NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Thursday, September 12, 2019 

The Subcommittee convened via teleconference, at 

10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Dave 

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding. 
2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

David B. Richardson, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Bob Anigstein, SC&A

Bob Barton, SC&A 

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Liz Brackett, ORAU Team

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

John Mauro, SC&A

Michael Rafky, HHS

Beth Rolfes, DCAS

Mutty Sharfi, ORAU Team

Scott Siebert, ORAU Team

Matt Smith, ORAU Team

John Stiver, SC&A

Tim Taulbee, ORAU Team
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Subcommittee on 

Dose Reconstruction Reviews Thursday, September 

12, 2019 1

Welcome/Roll Call 4

Review Draft Secretary’s Report 5

Closure of Blind Review of an Allied Chemical 

and Dye Corporation Case from Set 17 54

Review Set 26 Blind Dose Reconstruction 

Cases 69

Los Alamos National Laboratory 69

Ames Laboratory 77

Review Cases from Set 25 82

Hanford PNNL 82

Y-12, 521 Observation 1 89

Oak Ridge Facilities 92

Hooker Electrochemical 97

Carborundum Co 109

Metals and Controls Co 124

Nuclear Metals Inc 132

Next Meeting Schedule 144

Adjourn 147
4

Proceedings

(10:34 a.m.)

Welcome/Roll Call

Mr. Katz: So welcome, everyone. This is the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, it’s 

the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews. 

And we have a fairly full agenda.

The materials for today’s meeting are posted, well 

actually, very few materials, the agenda is posted 

on the NIOSH website under today’s date, 

scheduled meetings, today’s date. The agenda’s 

there. And there’s a report to the Secretary that this 

subcommittee is drafting for the Board. And that 

should be on the website as well.

Oh, Paul, that’s actually the first discussion the 

subcommittee’s having this morning. So let me go 

on to roll call.

Now, I think we have cases dealing with specific 

sites. We need to deal with conflict of interest here. 

So let me just remind the Board members that I 

have on about conflicts where they are to recuse 

themselves from the discussion.

And for Josie Beach, who’s on, she has Hanford to 

recuse herself from. Brad Clawson, INL, and 

Argonne-West for a portion, I think, but INL 

principally. And for Lockey, the main set aside 

concern for him are the Oak Ridge sites.

Okay. And they are all on. Dr. Kotelchuck is the 

chair. And he’s on as well. And we also have Loretta 

Valerio. Oh, and she is recused principally from the 

New Mexico site. So that covers them. We don’t 

have David Richardson yet. But we have a quorum. 

And let’s go on to the NIOSH ORAU group and see 

who’s attending.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: All right. Let me just remind everyone on 
5

the phone to mute your phone except when you’re 

talking to the group. That will help everybody. And 

Dave, it’s your meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, fine. Welcome, folks, 

I’m glad you’re all here. So first item on the agenda 

is the Draft Secretary’s Report.

Now, I might just add something right now in terms 

of the agenda, the order. Obviously, we will have to 

comment about, we’ll have to comment about the, 

getting in my way here, hold it, we will have to 

comment about the Allied Chemical and Dye case.

And that is in the Secretary’s Report. It is a call as 

to whether we want to start talking about that and 

then get into the Secretary’s Report. Personally, 

since I worked on the draft, I’d rather start with the 

Draft Secretary’s Report. But then that means we 

will have to come back to it for a few moments after 

we resolve, I hope, the Allied Chemical and Dye 

case, blind case.

Are folks comfortable with going over the Draft 

Secretary’s Report, recognizing that we’re going to 

have to come back to the one case later? And that 

may influence something in the report.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie, I’m okay with 

that.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I’m okay with that.

Member Clawson: This is Brad Clawson, I’m okay 

with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Great. Well then, let’s ---

Member Valerio: Loretta, I’m okay with that.

Review Draft Secretary’s Report

Chair Kotelchuck: Wonderful. So let’s start with the 

Draft Secretary’s Report, the draft report to the 

Secretary. We can go over, I suggest going over it 

piece by piece, that is we could put the report up 
6

now on the screen, I hope.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can you see my screen, currently?

Chair Kotelchuck: There it is, yes. It’s on the 

screen. Thank you, good, good.

First overall, before we get into specific, as you see, 

basically, first the dedication to Jim Melius. And we 

can go over that. And then basically we’ll go over, 

as I say, piece by piece.

And I tried to basically use the same format as we 

used in our 2016 report to the Secretary. So a lot of 

it looks familiar in form, and then it’s all updated, of 

course, to Sets 14 through 21.

So are there any overalls that people want to say 

just before we get in, comments, and then we’ll go 

into specifics. Anybody have any overalls, okay.

Member Beach: This is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. I just wanted to 

say I really appreciated the dedication to Jim at the 

front of the report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And that was near and dear -

-

Member Beach: I thought that was fitting.

Chair Kotelchuck: And it was near and dear to my 

heart as well.

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And I feel very good about it, and 

I think quoting Paul here as speaking for all of us. 

And, okay, shall we go into first the pieces now, 

unless somebody else wants to say something 

overall?

Okay, first the dedication itself. Is there any 

change anybody wants or anything?
7

Member Beach: Well, one thing I was curious about, 

Dave, this is Josie again, in the introduction, when 

we talk about NIOSH or the Board, we spell it all. 

You know, you give the full definition of NIOSH. And 

that hasn’t been done for SC&A. So I didn’t know if 

that’s ---

Chair Kotelchuck: You know ---

Member Beach: -- one point that should be spelled 

out.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is interesting. That is a good 

question and one that I pondered over. I did an 

earlier draft in which I said formerly Sanford, Cohen 

and Associates. And then I think, Ted, when you 

were looking over it, you suggested that it really 

was not relevant.

And then I went on the SC&A website. And SC&A 

folks are here. And I could not see any reference to 

Sanford, Cohen and Associates. It’s as if you 

reorganized, I don’t know when it was, 2012 or 

something like that, and it’s just SC&A.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I can comment on that. We did 

drop Sanford, Cohen, and Associates. It’s purely 

SC&A, Incorporated now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. That’s what I thought. And 

the old name, and so we can probably just go, 

that’s its name. Just like NL Industries. It used to be 

National Lead, but now it’s NL. Does that make 

sense?

Member Beach: Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. The most important 

thing is that SC&A wishes to refer to itself that way 

as its total name and not a reference to the 

previous name.

Okay, other comments, anything else anybody 

wants to say on that? Okay. Then let’s go to the 

next page. All right. I’m going to look, I’m actually 
8

going to get it on my other screen, full screen.

Member Richardson: Hi, Dave. This is David 

Richardson. One thought I had is whether, at one 

point we had described a little bit more of the initial 

methodology about kind of a target sample and the 

proportion that we had aimed to review and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Richardson: And I think it was in the tenyear review as well. I don’t know if we sort of just 

jump in and say the first 100 were reviewed, we’re 

reviewing the next one.

There might be a place for a little bit in the overview 

of the review procedure, stepping back and saying, 

you know, we recognize there’s a large number. It’s 

not possible to review all of them. And a procedure 

was put into place to do some sample reviews.

Chair Kotelchuck: Is that not in Page 4, overview of 

the new procedures?

Mr. Katz: It is. It’s in that already.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is mentioned. Certainly the 

goals of ---

Member Richardson: I believe it’s, I mean, it says, 

what, you can point me, maybe I’m not looking at 

the right place. They’re based on several criteria?

Chair Kotelchuck: It’s definitely in there. I’m looking 

for it.

Member Richardson: It’s basically probability. I 

don’t think there’s anything about, like, a target 

sample or ---

Mr. Katz: Yes, it’s in there, Dave. It’s in there. It’s 

not on this page maybe, but I remember it distinctly 

when I reviewed this twice.

Chair Kotelchuck: And I --
9

Mr. Katz: So we talked about a one percent sample 

and that we continue to think that’s adequate, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Richardson: Maybe in the discussion.

Chair Kotelchuck: It may be worth introduction, let’s 

see, it may be worth adding farther up though. I’m 

not sure. So far, I’m just screening through it, and I 

haven’t seen that reference. But it is in there, no 

question about it.

Member Richardson: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Richardson: I’m probably just missing it.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Richardson: I was imagining something 

like, you know, typically there’s an introduction, 

which is sort of general, and then procedures which 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Richardson: -- would, you know, describe a 

methodology.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think ---

Member Richardson: But if it’s there, it’s there --

Chair Kotelchuck: It is there.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Well, we can just run through this all. 

And then if, at the end of running through, we run 

across it, at the end of running through, if you feel 

like it should be in a different place, we can move it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Why don’t we do that. 

Okay. But as I say, as we say, it’s in there. Maybe it 

should have a little greater emphasis.

All right, table of contents, unless I paginated it 
10

wrong, that’s there. So let’s go to Page 3. Well, no, 

Page 3 we just finished. That was the, we talked 

about overview of review procedures.

Page 4, all right, anything? And by the way, later on 

I’m taking, obviously, some notes. And others are 

too, I’m sure. But where there are particular 

suggestions, and of course even editorial changes 

that people are going to recommend, if you will end 

up sending them to me, I can send people, if you 

don’t have it already, a Word version. What was 

sent out to you all was a PDF version which some of 

us can change and some of us cannot. I cannot.

Ms. Gogliotti: I also put the Word version in the 

folder. So everyone should ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, great. Okay, wonderful. So 

anybody who sees things that -- some of them, by 

the way, as I mentioned to Rose the other day, 

some things you may have seen and want to 

change that are, if you will, too small to bring to the 

attention of the entire group but, you know, would 

stiff up the sentences and tighten them, so please 

send them to me and Ted, right, Ted?

Mr. Katz: Yes, thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, just to make sure, so we 

have a copy.

Okay, so let’s go on to findings down on Page 5. 

Okay, just a paragraph, cases sent to NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I have a comment on this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: In the previous report, we used the 

date of November 1st of 2015. And there were 

44,000 claims --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- 42,000 which had been 
11

adjudicated. And here we’re using an earlier date 

but with a larger number of cases.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I believe, I not only believe, 

I know that the previous one was in error. When I 

spoke to Grady, when we talked, hold it just one 

second, my screen is acting up. Pardon me for just 

a moment. One second, please.

When I spoke to Grady about it, and I asked, when 

actually did you finish the reviews of Sets 14 

through 21? And of course, it was a long time ago. 

And then we started reviewing them. And I tried to 

clarify this in the table. I did not go back and say

that there was an error in the previous report. But 

there was.

Because in the previous report, I simply gave the 

date that I was doing the work, or the date I 

believed that we were doing the reviews, that we 

completed the reviews, not when we completed the 

cases, the DRs for the cases. And I believe it is 

clarified here. That is, when we go to the tables 

where ---

Ms. Gogliotti: I did see that you had mentioned 

that, something about that later in the report. But --

-

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: It just seems --

Chair Kotelchuck: There it is on Table 1.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- disingenuous to present very 

different numbers.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Completed NIOSH, 14 

through 21 reviews were completed in 2018, which 

seems like a long time, but there it is. That was 

because we were behind probably on the reviews 

previously when we tried to catch up.

So do you feel or do others feel that there should be 

some, we can have a footnote, just indicate a 
12

correction of the last one? But this is correct.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- Grady is still on the line.

Mr. Katz: I don’t know, this is Ted. It’s correct. I 

think it will be fine if you want to footnote it for 

someone that’s actually going to go and compare, 

which is hard to imagine.

But nonetheless, if you’re worried about that, 

absolutely, you can just put a footnote there and 

say this has been corrected from the X report, the 

previous report. And it seems like that would 

suffice.

Chair Kotelchuck: I actually chose not to do that, 

even though I was well aware that the previous 

number was --- and what do other people on the 

subcommittee think? Is it worth putting something 

in?

This is one case where I don’t think anybody will go 

back and check and see, wait a minute, that doesn’t 

make sense, the two dates on the two. And I would 

gladly explain it to anyone who comes back to us, 

or somebody from the Secretary’s office. But I don’t 

think it’s worth putting up here. I think ---

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: But that’s my own feeling. First, 

subcommittee members, what do you think? Is it 

worth a footnote or not?

Member Beach: I think it is, personally. This is 

Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. How about others?

Member Lockey: I’m okay either way. I’m all right.

Member Richardson: Yes, this is David Richardson. 

I’m okay either way. I think it wouldn’t be a bad 

thing just to, it doesn’t even have to say that it was 
13

an error. It could just say clarification, these are the 

facts.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Ted, in this case, since you 

are a liaison to the Secretary’s office, what do you 

think?

Mr. Katz: I am quite sure they’re not going to look 

at the old report. So I’m quite sure it won’t matter 

to the Secretary’s office.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. My feeling is if it wouldn’t 

matter, then I would also move that we not do it. 

Most of the people and, Josie ---

Member Beach: No, no, I’m fine. I can live with 

either one too.

Chair Kotelchuck: So let’s not do that. Let’s not put 

on a footnote. And thank you, Rose, for seeing that. 

Of course, you work within this field in a level of 

detail that the Secretary is, much farther, deeper 

down into the trenches than people in the 

Secretary’s office. But we want to be accurate and 

correct.

And so, all right. Well, then let’s, now I skipped 

down to the findings. Wait a minute, no, we were on 

the findings, and that was Page 5. Anything else, 

and particularly the cases sent for dose 

reconstruction?

If we think we want to emphasize the one percent, 

it could be in the intro, or it could be in cases sent 

to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. And it could be in 

here. We’ll keep that in mind, efficiency measures 

for dose reconstruction, in writing it and in talking 

to folks.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we’re content with leaving the 

September 9th, 2014, also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: We’re content with leaving the 

September 9th, 2014, date.
14

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I missed the burden of what 

you said, maybe my --

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh. I was just curious, because you 

said that September 9th, 2014, is the date that 

NIOSH completed their reviews.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: We should be more interested in when 

we completed the reviews.

Chair Kotelchuck: When we completed our reviews?

Ms. Gogliotti: Of these, either when we were tasked 

---

Chair Kotelchuck: We did, and that’s on Table 1, 

down there on the next page. DRs completed by 

NIOSH September 9, 2014. Reviews of these DRs 

by the subcommittee were completed August 16th, 

2018. That is a correct date.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And I was just confirming that 

that was the correct statistic that you wanted to 

present.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And this is one, particularly 

the 2014, that was gotten directly from Grady. I 

gather he’s not on the phone right now. And I’m 

sorry that he has family problems. And I talked with 

him at some length about those dates and realized 

that that is the way it happened. Those are correct.

Mr. Katz: Yes. I think it’s all good, David.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay. Dose reconstruction 

cases, and anything in Table 1, okay, partials, total. 

I did put, and folks may want to ask, you’ll notice 

that in Table 1 I put the total as 100.1 percent and 

then said percentage exceeds.

Now, many people would simply round it off and put 

a note down saying may exceed 100 percent due to 

round-off. I personally prefer, since we have the 

numbers right in front of us, and anybody can add 
15

the numbers and see that it adds to 100.1, so my 

feeling is that’s it. And we’ve clarified it, certainly, 

with the footnote to the table.

Member Beach: Yes, I think that’s fine, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Going down now, partial 

dose reconstructions, Table 1, reporting on Table 1. 

You’ll note that, and again, the results in Table 1, at 

the bottom of Page 6, the results from Table 1 are 

similar to those presented in the 2016 except that 

the best estimate DRs decreased from 7.8 in that 

report to 3.9 percent here.

And I noted, and again, this was in discussion with 

Grady, this decrease is an artifact of the change by 

NIOSH in determining which cases were designated 

as best-estimates.

And examination by NIOSH of all cases determined 

best-estimates, since the program’s inception, 

indicates that, in the early years of NIOSH doses, 

many cases were completed using best-estimate 

approach for administrative reasons that were not, 

if you will, 45 to 52 percent.

And Grady and the staff working with him went 

through all of the best estimates and said we’re 

really calling best estimates 45 to 52 percent. And 

when that happened, that halved the percentage of 

best estimates. And I just wanted to alert folks to 

that. That’s really a change.

But it really is a matter of, if you will, proper 

bookkeeping. And implicit in that is the fact that 

what we used in the 2016 report was we used a 

different methodology, not so much an error as a 

different methodology. So comments? Okay.

And at the bottom on that next page, there is a 

small, on Page 7, near about the last paragraph 

before dose reconstruction cases reviewed, 13.4 

percent of cases were claims filed by or on behalf of 

female energy employees. And NIOSH does not 

collect, as we said last time, does not collect data 
16

on race or ethnicity.

So I did not have anything further to say about 

that. I thought I had made a comment, and as I’m 

looking at it, the question is what percentage of, if 

the 13 percent were claims that were filed, what is 

the percentage of female energy employees. It may 

be or it might be worth saying that’s about, I 

believe, that is about the percentage of female 

energy employees.

Member Beach: I thought you addressed that 

somewhere else too, David. There was more of a 

comment on it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, I’m glad. Good, that’s fine. 

Then let’s figure we’ll see that as we scroll down.

Mr. Katz: Yes. And it may be just, Josie, that you’re 

thinking about, there is a comment about it being 

an aim to capture more of --

Member Beach: Correct.

Mr. Katz: -- the female claimants as we go along. 

But I don’t happen to know that we know the 

percentage of energy employees that are, I don’t 

know where we get that statistic from.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I think you’re right.

Mr. Katz: I don’t think we know it? I think we only 

know, you know, our demographics of our claimant 

population.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think you’re right You’re 

right. And that’s why there’s no more comments. I 

mean, it seems like it’s just a sentence hanging in 

there without any comment. But we do comment 

later. Or let’s, again, when we come to that later in 

the scroll, let’s see what --

Mr. Katz: Let me, Dave, if I could just make a 

suggestion, I mean, to keep in mind as we get to it, 

it may more make sense. Because this does sit 

there sort of as a weird appendage, since it’s not 
17

discussed in any substantive way. It’s just laid out 

as a descriptive statistic, and we don’t have a lot of 

other specific descriptive statistics.

But you may want to just bring this in to the point 

where you want to make your point about 

increasing women. Instead of having it here, use it 

with an introduction.

Chair Kotelchuck: You know, that makes sense. Yes.

Mr. Katz: But, I mean, we’ll surely get there, but 

you might want to --

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that would be a good idea. 

I mean, just what strikes me is when we say this is 

that that’s a number, you know, like no comment. 

It’s more like a no comment comment. Here’s a 

number. And it’s in a context.

We wouldn’t even be concerned about of that 

except that there is a larger context. And with the 

people who want to answer that question, we want 

to know. So yes, I think that’s a good idea. Let’s 

look as we go down.

Let’s continue on to dose reconstruction cases 

reviewed. Okay, let’s see, probably the easier thing 

is to go down to the tables. Two hundred and thirtytwo cases, Page 8, 232 cases examined reflected 

the Board’s desire to focus on best estimate cases 

because of sensitivity of their compensation 

decisions to variables in the DR calculations, of 

course.

And then we go to Table 2, and you see that, 

basically, we’ve been consistent in the last two 

reports, that is ‘16 and now ‘19, that 84 percent of 

the cases reviewed, 83 and 84 percent the same, 

essentially, were best estimate. And the 

overestimate is more or less the same. 

Underestimate, we didn’t do in this round.

And overall, 490 cases reviewed which, as you will 

see of course, as you will remember looking at 
18

Table 1, is a little over one percent. And that’s 

where I’m going to comment about that. Any 

comments about Table 2?

Member Lockey: Hey, David, Jim Lockey. No, I think 

you did a great job in this report. And I think it’s 

very comprehensive. I just have one comment 

about the second full paragraph on Page 8.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, okay.

Member Lockey: It starts with of the 166 cases. Do 

you see that paragraph?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: The second sentence there goes 

on, and on, and on. It’s a rather complex sentence.

Chair Kotelchuck: Of these percentages?

Member Lockey: Yes, just, make a note. I think I 

would, I’ve read that sentence three or four times, 

and I understand it. But it’s a very long, complex 

sentence. And maybe it can be broken down.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes, I will do that, yes, break 

it up. Thank you for that. That’s helpful. Yes, 

indeed. Okay, I’m sure that can be done, and I will 

do it as we go to the Board, if we go to the Board.

Findings among reviewed cases, so the average 

findings among reviewed cases, Page 9, an average 

of 1.46 findings per cases is half what we found in 

the 2016 report which is good. That means that the 

different groups that are doing the analyses are 

doing things in similar ways so that the SC&A 

findings don’t, that SC&A is not finding as many 

findings. And for the 166 cases we’ll go to Table 3.

Member Lockey: David?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: Before you do that can I have you, 

on Page 9, Jim Lockey, the third full paragraph 
19

against the background of overall decrease in the 

rate of findings ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: -- do you see that?

Chair Kotelchuck: I do.

Member Lockey: Is that paragraph needed? Do we 

need to do a proportional analysis and then we 

switch off to just absolute percentages? I was 

wondering.

Chair Kotelchuck: Quality concerns.

Member Lockey: Is it needed? It sort of ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that’s a question. We 

certainly did do that. We started doing that in this 

past round, certainly before you came onto the 

subcommittee. And we are continuing to do that. It 

was useful as we developed this report to really 

assess what was the problem.

I mean, it’s trying to lead us to the question of 

where we might make progress in terms of 

investigating, you know, changes in the procedures 

to improve things. So I actually think it’s worth it. 

But I don’t know, what do other people think?

It certainly stands out here, and that’s all I say 

about it. We even changed the quality concern, the 

quality criteria as we went along, right, and 

changed it in the middle of this report.

What do other, let’s start with the subcommittee 

members. Do they have any, since many of you 

were there during this period and with these 

changes, what do you folks think? Does it work?

Member Lockey: David, I thought you made your 

point very well when you broke out, you know, 

where the percentages, and the overall percentages 

and numbers were dropping drastically as far as 

where corrections had to be made.
20

And we were going to focus on the, and why we 

were going to continue to focus on areas that were 

issues. I just got, I thought there was too much 

information, and I had to switch gears in my mind, 

whether it was one percentage to another 

percentage or so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Interesting. This is David, by the 

way?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’m not, David, is this you?

Member Lockey: No, Jim, Jim Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, Jim, okay. I’ll tell you why, 

I’m sorry, I’ll tell you why I think this is a 

complicated paragraph. And first I had to say that if 

we’re talking about quality concerns at all, which we 

do in Table 3, I believe, quality concern rose from 

15 percent to 23 percent.

And I know, Ted, I spoke with you. And you said it 

looks like we’re doing a poor job. Look, we have 

more quality concerns. And then I realized, and you 

helped me realize that, no, no, actually the rate of 

quality concern findings were going down.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: What that did was it forced us to 

kind of back up and clarify the rise from 15 to 23 

percent. I feel like, so it’s messy. I mean, in the 

sense of it’s not linear in the way that most of them 

were just reporting, well, we did this, we did this. 

You say, oh, wait a minute, looks bad. Well, no, it 

isn’t really bad. And here’s why.

So it does affect the rhythm. But what are folks, I 

mean, other folks thinking about? The question is, is 

it worth it?

We are certainly collecting that information. And I 

think we will continue to do so. We haven’t, Jim, we 

haven’t been talking about it quite as much in our 
21

meetings. But the folks at SC&A are faithfully 

recording these things.

Mr. Katz: Dave, let me give you just my thought 

about how to think about this a little bit.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Not that I have a suggestion for what to 

do here exactly, one way or the other. But really 

what this tells you, this information, if you were to 

summarize it, is that the different problems, let’s 

just call them problems, or whatever, are falling at 

different rates. And the quality problem is falling 

less at a slower rate, but it’s still falling, than the 

other nature of problems.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: And if you think about it, that actually 

makes a lot of sense. Because the quality problems, 

you know, I mean, there’s been a lot done, which 

we’ve all talked about in this subcommittee, to 

reduce quality problems. There’s been a lot that’s 

been systematized, and automated to solve a lot of 

quality problems.

But when you think about it, at the end of the day, 

eventually there really should only be quality 

problems. Because you’re slowly knocking out all 

the other more sort of procedural methods 

problems. You’re knocking them out. And in the 

end, you’ll only have quality problems. And they’ll 

be 100 percent or close. But this is sort of the 

natural evolution of improving a system, I think.

Member Beach: Does this need to be in a different 

section maybe, like under the efficiency measures?

Or would it make more sense to have it somewhere 

else? Because I think it’s valuable information.

Mr. Katz: And, well, so the last thing I need to say 

about this is I think you could do a couple of things. 

One, you could keep it as it is, of course. Or two, 

you could sort of summarize its significance so that 
22

someone understands what’s really being said here. 

Or of course, you could, as Jim was questioning, 

you could lop it out. So I think there are three 

approaches to this --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: -- we’ve got to discuss.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. We could certainly ---

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. I’m sort of 

biased against proportional studies anyway. 

Because it all depends on the denominator, you 

know. But any way you guys decide, it’s fine with 

me. I just thought it didn’t add anything to the 

report. That’s all.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I’ll tell you what, let me also 

think about it and whether, if we highlighted it by a 

sub-head, quality concerns, and said what was 

going on, that the quality, we’re improving the 

procedures and then give this --- So let me, maybe 

what we would do is put this as something to 

consider, that I might want to make some changes 

in this before presenting it to the full Board.

Would folks feel okay about that? Of course, I would 

send it, before I’ll send to the Board, I assume, 

following this discussion, changes that are made 

based on this discussion I would send out to all of 

you --

Member Lockey: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- before we gave it to the other 

group. So why don’t we do that, just let me take a 

look at it and see if I can put it in a way that would 

make the purpose of it clearer.

Member Beach: Sounds good, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, I just go to Table 3 now, 

and so that I see what were some of the issues that 

we looked at and noted that the percent of findings, 

issues not covered by anything above categories is 
23

fairly large. So it suggests that maybe some of the 

issues, maybe we should think about, as we move 

forward, whether there are other issues that we 

should look at in terms of type of issue. Anyway, 

that’s a passing comment.

Now, a significant sentence just below Table 3 of 

the grand total of 498 cases reviewed only one had 

its compensation decision changed which is, I think, 

a pretty significant finding. You know, I mean, 

we’ve gone over nearly 500 cases. One got 

changed, one compensation decision.

So it doesn’t stand out very much, even though it 

is, I think I come back to it in the conclusions. And I 

don’t know, maybe it should somehow be 

highlighted more.

Okay, rate of dose reconstruction cases reviewed, 

and this is where we’re coming down to, David, 

what you commented about. In 2016, the Board 

established the goal of reviewing one percent. And 

that’s where I put it. And then we have completed

reviews of 1.04 percent.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, if we could just go back up 

here, I wanted to point out that you do discuss 

female energy workers on the end of Page 9.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, really. Thank you very much. 

Among the 450 cases and percent by female energy 

workers, oh yes, here it is. Yes, this percentage is 

less than the 13.4 percent involving female energy 

workers. And thank you for bringing our attention to 

it.

Actually, it suggests to me, since I literally repeat 

the 13.4 percent, whether we shouldn’t just strike 

out the one sentence without comment. Although, I 

do make a comment about collecting information 

about race.

And to the extent that I talk about race above, if we 

leave the race issue, what information do we 

capture about race, which is very little, it sort of, 
24

anybody reading it would say, well, what about 

gender, since those two are tied.

So there’s no question that if I struck that one 

sentence above, it is down here. It is stated down 

here in this paragraph on the bottom of Page 9.

You know, can we go back to, do we want to scroll 

back up to that original paragraph, which was on 

Page, was it five?

Member Beach: It was Page 7. I think you could 

actually strike that. Because it doesn’t really ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Participant: I think so too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And I’m looking at it right 

here, NIOSH does not collect data on race or 

ethnicity. Okay.

Member Beach: That’s a stand alone ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I’ll tell you what, why don’t 

on Page 7, maybe I’ll suggest this, Page 7 strike 

and put a note at the end of that paragraph, the 

below claims are, a note that we will be talking 

about gender down below.

Mr. Katz: Dave, I would just, you could not just 

strike that sentence, just strike the whole 

paragraph. The whole paragraph really doesn’t get 

anyone anywhere. So I would just strike the whole 

thing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, it’s ---

Member Lockey: This is Jim Lockey. I would agree 

with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: I think, you know ---

Chair Kotelchuck: It doesn’t add to what information 

we have. Some people might read the thing, and 
25

look at it, and say ---

Mr. Katz: And then we don’t talk about 

demographics in general. So it’s, like, there’s no 

reason to have these particulars. It’s just ---

Chair Kotelchuck: You know, I’m becoming 

persuaded that that maybe would be a good thing. 

We’re not introducing new information, in fact, 

we’re introducing information that we’re not 

collecting information.

Mr. Katz: And that we’re not using in any way.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Which is not an affirmative finding 

in the report.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I think I would strike that. 

And do folks, other committee members, some of 

you have spoken, other ones feel okay about that?

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, Dave. I agree with 

that. I agree with just striking the entire paragraph.

Chair Kotelchuck: Shall do. And others? Okay. 

Okay, good. That’s sharpening things up.

And then we’re going to go to the bottom of Page 9 

now, back to bottom of Page 9. And then I do 

address, were filed by female energy workers or 

survivors. And there’s the information right there, 

13.4 percent of the claims.

Member Beach: Well, if you read the first sentence, 

Dave, it actually says 50 cases, ten percent were 

filed by either female workers or their survivors. 

And then it goes on to say this percentage is less 

than 13.4 percent.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: So I’m wondering if that’s 
26

necessary? I don’t know if you were using the 13.4 

from the ---

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- 498 cases ---

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: It suggests that, well, we want 

the reviews to be, you know, to be representative of 

the population that submitted claims. And it is a 

little lower.

Actually, probably given some assumptions, 50 is a 

small enough number that, if we made some 

assumption about the distribution of cases, it might 

not be really statistically significantly below 13.4 or 

as consistent with -- So are you suggesting --

Member Beach: I don’t know where the percentage, 

that 13.4, comes from now. Is that in a table 

somewhere.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, the 13.4 is what we just 

struck on Page ---

Member Beach: And so we should strike that too, I 

believe.

Mr. Katz: No. I mean, Josie, I think you’re just 

missing, this is sort of the whole point that Dave’s 

making. Is that, you know, there’s a larger 

percentage of the whole claimant population that 

NIOSH has dealt with that are women than the 

percentage that the Board has reviewed. So that’s -

--

Member Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: -- that is the point of this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: All right, okay.

Mr. Katz: I think it’s reasonable to have it here. 
27

Because you’re going on to say you’d like to, you 

know, and we’ve been working, frankly, on 

increasing that number by ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I remember Wanda Munn 

often referred to that and said that we were not 

looking at women, we were not picking cases from 

women workers in the early days or not a high 

enough percentage. We weren’t paying attention to 

the fact that we were missing or were not doing as 

many women as we should be to be representative.

But, you know what I can do and, Josie, what this 

illustrates to me is that I should affirm that 13 

percent of the claims are of female energy workers 

rather than saying this is less than.

The most significant point is that among the 480, 

ten percent, instead of saying it’s less say however, 

or not however, the percentage of claims involving 

females is 13.4 percent. This is lower than the 

other. In other words, state it affirmatively which 

emphasizes its significance.

And then, right below, we say while women have 

been employed in a wide range, et cetera, et cetera.

Member Beach: That makes sense, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. So we will do that on Page 9, 

affirmative. Okay, state the fact and then do a 

comparison rather than only state it with respect to 

another number when it’s significant. Okay, we’re 

down to Table 3.

Ms. Gogliotti: I just have a quick question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, indeed.

Ms. Gogliotti: This last statement on the bottom of 

Page 9, that the DRs are more frequently completed 

using overestimating efficiency methods.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait, excuse me one second. 

Oops, see, wait a second, I just, boy, I’m sorry. I 

accidentally hit a wrong button. Excuse me one 
28

second folks. And I’m going to the bottom of Page 

9, okay, on the bottom of Page 9. Do go ahead, I’m 

sorry.

Ms. Gogliotti: I was curious if the NIOSH data 

supports this or if this is an inference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Which is the sentence? I lost as 

you were starting.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I’m sorry. Which thing ---

Ms. Gogliotti: That the DRs are more frequently 

completed using overestimating efficiency methods.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I’m sorry, I don’t see that.

Mr. Katz: Are you on Skype?

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

Mr. Katz: Are you on Skype, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Is that supported by the data. I don’t 

have data to check this myself.

Member Beach: Well, it goes with the sentence. So 

you almost have to read the whole context of it.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I don’t think we’ve ever 

provided that information. I mean, anecdotally, 

you’d think that that’s the case. But I can’t tell you 

that that is, in fact, the case. It most likely is, but I 

don’t think we’ve ever evaluated that.

Mr. Katz: Implicit is we probably should check that 

if we’re going to say that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: And, Dave, did you see where it 

starts, right, while women have been employed in a 

wide range of occupations within covered facilities. 
29

And it goes on for several lines.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. No wonder, no, I’ve been 

looking ---

Member Beach: Very long run-on ---

Chair Kotelchuck: I was unclear, and people were, 

you’re right.

Mr. Calhoun: I may have missed something on this, 

because I’ve been up and down. But I’m wondering 

what the value of this is at all. Because if this is just 

talking about you guys reviewing the dose 

reconstructions we do, I almost don’t even see what 

the point of this sentence is or this calling out ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the point of the sentence is 

to explain why, at the bottom of Page 9, we have 

ten percent of the cases reviewed were for women. 

And yet women put in 13.4 percent of the claims. 

So it’s a little lower.

It’s both, I believe, progress in terms of the cases 

reviewed, that I suspect we did less than ten 

percent before, and I guess I could check that, but 

13.4 percent of the claims. So I want to say why we 

need to do some more work in reviewing more 

cases.

Mr. Calhoun: But isn’t this almost trying to infer that 

the percentage of claims that are in the best 

estimate category are the same as the percentage 

of claims in the overall claimant pool? Because I 

don’t know if that can be the case with such a small 

sample size.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, yes. It is certainly true that 

this is not, there’s no data documenting this, 

starting back to where we started earlier, and have 

been more heavily represented. And literally, I don’t 

know. So maybe I have to strike it for lack of proof. 

Again, it makes sense. But in reviewing, maybe I 

should just scratch the ---
30

Member Beach: Hey, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: When you get to the next sentence, 

it also supports that sentence. So I think you might 

want to just think about the whole thing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think so. And, you know, 

maybe I want to strike out several, one, two, three 

sentences and just conclude from the, you know, 

the 10 percent and 13 percent among the current 

cases being reviewed. And going forward, the 

subcommittee has paid greater attention to 

selection of cases to improve representation among 

covered facilities.

Mr. Katz: Dave, I think you could do that. And that 

would certainly simplify matters.

Chair Kotelchuck: You’re right. I mean, it’s always a 

problem putting data in where we can’t back it up. I 

mean, you’re right. I take it as a given. But I ---

Mr. Katz: Even if, I mean, they could go into the 

data and look at this. But really, the rest of the 

details don’t really matter when your bottom line is 

let’s improve representation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I will do that. Sounds to me 

good. And I hear other subcommittee members 

that, Josie, I think you were saying that.

Member Valerio: So, Dave, this is Loretta. Are you 

going to strike the entire paragraph or just rewrite 

it?

Chair Kotelchuck: I am going to go from the 

paragraph on the first, I’m going to rewrite the first 

two sentences at the bottom of Page 9 to affirm the 

13.4 percent of claims, to affirm it before I compare 

it.

And then, I’m going to go directly on Page 10, I go 

directly to the single sentence, among the current 

sets of cases being reviewed and going forward, the 
31

subcommittee has paid greater attention, which 

certainly we have.

Member Valerio: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And there is good reason to 

expect that the percentage will increase as this 

program continues. So I’m going to strike those first 

several sentences on Page 10. But it moves 

smoothly I think.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think that’s good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. Thank you. Now, 

let’s see.

Ms. Gogliotti: Then right above Table 3 ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: Right above Table 3 there is a 

sentence that says, was the proper judgement 

made regarding placing a person physically at a 

work location?

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, if I may, just let me get the 

Table. Oh, pardon, I’m going the wrong direction to 

get Table 3. I’m working, obviously, on my own 

computer, my CDC computer. Table 3, yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Immediately above it there’s just a 

random sentence.

Mr. Katz: Yes, that’s just an artifact, I think, Rose.

Chair Kotelchuck: I just got here, so what are you 

saying?

Member Beach: Yes, that’s not in my version of this.

Mr. Katz: I think it probably got just accidentally 

copied and pasted there out of the Table somehow. 

But it’s just an artifact. It just needs to be blocked 
32

out, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Right, okay. Delete what’s 

proper judgement. Good, I’m just taking this down. 

Okay, shall do. All right, Table 3, we’ll go past now. 

And we’re down to Page 11, rate of dose 

reconstruction cases reviewed. And this is where we 

affirm the goal of one percent.

David, from the discussion that we had before, I am 

tempted to repeat the first sentence under the rate 

of dose reconstruction cases reviewed in 2016 and 

put it somewhere up top in terms of procedures. 

Because it’s a very important, this is a very 

important goal. And it’s just buried in the text. So 

I’m tempted to take the first sentence to establish 

the goal and essentially repeat it somewhere up 

top.

Member Beach: You have it repeated on Page 15 

and underlined as a note also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Page 15?

Member Beach: Yes. And it’s my Page 15, and it’s 

underlined.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Let’s see.

Member Beach: But you do have it there also, just a 

note, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, yes. But what I think the 

problem is, that if I want to repeat the sentence, 

essentially repeat the sentence somewhere near the 

beginning, and the rate of going back to Page 11 for 

the dose reconstruction cases reviewed, it needs 

more emphasis. And it just hangs up above in the 

early, or I think it will just be hanging.

Would folks be open to my exploring ways of 

putting it somewhere near the introduction or 

method, getting it in there so it doesn’t hang loose, 

and then keeping this the way it is now? Because 

it’s a clear paragraph. Would that be ---
33

Member Beach: Yes, Dave. I think that would be a 

good suggestion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, shall do.

Member Beach: And you may, I don’t know if you 

need to keep it on Page 15, but we can talk about 

that when we get to it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, we’ll talk about that. Okay, 

good.

Member Valerio: So, Dave, this is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Hi.

Member Valerio: On Page 3 in the introduction, the 

first paragraph, the last sentence ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Page what, pardon me?

Member Valerio: Page 3.

Chair Kotelchuck: Three, okay. Going back ---

Member Valerio: It’s on Page 3 in the introduction, 

first paragraph, the last sentence, would that 

statement be changed or modified in any way? 

Because it does say that the Board has just said a 

review of the subcommittee of one percent of 

individual dose reconstruction is adequate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Wait a minute, the Board has 

just, oh, yes, one percent. Yes, you’re right. It says 

it right there. We missed it when we were talking. 

You’ve identified that we have put the one percent 

of individuals is adequate and has been established. 

The Board established the subcommittee to select 

cases.

You know what, again, I think maybe the way, so 

interestingly, when we talked about it before and 

Dave referred to it, and we looked around, we didn’t 

see it, right. I mean, I skipped over it and others, I 

think, did.
34

Maybe what I ought to do for that sentence is turn it 

around like I’ve done the other one. The Board has 

determined a goal in 2016 of review of one percent 

of individual dose reconstructions, period. Forget 

about adequate and just state affirmatively that the 

Board has, this is the goal right there, rather than 

it’s adequate and now is a goal.

Mr. Katz: I think that’s good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, okay.

Member Valerio: Right, thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I think that’s very good, 

thank you. Intro, affirm one percent. Good. Okay, 

thank you.

Let’s go back down to 11. I think that’s right. Okay, 

we got in the one percent. I underlined the 1.04. 

That is that sentence, because it’s an important 

one. And now we’re into blind case reviews.

Now, first you folks, let’s just go to Table 4 first. 

Folks saw the letter from Paul Ziemer indicating that 

the NIOSH review of the Allied Chemical and Dye 

case, the methodology was correct, and therefore 

the Number 3 -- of Table 4, Number 3, Allied 

Chemical and Dye, 45.9 percent has been affirmed 

by the Surrogate Data Working Group. So that 

stands.

Now, the 85.4 percent sits there, because that is 

what SC&A stated and affirmed the methodology.

I spent a lot of time yesterday going over the 

transcripts of our old discussions in 2015 about this 

case. The subcommittee, four of us of the six who 

are now on the subcommittee were there at the 

time of that discussion. Both Loretta and Jim are 

new and weren’t part of that original discussion.

But I think that the subcommittee discussed the 

SC&A, the SC&A presented its perspective. And the 

committee looked at it and, I would say, accepted 
35

that this was a legitimate scientific approach. And 

we didn’t say, at the time that we talked about it 

before, we didn’t say it’s wrong. We said, no, no, it’s 

an approach. It does give you a very large number.

But implied was that it’s not, from what we could 

see, it was not scientifically incorrect. It used 

professional judgement, there was a professional 

judgement issue on the surrogate data, because it 

was entirely surrogate data for a plant that had no 

profile and no measurements whatsoever made on 

the exposure, external or internal, for the 

employees there. And there were 18 claims that 

have been filed from that site.

So in putting together this table, I left the 85.4 

percent in there, because this committee has not 

determined what to do. Or maybe, and probably 

now that we’re going, if it’s after our break, the next 

thing we’re going to talk about is the Allied 

Chemical and Dye case.

And I think I have some ideas about how we might 

handle it. And just to anticipate that, I’m going to 

suggest that the 85.4 percent might be reasonable 

to consider sending to the Dose Reconstruction 

Review Methods Working Group. Between 45 and 85 

percent is so vast that we do need to figure out, I 

mean, if we got cases, if we had many cases like 

this, if we have only one, the difference is so great 

as to make somebody say, well, how good is this 

whole approach?

I mean, most of the other cases, the PoCs between 

NIOSH and SC&A are similar, right, not always the 

same, not always the same composition as we’ll 

see.

In this grouping, by the way, in Table 4, the only 

case, blind case, where there was a difference in 

compensation decision is that Case Number 3.

I suspect that we will want to put, after we have our 

discussion about this case later today, that we will 

put a little asterisk after 85.4, and I think we have 
36

to say something. I mean, I don’t think it can, I 

mean, that difference cannot go unnoted and 

uncommented upon.

So maybe the thing to say is you folks are looking 

at the table, the results are really quite good and in 

full agreement, except for that one. And let’s say 

that that one, we will come back later, once we 

finish the discussion on what to do about Allied 

Chemical and Dye, finish up that discussion, we 

may come back to this thing and put an asterisk or 

do something with it. And so I would just say we’ll 

leave it here for the moment. And I’m going on at 

length.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: If I can make a suggestion, we 

covered some of these in the last letter. It might 

make sense to just remove the ones that have 

happened that we already discussed.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’m a little unclear. We discussed, 

all of these have been discussed and approved by 

the committee.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: But I believe we discussed them in 

the last letter.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, you mean our last report?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, in which case you’re just 

repeating information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, you’re right about that. You 

are right, and I am repeating information. I believe 

we had up through, I think it was, just looking, we 

had through Set 20.

No, but I’ll tell you, one of the reasons I think I’d 
37

like to have it in is that it’s very impressive that we 

have so many cases where we have two blind 

reviews. And they are quite similar on the 

compensation decisions.

It really reinforces the sense that we’re all on the 

same page, if you will, and that our procedures are 

well enough documented that two independent 

people doing them --

Member Lockey: Hey, Dave?

Mr. Katz: Go ahead, Jim.

Member Lockey: Dave, this is Jim Lockey. Maybe 

I’m missing something here, and I wasn’t on the 

Committee early enough. But if you look at the 

Allied Chemical, PoC 85 versus 45, didn’t you 

explain that in the paragraph preceding that that it 

was reviewed? And it was thought that the NIOSH 

approach was correct, and that’s the end of it. Or 

am I missing something here?

Chair Kotelchuck: No, that’s what I said. I mean, 

and that’s ---

Member Lockey: But why doesn’t that just put that 

to bed? What’s the issue?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the issue is that, how can 

we have, the Subcommittee has reviewed all of 

these, right, and we’re sending in the report that we 

think we’ve reviewed every one. We do, we’ve 

reviewed, here’s a case where we reviewed it, and 

the differences are vast. I mean, I feel like it calls 

for an explanation of some sort.

Member Lockey: But isn’t the explanation that it 

was reviewed, and they looked at the two 

approaches, and it was ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Ah, no.

Member Lockey: -- didn’t they send to us a letter 

saying that the NIOSH approach was correct?
38

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: Then that’s the end of it.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, no. But I have to say, the 

Surrogate Data Working Group only reviewed the 

NIOSH analysis. It is the determinative one, right? 

It’s the one that decides compensation. The SC&A 

are not, if you will, official. And we in no way -- the 

question is, are the compensation decisions correct? 

All of the compensation decisions are made based 

on NIOSH.

Ted and I talked about this at some length. I 

originally viewed this, and I even have said it, I 

think, at times in the Committee in the past that, oh 

yes, here are two independent people. Ted pointed 

out that, no, NIOSH is the one that is charged to do 

the analysis that results in a compensation decision. 

The folks at SC&A, I mean, the folks in NIOSH have 

done 40,000 DRs. The folks in SC&A have done 500.

And sometimes they have changed. In the course of 

discussion, they have changed when they found out 

that there was some information that they didn’t 

have, or there was, I mean, they don’t have as 

much experience as NIOSH does. But more 

importantly, NIOSH determines the compensation 

decision.

But the surrogate people never reviewed 85.4. The 

Committee looked at it. And I will say when we sent 

it to the surrogate data people, I think we just, I 

think we stopped looking at it. We might have gone 

on and talked a little bit about the 85.4. And in fact, 

we will do that this afternoon when we finish this.

So it doesn’t, 85.4 has never been examined by 

anybody else, except the Committee did, I would 

say, took a look at it and had some preliminary 

thoughts and analysis. Am I correct, Ted?

Mr. Katz: Yes, Dave. They didn’t look at that. The 

surrogate data folks didn’t look at the SC&A 

approach, nor do, I think, they need to because 
39

that’s really not the point.

And I think you could just footnote this. And I do 

think, I agree, I understand what Jim’s saying. Well, 

we have this explanatory sentence, so why do we 

care about it? But when someone does just look at 

the table, it does pop out. And I do think an 

explanatory footnote would be helpful since it does 

pop out.

And I think you could just footnote it along the lines 

of, don’t hold me to my specific language, but I 

think you need to footnote it along the lines that, 

and explain SC&A took a very different approach to 

this dose reconstruction which is a sort of, and as a 

consequence, you know, achieved very different 

results.

And then you can just reiterate that the NIOSH 

approach is considered valid by the Surrogate Data 

Work Group and this Subcommittee as well.

Member Lockey: Ted, that’s what I was trying to 

say is, you know, I think our results here overall are 

excellent in relationship to agreement. And I think 

in this case there was an explanation, and the 

explanation was defined by the Surrogate Data 

Group. And I’m willing to put this to bed and move 

on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, how about we do 

this? We’ve talked about it now. We will come back, 

because we have an obligation. I mean, the 

Surrogate Data Group sent their results back to us. 

We have to pass on what finally do we do about 

this. What is our position? And do we need to do 

anything further about it, or do we just say done?

We can talk that out this afternoon (Telephonic 

interference.) goal, hope is to put a little asterisk 

after 85.4 percent and do some (Telephonic 

interference.). So how about let’s say this is a good 

discussion, and what you suggest, Jim, may be 

what we in the end do, or a footnote. And let’s go 

on.
40

Member Lockey: Thanks, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, so 

people who have read the Set 26 blinds will note 

that, coming right up for the next report that will be 

in, I don’t know, 2021, or ‘22, I hope, long time in 

the future, if we do have two cases where there are 

disagreements in compensation decisions. However, 

we have not reviewed that yet or we will fairly soon.

I don’t know if we’ll get to it today. But that will be 

interesting. But the first set of B2, you know, we 

have one disagreement. That is really good, 

particularly when we use best estimate cases to 

start to do the blinds with, in the first place. Okay --

-

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie, I have a 

question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: So back under the blind case 

reviews, we talk in two paragraphs about the 

professional decisions made by NIOSH were 

grounded in the best available science.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: And then the next paragraph it goes 

over the professional judgments made in light of 

inadequacies. Anyway, so that just reminded me 

that, last meeting, we talked about brainstorming. 

SC&A was going to brainstorm some ways to kind of 

document the professional judgments.

And I was just curious if that had been done. I know 

I didn’t see anything. But I didn’t want to lose that. 

Because we do have another document in the 

methods group on the professional judgments. And 

I think it’s an important part of this section.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: So SC&A, go ahead.
41

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, the methods, we started 

collecting these. And we’re doing that now with the 

cases where professional judgment’s been good. But 

that comes for sets beyond Set 21. We were only 

going through Set 21. And we didn’t start it until 

later.

So that’s why it doesn’t appear. And it will appear, 

and maybe it should appear in terms of things that 

we are, in fact, I think it may in the conclusions or, 

excuse me, for the things that we’re going to be 

doing in the future.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. And it possibly could be captured 

there. But it is, so, Josie, if you looked at that new 

set of blinds, SC&A did implement that for that new 

set.

Member Beach: No, no, no, and I realize that. And 

maybe I’m jumping ahead of my question, so I’ll 

ask it again later.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine.

Member Beach: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Now, folks, it’s 11:56. But I 

think we’re near the end. And we ought to finish 

this up, I hope, soon. So I’ll move along. That 

means we may not, I’m hoping that we can finish by 

a quarter after 12:00 East Coast time if that’s okay 

with people.

Mr. Katz: Yes, that’s fine, Dave, plow on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. All right, distribution of 

dose reconstruction cases. Now we go to the 

graphs, distribution of dose reconstruction cases 

among covered facilities. And this is -- Rose did a 

very nice job, if I may say, on Figure 1, breakdown 

of the case reviews by employment site. Obviously 

if there’s more than one employment site, each site 

was counted separately. And that’s first without 

respect to any goals. This is just what case reviews 

we did.
42

And the individual sites with three or more cases 

are identified individually. And then sites with two 

cases are down there. You’ll see two thirds of the 

way down with 15 sites with two cases. There are 

15 of them. And the bottom sites with one case, 

there are 34 of them that we have reviewed.

Then, we go to Figure 2. And Figure 2 looks at the 

goal of one percent of total claims. So the yellow, or 

mauve, or I’m not sure what you call it, the 

yellowish is reviewed cases. And the goal is one 

percent of total cases. And as you see, we have hit 

one percent of total cases.

Well first, the caveat said right below, well, let me 

see, the next paragraph, hold it, the caveat that, it’s 

in here somewhere, that our goal is one percent of 

all claims, not one percent of the claims from each 

factory which is, oh yes, where is it, the orange bar?

Oh yes, I’m sorry, the bottom of Page 14, 

underlying note, the Board’s goal is to review one 

percent of total DR claims, not one percent of all 

claims from a given facility. Some facilities may 

require greater attention.

And that’s important. But on the other hand it’s 

valuable, I think, to see where the number of 

reviewed cases is taller or longer than the goal of

one percent which is in blue.

And in particular, what was important to me was 

that, to me at least, that the remaining one percent 

of the sites, there were 120 cases. And one percent 

would have been, what was it, something like 90-

something. So we exceed one percent for the 

smallest places which are the ones you worry about 

missing.

And also, for the, where are the remaining one 

percent, wait a minute. Where are, on this table 

where are the ones with two, pardon me, one 

second, sites with two cases, 15 on the previous 

figure. Oh, yeah, no, those are sites with one and 

two are, with the two and three are distributed.
43

So of course, we won’t see. We’ll see the plants. 

And we have all of the plants listed. And you’ll see, 

you know, in many cases, the blue bars, and I 

document that below, that in many cases the blue 

bars do exceed the yellow bars, meaning we’ve 

gotten more than one percent. I don’t think there’s 

anything much to say. And I don’t say much.

Folks, are you okay with those two tables?

Member Beach: I am, Dave. This is Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: I am, Dave. This is Loretta.

Member Lockey: Hi, Jim Lockey, I am too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, okay. Then let’s go down to 

Page 16, Figure 3, cases reviewed by Probability of 

Causation. Now, one thing that I make a break in 

(Telephonic interference.) between below 50 and 50 

and above. Because those are compensable, 50 and 

above.

But in terms of the cases reviewed, you remember 

that we go from 45 to 52 percent. So cases 

reviewed are in the lower orange, and also in the 

blue. And we have 45 percent of the cases 

reviewed, of the 166, the ones we’re reviewing now, 

45 percent of them are between 40 and 49. And I 

compare it with last time which there are some 

small increases and decreases, I note years.

Let’s go to Number 4 unless there is, not a lot to 

say on these, but it’s data that, you know, should 

break down Figure 4, break down 166 case reviews 

by years of employment. And that is interesting to 

look at.

For the first time, we have, first, two percent of the 

claims filed were for people who worked less than a 

year which is to say 250 days or more, less than a 

year, 250 to 365.

And the people with greater than 40 years, 
44

minimum 6 percent. And that’s down, of course, 

because, well no, it isn’t. I’m not sure. I forget. I 

don’t know. Just looking, I don’t remember what I 

said. But there wasn’t, yes, nothing profound, it 

seems to me, slightly below the 67 percent reported 

in 2016, small changes as we might expect. All 

right, so that’s four, five types of cancer cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: With this I wanted to point out, I 

think your second sentence here in the section is 

misinterpreting ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Which section, the second 

sentence with respect to Figure 4?

Ms. Gogliotti: Five.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, for five. Let’s go down to 

five. One minute. All right, and what is the second 

sentence figure? There are 287 cancer diagnoses.

Ms. Gogliotti: That is incorrect. That is risk models. 

We don’t track the number of diagnoses, so we 

track risk models that were used in the claim.

Chair Kotelchuck: Ah, yes. You are correct. You are 

absolutely right. Figure 5, risk models. Now, I keep 

using diagnoses all the way through, don’t I?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: But is it, if I change diagnoses to 

risk models, is that everywhere? Is that ---

Member Beach: No, that won’t work later on, I don’t 

believe.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. No, I don’t. Thank you for 

making that point, because this absolutely needs to 

be corrected. But I don’t know, I will just say review 

and risk models correct and review. Because I’m not 

sure how I discussed it as we went down in the 
45

paragraph. I will correct that paragraph, let’s just 

say that. Thank you.

The Figure 5, the breakdown of 166 cases, this is 

the last time, I believe, the last report that we did, 

we didn’t break down the non-melanoma skin, the 

BCC SEC, but they are, I mean, those are, of 

course, the highest, and all male genitalia, which 

seems a little surprising to me. The lung cancer, the 

all male genitalia, put it this way, it suggests to me 

the all male genitalia would not be where I would 

expect the radiation effects to --

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: It would include radiation effects 

as well as effects of prostate cancer which may, 

which are not one of our --

Ms. Gogliotti: If I could point out here, the reason 

that you’re seeing more of the skin cancers and the 

prostate cancers showing up here --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- is because of the SECs.

Chair Kotelchuck: It’s because of the --

Ms. Gogliotti: The SECs. These are non-SEC 

cancers. So they’re not automatically compensated.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so these kind of select for 

themselves because of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Ah.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- to support that, but I’m sure that’s 

why.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim Taulbee. That is true to a 
46

certain degree, that the SEC cancers have been kind 

of screened out from that standpoint. But even 

before the SECs started, our dominant number of, 

or a higher proportion of claims coming in were skin 

and prostate cancer. Those are the biggest numbers 

that we do see, even before the SECs played a role. 

The SECs have skewed it further, but they are still 

dominant within the claimant population.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes, they’re just more common cancers.

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s right. And those cancers, 

those lines include both radiation-induced cancers 

as well as other cancers that have other sources of 

causation, let’s say, whether genetic or whatever.

Mr. Katz: I mean, all cancers are treated as 

radiation-induced, whether they are or not.

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s right. And that is the way 

the law is written. And that’s correct and good. And 

it’s certainly worker-friendly, claimant-friendly. 

Anyhow, this is an interesting graph, but not a lot to 

say.

Then a breakdown of cases reviewed by decade first 

employed, six, Figure 6. And here (Telephonic 

interference.) we’re starting to get cases from the 

1990s. And one percent of our cases that we 

reviewed, the 166, one percent of them are now for 

folks who started working in the 1990s.

And, of course, the percentage from the 1930s has 

gone down because of the demographic aging of the 

population and deaths which makes a small residue 

of folks who are still alive who can file claims. So it’s 

interesting. And the largest group is, of course, 

from the 1950s, as one might expect.

Okay. Administrative changes, now these are, we’re 

finishing up now.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I’m sorry to interrupt. I just 
47

want to point out one more thing here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Surely.

Ms. Gogliotti: With this section, I don’t know that 

we can draw the conclusion that the decline is 

coming from eligible claims, only because we’re not 

randomly selecting our claims.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’m sorry. Let’s go, what are you 

referring to, which paragraphs or which --

Ms. Gogliotti: This is the sentence that splits Page 

19 and 20.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. This reflects --

Ms. Gogliotti: Because we ---

Chair Kotelchuck: -- reflects the expected decline in 

eligible from older, long-term employees and their 

survivors.

Ms. Gogliotti: We don’t have a random sampling of 

NIOSH claims. We have a targeted sample.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so we can’t draw conclusions 

about the whole population. That would have to 

come from NIOSH.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm.

Ms. Gogliotti: Because we do have that information 

when cases are selected.

Chair Kotelchuck: Uh-huh. I don’t quite see that. 

But maybe my, it’s certainly true that it is a selected 

sample. I don’t know, others, what are others 

thinking? And maybe I’ll try to understand better.

Mr. Katz: I think this, before anyone else steps in, 

since I haven’t thought about this, I think you might 

want to say this is likely as opposed to this reflects 

so affirmatively, saying it quite as affirmatively. But 

it is a very reasonable inference that that’s what 
48

this is reflecting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Because of the nature, when the claims 

come in and what claims can get to be reviewed, 

and so on, and the fact that that older population 

definitely is passing out of this program, and the 

younger population is growing in this program.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: I mean, it’s pretty darn reasonable to 

expect that that’s having an influence even though, 

you know, nobody’s run the numbers ---

Chair Kotelchuck: It feels right.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Like, I mean, strictly speaking, 

she is correct in that.

Mr. Katz: Yes. I said you could just say this likely 

reflects.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’m open to that, what do others 

think?

Member Beach: Can you strike it? Do we need that 

sentence?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, you sort of put a graph 

down among the 100, the percentage of cases who 

started working has increased.

Member Clawson: Yes. But, Dave, this is Brad. You 

put that out there, myself, I would just strike it. You 

know, I understand what you’re doing. You’re 

making an observation ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Clawson: -- in my eyes about this. But 

myself, I’d just strike it. We want this to be as exact 

as possible. And I don’t think that adds anything to 

this.
49

Chair Kotelchuck: In other words, strike that 

sentence and then leave among the six, the 

percentage of cases who started working has 

increased and in the, in other words, state the facts. 

Well, okay. I mean, you’re right. That’s the only one 

where we go beyond saying give me the numbers. I 

mean, it’s one that reflects an opinion which 

certainly we can’t back up.

Member Richardson: Well, to me, it’s more of an 

observation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Richardson: You know, and just like Jim 

says, you know, you can look at this, and you can 

figure it out pretty easy and stuff like that. But my 

suggestion would be let’s just take and strike it out, 

stay with the facts, get it done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. You know, that’s a good 

argument to me. So we’ll just strike that one 

sentence. And then all the other ones are numerical, 

and these things have changed, and essentially let 

the reviewer think what that might mean without 

trying to assert what it means --

Member Clawson: Right. Because it’s human nature 

that we want to put kind of what we feel into this, 

and what we’ve seen, and stuff like that. But in this 

kind of a report, I think we ought to leave it all out. 

I think we ought to just deal with what the facts are 

in the numbers and go from there. Let them come 

to their determination.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good. What do others 

think, feel comfortable with that?

Member Valerio: I do, Dave, this is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good. Okay, hearing no 

more, I’ll strike it. Thank you.

Administrative changes. So the next section, the 

Board modified one aspect of the procedures to 
50

improve review efficiency, that NIOSH and SC&A 

are more actively engaged in technical discussions 

to raise concerns, and talking about our movement 

now to Category 1 and Category 2, Type 1 and Type 

2 review cases.

So this saves the Subcommittee time and allows it 

to focus on more complicated cases. And in either 

circumstance, all review cases are discussed and 

finally resolved by the Subcommittee.

So we’re giving NIOSH and SC&A license to talk and 

interact more which is good. But the decisionmaking 

has not changed. But the review procedures have 

been speeded up. And why there’s no numbers 

about how it speeded it up, but can’t do that now.

Okay. Then I just took a Table 5 to take the Type 1 

and Type 2 issues and noticed that the Type 1, the 

relatively easy ones that NIOSH and SC&A resolved

together, are two-thirds of the cases.

Okay, other Board review activities, because the 

nature of this report is very much what’s going on 

with the DRR Subcommittee, but on the other hand, 

there are an enormous number of other things 

going on that not only deserve mention but are 

critically important to the way the Board functions.

And I just tried a paragraph, as I did in the previous 

report, not to forget the important roles by all the 

other, the SECs, and the other subcommittees, the 

Procedure Subcommittee, et cetera. So I think 

there’s nothing really new said here.

Conclusions, yes, let’s go over them each. The 

Board continues to reach its goal of reviewing one 

percent during this third report to the Secretary. 

Since the 22, since the 2016 has reviewed another 

166 which yielded a total of 243 findings, a drop in 

findings rate of almost 50 percent.

And then this review shows that none of the 

findings result in revisions completed to the extent 

that they would subsequently change the 
51

compensation decision. That is, I’m talking about 

the 166 cases.

We continue to solicit blind case reviews. As of this 

report, 32 blinds have been reviewed. Findings 

affirm that the procedures were properly and 

professionally carried out. This is a strong validation 

of consistency of dose reconstructions.

And then four, the above three conclusions along 

with Board’s ongoing review provides the Board with 

a high level of confidence that the process now in 

place is scientifically sound and consistent, and I 

repeat that again, and note that the methods and 

information are not static as new information comes 

in, et cetera, et cetera, and methods will improve to 

better reflect new information and new procedures.

How do people, do those seem to be the three, I 

mean, the three significant findings? Is there any 

other one that we should put in or emphasize?

Member Lockey: No, I think that’s good, David. Jim 

Lockey a good summary.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And then four basically 

said, of course, things change and we’ll keep up 

with the changes.

Okay, recommendations, the Board should continue 

to review at least one percent of total DR cases. The 

Board should continue to conduct blind case reviews 

at the current rate.

Three, the Board shall modify the review process to 

make it more efficient and timely by focusing more 

effort on the critical parts of the dose reconstruction 

evaluation. In particular, the Board should initiate a 

process to conduct reviews focused on evaluating 

consistency and accuracy of dose reconstruction.

For cases where dose can make it, make individual 

judgments. The Board will work with the 

Subcommittee and NIOSH technical contractors to 

identify key targets. Okay, how about ---
52

Member Beach: My only suggestion on the third 

one, Dave, is can you break that into sentences? 

It’s pretty long.

Chair Kotelchuck: Number three?

Member Beach: I think that there might be two 

parts in that second sentence, under three, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay, break it up, Number 3, 

conclusions, I mean recommendations, Number 3. 

Yes.

Member Beach: And you could maybe bulletize 

some of the things you’re ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Beach: -- like the individual judgments.

Chair Kotelchuck: Could I what? Could I ---

Member Beach: I was just wondering if you could 

bullet ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Bullets, yes, bullets. That might 

help. Okay, that’s good. And I will do that. It’s long, 

and I shall do that. All right, folks. So ---

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie again. Overall, I 

just want to say I think you did a fantastic job on 

this report, excellent work.

Member Lockey: I concur with that, Jim Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Member Lockey: Very comprehensive, David.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right, good. I appreciate it. So 

basically, can I hear a resolution that we make the 

modifications that we talked about today? I’ll send 

you a copy, but that basically we agree to pass this 

on to the Board with the revisions from today, pass 

it on to the Board for its December meeting.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey --
53

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Lockey: I make that recommendation, or 

second it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, thank you. All right.

Mr. Katz: So one other note, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: I just, while we’ve been going through 

this, I’ve just been thinking about that possible 

footnote to the table on the Allied line.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: So I just wanted to put this out there so 

that people could chew on it, not that you have to 

respond to it now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, okay.

Mr. Katz: My thought about that footnote would be 

to say something along these lines, while both the 

NIOSH and SC&A approach to this dose 

reconstruction case are reasonable, the NIOSH 

approach is more precise and hence must be used, 

or something like that which I think characterizes 

the situation simply and hence doesn’t leave 

someone just scratching their head about ---

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. I’m taking that down. 

And we’ll come back to that then after lunch when 

we go to that case.

Mr. Katz: Oh, okay. Yes, sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you, good, good. So folks, 

it’s now, well, you didn’t take a vote. All those in 

favor of forwarding it to the Board?

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I’m good.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, good.

Member Valerio: Loretta, good.
54

Member Beach: Josie, I’m good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Sounds like it’s unanimous 

and, good. It is now 12:25. Let us get together then 

at 1:30. We’ll take an hour and six minutes. So at 

1:30 Eastern Standard Time we’ll get back together, 

and we will discuss the Allied Chemical and Dye 

case and then the other blinds. Okay, folks?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: All right, thanks, everyone.

Chair Kotelchuck: Have a good lunch or breakfast, 

as the case may be.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:29 p.m. and resumed at 1:34 p.m.)

Closure of Blind Review of an Allied Chemical and 

Dye Corporation Case from Set 17

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Shall we begin? Okay, 

folks, let’s begin. Let’s begin. Let me just, an 

administrative matter to mention to Ted.

Mr. Katz: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: As I was reviewing the transcript 

we were going, we’re going on to the Allied 

Chemical and Dye, as I said before.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Reviewing the transcripts of the 

discussions that we had in the past, during 2015, I 

noticed that in the early drafts some of them called 

it Allied Chemical and D-I-E, not D-Y-E.

And I can understand that. And that was on 

4/14/15, our meetings 4/14, 6/24, and 9/21/15. 

Within a while, it was in the early ones that there 

were a few cases of D-I-E.

Could you have someone, some staff, or ask 

someone to just review them over. It’s easy 
55

enough. Find D-I-E, and change it to D-Y-E, so that 

we’re consistent. I’m sure I didn’t make the error 

myself. But on the other hand I certainly --

Mr. Katz: No. It’s the court reporters that do the --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: -- transcriptions. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: And I review them. Right. And I 

review them.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And I don’t, it’s hard to think that 

it escaped me. But on the other hand, whatever it 

is, it’s incorrect in the official transcript.

Mr. Katz: That’s fine. They’re long transcripts. 

Totally understandable.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Just tell me the dates of the transcripts, 

and I’ll get those fixed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. In 2015, 4/14, 6/24, and 

9/24.

Mr. Katz: 9/24?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Of 2015? Okay, that’s going a long 

way back. But yes, we can get those corrected.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’d appreciate that. Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Folks, time to talk about the 

Allied Chemical and Dye. Fundamentally, after the 

Surrogate Data Working Group said that the NIOSH 

procedure was correct, was proper, and they 

approved it, they sent it back to the Committee.
56

Normally, since we sent it to that Working Group 

without, as a Committee, deciding what we wanted 

to do with it, and if we approved it as it stood.

Obviously, as I indicated before, I think that the gap 

between the 45 percent and 85 is so large and 

disturbing, that even though it’s the only one where 

the compensation decisions differ, that it deserves 

more close examination.

Now, I don’t know, I’d like to ask Committee 

Members how to proceed on it. Four of us were here 

for the discussions in 2015. And you may well 

remember them.

Rose put out materials. The, particularly the one 

where they were comparing the SC&A and NIOSH 

reconstructions for that case. And it’s on the, in the 

materials for today’s meeting.

The question is, do we want to go over it again? I 

mean, we could simply go over the report. And 

remember, two people, Jim and Loretta, have not 

had a chance to, have not, were not here for that 

discussion. And hopefully they have had a chance to 

look at the materials on the website for this 

meeting.

Or should we just simply say, here it is. And, but we 

do have the option of just saying, fine, that we 

approve the scientific procedures to the best of our 

ability. And simply accept, and then go on to other 

things, other blinds that we, for SEC 26.

And I suspect -- I’m confident SC&A is ready, 

prepared to go over the comparison file if people 

think it’s worth it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, we were under the impression 

that we were just going to be closing this case out. 

We didn’t spend a substantial amount of time 

preparing to discuss this case in detail.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, I mean, I’m certainly 

at one level prepared to do that. Why don’t we find 
57

out from the Committee Members whether they 

would like to have us go over this, if not now, some 

other time?

Although, I would like to put it in the report. So, I 

will, that I lean toward simply approving. But I, 

first, whatever it is, I think before we approve, we 

have to ask the Committee Members, the 

Subcommittee Members what they, how they feel 

they would like to proceed.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I can tell you that 

my personal opinion is, we’ve spent a lot of time on 

this. We’ve, I think we’ve run this to ground.

I think that we’ve done everything that we do. I was 

kind of in the impression too that, okay, because 

there was a difference, and stuff like that, but 

NIOSH’s position that they still did it correctly, and 

everything else like that, there was just, we had a 

difference of opinion on this. And myself, I don’t see 

spending much more time on it, and proceeding 

there. But that’s just my opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that’s what was asked then. 

Other folks? I mean, I agree, frankly. But I want to 

make sure that --

Member Lockey: But I agree with that also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. I agree with that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Lockey: Go ahead and move on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Other? That’s good.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: I would agree as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Well then, I think formally 
58

what we need to do is accept the report, and the 

comparison. I mentioned earlier that, before we 

consolidate this, I wonder if it wouldn’t be wise to 

send this to the Methods Working Group, the DRR 

Methods Working Group, to see where, if it was any 

possibility of understanding what, how the 

difference in professional judgment, how that could 

lead to such a vast difference. I happen to be Chair 

of that Working Group. And, but --

Dr. Taulbee: Well, this is Tim. Can I --

Mr. Katz: Let me jump in first. This is Ted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Please do.

Mr. Katz: I mean, that is not the role of the DRR 

Methods Work Group. So, I don’t think it’s 

appropriate to send it to them. Because it’s not all 

what they were constituted to do.

The DRR Methods Work Group was constituted 

specifically, way back from when we had backlog 

issues, and then beyond, to think about whether we 

had come to a point where we should change our 

DRR methods review.

And that’s really it. Not to look at individual cases. 

Or to sort out issues like this, which was a --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: -- which is why it was done through the 

Surrogate Data Work Group.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right.

Mr. Katz: So, I just don’t think it’s appropriate to 

refer it to that Work Group. Because --

Mr. Katz: Maybe you’re --

Mr. Katz: This is not in their mandate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. You may be right about the 

broader -- I think, Josie, you’re on that committee 
59

as well? That’s the Working Group, are you not?

Member Beach: Yes. I’m on both.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: The Surrogate and the Methods.

Chair Kotelchuck: Do you, and maybe he’s, maybe 

Ted is correct on that. I hadn’t thought about that, 

in terms of, that we were looking to see how -- but 

at times we looked to see how professional 

judgment, whether --

Member Beach: Yeah. I think that’s a separate issue 

though, Dave --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: -- in my mind.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, yes. Okay. Okay.

Member Beach: I mean, and we have already 

referred it to the Surrogate, so --

Chair Kotelchuck: We certainly did. Well, we’ve 

taken -- Well then, with what both of you have said, 

I mean, I may be, I should not, that it’s not 

appropriate.

And that therefore, it seems as if we would just 

want to accept now, after getting the report from 

the Surrogate Committee, we now accept the two, 

and the two results.

And both of them are, they’re both, have different 

professional judgments. But approved as 

appropriate professional judgment.

Mr. Katz: Well, Dave, I just need to caveat that. I 

mean --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: -- that I don’t think is correct. I mean, 

they were both reasonable approaches based on the 
60

data that each relied upon. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: The program is, has to use the most sort 

of precise methods available in a case like this 

where, you know, the information is very coarse in 

either case. But it will --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: More coarse in the approach that SC&A 

took. That there, it’s not like there is an option to go 

with the SC&A approach. It’s not an option.

Chair Kotelchuck: That is correct.

Mr. Katz: So, and so I think the statement you just 

made would be misleading to the public. Because 

they would think, oh well you could have done 

either. You can do either, why aren’t you doing that 

one? But that’s not an option.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Well --

Ms. Gogliotti: If I could say something, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: This case is different than most of the 

blinds that we do in that there is no TBD for Allied 

Chemical and Dye. So, there is no guidance 

document that we could go to and say, this is the 

correct correction factor for this application. This 

case also has no records. So, there’s no DOE files 

associated with this case at all.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: Yes. And this is Kathy Behling. If I 

could just add to that?

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead, Kathy.

Ms. Behling: Okay. I’m sorry. The other issue with 

this particular case is, a lot of the data, both 

internal and external, was based on OTIB-43. And 
61

SC&A did apply OTIB-43, but we used data in OTIB43 for best estimate values.

Where NIOSH took it another step, and said, we 

can’t even use best estimate values for this 

particular site, because of the amount of, that was 

processed through that site. And so, we’re going to 

use only ten percent.

When SC&A does its blinds we, I thought that our 

role was to use the procedures as they existed, to 

use surrogate data when we need to.

So, when we used OTIB-43, I don’t think we felt 

that it was appropriate to make judgments, such as 

to make such a broad professional judgment as to 

say, okay, we’re going to reduce OTIB-43 values 

down to ten percent, because of that throughput.

So, we followed what I think is supposed to be our 

protocol, and to use procedures that are already in 

place by NIOSH. And we used best estimate calc, 

best estimate values, rather than reducing them 

even further.

Member Beach: Well, and where is that -- Kathy, 

this is Josie. Where is that guidance that would tell 

NIOSH to use the ten percent? I know you probably 

can’t answer that. But it is --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: Okay. There is, as far as SC&A is 

concerned there is, there was no guidance. Unless 

there was one of these DR guidance documents 

that’s specific to a facility.

Now, when I went in and looked at this comparison 

case, I did ask that same question as to why did 

they come up with ten percent? And have they 

applied that ten percent to all of the other cases 

associated with Allied Chemical?

I couldn’t find any guidance documents. But I was 

able to go in and look at every case that’s been 
62

done for Allied Chemical. And it’s all been done the 

same way.

So, somewhere there must be some 

communications with the dose reconstructors, that 

this is the approach to take. SC&A did not have 

access to that information.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Well, and that brings up one of the 

questions I had from last meeting: that we asked 

NIOSH to put together site guidance documents, so 

SC&A has access to them.

And I think Grady took that on. And I know, I think 

you’re back on the line. Did you give that any 

thought, Grady? Or, so that there’s current 

documents available?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. We’ve got the methodologies, 

and other documents that we have. And we have 

actually started going through some of those.

And if there’s a significant number of cases that 

have been filed with those, those need to be 

switched from just the, a methodology to some kind 

of TBD or such.

And now, the guidance documents are a little bit 

different. And those are kind of like, a lot of times 

those are, those will be incorporated into TBDs as 

they are revised.

I think that’s the approach. Is that right, Scott? Are 

you, Scott?

Mr. Siebert: No, I’m here. I will absolutely admit I 

was not really paying attention, because this is your 

guys’ site. So, I didn’t ask, I didn’t catch the 

question. I apologize.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. It was more of a general 

question. But with the guidance documents, I mean, 

sometimes the guidance documents, those would 

not be incorporated into a TBD, unless the TBD was 
63

revised. But that is done sometimes, right?

Mr. Siebert: That is correct. And as soon as we 

have, we’re updating a TBD Site Profile. We roll 

anything that’s in the guidance document into the 

TBD. So then it would be fresh. And it would be 

listed in that tracked document.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Well, and I think Ron asked the 

question of having those available. Because SC&A 

doesn’t have a real way to get to those documents. 

I believe is what his question was last meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Mr. Calhoun: I also thought that the methodologies 

were included in the, I forget which folder it is. But 

it’s in the ADR files folder. It’s development, the 

development folder.

Mr. Siebert: Yes. I think you did.

Mr. Calhoun: I think that they are.

Mr. Katz: Yes. I think so. Because I think you --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Calhoun: They should be there. You guys have 

access to that whole thing.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Clawson: Well, yes, but, this is Brad. If I 

remember right, when we started into this, and the 

question was asked, how come did you use this, 

down to this ten percent?

This is where we get into the professional judgment 

part. And if I remember right, that’s what was told 

to us. And our question was, how do we, how does 

SC&A, how do we know when we would be doing 

something like this, how would you do it? Especially 

where it’s not written down.
64

And this was, this has been, if I remember right, 

this has been part of the hangup with this case, and 

also with this site.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, part of the hangup, as I 

recall, and going over the transcripts again, was 

that the folks from NIOSH really argued that this 

was, first place, it is a singular case. And, but I 

think that they are, wait a second. No. NIOSH --

Member Clawson: Dave. Dave, this is a singular 

case. But back, way back before, when this first 

started to come out this was part of the issue, is 

how can we do a dose reconstruction, and redo this, 

when there was no guidance for them to drop this 

down to ten percent? And why? Or any explanation 

on this. So, this has just built up and built up 

through this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Clawson: So that’s, part of the issue was 

that we were going to get a professional judgment 

evaluation, and a little bit of guidance like this. But 

as we have developed, we’re still out there.

And, you know, this is an old question. And yes, 

we’re doing better now, but also, the question still 

comes back to is, how did we, and why did we do 

this ten percent?

Mr. Katz: Well, yeah. The ten percent was very fully 

addressed in previous discussions. That --

Member Clawson: Right.

Mr. Katz: As far as we -- yeah. But the guidance is -

- Grady at some point, I don’t remember the date, 

but sent out an email once they had pulled together

all the guidance things, saying, here are all of them 

as they stand right now, as I recall. And that was 

sent out.

You know, how complete that is, or where that 

stands now, and as these things change of course, 
65

because it’s a moving target, I don’t know. But I 

know I saw that at some point.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, we are, I mean, there is, 

there will be something coming. There is a process 

by which NIOSH is going to develop, look into 

developing what is now a workbook, or some sort of 

process by which the people who do the dose 

reconstruction are guided, right? That’s --

Mr. Calhoun: Well, we have those in place. The 

question here is, are they available to everybody. 

And I think I do remember that I sent out a bunch 

of them. Gosh, it’s been more than probably two 

years ago.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. It’s been a while.

Mr. Calhoun: And, you know, the thing of it is, is 

that we don’t typically like to go into full blown TBDs 

if we only have a couple of cases, like we do in this 

case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Calhoun: So, I can’t commit. I mean, there’s 

literally 300 sites out there. So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. No. I don’t think --

Mr. Calhoun: I don’t want to --

Chair Kotelchuck: I understand. And you made that 

clear, that you cannot develop something for every 

single site.

Ms. Behling: Yes. This is Kathy Behling again. On 

these guidance documents though, the other thing 

that I will say is, these are very dynamic 

documents. They get changed routinely.

And that is because they’re not published. And it’s 

easier for them to update the dose reconstructors, 

and change guidance in these documents, rather 

than doing it in a Site Profile.
66

So, we need to have access to a place where the 

most current guidelines are available. Because they 

do change quick, very routinely.

Mr. Siebert: And this is --

Member Beach: And that was a commitment made 

last meeting, to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: -- figure out how to get those 

available.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I can’t speak to the actual 

access, because I don’t know what SC&A has access 

to on the NIOSH server. However, I know that a 

copy of our DR Tools folder gets replicated over on 

the NIOSH server. And I believe that was for SC&A 

to have access to all of our tools.

These DR guidance documents are in the same 

folder with each of those tools. So, in my mind 

there should already be access. But like I said, I 

can’t check that, because I don’t have access to 

where you guys look for that stuff.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, perhaps we could talk offline, 

and get this figured out.

Chair Kotelchuck: Exactly. Exactly what I was --

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- thinking.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: And that can be -- and in terms of 

actually, I mean, coming to a resolution on this 

case, it seems to me clear that we don’t want to go 

through it, and that we should resolve simply to 

accept the report from the Surrogate Data Group. 

And then accept the two cases into our table. And 

that those are the results and that would be it. Just 

simply accept.
67

Member Beach: Agreed. Dave, this is Josie. I agree 

with that, Dave.

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

people agree?

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta --

Member Lockey: David --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Loretta, yeah.

Member Valerio: And I agree. And I was trying to 

remember. I know we discussed this before -- and 

Josie, refresh my memory -- I believe it was during 

the Surrogate Data Work Group meeting. There was 

a recent meeting that this was one was discussed. If 

I --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, absolutely. In fact, that was 

the result. You’re on the Surrogate Data Committee, 

I know. And you --

Member Valerio: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: And then Paul Ziemer, who’s the 

Chair of it, simply sent me a letter telling me the 

results of your last meeting. And that’s the one in 

the materials that are there today, the letter from 

Paul.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, I guess, folks, we now, we 

accept the Surrogate report. And we accept 

therefore the, that. And we accept the results as 

they now stand. And this will be in our table.

And I will try to think of -- Ted, you suggested 

something for the table in the report. And also, 

maybe I’ll think a little bit about what that asterisk 

in the table, in the report, should say.
68

And maybe part of it is, I do believe this really is a 

singular case. I mean, no data, no exposure records 

whatsoever, no profile. Really very difficult.

But anyway, let’s just say we’ve accepted it. And 

now I’ll try to put something into an asterisk. We’ll 

pass it around, of course, to everybody. And --

Member Beach: And Dave, this is Josie again. 

Before we move on, I know SC&A and NIOSH just 

agreed to talk offline on the guidance documents. 

Can we just get a quick memo or update, or 

something, of when that occurs, and if it gets 

resolved? Because we have been talking about that 

for a couple of years, as Grady pointed out.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that’s --

Member Beach: Most recently last --

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. That’s --

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. I’ll get something to Ted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Appreciate it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Who should we direct that inquiry to?

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: Who should I talk to about getting 

that access?

Mr. Calhoun: From us here at NIOSH? Or to them?

Ms. Gogliotti: From NIOSH.

Mr. Calhoun: You can send stuff to me.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Ms. Behling: And, David, this is Kathy Behling one 
69

more time. Also, if you’re looking maybe for some 

additional words to add to your letter, remember 

our summary comparison table does put a little 

summary statement underneath each of the cases, 

describing the differences. So, that may help you in 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: -- putting some words together.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Maybe. I’ll take a look at 

that. I’m actually, the asterisk I think may be not 

even going into the --

Ms. Behling: The details.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- real specifics --

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- of the case. But thank you --

Ms. Behling: Just a thought.

Review Set 26 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases

Chair Kotelchuck: -- for alerting me. So, folks, I 

think we have now disposed of this item. And we’re 

ready to go on to the next two blinds. And both of 

them have, we’ve asked the SC&A to rework, and 

they have.

And still we have two cases where the compensation 

decisions differ. The PoCs don’t differ by much. But 

the compensation decisions, since they’re both 

around 50 percent, do differ.

And with that I’ll ask Rose or Kathy, would you like 

to start with Ames or Los Alamos?

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Ms. Gogliotti: Let’s start with LANL.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. LANL it is.
70

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So, as a refresher we presented 

this case at the last meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, is LANL, pardon me, is LANL 

up on the Skype there?

Ms. Gogliotti: It is on my screen. Can everyone else 

--

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes. Oh yes. Okay, good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: So, this is a LANL case. The EE had 

several decades of employment. And quite a lot of 

cancers, as you can see on the screen. Of course, 

we have to avoid using Privacy Act-protected 

information.

The original dose reconstruction we did had a PoC of 

36 percent. But there was one aspect that you 

asked us to look at again. And that was the X-ray 

dose.

There was a single X-ray, the first one that was 

done for this claimant that, once you analyze the 

record, although it didn’t directly say on there that 

it was a PFG scan, with historical knowledge, and it 

does appear in the TBD that it was a PFG scan, 

which SC&A did not include in the initial report. So, 

we went through and added a PFG, and removed 

the initial scan that we should find instead.

And that results in a small difference in PoC, but 

notable because it is on opposite sides of the 

spectrum here. And once we did that our medical 

doses here, you’ll see are virtually identical.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: So, the main difference in this case, 

now that we’ve corrected that, comes down to the 

number of working hours that we assigned per year.
71

NIOSH assumed 2500, which is the number directly 

out of PROC-60, which gives guidance for best 

estimate claims. While SC&A instead used the 

number from the TBD, which is 2,080, which is a 

smaller number than the TBD, from the TBD.

And that was also because the CATI, in the CATI the 

EE reported that they did not work overtime, and 

they only worked 40 hours per week. And PROC-60 

does allow for modifications to the default 

assumptions in PROC-60, based on the CATI report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this difference, although it’s not 

that many working-hour difference, gets amplified 

because there are so many cancers in this claim.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And right. Are, pardon me 

one second. I mean, my feeling is, I mean, it was 

appropriate that you do it. And there’s, we did 

discuss this last time, except that one issue of the 

medical in that first year.

And no surprise it didn’t change much. But the 

difference between the PoCs is less than one 

percent. So, I mean, the PoCs were remarkably 

close.

We happen to be working in an environment where 

this is a compensation decision. And there is, if you 

will, there’s a line in there above which people are 

compensated, and below which they’re not.

But if we’re asking, as we are here in blinds, 

whether we’re essentially performing the results in 

the same, performing the analysis in the same way, 

we are.

And we’re remarkably close. And no surprise, since 

the original LANL case was right around 50 percent. 

It’s, well, in fact it was 50.06. So, pen was 

compensated, by the way.

Then I, this is just a small difference. I personally 
72

feel comfortable accepting it, that this has been 

discussed, and it’s appropriate.

And of course, with a certain amount of variability 

and professional judgment, PoCs will differ a little 

bit. And this is really a little bit of difference. Even 

though compensability would have been different 

had one done it rather than another.

Member Beach: So, this is Josie. You might have 

discussed this, and I might have missed it. The 

cancer site number 2, there was a bit of a difference 

there, in the external dose. What was the difference 

in that one? Was that the work days also? Or --

Chair Kotelchuck: I don’t know. I’m looking. Site 

number 2, yeah. Yeah. I mean there are 

differences, large and small.

(Off microphone comment.)

Chair Kotelchuck: I don’t recall the prior discussion 

on the cancer number 2.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Looks like it’s an environmental dose. 

And it’s possible we used a different dose correction 

factor, maybe.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, you know, every little bit. 

I mean, looking at Table 1-2, you know, they’re all 

just a little bit different.

Some are a little bit more different and less. I don’t 

see anything, to me, I don’t see anything that 

stands out in 2, other than there’s a difference.

The question, I mean, I ask people, are people 

concerned that this is, this would be the second 

case where there’s a difference, among our blinds 

where there’s a difference in compensation 

decisions?

Ms. Gogliotti: The third.
73

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe it’s the third.

Chair Kotelchuck: I can’t hear that. Maybe I’m, my 

phone is fading a little bit.

Member Lockey: Hey, Dave. Dave, it’s Jim Lockey. I 

mean, I’m not concerned. I think these are so close, 

it’s remarkable to me that they’re so close. But I do 

have a sort of a moral dilemma question, or a 

philosophical question.

Suppose, Dave, suppose this fell on the other side? 

Suppose the SC&A was 50.06 percent and the 

NIOSH was 49.43.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Member Lockey: Would your approach be any 

different?

Chair Kotelchuck: I, mine would not. Because the 

NIOSH dose reconstruction is the correct dose 

reconstruction at a formal level. And they are the 

most experienced of the cases.

Do I, like any other Board Member, feel at perhaps 

a personal level when something is so very close, 

whether it’s this case or any other one coming in at 

49.6 or something? Yeah, you feel bad.

Because the difference is a significant difference to 

the claimant and his or her family. But I would not, 

no, I would not, I would say it’s not compensable if 

the reverse had happened, and NIOSH had found it 

below 50.

And I feel as if, if an exception were made, then an 

exception would have to be made for other people 

to be fair for other people that got 49.6. And then, 

we’ve effectively reduced the decision point from 50 

percent, which is in the law --

Member Lockey: Yes. And I do agree with that. One 

who is involved with scientific studies, there’s going 
74

to be some, a little bit of flux. You just want to keep 

it as low as possible.

And I think our data historically has shown that the 

SC&A and NIOSH have usually gotten very, very 

close. So, I think we just have to accept what the 

data shows, and move on, even though sometimes 

we may not like it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Or it may, at the level of 

persons, rather than people advising on a law, we 

may feel different.

Member Lockey: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I agree. And it is understood 

that in a complex dose reconstruction, there will 

always be a certain amount of variability. Therefore, 

there will always be a small, a percentage that are 

incorrectly decided, quote, incorrectly decided, if 

one knew what correct was.

Member Lockey: Yes. And our job is to minimize 

that as much as feasible, right?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, right.

Member Lockey: I think that’s what your point, I 

think that’s what historic data is showing. That 

NIOSH and SC&A, well, NIOSH has done a good job 

of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: But let me put an asterisk on that point, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Please do.

Mr. Katz: Because, and NIOSH is, you know, would 

be the word on this, it’s up to NIOSH, but if in any 

of these -- so, the Board’s role is not to review 

individual cases with respect to the compensation 

program.

It’s, with respect to, it’s peer review, and not, the 
75

Board doesn’t have a role in the adjudication. So, 

and that’s all clear. And you all know that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: That being said, just as when you review 

methods, and NIOSH may go back and change 

methods, and then you’ll do reworks, NIOSH 

similarly is, always has the discretion.

I mean, say you do a blind review, and NIOSH 

realizes, oh, we missed the boat on this one. NIOSH 

can always go back and do a rework. Where NIOSH 

feels it’s missed the boat it will, that’s what it will 

do. It’s not going to ever --

So, what you were saying, there’s going to be 

some, you know, some wrong decisions that just 

must be what they are, that’s not really true.

Whenever NIOSH determines it has made a wrong 

decision on a dose reconstruction, it has, at its 

discretion, the right to correct that case. And that’s, 

and its basic policy is to correct mistakes.

Mr. Calhoun: Only if we said it was a non-comp.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: If we said it was comp we’d never go 

back.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Thanks for that clarification. We’ve 

never gone to that, that’s never been done, and it 

will never be done to go back on a comp. I’m talking 

about our non-comps, of course.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So, I just want to make that clear. 

That if the Subcommittee stumbles on a case where 

NIOSH missed the boat, and NIOSH agrees it 

missed the boat, it will correct that case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.
76

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s true. And that’s important.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott Siebert. I mean, I’m not 

going to talk about the esoteric things you’re talking 

about right now. I just want to get specifically to the 

case, if that’s okay, and point one more thing out.

There are a couple of other small differences 

throughout the claim. And I believe they fall under, 

you know, there are either small professional 

judgment differences or, you know, small things 

that were done differently.

But one thing I do want to point out, we are right at 

the 50 percent mark. And a big difference, it may 

not have a huge impact, but it will have some 

impact is the fact that for best estimate claims we 

do run our calculations through a Monte Carlo 

calculational tool for applying all the distributions, 

and mixing them together appropriately as a full 

best estimate.

SC&A, in their assessment does not do that Monte 

Carlo calculation. I’m not pointing fingers. I just 

want to clarify that this is the case. They, for 

example, use a mode of the DCF for the external, 

versus the full triangular distribution.

And since we’re talking about really close to 50 

percent, 30 IREP runs, 10,000 iterations, 

distributions may have a slight difference, and that 

may be where we’re seeing some of these 

differentiations.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Good point. So, yeah. So, 

others. I mean, Jim, you said, you know, it doesn’t 

disturb you. And it doesn’t disturb me either that 

there’s a difference. In fact, I think it’s remarkable 

close, the two.

Member Lockey: If there were similar spreads on a 

consistent basis, that would be more disturbing. But 

to see this very narrow differences is, you know, I 
77

think we’re pushing it as far as we can push it, you 

know.

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely. And I agree. I think 

it’s, this is closer, by the way than most cases, blind 

cases in the table that we looked at this morning. 

Many of them are two or three percents PoC 

different. And so, anyway, shall we accept this, 

folks, and (Telephonic interference.) --

Member Beach: You’re breaking up quite a bit, 

Dave. But yes, I agree to accept this report.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. I did change, because 

I’m on a wireless, I did change the wireless. Am I, is 

it a little better now?

Member Beach: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. And it’s, certainly the 

reception on my end is better. So, okay, folks. So, I 

think we’re ready to go on to the Ames case.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Let me just get it pulled up 

here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Ames Laboratory

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. To refresh everyone’s memory, 

we discussed this at the last meeting also.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: In the initial Ames case, this 

particular employee was employed for a handful of 

years in the late ‘50s. And they have less cancers 

than in the previous one, but still a number of 

cancers here.

When we did the initial case we came up with a PoC 

of roughly 62 percent. And NIOSH ended up at 

48.6. And there was one issue that we were asked 

to readdress. And that had to do with the missed 

neutron correction factor.
78

In the TBD it specifies that for neutron dose a 

correction factor of two should be used. And it was 

silent on whether or not it should be applied to 

missed neutron dose.

And so, SC&A made the assumption that it should 

be included. And this is actually where the DR 

guidance document discussion happened at the last 

meeting.

In the actual DR guidance document for Ames it 

does say not to address it. And we discussed why 

that was at the last meeting. And so, we were asked 

to remove that correction factor for the missed 

neutron dose.

So, ostensibly we were reducing the missed neutron 

dose by 50 percent. And when we did that our PoCs 

were close, but still not quite --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- lined up with the other side, the 50 

percent. And with this case the main difference 

that’s remaining has to do with the missed neutron, 

or the missed neutron and photon dose here.

It’s the only difference pretty much in the case, or 

any difference of significance. And that has to do 

with, there was a short period of time, several 

months, that there were no monitoring records for 

this individual.

And so, SC&A assumed a bi-weekly monitoring, with 

zero recorded dose. And so, we assigned missed 

neutron and photon dose to that time period. And 

NIOSH did not assign any missed dose to that time 

period. So, that is the difference in this case, or 

differences in this case.

Mr. Calhoun: And some of this, I can address that if 

you so desire. And for you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: This comes down to -- I’m sorry?
79

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Mr. Calhoun: Oh, okay. This comes down to, there’s 

a timeframe that does have an apparent gap in that 

dosimetry coverage. We didn’t include it because 

when we looked through the DOE records it showed 

that the dosimeter that was assigned to that worker 

was not used for the period beginning in April of 

that specific year, and was actually assigned to a 

different employee later on in April of that year.

They reused their badge numbers. That’s always 

fun. But it was reassigned to a different individual.

There’s also evidence in the DOE files that the EE 

resigned in February to take a teaching position, 

and then came back, back in the May, June 

timeframe.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: And it’s not necessarily 100 percent 

clear. But it’s -- the weight of the evidence in our 

minds seemed to indicate there was a reason he, 

the individual was not being monitored, and did not 

have exposure. So that’s why we made the decision 

we did.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And that sounds --

certainly to me it makes sense. And that’s a 

perfectly sensible decision. The pen results are 

really quite similar, less than two percent difference.

If it’s -- and I’m, just to say, because we’re 

probably dealing with small variations in the 

analysis. In this case, NIOSH was below 50 percent, 

and SC&A was above.

In the previous case it was the opposite, which just 

goes to show we’re probably dealing with random 

variability in doing the dose reconstruction 

calculations. Small differences. And again --

Mr. Siebert: But you --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, go ahead.
80

Mr. Siebert: I’m sorry. This is Scott. And I just 

wanted to say that the whole Monte Carlo 

calculation that we just talked about in the last one 

applies to this one as well. Same thing. There’s 

going to be small variability because of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. So, I think we’ve 

been over this. It seems sound. Other people have 

questions, comments, thoughts?

Member Beach: Dave, I think it sounds reasonable. 

And I agree with this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes, good. Me too. So --

Member Valerio: Dave, this is Loretta. I agree as 

well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. So, folks, shall we 

accept now? Okay? Do I hear any objection? No. All 

right. Very good. And --

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

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good. So, with that, we’ve 

taken care of the two blinds that were recalculated 

for today. Now, on the table, Rose, on the table that 

you presented in the materials for today, you clearly 

completed all -- most all of the blinds, you know, 

from your end. I assume what you’re doing is 

waiting for a response from NIOSH on the other 

blinds?

Ms. Gogliotti: We closed out the remaining blinds. 

So --

Chair Kotelchuck: Did we close all of them out?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Other than these two, correct. 

Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, okay. My goodness. Okay. 

My memory failed me. But that’s wonderful. So, 

these blinds are taken care of. And does that mean 

that we will be making choices soon for another set 

of blinds, Ted, or have we done so?
81

Mr. Katz: Well, so we’re waiting on them to make 

more progress, not on blinds --

Chair Kotelchuck: I know.

Mr. Katz: -- but they have another set they’re 

working on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Okay.

Mr. Katz: A normal set, not a blind set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: We’re working on the 27th set now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we’ll have that in early 

November.

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

it’s 2:20 p.m. And I think it’s time to go on to the 

last item, which is the regular review cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, now I noticed that there are 

two basic, we have DOE sites, and AWE sites. There 

are only four, as I count it only four cases that need 

to be decided on the DOE site, and quite a few on 

AWE. Do you want to do DOE, and finish it up 

today? Is that, what would you suggest?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. I’d recommend that we do the 

Type 2 issues from the DOE matrix.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And then immediately progress into 

the AWE Type 2 issues, while everyone’s still fresh. 

And then --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- while everyone’s kind of sagging at 

the end of the meeting we can do the easy ones.
82

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I like that. Okay, fine. DOE it 

is.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So, let me pull up, actually, 

BRS here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Issues resolution.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thought I had this pulled up before, 

but apparently I did not.

Review Cases from Set 25

Hanford PNNL

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I see the first one, Hanford 

PNNL 516.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Here we go.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: So, for this one, the Hanford PNNL 

case. And the finding states that NIOSH did not 

properly account for all missed shallow doses. And 

this is kind of an interesting one. So, I’ll go ahead 

and read the finding to you. And then --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: As per the guidance of OTIB-17, only 

a single missed beta-gamma dose is assigned for a 

given year, for the specific guidelines for the 

assignment of missed dose at Hanford. And then we 

quoted the guidance there.

Missed photon dose was assigned for the years 

1979 and 1982, but not for the years ‘75 and ‘78. 

During these periods zeros were recorded for nonpenetrating readings, but positive results were 

reported for penetrating dose.

If missed shallow dose was assigned to these years 

it would increase the dose. And it’s not clear if the 

PoC would be affected in this case.

And NIOSH came back and said that they don’t 
83

believe that there is an error in the case. And they 

said it was based on recording practices at Hanford 

at the time. And then they go on to say, during the 

years in question the site reports non-pen and pen 

dose.

The tool interprets non-penetrating dose as open 

window dose, minus deep. Then the tool combines 

the non-pen and pen dose to determine an open 

window value, then applies the OTIB-17 logic 

according to the Table 26, or the table on Page 26 

of the OTIB.

In the years ‘75 and ‘78 there was a positive pen 

dose for all recorded zero non-pen dose. Since the 

tool combines the values, both the open window 

value and the deep value are greater than the zero, 

so no missed dose is applied. According to this logic 

the dose was calculated correctly, and there is no 

missed dose problem.

But then, we’re really confused on NIOSH’s 

response. One, because they’re quoting from Page 

26 of OTIB-17, which is not applicable to the site. 

We believe that they actually should be using 

Appendix C, which is on Page 24 of the OTIB, rather 

than Appendix D.

And we interpret the dosimetry records to show 

zeros for the non-penetrating values. And no missed 

dose was assigned. So, maybe NIOSH can clarify 

here.

Mr. Siebert: Yes. This is Scott. The table that you’re 

referring to on Page 24, yes. It’s the attachment 

that’s talking about Hanford, it’s actually in a 

Hanford external TBD as well.

And I think the confusion comes down to 

terminology. And it probably could be more clearly 

stated. When it’s talking about shallow readings in 

that table, it’s not talking about non-penetrating 

dose.

It’s talking about open window. Everything that 
84

would be seen in the shallow reading, which would 

be non-penetrating, plus the penetrating, which 

you’d use for skin dose.

In that case the open window actually equals the 

deep. It’s not a zero. And that’s where the different 

line in that table actually comes into effect. It’s the 

fourth row, if I remember correctly, of data. And it’s 

where it states that missed dose would not be 

applied.

Ms. Gogliotti: I guess what I’m -- are you 

insinuating that when the -- in the Hanford 

dosimetry reports, when it’s reported as nonpenetrating dose, that is actually the nonpenetrating dose component, plus the deep 

component?

Mr. Siebert: No. When they say non-penetrating 

they’re talking about the open window, minus the 

deep.

Ms. Gogliotti: So, the shallow dose component?

Mr. Siebert: No. The non-penetrating. That’s what 

I’m saying. This is, OTIB-17 is written to discuss 

open window, overall skin dose, and deep dose. 

And, Matt Smith, if you want to jump in on the 

OTIB-17 discussion portion of it, feel free.

Mr. Smith: Well --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Smith: -- I have to declare I am conflicted for 

Hanford and PNNL.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Good.

Mr. Smith: But what --

Mr. Siebert: But this is --

Chair Kotelchuck: But if you are, you are --

Mr. Katz: Well, no, no. He’s not -- well, Matt’s 
85

conflicted on Hanford, meaning he can’t comment 

on the case. But he can certainly comment on the 

generic matter of that guidance.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes. That’s okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: OTIB-17 does have specific guidance 

for Hanford though. I don’t know if that impacts 

things.

Mr. Smith: Well, we don’t, in OTIB-17, as I recall, 

have an era-specific table that addresses this 

timeframe when they have the non-pen and pen. 

And that’s something Scott and I have talked about 

offline, to have updated in the TBD.

But back to where Scott was leading to, he’s 

absolutely right. That fourth row that he’s 

discussing is actually where the tool reconstitutes 

the dose, if you will.

There’s 100, in that example 100 millirem of deep. 

And that will translate into also having 100 millirem 

of shallow in this case. Keith is on the phone call as 

well, and he can speak specifically to the tool logic.

But if you take a look at Table 6-2, and I believe 

we’ve called that out before, 6-2 in the Hanford 

TBD. It shows you how the reporting value is also 

correlating with -- I don’t have it in front of me right 

now, dose quantity.

So, you know, to do the math, in terms of what 

we’re trying to achieve here with OTIB-17, the tool 

actually is adding that deep dose back into what we 

would call the shallow reading, and to create the 

shallow reading.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy Behling. Can I ask a 

question? In the table we’re referring to in OTIB-17, 

Row 5 of that table shows an example of zero 

shallow reading, 40 deep reading, and then it tells 

you to enter that dose as missed dose for electrons, 
86

or low energy photons.

Am I hearing you correctly that that can’t happen in 

this particular case?

Mr. Smith: Yes. That example is there, kind of a 

carryover from a few examples we saw at Savannah 

River. When this TIB was written the author put that 

in there also as a possibility.

But Keith can correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t 

believe we’ve ever seen that situation. You know, if 

you think about it, you know, if you’re reading 

something deep, how would you have nothing 

shallow?

It probably would indicate a situation where you’ve 

got a failed or inaccurate dosimeter reading. But 

just from the physics of it, if I’m reading a deep 

dose I’m also going to have a positive shallow dose.

Ms. Behling: I will say -- I’m sorry, this is Kathy 

again.

Mr. Smith: Shallow layer skin’s going to, if my dose 

at ten millimeters is --

Ms. Behling: Of course --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: I understand.

Mr. Smith: -- is going to be positive as well.

Ms. Behling: I understand. All I’m saying is, there is 

a fifth row in that table that would indicate what to 

do. And the other thing is, I’m working on a case 

right now for INEL. And there is a situation exactly 

like this.

The records show zero shallow and deep dose 

reading. And the dose reconstructors do go in and 

assign a missed dose for that, based on this, on this 

example.
87

Ms. Gogliotti: And I’ll also say that if you’re getting 

a result that doesn’t make sense, isn’t the policy of 

NIOSH to go with the most claimant-favorable, 

rather than to assume nothing?

Mr. Calhoun: Well, to be clear, in this case the 

results make perfectly good sense. The open 

window is equal to the deep, in which case you 

would use the fourth line.

I mean, I can’t speak to the whole fifth line thing. 

That’s an OTIB-17 question. But in this specific case 

the data records from Hanford clearly show that the 

open window would be the pen plus the non-pen.

So, they are equal at that point, and there is no 

missed dose to be assigned, per our documented 

records and procedures. And just for a little bit --

Ms. Gogliotti: Perhaps if we could --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Gogliotti: -- just send you our math offline, just 

so you could see why we’re confused by this, for 

this particular case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Somebody was starting to say 

something. Hello?

Mr. Katz: Well Dave, Rose just suggested that SC&A 

send Scott or NIOSH their math separately from this 

meeting, so that they can see why they’re -- SC&A’s 

confused about this. Do you hear me, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Dave Richardson.

Mr. Katz: No. No. Ted. This is Ted speaking to you, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Go ahead. I heard what you 

said, surely.

Mr. Katz: So, anyway, that was really the 

suggestion, if that’s okay with the Subcommittee 

Members. And they can do that, and they don’t 
88

have to --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: It’s a long list.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. That sounds good. Sounds 

good to me. Other Board Members, other 

Subcommittee Members? Sound okay?

Member Lockey: Sounds good to me. Jim Lockey.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: Sounds good to me. Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Clawson: I would just like to know the 

outcome.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Absolutely. We’ll report back to 

the Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: And that will come, this will come 

back to us at a future meeting, of course.

Mr. Katz: Yes. This case is unresolved.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay. Well then --

Mr. Smith: I have one more thing to add in prep, 

ahead of that. Please consult Table 6-2 of Hanford 

TBD. And Column 2 is the dosimeter measured 

quantities, this is the non-pen and pen. And then 

Column number 3 is compliance dose quantities, 

where you’ll see the skin dose equals non-pen plus 

whole body.

Ms. Behling: And you also need --

Mr. Smith: The whole body, N plus slow neutron 

plus fast neutron.

Ms. Behling: And you also need to look at the 
89

example table in OTIB-17 for the Hanford case, Line 

5, Row 5.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. That table is also in the 

Hanford TBD. You can do one stop shopping there. 

Because OTIB-17 is old. And it’s being updated right 

now. And the Hanford TBD has been updated. It’s 

also Table C-1 in the Hanford external TBD, so.

Ms. Gogliotti: Thanks. Great.

Y-12, 521 Observation 1

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Okay. Takes care of that. 

That will come back to us. And then the next case 

for DOE I see is INL Case 506, an observation. Case 

506 and up.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. I wasn’t aware that there was 

one still open. Which observation?

Chair Kotelchuck: Case 506, Observation 1. I’m 

scanning through.

Member Beach: My next one was Y-12.

Chair Kotelchuck: Here it is.

Ms. Gogliotti: My next one that I had was 521.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh. I know -- you know, I believe 

I made a mistake. Because I’m looking at 506, and 

Observation 1.

It is close. I’m sorry. That’s my mistake. So, the 

next one, which one, you said --

Ms. Gogliotti: It’s 521, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this is a Y-12 case.

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s right. Okay. I agree. And I 

was in error on the other one. So, there are only 

three cases that need resolution. Let’s go to that 

one.
90

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: The observation states that SC&A 

questions the origin of the 13 microrem per hour 

ambient dose value used to model the best estimate 

ambient dose in the Y-12 workbook.

The TBD, Table D-7 shows the 50th percentile 

external environmental dose to be 21 microrem per 

hour. And the Y-12 guidance document does not 

recommend any modifications to this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Somebody is speaking in the 

background. Somebody’s speaking in the 

background.

Dr. Taulbee: Matt, you’re not on mute.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And use of the 13 microrem 

impacts the total dose assignment by only a few 

millirem. But it could have a significant impact on 

other cases. So, we were just curious where this 

number came from.

And NIOSH comes back and says, the origin of the 

number is in Section 4.5.2, in the environmental 

TBD. And we do agree that it’s there.

And there it just indicates that the isopleth range 

from 13 to 21 in the max areas, and eight to 13 in 

the lower, or the rest of the site.

And then NIOSH goes on to say that the best 

estimate value of 13 microrem per hour is found on 

Page 26 of PROC-60. And we were a little confused, 

because that number no longer exists.

Well, PROC-60 is an old reference. And there it does 

say the 13 microrem. We completely agree with 

that. But the TBD has been updated more recently 

and that number was removed.
91

Mr. Siebert: Yes. And this is Scott. And we realize 

that there was the inconsistency between the two 

documents. And we are in the midst of updating the 

Y-12 environmental TBD relatively soon. And that 

information will be added back into that.

Unfortunately, it was just lost between the two 

versions, although we have it implemented in our 

processes. So, the documentation of it in the TBD 

will be back in that environmental section with the 

next version of the TBD.

Ms. Gogliotti: The entire column was removed. Was 

there a reason that it was removed, and now it’s 

being added back in? Or was it an error?

Mr. Siebert: I believe it was removed because it’s in 

Procedure 60. And Procedure 60 then changed it. 

And what I’m saying is, you know, it was an 

inadvertent removal from both places.

It’s still appropriate. It was just inadvertent that it 

was removed in both. So we’re documenting it, 

getting it back in the TBD.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And so, it was being done --

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- correctly. It’s in the workbook 

correctly then. But it’s just not clear in the TBD. 

Okay.

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, you’re agreeing to resolve it -

- this observation to be resolved, right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: This concern. Okay. That’s fine. 

And now, one last one.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is --

Chair Kotelchuck: 515?
92

Ms. Gogliotti: 512.5.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then I missed one. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: Maybe I missed one here. Let me 

double check my numbers here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let’s see.

Oak Ridge Facilities

Ms. Gogliotti: You were right. I’m incorrect, it is 

515.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, good. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Here we go.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And this one has -- oh, it’s a Y-12, K25 and X-10. So, all the Oak Ridge sites. It has to 

do with californium-252 solubility sites.

And here our finding states that SC&A derived a 

californium-252 Type S dose to an organ that was 

approximately 20 millirem greater than that 

assigned by NIOSH, using Type M for a different 

organ.

SC&A derived a californium Type S dose 

approximately 5 millirem greater than that assigned 

by NIOSH using Type M. And then, this finding had 

to do with the TBD, Table 5-2 on Page 11, which 

states that californium-252 Type S is the most 

probable solubility type at X-10.

And NIOSH responded, saying that the californium252 is defined as Type M for all compounds in ICRP68. And they go into ICRP-30 and ICRP-68.

And go on to say that there is not a one-to-one 

correspondence of solubility classes for ICRP-30 and 

solubility types in ICRP-68. And that the EEOICPA 

project follows the type directives in 68.

And then we responded saying that since the TBD 
93

says to make a claimant-favorable choice for the 

radionuclide in tissues of interest, and Type S 

provided slightly greater dose to the skin and 

intestine, it would appear that Type S should be 

used.

However, according to NIOSH’s BRS response, 

apparently ICRP-68 has already set californium-252 

as Type M. And there is no further consideration for 

californium.

If that’s the case, the TBD should be revised to 

correctly reflect this, even if the X-10 dosimetry lists 

different information. The TBD is to provide 

information for the dose reconstructor.

And if that information’s not in there, it’s hard to 

follow. And our finding was based on the 

information in the TBD, which was intended for dose 

reconstruction.

Mr. Siebert: Well, and that -- this is Scott. And I’ll 

come back and say, that table clearly states that it’s 

classifications from ICRP-1966, which is D, W, and 

Y.

So, there is no direction at that point to assume 

Type S material. Because Type S material is not 

mentioned in that. The only way someone could 

make that assumption is if they assume that Type Y 

-- or Class Y is the same as Type S, which it is not.

So, I maintain that the TBD was giving historical 

information as to how things were viewed at the 

site. It does not give direction to then expand the

idea that Class Y is the same as solubility Type S in 

the present day, and give direction to use solubility 

Type S.

So, I think the historical information in the TBD is 

accurate, as well as the information that we use the 

latest version of the solubility types from ICRP, 

which is also accurate.

And I’ll just put it this way, we do not find that 
94

information inaccurate or misleading.

Ms. Gogliotti: Would you agree that the TBD would 

benefit from explicitly stating that Type M should be 

used?

Mr. Siebert: In each TBD we don’t necessarily state 

which solubility type is appropriate for all types, or 

all materials. I mean, I guess if you wanted to add 

additional clarity on top of clarity, that could be 

done. I’m not going to say that that needs to be 

done.

But like I said, I believe we’re already clear. And we 

haven’t seen errors, we haven’t seen it misapplied 

on our side, so.

Chair Kotelchuck: Can I ask, Rose, is this a question 

of clarity, or an error? If it’s clarity, it should be an 

observation. Or --

Ms. Gogliotti: I agree, it could be reduced to an 

observation in this instance.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think it should be. It looks to me 

as if the issue is an observational issue. And I think 

it should be reflected, unless -- if I hear other folks 

object. I do not.

So, this is an observation. But now, is -- are things 

-- but I’m not sure things are clarified between you, 

Rose and Scott. Is there a --

Ms. Gogliotti: NIOSH’s position is that they’re using 

ICRP-68, and will always use Type M of californium252. We can accept that. We just found that there 

was a little room for interpretation there.

Chair Kotelchuck: But now there will not be. 

Because it’s agreed upon that you understand that -

-

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- as you’re asked to review. 

Okay. Then I think we can close it, right?
95

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is Scott. The question I had 

was, we had suggested actually removing the 

finding because there’s nothing wrong. If you want 

to just download it to an observation because of 

clarity, I mean, obviously that’s in your purview.

But I still don’t see that there’s any -- we will not 

be, as far as I’m aware we won’t be updating the 

TBD for clarification, because that information is 

already in OTIB-60 as well. I mean, I’m not trying 

to be a pain here --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Siebert: -- and push back. I just want to --

Chair Kotelchuck: No, no, no --

Mr. Siebert: -- point that out.

Chair Kotelchuck: But this isn’t a finding. Whatever 

is happening, this is not a finding. A finding is --

Dr. Taulbee: All right. This is Tim. If I could 

intercede here. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Please.

Dr. Taulbee: What it sounded like to me just took 

place was that SC&A agreed that this was more of 

an observation. And that with your response, Scott, 

of us using ICRP-68, and then we use Type M for all 

californium-252, that they’re accepting it. So, I 

believe that this is now closed. It’s downgraded to 

an observation, and closed. Am I missing 

something?

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that’s right. No, that’s --

Mr. Siebert: That’s fine by me then. Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well then, we’re settled 

that that’s closed. Okay. Wonderful. And unless I 

hear objection from the Subcommittee, basically, if 

I don’t hear objection, we’ll move on. No objection. 

Okay. Now we’re ready to go on. That takes care of 
96

the DOE matrix. Let’s go to the AWE now.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Do I have Bob Anigstein and 

John Mauro online?

Dr. Mauro: Yes. Hi, Rose. This is John. I’m here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Did Bob join?

Chair Kotelchuck: Bob? Did we hear you?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, he was planning to join, but if 

he doesn’t join that’s okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Would you want to take, I mean, 

it’s, at 3:00 I was thinking we might take a rest 

break for a few moments. Would you like me to do, 

us to do that?

Ms. Gogliotti: It’s entirely up to you. We can go 

ahead without Bob, or I can try and get him on the 

line.

Chair Kotelchuck: No. If you think we can go ahead 

without Bob, then let’s just keep going ahead. And I 

--

Mr. Stiver: Actually, Rose, sorry, this is John. Bob 

asked for somebody to call him, and he’d get on the 

line when he needed to. So, we’ll go ahead and give 

him a call.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, good. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay?

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. So, we’ll, let’s go ahead. 

So, Aliquippa Forge.

Ms. Gogliotti: Why don’t, Kathy, do you mind giving 

Bob a call, and --

Ms. Behling: I will do that.

Ms. Gogliotti: We’ll start with 503.
97

Ms. Behling: Yes. I’ll do that.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So well, do you want to just then 

take a ten-minute comfort break? And that way 

they can get Bob on the line. And we don’t have him 

coming in at --

Dr. Anigstein: This is Bob Angistein. I’m on the line.

Mr. Katz: Oh. There he is. Okay, good.

Chair Kotelchuck: There we are. Thank you. 

Welcome. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. We’ll start with Bob’s case then.

Chair Kotelchuck: All right. 501 –

Hooker Electrochemical

Ms. Gogliotti: This is a Hooker case. And it is Tab 

520, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: 520, Observation 1. Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And the observation states that 

NIOSH should review the doses to all non-metabolic 

organs and tissues in selecting a surrogate for 

organs, such as the prostate, which is not included 

among the organs modeled by IMBA, to ascertain 

the highest organ that is selected as the surrogate. 

NIOSH responded --

Chair Kotelchuck: I haven’t found it. And I think I’m 

not -- give me, I just went in order. Which is the 

case you’re looking for?

Ms. Gogliotti: This is the Hooker case. It’s at Tab 

520, which is a Type 2. We’re going through the

findings first.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. There are a lot of them, 

are there not? Tab 520. Okay. Are other people 

following this on Skype?

Member Beach: Yes.
98

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Somehow, I don’t know why I’m 

not getting the Skype. I’ve been working off of the 

other. But it is 520, Hooker 520. I will, while you 

folks talk I’ll find it here. Don’t know why I’m having 

trouble with Skype, but you go ahead, folks. Let me 

not hold you up.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. And then I’ll --

Dr. Anigstein: Shall I --

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, if you want to go ahead, Bob, 

that’s fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, Bob. By all means.

Dr. Anigstein: Rose, should I proceed?

Ms. Gogliotti: Go ahead.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. This is an issue. This is a -- I 

don’t know if I’m allowed to, am I allowed to 

mention the organ? Because otherwise it makes no 

sense. Is that okay?

Ms. Gogliotti: Just don’t mention the organ. And it’s 

on the screen for everyone to see.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes. Okay. So, this is a prostate 

cancer. And since the prostate is not one of the 

organs for which the ICRP developed those 

conversion factors, either for internal, nor for 

external dose.

So, for -- there is a procedure where NIOSH assigns 

the dose to the urinary bladder. For external dose 

they use the urinary bladder as a surrogate for the 

prostate, which is considered to be adequate, or 

claimant-favorable, at least adequate.
99

However, for internal they did not use that. And the 

argument is, well, urinary bladder has its own 

model for doing internal dose. Because the bladder 

wall itself does not absorb, does not preferentially 

absorb uranium.

However, the bladder contains urine, of course. And 

the uranium does pass through the urine during the 

early stages of elimination, after intake.

And consequently there is an additional dose from, 

shall we say external radiation, even though it’s, 

strictly speaking it’s an internal dose. But it’s the 

radiation from the urine that affects the bladder 

wall.

And the NIOSH argument is, no, that doesn’t count, 

because that’s a special case. And therefore, we will 

use another organ. I believe the kidney is what they 

used as a surrogate.

And my point is that no, they should use -- this is 

legitimate, because the -- just to remind people of 

the anatomy, the urine passes through the urethra 

prior to being excreted. And the urethra passes 

right through the prostate.

So, the prostate does get some of the radiation 

from the uranium in the urine, albeit, not quite as 

much as the bladder does. But since absent a 

bladder specific model, I mean, excuse me, a 

prostate specific model, then they should use the 

most favorable one.

And the most favorable one, which is also 

reasonable, the location, and the prostate is located 

right next to the bladder. Urine passes through the 

urethra, which is in -- surrounded by the prostate.

So, we believe that the prostate, even though it will 

give us slightly more, using the bladder as a 

surrogate for the prostate, even though it’s 

probably a slightly higher dose than if they were, if 

one were to develop a prostate-specific model.
100

But nevertheless, it’s the best we’ve got, it’s the 

reasonable and claimant-favorable of the available 

models. So, that’s our position.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: Dave, this is Tim Taulbee. Unless 

somebody else on my side wants to take this. Okay. 

There’s a couple of things that I would note here.

And we might end up having to wait for Dave Allen 

to be available to further elaborate, because we’re 

going to be testing the bounds of my internal 

knowledge here.

But if you look at the dose conversion factors, for 

the alpha, for the beta, for the gamma associated 

with uranium as it’s passing through the bladder, 

the majority of the dose, like 99 percent of it is 

going to be coming from the alpha and the beta. 

Very little is coming from the gamma.

And if you consider the urethra as Bob is mentioning 

here, that dose would still be then in the urethra, 

and not the prostate gland. So, from our standpoint 

we don’t believe that we should be using the 

bladder for this particular case, for the prostate.

That the majority of the dose, like 99 percent of it is 

being deposited there in the walls, or in this case it 

would be in the urethra as it’s passing through.

So, I believe here that to use the bladder would be, 

well, it’s incorrect in our opinion. And we should be 

using the highest non-metabolic or non-modeled 

organ, if you will. And that’s our current position.

And if I’m correct on this, the Probability of 

Causation is greater than 50 percent in this case, 

correct? Bob?

Dr. Anigstein: I didn’t notice that.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don’t know.

Dr. Taulbee: And so, what you’re proposing is that 
101

the dose would be even higher for an already 

compensable case.

Ms. Brackett: This is Liz Brackett --

Dr. Anigstein: I, okay, I don’t have, I just have the 

BRS in front of me. I don’t have the entire case in 

front of me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. Liz, please correct me if I said 

anything that was in error there. Thank you.

Ms. Brackett: No. That was all correct. I just wanted 

to add on to that, that this is something that we’ve 

been using since pretty much the start of the 

project. And this was all very clearly documented in 

OTIB-60, the internal dosage instructions guidance 

documents.

And it addresses, it doesn’t address specifically 

prostate. It addresses all organs that are not 

specifically modeled by the ICRP. And it gives clear 

direction on the selection of organs to substitute 

when you have one of these organs.

And as Tim referred to, the highest non-metabolic 

organ, which is not a very good description. But it 

means one that, it’s the organs that do not 

concentrate the material that you’re looking at.

So, it looks at all of them, where it’s not specifically 

concentrated. And we select the one that gives the 

largest dose to substitute for one that, for an organ 

that’s not even named in the models.

And like you said, I would guess that the majority of 

cases end up using this highest non-metabolic 

organ. Because there’s so many that are not 

specifically modeled by the ICRP. So, this has a long 

history of use.

Mr. Katz: Sorry to interject. But for the court 

reporter, you might have said it, but, and I missed 

it. But that’s Liz Brackett from ORAU.
102

Ms. Brackett: Yes. Sorry. I said it. I think somebody 

else was talking when I said it. So, yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Thanks. I just wanted the court 

reporter to catch that.

Ms. Brackett: So, I didn’t have anything else to add 

to that.

Chair Kotelchuck: I’m not sure where we are, that is 

in that time. I’m not sure what --

Dr. Anigstein: This is 520, Observation 1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes. No, no. I’m here, and 

listening to the -- I’m not sure what resolution. 

There’s a difference of opinion. I’m not sure -- I 

don’t think I hear an agreement. Or do I? So --

Dr. Anigstein: Well, speaking for --

Chair Kotelchuck: Both of them are --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: Speaking for SC&A, I will just 

reiterate I think we should use, even if it’s a small 

difference we should use the more claimantfavorable approach.

And if this case was, I didn’t notice. If this case was 

compensated, then other, I mean, the purpose of 

doing these is to get a sample of cases.

And if in this case it was compensated, are the 

others, which may be just below the compensable 

level, I mean, you know, this is one, they haven’t 

reviewed all the cases, all the prostate cases in the 

whole universe of our program, of which there are 

many.

Dr. Taulbee: But for, as Liz pointed out, for cases of 

the prostate, where the ICRB has not specifically 

listed an organ, we use the highest non-metabolic. 
103

We do not use one of these organs in this particular 

case, urinary bladder. And as Liz pointed out, that’s 

been since the history of this program.

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. This is Grady. And I think we’re 

getting into something here that’s beyond this case. 

Because clearly we followed the procedures in place 

to do this case. That’s not debatable.

I think what you’re discussing here now is whether 

or not the procedure that we’ve used forever is 

wrong. So, that’s a different discussion.

I don’t believe that that procedure is wrong. But 

that’s the issue here. It’s not whether this case is 

wrong. Because this case is right. It’s been done to 

the current procedures. And that’s what we’re 

looking at.

Mr. Katz: Well, and hasn’t that procedure been 

reviewed previously?

Mr. Calhoun: I couldn’t tell you if it’s been reviewed 

by the Board. I’d imagine. Everything else is.

Mr. Katz: I’m pretty sure it has.

Ms. Behling: It’s been reviewed by the Procedures 

Subcommittee.

Mr. Katz: Right. Right. It’s been reviewed and that 

review is finished, I think, for that one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon. Ted, finish --

Mr. Katz: So, I believe --

Chair Kotelchuck: It’s been reviewed by --

Mr. Katz: I believe it’s been reviewed and approved 

by the Subcommittee on Procedures, and the Board, 

which means that is the procedure.

Chair Kotelchuck: And that has been done in the 

recent past?

Mr. Katz: Not necessarily recent. I think it goes 
104

back quite a ways.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I mean, to change, to make 

a change in that would be a massive task. And --

Mr. Katz: Well, I guess --

Chair Kotelchuck: But that, frankly, that’s not an 

argument against. That’s simply a statement of fact. 

But this has been the standard procedure for a long 

time.

I would say that’s a debate that should be held 

between SC&A and NIOSH. I don’t, or to go before -

- maybe we should, maybe, Robert, at SC&A, I 

mean, this should be raised, if you believe that this 

is correct, that to use the bladder as a surrogate 

organ to go, to refer this to the Procedures 

Subcommittee.

Mr. Katz: Well, before they do that I would suggest 

SC&A goes and looks at what was done in the 

review of the TIB, whenever that was reviewed, and 

all of the Subcommittee discussion on that before 

they even propose that that be taken up by the 

Subcommittee, to make sure that that perspective 

hasn’t been in any way addressed already, or what 

have you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. Is that a reasonable 

thing? That’s a reasonable think, I think, to ask of 

SC&A.

Member Beach: I would agree with that. This is 

Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I mean, let’s check fully, and 

come back next meeting with the report. And if that 

still is -- if it hasn’t been considered, or even if it 

has been considered, and you, in your 

consideration, feel like this was a mistake, then it 

should -- this is not the Committee to bring it to.

Mr. Katz: Oh, I know. But if it has been considered, 

and was put to bed by the Subcommittee, then we 
105

don’t bring it back to the Subcommittee. They’ve 

already spoken. And so has the Board then.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: And this is Kathy Behling. I can take 

that on if you’d like, Rose. I can look at that. Based 

on my recollection we did look at OTIB-60, not at 

the most current version.

The only thing we did do is, there was I think about 

seven findings. And we went back and made sure 

that those seven findings were addressed in the 

most current version.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Behling: So, I would call that more of a focus 

review. But I can give you those details if you’d like, 

at the next meeting.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Kathy, it sounds like this has been in 

there from day one. So, it wouldn’t be a matter of 

whether it was reflected in a change or not.

Ms. Behling: Right. And it’s also --

Mr. Katz: It should be covered.

Ms. Behling: And it’s also in OTIB-5. And we’ve 

reviewed that also. So --

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Dr. Mauro: Ted, this John Mauro.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: I’ve been listening to the conversation. 

And I picked something up that is nuanced here, 

and that I think I agree with Grady in that we’re 

bringing something up that I don’t believe we’ve 

discussed before. This idea of modeling.

In other words, you have these non-metabolic 

organ issues. We understand that. And of course, 

you know, it goes back historically. And it has to do 
106

with the biokinetics, and understanding where what 

radionuclides go when they’re, you know, taken into 

the body --

Mr. Katz: Right.

Dr. Mauro: -- and transported to an organ of 

concern. But Bob is bringing up -- and I’m only 

saying this because I think if I understood the 

commentary, he’s bringing up a new issue. And 

please correct me if I’m wrong.

And that is, the way to think about it is, you’ve got 

urine, and it’s moving through the body, from the 

bladder. And then it’s cleared. And it becomes an 

external source. Stay with me for a minute.

We never talked about this before. And from my 

recollection. And that is, well, you know, what you 

really have is, you’ve got urine, and it contains 

radionuclides.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Dr. Mauro: And it’s passing intimately close by 

many organs.

Chair Kotelchuck: If I may --

Dr. Mauro: And --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- interrupt?

Dr. Mauro: Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: And I’m sorry, and I hope I’m not 

being discourteous. But we, I think we just, Kathy 

agreed to check that. You’re saying, based on your 

recollection this was never discussed.

What we’re asking, you know, what Kathy agreed to 

do is to check it out. And if it’s never been 

discussed, then we figure out what to do, right?

Dr. Mauro: The only reason I brought it up is, I 

didn’t think that the question was pointed. And I’m 
107

just trying to put a point on the question. Yes. 

Kathy certainly --

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Okay.

Dr. Mauro: -- can look into it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, then fine.

Dr. Mauro: But that’s what --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Mauro: -- the issue is.

Chair Kotelchuck: Excuse me then. Yes, sure. Go 

ahead.

Mr. Katz: Well no. Just, John, I mean, you can give 

Kathy whatever guidance you want.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Mr. Katz: And then she can document what that 

was. And, you know, looking at how this was or 

wasn’t addressed. But --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: The Subcommittee at this point really 

can’t do anything with the commentary. So --

Dr. Mauro: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: Also --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: It wouldn’t hurt --

Chair Kotelchuck: You may well be right, John.

Dr. Anigstein: Also, I would like to make one more 

response to the NIOSH comment that the dose, 

most of the dose is alpha and beta. Alpha of course 

has an extremely short range. So, it doesn’t leave 

the organ in which it originated.
108

However, the uranium betas are fairly energetic. If I 

remember, they have a range of about, they have a 

peak energy of something like 1.7, 1.8 MEV. And I 

don’t have the anatomical information, you know. 

But it is up in my head.

But the wall of the urethra I would imagine would 

be thin enough, may be thin enough that the betas 

could penetrate. I mean, that energy has a 

penetration on the order of millimeters, not 

microns.

So, the beta part may very well, I’m not making a 

conclusion. But it’s just, I’m just making a --

Mr. Katz: But, Bob --

Dr. Anigstein: Pointing out that needs to be looked 

into.

Mr. Katz: Bob, yes. That’s fine. But that’s all an 

issue for another, possibly another group, or 

whatever, down the road. So, it’s not really helping 

to lay it out now.

So, when a group takes this up, if a group needs to 

take this up, they can, you can, you know, flesh out 

your thinking. And so will NIOSH, I’m sure, on their 

side.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Right. And certainly not 

taking a position as to whether you’re correct or 

not. But it sounds logical. But we have a mechanism 

now to deal with it in terms of checking things out 

before we move further. Kathy will do that. And 

then we will decide how to move ahead. If that 

would be okay. So, could we move on to 

Observation 2?

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. The next, if I can take the 

liberty.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.
109

Carborundum Co

Dr. Anigstein: The next two, Observation 2, Dave, 

deals with the, basically the site, covered under a 

Site Profile, which is now, has been under extensive 

discussion within the Carborundum Work Group, 

and is being revised by NIOSH.

It has not yet been issued. So consequently, Dave 

Allen, who responded to this observation about the 

work, the length of the work day, simply said, this 

will be resolved when the Carborundum TBD is 

resolved. And SC&A agrees with that. 

So, that’s a -- it need not be addressed by this 

Work Group, by this Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: Sounds good.

Mr. Katz: So yes, can you clarify for me though, 

please? This is Ted. Carborundum Work Group --

and I may be misremembering and that’s why 

you’re going to have to clarify. I thought they are 

pretty much done.

So, am I missing? Was there a, this, all this 

business to resolve at that Work Group? Because I 

thought they were pretty much done with their 

review.

Member Beach: And was it officially transferred, 

Ted?

Mr. Katz: Well, nothing was transferred to them. 

That’s for sure. But, I mean, I’m talking about, I 

thought the Carborundum Work Group had pretty 

much finished their review.

Because they reported out on their Site Profile 

Review with the one exception of that one modeling 

issue, which is also now pretty much put to bed.

But anyway, I didn’t think that there is this, these 

other matters to be addressed by the Carborundum 

Work Group. I don’t know where that’s coming 

from, Dave Allen or whoever. But --
110

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe the recommendation was to 

transfer it to that Work Group. Not that the Work 

Group is actually looking at this issue. There’s 

actually --

Mr. Katz: Well, I mean --

Ms. Gogliotti: -- quite a few of these.

Mr. Katz: I know. But why, so why would they, why 

would we transfer it to the Carborundum Work 

Group? Can you just help me understand that, 

please?

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, excuse me. Oh, the confusion 

may be that it is labeled in the BRS as Hooker. Is 

that --

Mr. Katz: That is right.

Dr. Anigstein: It’s Hooker 520. And the fact is, 

that’s a little confusing. Because this is an employee 

who worked a short time at Hooker during the 

residual period, I believe. And then left Hooker and 

was employed by Carborundum.

Mr. Katz: Ah.

Dr. Anigstein: So, the bulk of his exposure was 

while working at Carborundum.

Mr. Katz: Okay. That was completely mystifying to 

me. But that clears it up. Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, we’re saying that there is a 

Site Profile issue, or several, that really should be 

addressed at Carborundum, that hasn’t already 

been addressed by SC&A’s review of the Site Profile 

at Carborundum? And you’re agreeing that SC&A 

didn’t address it before? And now is --

Dr. Anigstein: Well, we did address it before.

Mr. Katz: Oh. And so --
111

Dr. Anigstein: We addressed it. And NIOSH and 

DCAS, Tom Tomes, I believe, is at the head of that 

effort.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: They did accept our comments. But it 

has not been formally reissued as a new -- as a 

Carborundum TBD, or a revision, however NIOSH 

chooses to do it. Either revising the TBD, or revising 

the Evaluation Report on the SEC.

Mr. Katz: Well, but it’s a -- since they did a Site 

Profile Review, presumably they laid out what the 

resolutions are.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes.

Mr. Katz: So then, this whole, there’s no more 

referring this to them. They’ve already done their 

business. And the only question is applying those 

resolutions to this case.

Dr. Anigstein: Well, except that the, NIOSH has 

never issued a -- they have responded to individual 

issues. They said, yes, we agree with this.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: Or we will be working on this. But 

they’ve never issued a final document, which I 

would assume SC&A will be asked to review, and --

Mr. Katz: No.

Dr. Anigstein: -- concur with.

Mr. Katz: What I’m saying is, yes, I know. But what 

I’m saying is --

Dr. Anigstein: So, there is no --

Mr. Katz: What I’m saying is, if they -- when they 

resolved it they, yes, you can all have a new 

document. But if they agreed to findings, those 

agreements to findings are binding, and then you 
112

just apply them to this.

Either the, if they agreed that their approach was 

wrong, and that they’re going to change it, then it’s 

wrong here, and that’s all you need to know. You 

don’t need to refer it to them, the case.

Dr. Taulbee: Right. This is Tim. If I can interject 

here, and add on to what Ted is saying there. You 

know, we’re going to be updating the Carborundum 

TBD in order to incorporate all of the comments that 

SC&A and the Work Group, you know, and NIOSH 

came to an agreement here.

And so, what we would do in a case like this one is 

we would do a PER when that is done. And so, all of 

the Carborundum cases then are reopened and 

relooked at, to see if we need to do -- modify the 

dose reconstructions.

So, if this has already been addressed by the 

Carborundum Work Group, I don’t see where there’s 

anything more to do here.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Member Beach: This is Josie. If you look at the 

wording that Dave Allen put on several of these, I 

think that is what’s misleading.

And that needs to be updated to be more current 

with what we’re discussing here today. Because it 

does say it’s being, it’s currently being reviewed by 

Carborundum. And recommended transferring this. 

So --

Mr. Katz: No. I saw that wording. And I totally 

agree that the wording -- I’m taking issue with that 

whole guidance that Dave put in there. I agree.

I don’t -- that’s not the solution. The solution is to 

look at this and say, for this specific observation, 

note the resolutions that go with whatever SC&A’s 

concern was to change it accordingly. And if that’s 

so, then the observation holds. And you close just 
113

as that.

But someone has to sort of apply that material, 

those decisions to this case. So that you can know 

whether you’re closing it in agreement with SC&A, 

or not, whatever. It’s just, someone’s got to apply 

it, instead of just kicking the can down the road.

Chair Kotelchuck: But is Tim Taulbee saying that 

they will be applying it in --

Mr. Katz: Tim is saying --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- the PER?

Mr. Katz: Tim is saying that the PER will take care of 

actual cases. But that doesn’t relate to this, the 

case of each, this Subcommittee.

Dr. Taulbee: We will go through and look at each of 

these, and make sure that the Subcommittee did 

address them. And then -- and we are incorporating 

them into the TBD.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: And I guess we’ll just take that --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Taulbee: -- action to report back to you all on 

that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good.

Mr. Katz: Thank you. Thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Thank you, Tim.

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s resolved then. Okay. That 

resolves Observation 2.

Dr. Anigstein: And the next one, which is a finding, 

is basically exactly the same category. There was an 

error in the use of the dose -- external dose 
114

conversion factors, using the -- they used the 

exposure dose conversion factor, as opposed to the 

HP-10, the personal dose equivalent, which is what 

the underlying radiation exposure, what they report 

it as. So, and again, it’s exactly the same discussion 

that follows.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So, I think --

Dr. Anigstein: So again --

Mr. Katz: I think, Bob, you don’t need to go through 

all of them. Because we need still the responses 

that Tim is saying from NIOSH, as opposed to 

kicking it over to the Work Group.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. So, there’s one more, let’s see. 

So, the finding 1, Finding 2 --

Ms. Gogliotti: Finding 6 is the only one that doesn’t 

have this recommendation.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Rose.

Dr. Anigstein: Excuse me?

Ms. Gogliotti: Six.

Dr. Anigstein: I think all of the -- no. The three, I 

think it will be, if I may say it a little simpler. I’m 

not going to go through it in detail. I’m just going to 

say --

Mr. Katz: No. But, Bob --

Dr. Anigstein: -- I think we could --

Mr. Katz: -- just go to, Bob, just go to Finding 6.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay.

Mr. Katz: That’s the only one that you need to 

discuss.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Finding 6. This is simply, was, I 
115

mean -- let me glance at it very quickly. This has to 

do with the medical, the external dose from a 

medical X-ray, the annual X-ray.

And they used the correct conversion factor. They 

assigned the dose correctly. But there was an error, 

probably a spreadsheet, somebody slipped their 

finger on the spreadsheet. And there was a ten-fold 

error in the uncertainty.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: And so, that affects, since IREP 

kicked out the upper end of the uncertainty range. 

This would affect the uncertainty. And Dave Allen 

agreed that there was an error in this particular 

instance.

He says it was a singular error. It was not 

propagated to other cases, to other exposure 

factors. And that it will be corrected. And we agree 

that this is, we accept that explanation, that NIOSH 

will remedy it, and there’s no further issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, okay. Alright. Well, let me 

understand. Bob, on your, Robert, on your line with 

calculating using .03 instead of 0.3. And what I’m 

reading up above is .03 and .003.

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, wait a second. That may have 

been standard deviation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, I’m sorry. The standard 

deviation for that. I’m sorry.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Sorry. So, very good. And 

the NIOSH folks agree that that was an error, and a 

simple mistake. Sure.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. And then --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, that would close that.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. And Finding 7 is the same as 
116

the earlier ones.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: Just kicked over to the Carborundum 

Work Group.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And we will, we were going

to get the, we’ll get a report back about all of those 

later.

Mr. Katz: Correct. Correct. Correct. That will be a 

new response from DCAS.

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

have finished the Hooker cases. Is this time, folks? 

It’s 3:20 p.m. Is this a time that people want to 

take just a ten minute comfort break?

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, I will admit, I could go 

through to 4:00 p.m. And blast our way through. 

But a little break is usually needed.

Mr. Katz: Yes. That would be great, Dave. I’d 

appreciate it at least.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, that’s good. All we 

need is one person for something like a comfort 

break. So --

Mr. Katz: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: It’s 3:21 p.m. We’ll see you at 

3:31 p.m.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: See you all. Bye, bye. Ten 

minutes.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:25 p.m. and resumed at 3:35 p.m.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, go ahead.
117

Dr. Anigstein: So, M&C, Observation 1, is that, let 

me just throw in a quick bit of background. Since 

not everyone may be up to speed on the M&C.

There was no M&C TBD, but there is a ER for the 

SEC period for the AWE time. SEC for the AWE 

period.

And one of the exposure scenarios that NIOSH 

addresses is that there was a, during the AWE 

period, there was a separate operation on 

assembling radium tipped toggle switches for the 

U.S. Navy.

And workers were exposed to the, internally and 

externally exposed to the radium, primarily 

externally exposed. To these little glass half 

hemispheres, along the edge of the switches to 

make them glow in the dark.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes. Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. So, in this instance, the worker 

was assumed, was given the benefit of the exposure 

to the radium switches. Which NIOSH did a simple 

bounding model.

And the observation is that normally people were 

assumed to work there 40 hours a week. And this 

particular worker reported that he regularly 

performed overtime. Says he did 5 hours a week 

overtime.

So, our point is that he should be given credit for 

that overtime. So instead of being exposed to the 

switches for 40 hours, or whatever fraction of 40 

hours would normally be given to other workers, he 

should be given the benefit of the 45 hours.

And then the NIOSH response is, well, since he’s 

already given a bounding estimate, we don’t need 

to increase the dose to account for the overtime.

And our answer is, this is not fair because workers 

working shorter hours are not known to have put in 
118

overtime, are given a certain exposure and the 

worker given, even if it’s an overestimate, but they 

should be consistent. There should be consistency 

between all the DRs which incorporate this exposure 

scenario. And it should be proportional to the hours 

worked. I mean, exposure is simply the, exposure, 

the hourly exposure rate times the number of hours 

exposed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Scott, what do you say?

Mr. Siebert: Well, this is a bounding, limiting case 

where no person doing this work, and I believe it 

was developed in full-time of doing this work, would 

exceed this dose.

So, it’s not a proportional, it’s an upper bound. As 

well as pointing out, this individual did not work 

with these switches all the time. Even if they were 

doing overtime.

He mentioned he visits the area in the CATI from 

time-to-time. This sounds very familiar to me when 

we were prepping for this. And there’s a reason for 

it.

We’ve had this exact same discussion back in the 

21st set. We had, let’s see, which number was it, 

474.1 was the exact same question.

And we had this discussion, went back and forth, 

and determined that as an overestimating 

assumption, it did not need to be adjusted, it was 

reasonable to do it this way. And it was closed out.

And it was actually changed to an observation with 

a finding at the time. So this is already in 

observation so it makes since the way it is. But 

we’ve already discussed and closed out this issue on 

a previous claim.

So, like I said, that’s 474 if anybody wants to go 

back and look at it.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, fundamentally, you’re saying 
119

that the person did not work 40 hours a week? Get 

this exposure 40 hours a week.

Mr. Siebert: With this type of --

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, that’s critical.

Mr. Siebert: Clearly, yes. With this type of material, 

clearly that is correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, structurally it does not 

sound right. I mean, whatever exposure that you 

have you should, that should be a range for the 

number of hours they work.

What you’re really saying is that they don’t work 40 

hours a week. And you don’t, there is no way of 

estimating the date to remember the earlier 

discussion, but only vaguely?

There is no way of estimating what the actual time 

spent in working with this is?

Mr. Siebert: No. Specifically there is no way to 

specifically know.

Dr. Anigstein: But nevertheless --

Chair Kotelchuck: But we know that it’s not 40. We 

know.

Dr. Anigstein: But nevertheless, but nevertheless, it 

was assigned 40.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, everybody is assigned full --

(Off microphone comment.)

Mr. Calhoun: Yes, Dave, this is Grady. And I think 

what you’re missing here is that he was, it was 

assumed he was exposed at 40 hours, even though 

we know he wasn’t. Therefore it’s bounding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. And --

Mr. Calhoun: Okay?
120

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Calhoun: So we find, we assumed it was fulltime 40.

Ms. Gogliotti: Fifty percent.

Mr. Siebert: For clarification, we made it half time 

that he was in the area. So it would be 20 hours a 

week.

But once again, I felt that it’s a bounding result and 

there’s all sorts of other overestimating assumptions 

in that calculation. So, our position is, it’s a 

bounding result so there is no need to do additional 

correction for overtime.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And then even people who 

work 40 and people who work 45 hours, in that 

situation, would get the same, you would argue, get 

the same upper bound dose?

Mr. Siebert: Yes. But to remember, the type of work 

that was, Mutty, feel free to jump in if I’m saying 

anything incorrect.

But we assume that over the full, we assume three 

years of exposure for this site. Or exposure to all 

5,000 beads at once.

But they actually processed those 5,000 beads over 

that whole three year period. Actually, it was a 

smaller than three year period.

So, we already know that the exposure to any single 

individual who even was working with these is 

overestimated. Let alone for somebody who is 

partially in the area at a time.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: So, it’s a clear, it’s a bounding --

Chair Kotelchuck: It’s a way overestimate if it’s not.

Mr. Siebert: Right. Because we just don’t have 
121

better information, we went with --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: -- the bounding case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Well, and if we had this discussion 

earlier, we should clearly go back and look at what 

we did at the earlier discussion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, you’re right, although I’m 

sure the folks, Scott is reporting correctly about 

what we said at that time. Not that I remember it 

well, but I’m sure he’s right, that that’s what we 

decided, that we stuck with the bounding and didn’t 

take into account the overtime.

So we, or put it this way, the overtime was 

accounted for in the bounding itself. Is that not 

right, Scott?

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: This is John. I’d like to step in on this --

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure.

Dr. Mauro: -- because you’re bringing up a subject 

that we talked about many years ago.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: And I’m actually, my recollection is 

different.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Mauro: And that is, you’re reconstructing the 

dose to a person, and we all agree that there are 

ways of expediting the calculation by making 

simplifying bounding assumptions that everyone 

would agree an attempt to place an upper bound. 

Especially if there is some uncertainty.
122

And you still don’t compensate. That’s a reasonable 

thing to do. It’s an efficiency method.

But we did have a conversation when you leave the 

boundaries of what you would call plausible 

scenarios for a worker. In other words, now we’re 

just throwing a big number at a guy. They say, well, 

we’ll just assume this.

And we’ve been through this before. We’re just 

going to assume this worst possible situation, throw 

this big number at this guy, even though it 

mechanistically does not have any reality to it. And 

that is, this person actually didn’t do this but we’re 

going to throw this number at them anyway.

We’ve been through this before. And you can’t do 

that. In other words, there is a point where you 

cross over and you’re starting to apply assumptions 

that granted would be a bounding assumption, but 

it really mechanistically doesn’t apply to the person.

You know, if we know that the person didn’t work, 

only worked there most half time and we know he 

did other things during that time, but we’re just 

going to go ahead and throw this big fat number at 

him and not worry about anything else.

So, I’m sort of pushing back here. That I think there 

is more to the story and that there is a place where 

there is a judgement of when you do this kind of 

thing. It has to be within the certain amount of 

reasonableness.

And I think that what I just heard crossed over to 

the boundary that, in my recollection, would be a 

shortcut that is just a little bit too much of a 

shortcut.

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. We’re assigning a 40 

hour week and then we just lowered it in half. 

That’s unrealistically high, come on. Now, that’s a 

little silly now.
123

Dr. Mauro: No, no, just saying --

Mr. Calhoun: I mean, did I understand, I 

understand that stuff can be unrealistically high, but 

this doesn’t even reach that order of magnitude.

Dr. Mauro: Okay, I guess we have a difference of 

opinion. Here we have a worker that we’re saying 

probably may have worked some part-time with this 

radium bead business.

Mr. Calhoun: Right.

Dr. Mauro: And we’re going to do something here. 

We’re going to assume that he was there all the 

time.

Good. Okay, you want to do that, now, I say that 

that is certainly on the border on a crude 

overestimate when we know he was probably doing 

other things in other locations.

And then, well, if you’re going to do that, well then -

-

Mr. Calhoun: How many hours do you think he was 

there, John?

Dr. Mauro: Right. There was --

Mr. Calhoun: Ten, five, what do you think?

Dr. Mauro: I’m sorry, say again?

Mr. Calhoun: How many hours do you think he was 

there?

Dr. Mauro: Well, I think the evidence is that he was, 

if I recall the case, it was a part-time thing that he 

was doing. And he had other jobs related that were 

involved.

But you’re saying that, well, let’s just make it the 

worst thing, he was there all the time. And then I’m 

sort of agreeing with Bob. Well, if you’re going to do 

that, then give me the full amount of time.
124

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. If I can interject here.

Dr. Mauro: Yes.

Dr. Taulbee: Scott, you were saying this was from 

Set 21, this is 474, is that correct? Point one.

Mr. Siebert: That was the original one, yes.

Metals and Controls Co

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. If you guys, if you will go back 

to that, it’s this exact same issue. And for these 

same beads, at Metals and Controls, where this was 

discussed back in September, or I guess the original 

issue was brought up in June of 2016.

And the whole, the exact issue of including eight 

hours per week of overtime for this exposure to the 

beads, this was all discussed back then. And it was 

changed to an observation and closed during the 

July 2018 subcommittee meeting.

Dr. Mauro: Well, I’m not going to dispute that. I 

guess the point I’m making is, I’m sort of arguing 

more from what I would say a commonsense 

perspective.

Are we really dealing with this model the 

appropriate way. Now, you may be absolutely right, 

that this was discussed, resolved and put to bed. 

And I may be wrong about that, I mean, if that’s 

the case.

But you heard my arguments, why there’s 

something about approaching a dose reconstruction 

into what you just did, is troubling to me. And like I 

said, I felt I have to say something about that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I mean --

Dr. Taulbee: And, again, that was brought up a few 

years ago and discussed.

Chair Kotelchuck: But I would say that it is new to 

me, Tim, and useful. That it isn’t just that we 
125

discussed the similar case, we discussed this case. 

At this worksite.

Ms. Gogliotti: Not this case, the site.

Dr. Taulbee: That’s correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: Different case.

Dr. Taulbee: This site, yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: A different case?

Dr. Taulbee: Difference case, same site.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes. Excuse me, not this case, 

yes. Another case at this same site.

And, I mean, we can, put it this way. John, you 

raised, no, yes John Mauro.

Dr. Mauro: Yes, this is John. Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, excuse me. John raised an 

issue that, okay, he didn’t think this was 

appropriate, which means that it wasn’t appropriate 

then. He’s trying to get us to change our minds 

about that.

And I would, I think I would ask other members of 

the Subcommittee that what their, there has been a 

bit of discussion now, how they feel about this.

Any thoughts? Are people developing thoughts or 

questions?

I mean, I feel like I recognize that it is a way, way 

overestimate. And therefore, it structurally doesn’t 

feel right, but when you’re so over, when you so, 

gone so far over the exposure that you think the 

person has to be claimant favorable.

My sense is there was no line crossed, that this is, 

in this case, appropriate. That’s my leaning. But 

others on the Subcommittee, what are you 
126

thinking?

Mr. Katz: Well, while they’re thinking, let me just 

say. There are, over the years, I can’t even begin to 

count how many cases. There’s all sorts of 

situations across the sites that are comparable 

where you have coarse data, you really can’t make 

a precise judgment, so you just make a comfortable 

judgment maximizing, knowing that the actual 

experience wasn’t that. It’s very common.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: And on these individual, very specific dose 

matters it’s never been an issue. I mean, it’s been 

swallowed all over the place and thought to being a 

reasonable approach to it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay. That’s helpful.

Dr. Mauro: Ted, I’m sorry to push back a little bit. 

We’re in the middle of this very same question on, I 

believe M&C.

Where NIOSH has elected to use the film badge 

data for workers that worked during the AWE period 

and say, okay, that places an upper bound. Here we 

have people that worked at the AWE, during the 

AWE period, we have doses that we could register. 

But now we’re going to apply those same doses to 

the residual period.

Chair Kotelchuck: John, I really, I feel, I’m going to 

interrupt you to say that --

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- we have a Subcommittee work, 

I mean, excuse me, a Working Group on M&C.

Dr. Mauro: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is a meeting and it is absolutely 

appropriate to raise it there.

Dr. Mauro: Yes.
127

Chair Kotelchuck: But I don’t feel like it’s 

appropriate to raise something that we’re in the 

middle of a debate about, in the future. Let’s talk 

about what we’ve done, what we’re doing here, and 

what has been done in the past.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And that, your argument is fair. 

And please make it when we have an M&C working 

group meeting.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: But I really don’t, it really mixes 

things up terribly to start talking about that other 

difficult issue when we’re trying to deal with a 

different site and a site that we’ve already dealt 

with in this fashion.

So, I’d really like not to do that. And I ask --

Dr. Mauro: Okay. Sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- people to -- okay, thanks.

Member Beach: So, Dave, this is Josie. And the 

bottom line here is the five hours of overtime was 

ignored and --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: -- do we find that to be acceptable 

or not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: That’s correct?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: I mean, all the other issues aside, 

that was what the gist of the observation was?

Mr. Siebert: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And we’re not assuming 40 hours. 
128

We really know that the person probably worked 20 

hours a week and were --

Member Beach: That’s --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- assigning them 40 hours.

Member Beach: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: And then, so, and we’re assigning 

a very, very high level of exposure, way, way 

beyond what, in reality, a person must have had.

So, to me it’s, it doesn’t exceed bounds because 

we’re way over. But I’m sorry, I’m talking to you 

and actually I originally asked what you’re thinking 

and what other subcommittee members are 

thinking.

So, where are we coming down or what are you 

thinking?

Member Beach: Well, the way I think about it is, all 

the other is assumptions. And did he work overtime 

or not.

And in his case, or this particular person’s case, 

maybe the five hours didn’t make a difference. But 

if they’re routinely not adding the overtime, it may 

make a difference.

So, on claimant favorability, I would say put in the 

overtime.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: That’s just my opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, that’s what I’m 

asking for. How about --

Member Clawson: This is Brad. And I’m agreeing 

with what Josie says. You know, all of this other 

stuff is assumptions and everything else.

And we can get into the other part of it, but the 

whole thing is, is, okay, the overtime, five hours, 
129

it’s not going to make that much. We’re just saying, 

we’re going to assume this, let’s assume the 

overtime too. Well, I agree with Josie.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Others?

Member Valerio: So, Dave, this is Loretta.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Valerio: I agree with Josie. I would like to 

have the opportunity to go back since I wasn’t on 

this Work Group during the 21st set, to at least go 

back and review the, what is it, 474.1.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: I would like to make a comment 

about that. Because while this was going on I did go 

back and look at 474.1.

I just, before we briefed about it I know Ted said 

that we don’t want to enter a M&C discussion.

Not only did we mention overtime, but it was also, 

my response was that we do not agree that the rate 

that the NIOSH radium model was an overestimate 

because whenever it was an overestimate for 

gamma dose, it completely ignored beta dose. 

Which would be a significant factor for skin dose.

And we actually did calculations and showed 

examples. And to my knowledge, NIOSH never 

addressed that issue.

So I know this is not the time to do it because it 

wasn’t brought up.

Chair Kotelchuck: It wasn’t brought up at the time 

so it’s --

Dr. Anigstein: It was brought up as 474.1. I failed 

to bring it up here in 510. Maybe the amount of 

time had lapsed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I don’t know, if you want to 
130

recast your, if you want to recast this observation I 

suppose you can and we would put it aside.

Although, I feel a little bit like, hey, that doesn’t 

answer the question that people are trying to 

grapple with right now, which is, do we put in the 

overtime. Let’s resolve the overtime first.

Dr. Anigstein: Well, the reason I’m bringing it up --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: -- let me just say very briefly. That in 

writing up the response, 474.1, we said, we do not 

agree that it was an overestimate because beta was 

left out. And that’s --

Chair Kotelchuck: And that’s what SC&A said.

Dr. Anigstein: Unless somebody contradicts me --

Chair Kotelchuck: I’ll tell you what, and maybe do 

this later in the day. I think there is opinion 

developing that structurally we should be 

considering the overtime.

But there are, Loretta, you asked to have the 

chance to take a look at the other case. And I 

certainly have not looked at that case.

I could have easily gave us both the chance, and

others a chance to take a look at that early case 

and the discussion. And presumably that’s, we have 

a transcript of that. And it would be interesting to 

look at that discussion, come back to this next time.

And with the feeling that right now I think the

majority of the Subcommittee is feeling like we 

should go ahead and make it 45. Take the overtime 

into account.

But --

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave, I can point out this. The PoC on 

this particular case was 40.8.
131

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: And so, this isn’t even best estimate.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Although that should not 

affect our decision. I actually don’t care.

I don’t care in the sense that, the question is, we 

normally, a person works overtime, structurally 

what you do is put the overtime in. Now, there is an 

argument made why we didn’t want to put in the 

overtime. And we’re all considering that.

So, in that sense I don’t, it doesn’t matter. We have 

to, we’re talking about, are we structurally, are we 

doing the right thing. Are we doing the analysis 

properly. That’s what we’re here for.

So, I would urge, I would suggest that we put this 

away, table this temporarily until the next meeting 

and give Loretta and me and other sides to both 

think about this. And also, take a look at 474.

Would that be okay folks?

Member Lockey: Yes, this is Jim Lockey. I agree 

with that approach.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Okay.

Member Lockey: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes. And the other thing you might want 

do is DCAS folks, you sort of, you talked about more 

than, I think there in your response, you may want 

to flesh that out so that when everybody reads back 

from this case they also capture your whole thinking 

about how this was structured.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. I think that would be a 

good idea.. Or think about it for the next time that 

we get together.

Mr. Siebert: Yes. This is Scott. I apologize, I didn’t 

understand what you wanted from that.
132

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Oh, yes, no need to make an 

apology. You didn’t do anything wrong. As we talked 

about it, it just came up.

And to the extent that you clarified some of the 

issues about how, I mean, to me it was important 

how big and over, how much an overestimate you 

made on the exposure.

So, anyway, we’re going to hold this off until next 

time. And shall we go on, it’s, yes, it’s close to 4:00.

How are people feeling? I could afford to do some 

easy cases, which is to say Category 1, Type 1. Is 

that possible for the next half an hour?

Member Beach: Don’t we just have one more here? 

Oh, maybe not.

Chair Kotelchuck: Really? Is that right?

Member Beach: No, never mind.

Chair Kotelchuck: Rose.

Ms. Gogliotti: There is one more Type 2. And then 

there’s also one observation --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. It sounds, I hear a call for 

finishing up, well, we haven’t finished MCC. Because 

we’re going to come back to it.

But what is the other one? What is the other finding 

that we’re --

Ms. Gogliotti: 503.5.

Chair Kotelchuck: 503.5, I see. Okay. That’s, and all 

the other ones are Type 1?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Nuclear Metals Inc

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Well, okay. There’s a virtue 

in completing what we started. And, Josie, I’ll buy 

that.
133

So, let’s go ahead and do the one Type 2 case, 503.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 503 is an NMI case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe that’s Nuclear Metal.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, right.

(Telephonic interference.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Oh, I have a lot of feedback on my 

line, does anyone else have that?

Chair Kotelchuck: I haven’t.

Ms. Gogliotti: Now it’s gone.

Mr. Katz: I heard that, but it’s gone.

Chair Kotelchuck: NMI, and there are a number of 

NMI or is this just one?

Ms. Gogliotti: There are a number, but this 

particular one is Finding 5.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. I’ll go right to it. And 

there we are. Okay, let’s go.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, this is finding, the original 

finding text was, the analysis of the DR report on 

accumulation of particles of uranium on skin and 

clothing employee’s conventional models that have 

widely been used and accepted on the EEOICPA 

project.

Namely, once the airborne dust loading of fine 

particles in the respiratory range is determined, the 

deposition of these particles onto surfaces by 

gravitational settling can be estimated. This is 

accomplished by assuming a deposition velocity of 

.00075 minutes per second.

In a reasonable default time period over which 

deposition occurs for the surface contamination.
134

Okay, then NIOSH responded saying that external 

dose in this claim is based on the individual film 

badge results. Any airborne uranium dust settled on 

the skin would also settle on the film badge.

Additionally, the skin is lightly washed everyday 

while the film badge would not be cleaned on a daily 

basis. As such, the film badge shouldn’t inherently 

account for any external dose from deposition in a 

favorable manner.

And then, John, I think you’re still on the line?

Dr. Mauro: Yes, I am. Yes. I’m not agreeing with 

David’s answer. I believe it’s standard practice, you 

wear your film badge.

You’re in a very dirty environment where you’re 

exposed to airborne uranium and you have your 

open window film badge, which is there basically to 

see what the external exposure is from the uranium 

metal nearby.

When you have a circumstance where there is a 

potential for skin direct contamination on skin, 

clothing, hair, face, then you have a situation that 

needs to be addressed.

Now, David’s argument is that, well, the film badge 

would have also been contaminated as would have 

the skin. And in my mind, therefore by reading out 

the film badge, you’ve captured not only the 

exposure to the film badge, to the beta emitters at 

a distance, but you’ve also captured the exposure to 

the film badge from the direct deposition.

See, my position is that that’s a bit presumptuous. 

And I’ll explain why.

My understanding is, when the film badge itself 

becomes contaminated, it’s something that is often 

apparently, Landauer for example, you can tell the 

film, by the way in which the film is developed and 

the nature of the exposure on the film, that this film 

badge has been contaminated. And very often those 
135

film badges will be discarded.

So, what I’m getting at is, I believe, and this is 

almost a policy decision, and we may have had this 

conversation before, I think that my position is this. 

Yes, the person has skin cancer.

He has skin cancer on his face and he has skin --

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Dr. Mauro: -- cancer on the leg. Okay?

And the bottom line is this. I believe that, yes, 

reconstruct those doses using the film badge, open 

window, classic OTIB-17.

But I believe that in addition to that you should say 

that, well, we believe it’s also plausible that during 

the course of work it was not uncommon for this 

person to have direct deposition on the face and 

hair and other locations.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Dr. Mauro: And you want to add that in, in other 

words, as an additional exposure. And there are 

ways of doing that.

Granted, the extent to which that occurs, the 

duration to which it occurs, how often it occurs is 

certainly a question that the one could reasonable 

raise.

But at the same time, I believe that it is appropriate 

to say that, well, we do, especially on the face, and 

given the working environment that if you look at 

the site that my position, our position, SC&A’s 

position, that you should not only reconstruct the 

doses from what the film badge reading says but 

you should also do the classic direct deposition on 

the skin. Especially in the case of the face and what 

the dose might have been because of that direct 

deposition.

Because we do know that he was contaminated. 
136

There’s a record that he could be contaminated. And 

there’s a record that he had to take a shower at the 

end of every day because it’s a pretty dirty place.

So, I am disagreeing with David respectfully that 

using just a film badge data alone could capture 

everything is insufficient.

And this might be important. I know you don’t like 

to talk POC, but he does have a fairly high POC and 

this possibly could make a difference.

Chair Kotelchuck: Comments?

Dr. Taulbee: This is Tim. Can I respond?

Chair Kotelchuck: By all means.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. John, it’s more of a question 

back to you on this.

Why do you feel that the film badge, which would 

be experiencing the same contamination the skin 

would be, but over the course of the entire wear 

period of, say a week without it being cleaned, 

would be an underestimate to a workers skin dose 

where that deposition would be there and each day 

they take a shower and wash it off? Why would that 

film badge be less?

Dr. Mauro: Well, Landauer --

(Telephonic interference.)

Dr. Mauro: Getting some feedback here. One of the 

things, when you have direct deposition, first of all, 

the presumption that the direct deposition that fell 

on his face, would be the same as a direct 

deposition that fell on the film badge. That’s a bit of 

a presumption.

That, okay, if we got it on the face, he also got it on 

the film badge. But there’s another dimension to 

this also, and that is, how does Landauer deal with 

film badges that are contaminated.
137

That is, do you have direct deposition on them. 

Because it does show up differently that we have 

this information from Joe Zlotnicki.

And it’s not uncommon that when they do see, they 

process the film badges, they’ll say, this film badge 

has been contaminated, something fell on it. And it 

shows up in a different pattern.

Then it would be, let’s say, Duane wears the film 

badge would be, show a degree of blackening when 

it’s at a distance.

So, I guess, I mean, that’s really the depth of my 

concern, that is, I think that for this worker I would 

give them both. I’d say, here is the external 

exposure from a distance, from the beta, and here 

is the, also I would add in the modeled predicted, 

what would the direct deposition on this face, for 

example, especially, would be from the direct 

deposition.

On the presumption that whatever fell on the face 

did not necessarily fall on the film badge also.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes. Also, if I can intersect. This is 

Bob. We were also given, we also gathered 

information from Joe Zlotnicki, who is the former 

vice president of Landauer, that in many cases their 

client, in other words, like in this case NMI, would 

put pouches over, would put the film back in the 

packages because they didn’t want the film badge 

to be contaminated.

So, while the worker wearing it, the film badge was 

shielded from direct deposition. And consequently, it 

would not necessarily show up as a dose.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay. This is Tim. Even if it was in a 

pouch, okay, depending upon the thickness of the 

pouch obviously, with uranium betas, they would be 

coming through. A significant fraction there.

So, I guess back to John’s question or John’s issue 

there of the contamination, that Landauer can see 
138

that difference.

I must apologize, I have not gone through every 

single one of this individual’s film badges here, but 

did you see any evidence of them indicating his film 

badge was contaminated?

Dr. Mauro: No. But we do have on the back of the 

sheet, and Bob, you and I have spoke about this 

yesterday.

One of the rejections for film badges, when they 

process them, one of them is, when they 

demonstrate that it appears that the film badge was 

contaminated. So, the film badges that are in fact 

contaminated, may not even make it into the batch 

that they use to reconstruct the person’s dose.

Dr. Anigstein: This is, by the way, information from 

the M&C site that I was referring to. Where we have 

the complete Landauer, like two years’ worth almost 

of Landauer film badges.

So, I do not know, and John, correct me if I’m 

wrong, that anybody looks at the NMI film badge 

records?

Dr. Mauro: That’s --

Dr. Anigstein: Anybody at SC&A.

Dr. Mauro: Yes. Yes. I’m raising this as, I think that 

we need to close the loop on this.

I think that David makes his argument and it’s not 

an unreasonable argument. But I think I’m making 

an argument also that is reasonable.

And all I’m saying to the Board is that I think we 

need to look at this a little closer and not just 

automatically presume that, oh, you don’t have to 

worry about this because the film badge will reveal 

if there was any direct deposition. Just like it would 

reveal exposure at a distance. I’m just not ready to 

accept that dismissal of this issue.
139

Member Beach: Yes. This is Josie. I absolutely agree 

with SC&A on this one. After reviewing this issue, 

which is one of the reasons I wanted to talk about it 

today because it was fresh in my mind.

Chair Kotelchuck: Go ahead, please.

Member Beach: I just believe that something falling 

on the skin is much different than on the badge 

cover or whether it’s in a pouch or not in a pouch. I 

believe that this needs to be explored more 

thoroughly.

And unfortunately, Dave Allen is not here, and I 

think that’s a disadvantage.

Dr. Taulbee: Okay, this is Tim. I guess then we’ll 

take the action to follow-up on this one and provide 

a response back to the Subcommittee.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds fine. Okay, that will 

be appreciated. And we’ll have a chance to be 

thinking about it. So, good.

Folks, it’s ten after 4:00. I think if we are now 

finished with the Type 2s for the day, rather than 

starting some more, I think it’s probably time to call 

it quits for the day.

And that means to decide when, roughly, our next 

meeting would be.

Member Beach: Before we call it totally quits, can I 

go back to one subject briefly?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Sure.

Member Beach: From last meeting we discussed the 

professional judgments and having SC&A 

brainstorm some sort of way to record those. I don’t 

know if this is something that we should discuss 

here, although we did discuss it at the last meeting.

But we have the message group that took this up 

and it’s just languishing. We haven’t gotten back to 

the report on professional judgment.
140

So, I just wanted to know if there was any forward 

thinking on this or if it’s just something we need to 

keep thinking about?

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, of course in all of the cases 

that we’re getting, there is now a section on 

professional judgment. I --

Member Beach: No, no, I understand that, but we 

were talking beyond that of looking to see if some 

sort of problems developed building of body of data 

to look back on to see if there is --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Member Beach: So anyway, and that was something 

that was discussed last meeting that SC&A would 

maybe get back to the Subcommittee on. I just 

don’t want to lose track of that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, I don’t feel like I’m, I feel like 

we’re building up a body of data from each of the 

reviews that we’re doing. And I just didn’t think that 

there was enough time that had gone by that we 

built up enough of a database to say anything 

useful.

But I appreciate your raising it. And I certainly 

don’t, I certainly have not forgotten about it.

Member Beach: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Of course, and I’ll be open to 

suggestions as Working Group Chair that at a 

certain point to say, hey, let’s do it, it’s time now for 

a meeting.

Mr. Katz: What I would suggest, this is Ted, what I 

would suggest we do at this point, it makes sense 

since we just started that, like with the blinds and 

so on, and also as we do with the other cases, is 

you start coding these so that they’re easy to 

compile, where the professional judgment matters 

occurred down the road for when you want to look 

at these in that sort of summary way.
141

If we code these, it would make it a whole lot easier 

than digging through individually cases to try to 

find, so like, maybe if the company --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: -- resolved a case, we should code those 

that have an important professional judgment 

matter in that final resolution, in that table, or 

whatever it is that covers all the cases, code them 

so that we can find them easily later.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, that sounds like a very nice 

idea.

Member Beach: And, Ted, that’s what I thought 

SC&A had agreed to do last meeting was to come 

up with some sort of idea, like you just described as 

coding them.

Ms. Gogliotti: We have looked at it briefly. I have 

not put out any memos or documentation of it.

Just playing with some ideas right now about the 

best way to track it.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: I can put out a memo if you like, of 

different suggestions or if you would prefer, we just 

settle on one internally, that’s fine also.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think I would be nice to pull the 

Subcommittee Members or the Working Group 

Members in and then if you have some ideas, 

maybe through them out now rather than waiting 

until you make a decision and then we are going to 

go over some of the issues that you’re going to go 

over.

Why don’t you just throw it out now. That is, what 

ideas you have and --

Member Beach: Or the next meeting would be fine 

too, Dave.
142

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Beach: Not to put them on the spot.

Mr. Katz: Yes, we can do it at the next meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes. But let me ask, the 

meeting will be the meeting of this Subcommittee, 

right?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: That they will do it and --

Mr. Katz: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and then that may give rise to 

a message meeting at some point. Right?

Mr. Katz: Right. Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: And I just would, again, suggest though 

that the coding, however you want to do that 

coding, do that after the case is resolved, because 

then you know you have the agreement of the 

Subcommittee that that was an issue of professional 

judgment that was important. As opposed to, at the 

point when SC&A reviews it, without the other half 

the Subcommittee’s input yet.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, essentially everything we’ve 

done, since we started thinking about this, right, 

and put in the professional judgment. I mean, there 

was a start.

Mr. Katz: No, what I’m saying is, the coding for the 

ones we want to be able to go back to in a summary 

fashion, should be those after the Subcommittee 

has done its reviews and that we know that that 

professional judgement issue stands as an 

important issue that we want to be able to go back 

to.
143

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: That’s all I’m saying.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: As opposed to the front end when SC&A 

has just done their draft review and the 

Subcommittee hadn’t reviewed it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I also want to clarify, this is just 

for the blinds, we have not added any sections on 

the normal dose reconstruction reviews.

Chair Kotelchuck: You’re right. That’s correct, you’re 

right on --

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: -- that’s true. And --

Ms. Gogliotti: So that occurred for just the 26th set, 

that is our only --

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. So, no, we should be 

thinking of doing that for a regular review.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: It’s more challenging to do for a 

regular review --

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon?

Ms. Gogliotti: -- because it’s much more challenging 

to do than a regular review.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, it is. Well, let’s say this, 

you’re going to come up with suggestions for 

coding, send it to us, we’ll put some things in. Let’s 

think about how we could do that for cases that 

we’re reviewing.

It is harder but I’m impressed with the quality of 

the ones that we’ve been doing in the blinds, but 
144

the blinds we’re never going to, I wouldn’t say we’ll 

never get enough data, but in a few years we have 

all of, what, about 40 now. It’s not very big a 

database.

So, let’s think about how we might think about 

professional judgment use. Put it into the process 

by which we review just regular cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: That is not being incorporated in the 

27th set, which we are currently working. We could 

definitely discuss that for a future case set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Yes, I think we could. I 

mean, what Josie is saying seems to me to make 

sense.

Mr. Katz: No. But, I mean, you haven’t delivered 

that site yet so it could still be worked in.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So I wouldn’t discount it at this point, 

I would consider that you might be able to work 

that in still.

Next Meeting Schedule

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. An idea is planted or 

thinking about something is planted. Let’s talk 

about another meeting.

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, the next meeting we will have 

completed the 27th set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Great. Okay.

Mr. Katz: Well, we can have communications on this 

issue by email.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Okay, so next, talking about next 

meeting.
145

Chair Kotelchuck: This is September, we need 

apparently about three months to get another 

meeting.

Mr. Katz: It’s getting close. Pretty close. Pretty 

close.

Chair Kotelchuck: Which --

Mr. Katz: Other --

Chair Kotelchuck: -- and December is a disaster to 

have meetings.

(Laughter.)

Chair Kotelchuck: With all family and these events. 

So, early January looks --

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think we’re stuck with that. Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And to my mind, the 2nd or 3rd 

week in January. Excuse me, the week of January 

6th and the week of January 13th, sometime in 

there.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, we have an M&C meeting on 

the 9th.

Mr. Katz: That’s correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: So, do you have any thoughts or 

people have any thoughts, like --

Mr. Katz: Well, so, yes, so the 7th and 8th, I just 

think the 6th is probably bad because people will be 

on leave that week before. A lot of people.

Chair Kotelchuck: Exactly.

Mr. Katz: But --

Mr. Calhoun: Ted, I had it written down that we had 

a Lead Team meeting on the 8th.
146

Member Clawson: Oh, you’re right. Yes, that’s the 

8th. Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: The 7th --

Mr. Katz: The 7th?

Chair Kotelchuck: What’s the 7th like for people?

That’s mean --

Mr. Katz: Open wide.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. That means for some of us 

meetings on the 7th and 9th. I’m not sure whether 

the 8th, I didn’t catch what kind of a meeting that 

is.

Mr. Katz: Oh, that’s a NIOSH meeting.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: NIOSH --

Chair Kotelchuck: Fine.

Mr. Katz: -- meeting. But otherwise, the 13th 

through the 16th is open on my calendar.

Chair Kotelchuck: Pardon? The 16th?

Mr. Katz: 13 through 16.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. I cannot do the 13th, but I 

can do the 14th. I think I can do every other day 

that week for myself. Yes.

Mr. Katz: Oh. How does it look --

Chair Kotelchuck: Probably we’ll be going 

Wednesday, Thursday. What about the 14th?

Actually, folks, maybe the 14th is better?

Mr. Katz: How’s the 14th?

Chair Kotelchuck: Otherwise a lot of us will be 

loaded up the previous week. Some --
147

Mr. Katz: Brad --

Member Beach: The only thing we have pending is 

our site visit to Sandia, and we don’t know when 

that’s going to be yet, Ted.

Mr. Katz: Oh, but it’s coming around there. It’s right 

around there though, isn’t it?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Beach: Well, it’s all those weeks are under 

consideration right now.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Let me suggest --

Chair Kotelchuck: When will you know?

Mr. Katz: Let me suggest that when we get a date 

for that, for that Sandia, then I’ll send out an email 

and get options, eight options for this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Something like 7th, 15th, 

16 --

Member Beach: And I’d almost say move it to 

February 4th if --

Chair Kotelchuck: That’s a long time between 

meetings. That certainly would work, it would work, 

for my schedule it would work just fine.

Member Lockey: I think we should, send out an 

email with some dates. I can’t --

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Lockey: -- I can’t make that decision right 

at the moment.

Mr. Katz: Yes, that’s fine.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Adjourn

Mr. Katz: Let’s get the dates for the Sandia site visit 
148

and then I’ll send out an email for the 

Subcommittee, because we also, I think we’ve lost 

David Richardson. So, then we can get everybody 

counted on our date for this.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, that sounds good.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Folks, thank you all very much 

and have a good rest of the week.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 4:26 p.m.)