conversion 

4 factor issue, everything's pretty much the same. 

5 I mean, it's very, very similar. 

6 Except for that glove box correction 

7 factor in those years. And I thought that was 

8 pretty interesting, that things were very 

9 similar.

10 MEMBER MUNN: As a matter of fact, 

11 that's a great comfort to see that. It's 

12 remarkable really.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay, so that's -- where 

14 are we at? That was the missed neutron doses for 

15 Los Alamos. And now we can move on to the missed 

16 doses for NTS.

17 And, let's see if there's any 

18 difference there. So you're looking at about a 

19 50 percent difference between 150 and 250 

20 millirem between NIOSH and SC&A.

21 And this, again, is going to come down 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the differences in using report 4 or using 

2 OTIB-12. That's it, everything else looks the 

3 same.

4 MEMBER MUNN: That's marvelous. 

5 MR. FARVER: Okay. Missed electron 

6 doses, section 2.1.6. Exactly the same. Both 

7 methods counted zero, with 14 zero readings. So, 

8 everything's going to be the same.

9 And, for this one, I'm thinking we 

10 used the [identifying information redacted] BCS 

11 from report 4 next to table 2.4. I think that's 

12 what we did. And offhand, I cannot tell you why 

13 I chose to use it in some cases and not the other.

14 I don't remember. And I remember if 

15 it was a Weibull distribution, I had to report 4. 

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, okay.

17 MR. FARVER: And then the numbers are 

18 the same for the missed electron dose. And, we 

19 can go on to the occupational medical doses. But 

20 that's pretty uninteresting, because they're 

21 exactly the same.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Just what we'd 

2 like them to be.

3 MR. FARVER: Yes. I mean, that's the 

4 same number of exams, and it's pretty 

5 straightforward and the numbers are going to come 

6 out the same.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, great.

8 MR. FARVER: Los Alamos occupational 

9 internal doses. Let's see. The employee had 

10 several chest counts and 30 or so urine bioassays.

11 We both looked at it in very similar 

12 ways using the same plutonium mixtures. NIOSH 

13 based acute intakes on the midpoint between 

14 positive samples and one negative sample.

15 And then they assumed three chronic 

16 intakes with a start date assumed as the midpoint 

17 between the first positive sample of a series of 

18 two or more positive samples and a prior negative

19 sample. 

20 And then the end date was assumed to 

21 be the final positive sample in the series 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. 

33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was submitted. And that's pretty much how they 

2 determined their dose.

3 We both used the plutonium mix intake 

4 calculator to come up with the other nuclides 

5 based on the 239 urine data. 

6 They then compared their doses to the 

7 lung count data. They looked at it as Type S 

8 solubility and then compared to the lung count 

9 data. And when they looked at the lung count 

10 data, the Type S material, it overestimated lung 

11 count data.

12 Therefore, lung count data and Type S 

13 material were used to limit the calculated 

14 intakes. So basically it compared the intakes 

15 with the lung counts and the urine data to get them 

16 to match up. 

17 They still assume the Type S material, 

18 but changed it to match up where it would maybe 

19 align with the lung count data. And then one --

20 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. FARVER: -- to that is we did 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. 

34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a little differently. 

2 We did it pretty much the same way 

3 using the intake rate calculator. And we also 

4 compared calculated plutonium intakes based on 

5 the urine data for Type M and Type F intakes.

6 And then we compared that to the lung 

7 count data. And when we looked at the lung count 

8 data, the lung count data associated with a Type 

9 M plutonium predicted the values that fell under 

10 the americium MDA.

11 So it matched better than it did the 

12 Type S plutonium. The Type M matched better than 

13 Type F. So we used the Type M plutonium. Now, 

14 that's a long way of going around it to say that 

15 the big difference is they chose Type S and we 

16 chose Type M plutonium.

17 MEMBER MUNN: And did you have any 

18 difference of opinion with regard to their use of 

19 the Super S for -- which nuclide was it?

20 MR. FARVER: The plutonium?

21 MEMBER MUNN: 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. 

35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Yes. Now if we would 

2 have chosen Type S, we would have gone on to the 

3 next step, which would have been to apply the Type 

4 Super S.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: But since we chose Type 

7 M, we didn't go --

8 MEMBER MUNN: That's why. Okay, 

9 very good. Got it.

10 MR. FARVER: And that is going to be 

11 your big difference between 14 rem and 20 rem in 

12 the dose. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: Was I not listening 

14 hard enough when we were talking about the 

15 difference between choosing Type S and Type M?

16 MR. FARVER: You mean why we chose 

17 Type M?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, you have a 

19 rationale there?

20 MR. FARVER: Yes, we modeled the 

21 plutonium based on the plutonium urine data. We 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 modeled the intakes in IMBA.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

3 MR. FARVER: Type M and Type F 

4 plutonium.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

6 MR. FARVER: We then modeled the 

7 americium 241 lung count data in IMBA, which would 

8 mean it was Type M or Type S plutonium. The Type 

9 S significantly overestimated the early 

10 americium-241 chest count data.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, gotcha.

12 MR. FARVER: So we kind of said, ah 

13 that doesn't match.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Alright.

15 MR. FARVER: Then we went to Type M.

16 MEMBER MUNN: And it did. Yes, 

17 better.

18 MR. FARVER: Much better.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

20 MR. FARVER: And to explain, NIOSH 

21 used a different approach. They modeled it under 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Type S.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

3 MR. FARVER: And then they looked at 

4 the americium data. And it was overestimating, 

5 like we saw with ours, overestimating the 

6 americium-241 lung count or chest count data.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

8 MR. FARVER: So they lowered their 

9 intake value to come within the range of the 

10 americium-241 chest count data.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. Got it. Thank 

12 you.

13 MR. FARVER: Okay? And that 

14 accounts for the large difference in the dose.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

16 MR. KATZ: Just something I want to 

17 ask, Scott?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Go ahead.

19 MR. KATZ: What's the correct way to 

20 handle this?

21 MR. SIEBERT: I'd be happy to. 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. 

38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're probably not going to be surprised to hear 

2 me say that the way we did it is the consistent 

3 way that we always do it, and that is the correct 

4 way to do it.

5 As Doug said, you know, we took the 

6 same steps and determined that Type S, based on 

7 urine, over-predicts the lung count. Then we 

8 take the additional extra step of saying, well 

9 let's use the lung count as the limiting bioassay 

10 for Type S plutonium, rather than assuming it just 

11 does not fit based on the urine.

12 In that case, what we do is we use the 

13 chest count to determine the Type F intake. And 

14 we don't even have to take it back and project it 

15 back to the urine, because we know it's going to 

16 be lower than the urine samples because, based on 

17 urine, it over-predicted the chest counts.

18 So, based on the chest counts, it's 

19 going to be below the urine sample. So that's the 

20 consistent way we deal with plutonium that has 

21 americium chest counts as well.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But we always take that additional 

2 step and then determine, rather than ruling out 

3 Type S -- we determine if Type S, based on limiting 

4 the chest count, still could give a larger dose 

5 than the Type M.

6 And as Wanda mentioned, we also 

7 considered Type Super S for the lung and thoracic 

8 lymph node. And that Type S intake and Super S 

9 for those actually gave larger doses than Type M.

10 And that's why our doses are much 

11 larger than SC&A's in this example. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, gotcha.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Scott, is this 

14 procedure-wise, or is that because of the 

15 training?

16 MR. SIEBERT: Oh, that's definitely 

17 that in OTIB-60, using the limiting bioassays. 

18 You have to compare them to each other. But just 

19 because one over-predicts the other doesn't mean 

20 we can rule out a certain type.

21 We have to determine the maximum 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. 

40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that would be consistent with both types. 

2 MR. FARVER: And I agree with you, 

3 because your goal is to maximize the dose. That 

4 is the approach that will maximize the dose.

5 MEMBER MUNN: But it's not the best 

6 science.

7 MR. FARVER: If your goal is to do the 

8 best bit of both types of your lung count and your 

9 urine data, then I believe the SC&A approach is 

10 better. But it will give you a lower dose. 

11 MR. SIEBERT: I do not agree. If Liz 

12 would like to jump in on that, she's welcome to. 

13 MS. BRACKETT: Right, this is Liz 

14 Brackett. I guess I would just say that, since 

15 this is all missed dose, everything -- the intake 

16 rate just has to follow the predictions -- the 

17 predictions need to fall below the MDAs. 

18 So we are coming up with the largest 

19 intake rate that does not disagree with the 

20 bioassay results. And that is our goal. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds reasonable 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. 

41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 me. 

2 MS. BRACKETT: You know, if these 

3 were positive results, it would be different 

4 because we would be trying to hit a particular 

5 point. But if you're doing missed dose, you just 

6 need to go somewhere between zero and the result.

7 So it is very different than if you 

8 have actual positive results. In that case, what 

9 Doug said would be the way we would go.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I follow.

11 MR. KATZ: Can I just follow the basic 

12 principle in the face of uncertainty, you do 

13 what's claimant-favorable.

14 MS. BRACKETT: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Right.

16 MR. FARVER: Moving on with the 

17 tritium dose, which I believe is on the next page, 

18 Rose. This was easy. There was 26 samples. We 

19 both came up with the same number.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent. Next.

21 MR. FARVER: Environmental dose for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Los Alamos. We were coming up with very similar 

2 numbers, between 469 and 407 millirem. So it's 

3 pretty close. 

4 I'm trying to think of what the big 

5 difference was here. I looked at this. Hang on. 

6 Not much difference. 

7 MR. SIEBERT: I think part of the 

8 contributing difference is we did consider Super 

9 S along in thoracic lymph nodes, which you guys 

10 didn't.

11 MR. FARVER: For the environmental?

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

13 MR. FARVER: Oh, okay. That'll do 

14 it, because it looks like we considered Type M, 

15 I believe. Plutonium. 

16 And we used the typical CADW tool for 

17 environmental intakes and the information from 

18 the Technical Basis Document. I'm trying to 

19 think if there was a difference in years, but I 

20 don't think there was.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it sounds as 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 though --

2 MR. FARVER: Oh, yes, there was --

3 excuse me, Wanda.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

5 MR. FARVER: NIOSH did 471 through 

6 2001 and SC&A did 482 through 1996. So that's 

7 going to account for your 60 millirems.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. FARVER: Mostly.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Which is reasonable. 

11 Yes.

12 MR. FARVER: Yes. So we have just a 

13 little difference in the year period.

14 MEMBER MUNN: And that's going to be 

15 a decision that would be made case-by-case 

16 anyhow. So, yes, alright. Any comment from 

17 anyone? If not, we'll go on to the next item.

18 MR. FARVER: Okay. Let's go on to

19 the Nevada Test Site. Nevada Test Site internal 

20 dose, it looks like the employee only had a couple 

21 of urine samples for cesium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the difference is going to be in 

2 the assumptions that were used to determine the 

3 intake. Okay, I won't -- the difference is going 

4 to be in the intake date. NIOSH assumed the date 

5 of beginning of 1988 and SC&A assumed one later 

6 in the year of 1988 based on certain information 

7 that was in the file.

8 And it's in the report there. I just 

9 don't want to say the name of the --

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's fine.

11 MR. FARVER: So we believe it was 

12 related to that test, and that's why we chose that 

13 date. And that accounts for the difference in 

14 the millirem. Otherwise, it was cesium-137 --

15 MEMBER MUNN: Well, again, minor 

16 differences. 

17 MR. FARVER: Pretty much.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Reasonable.

19 MR. FARVER: And then the last one is 

20 going to be the environmental internal dose. And 

21 we came up with 4 millirem, NIOSH came up with 75 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 millirem.

2 I believe part of that is at least from 

3 the -- NIOSH considered the Super S solubility for 

4 the environmental dose, and SC&A did not. 

5 And also, we applied -- we used 10 

6 percent of the inhalation and ingestion intakes 

7 from the table A7 and A12 of the Technical Basis 

8 Document when we used the CADW workbook.

9 And I can tell you why we did that. 

10 Because if you go into that workbook and you 

11 choose best estimate, it'll come up with the 10 

12 percent of the value. 

13 I believe that's how it worked. It's 

14 been a while. But anyway, those two factors come 

15 down to a difference of 70 millirem in the 

16 environmental dose.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. And what does 

18 that leave us?

19 MR. FARVER: Other than that, we have 

20 the summary conclusion, which just compares the 

21 two doses and the two PoCs --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's what we 

2 wanted to see.

3 MR. FARVER: And they're fairly 

4 similar in some case. And the other cases we 

5 talked about as why they're not similar. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. And I appreciate 

7 that very much. It's interesting that the 

8 differences are astonishingly small for a 

9 complicated case of this magnitude, in my view.

10 And the fact that the SC&A calculation 

11 comes up with a total PoC of approximately four 

12 percent less. In any case, does anyone have any 

13 comments or questions?

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Dave. I also 

15 -- given the differences, particularly with the 

16 next dose, that NIOSH has the higher PoC. And 

17 that is always more comforting to me in the sense 

18 that we are supposed to be claimant-friendly.

19 And so, with the real difference that 

20 -- it's comforting to see the difference, and of 

21 course agree with respect to the compensation.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right, well the difference 

2 would have been even greater but for the mistakes, 

3 right? I mean, the NIOSH dose would have been far 

4 higher than SC&A.

5 But can I ask, related to that 

6 procedural thing, is Rose or someone -- I just 

7 can't recall, are we getting a postscript for each 

8 of these?

9 Because it seems like -- I know other 

10 Board members are very interested in these cases 

11 -- and the current, you know, comparison from SC&A 

12 doesn't cover what gets discussed here. 

13 And the transcripts are too much to go 

14 through. But, Rose, are you writing like a 

15 postscript for each of these cases to explain what 

16 was wrong and how that relates to the differences 

17 or similarity, whatever it is?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I was not planning 

19 that, but we can certainly do that. In the past, 

20 what we've done is created a memo when there were 

21 significant differences that we were unable 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. 

48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resolve during the meeting.

2 But we can certainly do a summary for 

3 each case if the Board would like that.

4 MR. KATZ: I mean, Dave, I would just 

5 recommend that for every case. I mean, some of 

6 them are very easy, where everything we're saying 

7 is a couple sentence memo.

8 But I think we need a closure memo that 

9 explains what was learned from each case. 

10 Otherwise, the other Board members are really 

11 left in the dark on these.

12 And I know some of them are very 

13 interested in these. Particularly, the ones 

14 that seem to have real differences, not 

15 necessarily in the total or in the specifics, 

16 whichever. 

17 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, this is 

18 Kathy Behling. The other thing that we have done 

19 in the past is put together a comparison table for 

20 like the 17th set.

21 And we discussed this, I think, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 several meetings ago when we're completely done 

2 with presenting these cases. I had updated that 

3 comparison table with a summary statement in 

4 there.

5 Now I don't know if that's going to be 

6 enough for the Board members. But it was to try 

7 to identify, specifically, those areas where 

8 there were differences and reach an approach that 

9 I could take.

10 That has been done in the past for the 

11 previous line sets.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I just think in many 

13 cases, we've just sort of avoided the issue of 

14 what's correct or not correct. And I think that 

15 needs to be made clear, where that's resolved, 

16 where there is a correct approach.

17 I think, for significant differences, 

18 I think that needs to be spoken to. Dave, you're 

19 the Chair, I'm not trying to take your role. But 

20 I think that documentation's important for the 

21 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. 

50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: Ted, let me ask. Don't 

2 you think that the addition of a sentence or two 

3 to the type of report that Kathy was referring to, 

4 because I barely remember it but I seem to recall 

5 it being fairly --

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm satisfied 

7 with the tables that we've had in the past, and 

8 paragraphs down below. I recognize, Ted, what 

9 you're saying.

10 Maybe I'm a little afraid of tasking 

11 a fair large task. In a way, maybe the way to do 

12 it would be when the Subcommittee identifies some 

13 significant differences.

14 And we certainly have done so here. 

15 That we ask specifically that a memo be developed. 

16 That way, the Subcommittee -- there will not be 

17 a memo for every single one, but only where there 

18 seems to be major differences.

19 That would, I think, may be a 

20 reasonable way of doing it.

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, I agree, David. 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. 

51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 think that's fine. Because the assumption is 

2 that the ones that don't get memos, that 

3 everything was consistent, then there's no reason 

4 to write the two sentences. Whichever way is 

5 fine.

6 I just think that those -- with the 

7 information learned, we'd benefit if it's 

8 captured somewhere other than the transcript.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think that's 

10 a good idea. And let's specifically request that 

11 for this one. A lot of times though, we do 

12 differences.

13 And so, the differences should be 

14 judged to be of special importance to the Board. 

15 Here, I think we agree. So, okay. And, also, I 

16 like the idea that the Subcommittee would agree 

17 to that, rather than having just a memo if you will 

18 every time. So let's start with this one.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's say when 

21 we get to finally approving for the Subcommittee 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll have the addendum that this one will get a 

2 special write-up. And just put a little star, 

3 and then give that some reference, when you do the 

4 table give reference to where people can read 

5 about the difference. Okay?

6 MR. KATZ: Okay.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Sounds okay to me, 

8 Dave.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, 

10 Wanda, will you --

11 MEMBER MUNN: I think we're done with 

12 this one, if you're ready to take over, David?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, I am. 

14 And I thank you, very much, Wanda. 

15 MEMBER MUNN: You're welcome.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I finally got 

17 in, and I did get in most of the discussion.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Hey Dave, can I make 

19 a comment on this last case, real quick? This is 

20 Brad.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By all means.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER CLAWSON: I just want to 

2 compliment both sides on this. You know, this is 

3 a very difficult case. And there's a lot of 

4 nuances to it that are very fine.

5 But Doug, you did a marvelous job in 

6 presenting it. But I'd like also like to 

7 compliment Scott and Liz, in their clarity of how 

8 they explained why their method was and what they 

9 did. It was just a very good job. You did a fine 

10 job.

11 MR. FARVER: Thanks.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe I'll 

13 make one more comment as we close. When we 

14 discuss types of cancer, sometimes those have a 

15 personal identifying quality.

16 And Jenny Lin said this in the 

17 beginning. The particular type of cancer that 

18 we're dealing with here is one of the types of 

19 cancer is specific enough that, essentially, we 

20 need to be very careful of privacy.

21 And I think we should try, where we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can, to avoid discussing the type of cancer. I 

2 see no way around it here. But let's, as we go 

3 on, let's try not to talk about the type of cancer 

4 if it's a rare cancer.

5 And I just suggest that to the 

6 Subcommittee members with NIOSH and SC&A. 

7 Again, that can't always be done, and it was not 

8 done here because I think we had no other 

9 alternative, to have a robust discussion.

10 MEMBER MUNN: If we're going to have 

11 to discuss, we have identify. It's that simple.

12 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, it is. How can 

13 we discuss something that's --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe Jenny 

15 can comment on that. Because you're right, and 

16 I accept that we did it here because we had to do 

17 it, to have a discussion that would merit it.

18 But many times the cancers are -- once 

19 in a while, there are cancers that are not so 

20 common. And by discussing them, we may infringe 

21 on some privacy. Jenny, would you want to say 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something about that topic?

2 MS. LIN: I think talking about -- I 

3 think you guys are right, in terms of being 

4 cautious about there not being information you 

5 want to talk about in a case.

6 We can definitely have more 

7 conversation about how to discuss this case 

8 during the public meeting. And I would recommend 

9 that if we have a sideline discussion about this, 

10 rather than me trying to render a legal opinion 

11 based on hypotheticals, or based on those cases, 

12 discuss more about this case on the record.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That sounds 

14 like a good idea. So, could you perhaps develop 

15 a memo to send to the Subcommittee members about 

16 how to handle this the best? Not perfectly, but 

17 best.

18 MS. LIN: Sure. I mean, we can talk 

19 more about it.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

21 good. And that deals with the concern, as well 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as the fact that sometimes we have to talk about 

2 the cancer --

3 MS. LIN: In the two remaining cases, 

4 we have some much more common cancers.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, indeed. 

6 I noticed that. So can the Subcommittee, based 

7 on this discussion, thank you Wanda, can we now 

8 accept that and go on to the next one?

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: Sure.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Which 

11 one should we go to next?

12 MR. FARVER: Excuse me, can I just say 

13 something. This is Doug.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Surely.

15 MR. FARVER: Since I went over this 

16 case, I would appreciate input, offline or on the 

17 phone call, on types of things we should say or 

18 shouldn't say. 

19 And we can use this case as an example 

20 if you would like. But I think we should have 

21 some discussion about that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I agree.

2 MR. FARVER: Because I'm not sure 

3 what I can say. I try not to be specific on dates. 

4 And maybe I'm emphasizing the wrong thing. And 

5 so I would appreciate some input, using some of 

6 the actual cases that we do.

7 MS. LIN: Sure, I think for the Dose 

8 Reconstruction Subcommittee, it's definitely 

9 very difficult because you guys are working from 

10 documents that haven't been redacted.

11 MR. FARVER: Yes.

12 MS. LIN: You're working from the 

13 original source documents, basically, unredacted 

14 and documents that haven't gone through peer 

15 review.

16 And even if these documents had gone 

17 through peer review, we'd be so heavily 

18 redacting, it might render a document 

19 meaningless.

20 So I definitely understand the 

21 difficulty of having to engage in a public meeting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where you deal with a lot of data. So, the 

2 general rule of thumb, something to keep in mind 

3 for the rest of the meeting, is that we try to 

4 re-frame connecting information that will allow 

5 a reasonable person to discern the identity of 

6 that worker.

7 Okay, that's usually the general rule 

8 of thumb. But every information that's 

9 specifically talking about them, such as their 

10 case information, social security, date of birth, 

11 these personally identifiable information, those 

12 are strictly prohibited.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We don't even include 

14 those in our report.

15 MS. LIN: Actually, in the report, it 

16 is included in here, such as the case number. So, 

17 I mean, even without a case number, if you coupled 

18 someone's location --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think what's 

20 so great in drawing us back into --

21 (Telephonic Interference) 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- let's just say that I would ask that 

2 we just simply think -- you think about that memo 

3 and send it to us and, of course, SC&A and NIOSH 

4 who are doing the calculations.

5 But I think further discussion is not 

6 helpful here.

7 MS. LIN: Yes.

8 MR. FARVER: No, I was just getting at 

9 that she might want to use an actual case and say 

10 these things are okay to say, and these may you 

11 not want to. 

12 It sort of gives us some specific 

13 guidance from things we've already experienced.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, let her 

15 do the memo first. And then after we get the 

16 memo, if we find that it's still leaving us 

17 hanging and we'd like something more specific, 

18 then please make that recommendation too.

19 MR. FARVER: Okay.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And then she 

21 will provide that to us.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. FARVER: Okay.

2 MS. LIN: David, that's -- whether I 

3 can issue a memo or not, let's talk more about that 

4 and I'll work Dr. Melius and the DFO. Okay?

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, 

6 excellent, I appreciate that. Great. Alright, 

7 so what is the next line -- by the way, it's 10 

8 minutes to 12 Eastern Daylight Time. 

9 Should we start another case and let's 

10 wait until 1:00 Eastern Time, or do people want 

11 to break for lunch? Do I have suggestions as to 

12 whether we should go ahead now and start the next 

13 one?

14 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I think 

15 we covered the toughest one that we have 

16 immediately in front of us.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think so.

18 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think the next 

19 one will be quite as complicated. Perhaps I'm 

20 incorrect about that, but I expect the next one 

21 to go along fairly quickly. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I would think a half hour for us to 

2 wrap up the next one, right?

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That would be 

4 good. SC&A folks, can you pick the one that we 

5 expect to do more rapidly?

6 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Rose, this 

7 is Kathy. I think the Metals and Controls -- I 

8 was just going to interject that I think I could 

9 do the Metals and Controls in probably a half an 

10 hour.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine, 

12 I'll go with that.

13 MS. BEHLING: If that's okay with 

14 you?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Absolutely.

16 MS. BEHLING: Okay, I'll wait for 

17 Rose to bring this up. And now I'm going to try 

18 to be very cautious. And if I step over the line, 

19 somebody jump in here. I'm nervous.

20 (Laughter)

21 MEMBER MUNN: Don't be nervous. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You're an old hand at this, Kathy.

2 MS. BEHLING: Okay, this particular 

3 case, as we just mentioned, is for the Metals and 

4 Controls facility. And I'm just going to, very 

5 briefly if you don't mind, because I don't think 

6 we have seen many metals and controls cases.

7 I went back through my records and I 

8 don't know that we've reviewed many. And this is 

9 an AWE facility that is in Attleboro, MA. And to 

10 just give you a little history as to what this 

11 company did.

12 Between 1962 and 1965, Metals and 

13 Controls fabricated enriched uranium fuel 

14 elements for a variety of government contracts. 

15 They also fabricated uranium foils for reactor 

16 experiments and fuel components.

17 They fabricated complete reactor 

18 cores for the Naval Reactor Program. And they 

19 fabricated uranium fuel elements for 

20 experimental and research reactors. 

21 The records also showed that there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were some shipments of depleted uranium between 

2 Rocky Flats and Metals and Controls between 1955 

3 and 1958.

4 They also dealt with some thorium, 

5 although based on the literature that NIOSH has 

6 uncovered, there's some question as to the dates 

7 associated with their thorium handling.

8 But Metals and Controls supplied 

9 thorium wheel strips for criticality 

10 experiments, source tests and reactivity tests. 

11 The thorium was vacuum melted and cast into slab 

12 ingots, and then rolled to desired thicknesses.

13 And then, finally, during 1965 

14 through 1967, the manufacturing process included 

15 radium of luminescent material, a component in 

16 electrical switches.

17 So that just gives you a little 

18 understanding as to the facility itself and what 

19 they did. In this particular case, the 

20 individual that we're dealing with, the employee, 

21 only worked during the residual period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that was after the 1967 period, 

2 starting in 1968. The individual was a 

3 [identifying information redacted] and developed 

4 the cancer, which I'm not sure I should mentioned, 

5 in [identifying information redacted], was 

6 diagnosed with the cancer.

7 It was [identifying information 

8 redacted] cancer. I guess that's more common, so 

9 I hope I'm okay in mentioning that. Both NIOSH 

10 and SC&A used various documents, such as OTIB-70, 

11 which is the dose reconstruction for residual 

12 radioactivity, on the periods for AWE facilities.

13 They also used OTIB-5, which select 

14 films and what organs to select the ICD-9 codes 

15 to select for the internal and external models and 

16 the external implementation guide.

17 This particular facility does not 

18 have any specific exposure matrix or Site 

19 Profile. But what NIOSH has been doing is 

20 incorporating or embedding into each of the dose 

21 reconstruction reports for this particular site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 What we've been talking about in the 

2 past, and that is a template. I'll call it a dose 

3 reconstruction methods template because NIOSH 

4 and ORAU has developed templates for just about 

5 everything.

6 I mean, it helps to keep things 

7 consistent. And now, for this particular site, 

8 and M&C site, we have not been tasked with 

9 reviewing this template.

10 And there were 56, I believe, or so 

11 technical documents cited in the template that's 

12 embedded into the dose reconstruction report. 

13 And so, SC&A determined that -- we thought it 

14 beyond the scope of this line for us to try to do 

15 any assessment, or evaluation, of that template. 

16 And we just used the template as it exists.

17 So we can have a discussion on that 

18 later, unless you want to talk about it now. But 

19 we felt that that was the appropriate thing to do 

20 on behalf of doing these lines of cases.

21 And I think, at some point in time, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just based on the action that the Board has taken 

2 in the past, they may want us to look at some of 

3 these templates, especially for these more 

4 complex sites.

5 But I will go on. You're looking at 

6 table 1.1. And, as you can see, the doses are 

7 very similar. The external doses were within 100 

8 millirem of one another, and internal doses were 

9 the same.

10 PoCs are a little bit different. The 

11 46 percent PoC from NIOSH and nearly 50 percent 

12 for SC&A. And we'll explain the difference there 

13 when we get through this particular case.

14 On table 2.1, if you scroll down on 

15 page 6, I've got a comparison, the data and the 

16 parameters that were used by NIOSH and SC&A. And 

17 as you can see, again, there are similarities. 

18 And the biggest difference is the dose 

19 distribution. NIOSH used a triangular dose 

20 distribution with Monte Carlo analysis and 

21 methods for their external dose, where SC&A put 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 everything as a constant dose distribution.

2 Pretty much everything else was the 

3 same, and the same types of data sources was used. 

4 If we go on to section 2.2, again, since there was 

5 no dosimetry data, no monitoring data, for this 

6 employee.

7 And so, both SC&A and NIOSH used the 

8 template. And the template incorporates what I 

9 would say are the bounding values. It's a 

10 maximum external dose that it was recorded for any 

11 individual during the 1966 time period, which 

12 comes down to 440 millirem per year.

13 And then the appropriate DCF was used 

14 by both methods to come up with a 550 millirem per 

15 year dose for the employment period. And that 

16 template is actually using the operation period 

17 data for the residual period.

18 So I would certainly that consider 

19 that, if all of the data that they've looked at 

20 is appropriate, certainly it appears to be a 

21 bounding value.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH assigned that value. They 

2 prorated it for the first year of employment, 

3 which was 1968. And then, for the last year of 

4 employment, which was 1982, they actually used an 

5 average open window value of 142 millirem that 

6 comes from a 1982 termination survey.

7 And again, SC&A has not had the 

8 opportunity to look at any of this data in any kind 

9 of detail. But that was the basis for NIOSH's 

10 1982 doses.

11 And again, applied the DCF values 

12 appropriately. Now, what SC&A did, which was a 

13 little bit different in this case, is they also 

14 prorated a partial year dose in 1968. 

15 But they did not use a termination 

16 survey, because the survey was actually done in 

17 November of 1982, and the individual terminated 

18 much earlier in [identifying information 

19 redacted].

20 And so they just continued to use that 

21 maximum external dose and prorated it for the 1982 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 year. So that was the difference between NIOSH's 

2 142 and SC&A's 138 millirems. So a slight 

3 difference there.

4 Both methods did not -- neither method 

5 calculated the medical dose. And that was 

6 because the individual only worked during a 

7 residual period. So that was appropriate. 

8 For internal dose, again, both 

9 methods used information that was available in 

10 the template. And what the template recommends 

11 is an inflation dose of 200 DPM per 100 

12 centimeters squared, and then uses the OTIB-70 

13 resuspension factor of one times ten to the minus 

14 six. 

15 And they also calculated an ingestion 

16 dose, which is based on the intake rate of 0.2 

17 times the average daily air concentration. And 

18 an inhalation and ingestion dose was calculated 

19 for both the uranium and thorium.

20 Those methods -- NIOSH compared the 

21 uranium Types S, M and F.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon me. 

2 Dave. Are we scrolling on Live Meeting? Fine. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MS. BEHLING: I'm sorry, I wasn't 

5 watching. Yes, and you can keep scrolling down 

6 just a bit, Rose. But, to repeat -- NIOSH 

7 compared for uranium absorption Types S, M and F.

8 And for thorium, Types M and S. SC&A 

9 compared Types S, M and F for both uranium and 

10 thorium. Both methods found that thorium Type M 

11 was the most claimant-favorable, and so dose is 

12 based on that.

13 And both calculated dose of 1 

14 millirem. So that is the doses that we see in 

15 table 3-1, on page 9. And the difference, as I 

16 indicated, the biggest difference was the 

17 difference in the PoCs.

18 And NIOSH calculated their PoC --

19 because their initial PoC was greater than 45 

20 percent, the recommendation is that they run in 

21 the -- I'm sorry, they were IREP -- it's 30 IREP 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 runs at 10,000 iterations.

2 And that resulted in the PoC of 46 

3 percent, where SC&A only ran one IREP run for 

4 2,000 iterations and our PoC, which was 49 

5 percent.

6 SC&A also entered their doses as a 

7 constant value, as I mentioned earlier, where 

8 NIOSH applied their doses as a triangular 

9 distribution and used Monte Carlo methods to 

10 determine what the final dose was, the 

11 distribution was.

12 That's it in a nutshell. If you have 

13 questions, I'll try to answer them.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I don't have any 

15 questions. But I think your assumptions, with 

16 respect to both the unusual nature of this 

17 particular site, I don't recall there was 

18 anything sporadic and the use of the template were 

19 correct.

20 MS. BEHLING: Can I assume that, and 

21 maybe Ted needs to weigh in here, I hope that 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all agree that this is not the venue to do a more 

2 thorough investigation into these templates.

3 But they should -- if the Board 

4 decides that they feel that we're going to review 

5 the templates it shouldn't be in these blind dose 

6 reconstructions. Are we correct? 

7 MR. KATZ: Let me weigh in on that, 

8 thanks Kathy. Because, the past tradition was --

9 and it's fine, no worries about how this went 

10 here, it's fine.

11 But the past tradition was, when we 

12 came to a site, one of these smaller sites, as they 

13 generally are, where -- but it didn't have to be, 

14 it could have been at an AWE that was actually 

15 significant.

16 But when we come to one of these 

17 smaller sites, when we're doing a dose 

18 reconstruction review and the basic methodology 

19 hasn't been reviewed by SC&A, the past tradition 

20 was for me to get a memo or note saying, we have 

21 reviewed this site.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because, normally what we would do, 

2 and John Mauro, if you're on the line, you can 

3 chime in, but we'd all notice, is we would do what 

4 we would call a meeting Site Profile review 

5 because it's generally a mini profile that 

6 looking at, compared to the big sites.

7 And we would do that sort of 

8 hand-and-hand, we would do that and then do the 

9 review. It would hold up the review of the case, 

10 but it you sort of -- otherwise, you'd have an arm 

11 tied behind your back in reviewing the case 

12 because you'd just have to accept the 

13 methodology, where in some other cases you would 

14 review the methodology.

15 So, I mean, I think that's the 

16 appropriate thing to do is to send a note out 

17 saying, we haven't reviewed the base documents 

18 for this site. 

19 And then we can get that tasked as part 

20 of it, before completing the blind review or the 

21 individual case review, whichever bucket it falls 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 into. But that was our past tradition.

2 MS. BEHLING: Yes, Ted, you're 

3 correct, I agree with you. Also, when we've 

4 reviewed cases, we did do a mini. In this 

5 particular case, because the entire case -- all 

6 the internal, all the external is based on, as I 

7 said there was at least 56 technical documents.

8 And we just were not sure if we were 

9 -- I guess a memo is appropriate from this point 

10 forward, to determine the level of effort that you 

11 would like us to put into these.

12 Again, I didn't know if these 

13 pamphlets -- because there, as we discussed, 

14 there are a lot of other templates out there for 

15 these types of sites.

16 If they were going to be categorized 

17 and looked at that maybe under a purview like the 

18 Procedures Subcommittee meeting, or if they were 

19 supposed to be looked at on an individual basis, 

20 because we may not see cases on some of the sites 

21 that have templates.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Right, but that's really a 

2 separate matter. I mean, the issue here is that 

3 when we do a case review, we want to be able to 

4 review it, you know, thoroughly.

5 And we can't do that if we haven't 

6 reviewed the base documents. So --

7 DR. MAURO: Ted, this is John Mauro. 

8 I understand you were trying to reach me. I 

9 separated from the phone when you were about to 

10 break for lunch.

11 MR. KATZ: John, that's okay. I just 

12 referenced that you've done many, many site 

13 reviews in connection with dose reconstruction 

14 case reviews in the past.

15 DR. MAURO: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: And I was just saying that 

17 here's a case where we need a memo knowing that 

18 you haven't reviewed the base documents so that 

19 we can then task that as a part of the case review.

20 I think that's appropriate. But 

21 then, I mean, we can hear from the Subcommittee 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 members. But this is the way we've done it in the 

2 past.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Dave, are we 

5 suggesting that this should be held in abeyance?

6 MR. KATZ: Well, I think it's a done 

7 deal now. I mean, it's sort of -- they've 

8 reviewed the case, it's a limited review in a 

9 sense, because they never reviewed the 

10 methodology before.

11 But I'm not suggesting that they go 

12 back, review the methodology now, and then go back 

13 and re-review the case. Although, you know, I 

14 mean it's your purview.

15 MR. SIEBERT: Can I put one thing in, 

16 this is Scott. In the 21st set, there are three 

17 Metals and Controls claims that have already been 

18 reviewed.

19 DR. MAURO: This is John. Just to 

20 help out a little bit. A good example that we'll 

21 get to, I guess shortly, is Hooker, which is still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 open as a DR case in the 13th set.

2 And in Hooker, the whole issue about 

3 -- this is a DR section as opposed to blind now, 

4 please keep in mind -- is a review of the Site 

5 Profile or TBD where we do have to go back to first 

6 principles in the original source documents. 

7 Now, the extent to which that's done, 

8 and needs to be done, during blinds, I guess 

9 that's something that you folks have worked out. 

10 I used to be involved in blinds in a different way.

11 But it was decided -- it was called 

12 going back to first principles and not following 

13 workbooks and things like that. I understand 

14 that decision, and that's fine, but there was a 

15 time when we actually did the blinds two different 

16 ways.

17 One was following the workbooks and 

18 trying to figure out ourselves the way in which 

19 NIOSH did it. And where you had to have some 

20 degree of discretion in deciding what the input 

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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: John, that's technically a 

2 separate matter.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's a separate 

4 matter.

5 MR. KATZ: That's not what we're 

6 dealing with here. But we are dealing with the 

7 first part of what you said, which is simply, 

8 again, doing a mini Site Profile review when 

9 you've never reviewed the site and you have a case 

10 to review.

11 DR. MAURO: Exactly.

12 MR. KATZ: That's all. 

13 DR. MAURO: That's it.

14 MS. BEHLING: One more comment. 

15 This is Kathy Behling again. Under the 21st set, 

16 and Rose, perhaps you can interject here, even if 

17 we have some Metals and Controls cases there, I 

18 don't know that we were tasked even under those 

19 case reviews to look at the source document and 

20 methodology. Or were we?

21 I don't know, I'm asking. I don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know of any -- I don't know that we have been 

2 tasked with looking at this template. That's my 

3 question.

4 MR. KATZ: Again, Kathy, I mean, 

5 you've already said you guys haven't reviewed the 

6 template. So that's established. Yes, and 

7 again, it's just a matter -- whether it's blinds 

8 or a few of the ordinary cases that reviewed, 

9 again, that was the old system, which is to say 

10 we haven't reviewed this site and then to task 

11 that as part of the case review.

12 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

13 MR. KATZ: I don't think we need to 

14 beat this thing to death. I would like to hear 

15 from the Subcommittee members if they have 

16 thoughts, concerns, what have you, related to 

17 this.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You've made 

19 basically a proposal as the DFO. But I wanted to 

20 hear what other members of the Subcommittee felt 

21 in terms of whether we go ahead with this as 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. 

80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 stands, or whether that changes the way we weight, 

2 which would be a change in procedure.

3 Do other Subcommittee members have 

4 comments?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Dave, this is Josie. 

6 I think that we go ahead with this. But I think 

7 we need to have a memo sent out if there are 

8 templates in the future that haven't been 

9 reviewed and get the tasking for that prior to 

10 reviewing the cases.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so start 

12 from here if you will. Josie, what you said 

13 sounds like a good way to start, which is to say 

14 take this, approve the comparison and then task 

15 the AWE Subcommittee?

16 MR. KATZ: No, so, Dave, just 

17 procedurally, if we get a memo from SC&A saying 

18 this, I can do the tasking. We don't need a Work 

19 Group to do that.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good.

21 MR. KATZ: So as we do that, I would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 certainly copy the Subcommittee so they know 

2 what's going on here. 

3 We don't need to wait for another Work 

4 Group, or what have you, to do that. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excellent. 

6 So you will send a note to them.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: About this 

8 particular case?

9 MR. KATZ: No, in the future, when we 

10 have a case where you haven't reviewed, because 

11 it has a template or what have you, that you never 

12 reviewed the foundation documents.

13 DR. MAURO: I just have a question for 

14 clarification. There are several levels you 

15 work at, you have the original Site Profile and 

16 then you have the template which influences the 

17 Site Profile. 

18 And then, of course, you have the 

19 blind or the DR.

20 MR. KATZ: No, the template's not 

21 implementing Site Profile, the template is a Site 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Profile, in effect.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

3 MR. KATZ: That's what we're talking 

4 about here, John. We're talking about sites 

5 where SC&A has never reviewed the basic 

6 methodology being applied.

7 DR. MAURO: Got it, okay.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

9 Now, are we Subcommittee members satisfied with 

10 this review and the comments and the explanation 

11 as to why, although there's only one main 

12 difference between the two groups, that the PoCs 

13 are three percentage points different?

14 Nevertheless, the three are the same 

15 compensation distribution. Do the Subcommittee 

16 members approve?

17 MEMBER MUNN: I said this at the 

18 outset, I certainly do. And I think it's fine to 

19 accept this as an adequate review of the template 

20 by SC&A.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, others?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: I'm not sure if it's an 

2 adequate review of the template because the 

3 template hasn't been reviewed. But I think, 

4 moving forward, if we have other cases from this 

5 site, I think we need to think about reviewing 

6 that template prior to any other cases.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm more than 

8 happy. And my feeling is we have accepted that 

9 suggestion. I think it's a question now of 

10 saying, here we are, do we approve of this line 

11 of review and pass it to the Board, if you will?

12 It sounds like you're okay with the 

13 review and with the explanations given for the 

14 difference.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Thank 

17 you. Others?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm good with it. 

19 If we have any more from this site, we've already 

20 discussed that.

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, can 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I take that then that we approve and are ready to 

2 move on to the third line?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, as soon as we go to 

4 lunch.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

6 that actually, of course we will go to lunch. 

7 It's 20 minutes after 12 on east coast time. So, 

8 20 minutes after 1, we'll reconvene and we'll 

9 discuss ANL-East.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 12:20 p.m. and 

12 resumed at 1:25 p.m.)

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So we're now 

14 starting ANL-East our third blind of the day.

15 Ron, would you like to start?

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, thank you. 

17 This is an employee that worked at the Argonne 

18 National Lab East facility in the nineteen 

19 fifties to the nineteen nineties. He had a long 

20 employment history in the grounds as a laborer and 

21 heavy equipment operator and [identifying 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 information redacted] in the grounds department, 

2 so worked mainly outside.

3 He was monitored for external photon 

4 and neutron exposure during most of the 

5 employment. He was also monitored for internal 

6 exposure for most of the employment period.

7 He was diagnosed with a cancer in 

8 [identifying information redacted], one cancer. 

9 So this is what we will cover today.

10 If we go to Table 1-1 on page 8 we see 

11 the table there shows that the -- (Transcript 

12 missing 45 seconds due to telephone interruption) 

13 -- dose, photon and neutron.

14 We see that they pretty much agree 

15 there except for one. At the beginning of 

16 employment there was a recorded 8 millirems on a 

17 pencil dosimeter when the worker wasn't monitored 

18 otherwise. 

19 And so SC&A counted this as a recorded 

20 dose because there was no other information 

21 available and the environmental dose 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. 

86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially nothing -- outside external dose is 

2 essentially nothing at the Argonne National Lab 

3 East according to TBD.

4 And so we did assign that. So we 

5 included this in our analysis.

6 And so we used the same dose 

7 conversion factor, slightly different 

8 distributions. They used triangular and Monte 

9 Carlo calculations. We used the normal 

10 distribution with uncertainty of 30 percent 

11 according to the TBD.

12 We used a dose conversion factor of 

13 1.244, both NIOSH and SC&A. 

14 So this came out to similar doses of 

15 0.212 NIOSH assigned and 0.317 which includes 80 

16 millirem from the pencil dosimeter.

17 So the recorded dose is pretty 

18 straightforward. We didn't have much difference 

19 there.

20 Then we go to missed dose, Section 

21 2.1.2. And again we had similar methods there. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We used the same LOD and energy ranges. Again, 

2 NIOSH used the triangular distribution, the Monte 

3 Carlo calculations. We used a log normal 

4 distribution with confidence uncertainty of 1.5 

5 according to the TBD.

6 Now, there were some differences. If 

7 we go down to page 12 we see that NIOSH counted 

8 586 missed doses or zeroes, and we counted 545.

9 And the reason for that is that the 

10 records at ANL, they would have blank sheets. 

11 They would have the badge exchange information 

12 but they'd be blank. 

13 And then at the end of the year they'd 

14 have a summary sheet with a zero. And so the 

15 difference there was that SC&A said, okay, 

16 they've got a record of the dosimeter exchange. 

17 There's nothing on it. And so they did not -- he 

18 did not wear a badge at that time.

19 And NIOSH went through the 

20 conservative point of view and said, okay, even 

21 though there wasn't anything recorded, we're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to assign zeroes for those blank dosimetry 

2 pages.

3 And so that's the reason they came out 

4 with more zeroes than SC&A. And we'll find this 

5 is also true on the neutron exchange.

6 So, this was a difference and so we 

7 came out with a few less zeroes than NIOSH did. 

8 And we used different distributions and 

9 uncertainties, and so we came out with slightly 

10 different doses than NIOSH did.

11 The missed neutron dose. Again, we 

12 used a constant uncertainty of log distribution 

13 and NIOSH used a varying uncertainty determined 

14 by Monte Carlo calculations.

15 On the neutron missed dose NIOSH used 

16 345 and SC&A came out 271. And this is because 

17 there was a lot of blanks for the exchange. 

18 Sometimes they would have photon but blank for the 

19 neutron so we assumed the worker wasn't monitored 

20 for neutrons during that period. And NIOSH 

21 assumed they were and assigned zeroes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So they came out with a higher dose, 

2 55 rem, and we came out with a lower dose, 42 rem 

3 for missed neutron because of the difference in 

4 interpreting the way the blank pages, what they 

5 meant.

6 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Can I 

7 go ahead and address that, that slight 

8 difference?

9 There's been all these different 

10 sections so I waited until right before ambient 

11 doses.

12 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, that's fine. 

13 MR. SIEBERT: The difference is as 

14 Ron was saying we did assume monitoring was 

15 occurring even when the monitoring records were 

16 blank, when there was an indication.

17 And we actually based that upon the 

18 TBD. It does specifically state that up until 

19 1965 the assumption is that all employees were 

20 monitored.

21 So, whether there actually is 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. 

90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reflection of a zero in the record or not we made 

2 the claimant-favorable assumption that all 

3 individuals were monitored through that point. 

4 And we do count the zeroes accordingly.

5 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes, and SC&A counted 

6 the actual number of zeroes whereas NIOSH, if 

7 there was blanks they counted those as zeroes even 

8 though they were not recorded.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Right. And I guess the 

10 only thing I'm pointing out is the TBD does 

11 specifically tell us to do it that way.

12 MR. KATZ: Go ahead, Ron.

13 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Okay, the 

14 onsite ambient dose, both NIOSH and SC&A used 

15 Table 4-7 and 4-8 of the TBD 4. And NIOSH used 

16 the isotropic dose conversion factor of 0.536. 

17 And SC&A used the ambient dose conversion factor 

18 of 0.408 which led to slightly different dose 

19 assignments and also NIOSH used their Weibull 

20 distribution and SC&A entered it as a constant 

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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And NIOSH assigned 50 millirem and 

2 SC&A assigned slightly less, a dose of 40 

3 millirem. So that's the reason for the 

4 difference in the ambient dose.

5 MR. SIEBERT: Should I address the 

6 difference in the DCFs?

7 DR. BUCHANAN: Yes.

8 MR. SIEBERT: Once again, we go back 

9 to procedure 60 which is occupational onsite 

10 ambient dose reconstruction for all DOE sites.

11 And specifically in that procedure it 

12 does call out to use the appropriate organ DCF 

13 rather than the ambient for the isotropic 

14 geometry. So that's why there's a difference 

15 there.

16 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Then we move 

17 onto the medical. And there was a record on file 

18 of the medical exams. 

19 And we did assign also a PFT that was 

20 possible through '56. Both NIOSH and SC&A 

21 assigned the same doses there.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And all the rest of the way through the 

2 records we assigned the same dose except for the 

3 one chest X-ray in '58 because the TBD does say 

4 there could have been several chest X-rays '58 and 

5 earlier.

6 However, SC&A sees on the DOE records 

7 for this employee it states single chest X-ray. 

8 And so we assigned one for '58 and NIOSH assigned 

9 two for '58. And so that made a slight amount of 

10 increase in NIOSH's dose assignment.

11 In addition, NIOSH used the pre-1970 

12 dose for the 1970 dose. In other words, TBD 

13 changed values at that time. And so we used the 

14 1970 dose -- 1970 to 1985 as given in the TBD, and 

15 NIOSH apparently used the pre-1970 dose for 1970. 

16 So that gave a slightly higher dose because the 

17 older ones were a little bit higher.

18 So that resulted in NIOSH assigning 

19 5.73 rem and SC&A assigning 5.655 rem, slightly 

20 less.

21 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yes, we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agree on the stereo thing and the X-rays. We 

2 missed that so that's a good thing to catch there.

3 The difference on the 1970 actually 

4 isn't that we used the pre-'70 values, it's that 

5 we used the updated values in OTIB-6.

6 The TBD does two separate things. It 

7 calls out that the values of the X-rays should be 

8 the values that are referenced from OTIB-6, and 

9 then it also gives a table of those values.

10 The unfortunate thing is OTIB-6 got 

11 updated after the TBD was released so the 

12 appropriate values -- or the values that are in 

13 OTIB-6, we actually updated the values and the 

14 tools to use the most recent culled out values, 

15 rather than the older values that still reside in 

16 that table in the TBD.

17 But once again, the TBD is saying 

18 that's where those values came from and it should 

19 have been OTIB-6.

20 And at some point when the TBD gets 

21 updated they will reflect the latest values.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay. Thank you, 

2 Scott.

3 Realize of course on a lot of that 

4 stuff SC&A when they do the comparisons they are 

5 somewhat guessing at what NIOSH did.

6 We know what we did usually, but we're 

7 not always sure of NIOSH's reasoning, so we'll 

8 kind of guesstimate what happened or something.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Ron, by 

10 the way -- Dave.

11 Just the last five minutes or so I've 

12 been in and out of audio, but you go ahead. I hope 

13 I didn't miss anything, or miss a comment from 

14 you. Let's continue.

15 DR. BUCHANAN: Okay, so that was the 

16 external doses.

17 If we go to Section 2.2 and we look at 

18 the internal doses. And we see that the worker 

19 was monitored for -- by urinalysis for gross alpha 

20 and beta, and for uranium a couple of times. And 

21 all the measurements were less than MDA for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 alpha and the uranium.

2 However, they did indicate that some 

3 beta results were greater than zero. If you look 

4 at the TBD 5 it looks like they indicate that the 

5 beta activity that was measured was from natural 

6 occurring potassium-40 and represented the 

7 normal range of the beta results.

8 And so neither NIOSH or SC&A assigned 

9 for the beta dose from those measurements.

10 Based on the records NIOSH and SC&A 

11 both assigned missed dose from plutonium and 

12 uranium, and in addition NIOSH assigned potential 

13 -- considered potential environmental internal 

14 dose as we'll discuss later.

15 SC&A did too, but they didn't assign 

16 any because it was less significant.

17 So, we look at 2.2.1, missed plutonium 

18 dose. We see that both NIOSH and SC&A used the 

19 appropriate half of an MDA value cited in the TBD, 

20 adjusted for 1.4 liters per day in the IMBA 

21 program for the period that the person 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. 

96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 monitoring results, bioassays.

2 And we evaluated different solubility 

3 types and found that type S resulted in the most 

4 claimant-favorable. And we both adjusted them 

5 for type Super S, plutonium-239 according to 

6 OTIB-49. And so we both performed the same 

7 operations there.

8 And NIOSH assigned an internal dose of 

9 -- from missed plutonium of 0.117. SC&A assigned 

10 0.129. So very similar doses entered as a 

11 triangular distribution with minimum zero and 

12 maximum twice the mode value according to 

13 OTIB-60. So we had a very similar result and dose 

14 assignments in that case.

15 Now, the missed uranium dose. The 

16 worker was monitored twice in 1966 and once in the 

17 eighties to '90 for uranium. And we both assumed 

18 100 percent U-234 because that's the most 

19 claimant-favorable and used one-half the MDA 

20 adjusted for 1.4 liters per day in the IMBA 

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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the only difference was NIOSH 

2 assumed one continuous intake period. SC&A 

3 divided up into two periods because there was some 

4 break between the bioassay dates in the sixties 

5 and eighties.

6 And so we came through and both 

7 evaluated the solubility type, but found that all 

8 of them cited less than 1 millirem per dose and 

9 so did not assign that in the IREP tables. 

10 So we used slightly two different 

11 methods and then arrived at the same conclusions.

12 Now, the environmental internal. 

13 NIOSH did use the maximum value of occupational 

14 environmental from the environmental TBD 4 and 

15 came up with a dose less than 1 millirem.

16 However, NIOSH did choose to enter 

17 that in the IREP table as a constant distribution.

18 SC&A considered the environmental 

19 intake, but based on TBD 4 states that the intakes 

20 at ANL-East operations -- went up and checked it 

21 -- significantly to the environmental dose. 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. 

98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we did not assign any internal environmental 

2 dose.

3 So, a summary and conclusion on page 

4 17, Section 3. 

5 We see that the internal doses are 

6 very similar. The external doses are similar 

7 except for mainly the missed neutron dose which 

8 we discussed.

9 We see that NIOSH came with a total of 

10 70 rem with a PoC of 46 percent. SC&A came out 

11 with 58 rem with a PoC of 42 percent.

12 And the methods were very similar 

13 except for the way we counted zeroes there in the 

14 blank pages which we've already discussed.

15 So, that's a brief summary of this 

16 case and I'm open for any questions.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. So, 

18 basically both came to the same conclusions. 

19 Again NIOSH has the larger PoC which reflected the 

20 claimant favorability effort.

21 So, I don't have any further comments. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Do other members of the Subcommittee?

2 Hearing none I think there's 

3 agreement. So, as a Subcommittee do we accept 

4 this blind and put it into our record?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

9 Hearing no other comments we accept and that's 

10 fine.

11 And we have -- so we have three more 

12 blinds that have been added into our -- I think 

13 it's 17 total. And all of them have agreed with 

14 the -- in all the cases the positions agree 

15 although there was one that will still be 

16 developed in Allied Chemical and Dye. Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think the Allied 

18 Chemical and Dye, we resolved that case in 

19 February. 

20 DR. MAURO: Rose, this is John Mauro. 

21 Just letting you know I joined the meeting in case 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're ready for Hooker.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We are just getting 

3 there, John. Thank you.

4 DR. MAURO: Very good.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Almost 

6 perfect.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay, very good.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But I thought 

9 we were going to -- Scott, you suggested that we 

10 were going to set up a committee to evaluate, a 

11 special committee for that plant, a Working 

12 Group. 

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But I believe we 

14 actually closed out that particular blind.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I don't 

16 remember that, honestly. Do other Subcommittee 

17 members?

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I can check my 

19 records and email you offline.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's fine. 

21 I believe I we have one. Certainly in the report 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the 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

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the Secretary there was -- we were holding off. 

2 Fine, send me a note and I will -- in fact, send 

3 it to me and all other members of the 

4 Subcommittee.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

6 Final Case Review Issue Resolution for Sets 10-13; 

7 Hooker Electrochemical Case

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Great. Okay. 

9 Well, John, we are ready now to take Hooker which 

10 is the last and final case for sets 10-13. Please 

11 go ahead.

12 DR. MAURO: Very good. I see on the 

13 screen that Rose brought up the Hooker case. And 

14 I think I can go through this pretty quickly.

15 This was a case for a worker that was 

16 involved in Hooker in the nineteen forties. And 

17 in the nineteen forties Hooker was receiving slag 

18 from other facilities up in Niagara Falls. And 

19 they were processing the slag using I guess left 

20 over hydrochloric acid, I believe, or sulfuric 

21 acid to separate out any valuable uranium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so the worker was exposed during 

2 the AWE operations with that slag, and then 

3 following that during the residual period.

4 The matrix identifies that there were 

5 several findings, and there were also a number of 

6 observations.

7 And you folks have previously 

8 discussed this, and have filled out the matrix. 

9 And you can see on the far right-hand side of the 

10 matrix, you'll see that some of these items were 

11 previously closed so we don't need to be concerned 

12 about that.

13 And all other items, whether they be 

14 findings or observations were relegated to the 

15 AWE Work Group because they were all Site Profile 

16 issues and TBD issues.

17 Because the Hooker dose 

18 reconstructions for workers there, there were no 

19 data. So everything was based on one micron 

20 exposure matrix or protocol as laid out in the 

21 Hooker TBD.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the Hooker TBD was on the agenda 

2 for the AWE Work Group, and it was discussed at 

3 length, I believe it was a July 2016 Hooker or AWE 

4 Work Group meeting. 

5 And I read the transcript. And Bill 

6 Thurber was -- I spoke to Bill earlier today. 

7 He's not available but --

8 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, John, to 

9 interrupt you but one sec. Someone is coughing 

10 a lot on the phone. Can you please mute your 

11 phone? Just press *6 to mute your phone and that 

12 will help everyone else. Thanks.

13 DR. MAURO: So, what I can do is 

14 everything that I'm about to describe, and we can 

15 go into as much detail as you like.

16 The end of the story though is during 

17 the Work Group meeting with Henry Anderson 

18 starting on page 53 of the transcript every one 

19 of these issues related to the Site Profile.

20 Hooker was discussed and closure was 

21 recommended. There are a couple of items that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were what I would call held in abeyance because 

2 there was agreement on how to resolve them, and 

3 everyone agreed to that. 

4 And it was left in abeyance because 

5 the next revision which would be Rev 3 I believe 

6 of the TBD for Hooker will pick those up.

7 But to bring it down to the end of the 

8 story, if you go through each one of these items 

9 and you map them back to the -- starting on page 

10 53 of the transcript you will see that every issue 

11 was addressed one way or the other.

12 It's not in exact order, but they were 

13 all -- it was agreed that the issue can be closed. 

14 SC&A recommended closure based on the discussion 

15 and the AWE Work Group concurred. 

16 So this is all documented. And the 

17 degree to which you want to go through them and 

18 discuss how they were closed, we can do that.

19 But it's all already on the record how 

20 they were all closed. And starting on page 53 of 

21 the July AWE -- 2016 AWE meeting.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In fact, I believe Bill prepared a set 

2 of slides for Henry Anderson to be used at I guess 

3 the previous meeting of the full Board to give a 

4 presentation.

5 I'm not sure if that occurred or not. 

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Correct. It 

7 did.

8 DR. MAURO: It did. Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And also --

10 this is Dave. I am a Member of that Working Group 

11 and I concur with what you say.

12 We resolved everything. There will 

13 be some changes when the ER is completed, but --

14 in an ordinary fashion by NIOSH.

15 DR. MAURO: I tell you what. Given 

16 that, that this is on the record in a number of 

17 places already, if that suffices I'm done. 

18 MR. KATZ: John, this is Ted.

19 DR. MAURO: Sure.

20 MR. KATZ: The one thing that does 

21 need to be buttoned-up, because you're trying 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. 

106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resolve the findings here so that they're correct 

2 findings and incorrect findings drop off in 

3 statistics. 

4 So one way or the other those sort of 

5 t's have to be crossed for the findings that were 

6 open, right? The Subcommittee needs to resolve 

7 that they were correct findings, or that they 

8 shouldn't have been findings. Either way.

9 DR. MAURO: Well, we could do that if 

10 you'd like. We could go through it one by one.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, I don't see 

12 a need to do that, to go through those one by one.

13 The question Ted raised was I believe 

14 that it's not to come back to the Subcommittee 

15 when the Working Group resolved these issues.

16 There will be changes that occur when 

17 the PER is finished, but when the PER is done that 

18 will go to NIOSH. NIOSH will continue. We've 

19 resolved the findings.

20 I think we can accept as is.

21 MR. KATZ: No, but Dave, I think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you're just misunderstanding me. 

2 The Subcommittee has all these cases. 

3 The cases have a whole number of findings. And 

4 those findings have to be resolved according to 

5 the Subcommittee's judgment even though it was 

6 sent to Work Group.

7 So, for example, just finding X, 

8 whatever it is, if the Work Group decided that the 

9 methodology was incorrect and resolved that --

10 and the finding was in alignment with that, that 

11 that methodology was incorrect, then that finding 

12 stands.

13 But if the Work Group found that for 

14 a certain finding that was referred to it that the 

15 methodology was fine then that finding would not 

16 count as a finding in your tally for Dose 

17 Reconstruction Subcommittee petition reviews.

18 So you've got to get your statistics 

19 correct. I don't know how to do that other than 

20 going through the findings and sorting that out 

21 finding by 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. 

108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: One way to go as a 

2 shortcut on this. Of course I leave that if NIOSH 

3 agrees.

4 But I believe NIOSH agreed with all of 

5 our findings and has concurred that changes to the 

6 TBD were needed in light of our comments.

7 So, in other words, the various 

8 comments we made related to a broad range of 

9 matters, there was -- it wasn't that we were --

10 our finding was judged to be incorrect. And 

11 certainly I may be incorrect in this, but I 

12 believe NIOSH agreed that all of Bill Thurber's 

13 findings and observations were relevant and 

14 appropriate, and that there was some degree of 

15 change to the TBD for each one of these that was 

16 needed.

17 And that's all documented in the 

18 transcript.

19 MEMBER BEACH: There's only seven. 

20 I think there was only seven open findings. Why 

21 can't we just go through each one of them and have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a comment on each one?

2 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Let me 

3 interject something here.

4 Because there's -- I do believe that 

5 my understanding is that the findings were at 

6 least considered valid.

7 I know the TBD has been revised. Jim 

8 Neton just popped his head in here a minute ago 

9 and said he was going to sign it today.

10 Given the fact that I was not a part 

11 of these Work Group discussions and that there's 

12 only seven findings, and that my understanding is 

13 that they were all accepted I would just prefer 

14 to go forward and say yes, we accepted them and 

15 we made the appropriate changes.

16 Because I'm not going to be able to 

17 speak intelligently about how the changes were. 

18 And I really don't care to argue the seven 

19 findings since my understanding is that they were 

20 addressed.

21 MR. KATZ: I think that's absolutely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 fine, Grady. I think that there's no problem 

2 with that.

3 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad 

4 speaking. I understand what you're saying, 

5 Grady.

6 But I guess I would just -- as a Work 

7 Group Member on this I'd like to just understand 

8 what was done with these.

9 The Work Group has accepted it, but 

10 I'd just like to know what the corrective action 

11 was and proceed it on.

12 I'd just like to bring these to an end. 

13 I think, you know, I don't have a clear 

14 understanding how they were finalized.

15 MR. CALHOUN: Alright. Well, I 

16 guess John or Bill will have to take care of both 

17 sides of that discussion then.

18 DR. MAURO: We can run through them 

19 real fast. I have some notes here that should 

20 help.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: John, tell us 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. 

111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 small picture of each one just so I've got an 

2 understanding.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: If a 

5 Subcommittee Member would like to hear back all 

6 that we need -- so let's go over them one by one.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay. I was just logged 

8 off the web because I wasn't active. Give me a 

9 second to come back to life again. I'm on 

10 LiveMeeting. It just takes a second for me to put 

11 my PIN back in again.

12 MEMBER BEACH: While you're doing 

13 that, I do have a question on the SRDB. It does 

14 reference the Site Profiles, but it won't come up. 

15 Is that just because it hasn't been signed?

16 MR. KATZ: Yes, Josie. And it takes 

17 another day after that.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

19 MR. KATZ: Before it actually posts.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. Phil, would you 

21 like to go through I guess each one of these items? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It starts I believe 221.1c. I'm trying to --

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's correct. 

3 DR. MAURO: 221.1. And I actually 

4 have some notes in front of me that I took having 

5 to do with the time period over which a worker was 

6 exposed.

7 In other words one of the issues was 

8 that the worker was there for active, whereby he 

9 may have been exposed.

10 And the assumption was made in the 

11 original. We're going all the way back now to 

12 where the story starts. We're going all the way 

13 back to TBD-6001 and its associated appendix. 

14 And NIOSH used a 5 percent exposure 

15 time period. In discussing and resolving this 

16 issue with the Work Group, I believe it was 

17 extended to 25 percent of the time for a variety 

18 for reasons that are discussed in the AWE 

19 transcript.

20 So, the 5 percent I believe went to 25 

21 percent. I believe that's the very first one. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If you're looking at the screen right now, you'll 

2 see 5 percent. So that's the answer.

3 And that was in fact accepted and 

4 accommodated I guess in Rev 2 of the TBD. So it's 

5 all taken care of.

6 The second item is more general in 

7 nature. It talks about, well, TBD-6001 -- let's 

8 see what we've got here -- had a number of concerns 

9 related to the picocuries per day that was taken 

10 in.

11 And I'm looking at my notes here. 

12 There was a change made in terms of -- let me just 

13 straighten this thing out for myself. 

14 Oh, okay. In this case the argument 

15 is made that the actual new values which were 

16 approved actually went down.

17 So the latest version of the TBD, and 

18 there was justification given to it in terms of 

19 intake rate went down.

20 The justification was provided in the 

21 revised TBD. And it was discussed during 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. 

114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting. So that issue has been resolved in 

2 favor that, yes, it was -- better information 

3 became available and that was the -- and actually 

4 the intake rates went down.

5 And they discarded the old intake rate 

6 that was there with the original TBD-6001, and 

7 have a new one. And that was all discussed and 

8 agreed upon. That's that item.

9 The third item which I believe is now 

10 we're looking at -- I see things are moving on the 

11 screen -- observation 1. Let me see how we 

12 resolved this one.

13 Okay. Observation 1. Give me a 

14 minute. I'm trying to get this to track out what 

15 the issue was a little more clearly than the way 

16 it's written up in here.

17 Oh, this has to do with the -- there 

18 were a number of tables in the original TBD-6001 

19 where it gave exposure rates in units that were 

20 very confusing.

21 So this was more like that you really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could not understand what TBD-6001 was trying to 

2 tell you to do because they were talking about 

3 doses in mR per hour and millirad per day.

4 There was a lot of -- when you read it 

5 you really didn't understand what was meant.

6 And in revising and getting rid of the 

7 TBD-6001 and replacing that with current Rev 2 of 

8 the TBD itself for Hooker all that's been cleared 

9 up. So, that observation is taken care of. 

10 The new document now is very 

11 understandable. So with that I guess we can go 

12 on to the next observation.

13 Okay, hold on. We actually had a 

14 different -- there's an mR per hour number here. 

15 And then we performed some calculations.

16 How that -- the correct starting dose 

17 rate was, in fact, corrected in the latest version 

18 of the TBD. There was a discrepancy between what 

19 the exposure rate for contaminated surface was 

20 between TBD-6001.

21 And we actually had a different value. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And NIOSH revisited that issue and corrected that 

2 value in the Revision 2 that's currently in place.

3 And that -- so that issue has been 

4 resolved. 

5 The nature of the way the changes were 

6 made and why they were made, going from the change 

7 in exposure rate is laid out in the Work Group 

8 meeting in July. 

9 So I believe that everyone was 

10 satisfied that observation 2 has been taken care 

11 of.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: This is Dave. 

13 Are we talking about an observation, or in fact 

14 is it a finding? 

15 DR. MAURO: No, we've left the 

16 findings now. We're in the observations 

17 section.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no, I know 

19 it says observation. I see that. My question 

20 is, is that correctly noted as observation? Let's 

21 just see.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 What NIOSH did at the time was correct 

2 based on the information that they had. And then 

3 the updated TBD that was changed based on the TBD. 

4 DR. MAURO: Unfortunately I don't 

5 know enough to answer that question, but I 

6 understand what you're asking.

7 And whether or not -- there was a lot 

8 of material in the original TBD-6001 that was 

9 contradictory and unclear. And as a result it 

10 was withdrawn. 

11 And this may very well have been one 

12 of those items.

13 Now, why it's called an observation as 

14 opposed to a finding I have to say I can't -- I'm 

15 not quite sure.

16 I can check with Bill. Unfortunately 

17 Bill is not available --

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: John, it was an 

19 observation versus a finding because they 

20 followed their procedure. However, we disagreed 

21 with the procedure that was followed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. And 

2 that looked to me -- I agree that that seems to 

3 me what John is saying.

4 So it seems to me appropriate to be an 

5 observation.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Unless there's 

8 any other concern from any other Members. I 

9 don't hear -- let's go on.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now, I see there's 

11 a -- I think we're up to observation 3 was already 

12 previously closed so we don't need to talk about 

13 that.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 DR. MAURO: Closed prior to the Work 

16 Group meeting.

17 Now we've got observation 4 where we 

18 have an intake rate. This goes to like the 

19 residual period and intake rates.

20 And as you may be aware the whole 

21 approach to the residual period, the intake rates 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 apply an extension of review on their OTIB-0070.

2 The original review that we performed 

3 was back in 2009. And then all of the subsequent 

4 discussions that followed, a lot has happened, 

5 some of which was specific to Hooker, some which 

6 were more of an overarching generic issue on how 

7 to deal with residual period dose 

8 reconstructions.

9 I believe this was based on the fact 

10 that there were changes made to the residual 

11 period guidance, and as a result -- and this goes 

12 for observation 5 too, I believe.

13 And as a result the new latest version 

14 of the TBD for Hooker simply adopts the most 

15 recent guidance regarding the residual period.

16 So in that regard the issue has been 

17 resolved.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

19 DR. MAURO: I think that also goes for 

20 number 5 because I see that deals with residual 

21 exposure periods also.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay, so you could almost think in 

2 terms of the residual period when it comes to all 

3 these AWE cases, whether we're talking Hooker or 

4 anything else, when we originally did the work, 

5 it was before a lot of work went into the review 

6 of the OTIB-70 and even TBD-6000. 

7 A lot of water went under the bridge 

8 between the time of the original DR reviews and 

9 the time when the AWE Work Group went through a 

10 lot of work, whether it was Paul Ziemer's Work 

11 Group on the TBD-6000, or it was Henry Anderson's 

12 Work Group on the TBD-6001, both of which -- a lot 

13 was done, called OTIB-70 and of course TBD-6000 

14 that really changed the complexion and 

15 standardized the methods across the board for 

16 dealing with residual periods at AWE facilities.

17 And so all of those issues, whether 

18 it's Hooker or any other AWE site where you don't 

19 really have very much data, any data, really have 

20 been effectively resolved through the adoption of 

21 these two very important documents, OTIB-70 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. 

121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 TBD-6000.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

3 that's the last observation.

4 DR. MAURO: I think that covers the --

5 yes. I hope that answered your questions.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Brad?

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: I appreciate that, 

8 and thank you, John. I just wanted to have a 

9 better understanding of how we got to where we 

10 did. And I appreciate it.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

12 good. So this case will come back to us to 

13 confirm that the changes that will be reflected 

14 by the current TBD has been completed, and then 

15 we will -- is that correct, Ted?

16 MR. KATZ: No, I mean the case --

17 you're done. You just went through the findings. 

18 That's it. You'll never see it. There's 

19 nothing more to do with this case. It just goes 

20 in your statistics for the next report.

21 MEMBER MUNN: It's now closed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: It's closed. It's all 

2 closed. There's nothing left to do with this 

3 case.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MR. KATZ: So, the only thing left to 

6 do is Rose will need to categorize based on what 

7 those findings were -- the couple of findings that 

8 there were -- there were only two findings among 

9 what John covered -- how they categorize in terms 

10 of their seriousness or whatever it is, but to 

11 make sure that's consistent with whatever we have 

12 in that case. But that's all.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 Alright, fine. So we'll close it. The people 

15 agree, or Subcommittee Members agree.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I'm fine, Dave. 

17 This is Brad.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

19 That lends a certainty and it's done, capital 

20 D-O-N-E.

21 Pardon me, somebody was speaking?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: I was just agreeing 

2 with you.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

4 It's always nice to finish.

5 Now, we will go on. It's quarter 

6 after 2. Let's start the case reviews, and start 

7 with the expedited file table, expedited case 

8 table.

9 And let's work on that for a little 

10 while. We will take a break, but let's work for 

11 another half an hour or so. Okay. At any point 

12 in the afternoon, if a Member would like to 

13 request a break, please feel free to ask the group 

14 and we will honor that. 

15 But continuing, Albuquerque 

16 operations, please, Rose?

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, I think that 

18 everyone knows that this is kind of a new process, 

19 because we are going to be trying out an expedited 

20 issues resolution process. 

21 So, instead of going through the BRS 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in full detail of the Type 1 findings, we will 

2 instead do a consolidated matrix, if you will, 

3 that summarizes the resolution process, keeping 

4 in mind that these are QA findings.

5 These are findings that we consider 

6 resolved between NIOSH and SC&A already, but we 

7 need to finally close them out with the approval 

8 of the Board.

9 The Board does have the right to 

10 disagree with us. We have the right to ask 

11 questions. We can spend as much time or as little 

12 time on each finding as we want, but this is a new 

13 process to do.

14 The first case is finding 418.1 for 

15 the operation of LANL, NTS and Sandia. And the 

16 finding was that NIOSH did not request all of the 

17 visitor records for the sites mentioned in the 

18 CATI report, specifically the EE. It mentions 

19 going to SNL Livermore and Iowa Ordnance Plant.

20 And there was our record of those 

21 reflecting leaves. NIOSH came back and said 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. 

125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's not Livermore, it's actually handled by SL 

2 Albuquerque, which they had already carried.

3 And Iowa Ordnance Plant did not 

4 respond to requests, therefore there was no data 

5 to request from them. So we feel that that 

6 finding can be closed.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Is this one of those 

8 issues that's not a finding?

9 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's a finding.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We could reduce this 

11 to an observation because there was no error that 

12 was made. However, there was not enough 

13 transparency for us to know that.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It does sound 

15 like an observation, in my opinion.

16 MEMBER MUNN: No, it's essentially 

17 saying you overlooked something important. We 

18 saw that actually. You didn't look at it, it 

19 wasn't there.

20 MR. KATZ: So it's -- right. So 

21 that's why it's an observation, it's 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. 

126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correctly a finding.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, 

3 Subcommittee Members, can we agree with Rose? 

4 MEMBER MUNN: Sure. Yes, I think so.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good. 

6 It's closed. Let's go on to the second finding.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, this finding 

8 said there was a failure to apply an energy 

9 correction to the 30 to 250 keV photon dose. And 

10 NIOSH came back and agreed somewhat. 

11 They had used the health workbooks. 

12 That was site-specific to do that 100 percent, 30 

13 to 250 keV photon dose when the TBD actually 

14 recommends 65 percent 30 keV and 35 percent 30 to 

15 250 keV. What they did was in fact 

16 claimant-favorable and so we would recommend 

17 closing.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. 

19 Closing and observation.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So that would be a 

21 finding, because there was in fact an error 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. 

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was made.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The workbook was 

3 not yet in effect when the DR was completed.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So they used a 

5 general workbook, which didn't have the 

6 site-specific correction factors.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Other 

8 comments from Subcommittee Members? 

9 MEMBER MUNN: It was wrong once. It's 

10 been fixed now. Closed.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Agree on 

12 close? 

13 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds like a finding 

14 to me, Dave.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Finding.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Finding. 

17 Okay, finding it is.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Number three. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We were unable to 

21 replicate the assigned SNL missed doses and 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. 

128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 went back and forth with NIOSH, we realized that 

2 they used incorrect shallow LOD.

3 And because they used the wrong LOD, 

4 they ended up overestimating dose by 25 percent. 

5 That change was claimant-favorable but still in 

6 error.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Still an error.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 Alright, can we close on this with a finding?

10 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We're 

12 moving quickly. But that's the point of an 

13 expedited process. As we do the expedited 

14 process, we'll move quickly but it is important 

15 for Subcommittee Members who have any problems to 

16 just say stop. I don't think you have to have a 

17 question, more like you make an observation.

18 Because that's absolutely necessary. 

19 We do not push the steamroller through, but we 

20 want to consider each case carefully, as we are 

21 doing at this point, in my opinion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, we will close this as a finding. 

2 Okay, let's go on. 

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Same case, there was 

4 a failure to assign neutron dose at SNL. This was 

5 sort of a judgment call. There was one zero dose 

6 left in the review.

7 They're asking for it as an incidental 

8 and do not assign any neutron dose. We, on the 

9 other hand, felt that they should have assigned 

10 a zero to that single zero in the neutron record.

11 It adds an additional 29 millirems, 

12 does not affect the compensation decision.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It was a 

14 decision -- could you repeat that? I didn't 

15 follow quite -- the neutron dose was what?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There was a single 

17 LOD over 2.0 neutrons --

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: And NIOSH just 

20 disregarded that single record as an incidental 

21 record that maybe was erroneous.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

2 NIOSH considered that appropriate and it was left 

3 to be over 2.0. 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, so typically we 

5 would assign missed dose when there was a single 

6 LOD over 2.0

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sorry.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, no. I 

10 don't see -- that seems to be -- NIOSH, do you 

11 stand by what she said that you did? And might 

12 you explain?

13 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. Yes, 

14 basically, there are times and places where there 

15 can be indications that an individual may have 

16 been monitored for neutrons, but didn't actually 

17 have any exposure to neutrons.

18 It would be small, incidental 

19 exposures. We will take that into account. 

20 And, Matt Smith, I apologize, I don't remember the 

21 document off the top of my head that covers 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. 

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, in this case, there was a single 

2 timeframe. The person was a security guard at 

3 Fourier and the places they worked did not 

4 indicate to us that there likely was an exposure 

5 to neutrons.

6 So that's the reason we did not assign 

7 any kind of dose at that point.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So it 

9 seems to me that we're saying then is that this 

10 was a finding but it was of minimal impact.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Not only that, but it 

12 was a reasonable judgment.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It was a 

14 reasonable judgment. On the other hand, 

15 reasonable people on the SC&A side said, no, you 

16 should have added that.

17 So the two are not the two people 

18 haven't resolved, so this is minimal impact. So, 

19 in my mind, if there's a question, I would leave 

20 it as a finding.

21 Even though, what NIOSH did seems 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate. I mean, they disagree slightly. 

2 MEMBER MUNN: It's a finding, but it 

3 was a reasonable call.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes. Minimal 

5 impact.

6 MEMBER MUNN: It's not in conflict 

7 with good science.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, shall we 

9 close it?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's go on to 

13 finding 5.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so in case 

15 finding 5, findings show that there was failure 

16 to follow measured dose guidance from the TBD. 

17 And here, NIOSH agrees that the tool was used 

18 inappropriately and they have subsequently 

19 revised this case as part of Nevada Test Site PER.

20 And that represented some positive 

21 electron dose that was not included 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. 

133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 6 is similar. 

3 They also made the same error with missed dose 

4 guidance, and that was also corrected in the PER 

5 case.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: By the way, on 

7 finding 5, we've agreed to close it. Committee 

8 members, you're closing.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Next, 

11 number 6.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, 6. Again, this 

13 is the same finding as finding 5. However, the 

14 finding is missed electron dose instead of 

15 measured.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Fair 

17 enough. Let's stall the train a little bit with 

18 6.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, sorry. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: There we are, 

21 okay. And then 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. 

134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next case 

2 is at Brookhaven National Labs. Tab 435, Finding 

3 1. Here, the finding says that the DR did not 

4 include all occupational medical doses. 

5 Here, I think what happened was a 

6 misunderstanding about exactly what was 

7 mentioned in the handwritten medical records. 

8 On several of them, seven of them in particular, 

9 had declined or not indicated on the handwritten 

10 records, NIOSH informed us that that means that 

11 the employees were voluntary or they were not 

12 mandatory.

13 Further, an AWE could decline if they 

14 wanted and standard practice would have these not 

15 indicated or decline on the form.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Looks like 

17 okay.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They have the 

20 right to decline. So observation. And 

21 Subcommittee Members, do I hear objections 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. 

135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 closing this observation.

2 MEMBER MUNN: No, it sounds 

3 appropriate.

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sounds appropriate 

5 to me. This is Brad.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, good, 

7 thank you. Finding 2.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, finding 2, the 

9 DR did not account for all intakes. NIOSH here 

10 agreed with us that internal and missed doses 

11 should have been included in dose reconstruction. 

12 That has since been revised and it didn't have a 

13 significant impact on the PoC, I believe it was 

14 less than one percent.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so that 

16 would be a finding of minimal impact. And so 

17 it'll be recorded in the transcript, but was 

18 somebody at SC&A keep count of minimal, medium, 

19 high impact?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, so the original 

21 impact is here in column h, if you look. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, yes. 

2 Thank you very much, I will pay very close 

3 attention to this new table. That's very good. 

4 So we will close this as a finding. Board 

5 Members, unless I hear objections, this is closed 

6 as a finding.

7 I do not, it is closed. Okay, finding 

8 number three. 

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Actually, this is a 

10 Brookhaven National Labs finding number one. So 

11 this is tab 336. Same site, different case.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Thank you 

13 much, okay.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The findings are a 

15 combination of NTA badge frequency was not well 

16 established here. The TBD says that monitoring 

17 can be either weekly or monthly, and NIOSH picked 

18 monthly.

19 However, the CATI indicated that the 

20 reading was monitored weekly. And NIOSH had 

21 agreed that there could have been some confusion 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 regarding the change-out frequency, and is in the 

2 process of revising the Site Profile adjusting a 

3 change-out frequency.

4 Here, the question was, sometimes at 

5 Brookhaven National Labs, photon and neutron 

6 monitoring may have had different frequencies. 

7 And because they were different, it was difficult 

8 to pick the correct monitoring frequency when 

9 there may be zeroes in the record.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And in 

11 addition to the Site Profile, that's needed, but 

12 to the extent that the process was carried out 

13 correctly, it's in the framework of professional 

14 judgment that was compiled, it should be an 

15 observation. Right?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This resulted in a 

17 Site Profile change. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm not sure 

19 how to --

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: They agreed that it 

21 could have been interpreted another 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. 

138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So there could have 

3 been --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It could have 

5 been interpreted another way. But that was 

6 within the professional judgment of many, many 

7 cases. They have a range of professional 

8 judgment. 

9 And we consider that judgments will 

10 differ, but in my mind it's still --

11 MEMBER MUNN: May I have a little --

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, a clarification. 

14 I'm not sure -- I thought I understood what the 

15 issue was, as we were going through it. But now 

16 the discussion is causing me to think perhaps I 

17 didn't quite understand.

18 The issue of those, as a result of the 

19 information in the CATI not conforming to the 

20 frequency that was used for the dose 

21 reconstruction. Is that correct?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, that is correct.

2 MEMBER MUNN: But if there was a 

3 difference in timing between the two badges, then 

4 I can understand how the CATI might be totally 

5 uninformative in that regard.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: You do have the files. 

8 Your dose records tell you how frequently each of 

9 those types of measurements were made. Are we 

10 saying that we should question the reliability of 

11 the dose records you have, because the CATI 

12 doesn't agree with it precisely?

13 MR. BARTON: Wanda, this is Bob 

14 Barton. If I could maybe clarify a little bit 

15 here. This was one of my cases.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, please.

17 MR. BARTON: If you read the input at 

18 the time, it essentially said that neutron 

19 monitoring could be either on a monthly or a 

20 weekly badging schedule for the time period this 

21 person worked.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, as I recall, the actual records 

2 did not provide the information for what the 

3 actual badging schedule was. I believe they were 

4 quarterly summaries.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, okay.

6 MR. BARTON: So to make a choice 

7 between monthly or weekly, we felt that the 

8 correct choice was to pick the weekly, 

9 particularly since that's what was stated in the 

10 CATI report.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Right, okay, yes. 

12 I've gotcha. So the employee had a good idea of 

13 how frequently his badges were changed, but has 

14 no way of knowing whether those were all the same 

15 type of badge or if they were differing badges.

16 And you have the quarterly record, 

17 rather than the weekly one. Okay, got it.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So what do you 

19 say in terms of observation or finding?

20 MEMBER MUNN: I would say, in a case 

21 like that, that it's an observation, simply 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because you have -- the record tells you what the 

2 problem might be with respect to an employee's 

3 memory of it.

4 And you can't do more than base your 

5 judgment on the actual record that you have. 

6 That's what was done. So, it seems to me, an 

7 observation.

8 It was one of those things that one 

9 would question, but you have an explanation that 

10 cannot be pursued beyond what has already been 

11 pursued.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I'm 

13 feeling too that it's an observation. Others? 

14 MEMBER BEACH: I think I was leaning 

15 more towards a finding. But now with the new 

16 clarification, I think I'm going to go with the 

17 observation as well.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: I agree.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

20 Observation it is. And it will be closed now. 

21 Alright, let's go to the next finding, which 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. 

142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 number 0.3. What happened to finding 0.2?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 0.2 would be a type 

3 two finding, and we'll discuss that after we 

4 finish --

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine, 

6 you're going to discuss it later. 

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, in this 

8 finding, there was a lack of environmental 

9 internal dose assessment. And NIOSH agrees that 

10 current practices are to always evaluate 

11 environmental dose when there are no monitoring 

12 records available. 

13 And NIOSH has since revisited this 

14 claim, but there was not PoC impact.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

16 So that's a finding. Do we want to close on that 

17 as a finding, folks?

18 MEMBER MUNN: Before we do that, I'm 

19 wondering -- what our record says here is that 

20 NIOSH has revisited the claim and the Site 

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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But I don't see a resolution stated 

2 there. We revisited it and, as a result --

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: As a result, the PoC 

4 had no impact. I have the BRS printout in front 

5 of me here.

6 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy. Did 

7 NIOSH conclude that there needs to be a change to 

8 the Site Profile? I agree with Wanda --

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: The approach is being 

10 clarified in the Site Profile.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: NIOSH said that the 

13 approach is being clarified in the Site Profile.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. So the Site 

15 Profile is being revised?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: To make sure that the 

17 environmental internal dose is included.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think we need to 

19 make sure that the language is being revised. 

20 That --

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Whether it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 revised or not, there -- shouldn't environmental 

2 internal dose have been assigned? 

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, but --

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: NIOSH had 

5 concluded that it really should do that, and that 

6 therefore it would be a finding.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, yes, but it 

8 doesn't say it. What I'm trying to get at is, our 

9 record does not say that the Site Profile is being 

10 changed.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, also 

12 right.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But that's not the 

14 official record. This is simply a summary sheet 

15 that I put together for the sake of the Board. I 

16 will still go back and update the BRS, because 

17 that's still our main recording mechanism. 

18 And it's there. The record does 

19 state that the approach is being clarified in the 

20 Site Profile.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. I just wanted 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. 

145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 point out -- I'm a stickler for this. So what was 

2 the resolution? And since I didn't see a 

3 resolution here, and didn't really hear it, the 

4 fact that they revisited it doesn't mean anything 

5 to me. And that's why I said, and, and? 

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I apologize. In the 

7 future I'll try to make sure that's made clear.

8 MEMBER MUNN: That's quite alright. 

9 It's almost impossible to do this on the fly. 

10 Thank you, you've done an outstanding job in 

11 getting this together for us. Thank you.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good. So 

14 we can close.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, so it's 

17 closed. Now, we go to the BWXT Technology.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, so this the new 

19 case, tab 421, observation 1. And here, the 

20 finding or the observation says the DR was 

21 completed in 2011. But in 2012, OTIB-70 was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 revised. And that changes the short-term 

2 depletion rate from 1 percent to .067 percent. 

3 And implies a significant increase in the 

4 residual dose.

5 And NIOSH completely agrees with this 

6 finding and will reassess this case as part of PER 

7 56. 

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But it was done 

9 properly for the depletion rates at the time.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Correct, which is why 

11 it's listed as an observation. I was just going 

12 to say that our current process now as a finding 

13 --

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Our current process 

16 changes things that were done correctly at the 

17 time, but have since become outdated. We could 

18 change those findings. At least that's what we 

19 started doing several meetings ago.

20 MR. KATZ: For those -- well, there's 

21 two scenarios, which we've talked about. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There's a scenario where it was incorrect, and 

2 then it's been updated because it was known bound 

3 to be incorrect, and it was updated.

4 And then there's a scenario where we 

5 went out and did more data captures, and now we 

6 have new information, so we have a better method. 

7 The latter, where we went out and collected more 

8 information and have a better method, that's not 

9 a finding.

10 The original was done under the right 

11 premises, and so on, given the limited data. But 

12 the former, where there was an inaccuracy in the 

13 method in the first place, and then we went out 

14 and corrected it, that's still a finding.

15 And that's what we've been doing for 

16 the last number of meetings.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I think so. And 

18 this business of depletion rates similar to that 

19 other kind of standard usage that we've had in 

20 these processes has been beaten to death in this 

21 forum and in others.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, given my understanding of what I 

2 thought we were doing, this is appropriately an 

3 observation. Because we were doing 1 percent 

4 depletion at the time.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, great. 

6 MR. KATZ: Well, the 1 percent 

7 depletion was always wrong. And we finally 

8 figured that out through a whole bunch of 

9 meetings, right, under procedure.

10 MEMBER MUNN: That's correct.

11 MR. KATZ: But it was agreed so that's 

12 the case where the methods weren't right in the 

13 first place. It's not that we went out and did 

14 data collection and so we know more.

15 It's that they never were right. So 

16 this should be a finding under this approach.

17 If we had gone to some site and just 

18 done another data capture and learned more and 

19 hence changed our methods it wouldn't be a 

20 finding, it would be an observation because the 

21 old method would have been fine given the limited 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 data.

2 This isn't a question of limited data. 

3 This is a question of we were doing it wrong, we 

4 finally figured out how to do it right.

5 And so it's wrong in this case. It 

6 should be measured as a finding. For this case 

7 it wasn't handled right.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Would 

9 Subcommittee Members agree with that?

10 I was not aware that the 1 percent per 

11 day which was the case when I started on the Board 

12 was known to be wrong.

13 MEMBER MUNN: I didn't know that 

14 either.

15 MR. KATZ: So, Dave, you're thinking 

16 about -- we're talking about depletion rate, not 

17 the 1 percent sample business. We're talking 

18 about a depletion rate, right, for --

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, of 1 

20 percent per day. Yes. 

21 MEMBER MUNN: 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. 

150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I just have 

2 not heard that said until you just said it. And 

3 therefore I always took it as -- that's the method 

4 that we could say it's fine and use it.

5 MR. KATZ: No, the Procedure 

6 Subcommittee as Wanda could tell you, spent --

7 with John Mauro and Jim Neton, spent an enormous 

8 amount of time working through this whole issue 

9 of the depletion rate and came to a very strong 

10 conclusion that, depending on the exposure 

11 circumstances the depletion rate was 

12 inappropriate for certain exposure 

13 circumstances.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I heard 

15 that discussion at a Board meeting. And it was 

16 a very important conclusion and appreciated.

17 But the question is if 1 percent was 

18 wrong and we knew it to be wrong in the first 

19 place, and then we decided if that's something to 

20 correct, fine, but I didn't hear that.

21 I heard 1 percent was the best result, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the best estimate that we could make initially, 

2 and a lot of work was done, and a better estimate 

3 was made.

4 MR. KATZ: SC&A had this finding that 

5 dated back a long way, took a long time to resolve, 

6 but it got resolved in effect in SC&A's favor. 

7 So, it was always from the start, from 

8 the first review of that matter a concern with 

9 that depletion rate under certain circumstances 

10 and it finally got sorted out.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I 

12 will ask the other Subcommittee Members who were 

13 here at the time, and what struck me was initially 

14 I thought Wanda said that this was an observation.

15 So, I need other -- Wanda, I need other 

16 Board Members to confirm what Ted said.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I'm not 

19 saying, Ted, you're wrong.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No, no, no. No, not at 

21 all. Absolutely. Everybody needs to weigh 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. 

152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on that.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And what did 

3 you get, Wanda?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Well, my memory is not 

5 as good as Ted's, and I certainly have not checked 

6 the records.

7 But I had accepted 1 percent in my own 

8 mind as being one of those things about which 

9 reasonable people debate, not as something that 

10 we knew was wrong.

11 And it's very difficult for me to know 

12 that we, quote, knew it was wrong as is often the 

13 case with things that have been used in a certain 

14 manner for a long time.

15 And then whether we have better 

16 information or not just is finally resolved.

17 So is it improper to rely that heavily 

18 on what I'm saying because what I am trying to sort 

19 out in my own mind is the difference between what 

20 we know to be wrong and what we have taken as 

21 accurate forever.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Can I just -- on this known 

2 to be wrong, what I'm saying is it was wrong 

3 because everyone, NIOSH and SC&A and the Board 

4 Members all agreed that the other method was 

5 appropriate, and that the old method was 

6 incorrect.

7 I'm not saying that NIOSH, when it was 

8 using this method, knew it was wrong. I would 

9 certainly not say that or imagine that even, so 

10 that wasn't the case.

11 It was the case that this was 

12 questioned by SC&A from the start. And finally 

13 when it was resolved, everyone agreed that the 

14 methodology being used was incorrect and needed 

15 to be updated, and it was updated. It's been 

16 quite a while now that it's been --

17 MEMBER MUNN: Oh yes, I realize.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The finding 

19 and observation has to focus on NIOSH and what 

20 NIOSH does.

21 Because we're looking at a 1 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sample of all the -- so we want to make sure that 

2 NIOSH is doing the right thing, and that -- and 

3 I still -- it still looks like an observation to 

4 me.

5 MR. KATZ: I guess the proof of the 

6 pudding is these cases, cases that have been done 

7 based on the wrong methodology are redone or 

8 considered for redoing based on the new 

9 methodology.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. KATZ: And again, it wasn't 

12 because we just collected more information. It 

13 was because there was a method issue based on what 

14 we knew way back then.

15 The data we had wasn't the question. 

16 It was our methodology.

17 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's what a lot 

18 of PERs are about. Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Well, no, PERs can be based 

20 on just collecting new information.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I know, but 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there's a lot of them are based --

2 MR. KATZ: In this case it wasn't.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: The three of us 

4 are talking, Ted, Wanda, and I. How about other 

5 members weighing in or expressing?

6 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

7 agree with what Ted is saying. I see this as a 

8 finding.

9 We can debate this, but if we were 

10 doing something wrong, we were doing it wrong. 

11 And that's the way I look at it.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

13 others may want to pass, you know. You don't have 

14 to comment. Particularly those of you who are 

15 more senior Board Members.

16 MEMBER BEACH: I fall on the side of 

17 it being a finding also.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well.

19 MEMBER POSTON: This is John. 

20 Basically if we're doing it wrong, it seems to me 

21 it ought to be a finding.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. We have 

2 now several folks saying it should be a finding. 

3 And I'll go along with that. 

4 Then let's note this as a finding.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And it's not a 

7 life and death matter, and it's not a compensation 

8 matter, but it's a matter of our records. So, we 

9 will close this observation as a finding. As a 

10 finding.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Observation 2 

12 and observation 3 are exactly the same issue, just 

13 different aspects. Internal uranium and 

14 residual.

15 So we can close those also.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Let's close 

17 both of those off as findings, consistent with our 

18 previous discussion.

19 Okay, folks? Is that okay, 

20 Subcommittee Members?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. And 

3 by the way, just -- the Subcommittee closes.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Now, it's 10 

6 minutes to 3:00. Let's do one more. We have one 

7 more case for BWXT. Let's do that and then take 

8 a break.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, this is 

10 actually the same case as finding number 1. And 

11 the finding says that we were unable to reproduce 

12 the external residual dose.

13 And here NIOSH did in fact do the dose 

14 reconstruction correctly for external residual 

15 dose.

16 However, that information was not 

17 included in the original dose reconstruction so 

18 that is why we were unable to verify it.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Once they provided it 

21 to us, we were able to verify that it was done 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correctly. And so I would suggest we reduce this 

2 to an observation.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree. Do 

4 others agree?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Well, it's now 

7 2:50. Do we want to take a 15-minute comfort 

8 break? And we'll reconvene at 3:05 Eastern 

9 Daylight Time.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Very good.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, folks. 

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 2:51 p.m. and 

14 resumed at 3:07 p.m.)

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rose, it's now 

16 set up with the first case which is actually 

17 General Atomics.

18 Case Review Issues Resolutions for Sets 14-18 (Oak 

19 Ridge, Paducah GDP, SRS, RFP, INL, NTS, AOO, and other 

20 Facilities)

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes and this is 

22 observation 1. Here the observation states 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. 

159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the DR report did not acknowledge that he was 

2 eligible for compensation under the SEC and 

3 states that he did not qualify this year of --

4 (Telephonic interference)

5 It was simply that template that the 

6 dose reconstructors were using was not specific 

7 and NIOSH has been corrected that it do -- the case 

8 did qualify for compensation under the SEC, but 

9 the dose reconstruction was necessary because one 

10 was a cancer that didn't qualify.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

12 This has come up many times recently. So I 

13 propose that we close the case as an observation.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I trust all 

16 agree. Okay.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Finding 1, 

18 same case. Here the finding states that NIOSH 

19 used 30 percent thorium-232, 70 percent 

20 thorium-228. And in fact it should have been a 

21 70 percent 232, 30 percent 228.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And NIOSH agreed with the findings. 

2 It's a simple QA error when the dose reconstructor 

3 put that information and CADW tool. And it 

4 didn't have an impact on compensation.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: While the 

6 error had no impact on compensation -- had no 

7 impact, or could it be a medium impact?

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: It did not change the 

9 compensation decision.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right, but 

11 that would lead to the possibility of it being low 

12 or medium as opposed to high. If it changed the 

13 compensation decision.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, if it changed 

15 the compensation decision it would definitely be 

16 a high impact.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It would be an 

18 error. That would be more than a finding.

19 But it's a quality QA error so the --

20 and as the -- you're assessing that it has a low

21 impact, and that's absent my looking at the case, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and you are looking at the case, so I'll go along 

2 with that and just say that it's a finding with 

3 low effect.

4 Are there any concerns from 

5 Subcommittee members?

6 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. It's a QA 

7 issue and it's a finding.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 Alright. I declare it closed unless I hear 

10 otherwise.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It's closed.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, closed. 

13 The second.

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. NIOSH omitted 

15 the finding of internal dose to the years of

16 diagnoses. And NIOSH agreed that this was an 

17 error. I believe it was a copy and paste error 

18 and we've since corrected the problem. 

19 And it didn't have any effect on the 

20 compensation decision. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 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. 

162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that -- NIOSH agrees with that so it would be a 

2 finding and closed.

3 Excuse me, we should close it. Other 

4 Subcommittee members? Any comments? Okay, no 

5 comments. It's closed.

6 And now we go on to General Electric, 

7 Ohio, Oak Ridge, BWXT.

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Observation 1 says 

9 that NIOSH assigned unmonitored dose for the year 

10 1959. SC&A could not find BWXT calculation 

11 workbook that contained doses for 1959.

12 They were correctly assigned an IREP 

13 table. And NIOSH was actually able to provide us 

14 additional information in the form of an SRDB 

15 guidance document that shows that NIOSH was, in 

16 fact, able to bound all these exposure at MMSC 

17 (phonetic). Just not all exposures for all 

18 potential workers.

19 And that was an observation again.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 Observation. Agree? Members? 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. 

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Alright.

2 Okay, now for Grand Junction. 

3 Observation 1.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is one more 

5 finding in this case.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: There was one more 

8 finding in this case, finding number 1. Sorry --

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Grand 

10 Junction.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: No, this is still the 

12 same case, finding 1.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're still 

14 at 437?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 437, finding 1. And 

16 it states that there was an incorrect frequency.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm sorry, I 

18 did not notice that the -- I didn't notice --

19 pardon me. You're right. Please go ahead.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. They 

21 discovered there was an incorrect frequency of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 chest X-rays for years 1971 and '70. And NIOSH 

2 agrees and the latest BWXT workbook has corrected 

3 these values.

4 This has all been very small 

5 underestimate in dose and had no impact on 

6 compensation.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So that 

8 is a finding. Do folks -- are folks ready to 

9 close then?

10 Okay. Alright, then we will close 

11 that as a finding. And now for Grand Junction.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Grand Junction 

13 observation 1 from tab 337. And here the 

14 observation says that the DR report should have 

15 included -- we think that a brief discussion as 

16 to why occupational medical doses are not 

17 discussed.

18 And NIOSH said that they didn't need 

19 to assess them because the claim was compensated. 

20 But they agreed that they should have at least 

21 mentioned it in the dose reconstruction report.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And they have since corrected that 

2 where they now include that information in dose 

3 reconstruction reports.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

5 Certainly a very clear observation. And shall we 

6 close it?

7 MEMBER MUNN: I would.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, closed. 

9 Are we done? Second observation for Grand 

10 Junction. Okay.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This 

12 observation has to do with two inconsistencies 

13 that we identified.

14 First, the reference document in the 

15 report are to the Uranium Reduction Company's 

16 plants which is in Utah.

17 And there was no discussion on 

18 inaccessibility of the reference documents at 

19 Grand Junction.

20 And also the concentrations that were 

21 cited in the report did not match the ones 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. 

166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were actually used.

2 And in fact, this was an erroneous 

3 reference that should not have been included in 

4 the report.

5 NIOSH did provide us with the correct 

6 reference and we were able to verify that it was 

7 correctly used.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. This 

9 was a good observation. So we will close this as 

10 an observation if members agree.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Agree here.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Without 

14 objection, closed.

15 Now, the Iowa Ordnance, 341.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is 

17 observation 1. Here, the TBD and -- in the DR 

18 report it references the TBD and Appendix, 

19 revision zero.

20 And using that guidance the derived 

21 dose is 4.04 instead of 3.91 rem -- or 0.29, I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sorry.

2 And it appears that NIOSH actually 

3 used Rev 2 instead of Rev 0. And NIOSH did in fact 

4 use a different revision than was cited in their 

5 report. They used the current revision which is 

6 what they should have done, it was simply an 

7 erroneous reference in their report.

8 And that is an observation. 

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any 

10 concerns?

11 By the way, I'm curious because this 

12 is the first time I've come into contact with Iowa 

13 Ordnance. In an earlier case it was said that 

14 they don't return data.

15 But here we have two -- one Iowa 

16 Ordnance claim case. Is there a contradiction 

17 between we can't get data from Iowa and the fact 

18 that we have this case here?

19 MR. CALHOUN: This is Grady. Iowa 

20 Ordnance is an SEC and that's probably one of the 

21 main reasons. I don't know if that's what you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 referring to.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Rose or Kathy, 

3 did we --

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: What happened is that 

5 the records from Iowa Ordnance Plant got shipped 

6 off and were in storage. And NIOSH came across 

7 them and put them in their record. But they don't 

8 actually maintain a database of past workers. 

9 That would be my guess.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Okay. 

11 That would explain it.

12 I don't foresee any further 

13 questioning about that. That's a reasonable 

14 possibility. And so yes, let's hear what the 

15 case -- so let's go back to 239 observation 1. 

16 That it was used correctly and in this case has 

17 one -- we accept it -- Subcommittee members, we 

18 accept this as an observation.

19 Any objection by Subcommittee 

20 members?

21 MEMBER MUNN: No objection here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

2 Hearing none, we'll close that. Okay.

3 Now let's go to the first finding.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, the findings 

5 says that NIOSH defined uranium dose as not 

6 substantiated. The method that they used did not 

7 match the parameters that were specified in the 

8 TBD.

9 And NIOSH does agree that they didn't 

10 use the method that was specified in the TBD. 

11 Instead they used a very over-estimating approach 

12 that resulted in adding an additional 1.2 rem.

13 And had they used the more 

14 conservative assumption we'll recommend it would 

15 not have an impact on the PoC. The estimate 

16 impact on the dose at least.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

18 fine. So that will be a finding. 

19 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott, I do 

20 question should there be an observation because 

21 what we did, and remember this is 2004 when 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. 

170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claim was done.

2 It was a gross over-estimation to get 

3 the claim done rather than using the much smaller 

4 and specific values out of the TBD.

5 So it was an over-estimating 

6 assumption and it's on the correct side of 

7 compensability. So, we didn't necessarily do 

8 anything wrong.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Was the TBD out 

10 in 2004? The TBD. Or did you use the TBD that 

11 was appropriate in 2004? If you did, then I would 

12 agree it's an observation.

13 Or was the TBD in effect in 2004 which 

14 -- being that the TBD was in effect in 2004 and 

15 you didn't follow it then it's a finding.

16 Even though it's perfectly reasonable 

17 to overestimate. Can someone answer that?

18 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, there was a TBD in 

19 effect at the time, but I guess what I'm saying 

20 is over-estimating assumptions are used all the 

21 time rather than the values that are in the TBD 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for expeditious purposes.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: For 

3 over-estimating. 

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is a major 

5 question that probably we're going to need to 

6 address clearly here in this forum. 

7 Because if we're going to say that 

8 we're no longer going to do overestimates for 

9 these cases that are in the opinion of the 

10 reconstructors clearly not going to qualify then 

11 we need to say right now stop doing 

12 over-estimations.

13 I don't think that's really what we 

14 want to say.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good point. 

16 Other folks?

17 MEMBER MUNN: It appears to me that 

18 we're in a position of needing to define for 

19 ourselves what we're going to use as our personal 

20 gauge of how to proceed in that manner from now 

21 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. 

172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because we said we want to be as 

2 precise as possible, but in these cases where 

3 clearly they're not going to qualify in the mind 

4 of the observer.

5 And you end up with an overestimate. 

6 Have you done -- is that an erroneous thing for 

7 us to do in the future? I don't think so.

8 MR. KATZ: No, I don't think anyone's 

9 saying that efficiency cases overestimates are 

10 out. We use them all the time.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: So, if this is clearly an 

13 efficiency case then there's no problem.

14 MEMBER MUNN: No. That was my --

15 MR. CALHOUN: That was the case with 

16 this one. This is Grady.

17 And we've done evaluations a long, 

18 long, long time ago, and I think we all came to 

19 the conclusion that it's just not cost-beneficial 

20 for us to not do overestimates.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I certainly agree.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So in a case like that -- should we not simply make 

2 an official judgment here in the Subcommittee 

3 that in cases like this where it's clearly not 

4 going to -- or not expected to be compensable from 

5 the outset that it's okay to use this 

6 over-estimating event?

7 And in that case findings -- an issue 

8 like this will be treated as a finding or an 

9 observation. It seems to me it's an observation.

10 MR. CALHOUN: It might be neither.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, the point that 

12 we were expressing here was that the dose that 

13 they assigned was way higher than could have 

14 possibly been received. Next to the current TBD, 

15 no internal dose at all had been assigned.

16 That was why we issued it as a finding. 

17 If they used something that was more 

18 claimant-favorable than was recommended in the 

19 TBD they can do that.

20 But we need some way of knowing that 

21 that's what they were doing instead of they chose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the wrong value.

2 MEMBER MUNN: It seems to me entirely 

3 appropriate that SC&A calls attention to the fact 

4 that it was different. That uranium doses that 

5 weren't substantiated, or any doses that weren't 

6 substantiated, were included in the calculation. 

7 That seems appropriate for them to call that to 

8 our attention.

9 But by the same token in my mind it 

10 justifies that -- when the response is accurate 

11 as it is in this one that this is simply because 

12 it was an overestimate. Then to me that's 

13 clearly an observation.

14 But I certainly would not discourage 

15 SC&A from calling it to our attention.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I 

17 appreciate it also. But I understand that there 

18 are many, many cases that have to be -- thousands 

19 of cases that have to come through NIOSH and be 

20 estimated. 

21 And this is a proper overestimating 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 approach. And to task them to do it just feels 

2 twice -- for doing overestimating and if the 

3 person is not compensated based on the 

4 overestimating, then I think this is not an 

5 observation.

6 And that we should go ahead and change 

7 it to an observation. Prove it, change to an 

8 observation. Proving it's an observation. 

9 So, are there further thoughts by 

10 Subcommittee members before we close this? This

11 is an important issue. Maybe if others could weigh 

12 in it would be helpful.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: The way I kind of 

14 looked at it kind of, well -- I can see both sides 

15 on this because I don't see it as a finding.

16 I see it more as an observation.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Anybody else want to make a comment? 

19 Okay. Let's accept it as an 

20 observation. And hearing no further -- no 

21 objection I'd like to close it as an 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. 

176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Any objection? 

3 I hear none. Closed.

4 Now, we go to 3 and 4.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And this is 

6 LANL case observation 1.

7 Here is simply an observation. We 

8 find out that this dose reconstruction was done 

9 under the old TBD which resulted in a dose of 1.35 

10 rem for PoC. And that's been revised. The TBD 

11 only finds that there is a 0.67 rem per PoC, their 

12 dose was significantly lower when reassessed.

13 And that was simply to point out that 

14 that was not the correct dose.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. That's 

16 certainly an observation.

17 That's a straightforward 

18 observation. So, we will agree to close it as an 

19 observation. 

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. 

21 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 We'll close that as an observation. 

2 And now observation -- also Los 

3 Alamos, 385.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: This is a LANL case 

5 for plant employment at Nevada Site Office and 

6 NTS.

7 Observation 1 for tab 385. The dose 

8 reconstruction was performed -- actually this is 

9 basically an identical issue to the one we just 

10 talked about.

11 The TBD was revised. When dose 

12 reconstruction was completed it would change 

13 dose.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

15 This again should be closed as an observation 

16 unless I hear objection. It's straightforward.

17 Hearing no objection that's closed. 

18 And let's go to observation number 2.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Observation 

20 number 2. This observation says that although 

21 the DR specified that GE-68 was included in 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. 

178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 internal environmental dose, it is not listed in 

2 the CADW workbook for either of the cancers.

3 And NIOSH simply explained that they 

4 did not mean to include that specific 

5 radionuclide in the template. It should have 

6 been removed.

7 Essentially saying that they didn't 

8 want to include that. They didn't try to. It's 

9 an error.

10 MEMBER MUNN: That's good. 

11 Reasonable. 

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: It's an 

13 observation. Okay. Observation. And we'll 

14 close it.

15 Any concerns? Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 1, same case. 

17 They said an incorrect LOD was used for mixed 

18 photon dose, specifically for the years '87 and 

19 '89.

20 And NIOSH agreed with that being an 

21 error in the NTS workbook. It's since been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 corrected. NIOSH reworked the case and it 

2 remains non-compensable.

3 They did increase the PoC by around 2 

4 percent though.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So this 

6 was a workbook error.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Finding on the 

9 first one. So, and does not change the 

10 compensability. So let's close it out as a 

11 finding unless I hear objection. 

12 MS. BEHLING: This is Kathy Behling. 

13 Can I just ask a question? As I always do here.

14 Is this from the PER, the NTS workbook 

15 issue?

16 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. The 

17 claims that were worked at that workbook version 

18 would have also fallen under the PER for NTS, 46. 

19 So, yes.

20 MS. BEHLING: Okay.

21 (Simultaneous speaking)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. So, 

2 next one.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding number 2. 

4 The finding says that there were inconsistent 

5 assumptions.

6 And NIOSH actually disagreed with 

7 this one. They argued that the approach that 

8 they employed was in fact claimant-favorable.

9 And here we just recommend that the 

10 guidance in OTIB-17 perhaps needs to be clarified 

11 to suggest that site-specific guidance is 

12 intended to be extrapolated to all sites.

13 OTIB-17 lists certain sites, some of 

14 the bigger ones, and in it it says that it will 

15 be revised in the future to include other sites. 

16 That hasn't happened.

17 Is it fair that NIOSH is extrapolating 

18 the guidance in that to apply to sites that are 

19 not mentioned? 

20 We don't have a problem with OTIB-17, 

21 but if it is being used for other sites it probably 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should be revised to reflect that.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

3 MEMBER BEACH: It seems reasonable.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon?

5 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I 

6 agree with that. It seems reasonable to expect 

7 the other sites to be in there.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay, so this is then not 

10 an error per se, it's just an observation, 

11 improving the documentation?

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, I would agree 

13 with that as well.

14 MR. KATZ: So change it to an 

15 observation.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So, you're 

17 feeling it's a finding.

18 MR. KATZ: No. Rose just agreed it 

19 should be changed to an observation because it's 

20 only a documentation problem. They did the dose 

21 reconstruction correctly.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But I think that 

2 OTIB-17 doesn't specifically reference the site 

3 that they were applying it to.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. 

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So, it 

6 could be an observation potentially. So, do we 

7 want to close it as an observation? Or are there 

8 objections? No? Okay, let's close it as an 

9 observation.

10 And now on to 3.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: 3 states that the 

12 1978 medical dose was omitted. And NIOSH agreed 

13 it was unclear, this particular case. It wasn't 

14 apparent whether this was an application that 

15 required X-ray or not, but to be 

16 claimant-favorable it should have been included.

17 And actually it was already included 

18 when the case was reworked for another issue. 

19 And it did not significantly impact the PoC.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

21 Finding. Shall we close it as a finding? 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. 

183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there objections? Finding or not? Then let's 

2 close it.

3 Okay. So, fourth finding.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Finding 4, correct. 

5 This finding says that an incorrect intake rate 

6 was used for americium for internal environmental 

7 dose.

8 And NIOSH determined that when they 

9 were looking at the CADW output file that the 

10 reviewer did not take into account the varying 

11 intake rates that were actually used in the CADW 

12 file.

13 NIOSH agreed that the Table 431 did 

14 not include americium values pre-1977. And 

15 since it was a maximum intake it did not include 

16 the maximum values from Table 4.1 through 4.3.

17 And they're currently evaluating the 

18 impact of that shortcoming.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. So 

20 discussion from Subcommittee members? Okay. 

21 And we should close that as a finding. Are there 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 objections? Hearing none let's move on.

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The next one 

3 is the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Tab 435 

4 finding 1.

5 The findings says that tritium dose 

6 for 1973 and '74 was not assigned.

7 And here actually the tritium results 

8 were not available when NIOSH completed the dose 

9 reconstruction. I believe they requested the 

10 records and the dose reconstruction was completed 

11 before the records arrived so they have a several 

12 month data due later record than the dose 

13 reconstruction was completed.

14 Under NIOSH's normal process for 

15 review new information the dosimetry was actually 

16 done for this after we reviewed the case, and it 

17 increased the PSC by approximate 4 percent. 

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But 

19 again was appropriate at the time, and they went 

20 through their normal process and found that. I 

21 would say 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. 

185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I would close it as an observation.

2 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. I do 

3 have a question. Would it be an observation, or 

4 would it be withdrawn? Because there was no way 

5 for us to know additional information would come 

6 in after the claim was done. 

7 And we did assess under the PADS 

8 (phonetic) process.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That is true. 

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, I agree, but 

11 when the record is compressed they often don't 

12 have dates on them so it's not possible for us to 

13 know that was received after the fact.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: That's an 

15 appropriate comment and it seems to me that it 

16 should be withdrawn.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Not as an 

18 observation?

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, withdrawn.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: So, you don't want us 

21 to point out that they don't use data? I'm 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. 

186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying that --

2 (Simultaneous speaking)

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- but under the 

4 normal process if you don't use information 

5 you're obligated to report that.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I mean, 

7 normally we say that an observation does not 

8 affect the decision. I don't know, my leaning --

9 what do others think? I wondered whether maybe 

10 it should be withdrawn.

11 It's a timing issue. If you had 

12 looked at it later you would have found out that 

13 they did it right. There wouldn't be anything 

14 there.

15 It's no complaint that you did it when 

16 you did it, but --

17 MEMBER MUNN: This is another one of 

18 those things which we need to go out of our way 

19 to try to clarify here.

20 We certainly do want SC&A to notify 

21 all and sundry when they discover that something 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was incorrectly assigned, or not assigned. 

2 That's their job, to tell us that.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Right.

4 MEMBER MUNN: But it's also the job of 

5 NIOSH to be able to explain that adequately.

6 And when they explain it adequately, 

7 and it's a case like this where it was done right 

8 for the information at the time, this came later.

9 And we've been assured that the impact 

10 on the compensable nature of the claim is not 

11 affected, what do we want to do? This is a good 

12 time for us to decide that.

13 Do we call this an observation? Or 

14 are we going to call it a finding? Withdrawing 

15 it doesn't seem to be correct simply because SC&A 

16 followed the procedure we've asked them to 

17 follow. Tell us when there's something wrong 

18 here.

19 MR. KATZ: If this is helpful, I think 

20 this is an observation. The reason why it's an 

21 observation is this documentation issue.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There's no fault here in the 

2 documentation. It's just that as I think Rose 

3 said the documentation on the additional dose 

4 that came in later information isn't dated.

5 SC&A had no way to know that that 

6 wasn't in the hands of NIOSH when they did the dose 

7 reconstruction, so they correctly called it a 

8 finding.

9 It's not a finding because it's 

10 actually -- they did it correctly, but it is a 

11 documentation issue. Even though maybe this is 

12 not a correctable one, but it's a documentation 

13 issue. So I would call it an observation.

14 MEMBER MUNN: I certainly agree.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think all the 

16 arguments for observation are good. 

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'd 

18 agree with that, this being an observation. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. I 

20 certainly do want SC&A to call attention to 

21 something like 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. 

189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And it would certainly adequately 

2 (telephonic interference) an observation, if you 

3 will, suggest that anything is done wrong.

4 So, it's our least important note, but 

5 it is still a note that we want to have. But I 

6 think I withdraw the statement "least important." 

7 That's different.

8 MEMBER MUNN: I think it's necessary 

9 for us to have a record of the fact that SC&A, 

10 they're charged appropriately by calling it to 

11 our attention. Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So I think 

13 we're pretty well agreed that it's an 

14 observation. And I'd like to close it. Anybody 

15 object? Any Subcommittee Member object? No? 

16 Then it will be closed as an observation. 

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Don't hesitate 

19 to advocate for withdrawing when we feel like it. 

20 And that's what the Committee decides.

21 MR. SIEBERT: I 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. 

190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: So it's 

2 appreciated that you raised an issue, and you 

3 raised it to the Subcommittee even if they didn't 

4 agree with it. Good.

5 Okay, 367. Now, we are supposed to go 

6 till around 4:30. It's 3:45 Eastern time. And 

7 it's almost breakfast time out here in Hawaii. 

8 So, let's take a few more cases and 

9 then around 4 o'clock let's start discussion of 

10 -- let's talk a little bit about what we've been 

11 going through with the expedited case table.

12 And then talk about a future date for 

13 our meeting. So, we'll go on for another 15 

14 minutes or so.

15 Alright, case 367, observation 1.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This is a 

17 NUMEC Parks Township case. So this observation 

18 was added at the request of one of our Board 

19 members during the one-on-one.

20 At the time that we reviewed this the 

21 NUMEC TBD had not been formally evaluated by SC&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. 

191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That has since occurred.

2 And so this observation was simply to 

3 point out about CEP which was convicted of data 

4 forgery and so they're no longer used. 

5 Information that they provided are no longer used 

6 in dose reconstruction.

7 And this was simply to provide 

8 additional information.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good. 

10 Good observation. Thank you.

11 And nice to hear the candor of a 

12 one-on-one with a Board Member, that that can 

13 result in a useful observation. 

14 Okay, so close this as an observation 

15 unless I hear disagreement. I do not. It is 

16 closed. And let's go on to Pantex.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. The new case, 

18 Pantex tab 398, observation 1. 

19 And here the observation says that in 

20 the CATI report, the EE states that they wore a 

21 lead apron, but the badge was worn on the lapel 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 collar. Therefore the beta dose that was 

2 assigned was actually correct by the dosimeter 

3 for the unprotected skin.

4 And I believe this EE had a facial skin 

5 cancer.

6 And NIOSH agreed that the lead apron 

7 factor could have been eliminated for that 

8 cancer.

9 And actually the DR was revised 

10 omitting that and did not impact the outcome. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Good 

12 observation. Any concerns? Shall we close it?

13 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, please.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. No 

15 objection. And by affirmation we'll close it as 

16 an observation. 

17 Number 2.

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. In this case, 

19 NIOSH assigned external ambient dose for the 

20 years '58 through '62 according to PROC 60.

21 But SC&A found it not obvious 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. 

193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 EE should have been monitored or not. If they 

2 were supposed to be monitored then assigning 

3 coworker doses would have been appropriate or 

4 result in an additional 0.3 rem of photon dose.

5 And that would have a small impact on 

6 the case.

7 NIOSH instead assigned ambient dose 

8 instead of the coworker dose. Here, the EE 

9 worker is a [identifying information redacted].

10 And we completely agree that it's a 

11 judgment call. In this case NIOSH's judgment 

12 might have been slightly less claimant-favorable 

13 and it did not impact the compensation decision.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Any 

15 objection to closing this as an observation? 

16 Okay. So, let's close it as an observation.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Observation 

18 3. Sorry.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No, go ahead. 

20 She's pulling the screen up now for observation 

21 3.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, observation 3, 

2 same case.

3 The TBD Table 5.6 did not state the 

4 intake rate. It could have been microcuries per 

5 day, or microcuries per year in any column of the 

6 table.

7 And SC&A estimated based on other 

8 entries in the table that they meant microcuries 

9 per year. And NIOSH agrees that those units 

10 should have been expressed in the table clearly 

11 and we did make the right call. And we can make 

12 the changes in the next revision.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

14 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

15 finding 1 states that NIOSH omitted a recorded 

16 beta dose.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Excuse me. 

18 Can you hear me?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Well, 

21 there was a signal that my conference call ended. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I hope not. But I'm happy to live with trouble. 

2 If you don't hear me for a moment or two and you're 

3 waiting for a decision, please --

4 MEMBER MUNN: You're not loud and 

5 clear, but you're there.

6 MR. KATZ: Yes, the only issue now 

7 Dave is now if you're using a different phone, you 

8 have an echo.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aha. Okay. 

10 I'll redial. I'm going to redial in. Please go 

11 ahead, Wanda, and just take over for a moment if 

12 you would.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, that's fine. 

14 We're still working Pantex, right?

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. So the 

17 findings again stated that NIOSH omitted a 

18 recorded beta dose 0.42 rem for the year 1966. 

19 And NIOSH agreed that that dose was 

20 missed. And when they revisited the dose 

21 reconstruction it had a very small impact on 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. 

196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Good. To my mind it's 

3 correctly a finding. NIOSH has agreed that it is 

4 and has corrected it, and done the proper 

5 calculation.

6 From my perspective it's a finding 

7 that can now be closed. Any objection? 

8 MEMBER BEACH: None here.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, closed, finding.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Finding 2, 

12 one case. NIOSH omitted a missed photon dose for 

13 1968 and '72 and used the incorrect MDL values for 

14 1975.

15 NIOSH agreed that the photon dose was 

16 missed and the DR was revised, but there was no 

17 impact on the claimed PoC.

18 The MDL problem resulted from an 

19 inconsistency between the TBD tables and NIOSH 

20 has agreed to correct that.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Excellent. Any 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comments from the Board members? If not, finding 

2 2 can be closed by the Subcommittee.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Same case, 

4 finding number 3.

5 NIOSH included two extra beta missed 

6 zeroes for the year 1975 and used incorrect MDL 

7 values for '74 through '76.

8 NIOSH does agree with that. The QA 

9 error had no impact on the dose reconstruction 

10 results.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Accurate finding agreed 

12 to by NIOSH. Impact assessed. I suggest we 

13 close finding 3 by the Subcommittee. Any 

14 objection? 

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: No.

16 MEMBER MUNN: If not, we're good.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, back on 

18 the again. Dave.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, good. Alright.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Are we going 

21 now to number 4?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: We're going now to 

2 number 4, correct.

3 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. 

4 Thanks, Wanda, again.

5 MEMBER MUNN: You're welcome.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Can you hear me 

7 adequately?

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, much better here.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, very 

10 good.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, finding 4 

12 states that NIOSH omitted intake for the first 

13 part of '64 and included an intake for 1978 twice.

14 And NIOSH does agree with that. They 

15 were offsetting assumptions and then they revised 

16 the case again. It didn't have an impact on 

17 compensation.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Alright. 

19 Certainly was a finding. And in both cases, 

20 finding, two findings of the same -- call it one 

21 finding and that's fine.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, shall we close this as a finding, 

2 folks?

3 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Agreed.

6 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Good. Okay, 

7 closed. And now let's go through the Santa 

8 Susana, 371.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Area Four at 

10 Santa Susana and they also had employment at De 

11 Soto Avenue.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Can I interrupt? Did 

13 you put that on Live Meeting? I'm only seeing 

14 Pantex right now.

15 MEMBER MUNN: It's there.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Sometimes there's a 

17 slight delay.

18 MR. KATZ: Or, Josie, maybe you just 

19 need to scroll down on your screen.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Gotcha. I'll try 

21 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. 

200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Can everyone see it?

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Yes, now I can. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Here we pointed out 

5 that we disagreed with the start date of covered 

6 employment for Area 4.

7 The EE was involved in an incident at 

8 the sodium reactor experiment which are located 

9 in Area 4, June 4th through 5th, 1959.

10 And that incident -- we mentioned an 

11 incident report predates the start of covered 

12 period. And understand that DOL sets the covered 

13 period, but we just disagreed with the period set 

14 by DOL.

15 And NIOSH agreed and notified DOL of 

16 its intent.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think 

18 actually this is an important finding it seems to 

19 me due to that there is an incident report for that 

20 person. That could have been known by NIOSH.

21 MR. KATZ: Dave, NIOSH is required 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 legally to follow DOL's determinations with 

2 respect to start dates and end dates. 

3 It doesn't matter if we have hot 

4 evidence in our hands of earlier activity. Until 

5 DOL changes that we're legally required to do our 

6 dose reconstructions based on DOL 

7 determinations. There's no fault with NIOSH on 

8 this.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: But it was SC&A 

10 that found -- NIOSH didn't report it. SC&A did.

11 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, but I don't -- this 

12 is Grady. I'm not sure that DOL did anything 

13 about it. They'd have to be under contract for 

14 a DOE-related activity for that to be covered.

15 And we're not completely sure of that, 

16 but when these kind of things happen all we can 

17 do is forward the information we have to DOL.

18 MR. SIEBERT: And however, just to be 

19 clear, we did forward that information in 2010. 

20 This claim was done in 2011 and we hadn't gotten 

21 any response on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, fine. 

2 That leads us to going back to the same.

3 So, shall we close this as an 

4 observation, folks? Subcommittee Members.

5 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think we have 

6 any option.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: We don't have 

8 any option. You're absolutely right. So, we 

9 will close this as an observation.

10 Alright, let's go now to finding 1.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. Here the 

12 finding says that it's unclear if all medical dose 

13 is accounted for.

14 And here -- this site was kind of 

15 unusual. They used medical index cards and 

16 detailed records.

17 And it was found that medical index 

18 cards are actually fairly accurate. And if there 

19 were other exam type -- I'm reading directly off 

20 the DR here -- given in the record the dose is 

21 based on the record.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The TBD default frequency is only used 

2 when the records appear to be missing. Here 

3 NIOSH follows always on the medical index cards.

4 I believe in the actual finding we 

5 pointed out that we thought they should have used 

6 the default frequency because it wasn't apparent 

7 to us that the complete record was there.

8 And we do accept that medical cards 

9 provide a sound judgment for judging a category 

10 of exposure to be used.

11 We also note that the TBD does 

12 recommend using the default for the examination 

13 period for maximizing dose estimates like the one 

14 that was used in this case.

15 But including those additional scans 

16 wouldn't have an impact on comp case.

17 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

18 Comments?

19 MEMBER MUNN: This is -- it's an 

20 interesting one that we encounter every once in 

21 a while, but the medical cards are part and parcel 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of this particular site record.

2 So, if it was unclear during the dose 

3 reconstruction then SC&A appropriately called it 

4 to the attention and NIOSH appropriately 

5 explained, verified it.

6 It looks to me like it's a reasonable 

7 finding and reasonably closed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

9 Subcommittee, should we close it as a finding?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, in my view.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I agree. 

12 Unless I hear objection it will be closed. And 

13 it is so closed.

14 Alright. Now, finding 2.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. This finding, 

16 same case, states that incidents were all 

17 adequately addressed.

18 They had reported that they were 

19 involved with the wash cell B incident and an SRE 

20 fuel melt incident. 

21 With the files were included redacted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 incident files. And so we were uncertain if the 

2 EE were directly involved since they were onsite 

3 when it happened.

4 And combined with that there was a 

5 lost dosimetry record around this one time period 

6 that these incidents happened.

7 And so it wasn't clear to us whether 

8 these incidents had been adequately addressed. 

9 And NIOSH was able to report with an 

10 unredacted copy of the SRDB file. And that 

11 showed that the EE were in fact properly assigned 

12 dose, and weren't directly involved in the 

13 incidents on the dates that they occurred.

14 And so we feel comfortable that those 

15 incidents were adequately addressed.

16 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

17 MR. CALHOUN: That one should 

18 probably be an observation at this point.

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I think it 

20 should be. Anything that was adequately 

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

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I believe it should be closed as 

2 an observation. It was addressed properly. 

3 Okay, we can close it as an observation unless I 

4 hear objection.

5 Now, it's a little after 4 and we're 

6 starting Sandia. So, maybe it's time to start 

7 going through the table and suggest that we start 

8 399 next time.

9 And before we think about another date 

10 I'd like to hear some observations about our 

11 expedited procedure and how do you feel that it 

12 went today? I'd like to know other people's 

13 thoughts about it.

14 But first let the Subcommittee 

15 Members, we would like to comment. I would 

16 appreciate comments. 

17 MEMBER MUNN: I think it was 

18 terrific. It's very, very helpful in terms of

19 expediting, getting to the kernel of the issue, 

20 and eliminating a lot of reading and absorption 

21 of salient but not necessarily specific items 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we have to look at when we're looking at these 

2 things.

3 I thought it was marvelous. And I 

4 believe Rose should have several roses for doing 

5 such a great job putting it together for us.

6 Not to mention --

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Wanda, I'm 

8 sorry I cut you off. Wanda.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Somebody needs to, I'll 

10 keep talking endlessly. 

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, then 

12 somebody else.

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay, I'll 

14 interrupt her then. This is Brad.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MEMBER CLAWSON: I think it was 

17 great. I think it was well put together. 

18 It was easier for me to stay on where 

19 we were at and be able to address these in this 

20 form.

21 As you saw we have some that we still 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had discussions on. But I think it was easier for 

2 us to be able to come to a conclusion too.

3 And I do agree that Rose has done a 

4 great job. I appreciate everybody's help in 

5 putting it together.

6 MEMBER BEACH: I agree with both 

7 Wanda and Brad. I think it's a very efficient way 

8 to operate.

9 Being new to the Subcommittee I'm not 

10 sure how laborious it was in the past compared to 

11 now, but it seems very efficient at this time. 

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And 

14 I'll join in with the others and say it seems to 

15 me it was certainly an excellent discussion. 

16 I think we're in the correct direction 

17 about achieving the two -- about achieving 

18 information. So, it was good.

19 I appreciate also that I just have the 

20 cases or findings were low, medium and high put 

21 in there so we can -- for keeping a steady count.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 These are all category 1, and we still 

2 have hard category 2 to do.

3 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And that's 

5 going to take longer. 

6 But just for this, Rose, let me ask you 

7 if you would look to some of our previous 

8 meetings, not necessarily the last one, but a 

9 couple back. I think roughly the same amount of 

10 time going over cases in the set. And see how 

11 comparative this is faster than what we had done 

12 before.

13 The other ones of course contain what 

14 are now considered category 1 and 2. Just check 

15 it.

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I will say there were 

17 more definitive efforts up front. But it 

18 definitely sped up our process.

19 In a meeting on average we spend the 

20 entire time doing issues resolution. We 

21 generally get through anywhere from 40 to 60 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 findings.

2 Here we spent around 2 hours and got 

3 through 45. So I would say that was very 

4 efficient.

5 We do still have 12 findings that are 

6 type 2 from this set, and maybe another two dozen 

7 or so type 1 findings. 

8 From what I can see this is certainly 

9 an efficiency. Were there any suggestions on 

10 what I could improve on to make this more helpful

11 for our Board Members in the future?

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. I would 

13 say this is in fact useful. It's an incomplete 

14 assessment because we've only covered some easy 

15 cases, the ones that are relatively easily 

16 resolvable. But it's a good start.

17 I wonder how you would like to try and 

18 keep carrying out this method. Whether you would 

19 like to suggest that we do category 2 next time, 

20 or do we finish all the category 1's and come back 

21 to category 2 at the end of our set?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I would suggest us 

2 continuing on at this point, and then we'll come 

3 back and do the type 2.

4 This was only the DCAS site matrix. 

5 You still have the AWE site matrix for sets 14 

6 through 18, and all of sets 19 and 21 to go.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: What do other 

8 people think about how we should proceed?

9 MEMBER MUNN: I have a tendency to 

10 want to finish what we started so --

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Pardon? 

12 MEMBER MUNN: My tendency is to try to 

13 finish anything that we undertake before we 

14 undertake something else so I agree with Rose.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

16 Others? We'll keep going until we finish, and 

17 then go back to category 2.

18 And let's not forget that we have a 

19 number of cases that are essentially category 2 

20 cases left over from our last meeting. Another 

21 six cases for category 2. We've got to make sure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we go over them.

2 In a way we've talked about those 

3 before. There's a part of me that would like to 

4 go -- sometimes -- that are there -- they're in 

5 category, under category 2 formally because 

6 they're not part of the matrix.

7 But --

8 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- needed multiple 

9 meetings to discuss. At this point I don't have 

10 responses back from NIOSH on a number of their 

11 action items for those and that's why we couldn't 

12 do those at this meeting.

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Maybe -- I just 

14 feel like we talked about them as a Subcommittee 

15 and we have it reasonably in our memory what the 

16 discussions were.

17 I wouldn't mind NIOSH and SC&A taking 

18 care of those too, and maybe in our next meeting 

19 we work on those, get them done, and then continue 

20 on with category 1 as Rose suggested for 14 

21 through 18, for the rest of 14 through 18, and then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 come back and do the number 2.

2 But do those soon. Maybe at the next 

3 meeting. And then go on to the other cases as we 

4 talked about.

5 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I just want to point 

6 out that if we do that I will need those responses 

7 from NIOSH well in advance of the meeting so we 

8 have time to respond.

9 MR. SIEBERT: This is Scott. 

10 There's a bunch of responses that are already in 

11 the BRS.

12 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Were they uploaded 

13 within the past week or so? 

14 MR. SIEBERT: They were -- some were 

15 uploaded slightly before you yanked it, and some 

16 were uploaded since that time. 

17 I don't believe NIOSH has very much 

18 outstanding on those responses.

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. 

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Circle back, 

21 folks. And then before -- we have awhile until 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the next meeting.

2 And before our next meeting you will 

3 be able to assess whether we can usefully go over 

4 those. 

5 And if you give me the go-ahead, I'd 

6 like to go ahead with those, and then come back 

7 and do the expedited cases which should take most 

8 of our next meeting.

9 And then we do have I know two blind 

10 cases in and one more outstanding for set 22. 

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Three more cases we 

12 have to start, we haven't gone over yet.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. We'll have those 

14 three cases. We'll have three more cases ready 

15 for the next meeting, right? Blind?

16 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: So, do you want, Dave, do 

18 you want to have another three blinds as well as 

19 14 through 18?

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes, I guess 

21 so, because there's a high priority on 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. 

215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 In which case could we have the three 

2 blinds. I'm most anxious to go over the cases 

3 that are left over from the last meeting.

4 And maybe move ahead with that. 

5 We'll see.

6 I'd like to have -- but I agree, I 

7 think we should do the three blind cases remaining 

8 from set 22 next time.

9 MR. KATZ: Dave, there's no reason 

10 not to go into those others. I think Scott was 

11 saying the responses are mostly in on those 

12 already. It's all 14 through 18. They all need 

13 to be done anyway so there's no, you know, time's 

14 a constant.

15 There's no problem with it. You can 

16 do exactly what you want to do. You can do the 

17 blinds, you can do the cleanup of those, and if 

18 there's time you continue on with the efficiency 

19 cases that Rose has led us on this afternoon.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: I only need to know for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 agenda what we're covering generally and that's 

2 14 through 18 plus three blinds. And that sounds 

3 right.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. Let's 

5 talk about when we might meet, roughly what 

6 period.

7 This is mid-August and it will suggest 

8 that we meet late September, early October.

9 MR. KATZ: Well, I'm in September 

10 right now, Dave. I don't know about you.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Oh, I'm sorry, 

12 I'm sorry. 

13 MEMBER CLAWSON: He's on Hawaiian 

14 time.

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: You're right. 

16 MR. KATZ: It doesn't matter what 

17 time of it is in Hawaii, right?

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm such an 

19 academic that I never take holidays during the 

20 winter or the fall. So, if I'm holiday then of 

21 course it's August. As someone said for my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 father's 70th birthday, the day (telephonic 

2 interference). If I'm on vacation, it's August.

3 For October, so we might want to start 

4 sometime late October or early November.

5 MR. KATZ: Late October is a little 

6 too soon given the notice requirements and all. 

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. What we 

8 have --

9 MR. KATZ: I would say November.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: November and 

11 when is our next Board Meeting?

12 MR. KATZ: Our next Board Meeting is 

13 November 30 and December 1. 

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, we move 

15 on to early November, November, the first week or 

16 so.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, the first three weeks 

18 of November are fine. 

19 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. The 

20 third week is not fine, of course, since we're 

21 busy. So anytime the first --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, Halloween is -- if we 

2 have a lot of material already ready we can look 

3 at the first week, and the week of November 1. If 

4 you need more time then let's at least give it 

5 another week.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: We could do the 

7 material needed.

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'm on the 

9 phone myself so I can't set my own personal 

10 schedule without losing the phone connection. 

11 So, why don't you ask other people what date works 

12 for the first two weeks in November.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay, so for 

14 example, I mean I'll just start early and move on 

15 as that doesn't work possibly.

16 What about November 1, 2, 3?

17 MEMBER MUNN: That could be 

18 problematic for me.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. November 8, 9, 10?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm on vacation that 

21 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. 

219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER MUNN: You're what?

2 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I'm on vacation and 

3 that's also Election Day.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, right. Okay, the 8th 

5 is no good. November 9?

6 MEMBER RICHARDSON: That's fine.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Good here.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Ted, we're scheduled 

10 to do interviews the week of the 7th through the 

11 10th so I'm out that week.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, then that week 

13 doesn't work. How about the week of November 15, 

14 16.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: Works good, works 

16 well.

17 MR. KATZ: David just said he's out.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I'm out that week too.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, that takes us 

20 to Thanksgiving week, but what about earlier 

21 Thanksgiving week, like November 22? That's 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. 

220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Tuesday.

2 MEMBER BEACH: The 22nd or the 21st?

3 MR. KATZ: Say that again, Josie?

4 MEMBER BEACH: I'm good both the 21st 

5 and 22nd.

6 MR. KATZ: So, how is the 21st or 

7 22nd? That's Monday-Tuesday for everybody. 

8 (Simultaneous speaking)

9 MEMBER RICHARDSON: The 22nd is 

10 possible. Not the 21st.

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. The 22nd. Anybody 

12 have a problem with the 22nd?

13 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: No. The 22nd 

14 it is. Okay.

15 MR. KATZ: Alright. And John 

16 Poston, are you on the line? 

17 (Simultaneous speaking)

18 MEMBER POSTON: Hello, can you hear 

19 me?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, John. Is November 22 

21 okay with 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. 

221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, sure.

2 MR. KATZ: Okay, good.

3 MEMBER POSTON: It's just like today. 

4 I get out of classes at 9:15.

5 MR. KATZ: That works, that works.

6 MEMBER POSTON: A 10-minute walk and 

7 a 15-minute drive to get to the mall.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. So November 22 is 

9 our next meeting.

10 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Very good, 

11 folks. Thank you all very much.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, thank you, everybody. 

13 MEMBER MUNN: I have one question 

14 before we go. 

15 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

16 MEMBER MUNN: I had four items from 

17 reviewing the entries that Rose has made to our 

18 permanent record. All of them are nits. None of 

19 them are technical things. They're an issue of 

20 wording and wondering if we shouldn't insert one 

21 word or more.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Would you like me to read those to you, 

2 or would you prefer that I just send everybody a 

3 suggestion of what I think would help if we 

4 inserted a word here or there?

5 I'll be glad to do that by email.

6 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I think email might 

7 be easier. And actually I caught a few errors 

8 while I was reviewing things.

9 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Send it to 

10 Members of the Subcommittee.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Alright. Will do.

12 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And the one 

13 thing is the way our structure has been I'm not 

14 sure the Board is going to quite pass on that 

15 resolution, that is on the proposal whether we're 

16 going to have a yes or no vote.

17 I think we're experimenting a bit and 

18 then getting a report back. I'm not sure that 

19 we're going to adopt it formally, or whether we're 

20 going to say this looks good and talk about it in

21 rather more general terms.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 However, since you have it let's do it 

2 and maybe we'll -- I'll tell you what. Send it 

3 in and maybe as Subcommittee Chair I'll adapt 

4 those or send out -- make a revision and then send 

5 it out to the Board people.

6 If Jim wants to actually vote on it 

7 we'll have something available. 

8 MR. KATZ: Okay, I'm not clear what 

9 we've been talking about. I thought Wanda was 

10 talking about -- Wanda, are you talking about the 

11 procedure we're using now?

12 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm talking -- I 

13 was talking about the list of material that we've 

14 already covered that Rose has posted to our data 

15 ---

16 (Simultaneous speaking)

17 And as there were only one or two words 

18 that I would suggest changing. And none of it has 

19 a technical issue.

20 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I think if you 

21 sent me a copy and then it seemed like those were 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to my mind good suggestions.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Fine, okay. I'll do 

3 that. It's clearly semantic nits. That's all.

4 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: They should be 

5 ready to have it semantically correct. 

6 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

7 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And I 

8 appreciate that you put the time in to do that. 

9 I must say that seems to me a good suggestion.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Okay, very good.

11 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: I'll send it to you. 

13 Thanks.

14 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Okay, and 

15 thank you all. Have a good rest of the day.

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yep. Enjoy September 

17 and Dave, aloha.

18 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Aloha. 

19 Mahalo, mahalo.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Mahalo.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Enjoy the rest of your 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction 

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

identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been 

reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee accuracy at this time. 

The reader should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 vacation, Dave.

2 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: I'll be here 

3 until this weekend.

4 MEMBER MUNN: Enjoy.

5 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: Take it easy.

6 MR. KATZ: Enjoy the rest of August.

7 Ajdourn

8 CHAIRMAN KOTELCHUCK: And September. 

9 Okay. Bye bye folks.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 4:21 p.m.)