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

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

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

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

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

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORKER HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

+ + + + +

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW METHODS WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

JULY 18, 2016

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, James M. Melius, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

JAMES M. MELIUS, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

DAVID KOTELCHUCK, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

JIM NETON, DCAS
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Contents

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

Discussion on Draft Secretary’s Report ........... 5

Review Methods for Further Reviews .............. 25

Adjourn ......................................... 32
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 9:00 a.m.

3 Welcome and Roll Call

4 MR. KATZ: Why don't we get started? 

5 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

6 Health. It's the Dose Reconstruction Methods Work 

7 Group meeting. 

8 There's an agenda that is not posted on 

9 the website. I do not know why or if it fell off, 

10 but the agenda is very simple anyway. We are 

11 discussing the report to the Secretary that has 

12 been in draft and has been discussed at board 

13 meetings previously and is getting closer to being 

14 finished, at least.

15 So that is the main topic, and then 

16 discussing methods going forward for the dose 

17 reconstruction reviews and -- and what we'll do at 

18 the board meeting in August. So that's the agenda, 

19 basically. Let's do roll call, and I already have 

20 it and don't need to rerun. We have Dr. Melius, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the Chair, Josie Beach, David Kotelchuck, and Paul 

2 Ziemer all on the line. Dave Richardson is also 

3 a Member of this. I don't think he has joined us. 

4 (Roll call.) 

5 MR. KATZ: Okay then. I'll just 

6 remind everyone to mute your phones except when 

7 you're talking. It will help for everyone else. 

8 Star 6 to mute your phone, star 6 to unmute your 

9 phone. And Dr. Melius, Jim, it's your call. 

10 Discussion on Draft Secretary’s Report

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Thank you, 

12 Ted. It does not necessarily need to be a long 

13 conference call, but I wanted to sort of get people 

14 up to date, and also see if we can move along our 

15 Advisory Board report on the dose reconstruction 

16 reviews we've done and so that we can get that up 

17 to the Secretary and hopefully get that approved 

18 or close to approval at our upcoming meeting in a 

19 few weeks in Idaho.

20 So what I've circulated to all of you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 middle of last week was a report from the middle 

2 part of the report, and the tables and really most 

3 of the content of the report is a report from the 

4 -- essentially the Dose Reconstruction Review 

5 Committee that Dave and others put together, and 

6 it has gone through a few drafts, anyway. I'm not 

7 sure I've been keeping track or even if Dave has 

8 been keeping track, but essentially, it has been 

9 discussed in that committee. 

10 There is also --

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I've been keeping 

12 track. 

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: What?

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I've been keeping 

15 track. 

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. What draft 

17 are we on? 

18 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: This is the third 

19 draft. 

20 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Oh, okay. That's 

21 not bad, then. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, not bad. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: It's in good shape 

3 for third draft, actually. 

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: The -- and the 

6 beginning and the end were added by -- by me. Those 

7 are -- have not been seen before, so I guess I would 

8 consider it to be first draft, though the outlines 

9 of what's in those two parts has been discussed. 

10 I believe I presented them at a board meeting, a 

11 previous board meeting, I'm not exactly sure which 

12 one, as a PowerPoint presentation, just going over 

13 the basic content. When I asked for any additional 

14 input from people, I really didn't hear any after 

15 the -- after the meeting, so basically, it just 

16 reiterates and elaborates a little bit on -- on the 

17 points I made in the -- that -- that presentation.

18 I -- I think -- so what we're looking 

19 to do with this is, one is I think it's mainly is 

20 there content to either part of the report that 

21 needs to be added or subtracted or whichever? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Maybe there's three parts. One is the 

2 introduction, second is the basic content that the 

3 Dose Reconstruction Review Committee has put 

4 together, and third is the conclusions and the 

5 recommendations that -- that I added based on our 

6 discussion. So are there any changes in content 

7 that we need there?

8 And then the plan, and I think -- I don't 

9 know if I put it in the email, was to make any sort 

10 of content changes, clean up the -- the report in

11 terms of language and formatting and so forth, and 

12 then circulate it to the full board along with a 

13 draft of a letter to the Secretary that we would 

14 -- for hopefully a couple weeks, a week or two 

15 before the -- our August meeting.

16 So with that, I guess I would be looking 

17 for any comments or questions. Again, I -- and 

18 again, focusing more on content. I think if you 

19 have sort of grammatical or spellings or formatting 

20 issues, if you want to email those to me, it would 

21 probably be easiest rather than trying to go 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through line-by-line or paragraph-by-paragraph, 

2 so I will open it up for any comments or questions. 

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right. This is 

4 Ziemer. I have several comments, if I might. 

5 Just to kick this off. Number one, I -- I am looking 

6 for what I might call conclusions relating to the 

7 scientific reliability of the approach. This 

8 continues to be one of the charges on the dose 

9 reconstruction component to the Secretary, and I 

10 think we need statements to that effect in the 

11 original one. I'm wondering if we don't need to 

12 have something along those lines. 

13 This looks more like the review of the 

14 quality of reproducing things and the -- which is 

15 part of the scientific validity, of course, but I 

16 was looking for something more explicit on 

17 reconfirming our stance that we believe the dose 

18 reconstruction process is a scientifically valid 

19 procedure, or something to that effect, and I think 

20 we'd have to tie it in with the words in the original 

21 legislation that -- that charge the board with that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 responsibility. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Paul, I'd actually 

3 -- I think that's a good point. I think it would 

4 -- and I think it also, it ties into the -- the 

5 -- also into the paragraph preceding the 

6 conclusions, which is entitled "Other Important 

7 Review Activities" --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- because I mean a 

10 lot of our issues on scientific, you know, validity 

11 really are as much covered in those other 

12 activities --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I -- I agree with 

14 that, that actually, this whole process is intended 

15 to validate that, but I was hoping we would have 

16 a fairly explicit sentence or two that tied in with 

17 the words in the legislation so it would sort of 

18 reconfirm that. I don't know that we have to solve 

19 that now, but that was an observation. 

20 Let me just give you one or two others. 

21 The next one -- and this is not on the content of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this, I think this report is a good report -- we 

2 plan to have an executive summary, a one-pager that 

3 typically is really what the Secretary is going to 

4 end up saying. 

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: And that would be the 

6 cover letter to the Secretary. 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, that would be the 

8 cover letter --

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- okay. 

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: That --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. And then, let's 

13 see, the -- the last -- this is more of a question 

14 at this point. The last recommendation, 

15 Recommendation 4, it talks about claims where the 

16 individual judgment issue --

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes. 

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- and I'm -- I want to 

19 ask the question, are there claims where there's 

20 no judgment needed? Are there claims that are so 

21 automatic that it's just plug and chug, and the dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction has no judgment issues? I guess I 

2 should ask Jim that, Jim Neton. 

3 DR. NETON: Well --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because it looks like 

5 this statement talks about focusing on claims where 

6 individual judgment is required, and I'm saying, 

7 wait a minute, isn't it required on virtually every 

8 one? 

9 DR. NETON: Well this is Jim. 

10 Virtually every one, but there are some AWE sites 

11 that have templates, essentially, that are 

12 followed for all cases. Bethlehem Steel comes to 

13 mind. I mean, that is a very prescriptive 

14 methodology that really doesn't rely on much 

15 judgment. 

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, you said not 

17 much. 

18 DR. NETON: Well --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is --

20 DR. NETON: Yeah, it's hard to say. 

21 There's always some level of interpretation, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 guess. I don't know. 

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, just -- just an 

3 issue of maybe that just has to be sharpened up a 

4 little bit in terms of the -- the idea that -- it 

5 implies that there are some cases where there's 

6 just absolutely no judgment needed, and I -- I kind 

7 of assume that even in those templates, there's 

8 certain areas where judgments have to be made, but 

9 maybe not. 

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, this is Jim. 

11 I agree. It was the last sentence I wrote, and so 

12 it's probably -- the last section, so I probably 

13 was running out of steam and trying to get it out 

14 to everybody to look --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah, well maybe it's 

16 just a matter of sharpening up a few words in there 

17 that would --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I would say that 

20 those for which very little judgment is needed or 

21 something. And I don't know, just an idea. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay --

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, I --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- I think those are 

5 the two main points I wanted to raise at this point.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, I think those 

7 were both good ideas, so thanks, Paul.

8 Other comments, questions from people, 

9 Board Members? 

10 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. I 

11 didn't have anything more to add. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Anyone else? 

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Dave. I had a

14 number of changes that were mine, many of which are 

15 editorial, such as the audit process, you don't 

16 actually call it an audit process on page 2 on 

17 review procedures.

18 But first, overall, I thought it was 

19 good, and I basically -- I mean, I think it will 

20 be -- we have to do a little bit of work on it, but 

21 -- and it's inexact in a few places in ways I tried 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to -- and I'll send you my changes. The -- the 

2 conclusions, the first conclusion on page, what, 

3 page --

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: 14?

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- 14, let me go to 

6 that if I may on my -- one second, 14. 

7 (Pause.)

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I thought the --

9 the description of Special Exposure Cohort was 

10 inexact in a way, and we don't -- we don't talk about 

11 the 22 designated cancers in the Special Exposure 

12 Cohort for eligibility for compensation, to 

13 mention the fact that there are 22 designated 

14 cancers. But -- but I also -- I thought the 

15 paragraph, the second paragraph of 1, Other 

16 Important Review Activities for the Board, I would 

17 suggest that you take the last sentence and put it 

18 up first so that -- second, so that other review 

19 activities have a large and direct, the board's 

20 initial review relies on procures and information 

21 in place at the time dose reconstruction was done, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and then we talk about the rest of the paragraph.

2 So it -- it -- that one needed, it seemed 

3 to me, some -- some work. I am sorry. I am going 

4 -- this is before the first conclusion. You'll 

5 pardon me.

6 The first conclusion on -- well, the 

7 first conclusion, the board's review of 232 

8 individual dose, I feel that these findings 

9 indicate that dose reconstruction has improved 

10 compared to earlier findings. Now, in fact, as you 

11 -- as noted in the text, we had only 3 percent of 

12 the -- 3 percent of the findings had potentially 

13 significant impact for the first 100 cases, and we 

14 have 4 percent now, so I think one has to qualify 

15 some about these findings indicate that the process 

16 has improved, and I think I would suggest some kind 

17 of a sentence after the first sentence, only 4 

18 percent had a significant impact. 

19 I would have put something like, and I 

20 have it written down and I'll send it to you: Given 

21 that 83 percent of these reviews are best estimates 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with Probabilities of Causation typically between 

2 45 and 52 percent, compared to only 7 percent of 

3 best estimates on the first 100 cases reviewed, 

4 given that, these findings indicate that the 

5 process has improved. But formally speaking, the 

6 process, if anything, we have to qualify it, or else 

7 we had 3 percent before, and now we have 4 percent, 

8 and we've got to say something. 

9 The text that we're talking about from 

10 the -- the Subcommittee, that -- that's fine and 

11 says what needs to be said. So I think some 

12 qualification needs to be in there because it's not 

13 obvious from what was above that this is an 

14 improvement, and we have to qualify why it's an 

15 improvement. I don't know how you feel about that.

16 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: No, that can be 

17 qualified. On the previous comment on other board 

18 review activities, I would disagree. I mean, I 

19 don't know we need to sort of recreate the entire 

20 technical procedures involved and regulations 

21 involved in all that we do, you know, describe what, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you know, the various types of documents and so 

2 forth, and adding 22, I just don't think it -- you 

3 know, it's not the focus of the report, and 

4 actually, in the section I wrote on, you know, the 

5 procedures, I tried to, you know, dumb it down to 

6 some extent because I think our -- the actual report 

7 is -- is sort of a little bit too much inside 

8 baseball. I mean, it is hard to --

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- understand unless 

11 you're part of the process. And it's the nature 

12 of the process, I'm not --

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, right.

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: If you're, you know, 

15 sort of justifying the -- describing what the 

16 findings are, you have to be fairly technical and 

17 go through -- use the jargon that we use in the 

18 program, so I was trying to get away from that a 

19 little bit, but --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, you may -- I 

21 mean, you may be right, and I see your point. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 let me -- I'll send you what I have. I think I've 

2 added it in such a way that it doesn't -- isn't 

3 inside baseball, but let's -- but let's see. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. But I do 

6 think the qualification on the first conclusion, 

7 there needs to -- I believe there needs to be some 

8 qualification. 

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes, I agree.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay. And I -- and 

11 overall, the recommendations, I -- I felt it was 

12 thin, and I don't know how to -- I mean, they're 

13 one sentence. It's these are all -- it says that 

14 we should continue the 1 percent, we should modify 

15 the review process, but it doesn't say how we intend 

16 to do that, and we haven't decided to do that yet. 

17 There are some proposals on, you know, on the table 

18 by SC&A.

19 But -- but overall, it just seems, as 

20 I say, the sort of one sentence doesn't say what 

21 we're going to do, and maybe, again, maybe it's too 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 much inside baseball. 

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well I also don't 

3 think we're -- we've, you know, elaborated on what 

4 we're going to do enough to say -- say much more 

5 that we could all agree on. 

6 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right, and the 

7 question is whether we need to. 

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if the board 

9 agrees on some specifics, we could flesh that out. 

10 I think this is a good framework to build on as a 

11 start, at least. 

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Those would be the four 

14 points. We can flesh them out if we have specifics 

15 that we're ready to bring forward. 

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: It would be nice if 

17 we could --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah.

19 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- I'll put it that 

20 way. So those are my comments, other than 

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

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

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

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

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

21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- mere editorial.

3 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Thank you, Dave.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Anything 

6 else come to mind from anybody? 

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just -- Ziemer again. 

8 I just want to mention one thing. This is in the 

9 body of the report, and it's not a big deal, and 

10 it may almost fall into an editorial thing, but in 

11 that section where you talk -- it's called 

12 Distribution of Dose Reconstruction Sites Along 

13 the Employment Sites, pages 9 and 10, and it is

14 pointed out that the 1 percent applies overall, not 

15 to individual sites. And that's correct. And 

16 then there's a handwritten sentence at the top of 

17 10 that talks about a site goal of 1 percent. And 

18 I guess it's sort of editorial, but I don't think 

19 we -- I don't think we have site goals.

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: No, we don't, and 

21 I'm not quite sure -- I don't quite see that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's the very first 

2 sentence on page 10. "The board has accomplished 

3 its goal of 1 percent for that site."

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Oh, oh oh oh --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And so that -- that 

6 sort of thing -- I think it's fine because the draft 

7 does show how the sites compare to the 1 percent, 

8 and that's fine, but we --

9 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- we shouldn't be 

11 talking about the goal for the site. It isn't --

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- 1 percent. So --

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: And that --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's in the main 

16 body, so I just raise that. It seems to me we need 

17 to remove -- just say that the board has -- knows 

18 that we've approached, or have exceeded, 1 percent 

19 for that particular site, but not talk about it as 

20 a site goal because it isn't a site goal. 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, correct, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 okay, good. And I certainly said what you just 

2 said in another spot overall, but --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, that's 

4 right, it's mentioned, it's mentioned before that 

5 there aren't site goals, and that's why I'm saying 

6 so let's not call that a site goal. That was the 

7 point.

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, I'll change 

9 that, I'll change --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yeah.

11 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- that, and I'll 

12 send that in to you, Jim.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay, thanks.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: And Jim, if you want, 

15 I have a lot of editorial things which by the way 

16 don't include any dangling participles, but -- but 

17 --

18 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- we should just send 

20 you those, I guess. 

21 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, that would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 easiest, I think, and then I will -- I will combine 

2 them and so forth into a final draft we can 

3 circulate to the board, and we can hopefully get 

4 comments, again, for the -- the -- from every --

5 from obviously those of us on the phone now as well 

6 as the full board at the next meeting, the August 

7 meeting, for that.

8 What -- where we are in terms of I guess 

9 fleshing out the -- the recommendations, I'm not 

10 sure we -- all of this needs to go in our report, 

11 but I think we need, you know, concurrence from the 

12 full board on doing those, so to the extent we can 

13 describe some of them in -- in the -- our August 

14 meeting, Dave, I am not sure -- I know you --

15 obviously, you're continuing the blind reviews --

16 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- to that. I think 

18 you're still catching up with the resolution 

19 process --

20 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Review Methods for Further Reviews

2 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- on the -- sort of 

3 the -- the basic reviews. I don't know if there 

4 has been further discussion on the sort of doing 

5 more -- more -- a more efficient review process. 

6 My understanding is it has become more efficient 

7 under your direction or -- 

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- what -- 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Well, we have been 

11 moving along. Let's just --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Moving along --

13 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- say that --

14 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- yeah --

15 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yes, we've been 

16 moving along rapidly, and that has been very good. 

17 We -- no, I would say this, though. The 

18 Subcommittee has approved an SC&A -- SC&A -- a 

19 modified SC&A recommendation. They made a 

20 recommendation, we made suggested changes, they 

21 made those changes, and the Subcommittee has 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviewed and approved and asked it to be sent to 

2 the board, but we have not had a board meeting where 

3 we have discussed that. It hasn't been on the 

4 agenda. It could -- could well be on the agenda 

5 for the Idaho Falls meeting.

6 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I didn't know 

8 whether you were going to incorporate anything 

9 about that in this report, so I didn't tell Ted and 

10 you that I would like it on the agenda, but 

11 --

12 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Well, it is on the 

13 agenda. 

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, okay.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Since we're 

16 discussing this report, I think --

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That is fine. 

18 Okay, great.

19 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: We can discuss that, 

20 and then we have some, from various sources, you 

21 know, these sort of consistency reviews, or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 whatever we want to call them, the more focused 

2 reviews, we can present some of those ideas. I 

3 don't think we'll -- it will be some time before 

4 we're ready to completely flesh that out, but at 

5 least we can start discussion, and I will take the 

6 responsibility for preparing those for the -- for 

7 the board meeting --

8 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

9 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: -- to that end, so 

10 that we can use that time while we're all together 

11 and then decide what -- what needs to go into the 

12 -- you know, what's ready to go into our report as 

13 we're trying to finalize it, that.

14 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I remember from our 

16 first report, the finalization took some time, so 

17 it may be optimistic that we'll complete it in the 

18 August meeting, but I think we should be --

19 hopefully we'll be close and can wrap it up pretty 

20 quickly after that, so -- 

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, hopefully.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah, do that. And 

2 I -- I think it -- I'd like to get this group 

3 together, it would obviously be after the August 

4 meeting, particularly to talk about the -- the 

5 outcome, the focus reviews, because I think we do 

6 need to flesh those out, figure out how to make 

7 those sort of operational, and those are going to 

8 be I think a little bit more difficult to put in 

9 place, so we're going to have to spend some time 

10 with that. We need to be talking with, you know, 

11 NIOSH about that process. 

12 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yeah. Any other 

14 questions or comments? 

15 If not, I think we can -- can wrap up. 

16 Ted, you have any -- any additional information on 

17 Idaho Falls meeting we should know about?

18 MR. KATZ: No, I have no new news there. 

19 We're still a little bit up in the air on just a 

20 couple of agenda items, but -- but we should be 

21 settling those in the next week or two, and that's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mostly related to Santa Susana and whether Santa 

2 Susana stays in or not, and if Santa Susana goes 

3 out, then we organize things one way, if it stays 

4 in, another way, but that -- that mostly just 

5 impacts the -- the procedure, whether we discuss 

6 other procedure reviews or not, or have time for 

7 that.

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

9 MR. KATZ: So yeah, that's it.

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: I might -- if I 

11 may, just a small editorial, but it's an important 

12 editorial change. On -- if I may, on page 1, on 

13 Introduction, the fourth line from the bottom of 

14 the section on Introduction, it says "review of an 

15 additional 234 individual cases," and it's 232. 

16 And 232 is used throughout the report, so it's --

17 it's editorial, but I just want to make sure that, 

18 it's a small one, but certainly we don't want the 

19 wrong number right in the first intro. 

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: 232 on the --

21 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: 232 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- fourth line? 

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- that --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I see it.

4 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- is the fourth 

5 line from the bottom --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you --

7 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: -- on the 

8 Introduction. 

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. 

10 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: What happened was 

11 there are 234 cases in those sets, but two cases 

12 were not considered because we're waiting for 

13 additional material from the Work Group, so they 

14 were not reviewed. 232 were. 

15 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: I think I was working 

16 off an older draft.

17 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Yeah, and we went 

18 back and forth, and it took a while before -- so 

19 that we didn't get 232, 234, and the earlier drafts, 

20 and Josie will remember, in the earlier drafts, we 

21 tried to figure out how to move between the fact
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that there are 234 cases in those sets, but 232 out 

2 of those were the ones that were reviewed, and the 

3 others await review. 

4 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay.

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: That's just 

6 editorial, but I want to make sure it's in, and I 

7 certainly will have it in what I send you. 

8 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. Okay. Thank 

9 you, and I think we can close, then. 

10 MS. LIN: Oh, Dr. Melius --

11 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Yes.

12 MS. LIN: -- this is Jenny. So I think 

13 I just need a little bit of instruction from you 

14 in terms of how you want me to conduct the legal 

15 review for this report, and we can have an off-line 

16 conversation about that too. 

17 CHAIRMAN MELIUS: Okay. 

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you, 

19 everybody. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Dose Reconstruction Review 

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

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

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

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

32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Adjourn

2 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Very good, thank 

3 you. See you tomorrow. 

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'll see you tomorrow. 

5 MEMBER KOTELCHUCK: Right. Bye. 

6 (Whereupon, the meeting went off the 

7 record at 9:31 a.m.)

8