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 SERVICE

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

MARCH 22, 2011

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened, in the 

Toronto Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Wanda Munn, Chair, 

presiding.
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

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

RICHARD LEMEN, Member*

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

HANS BEHLING, SC&A*

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, ORAU Team*

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

SCOTT SIEBERT, DCAS*

MATTHEW SMITH, ORAU Team*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team*

BRANT ULSH, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Call to order 8

Roll call 8

Report on database working meetings 16

and current status

 Steve Marschke 17

 Brant Ulsh 19

Process issues and status for getting 24

two-pagers online

OTIB-2, Rev. 2 32

 Brant Ulsh 32

 Liz Brackett 33

 Action items 45

Carryover items 47

 Status of TIB-10-08 after NIOSH 47

 MCNP runs provided

 

 Steve Marschke 47

 Bob Anigstein 48

 Action item 68

 Action item 73

 Status of revised OTIB-29-02 73

 response

 OTIB-21-02, response to calculation 80

 differences and sources
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Carryover items (Continued)

 OTIB-21-04, response to documentation 82

 question

 Action item 92

 Verify OTIB-51-01 link is complete 93

 and item closed

 and

 Status of OTIB-47-01 and -02

 and

 Status of OTIB-19

 and

 Status of OTIB-57-02 and -03

 and

 Status of OTIB-21-02 and -04

 (Linking issues for all)

 Brant Ulsh 93

 Elyse Thomas 93

Status of two outstanding OTIB-70 102

issues

 Brant Ulsh 102

 Action item 109

Discussion of tracking responsibility 109

for overarching issues

TIB-13 action status, rewrite of 3 and 124

4, response due on 5

 Steve Marschke 124

 Bob Anigstein 124

 Action item 127
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

TIB-13 action status, rewrite of 3 and

4, response due on 5 (continued)

 Brant Ulsh 127

 Elyse Thomas 127

Review and discussion of SC&A PER 132

reviews

 PER-008, modification of NIOSH IREP 132

 cancer risk model: effect of

 combined lung model on

 non-compensable lung cancer claims

 Hans Behling 135

 Stu Hinnefeld 158

Handling PERs in the database 184

PER-18, Los Alamos National Laboratory 210

TBD Revision

 Hans Behling 210

 Discussion 230

 Action item 243

PER-20, Blockson TBD Revision 246

 Hans Behling 246

 Action item 277
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Review of 14 two-pagers 279

 TIB-2, tritium calculations with IMBA 283

 TIB-6, interpretation of external 297

 dosimetry records at the Savannah

 River Site

 TIB-7 298

 OTIB-4, estimating the maximum 307

 plausible dose for workers at atomic

 weapons employer facilities

 OTIB-8, standard complexwide 315

 conversion factor for overestimating

 external doses measured with

 thermoluminescent dosimeter

 TIB-15, Bayesian methods for 321

 estimation of unmonitored Y-12

 external penetrating doses with a

 time-dependent log normal model

 OTIB-22, guidance on wound modeling 323

 for internal dose reconstruction

 OTIB-28, validation of thorium annual 323

 dose conversion factors

 OTIB-30, external coworker dosimetry 328

 data for the Hanford Site

 PROC-2, Use of integrated modules 231

 for bioassay analysis

 PROC-4, scheduling telephone 232

 interviews
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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

Review of two-pagers (continued)

 PROC-12, performing telephone 333

 interviews

 OCAS-PR-003, Rev. 0, performing and 333

 reporting dose reconstruction

 ORAUT-OTIB-3, Savannah River Site 336

 tritium dose assessments

Administrative Details 243
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 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 8:59 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone.

4 The Advisory Board on Radiation 

5 and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, 

6 let us get started.

7 We have a couple of Board Members 

8 that will be with us by phone part of the day.

9 Let's begin with roll call with 

10 Board Members, with the Chair.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board 

12 Member and Chair of the Subcommittee.

13 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board 

14 Member.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, Board 

16 Member.

17 MR. KATZ: And do we have right 

18 now any Board Members on the line?

19 (No response.)

20 Dr. Lemen? Dick?

21 (No response.)

22 Then, carry on, NIOSH ORAU Team?
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 

2 NIOSH, DCAS. I couldn't remember where I was 

3 from.

4 (Laughter.)

5 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh from NIOSH 

6 DCAS.

7 MR. KATZ: And NIOSH-ORAU on the 

8 line?

9 MS. THOMAS: Elyse Thomas, ORAU.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, ORAU 

11 Team.

12 MR. SMITH: Matthew Smith, ORAU 

13 Team.

14 MR. KATZ: Welcome all of you.

15 SC&A team in the room?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Steve Marschke.

17 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

18 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A. 

19 Good morning.

20 MR. KATZ: Good morning. Welcome, 

21 John.

22 MR. STIVER: John Stiver, SC&A.
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 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, SC&A.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Good morning, Steve.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, 

4 SC&A.

5 MR. KATZ: Bob, you have a lot of 

6 interference on your line.

7 Okay. HHS or other government 

8 officials or contractors to the feds in the 

9 room?

10 MS. LIN: Jenny Lin, HHS.

11 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

12 (No response.)

13 Okay. And any members of the 

14 public on the line?

15 (No response.)

16 I'm sorry, could you say that 

17 again? Anyone else in the public?

18 (No response.)

19 Okay. All right. Wanda, it's 

20 your agenda.

21 John, you have like Bob on the 

22 line. Do we have a special order of the day 
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 to make use of people who have partial roles?

2 DR. MAURO: This is John.

3 We do have a number of people on 

4 the line. I'm not sure if there is a more 

5 efficient way to do it in terms of the 

6 schedule. We may be able to sweep people in 

7 and out. It would be a little more efficient 

8 that way.

9 CHAIR MUNN: You do have the 

10 action item list and agenda, do you not?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have it right 

12 in front of me. I know Hans is not on the 

13 line yet. He's not going to be jumping in, I 

14 guess, until OTIB-70.

15 DR. BEHLING: John, I'm on the 

16 line.

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, you are on the 

18 line?

19 DR. BEHLING: I just missed the 

20 roll call.

21 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, yes, we do 

22 have a large number of people from SC&A on the 
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 line. And the first one up, it looks like 

2 might be Bob.

3 We have, yes, the database. 

4 Steve, of course, will cover that. And, then, 

5 OTIB-10, I believe that's Bob Anigstein. 

6 Then, the others come in sequence later. I 

7 don't know how you would like to proceed.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it was my plan 

9 to pretty much follow the agenda with one 

10 insertion somewhere along the line. We had 

11 had some background communications about 

12 OTIB-2 and the number of outstanding items 

13 that we have on it, despite the fact that that 

14 procedure is no longer in place. And I 

15 thought I would slip that in this morning, if 

16 that's possible to do.

17 But, other than that addition, I 

18 had intended to pretty much follow what we 

19 have here, unless there is someone who feels 

20 that that is too much of a crunch on their 

21 personal schedule. This is the appropriate 

22 time for us to change anything that needs 
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 changing. I guess that is the best way to go.

2 DR. MAURO: I wouldn't suggest you 

3 change the schedule. I think that it looked 

4 fine to me. It is just a matter of whether, 

5 for example, Hans could join us a little 

6 later, at 11:15. I'm not sure who is involved 

7 in OTIB-21. I have to say I am not familiar 

8 with that particular one and what the issues 

9 are.

10 Steve, offhand, do you know what 

11 that is?

12 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's 2, not 21.

13 DR. MAURO: Oh, I see. I see. 

14 Okay.

15 CHAIR MUNN: OTIB-21 is on the 

16 list, but --

17 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, OTIB-2 is 

18 an item that you are inserting.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Correct.

20 DR. MAURO: I'm not sure which one 

21 that is.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: It is maximum 
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 internal dose estimates for certain DOE 

2 complex claims.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Which has been 

4 cancelled.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: And it's been 

6 cancelled.

7 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

8 CHAIR MUNN: And so, the 

9 discussion pretty much is going to be what 

10 happens to those action items.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: There are about 30 

13 action items outstanding on that.

14 DR. MAURO: Oh, I mean, I guess I 

15 can cover that. So, at least for the first 

16 maybe hour or so, until we get to Bob's on 

17 OTIB-10. I don't know. As far as we're 

18 concerned, we are fine staying on the line 

19 listening in and, then, jumping in and out as 

20 necessary.

21 Very often, we will hit subjects 

22 that other people, the SC&A people, could 
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 contribute. Sometimes it is just not 

2 predictable. So, we are fine staying online, 

3 if it is okay with you. But if you would 

4 rather, for efficiencies, perhaps Bob will 

5 join us at 10:00 and, then, Hans could join us 

6 after the break at 11:00; that might be a way 

7 to go.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, as you know, it 

9 is my preference to keep the agenda as fluid 

10 as necessary for the people involved. But if 

11 it is okay for you --

12 DR. MAURO: Ted, and everyone 

13 else, having everyone online would be my 

14 preference.

15 CHAIR MUNN: And I think it would 

16 probably be mine.

17 MR. KATZ: That's fine. That's 

18 fine. I just didn't want to hold anyone 

19 hostage. I don't know who's doing what. So, 

20 I didn't want to hold people hostage who are 

21 coming in much later. But that's fine.

22 CHAIR MUNN: We'll just try to 
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 pretty much stick with what we've got with the 

2 possible exception of 0002.

3 DR. MAURO: Knowing my crew, 

4 what's probably happening is, if it is a 

5 subject that they are not involved in, they 

6 are probably busy punching away on their 

7 computer doing other things and listening with 

8 one ear. So, we'll be fine.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. All 

10 right. Fine.

11 Then, let's go ahead and address 

12 where we need to insert what I assume will be 

13 a fairly brief discussion about OTIB-2. I 

14 would like personally to do that just before 

15 we start the carryover items because I don't 

16 anticipate that it's going to take very long 

17 for us to do that. So, just ahead of TIB-10, 

18 if that is all right with everyone here, we'll 

19 talk about OTIB-2 there.

20 The first item on our agenda is a 

21 report on the database working meetings that 

22 have been going on behind the scenes to try to 
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 get our database all cleaned up, spiffy, and 

2 exactly the way we would like to have it.

3 Since Steve is here, would you 

4 like to bring us up-to-speed so far? Where 

5 are we? I understand from conversations we 

6 had prior to starting this meeting that we are 

7 not going to be able to do much with our 

8 database live because of the status of where 

9 we are right now.

10 But tell us what's happening, 

11 Steve.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, what is 

13 happening is, on February 17th, John Stiver 

14 and myself came down to Cincinnati and met 

15 with the NIOSH folks. We had a pretty long, 

16 pretty detailed discussion as to what the 

17 database needed to do and what it didn't need 

18 to do.

19 We walked through the database. 

20 We looked at all the screens. We cut out a 

21 number of the screens which we felt were 

22 redundant. We stressed the importance of 
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 speed, so that we could keep up with the 

2 Subcommittee when the Subcommittee is making 

3 changes in live time.

4 And so, we basically had what I 

5 would call a design criteria meeting on 

6 February 17th, and we left NIOSH with a number 

7 of action items to go back and really to 

8 revise, extensively revise, the database.

9 I guess I should preface this by 

10 saying that the database original was an 

11 Access database written by SC&A. And, then, 

12 it was ported over into an SQL database which 

13 NIOSH was trying to integrate into their 

14 master documents control database.

15 After the January meeting of the 

16 Procedures Subgroup, NIOSH decided that that 

17 was too big of a job trying to integrate the 

18 procedures functions into their overall 

19 database. They decided they wanted to break 

20 it out into the NIOSH, or the Procedures 

21 Subcommittee database into a separate 

22 standalone database, perhaps linked to the 
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 other one with some links to pick up 

2 documents, and so on and so forth, but 

3 primarily just a standalone database.

4 At that point, that is when we set 

5 up the February 17th meeting and went down and 

6 said, well, what should this standalone 

7 database do? What does it need to do? What 

8 can it do better than what we were doing with 

9 the Access database? And what needs to be 

10 done to support the Subcommittee?

11 And we think we have a path 

12 forward. I guess I would give it to Brant to 

13 update what has happened since the 17th.

14 DR. ULSH: Well, since the 17th, I 

15 mean we kind of categorized the improvements 

16 that Steve mentioned into two different 

17 general categories. One is kind of a behind18 the-scenes thing that is going to be 

19 transparent to a user, that is going to 

20 improve the way the database functions, make 

21 it speedier, so that we can actually use it 

22 live time in a meeting. And those kinds of 
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 things are going on right now.

2 The other types of improvements 

3 are the ones that Steve mentioned, you know, 

4 moving things around, delete this screen, make 

5 it easier to navigate. And so, that is going 

6 to happen.

7 Once the database goes live -- and 

8 this is all going to happen before our next 

9 Procedures Subcommittee meeting; that is our 

10 current plan anyway -- we are going to build 

11 some time into the schedule for all three, me, 

12 Elyse, and Steve, to go and use the database, 

13 kind of road-test it and make any further 

14 suggestions.

15 No doubt, if we implement some of 

16 the changes, it will bring up other ideas, 

17 too. But it is our goal to have at the next 

18 meeting of this Subcommittee, to have a 

19 perfectly functional database that is updated 

20 with all the latest status that we have been 

21 kind of stockpiling over the past few 

22 meetings.
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 CHAIR MUNN: And hopefully, a 

2 little of an instruction session for us at our 

3 next meeting.

4 DR. ULSH: We can do that. The 

5 goal is to have the new database look a lot 

6 like the old one, to kind of minimize the 

7 learning curve. That was one of the things 

8 that I asked our IT folks to do.

9 But there will be some changes, 

10 you know, some of the ones that we talked 

11 about in that February meeting. So, we can do 

12 that. We can incorporate a training session 

13 at the next meeting if you would like.

14 CHAIR MUNN: For those of us who 

15 have a hard time holding up a learning curve, 

16 we would really appreciate that.

17 (Laughter.)

18 DR. ULSH: Sure.

19 CHAIR MUNN: If we can plan on 

20 that, then I will plan on having that as a 

21 part of our agenda next time.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: I should say one of 
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 the things we have been doing, like Brant 

2 said, we have not been updating the database 

3 to reflect the latest activities of the 

4 Subcommittee. So, I did ask Rose to go 

5 through the transcript from the last couple of 

6 meetings to pull out all the action items, all 

7 the changes that we made to status changes, 

8 and so on and so forth. She has made a list 

9 from the October meeting, a nice, detailed 

10 list as to what has changed, and so on and so 

11 forth. So that, when the database does become 

12 available to us, we can go back and make sure 

13 that we captured everything that we talked 

14 about at these Subcommittee meetings.

15 And we would plan on doing that 

16 when the transcript from the January one -- it 

17 wasn't available on the website when we 

18 looked, the last time we looked. It may be 

19 available there now. I don't know. I haven't 

20 looked in a week or two.

21 But we will do that, look for the 

22 January one, and we will do that again for 
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 this meeting to make sure that we capture 

2 every change, all the changes that are made.

3 MR. KATZ: I don't know whether it 

4 is on the website yet, but I can get you 

5 the --

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Because the 

7 database is not ready to receive it yet, so it 

8 wasn't -- I know I can go to you and you would

9 provide that to me.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: But since the 

12 database wasn't available, I didn't see the 

13 urgency to do it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I plan to have it 

15 certified in the next couple of weeks.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Good. It will be an 

18 item on our next agenda.

19 MS. ADAMS: Yes, Ted, this is 

20 Nancy Adams. Procedures is not PA-cleared 

21 yet.

22 MR. KATZ: Right, right. No, I 
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 understand it's not available yet generally.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: As long as it is 

3 not PA-cleared, but the Board Members can see 

4 it.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, no problem.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Now the next item on 

7 the list, I hope that was clear to people what 

8 I meant. One of the things that certainly is 

9 not clear to me with respect to our getting 

10 the two-pagers online, we had a little 

11 discussion last time about how that was going 

12 to happen.

13 I think, Elyse, didn't you --

14 Elyse is on the line, isn't she?

15 MR. KATZ: Elyse, yes.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Elyse, didn't 

17 you indicate that this was not going to be a 

18 real problem, and that you would essentially 

19 have whatever behind-the-scenes activity has 

20 to go on in order to have us just send you the 

21 material that needs to go up on the new 

22 database which will be the two-pagers? Did I 
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 misinterpret what was said last time?

2 MS. THOMAS: Yes, this is Elyse.

3 I'm not sure what I have to do 

4 with the two-pagers.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Okay. Very 

6 good. Then I misinterpreted who was doing 

7 what.

8 MS. THOMAS: Okay.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes, I mean 

10 the one thing to determine, the thought, what 

11 I thought about these two-pagers was that they 

12 would be placed on the website.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Because the report 

15 itself, the Procedures report, and once I 

16 started looking at it, I realized not all 

17 those were up there, either.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That's true.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: So, what we are 

20 doing now is assembling the various reports 

21 and procedure reviews, and there are quite a 

22 number that SC&A has provided. Some of them 
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 are so old that they were not yet what they 

2 call 508-compliant. After a certain date, 

3 everything that we put up there has to be 

4 readable by people with disabilities. And so, 

5 it has to be interpretable by a language 

6 interpreter, in other words, a program that 

7 looks at printed pages and makes an audio, 

8 reads it to the user.

9 So, some of them were old enough 

10 that they were not yet 508-compliant. And so, 

11 I believe SC&A is preparing 508-compliant 

12 versions. They may have already submitted all 

13 those. I forget whether --

14 MR. KATZ: No, they haven't 

15 submitted those yet.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: But when we have 

17 all of SC&A's reports of their procedure 

18 reviews, you know, the big ones that come out, 

19 those will go on the website. Some of them 

20 are there now, and you can look on our website 

21 under Advisory Board and, then, Reports from 

22 the Technical Support Contractor, and, then, 
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 you go down about two-thirds of the page and 

2 you get to the Procedure Review. There are a 

3 couple or three that are on there now, but we 

4 will have all of them on there. Then, that's 

5 the place where the reports are.

6 Now you can decide where you want 

7 to put -- if you will let us know where you 

8 want the two-pagers to go, you know, we can 

9 provide that as well.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: They could go on 

12 their own page with a link from that site. 

13 They could do it however you want to design 

14 it.

15 Or, in fact, Chris might have a 

16 good suggestion.

17 CHAIR MUNN: It was our original 

18 intent, when we talked about it earlier, to 

19 have the two-pagers have their own --

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Their own page--

21 their own page, their own site. And the 

22 introductory information that we have approved 
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 in the past would be the first thing people 

2 would see. Then, the procedures would be 

3 listed alphabetically, and for people who 

4 wanted to see the original procedure, there 

5 would be a hotlink that could take them to 

6 that.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

8 CHAIR MUNN: But I was concerned 

9 about our internal procedure here. I wanted 

10 to make sure that, especially since at the 

11 last Board it was agreed that this 

12 Subcommittee would be able to approve what was 

13 going to go up there, we wouldn't have to take 

14 it back to the Board each time.

15 And that being the case, then I 

16 wanted to make sure that our internal process 

17 here amongst us was workable, easy, and 

18 agreeable.

19 And my thought at this time is 

20 that, since the Subcommittee as an entity does 

21 not have clerical staff to support it, that 

22 the logical thing to do, when we approve 
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 something, is for me to try to provide a clean 

2 copy of that to Ted --

3 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

4 CHAIR MUNN: -- for his agreement 

5 that, yes, this is what we had agreed to do. 

6 And, then, from you to Stu or whoever is the 

7 individual responsible for getting it up on 

8 the page --

9 MR. KATZ: That's fine.

10 CHAIR MUNN: If that is amenable 

11 with all here, then I would like to propose 

12 that that is essentially what we do in the 

13 future.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fine.

15 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Very 

16 good.

17 Then, I will be sending you the 

18 pages that we have already --

19 MR. KATZ: The final copy.

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- approved and that 

21 the Board has approved very shortly.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
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 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Now, if we have 

3 questions about how you want these links to 

4 work, should we talk to somebody in particular 

5 about it or should we --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Because the 

8 thing that occurred to me, I don't know much 

9 about web design, but it would occur to me 

10 that you would link back and forth. I mean 

11 somebody could go to the procedure report, you 

12 know, the big report with all the procedures, 

13 and could link to the two-pagers associated 

14 with that report.

15 Okay. And they could also read a 

16 two-pager and they could link to the report. 

17 Now I think you can make that link open at the 

18 exact procedure that you review. That would 

19 have to be definitely better because, 

20 otherwise, you have got this 200-page document 

21 where you've got to find your own procedure 

22 in, which you could find it in the table of 
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 contents. But, I mean, it is still a little 

2 bit of a burden.

3 So, you just wanted to make this 

4 as easy for the user as possible.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And I think our 

7 guys, our designers, are probably better at 

8 deciding what to do than I am.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: So, I think it can 

11 open a specific page. I won't swear to that.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it will be 

13 fine. From our perspective as a Subcommittee, 

14 speaking personally for myself, my concern is 

15 just the assurance that our two-pager does 

16 have a link to the original procedure, if 

17 people want to go there.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Now you're 

19 saying "procedure." You mean procedure review 

20 document, right?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I mean our two22 pager has --
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 MR. HINNEFELD: The two-pager has 

2 a link to SC&A's procedure review?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Has a link to the 

4 original review, yes.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Because that is 

7 what the two-page is --

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: -- is a compilation 

10 of activities that occurred as a result of 

11 that review.

12 Any problem? We agree?

13 Seeing no objection, let's move on 

14 to the next item, which I had suggested would 

15 be the insertion of our OTIB-2, Rev. 2.

16 And, Brant, would you like to give 

17 us a thumbnail sketch of where we are here and 

18 why we need to clear this off our database?

19 DR. ULSH: Yes. I'll give you a 

20 brief update, and, then, I will turn it over 

21 to Liz Brackett, who is on the call, to 

22 discuss kind of the technical details of this.
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This particular TIB, Steve gave 

2 you the long time earlier, is out-of-date 

3 because we no longer use this TIB for doing 

4 dose reconstructions. This is one that had 

5 been reviewed, and there were, I think, 

6 approximately 30 open findings.

7 And so, it wasn't clear to me 

8 exactly what the disposition of those findings 

9 should be, given that the TIB has been 

10 cancelled. I don't want to assume that the 

11 findings just go away because, obviously, we 

12 are doing something different now. So, some 

13 of those findings might be transported to 

14 another document.

15 But, Liz, are you on the line?

16 MS. BRACKETT: Yes, I'm here.

17 DR. ULSH: Okay. Do you want to 

18 give a little more technical detail on the 

19 status with that TIB?

20 MS. BRACKETT: Okay. What 

21 happened was OTIB-2, you can tell by the 

22 number, it was a very early document in the 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 history of the project. It was in the early 

2 stages of developing approaches.

3 That one is an overestimating 

4 technique for assigning internal dose to 

5 people who had little to no potential for 

6 internal exposure and who weren't monitored. 

7 And it was based on a single acute intake of a 

8 large value relative to maximum permissible 

9 body burden.

10 Since that time, since we wrote 

11 that, we have pretty much evolved into a 

12 policy of assigning chronic intakes rather 

13 than acute intakes. And so, OTIB-18 is a 

14 similar document, but it is based on the 

15 assumption of chronic exposure at the maximum 

16 permissible concentrations.

17 So, that is pretty much what the 

18 dose reconstructions we do have and assigned 

19 an overestimate for internal dose. So, we 

20 slowly phased out the application of OTIB-2, 

21 and when dose reconstruction comes back for 

22 some reason, if there is a new cancer or some 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 change in the claim, then the dose 

2 reconstructor would redo the OTIB-2 part. It 

3 would be redone most likely with OTIB-18.

4 So, it is not being used in cases 

5 where you are using something different. The 

6 primary reason for changing this is because 

7 our methodologies have evolved over time, and 

8 that is just not one that we're applying at 

9 this time.

10 CHAIR MUNN: But it is still an 

11 outstanding active document for you?

12 MS. BRACKETT: It has been --

13 CHAIR MUNN: It has been 

14 cancelled?

15 MS. BRACKETT: It has been 

16 cancelled.

17 DR. ULSH: Yes, cancelled.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Now does OTIB-18 

19 cover all of the material that was covered by 

20 OTIB-2? Can we make that statement? Or is 

21 that stretching the point?

22 MS. BRACKETT: I guess, what do 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you mean by "the material", like nuclides or 

2 the approach or?

3 CHAIR MUNN: I guess the better 

4 question would be, are the 30 issues that are 

5 identified for OTIB-2 addressed in some way in 

6 OTIB-18? That is a better question.

7 MS. BRACKETT: No, it wasn't a 

8 direct replacement. We didn't cancel OTIB-2 

9 because we replaced it with OTIB-18, because 

10 they were both used simultaneously. Well, 

11 they wouldn't be used on the same cases, but 

12 they were both available for use for probably 

13 a few years. So, it would be used for the 

14 same situation, but it doesn't say, well, use 

15 this instead of OTIB-2, no.

16 CHAIR MUNN: I understand. Is it 

17 possible for NIOSH to go through and identify 

18 from the outstanding items that we have open 

19 where each of those items is now handled 

20 elsewhere? Is that a possibility?

21 MS. BRACKETT: No. That was an 

22 approach that we no longer use. We don't 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 address the items because they are not 

2 applicable anywhere else.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: We could make a 

4 statement for each one probably about why it 

5 is no longer applicable each time, if, in 

6 fact, it is no longer applicable.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I think if we are 

8 going to close these items, that is going to 

9 be necessary.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yes. Well, 

11 I think why Liz is struggling with the 

12 conversation a little bit here -- and I'm 

13 going from memory here, and at my age, that's 

14 a real mistake; so, Liz, correct me if I'm 

15 wrong -- but the approaches between OTIB-2 and 

16 OTIB-18 are fundamentally different.

17 OTIB-2's approach is a postulated 

18 large intake of this entire suite of 

19 radionuclides that would cause like -- I 

20 forget the actual basis for why the numbers 

21 were selected, but they were a huge, 

22 essentially, one-time intake from the start of 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the person's employment, feeling that that 

2 intake would bracket their reasonable exposure 

3 that they would have.

4 As I recall, it translates into 

5 like 110 DAC average in terms of ICRP-26 

6 language. I'm sorry, 110 DAC years. So, 110 

7 years at as an airborne standard.

8 Now the OTIB-18, as I recall, does 

9 not postulate this huge acute intake. It 

10 postulates exposure at some fraction of the 

11 applicable airborne standard at the time, and 

12 it is relevant, it is useful only in sites 

13 where we have established a record of a pretty 

14 full air monitoring program.

15 So, at that point, you know, once 

16 you have a site that has an air sampling 

17 program, there is some level of comfort that 

18 they are going to keep radiation workers below 

19 the standard, at or below on the average over 

20 the year, at or below the standard for 

21 radiation workers, and, then, occasional 

22 workers get some fraction of that. So, that 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is the OTIB-18 approach. So, they 

2 fundamentally start from a different place. 

3 And so, the OTIB-2 findings I 

4 don't think it is realistic to expect them to 

5 be addressed by OTIB-18, although we could 

6 perhaps make a statement as to why we don't 

7 think they are applicable anymore.

8 DR. MAURO: This is John. I have 

9 a question.

10 It is all coming back now, as you 

11 describe it, the MPC approach and how you use 

12 the full MPC versus a fraction. This might be 

13 a PER question. I am going to cast it in a 

14 different way.

15 You have a number of cases, I 

16 believe, that we used OTIB-2 for the purpose 

17 of maximizing approach for denial. I think 

18 that that was its role.

19 In other words, when you used 

20 OTIB-2, did you grant anyone under OTIB-2?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: No.

22 DR. MAURO: Or was it solely there 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as a maximizing approach for denial?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It was a 

3 maximizing approach, expedient.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, basically, 

5 you have all these denials. Now, in the PER 

6 world, what you have now is, okay, we have all 

7 these denials that were triggered as a result 

8 of using OTIB-2. And now you are saying, 

9 well, we have got to withdraw OTIB-2, and the 

10 question becomes, are those decisions that 

11 were made using OTIB-2 still valid, in light 

12 of, if you were to do them again today, is 

13 there any reason to believe that their doses 

14 would go up? And, therefore, possibly trigger 

15 them back into compensation?

16 I suspect the answer to that is 

17 probably no, but isn't that where we are on 

18 this question? In other words, your real 

19 question is, by withdrawing OTIB-2, the 

20 question is, if you were to do those cases 

21 that you did do over again, is there any 

22 possibility that their doses would go up? And 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it becomes a question of whether these people 

2 should now be compensated.

3 CHAIR MUNN: John, you are looking 

4 at this from a holistic point of view. I am 

5 looking at it from an individual finding point 

6 of view.

7 And I am looking for a way that we 

8 can avoid overlooking one of these action 

9 items by reason of making broad statements 

10 that almost apply, but do not in all cases, 

11 which is a situation I could see easily 

12 falling into if we start looking at one 

13 procedure as opposed to another procedure.

14 So, what I am suggesting here is 

15 that NIOSH take a look at each of these open 

16 items -- some of them are open; some of them 

17 are in abeyance -- and give us a statement on 

18 each of these items that would make it 

19 possible for us to close the individual 

20 finding, either by transference to some other 

21 open procedure or by outright closure, by 

22 reason of the fact that it is an approach that 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is no longer used at all.

2 Yes, Paul?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: The opening 

4 statement that Brant made suggested that there 

5 could possibly be findings that in some way 

6 would be translatable to some other part of 

7 the system. So, that is part of the question 

8 you want to answer, are all of these moot 

9 points at this juncture? And you can 

10 certainly do that as you go down through the 

11 list and just say, okay, could this be still 

12 an open item that is in a different procedure 

13 now? I guess that is what you are going to 

14 answer on that.

15 DR. ULSH: Exactly. And if there 

16 are pieces of OTIB-2, even though that 

17 document has been cancelled, but if we have 

18 taken any pieces of that and incorporated it 

19 somewhere else --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. ULSH: -- and there is a 

22 finding on that particular piece, I wouldn't 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to just propose it for closure.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 DR. ULSH: I don't know that that 

4 is the case.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. I 

6 understand.

7 CHAIR MUNN: No.

8 DR. ULSH: But that is one thing 

9 that we will look for.

10 CHAIR MUNN: And that was my 

11 concern --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

13 CHAIR MUNN: -- more than anything 

14 else.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: But, aside from 

16 that, it seems to me John Mauro is asking a 

17 different question, which is not the closing 

18 of the issues question, but the impact of not 

19 using that procedure, having an alternate 

20 procedure now for the same kinds of cases. 

21 And that may be something that NIOSH would 

22 want to ask themselves that question also.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I mean, in principle, wouldn't you 

2 sort of do that anyway? If you said we are no 

3 longer using this procedure, here's a new 

4 procedure you are using, and set that not one5 to-one analogous, but sort of like that, but 

6 now when we get a case in of the type that we 

7 used 002 for, here's what we do now. It 

8 sounds to me like the 002 procedure was a 

9 much, much liberal assignment of internal 

10 dose, but do we know that a priori?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: See, I think the 

12 question you are asking is, if we can satisfy 

13 ourselves that the new techniques, you know, 

14 the techniques we are using now, will 

15 definitely result in a lower dose than TIB-2 

16 in each case, you know, in whatever categories 

17 we are going to apply this to, then we can 

18 say, okay, that's good enough. And if not, 

19 then we have to consider, if we can't say that 

20 about some of the cases, then we may have to 

21 look at those cases.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: But it is a 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different question than closing that.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I interpreted 

4 that also. That is why I was saying my focus 

5 here is on closing these.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, very good. Now I 

7 think I understand your perspective now. 

8 Thank you.

9 CHAIR MUNN: You're most welcome.

10 We may need to address the issues 

11 that you raise, John, later in the process. 

12 But, at this moment, if we could prevail upon 

13 NIOSH as an action item to give us --

14 DR. ULSH: Yes, we will take that.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we actually 

16 have two. We have two action items here. The 

17 first one being on the specific findings to 

18 provide our take on whether they are relevant 

19 at all and, if so, where are they addressed?

20 And, then, the second finding is 

21 to decide, take a look at the alternate 

22 approaches in light of OTIB-2 and see if we 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are confident that OTIB-2 definitely 

2 overestimated it would be higher than what we 

3 would probably use, or whether some subset of 

4 them would have to considered with new -- as a 

5 PER.

6 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. I 

8 just wanted you to know I have been listening 

9 to your progress.

10 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Dick.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Hi there.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: I had trouble 

13 finding the call-in number.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Glad you found it.

15 All right. Did you have some 

16 comment about this discussion?

17 MEMBER LEMEN: No, I don't.

18 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

19 MEMBER LEMEN: I have been in on 

20 most of the discussion. I just didn't want to 

21 break into some other's comment.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Okay. We 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appreciate it.

2 Welcome. We're glad you're here.

3 Now, then, that will be on our 

4 items for next meeting to see what has 

5 transpired.

6 Carryover items. The first one 

7 listed on our agenda is TIB-10 and the MCNP 

8 runs.

9 SC&A, you're noted as having the 

10 ball.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, we got the 

12 MCNP runs from NIOSH and I gave them to Bob 

13 Anigstein to look over. And Bob is on the 

14 phone.

15 He sent out a brief summary of his 

16 review. We sent that out, I sent that out to 

17 everybody yesterday. I believe you should all 

18 have it. And Bob is on the line.

19 Bob, if you want to discuss what 

20 is in that review for the Subcommittee?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. This is 

22 Finding 08. The finding specifically, it was 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summarized in the database as the use of the 

2 Attila software question.

3 In response to that, we had a 

4 response. NIOSH made a response on November 

5 7, 2007, said, "Attila was used out of 

6 convenience. Concurrently, we also ran MCNP-X 

7 models and obtained similar results."

8 Then, the Revision 3 of TIB-10, 

9 which came out, I believe, in -- what's the 

10 date on that? -- in June, June or July 2010, 

11 included an appendix, Appendix C. Basically, 

12 Revision 3, just to backtrack, is identical to 

13 Revision 2 in terms of it was cleaned up a 

14 little, much better illustrations, but they 

15 were the same. They were the same figures. 

16 They were just much better produced.

17 And, then, it included three 

18 appendices. One appendix was simply what had 

19 originally been called Section 6 and what is 

20 now simply transferred to an appendix. And, 

21 then, it had an Appendix B. That was Appendix 

22 A.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Appendix B gave details on the 

2 Attila analysis which had been previously 

3 furnished to SC&A privately, but never made 

4 public. And that was actually another 

5 finding.

6 These details had not been 

7 furnished, and it was actually Finding No. 1. 

8 And that finding can now be considered closed 

9 because those details were furnished.

10 And, then, Appendix C describes 

11 the MCNP-X analysis, which apparently, 

12 according to the footnote, was a Class 

13 assignment for Tim Taulbee, when he was taking 

14 a course on Monte Carlo modeling at the 

15 University of Cincinnati.

16 We were furnished, it gave a very 

17 clear description of the model, which, first, 

18 to begin with, is quite different than the 

19 model that was used for the Attila analysis 

20 and that is the basis of the correction 

21 factors in TIB-10.

22 The Attila analysis assumed that 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the radiation source was the point source. 

2 And that is actually a very conservative 

3 assumption because, first of all, the 

4 radiation is isotropic and there is no self5 attenuation, self-absorption in the source 

6 itself. And so, first of all, if it is a 

7 small concentrated source or if it is a 

8 powder, or whatever form it is at, it would be 

9 that approach, the point source approach, 

10 serves as an envelope. It is not going to be 

11 any worse than that.

12 In the MCNP-X analysis, they 

13 assume that the source was a sort of button, 

14 probably want to think of it as a pancake, 

15 like a cylinder of solid plutonium metal, 1-

16 centimeter high and 2-and-a-quarter inches in 

17 diameter. Sorry for the mixed units, but that 

18 is the only way to describe it that would be 

19 convenient.

20 The problem with that approach is 

21 that two things we look at. You always 

22 describe three positions on this. So, it is 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 basically a water-filled shape, cylindrical, 

2 sort of an elliptical cylinder for the torso 

3 and a circular cylinder for the neck, the head 

4 and arms.

5 But that is really not important 

6 because the location of the tally point where 

7 the dose was calculated was a small rectangule

8 that represented a dosimeter. And one was 

9 placed on the abdomen. One was placed at a 

10 position corresponding to a lapel, even though 

11 it was on the center of the body, not off to 

12 one side. And the third one was on the wrist.

13 And we didn't look at the wrist 

14 because that is really not part of the 

15 correction factor. The correction factor is 

16 the ratio between what the lapel film badge 

17 or, shall we say dosimeter -- it certainly 

18 doesn't have to be a film badge -- the lapel 

19 dosimeter and they're called the abdominal 

20 dosimeter.

21 The abdominal dosimeter is where 

22 the dose should be measured for organs 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 underlying in the abdomen. Because the 

2 procedure that NIOSH uses, the OCAS -- was it 

3 OCAS-1 -- is, if this is the film badge 

4 reading or the dosimeter reading, this is the 

5 dose to the organ.

6 This is based on ICRP-74 

7 calculations, which assume a uniform radiation 

8 field. So, that is the radiation hits the 

9 surface of the body and, then, it hits the 

10 organ, and there is a certain attenuation do 

11 to that.

12 So, to back-calculate and try to 

13 estimate what would have been the reading on 

14 the dosimeter, had the dosimeter been worn on 

15 the abdomen, is appropriate for doing organ 

16 dose. Okay.

17 However, given the geometry, I 

18 believe it is illustrated, if everybody has 

19 the handout that I prepared, if you put your 

20 eye down where that abdominal dosimeter is, 

21 you are looking at that plutonium on edge. 

22 So, the photons coming out of the plutonium 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to traverse the whole or a good portion 

2 of the diameter where it is originating of 

3 that metal before it can get out and hit the 

4 abdomen.

5 Whereas, the lapel dosimeter is 

6 looking down on it, so you have the difference 

7 between 1 centimeter, which is slightly over 

8 three-eighths of an inch vertical thickness, 

9 and like two-and-a-quarter inches in a 

10 horizontal direction.

11 So, it is not surprising that the

12 calculation showed that there was very little 

13 difference because what happened was the lapel 

14 dosimeter is further away, but the photons 

15 undergo less attenuation. And the abdominal 

16 one is closer, but it is more heavily 

17 shielded.

18 So, instead of a difference of 

19 about 2.3, a factor of 2.3, which the Attila 

20 runs produce, this comes out with something 

21 like maybe 1.15, 1.19, depending on which way 

22 you calculate it, and there's very little 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 difference.

2 And, then, they did another run. 

3 This one assumed that a glovebox had sides, a 

4 bottom, and top of stainless steel. It has 

5 very little effect on the problem. It is good 

6 it is there for completeness, but these are 

7 low-energy photons. You aren't going to get 

8 very much scatter.

9 And at the front is all made of 

10 acrylic plastic. Lucite is a tradename, one 

11 of the tradenames for acrylic; Plexiglas is 

12 another one.

13 And there is a front plate that is 

14 vertical, and, then, you go halfway up and it 

15 goes back at about a 30-degree angle, 30-, 45-

16 degree angle with the vertical. So, the 

17 photons penetrate pretty much at right angles, 

18 depending on which way you are going. So, you 

19 have equal attenuation.

20 Then, you sort of say, well, what 

21 if the front of the glovebox is made of 

22 stainless steel? Instead of a quarter inch of 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 plastic, you now have a quarter inch of steel. 

2 Well, first of all, steel is a lot denser 

3 than plastic. Plastic has a density of about 

4 1.2; steel has a density of 8. So, it is not 

5 the thickness, but the mass that matters. You 

6 have much more mass there. And, also, it is 

7 higher atomic number. So, in the low energy 

8 area, it attenuates much more.

9 And the result is that you 

10 actually have a reverse correction factor. 

11 The lapel dosimeter now gets seven or eight 

12 times more dose than the one on the abdomen.

13 So, I am not quite sure, honestly, 

14 why this appendix was provided because it does 

15 not confirm the Attila runs. I think it 

16 actually contradicts them.

17 So, that is basically it. We had 

18 some technical issues. Our associate, Dick 

19 Olsher, who is retired from Los Alamos -- Los 

20 Alamos is where the MCNP code was developed --

21 he was not one of the developers, but he was 

22 highly experienced with using it. He has been 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 teaching a class once or twice a year for many 

2 years. It's called MCNP for the health 

3 physicist, the medical physicist, and the rad 

4 engineer. So, he is thoroughly versed in the 

5 application.

6 He said mostly that the program 

7 was written in such a way that the 

8 calculations were very inefficient. The 

9 report itself, Appendix C to TIB-10, says, 

10 well, it is not really usable because it takes 

11 six days to run.

12 Well, we made some small changes 

13 in the method of calculation which did not 

14 affect the results, but we had very good runs 

15 in three hours. With the heavy shield being, 

16 with the self-absorption of the plutonium, and 

17 if you take that away as sort of your point 

18 source, 20 minutes gave very good statistics, 

19 on the order of 1 percent uncertainty.

20 So, MCNP, in our opinion, is a 

21 very good way to go, provided it is programmed 

22 correctly. The argument for using it is 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 primarily one of transparency. There are 

2 thousands of users of MCNP in the United 

3 States. I know there are about 1,800 beta 

4 testers who are considered sufficiently expert 

5 at Los Alamos who have been testing new 

6 versions that have been developed but not yet 

7 officially publicly released. There must be 

8 many thousands of people who are simply 

9 competent in MCNP.

10 There are probably very few Attila 

11 users. One of the problems being we looked 

12 into it when we first were doing, actually, I 

13 think it was for this TIB, we inquired, well, 

14 you know, we are supposed to review NIOSH's 

15 work. So, can we get Attila? Well, no, not 

16 really.

17 Even though Attila was developed 

18 at Los Alamos, it was turned over to a private 

19 firm. It was sort of a government/industry 

20 partnership. You can't even buy it. You can 

21 rent it at $20,000 or $30,000 a year, 

22 depending on whether you're working for the 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 government or privately. So, this was just 

2 not something that was practical.

3 And, then, usually, that is for a 

4 single user. Everybody in the company would 

5 have to have a separate license who wanted to 

6 use this. So, we still say that we think MCNP 

7 is the appropriate tool to use. It is widely 

8 recognized, widely benchmarked. And if the 

9 runs are properly designed, it can be quite 

10 practical.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Bob?

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I am done.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Bob, did we send 

14 NIOSH the results, the input files and the 

15 results that we put together for our MCNP 

16 runs?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: So that they could 

19 look at that?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, I can. I mean 

21 I didn't. You asked me, can we?

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I asked, did 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, we didn't.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Now I will ask 

4 NIOSH if that would -- I think the problem 

5 here is more in the line of the calculations 

6 supporting the TIB as opposed to, I think when 

7 we did our MCNP run, we basically confirmed 

8 the number that was in the TIB. Is that 

9 correct, Bob?

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. We 

11 originally --

12 MR. MARSCHKE: So, we agree with 

13 the number that is in the TIB.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: It is just a matter 

16 of how we get to that number.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me just give 

18 you -- I won't go on -- give you one detail. 

19 We reviewed this TIB originally in 

20 2006, just about this time of year five years 

21 ago. At that time, we used -- I think MCNP-X 

22 actually wasn't even out -- we used MCNP 5, 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is a parallel version, and with no 

2 substantial differences.

3 At that time, we exactly -- Greg 

4 Macievic of NIOSH was kind enough to furnish 

5 his file or description. Actually, it was the 

6 file, the description of the input, which is 

7 now in Appendix A. We reproduced it, and we 

8 got close to the same number.

9 Now this time we took this file. 

10 First, we reran it and we got the same numbers 

11 that were reported from the MCNP-X. Then, we 

12 removed this plutonium metal and added a 

13 point source, and we ended up with actually a 

14 higher correction factor, 3.3 instead of 2.3, 

15 using this glovebox design, which is different 

16 than the Attila model.

17 So, we were able to confirm it 

18 five years ago. We were satisfied with that.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, I guess the 

20 question is, what needs to be done to close 

21 this issue? I mean we are in agreement on or 

22 we were able to confirm the numbers, the 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correction values that NIOSH has provided in 

2 the TIB. The computer analysis that was 

3 performed to get those numbers is what we are 

4 questioning.

5 When we run MCNP, we confirm the 

6 Attila runs pretty much. We did have some 

7 problems with when NIOSH made their MCNP runs. 

8 But the question is, what needs to be done so 

9 that we can move forward on closing this? 

10 What's the next action item, I guess, here?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the 

12 recommendation at the end was that if -- well, 

13 I think the action item is that all of the 

14 TIB-10 is sort of on hold anyway because of 

15 Findings 5 and 6, which we are not discussing 

16 because they are in progress, which have 

17 actually been kicked up to TIB-13.

18 TIB-13 is actually similar to 

19 TIB-10 in some ways. The issue in TIB-13 is 

20 the angular dependence of the radiation 

21 hitting the dosimeter. That becomes a factor 

22 that was discussed at the previous 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Subcommittee meeting.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: It is on the 

3 schedule here at 11:45 this morning as well.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Good. 

5 Well, the thing is I would say that anything 

6 on this should be deferred until TIB-13 is 

7 settled. That would be my recommendation.

8 DR. ULSH: It seems to me -- and 

9 we just got the response yesterday, so I have 

10 only read through it. I haven't talked to Tim 

11 about it yet.

12 It seems to me that the next 

13 action item, I mean in the way at least that I 

14 read it was SC&A is questioning how we model 

15 the source-term. In Attila, we did a point 

16 source and in the MCNP run we did a plutonium 

17 button, but that seems to be an issue that is 

18 still unresolved.

19 So, it seems to me that the next 

20 action item is for NIOSH to respond the 

21 response that we were just given yesterday.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, on the other 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hand, the number doesn't seem to change, I 

2 mean significantly. I mean the number in the 

3 TIB seems to be appropriate. At least that is 

4 what Steve was saying. I think that is what I 

5 got from your -- you know, you can say 3.3 

6 versus a geometric mean of 2.3, but a 

7 geometric mean, not the geometric standard 

8 deviation. So, it covers a range of values. 

9 Our TIB covers a range of values.

10 Also, 3.3 was with a specific 

11 glovebox design, whereas, it is lower for 

12 other glovebox designs. The TIB covers a 

13 range of glovebox designs.

14 So, I think that the TIB number is 

15 probably sufficient. If we want to move the

16 issue to angular dependence, which I think is 

17 on the scientific overarching issue of this, 

18 then this finding doesn't have to stay open. 

19 Those other two findings are open to keep the 

20 issue there. This finding doesn't stay open.

21 And if the issue is we shouldn't 

22 use Attila anymore, that's done. We have let 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 our license lapse. We never used it enough 

2 that would justify $20,000 a year. So, we 

3 don't use it. We haven't had it for a while. 

4 So, any of this dose modeling will not have 

5 to be done with MCNP.

6 CHAIR MUNN: So, we can at least 

7 make a positive response to the recommendation 

8 that you use MCNP rather than Attila in the 

9 future?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I am saying 

11 we are not using Attila.

12 CHAIR MUNN: You are going to be 

13 using something other than Attila?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: If it comes up, I 

15 mean we are not, you know, like Bob says, yes, 

16 there are people who can run MCNP who, then, 

17 we would have to go engage in a contract, or 

18 actually our contractor would have to engage 

19 in a contract for that specific purpose.

20 We would have to check and see the 

21 feasibility of it. You know, money is always 

22 tight because there is too much to do. And so 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we'll see. We have to see. But we are not 

2 crazy about running these dose calculations, 

3 you know, pure dose calculations anyway.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, I have a 

5 question about the assumptions here. Now, on 

6 MCNP you have an option on what geometry for 

7 the source. Can you use it? You don't have 

8 to have this size plutonium source that you 

9 talked about here?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: No, I believe you 

11 can model whatever source you want to model.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Whatever you want. 

13 And this particular one is one that you had 

14 used, I guess, in a particular case?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it was 

16 probably the plutonium button. It is the 

17 standard size of plutonium button.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but you 

19 wouldn't necessarily always use that?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Not unless we were 

21 -- not for someplace else --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- where we 

2 weren't monitoring the modeling button, right, 

3 or the same size.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it is sort 

5 of appears to me that this button itself may 

6 affect what might otherwise be called angular 

7 dependence. I don't think we want to confuse 

8 the two.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, that is a 

10 separate subject. The angular --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: In other words, if 

12 you did the MCNP with a point source, you all 

13 get the same result, I would assume?

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, you don't 

15 get --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: If we all did it 

17 the same --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we would get 

20 the same --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I may clarify, 

22 the angular dependence here is meant in two 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different senses. In one sense, it is when 

2 radiation hits the film badge --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- it comes at an 

5 angle -- it deposits a different amount of 

6 dose.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. That is a 

8 different issue than the --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know, but 

10 somebody was just saying angular-dependent. 

11 Whereas, it is, also, the angle at which the 

12 radiation is emitted from the plutonium.

13 And also, the point which I didn't 

14 mention, which is in my writeup, is this was 

15 done for the source lying flat. Now, if, for 

16 instance, you simply took that same pancake 

17 and stood it on edge --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- you would get 

20 very different results. Because now the 

21 radiation is coming straight at the abdomen 

22 from the entire face of the plutonium with 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only that 1 centimeter of thickness, and it is 

2 being more attenuated when it hits the lapel.

3 So, it is a very arbitrary choice that was 

4 made of this particular configuration.

5 In my opinion, if I can mention 

6 that, I don't think that it is appropriate to 

7 have this appendix in this TIB.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it has been 

9 suggested, and sounds perfectly reasonable, 

10 that since this material was just provided to 

11 NIOSH, NIOSH have an opportunity to review it 

12 and respond at our next meeting.

13 Is there any problem with that?

14 (No response.)

15 Then, let's do that. We will 

16 continue to have this on our agenda next time.

17 Although it is not on our agenda, 

18 is there any reason for us to visit any of the 

19 other information that was provided with this 

20 one? I think not at this moment. It's 

21 closed.

22 Are any of these recommendations 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for closure new?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, Finding 1 is 

3 a new recommendation.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 1, and what 

5 about Finding 9?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, Finding 1 is 

7 new. It was in abeyance, and we recommend 

8 that it can be closed because NIOSH did 

9 provide in Appendix B, they did provide the 

10 information about the source, the spectrum, 

11 and the dimensions of the glovebox.

12 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Again, I 

13 suspect that that is going to be an easily14 acceptable recommendation, but in both cases, 

15 both 1 and 9, NIOSH needs an opportunity to 

16 look at what you have seen here.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, 9 was a 

18 little puzzling to me when I saw the writeup 

19 in the database because 9 was considered 

20 already closed, but, nevertheless, SC&A was 

21 asked to look at it.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, as long as your 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 confirmation is that it is appropriately 

2 closed, then there should be no --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. No.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's not your 

5 recommendation, right?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. The finding 

7 is that they did not specify, it had not 

8 changed. It was not addressed. Rev. 3 did 

9 not address this finding. We were asked to 

10 see that it did, and, in fact, it did not.

11 CHAIR MUNN: All right. Well, we 

12 will stand by our statement that not only item 

13 8, which we have addressed at length, but, 

14 also, the other items that are involved in 

15 this response will be reviewed by NIOSH and we 

16 will see those back here next time, right?

17 DR. MAURO: This is John.

18 Just for my clarification, on item 

19 1, which was originally in abeyance, is it 

20 SC&A's recommendation for the record that we 

21 are recommending that it be closed?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. I think that 

2 should be part of the record. Now whether or 

3 not the Work Group -- sorry -- the 

4 Subcommittee wants to close it at this time, 

5 it sounds like, no, you would rather wait 

6 until you hear back from NIOSH.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Not on 1.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Not on 1.

9 DR. MAURO: Not on 1? Good. I 

10 didn't hear that.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No.

12 DR. MAURO: I just wanted to get 

13 that clear. Okay.

14 Let me just ask, too, then, with 

15 regard to No. 9, it sounds like it was 

16 originally closed, but now SC&A is 

17 recommending that it be opened. Is that, Bob, 

18 what I am hearing?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I didn't 

20 state that because I was told that it remains 

21 closed. I didn't think it was my place to say 

22 it should be opened. But we were asked to 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 confirm this, and the fact was, no, it was not 

2 answered. So, it is up to the Subcommittee to 

3 decide whether it should be reopened or not.

4 DR. MAURO: Well, do you believe 

5 that SC&A made a mistake in originally 

6 recommending that it be closed?

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't believe it 

8 was SC&A that recommended that.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: John, my 

10 recollection of this situation is that it was 

11 that passage that was supposed to come out in 

12 Rev. 3. It is a recommendation to remove 

13 something. I thought that passage was coming 

14 out in Rev. 3, and apparently it just got 

15 moved to an appendix. So, we will have to 

16 check on that.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For the record, I 

19 reviewed, I held Rev. 2 and Rev. 3 side by 

20 side, and there were absolutely no differences 

21 except for changing a figure, number and 

22 reformatting a table and adding the 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appendices. But in the main body of it, it 

2 was word for word.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: But that is my 

5 recollection of it. I expected it to come 

6 out, and I don't think you will see my 

7 signature on there. I don't review each of 

8 these revisions.

9 CHAIR MUNN: We will close No. 1 

10 and everything else that is on this current 

11 report we are looking at will be reviewed by 

12 NIOSH, and we will have your report next time, 

13 right?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

16 The next item is status of revised 

17 OTIB-29-02. That looks like it is NIOSH 

18 action.

19 DR. ULSH: Well, the latest 

20 response from NIOSH is in the database, and it 

21 was dated on May 28th, 2010. We provided 

22 information on the derivation of the constant, 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the value of which was 8, in the excretion 

2 determination. That has been located. It is 

3 going to be incorporated into the Site Profile 

4 in Section 5.3.1.2, for those of you who are 

5 keeping track.

6 And those factors include the 

7 count time, which was 30 minutes; counting 

8 efficiency, which was 0.5; aliquot volume, 20 

9 mil, and hours in a day.

10 So, the current status is that 

11 this finding is in abeyance. We don't see 

12 where there's anything to be done until that 

13 OTIB is revised, and that response is included 

14 in the revisions. We don't see a change in 

15 the status on this item.

16 CHAIR MUNN: And I don't have the 

17 item in front of me. I assume everyone else 

18 does.

19 Any comment on Brant's response?

20 (No response.)

21 So, where are we?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Can you remind us, 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what was the issue you stated again?

2 CHAIR MUNN: In 29-02? Brant?

3 DR. ULSH: I don't have that 

4 finding in front of me.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, 29 is 

6 internal dosimetry coworker data for Y-12. Am 

7 I not right on that, OTIB-29?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's the 

9 one.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Someone who has the 

11 database up, tell us where we are.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: The 29-02 is "The 

13 ORISE CER database of uranium urinalysis 

14 records for the Y-12 site from 1950 to 1988 

15 was used without questioning the accuracy of 

16 these records. The records were used, despite 

17 the problem pointed out by OTIB-19."

18 And, then, we had --

19 MS. BRACKETT: This is Liz 

20 Brackett. I think I can summarize what this 

21 issue is.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Liz.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. BRACKETT: The concern was as 

2 just stated, and that the document said that 

3 we didn't know how they converted their 

4 results from mass to activity, how they are 

5 recorded in the database. But we have found 

6 the equation, and the issue was putting the 

7 equation into the document and specifying what 

8 all of the variables were and where the 

9 different values came from.

10 So, I believe the action is to 

11 revise the TBD because the coworker study I 

12 think refers to the Site Profile. So, the 

13 action was to put this equation and the 

14 complete explanation of it into the Site 

15 Profile.

16 DR. MAURO: This is John. Maybe I 

17 could take it to the next step.

18 It sounds like that you folks have 

19 agreed that you did need to include a little 

20 bit more descriptive material, so that 

21 everyone could understand exactly how you did 

22 your calculations. You went ahead and made 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those, collected the information necessary. 

2 Was that reported back to the Subcommittee in 

3 a White Paper that says, okay, this is what we 

4 plan to do? Or is that something SC&A hasn't 

5 seen yet?

6 MS. BRACKETT: No, it is not 

7 calculations that we did. This was something 

8 that the site had done previously, prior to 

9 putting the data into their database. And so, 

10 this is just documentation of what the site 

11 did.

12 DR. MAURO: I got you.

13 MS. BRACKETT: And we have sent 

14 it, I have forwarded email messages. Since we 

15 weren't doing a derivation, I had sent this in 

16 an email. I believe it got sent to the Work 

17 Group. Then, the action was just to 

18 incorporate that into the Site Profile.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, in theory, 

20 SC&A and the Work Group have a chance to look 

21 at your plans for incorporating this material. 

22 And if we had and said, yes, it looks like 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they answered the question, at this point in 

2 time we could recommend in abeyance.

3 But I don't know whether or not 

4 SC&A has weighed-in on this. I am really 

5 talking process now. It sounds like you guys 

6 have done your job. Did we have a chance to 

7 weigh-in on that?

8 MR. MARSCHKE: The OTIB or 29-02 

9 is already being shown in abeyance. I 

10 believe, if we go back through the records, we 

11 will find that we have had this discussion 

12 before. I don't know the date. We would have 

13 to go back and check in the records and see 

14 when the change was made to in abeyance. But 

15 the database is showing the last activity that 

16 occurred was that NIOSH gave us on July 16th 

17 of last year a nice writeup and an explanation 

18 of what they intend to do.

19 And probably, if we look at the 

20 transcript of the meetings that occurred after 

21 July 16th, we will see that we discussed this 

22 and we have decided to put in abeyance.
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Now that you are 

2 describing it, I can almost picture the 

3 equation and it is all coming back. Yes, so 

4 now I guess the only question is, did it make 

5 it into a revision and does it say in 

6 abeyance?

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It says in 

8 abeyance. So, that means it has not been, 

9 OTIB-29 has not been revised to include this, 

10 or at least that we have not reviewed a 

11 revised version of it.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: So, essentially, we 

14 have had no action on it?

15 DR. ULSH: Right. The status 

16 hasn't changed.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, there is no 

18 action to be had until they revise the OTIB.

19 DR. ULSH: Well, I would kind of 

20 propose that maybe that not be a carryover 

21 item anymore then. When we have it, when that 

22 revision is done, we will let you know and 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then we can take it up again.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I would think so, as 

3 long as it is in abeyance now. Okay.

4 The next item on the agenda is 

5 OTIB-21, items 2 and 4; action, SC&A.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: SC&A, Ron Buchanan 

7 has looked at the -- I guess we received the 

8 NIOSH response on this some time ago. I think 

9 this has been carried over a couple of times.

10 Issue 2 has to do -- well, I can 

11 read it. "The OTIB was written in a manner 

12 that presents the data in a logical sequence. 

13 However, Section 8 does not provide any 

14 details concerning data contained in table 3, 

15 making reference to OTIB-52 instead. This 

16 could cause confusion or incorrect doses 

17 assignment to construction trade workers, if 

18 the DR expected or automatically-assigned 

19 doses to an unmonitored construction trade 

20 worker that was simply 1.4 times the database 

21 entries in table 2."

22 And, then, there was a back-and-
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forth between NIOSH and SC&A; eventually, 

2 ending with that Ron Buchanan felt that the 

3 issue was closed. SC&A reviewed the recent 

4 data provided and verified that the method 

5 used by NIOSH was correct and claimant6 favorable.

7 So, the SC&A recommendation on 

8 21-02 is to close that issue.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Is there any concern 

10 with that?

11 (No response.)

12 We can show 21-02 closed. Agreed?

13 (Chorus of yes.)

14 Dick?

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Agreed.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thank you.

17 OTIB-21, item 4.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: That, again, is in 

19 a similar situation to 21-02. The issue is 

20 "The assumption that the annual recorded doses 

21 prior to 1961 represented an entire year if 

22 monitoring is not supported. In fact, there 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would have been the normal partial years of 

2 monitoring employment that would make the 

3 average annual recorded dose somewhat less 

4 than the dose that would have been received in 

5 a full 12-month period. The recorded dose 

6 prior to 1961 would need to be adjusted by an 

7 average monitoring period factor, such as 12 

8 divided by 11, if the average employment 

9 monitoring period was 11 months."

10 Basically, again, there was back11 and-forth between NIOSH and SC&A.

12 The most recent NIOSH was "The 

13 majority of the records, 96 percent, 

14 represents single entities (annual totals) for 

15 an individual for given years. There are some 

16 individuals who have more than one record 

17 entry for given years. However, when those 

18 records are integrated, the dose value (for 

19 both penetrating and skin) are zero. Without 

20 knowledge of the time period during which dose 

21 was accumulated, it is not possible to prorate 

22 doses during the period 1943 to 1960. The 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 attached examples and reference documents 

2 described in the CEDR ORNL database provide 

3 further details on this topic."

4 This is the last SC&A response 

5 that we got, and Ron Buchanan did this, was 

6 saying this. "This issue is in progress. 

7 SC&A reviewed NIOSH's response and attached 

8 article. However, the question of how does 

9 NIOSH know that the badging data before 1961 

10 were all for 12 months of exposure and not 

11 from a partial year of badging (i.e., the 

12 employee started or stopped working or changed 

13 jobs) has not been satisfactorily answered, 

14 including badging data with less than 12 

15 months of exposure as yearly exposures in a 

16 coworker's database would slightly decrease 

17 the overall assigned doses. Most likely, this 

18 decrease would be small, but it appears that 

19 there are no data available to sort out the 

20 partial-year from the full-year exposures in 

21 the badging data prior to 1961 from the 

22 information provided.
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 "SC&A did not see that the 

2 attached CEDR ORNL document satisfactorily 

3 addressed this issue."

4 So, we are recommending that this 

5 issue remain in progress. We don't think that 

6 the approach that is being suggested addresses 

7 the partial-year badging.

8 CHAIR MUNN: So, we are awaiting a 

9 NIOSH response to the issue of partial-year 

10 data?

11 DR. ULSH: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I ask a 

14 question?

15 CHAIR MUNN: Please.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just to refresh 

17 memory here, is the partial year based on what 

18 is in the worker's file, like they started in 

19 mid-year or something like that, or is it 

20 simply the film badge record or the dosimetry 

21 record starts, say, mid-year or some fraction 

22 of a year? So, that record is like "X" number 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of years plus so many months? What's the 

2 issue here?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I think the issue 

4 here is this: the CEDR database contains a 

5 number, the annual reported dose. If the 

6 person working, if everybody worked 12 months 

7 of the year, then you have an annual dose from 

8 people who were exposed.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, then, you 

11 sort of characterize the workplace. So, the 

12 95th percentile of people --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, that is part 

14 of the coworker thing?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, it's a 

16 coworker thing.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: All right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a coworker --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, the issue 

21 on the table is, if a number of those doses 

22 are not for 12 months, but are only for six 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 months for some typical exposure or some 

2 unknown number of months of typical exposure, 

3 then you have injected, essentially, these 

4 artificial low numbers in your distribution, 

5 which in some way would drag down the 

6 percentiles. I believe that is the issue. 

7 I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think 

8 that is the issue.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I think, yes, 

10 that's the issue, is basically some of the 

11 numbers that roll up into the coworker model, 

12 you are putting in partial-year doses, where 

13 if somebody received like 1 rem over a six14 months period, that is going in as an annual 

15 dose. It is going in as 1 rem over a 12-month 

16 period.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So, let's 

18 take the extreme and say that everyone in that 

19 Work Group only really worked a half a year. 

20 And you have some number, you have a 

21 distribution. What is being said here is 

22 that, actually, maybe that distribution --
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Could go up.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- is off by a --

3 MR. MARSCHKE: By a factor of two.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, in that case.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. So, 

6 the issue is going to be, to what extent there 

7 are enough of those to significantly alter the 

8 distribution.

9 Although one could argue that the 

10 distribution takes care of the real-life thing 

11 because not everybody for which coworker data 

12 is being assigned may have full years, either.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: And, in fact, by 

14 and large, well, coworker data is used when 

15 you don't have data for the individual.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: By and large, DOE 

18 sites badge the people who are more highly 

19 exposed. And so, you build a distribution of 

20 exposed people to monitor people, and you are 

21 using it for unmonitored people. There are 

22 some exceptions. That is kind of why the 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issue with a lot of this is that sometimes 

2 people who should have been badged and should 

3 have been in the monitored population were 

4 not.

5 So, that is kind of the fly in the 

6 ointment for going too far, but the fact is, 

7 by and large, this probably doesn't matter. 

8 But everything that we do kind of is, well, 

9 are we really be friendly for these guys, 

10 though, people who should have been in the 

11 monitored population and worked a full year? 

12 I mean that is the way the argument is going 

13 to go. I don't know how you play this one 

14 out, to be honest.

15 MR. SMITH: Stu, this is Matt 

16 Smith. Do you want me to add a few points?

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Absolutely. 

18 Somebody who knows something should talk, Matt 

19 Smith.

20 MR. SMITH: On this period before 

21 1961, we have got 59,012 records that are part 

22 of the coworker dataset. When you look at the 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CER summary document, they are quoting that 

2 56,444 records are the annual readings. So, 

3 there is where the 96 percent number comes 

4 from.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I was just 

6 going to say, so is correct when you say that 

7 is their annual reading, that that means they 

8 were employed for 12 months?

9 MR. SMITH: That is as close as we 

10 can get. When we actually go in and 

11 interrogate the records and see what are in 

12 there, what we see typically is a value for a 

13 skin dose, a value for a penetrating dose, 

14 and, then, in some cases other entries.

15 Let me just stop right there. So, 

16 56,444 are just that, a single entry for skin 

17 and deep, and that's it. In some cases, we 

18 have two entries, three entries, and maybe 

19 even more than four. But, unfortunately, what 

20 we see in those extra entries is null data, 

21 zeroes. It doesn't indicate any dose. So, it 

22 does not allow us to pick an end date, a start 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 date, do any prorating.

2 The other point I will make on top 

3 of everything, and this is kind of global for 

4 all the coworker TIBs, is that we do add 

5 missed dose to the measured numbers as well. 

6 So, if there is any deficiency, we are 

7 probably more than making it up on the missed 

8 dose front. At a minimum, we are adding the 

9 maximum number of exchange cycles minus one, 

10 and then taking that times LOD over two. So, 

11 that is the other component that works in the 

12 coworker dose numbers on the final number that 

13 goes into a DR report.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: So, basically, you 

15 are assuming that all the doses received in 

16 one period --

17 MR. HINNEFELD: One badge 

18 exchange.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: -- one badge 

20 exchange period, and all the other -- that 

21 might be a way to figure that in to cover the 

22 -- that may be conservative --
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: -- a say to just --

3 MR. SMITH: We have taken a very 

4 claimant-favorable approach on the missed 

5 dose.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: You are adding the 

7 missed dose for 11 months.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Every cycle.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, every cycle, 

10 for all but one of the cycles of the period. 

11 That might be the argument, to say because you 

12 are filling out for a whole year or for --

13 yes, for the whole year.

14 And so, if somebody was there for 

15 one cycle, they had one badge exchange, if 

16 they have a reading, they must have had at 

17 least one badge exchange.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Correct.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, then, you are 

20 adding in the rest.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Then, you are 

22 adding in the rest as missed dose.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SMITH: Correct.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: I think that is the 

3 argument that would address -- I mean, to me, 

4 that seems like you could develop that 

5 argument and address Ron's concern here, 

6 saying that there are no partial years because 

7 we are filling it in with missed dose.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Certainly, 

9 it ameliorates the situation.

10 CHAIR MUNN: So, NIOSH will 

11 respond?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, we will 

13 provide a response.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. We 

15 will carry that one.

16 The next item on the agenda, 

17 OTIB-51-01, verification a link is complete 

18 and the item is closed. NIOSH?

19 DR. ULSH: Yes, there are a number 

20 of issues, 51-01, 47-02, OTIB-19, that are 

21 simply linking issues. That is dependent on 

22 the database getting up and running. So, I 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean there's no change in that. All we have 

2 to do is verify that the link is complete.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Those are links to 

4 an external document? Is that what you mean 

5 by a link, to a PDF file?

6 CHAIR MUNN: I thought so.

7 DR. ULSH: I think so. Elyse, is 

8 that the case.

9 CHAIR MUNN: I thought so.

10 MS. THOMAS: Yes, that's the case. 

11 The responses and these attachments were 

12 reviewed. Everyone agreed on a path forward 

13 and everything, but we just have to link 

14 those. And so, until the linking 

15 functionality is in the database, that is just 

16 kind of on hold.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

18 MS. THOMAS: That is just a 

19 linking issue, yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Something magic will 

21 happen when the database is complete. All 

22 right.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, Brant, you listed several. 

2 Did you --

3 DR. ULSH: Yes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Aside from 51-01, 

5 what were the others?

6 DR. ULSH: OTIB-47, Finding 2.

7 CHAIR MUNN: 47-02, the next one 

8 on our list.

9 DR. ULSH: OTIB-19, I don't have a 

10 finding number on that.

11 CHAIR MUNN: It may be the entire 

12 OTIB. I don't have a finding number for it 

13 either. Let me see if I can get back to it on 

14 the old list that we have. I can't tell 

15 whether I am going to get there or not.

16 MS. THOMAS: Yes, this is Elyse.

17 I will try to find it as we are 

18 speaking here.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

20 MS. THOMAS: Or as you are 

21 speaking.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I have run out 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of things to say, so we are in real trouble.

2 (Laughter.)

3 I don't see OTIB-19 yet.

4 Steve, are you any better than we 

5 are?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: The database is 

7 slow, very slow.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they are very 

9 slow, indeed.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And I got 19; I can 

11 tell you the name of it, but I don't know what 

12 the --

13 CHAIR MUNN: There it is. Now, 

14 then, let's look at -- I'm showing only one 

15 finding, right?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: I'm showing only 

17 one finding, and it is closed. Maybe that is 

18 why we don't have a number to it, because it 

19 is only one.

20 CHAIR MUNN: That may be. It 

21 makes sense. And since the database is 

22 grinding away for me and not coming up with 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 anything, we may in this case -- there, I have 

2 something.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I have, too. I 

4 don't see where it says anything was being 

5 attached.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Let's see if I can 

7 get the whole thread up.

8 MR. KATZ: What is there to do 

9 here, if it is closed?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we want to make 

11 sure. The question was whether or not there 

12 was some sort of link or whether there was 

13 anything other the closure itself.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the last 

15 entry is a recommendation from SC&A that it be 

16 closed. That is from October of 2008. The 

17 reason that they recommended it be closed was 

18 that our side prepared what is called a 

19 detailed evaluation of the 1,771 coworker 

20 distribution.

21 So, that is too big. That 

22 detailed evaluation is too big to put in the 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 database to complete the database record. You 

2 have to link that analysis then.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: If you see on the 

4 October 1st, 2008, OCAS entry, it says table 2 

5 and then in brackets it says, "See related 

6 link."

7 CHAIR MUNN: That is what we are 

8 waiting for.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that is what 

10 we are waiting on, is that related link.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, the link we are 

12 waiting for is --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: I guess, once the 

14 database is up, we will have to make sure we 

15 get all those links. I mean we have 

16 identified these three. The question is, are 

17 there any others that have links that are --

18 we will have to go back to the Access 

19 database, probably would be the easiest way to 

20 do it, and see if there are any documents in 

21 there. There was only a handful that I recall 

22 that need to be brought over to this SQL 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 database.

2 CHAIR MUNN: And the only reason 

3 we are carrying it is just to make sure that 

4 that link eventually occurs.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: That is my 

6 understanding of it.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Elyse, were you 

9 going to say something?

10 MS. THOMAS: Yes, I've been 

11 keeping track. I think these are the only 

12 ones. There's OTIB-19, OTIB-47-01 and -02, 

13 57-02 and -03.

14 DR. ULSH: Wait. You just said 

15 some that I didn't say earlier.

16 MS. THOMAS: Oh, okay. Sorry. 

17 Yes, OTIB-19, 47-01 and -02, 57-02 and -03.

18 MR. SMITH: Could that be 51 

19 instead, Elyse?

20 MS. THOMAS: No, there is also 

21 51-01.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, 51-01.
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. SMITH: Okay.

2 MS. THOMAS: And Matt Smith has 

3 provided longer responses to 21-02 and -04. I 

4 think those were distributed to the 

5 Subcommittee, but we couldn't put them -- they 

6 were too long to include in the database. So, 

7 those I think would also be links.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Links.

9 MS. THOMAS: But, like I said, he 

10 is going to respond. That is an action item 

11 for next time.

12 CHAIR MUNN: I think perhaps, 

13 Elyse, I may communicate with you to make sure 

14 that the list I have is the same one that you 

15 have, and we will just carry an item of 

16 incomplete links that are the only thing 

17 waiting for some of these items.

18 MS. THOMAS: Yes. Okay. That 

19 would be fine.

20 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I will be 

21 in touch with you about them.

22 DR. MAURO: Wanda, on items like 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this -- this is John -- do we assign these in 

2 abeyance because of the links or closed? How 

3 are we treating these?

4 CHAIR MUNN: They are closed.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 MR. KATZ: This is really strictly 

7 administrative, and we could just deal with 

8 this by sending a notice when the links are 

9 there and not really taking these up in 

10 Committee because it is really administrative.

11 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't intend to 

12 take them up in the Committee once we have the 

13 list intact. But it is a good idea for us to 

14 remember that we still have linking to do. 

15 So, I want to make sure that my list agrees 

16 with the one that Elyse has. We will do that 

17 next time.

18 Although it is a little early, it 

19 seems to me a good time for a break right now, 

20 if that is agreeable with everyone. Let's

21 take a 20-minute break and be back at 10 

22 minutes to the hour.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

2 went off the record at 10:33 a.m. and went 

3 back on the record at 10:51 a.m.)

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. We are 

5 reconvening. It's the Procedures 

6 Subcommittee.

7 Do we have folks back on the line?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Has Mark joined us, 

9 by chance, yet?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: I am back on the 

11 line.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Dick.

13 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Dick.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

15 Still nothing from Mark?

16 MR. KATZ: No Mark.

17 CHAIR MUNN: No Mark.

18 Very good. Our next item that we 

19 have on our agenda is OTIB-70. And my notes 

20 say that both NIOSH and SC&A have been 

21 discussing the two outstanding issues. Which 

22 of you wants to lead off? Where are we with 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 OTIB-70 right now?

2 DR. ULSH: Well, I sent out an 

3 email in advance of this meeting kind of 

4 giving you the status on the two open items, 

5 70-03 and 70-10.

6 Briefly, those deal with 

7 resuspension factors and the decrease in the 

8 activity factor that we assumed at 1 percent 

9 per day. We discussed this pretty extensively 

10 at the last Procedures Subcommittee meeting. 

11 We, NIOSH, agreed to review the approaches 

12 that were questioned by S&CA.

13 Also, a further development 

14 somewhat related is at the last meeting of the 

15 full Advisory Board, the Board referred the 

16 Norton Evaluation Report to the Procedures 

17 Subcommittee because the approaches that we 

18 used in these two findings in OTIB-70 were 

19 also used at Norton during the residual 

20 period.

21 I had said in my email that not 

22 only the Procedures Subcommittee, but SC&A had 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 been tasked to go ahead and evaluate the 

2 Norton ER. But I got an email from John 

3 clarifying that it was not his understanding.

4 MR. KATZ: They were not tasked on 

5 that.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they weren't.

7 DR. ULSH: All right. So, I was 

8 mistaken on that.

9 But, at any rate, this is an issue 

10 that is still undergoing active discussion 

11 between NIOSH and ORAU, and it is not resolved 

12 yet.

13 CHAIR MUNN: One of the questions 

14 that I had with respect to whether or not to 

15 assign the Norton documents to SC&A was 

16 whether it would not be more beneficial to 

17 address the two issues that we have 

18 outstanding before we undertake that.

19 It would seem to me that doing 

20 Norton prior to the time that we have finished 

21 our discussions with these two issues would to 

22 some extent be getting the cart before the 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 horse. We know that the findings are going to 

2 exist beforehand, that these two things, 

3 together with possibly others, have not been 

4 adequately addressed. But I don't know the 

5 feeling of the Subcommittee.

6 Paul?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think you 

8 have got to do Norton because the clock is on, 

9 right? Or, no, you already qualified them; 

10 this is the ER.

11 CHAIR MUNN: They have already 

12 qualified them.

13 DR. ULSH: Yes.

14 MR. KATZ: It's a Board issue.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Well, the 

16 0070 is a Board issue.

17 MR. KATZ: No, but so is Norton at 

18 this point --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

20 MR. KATZ: -- because it has 

21 already been presented to the Board.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: We already have 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Norton, yes. I thought that they were trying 

2 to meet that deadline, but we already have 

3 that.

4 CHAIR MUNN: So, the issue before 

5 us as a Subcommittee is whether to authorize 

6 SC&A at this time to pursue Norton. I was 

7 just saying it seems to me --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, is that our 

9 purview?

10 MR. KATZ: It is your prerogative 

11 to do that. But it seems like if you have 

12 fundamental matters to sort out on OTIB-70, it 

13 doesn't make much sense to send SC&A down the 

14 trail.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It would seem to 

16 me that it would be more efficient if we would 

17 develop what we are developing first.

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And since we know 

20 that Norton has been referred to this 

21 Subcommittee, specifically address Norton in 

22 addition to the general finding. And from 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that point, then, there can be a decision 

2 about whether SC&A should do some additional 

3 work on it.

4 MR. KATZ: Right.

5 CHAIR MUNN: That would seem the 

6 logical process to me as well. Does that make 

7 sense? I'm getting nodding heads.

8 Dick, do you have a position on 

9 this?

10 MEMBER LEMEN: My position is I 

11 was nodding my head. You didn't see it.

12 (Laughter.)

13 MR. KATZ: I saw it, Dick.

14 (Laughter.)

15 DR. MAURO: Stu, this is John.

16 Just a quick question: when we 

17 last discussed this matter, I think there was 

18 conceptual agreement that coupling the 

19 resuspension factor with the rate at which 

20 material declines, for example, this 1 percent 

21 per day, and the various issues that go along 

22 with those parameters being somehow linked, 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and also the fact that when you exhaust air 

2 from a room for your turnover, which 

3 ultimately is one of the mechanisms by which 

4 you remove material from the room, there were 

5 some questions remaining on the degree of 

6 recycling that might take place, whether the 

7 air is being drawn from the breathing zone or 

8 some other location.

9 The reason I bring all this up is 

10 I think we did talk about this. I think that 

11 we all agreed that these types of matters 

12 certainly need to be addressed. And as a 

13 result, that this is the path that is going 

14 forward in your review of OTIB-70.

15 So, I think, at least in 

16 principle, we all concurred that these issues 

17 need to be addressed, and after they are 

18 addressed, there is a very good chance that 

19 there would be substantial revisions to 

20 OTIB-70. And I agree that, then, that may 

21 very well cascade and have an effect on how 

22 Norton would be affected.
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I think there is a process in 

2 place right now where we have identified the 

3 issues, and we all agree that they do need to 

4 be addressed. And I also agree that at the 

5 back end of the process, looking at these 

6 issues in conjunction with Norton and how they 

7 address Norton is probably the sensible and 

8 the most efficient way to proceed.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yes. 

11 Actually, Jim Neton has been engaged in this, 

12 in the TIB-70 issue, a lot more than I have. 

13 But I don't dispute what John said about a 

14 recognition on our part that there needs to be 

15 some reconsideration here.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Then I am going to 

17 note that the issues, the two outstanding 

18 issues, continue in discussion, and until we 

19 have a further report from NIOSH with respect 

20 to where we are going with those two, we are 

21 not going to take any action with respect to 

22 the Norton document.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 If that's agreeable --

2 MR. KATZ: Sounds good.

3 CHAIR MUNN: -- then we will move 

4 on to the tracking responsibility for 

5 overarching issues. I put that in simply 

6 because we have never had a process here in 

7 this Subcommittee for our doing that.

8 And I am not certain where that 

9 responsibility lies. Jim has taken it under

10 his wing to make sure that those issues remain 

11 alive and that they are on his list. But I 

12 have no feel for how those are being tracked 

13 or how we, as a Subcommittee, might from time 

14 to time receive information on them that might 

15 be pertinent to other things that we are 

16 doing.

17 I am open to any suggestions that 

18 anyone might have. I am uncertain as to what 

19 our authority is in this regard and uncertain 

20 as to what our responsibility is in this 

21 regard.

22 So, I am wide open to comment. It 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is something I think we should look at because 

2 we seem to be the focus for most tracking 

3 issues. Certainly, as long as the database is 

4 primarily being used and being peopled by the 

5 work that we do, we should, in my view, have 

6 some connection with these overriding issues.

7 Has anyone else given that any 

8 thought? Yes, Paul?

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the 

10 overarching issues are issues from the point 

11 of view of procedures. I mean they are 

12 procedures that are --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, they are.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- overarching. 

15 So, it seems to me, with that sort of focus on 

16 it, it becomes our purview. It is one that we 

17 have to be cognizant of. So that, if you are 

18 reviewing a particular procedure, and 

19 recognize that it is either already covered or 

20 there's great overlap, you need to be aware of 

21 that. And we have tried to do that, to look 

22 at where the common issues were.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, if there is a master list, I 

2 don't know if it is something that becomes 

3 part of the database or if we just have 

4 somebody keep a master list. Obviously, 

5 NIOSH, it is in their interest to have this 

6 for their own use. I don't know that we need 

7 to be redundant, but we would probably, as a 

8 minimum, want our contractor to have a list as 

9 well.

10 But, from a practical point of 

11 view for NIOSH, what are you doing in this? 

12 Is it something that sort of looks separate 

13 from what we do in terms of procedures review? 

14 Obviously, you are trying to eliminate 

15 redundancy and doing things twice and also 

16 having consistency.

17 DR. ULSH: Wanda, you are accurate 

18 that Jim Neton is tracking this. He has got a 

19 list of, I think it is more than 10 and less 

20 than 20, overarching issues that he is keeping 

21 track of that have come up.

22 And, Paul, you are also accurate 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that, I mean, there are some parallels to 

2 procedures because overarching issues, by 

3 definition, are not site-specific. They apply 

4 to more than one site.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And they usually come 

6 out of procedures or findings that have been 

7 raised.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think some 

9 may have come out of DR review.

10 DR. ULSH: Yes. It is going to be 

11 difficult -- I don't know if I understood 

12 correctly if you are proposing that these be 

13 included in the database. That will be 

14 difficult to do because the database is 

15 document-centric. I mean it is based on a 

16 particular procedure.

17 If you are going to try to tuck a 

18 particular overarching issue into one, tie it 

19 to a procedure, it could maybe be tracked that 

20 way. But as a standalone entity, I don't know 

21 that that would --

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Could we make a 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dummy document called "dummy overarching", a 

2 document called "overarching issues," and then 

3 put all these?

4 Jim Neton, at the last meeting, 

5 Jim listed, or I have a list here from my 

6 notes that he had of the overarching issues.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We have his 

8 slide.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I mean we could 

10 make up some kind of a dummy document, put it 

11 into the database and just call it 

12 "overarching issues." Then, the document 

13 would only be blank or empty and just have a 

14 bunch of issues there.

15 DR. ULSH: I don't know. I would 

16 have to think because this is the first time I 

17 have heard this idea. I would have to think 

18 some more about it.

19 If the Subcommittee decides that 

20 that is the route you want to go, I can take 

21 it back and discuss it with the IT folks and 

22 get kind of their input on whether there would 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be any programming issues with that or things 

2 that I am not thinking of with it.

3 CHAIR MUNN: I can't imagine that 

4 it would need to be the kind of interactive 

5 database that we have now. What I am 

6 suggesting is that we, as a Subcommittee, or 

7 certainly I as an individual, do not have any 

8 way other than checking the Board's most 

9 recent report from Jim as to what the 

10 overarching issues are.

11 DR. ULSH: Right.

12 CHAIR MUNN: And it seems to me 

13 that, since so many of them are developed from 

14 what we do here, it would be beneficial for us 

15 to be able to have instant recourse to 

16 something more cumbersome than checking 

17 minutes to try to see what those things are.

18 Or, if we have suggestions as to 

19 whether or not something should be added to 

20 that list from time to time, that we 

21 communicate those with Jim and make certain 

22 that our list includes that addition.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Yes, Paul?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I was just 

3 going to ask this as a thought question. For 

4 example, let's say that an overarching issue 

5 that we know about is the resuspension issue. 

6 Okay? And there is at least a particular 

7 document, procedure, that deals with that. If 

8 other procedures deal with that, I think what 

9 you look to, I guess, is to make sure they are 

10 either consistent or that they refer to the 

11 parent procedure. Or if you are in a TIB, for 

12 example, or let's say a TBD, a TBD that deals 

13 with an overarching item, that that TBD refers 

14 to the parent document.

15 But how are you tracking this or 

16 how is Jim? Jim has this list of topics. Are 

17 they linked to, okay, this is covered by OTIB 

18 such-and-such?

19 DR. ULSH: No, I don't think so. 

20 It hasn't been developed to that extent. It 

21 is just a list of bulleted items --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right now?
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ULSH: -- of the overarching 

2 issues.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 DR. ULSH: No, I don't believe 

5 that Jim is --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: But, at some 

7 point, to be useful, you have to say, okay, 

8 where is it that we deal with this? What 

9 procedure, what procedures refer to this issue 

10 or make use of this issue?

11 I mean a lot of what you do is 

12 overarching, I guess. How you develop the 

13 coworker models, those are overarching.

14 DR. ULSH: Yes, I'm thinking now, 

15 Paul, it kind of depends on the nature of the 

16 issue, but a lot of times when we develop an 

17 approach to address a particular overarching 

18 issue, it comes out in a TIB.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 DR. ULSH: And, then, I mean 

21 typically there is some examination of that 

22 particular TIB's impact on other TBDs and 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other TIBs.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

3 DR. MAURO: This is John.

4 We sort of had a conversation like 

5 this dealing with, when there is a new 

6 procedure for dealing with a particular 

7 subject, whatever it is, then the question is, 

8 how does that make it into all of the Site 

9 Profiles, the SEC petition reviews? This was 

10 like a process question. What assurance is 

11 there?

12 And the answer was training. That 

13 is, everyone at NIOSH goes through a training 

14 program where all of these new protocols come 

15 into play. When they come into play, everyone 

16 is apprised of these. Of course, during the 

17 QA process, there is a process to make sure 

18 that all of the new dose reconstructions that 

19 are being done, any new updates to a Site 

20 Profile, reflect the latest protocol that is 

21 maybe laid out in a procedure.

22 Now we are really talking about, 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in my mind, the same sort of thing. What we 

2 are saying here is there is a list of 

3 overarching issues that are recurring themes 

4 that come up time and again in different 

5 procedures and in different Site Profiles and 

6 in SEC petition reviews.

7 I envision that eventually there 

8 will be some modifications to either existing 

9 procedures or there will be a new procedure 

10 which will explicitly address the overarching 

11 issue or there will be a series of White 

12 Papers that might come out of DCAS for 

13 consideration by the Subcommittee.

14 So, it is really, when all is said 

15 and done, this is just what we are really 

16 headed toward. We are early on in the 

17 development of some new procedures that will 

18 address what we are calling overarching 

19 issues. And it is going into the process for 

20 review and approval just like every other 

21 document, you know, new procedure that comes 

22 in.
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, I don't think there is 

2 anything special about this, except that 

3 because they are so recurring and we see them 

4 so many times in different places, we give 

5 them a name and we are trying to capture them. 

6 This is a judgment call. What is recurring 

7 so often that we decide to drop it into this 

8 new bucket that we are calling overarching 

9 issues?

10 But I think the process for issues 

11 for the development and closure of it is no 

12 different than what we are already doing.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I think that is 

14 probably true. I just want to know how we, as 

15 a Subcommittee, should be checking, should be 

16 tracking them, because it seems to me that we 

17 should be.

18 DR. MAURO: I think when White 

19 Papers come out, I think the next step in the 

20 process is, you know, well, I guess Steve came 

21 up with a suggestion that I agree with, a 

22 dummy procedure that we capture these that we 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all agree upon are overarching issues, and add 

2 to them as we see them arise. There will be a 

3 judgment call and we would make a 

4 recommendation to DCAS that we think we just 

5 hit another overarching issue, and that makes 

6 it into the tracking system for this dummy 

7 procedure. And, then, track that and its 

8 closure just like we track any other.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu.

10 I would like to suggest that we 

11 worry about this in DCAS. We decide how we 

12 are going to try to phase in. I am not 

13 fundamentally opposed to the dummy document in 

14 an existing database, but given our previous 

15 experience with trying to adapt an existing 

16 database to a new application, I don't think 

17 we need to decide right away if we want to go 

18 down that path. I think we should think about 

19 it, and it might need its own application. It 

20 doesn't sound like a very difficult one.

21 CHAIR MUNN: No, it doesn't.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: But, you know, if 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you build it and all these things use the same 

2 data tables, all the information can be 

3 imported from wherever it comes up into 

4 whatever you build. I would like to suggest 

5 that we worry about it and we will develop a 

6 tracking system for the overarching issues.

7 CHAIR MUNN: And will you tell us 

8 what that is when you develop it?

9 MR. HINNEFELD: No, we're going to 

10 keep it a secret.

11 (Laughter.)

12 We may not have it ready really 

13 quick.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: You know, our 

16 developers are busy on a lot of stuff.

17 CHAIR MUNN: I understand that. I 

18 guess my purpose in putting it on the agenda 

19 today is not to have a fait accompli, but to 

20 have people thinking about it and to be moving 

21 toward some identification of how we are going 

22 to track it. That would be very helpful.
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: One thing. There 

2 was a number of issues that we have 

3 transferred, they were specific for different 

4 procedures that we have looked at. We have 

5 really transferred those to some of the 

6 overarching issues.

7 So, whatever tracking system we 

8 come up with, we have to make sure that it 

9 feeds back to those particular issues that are 

10 currently in the database. There are issues 

11 in the database which this has been 

12 transferred to --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Overarching issues.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- overarching 

15 issues.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: And we have to make 

18 sure that that loop is eventually closed, I 

19 guess.

20 DR. MAURO: In all due respect, 

21 Stu, to your position, I certainly understand 

22 why this is a matter that is within DCAS's 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 purview, but at the same time I think that the 

2 Subcommittee has, as Steve just pointed out, 

3 identified a number of overarching issues that 

4 the Subcommittee is concerned with.

5 I guess separate from the tracking 

6 and methodology of dealing with these 

7 overarching issues, I think that the 

8 Subcommittee also has an interest in tracking 

9 it for its own purposes. So, I mean, I would 

10 say that they both can be done.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think so. And 

12 we will see what DCAS has to say after they 

13 have had a chance to kick it around their 

14 ballpark for a little while.

15 Thank you for taking a look at it, 

16 and let us know what the early thinking is. 

17 Whether that turns out to be the final 

18 solution or not, it is still would be helpful 

19 for you to let us know.

20 The next item, TIB-13, action 

21 status. It is going to be a rewrite of 

22 Findings 3 and 4 from SC&A, and NIOSH was 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to respond on 5, if my notes are 

2 accurate.

3 SC&A?

4 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't believe 

5 that we have done the rewrite, Wanda.

6 Bob Anigstein, are you still on 

7 the phone?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: I know I forgot to 

10 remind you that a rewrite -- I guess at the 

11 last meeting we had decided that we were going 

12 to rewrite the way we responded to a couple of 

13 our responses on TIB-13. Did you get an 

14 opportunity to do that?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, you know, I 

16 have something that I did in January.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: For the January 

18 meeting.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Are we talking 

20 about something subsequent to that?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. At the 

22 January meeting, we discussed what you 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 provided us.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. The 

3 latest I have -- give me one second, Steve. 

4 No, just looking at my folder, the latest file 

5 I have is January 7th.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, there is 

8 nothing.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: We still owe you 

10 that, Wanda.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. You forgot 

12 to tell me about it.

13 (Laughter.)

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: A question on this 

16 one. Is this TIB-13?

17 MR. MARSCHKE: TIB-13, yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: According to my 

20 notes, this is another issue involving Attila 

21 and MCNP.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: It is very similar 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to 10, yes.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: And it is very 

4 similar to an overarching issue --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is between 

6 NIOSH ratios and the SC&A ratios generated by 

7 those two programs. So, it may be similar to 

8 what we did before. I don't recall.

9 There was a geometry issue as 

10 well.

11 CHAIR MUNN: But it is a different 

12 procedure, and therefore --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

14 CHAIR MUNN: -- requires a 

15 different response for both of them. And 

16 apparently, we had -- I will expect that next 

17 time, Bob, okay?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

20 DR. MAURO: And you can't blame 

21 Steve this time, Bob.

22 (Laughter.)
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: No. We have to be 

2 specific here.

3 And with respect to item No. 5, 

4 does NIOSH have a response due?

5 DR. ULSH: I am furiously 

6 scrambling, trying to get in touch with Elyse, 

7 because I have nothing on 13-05.

8 Elyse, do you have any update on 

9 that?

10 MS. THOMAS: No, because, Brant, 

11 that is a DCAS document. It is a TIB, not an 

12 OTIB.

13 DR. ULSH: Darn.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MS. THOMAS: I'm sorry.

16 DR. ULSH: We're in the same boat, 

17 Wanda.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Five was the 

19 geometry issue, although my notes say that 

20 SC&A agreed that the effect was minor.

21 CHAIR MUNN: And my note said 

22 NIOSH had asked for an opportunity to respond.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, my note says, 

2 "Further explanation from NIOSH."

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: We will wait when 

5 we get the transcript and see what the 

6 transcript says.

7 DR. ULSH: I don't question that.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, since at this 

9 moment I am unable to get 5 to come up for me, 

10 I can't even tell you what it is.

11 MS. THOMAS: I can read to you 

12 from the database, if that would be helpful.

13 CHAIR MUNN: If you can read the 

14 database and we can't, that would be 

15 wonderful --

16 MS. THOMAS: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: -- if you would read 

18 us items 3, 4, and 5.

19 MR. KATZ: Well, 3 and 4 --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Three and 4 are 

21 SC&A's to deal with.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay, but they haven't 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 delivered that. So, we don't need to go over 

2 that again, right?

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. And 5?

4 MS. THOMAS: Okay. For Finding 5, 

5 the original finding says, "Some discussion as 

6 to how the assumed worker height and placement 

7 of the dosimeter on the worker was obtained as 

8 well as verification that it creates a 

9 plausible upper bound for the claimant would 

10 benefit the analysis."

11 And, then, the NIOSH response just 

12 says, "Will be added on update. See also 

13 response to Finding 3."

14 And, then, the followup from the 

15 July 26th, 2010, meeting, "The Subcommittee 

16 instructed SC&A to review the NIOSH initial 

17 response and change the status to in 

18 progress."

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Chances are some 

20 things have happened since July --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we just 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't have it in here.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: On January 5th, we 

3 looked at it January 5th.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: The database has 

5 not been updated to -- SC&A provided or Bob 

6 provided some feedback that we discussed at 

7 the July or January 5th meeting --

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: -- that is not 

10 reflected in the database. And at the January 

11 5th meeting, we were going to do some edits to 

12 those responses as well.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And so, we 

14 haven't done anything with them.

15 Now we have come to what we had 

16 scheduled for lunch. I hesitate to do that 

17 this early, although we could and come back 

18 earlier to start the PER reviews, if you wish 

19 to do that. Would you prefer to start looking 

20 at the PERs now and stop in the middle of that 

21 or would you prefer to do them all in one go, 

22 in which case we should go to lunch now, come 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 back, and do the whole thing starting at 

2 12:30, rather than at 1:15? Which would you 

3 prefer, lunch now or lunch whenever we get a 

4 break from the PERs?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: My preference is 

6 to go until noon.

7 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. The 

8 afternoon gets pretty long anyway.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does.

10 MEMBER GIBSON: So, if we break 

11 now, then --

12 CHAIR MUNN: And it is going to be 

13 long. We can almost be sure of it.

14 All right, let's undertake the PER 

15 reviews as they are shown on the agenda, the 

16 first one being PER-008, the modification of 

17 the IREP cancer risk model, the effect of 

18 combined lung model on non-compensable lung 

19 cancer claims.

20 Do you all have that document up?

21 We will wait for a minute or two 

22 to get those documents.
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER LEMEN: Wanda?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

3 MEMBER LEMEN: I am going to have 

4 to play this by ear because my internet has 

5 gone out. So, I can't pull that document up. 

6 I don't know why the internet has gone out, 

7 but it has gone out throughout my whole 

8 system.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good heavens.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: So, I will just 

11 listen, and if I can make a comment, I will, 

12 but I will have to work it that way.

13 CHAIR MUNN: All right. We will 

14 just do the best we can with what we have got 

15 here.

16 Well, my file says it is damaged. 

17 That's always wonderful. There it is. We 

18 have it.

19 Now, John?

20 DR. MAURO: Yes?

21 CHAIR MUNN: We have in our PER 

22 formats here, we don't have an easy way so 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we can go to the findings one by one --

2 DR. MAURO: Okay.

3 CHAIR MUNN: -- and pull them up 

4 and start to talk about them.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay. We are on 

6 PER-008 now?

7 CHAIR MUNN: We are on PER-008, 

8 modification of the IREP cancer model.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay. That is an 

10 interesting one, and I am hoping Hans is on 

11 the line.

12 DR. BEHLING: I am.

13 DR. MAURO: Hans, it sounds like

14 the way we are going to have to go is 

15 summarizing issues one by one and conceptually 

16 explaining it, and, then, we will take it from 

17 there.

18 So, Steve, it wasn't possible to 

19 load this up or you did load it, but you can't 

20 access it? Is that what the problem is?

21 MR. MARSCHKE: It was not possible 

22 to load this up.
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Okay. So, it is just 

2 going ahead and taking it through its steps, 

3 Hans. You've got it.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we all have 

5 access to the original document though.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. The original 

7 document, our full review?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Your full review --

9 DR. MAURO: Okay.

10 CHAIR MUNN: -- is the document 

11 that we have, yes.

12 DR. MAURO: Excellent. Then, Hans 

13 can just reference the particular findings or 

14 sections as appropriate.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely. I 

16 personally am starting on page 5, Statement of 

17 Purpose. And you can go from there.

18 DR. BEHLING: Okay. The Statement 

19 of Purpose is the standard format and really 

20 is the same one that we use almost for every 

21 PER.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I was being 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 facetious, Hans.

2 DR. BEHLING: Let me just give you 

3 some basic background in terms of what this 

4 PER represents. It is somewhat different from 

5 the other ones, and you will see that as I 

6 discuss some of the issues that are contained 

7 in that report.

8 As I talk to you, I will talk 

9 about issues that are described on a specific 

10 page or in a specific table or exhibit, so as 

11 to accentuate some of the things that I want 

12 to talk about here.

13 Actually, I want to go at this 

14 point to page 7, where we talk about subtask 1 

15 that says, "Identify the circumstances that 

16 necessitated the writing of OCAS-PER-008."

17 Currently, if you can just scan 

18 through that page on page 7, you will identify 

19 the fact that NIOSH has been using IREP for 

20 the first several years of dose 

21 reconstruction, and the NIOSH IREP model 

22 incorporates for many cancers a trend of 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 decreasing risk with increasing age for some 

2 cancers, but not for lung cancer.

3 So, what we have in this 

4 particular case is the NIOSH IREP model, which 

5 does not take into consideration the age of an 

6 individual at time of exposure nor the 

7 attained age at time of cancer diagnosis. And 

8 so, the excess relative risk is strictly a 

9 single value that serves as a multiplier when 

10 coming up with the PoC value.

11 As it turns out, approximately in 

12 2003, the National Cancer Institute 

13 substantially updated the NIH IREP lung model. 

14 As a result of that update, some 

15 modifications were made.

16 In the revised NIH IREP lung 

17 model, the excess relative risk is adjusted 

18 for aging exposure up to the age of 30 and at 

19 the age of diagnosis up to the age of 50. So, 

20 it does make some adjustments, depending on 

21 what the person's age was at the time of the 

22 exposure as well as the attained age for the 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cancer diagnosis. But it stops at the age of 

2 50 for cancer diagnosis.

3 And due to the fact that these two 

4 particular models now existed, and due to the 

5 commitment that NIOSH has to mandate the 

6 reevaluation of advances in scientific 

7 knowledge, NIOSH looked at the NIH IREP model 

8 and realized that there were significant 

9 differences.

10 So that, when you entered the same 

11 set of data for a given cancer claim, lung 

12 cancer claim, into the NIOSH IREP versus NIH 

13 IREP, they produced significantly different 

14 PoC values. I guess in around 2004, the 

15 people at SENES were asked to look at that and 

16 provide detailed information that relates to 

17 what were the differences in those two 

18 particular models and provide a comparison.

19 As a result, the report by 

20 Apostoaei and Trabalka in 2004 provides some 

21 of the differences for those two particular 

22 IREP models. I included those in Exhibit 1, 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 which is on page 9 of the report.

2 And there are three tables in 

3 total. Tables 2, 3, and 4 are directly taken 

4 from that particular 2004 report issued by the 

5 SENES.

6 I hope that your printout also 

7 shows the differences in color between the NIH 

8 IREP model and the NIOSH model. In my copy, 

9 they appear in blue ink and red ink. I don't 

10 know if that will show up on your computer.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we have them.

12 DR. BEHLING: Okay. There are 

13 also differences between, the tables show 

14 differences for acute exposure as well as 

15 chronic exposure. Just for an overview, I 

16 want to point to the acute exposures on the 

17 lefthand side.

18 If you look, the first table 

19 identifies a person who was exposed at age 20 

20 and was diagnosed with lung cancer at age 40. 

21 And NIH IREP is much more favorable for all 

22 profiles other than the acutely-exposed non-
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 smoker. So, that was one of the key 

2 differences.

3 In table 3 of Exhibit 1, however, 

4 we show that for exposures at age 40 and 

5 diagnosis at age 60, the NIOSH IREP model is 

6 more claimant-favorable for the non-smoker and 

7 select profiles of light smokers.

8 And lastly, in table 4 of Exhibit 

9 1, you will see higher PoC values for the NIH 

10 IREP model for all profiles other than those 

11 involving the never-smoker.

12 So, in essence, you see situations 

13 where the IREP model defined by the NIH people 

14 gives you higher PoC values. And conversely, 

15 there are other profiles for which the NIOSH 

16 IREP model gives you higher PoC values.

17 And of course, that posed a 

18 dilemma because, by the time the PER was 

19 issued, we had already, obviously, had many, 

20 many lung cancers adjudicated that were based 

21 on the original NIOSH IREP model. And so, it 

22 became a situation where a decision needed to 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be made.

2 And the recommendation by SENES, 

3 who had provided us with this particular 

4 comparison, was to either update the NIOSH 

5 IREP model or simply ignore the NIOSH IREP and 

6 defer to the NIH model. But that also would 

7 mean that certain cancers would be, certain 

8 profiles would actually have a lower PoC 

9 value.

10 A third suggestion that was 

11 offered by the SENES people was for NIOSH to 

12 seek the opinion of outside experts regarding 

13 the use of either one or both models. And as 

14 it turns out, NIOSH contacted several people, 

15 and I am talking here about people who are 

16 identified on the bottom of page 10 and 

17 subsequently in page 11.

18 These people included David 

19 Brenner, who is a Professor of Radiation 

20 Oncology and Public Health at Columbia 

21 University; Dr. Richardson, who is now a Board 

22 Member; Faith Davis and Jonathan Samet.
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It seemed as if there was general 

2 consensus that perhaps the best thing to do is 

3 to really run both models and use the higher 

4 PoC value. Whichever model can generate a 

5 higher PoC value, use that for the 

6 adjudication of the claim.

7 Let me skip over to subtask 3, and 

8 that gives the summary of the PER as it 

9 affected those individuals who might be now 

10 affected when both systems are run or both 

11 models are run simultaneously.

12 If you look briefly on page 12, 

13 you will see that, based on the fact that 

14 NIOSH could not really determine how a given 

15 PoC value might change, they elected to assess 

16 all potential lung cancers that had been 

17 adjudicated up to that point in time with less 

18 than 50 percent PoC value. That number turned 

19 out to be 920 claims that met that particular 

20 criteria.

21 Of the 920 claims, 729 involve 

22 single cancer claims and 191 claims 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 represented two or more cancers, of which lung 

2 was at least one of the claims.

3 The evaluation also showed that, 

4 of the 920 claims, a total of 95 claims, now 

5 when both models were run, 95 claims of the 

6 920 claims yielded higher PoC values due to 

7 the inclusion of the second lung model, the 

8 NIH lung model. And there were also four 

9 different claims that benefitted from 

10 inclusion of a bias correction factor that was 

11 also incorporated. Those particular 

12 statistics are cited in table 1, which is 

13 given on page 13 of my report.

14 To go a step further, of the 99 

15 claims that now have a higher PoC value as a 

16 result of running both models concurrently and 

17 selecting the one with the higher PoC value, 

18 there are only 80 of the 99, only 11 claims 

19 actually showed a higher PoC value that was 

20 greater than 45 percent. That was the cutoff 

21 point for going beyond the cursory evaluation.

22 And as it turns out, among the 11 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claims, most of those were obviously maximized 

2 doses. Initially, they were maximized doses, 

3 which, as a result of this reevaluation, had 

4 to be redefined in order to become more 

5 realistic and using a best estimate approach.

6 To come to the bottom line, and I 

7 show this in Exhibit 2, it is that, of the 

8 original claims, only claim No. 3 and claim 

9 No. 9 of the original 920 claims that 

10 represented the universe of claims were 

11 potentially impacted, that had been 

12 potentially impacted by PER-008, were now 

13 compensable. You can look at this particular 

14 two cases in table 2 on page 13.

15 The claim No. 3 was initially a 

16 best estimate. The initial PoC value of 46.14 

17 percent was converted to 50.05 percent with 

18 the extensive modeling using the second model 

19 for assessing this one. So, in that case, 

20 claim No. 3 was converted to a compensable 

21 claim because it exceeded 50 percent.

22 The other claim is No. 9, which 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was originally an overestimate, estimated as 

2 an overestimate at 44.6 percent. But, after 

3 reworking it, it ended up with a PoC of 52.08.

4 So, of the original 920 claims 

5 that were the universe of all claims that had 

6 to be reevaluated with the current models, 

7 only two actually received PoC values that now 

8 exceeded 50 percent and were now compensated.

9 As was already pointed out, I did 

10 not really talk about specific issues because 

11 there were certain things here that didn't 

12 really qualify for the standard format 

13 involving findings or issues that we have used 

14 in previous assessments of PERs. So, what I 

15 am about to talk about is something more of a 

16 subjective nature. So, I am at this point 

17 really coming down to the Section 4.1, where I 

18 had identified general comments regarding 

19 these two models.

20 And as I had already mentioned, 

21 when we compare the NIOSH IREP to the NIH 

22 IREP, the difference is that the NIOSH IREP 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 does not concern itself with either the age of 

2 an individual at time of exposure not the 

3 attained age of the individual when he was 

4 diagnosed with cancer.

5 In contrast, the NIH IREP model 

6 does, in fact, consider the age of exposure up 

7 to the age of 30 and up to the age of 50 for 

8 the age of cancer diagnosis. In other words, 

9 when we look at NIH IREP model for a given 

10 attained age, the excess relative risk 

11 decreases exponentially between ages of 

12 exposure between 15 and 30, but is a constant 

13 above this age interval. Similarly, for a 

14 given age of attainment, it decreases with age 

15 up to the age of 50. After that, the risk is 

16 essentially a constant.

17 Let me also briefly point out, 

18 just so that we can cover some of the pages 

19 here, what we did or what I did here was to 

20 actually verify some of the data that was 

21 presented in the 2004 report by the SENES. 

22 Those you will see as Exhibit 4 on page 15.
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 What I did was to actually go in 

2 there and say, okay, let's make sure that at 

3 least we have a confirmation of those numbers 

4 since they appeared in the original 2004 SENES 

5 report. We used the 50-rem exposure at age 20 

6 and we also, then, ran the PoC calculation. 

7 And as you see, if you compare at the very 

8 bottom of that page 15, you see the 99 

9 percentile value of 53.75 percent, which, 

10 actually, then matches the value, as was 

11 indicated in Exhibit 1, which was numbers of 

12 Probability of Causation generation by the 

13 SENES. So, we verified those numbers.

14 However, we also realized that 

15 that was a constant and did not include 

16 uncertainty as you would normally have to 

17 include. So, when you look at Exhibit 4, the 

18 same values that I have introduced in Exhibit 

19 3, when you add to that an uncertainty, 

20 actually, the PoC value goes from, the 99 

21 percentile PoC value goes from 53.75 percent 

22 to 61.44 percent. That would probably be the 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more realistic value. Anyway, what we did, 

2 then, was to verify the fact that the original 

3 SENES report contained numbers that we were 

4 able to verify.

5 Going to the next section, 4.2 on 

6 page 17, I briefly discussed what my concerns 

7 were under the heading of "Limitations and 

8 Issues Regarding OCAS PER-008".

9 The opening statement I made is 

10 that the key limitation to SC&A's evaluation 

11 of OCAS-PER-008 is the fact that, for this 

12 reviewer, IREP remains essentially a black 

13 box. And what I mean by that is you can, 

14 obviously, put in your variables to define a 

15 PoC value, but you really do not have a full 

16 understanding of what the mathematical 

17 equations were that generated those particular 

18 numbers. That is saying it was never asked to 

19 look at either per se, and at this point all 

20 that we can say in behalf of our effort here 

21 is that we were able to reproduce the numbers 

22 that SENES generated, but beyond that we 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 really don't have any way of verifying that 

2 the actual mathematical equations as defined 

3 by Charles Lang in his 2003 and 2002 reports 

4 were actually met.

5 So, it is a conditional statement 

6 that we say that the 11 claims that were part 

7 of the final evaluation were probably 

8 correctly chosen, but it is a conditional 

9 statement because we really don't know what 

10 goes on in IREP because for us it is really 

11 just nothing more than a black box that 

12 generates an output for given inputs.

13 But the real concern is one that 

14 goes one step further between what is the IREP 

15 output generated for us, and that is discussed 

16 briefly in Section 4.3. I want to really 

17 spend as much time on that particular issue as 

18 anything else.

19 When you look at a PoC 

20 calculation, and it is defined, obviously, in 

21 40 CFR Part 81, you have a very simple 

22 equation that says the PoC is nothing more 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than a simple ratio in which the numerator is 

2 the radiation risk and the denominator is 

3 defined by the radiation risk plus the 

4 baseline risk.

5 From this simple equation, you 

6 realize that the PoC is not only driven by the 

7 organ dose, but also by the baseline cancer 

8 risk that defines a specific cancer. In this 

9 case, we are talking about lung cancer.

10 And it is also defined, and, of 

11 course, baseline risk is usually defined by 

12 attained age. And everyone knows that one of 

13 the principal risks for cancer is really age. 

14 As people increase in age, the cancer risk 

15 increases exponentially after the age of 40-

16 45.

17 And as I have already said, the 

18 NIOSH cancer risk model, lung cancer risk 

19 model, really does not address either the age 

20 at exposure not the attained age of cancer 

21 diagnosis.

22 And so, what I did was to 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially look at this and say, why is it 

2 that, if you go back to Exhibit No. 1, and I 

3 maybe want to ask you to go back to Exhibit 1 

4 because I want to demonstrate a point here, 

5 Exhibit 1 was back on page 9.

6 If you look at the three tables, 

7 and the three tables are defined by a person 

8 who is exposed at age 20, diagnosed at age 40 

9 with lung cancer, that's table 1. Table 2 is 

10 a person, a male person, who at age 40 is 

11 exposed and 20 years later is diagnosed with a 

12 lung cancer. And table 4 is, again, a person 

13 who is age 20, but instead of 20 years later, 

14 he is diagnosed with lung cancer at age 40.

15 And when you look at the tables, 

16 the three tables and compare the Probability 

17 of Causation for a person such that he would 

18 be exposed age 20, age 40, and diagnosed at 

19 age 40, 60, you realize the numbers remain a 

20 constant, which means that, somehow or other, 

21 the probability of a cancer, of having 

22 received dose that resulted in a radiation-
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 induced cancer obviously is a highly variable 

2 because you realize the baseline risk for lung 

3 cancer rises dramatically.

4 And so, what I did was to take, 

5 and just for comparison, identify in my 

6 analysis on page 18 two individuals. 

7 Individual one is exposed at age 20 and 

8 diagnosed at age 40. Individual two is 

9 exposed at age 40 and diagnosed at 60. 

10 Basically, nothing more than a shift of 20 

11 years between exposure and diagnosis.

12 And when you look at the actual 

13 baseline risk for those two individuals, and 

14 those are defined in Exhibit No. 5, which is 

15 on page 19, and it is small print, but I am 

16 going to try, actually, to look at this.

17 In this incidence data for lung 

18 incidence for 2009, you will see for a person 

19 who is diagnosed between age 40 and 44, and we 

20 are talking about a male and all races, and 

21 you realize that the incidence, the baseline 

22 cancer incidence rate for a person between age 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 40 and 45 is 10 cases per 100,000 individuals.

2 If you, then, go to the person who 

3 is diagnosed at age 60, his baseline cancer 

4 risk, again, if you go into the -- let's see, 

5 column 1, 2, 3 -- the third column goes from 

6 10 per 100,000, it now goes to 208.4 per 

7 100,000. In other words, almost a 21-fold 

8 increase in cancer risk. That is strictly 

9 driven by the fact that a person at age 60 is 

10 21-fold higher risk of having a lung cancer.

11 So, when you go back to the 

12 equation of PoC, and you can now compare the 

13 two, you realize that per unit dose our PC 

14 calculation using NIOSH IREP would suggest 

15 that, for a common dose of 50 rem, received at 

16 age 20 versus 40, the 40-year-old person would 

17 have a 21-fold higher risk of cancer induction 

18 by a dose of 50 rem as opposed to the 20-year19 old. This would basically, then, comply with 

20 the PoC calculation as it is generated in 

21 Exhibit 1.

22 When I looked at that, I looked at 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other documentation to see if there was any 

2 evidence that would suggest that the actual 

3 cancer risk, as a function of the age of 

4 exposure, would really be something that is 

5 supported by the scientific literature. And 

6 there are some documents that do suggest, and 

7 in fact, Dr. Brenner had written a few 

8 articles that would suggest perhaps there is a 

9 small increase in the risk per unit dose of 

10 cancer as a function of exposure age. But it 

11 would certainly not support a 21-fold 

12 difference.

13 And in fact, when I looked at the 

14 BEIR 7 report, they evaluated in the BEIR 7 

15 report, and I am now on page 20 of my writeup, 

16 they made a few comments. They evaluated the 

17 total of 17 different models, and including 

18 the NIH model. They came away with the 

19 statement, and I read about two-thirds of the 

20 page down, the BIER VII states, "A recent 

21 analysis conducted for the purpose of updating 

22 radioepidemiologic, NIH 2003, the NIH 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 evaluated models of the form indicated above, 

2 but the ER was allowed to vary only over a 

3 limited range of exposure ages or attained 

4 age."

5 As I mentioned before, that model 

6 really only allows the age of exposure up to 

7 30 and the attained age at time of cancer 

8 diagnosis up to the age of 50. After that, it 

9 is a constant. So, it really doesn't address 

10 the major shift in the baseline cancer risk.

11 And when you go back to Exhibit 5, 

12 which is on page 19, and just look down the 

13 column, the third column, as the baseline 

14 cancer incidence for lung cancer increases, as 

15 I said, at age 40 it is 10 per 100,000, at age 

16 45 to 49, it is 26. As I said, we will skip a 

17 couple. I have already identified at age 60 

18 that, based on cancer risk goes to 208 or 21-

19 fold higher than the age at 40, and it 

20 continues to climb. Obviously, at age 80 to 

21 84 or 94, whatever that is, it goes up to 

22 441.7. That is the last entry.
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And so, one has to realize that 

2 the risk per unit dose of radiation, it is 

3 going to be affected by the attained age, 

4 mainly because the baseline changes 

5 significantly. So, the PoC would have to 

6 reflect that, as suggested in the equation 

7 that defines PoC.

8 Let me go back to a table that is 

9 identified in the BIER 7. The BIER report has 

10 its own model. If you look at Exhibit No. 6 

11 on page 21, you will see that under the 

12 heading of "Males", this is lifetime 

13 attributable to the cancer incidence. This 

14 table reflects a single acute exposure of 10 

15 rem.

16 If you look at lung cancer, which 

17 is one, two, three, fourth row from under the 

18 males, you will see a change of lifetime risk 

19 for a single dose of 10 rem. And if you look 

20 at the age 20, the lifetime risk is 149 

21 cancers per 100,000 individuals. If you go to 

22 age 40 at exposures, that number is reduced to 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 104, and so forth.

2 If you follow the column over to 

3 the righthand side, you see an ever-increasing 

4 number of cancers as a function of age at 

5 exposure. This is what you would really 

6 expect, mainly because a person of older age 

7 would have fewer years to develop cancer. So, 

8 as a function of time at exposure, age of 

9 exposure, that number should decline.

10 And this, obviously, is very much 

11 in contrast with the NIOSH IREP model, and 

12 less so, but still so, with the NIH IREP 

13 model. And so, what I concluded was perhaps 

14 both models are conservative. In other words, 

15 we are generating PoC values that are perhaps 

16 unrealistically high and perhaps compensated 

17 people that under more realistic conditions or 

18 models would have probably received a PoC 

19 value that is below the 50 percent value.

20 That, in my final statement, is 

21 something that was raised and reviewed by Dr. 

22 Lewis Wade. And he raises the question as to 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the number of compensable lung cancers that, 

2 it seems to him at the time of his review, 

3 seems to be disproportionate.

4 At this point, I would be willing 

5 to say we need to look at this and open it up 

6 for discussion as to whether or not at least 

7 NIOSH IREP is a overly-conservative model, and 

8 perhaps even NIH IREP is excessively also 

9 conservative in assigning higher PoC values 

10 than perhaps the BEIR 7 model would suggest.

11 So, I will turn the discussion 

12 over to NIOSH and have their response.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can offer 

14 this: I do know that Dr. Richardson, who is 

15 the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Scientific 

16 Issues, just formed at the last meeting, has 

17 age at exposure on the list of things that he 

18 wants to look at. So, it is a broader issue 

19 than this one PER. So, that is a sort of a 

20 scientific issue that is already there.

21 The attained age question, as I 

22 understand it, seems to be a result of, 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 essentially, the fact that NIOSH IREP doesn't 

2 adopt attained age, doesn't allow for attained 

3 age, is I believe a function of the selection 

4 purely excess relative risk as the increased 

5 risk from radiation exposure.

6 The excess relative risk means 

7 that this radiation exposure provides this 

8 excess relative to your risk anyway. And so, 

9 that is why the attained age will not have an 

10 effect, because you are strictly using ERR. 

11 If you use excess absolute risk or some 

12 combination of factors in some fashion between 

13 excess relative and excess absolute risk, in 

14 that case the attained age would be very 

15 pronounced in the calculations.

16 So, to me, I know the Science 

17 Subcommittee is interested in it or the

18 Chairman is. I suspect it is going to go 

19 there.

20 Jim, I know, Jim Neton is aware 

21 that the issue is kicking around out there, 

22 not just because of the science team, but 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because of other things.

2 And so, in my humble opinion, it 

3 is sort of irrelevant as to whether PER-008 

4 did what it was supposed to do. And the 

5 issue, I don't think it will be dropped 

6 because I really confident that Dr. Richardson 

7 is interested in pursuing that question with 

8 respect to IREP in general, the IREP function.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Question, in the 

10 simplistic formula that is used to make the 

11 calculation that Hans was just talking to us 

12 about, is the basic risk figure the basic risk 

13 for all individuals or is it the basic risk 

14 factor for smokers?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Which are you 

16 talking about?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Back on page 18.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Are you talking 

19 about the incidence? I don't know.

20 Hans, do you know that?

21 DR. BEHLING: Let me see. Where 

22 are we here, 18?
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: This is, do you 

2 mean 19, incidence data? Or which number are 

3 you talking about?

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: The rad risk value 

5 for lung cancer, I think you are asking about, 

6 right?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Correct. The 

8 rad risk over rad risk plus the baseline risk. 

9 My question is whether the baseline risk that 

10 is used in that calculation is a baseline risk 

11 for all individuals or is it a baseline risk 

12 for smokers?

13 DR. BEHLING: Wanda, I am talking 

14 about this report for 2009. It involves males 

15 of all races. In other words, it probably 

16 includes not only the different individuals 

17 from ethnic backgrounds, but also smokers and 

18 non-smokers. It wasn't really there to give 

19 you an absolute number. But it is just to 

20 show you that, when you talk about baseline 

21 risk, it advances exponentially after the age 

22 of 40. As I showed here, between the age of 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 40 versus 60, you have a 21-fold increase in 

2 the baseline risk.

3 And what that would suggest is 

4 that, if we were to come to the understanding 

5 that the PoC value as calculated currently 

6 under NIOSH IREP were to be true, we don't 

7 have to realize that a person who is exposed 

8 in the nuclear environment at age 40 is 21-

9 fold higher at risk for developing a cancer 

10 than the person at age 20.

11 I don't believe our current 

12 regulations that allow for dose limits would 

13 necessarily agree with that assumption, that a 

14 40-year-old person in a nuclear environment is 

15 21 times higher in risk for a given dose of 

16 radiation than a 20-year-old.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, now, Hans, I 

18 was wrong. I think Wanda was asking about the 

19 previous page, the PoC calculation on 18, page 

20 18. That is the standard formula for 

21 Probability of Causation.

22 IREP treats smokers and non-
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 smokers differently. In fact, it treats --

2 there are several categories of smokers, 

3 depending on how much they smoke. So, that is 

4 the general formula, and I don't know exactly 

5 how the smoking adjustment is made. I think I 

6 could find out. But, sitting here today, I 

7 don't know.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it isn't 

9 necessary. It is purely an academic question.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: But that 

11 calculation for lung cancer in IREP is done 

12 according to the smoking category: never 

13 smoked, former smoker, light, and, then, 

14 there's like, I think, three categories of 

15 current smokers.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, it may have a 

17 different baseline for each of those?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The easy way to 

19 think of it is that the baseline risk will be 

20 different for each of those.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I also ask, 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Hans -- this is Ziemer -- on that example on 

2 page 18, is this one where you took, the dose 

3 is all given the first year of the 20-year 

4 period?

5 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it was an acute 

6 exposure.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, got you.

8 DR. BEHLING: Just to simplify 

9 things --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Sure. I 

11 understand.

12 DR. BEHLING: -- I took the 

13 simplistic model for showing the difference.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Yes.

15 DR. BEHLING: That is, a single 

16 50-rem exposure --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. BEHLING: -- much like you 

19 would expect in a criticality accident where 

20 you had two workers; one was age 20 and the 

21 other one 50. And miraculously enough, 20 

22 years later each of them was diagnosed with a 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lung cancer and, then, coming up with some 

2 Probability of Causation that would suggest 

3 that the 40-year-old exposed individuals had, 

4 in essence, a 21-fold higher risk for lung 

5 cancer, based on the PoC that we calculated.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now these are just 

7 hand calculations here, correct?

8 DR. BEHLING: Well, it is a 

9 simple --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, right. If 

11 you plugged the same numbers into IREP and 

12 assumed the acute situation --

13 DR. BEHLING: Yes, but the IREP 

14 number is the one you see there of 53.75 

15 percent. It is the one that comes out of the 

16 table at Exhibit 1. If you go to Exhibit 1 --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I got you.

18 DR. BEHLING: -- you will see that 

19 number.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So, you are 

21 saying the IREP number is the same?

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes. If you look at 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Exhibit 1 on page No. 9, you will see for the 

2 never smoker who is exposed at age 20 and 

3 diagnosed at age 40, 53.75 as the PoC value. 

4 That same number applies in table 3 of Exhibit 

5 1, which is a 40-year-old who is diagnosed at 

6 age 60, and it is the same PoC, 53.75 percent. 

7 That was the whole intent of including 

8 Exhibit 1 that shows you have a constant PoC 

9 value regardless of age of exposure.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you. Okay. 

11 Thank you.

12 DR. BEHLING: And as I said, I 

13 went through the literature. I have read all 

14 kinds of different reports and journal 

15 articles that do suggest that there might be a 

16 slight impact on age of exposure that tends

17 to, per unit dose, tends to raise the risk of 

18 lung cancer, put you in a dose as a person 

19 advances by age, but nothing close to the 

20 numbers that I generated here as my 

21 illustration or example.

22 And it certainly is not supported 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 by the BEIR Committee in their report.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, all I can 

3 say is I know it is, this question, this 

4 technical question, will be actively 

5 considered by the Science Subcommittee, the 

6 Science Issues Subcommittee, and, that is, you 

7 know, the outcome of PER-004.

8 The outcome of that discussion 

9 will affect the operation, if it affects 

10 anything, it will affect how IREP runs. IREP 

11 has always run the way it runs now.

12 So, not just lung cancer cases, 

13 theoretically, but everything run so far would 

14 be affected by some sort of change with 

15 respect to either attained age or age of 

16 exposure.

17 And so, to me, for the specific 

18 purposes of PER-008, it is not really a 

19 relevant issue. Although I am not saying it 

20 is not a relevant issue in general, I am 

21 saying it is not relevant to PER-008.

22 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and I didn't 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to get into that, but I have looked at 

2 several cancers, and the same problem exists 

3 for others, including lymphomas.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John.

6 So, what we really have is a 

7 bifurcation here. One is that we are 

8 basically reinforcing, through this just 

9 through happenstance, and reviewing this 

10 particular PER, we ran into this issue, which 

11 sounds like to be one of the more universal, 

12 global concerns to many people. And it is 

13 under investigation.

14 But with respect to the PER itself 

15 and our review, it sounds like we have a 

16 favorable review. In other words, did we find 

17 anything about the protocols that they are 

18 adopting, notwithstanding this fundamental 

19 issue were, in fact, performed appropriately. 

20 I guess, do we have issues that we think need 

21 to remain open other than this overarching 

22 issue?
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: No. As I concluded 

2 on page 24, and I have stated conditionally, 

3 and I will read it.

4 "The selection of the samples that 

5 aren't affected by OCAS PER-008 for audit by 

6 SC&A may at this time be premature." because 

7 of the issues that I just raised.

8 On the other hand, in my second 

9 paragraph I say that, "On the assumption that 

10 the Subcommittee may dismiss SC&A's concern 

11 and accept OCAS-PER-008 in its present state, 

12 the selection of DRs for audit is limited to 

13 the following eight claims." And I explain 

14 why claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 

15 would be the ones that should be selected for 

16 review, should be simply accepted in PER-008 

17 in its present form without further concern.

18 DR. MAURO: So, what I am hearing, 

19 Wanda, is SC&A's recommendation is that there 

20 are no issues other than the overarching 

21 issue, and it is up to the Subcommittee 

22 whether you would like to direct us to do any 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 case studies, you know, the ones that Hans 

2 just pointed out.

3 Or is that something that we leave 

4 to the DR Subcommittee. I know that selection 

5 of cases for -- because we are really not 

6 finished until we actually go through the 

7 exercise of checking cases. So, I guess that 

8 is where we are in the process.

9 CHAIR MUNN: In my mind, that part 

10 of our overview is very distinctly in Mark's 

11 Subcommittee.

12 MR. KATZ: The one thing that this 

13 Subcommittee decides is whether you need to 

14 select cases or not.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. KATZ: Because in some PERs 

17 there is really not a lot of value to be 

18 gained by selecting cases and running them. 

19 And we have decided that at least on one PER 

20 already --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: -- not to bother.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: So, that is in these 

3 hands. But, then, if you decide you want to 

4 check cases, that is when the DR Subcommittee 

5 picks up the ball and does that selection.

6 CHAIR MUNN: As I said, that is 

7 clearly their job to do.

8 DR. MAURO: Let me ask Hans, Hans, 

9 based on your identification of those cases --

10 and we really didn't talk about this -- it 

11 means that there is something of benefit here 

12 to actually reviewing some of the cases or --

13 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and, John, this 

14 will not really be affected by whether or not 

15 NIOSH IREP or NIH IREP generated that number. 

16 Because most of these cases, as I have 

17 pointed out, of the 11 cases, if you go back 

18 to -- where is the table? Most of these were 

19 maximized doses initially.

20 And so, what we were positing, 

21 auditing more so than anything that involves 

22 IREP, because, as I mentioned before, IREP is 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a black box. You only have an option of 

2 putting in a certain amount of parameter data 

3 that, then, generate a PoC. We don't really 

4 have a way of changing any of that.

5 So, unless somebody made an error 

6 in the input, there is nothing really to 

7 audit. What is more likely to be subject to 

8 an auditing, a review of those cases, is that 

9 most of those who were maximized doses were 

10 now converted to a best estimate. So, we 

11 would, in essence, be doing a dose 

12 reconstruction audit in a traditional sense.

13 DR. MAURO: Right, right. So, the 

14 only benefit of doing a case right now would 

15 be to see if, in fact, a dose reconstruction 

16 that was performed in support of these cases, 

17 as revised in light of the redo, was, in fact 

18 -- it would be a classic DR review.

19 DR. BEHLING: Exactly.

20 DR. MAURO: Right. Okay. Got 

21 you.

22 And I guess that would not be 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 unlike other -- well, it becomes pretty 

2 straightforward. It is a classic DR review 

3 not unlike any other DR review we do.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. But that would, 

5 then, be extraneous really to the purpose of 

6 doing these audits.

7 CHAIR MUNN: It would be. Yes, I 

8 cannot see that it has any real bearing on 

9 this particular group of cases, simply because 

10 the PER is --

11 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to 

12 interrupt.

13 There is nothing about the DR that 

14 this procedure changes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: No.

16 DR. MAURO: It is not like we --

17 and so, in a funny sort of way, the only thing 

18 that really needs to be -- you know, this is 

19 an unusual circumstance. There really is 

20 nothing about what I'm hearing in this 

21 particular PER that has any effect on how you 

22 go about doing dose reconstruction.
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: No, no.

2 DR. MAURO: So, really, I guess 

3 unless some things different, I would say 

4 there really is no need to do any cases.

5 CHAIR MUNN: It seems to me that 

6 the purpose in having you audit the PER is to 

7 assure that NIOSH has performed its actions 

8 appropriately. And this review, as I see it, 

9 substantiates that that is the case.

10 That being the case, since it is 

11 not within our purview to begin to consider 

12 any changes to IREP, if that is going to 

13 happen, that will certainly come out of Dr. 

14 Richardson's bailiwick and not ours.

15 Then, I don't see that we have 

16 further action here with respect to this 

17 particular PER.

18 Do the other Members feel 

19 differently? Dick, do you have an opinion?

20 MEMBER LEMEN: My opinion is that 

21 I think you're right, Wanda. I think that we 

22 should go ahead and look at this in the new 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Scientific Subcommittee, which I am a member 

2 of, too. So, I agree with you.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Then, for purposes of 

4 our Subcommittee, we will accept this review 

5 of our contractor of PER-008 as being 

6 acceptable, not providing any findings that 

7 require any further action on our part. It 

8 will be a closed issue for us, with the 

9 understanding that the scientific issue it 

10 being taken up by a Working Group.

11 MR. KATZ: So, it is closed.

12 CHAIR MUNN: It is closed.

13 We have not addressed the issue of 

14 how we are going to handle these on our 

15 database, but that comes later this afternoon. 

16 We will do that after lunch.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, does that 

18 mean we don't look at this any further?

19 CHAIR MUNN: That means that we 

20 don't look at this particular issue, this PER, 

21 any further.

22 It has raised a scientific issue. 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The scientific issue is being addressed by 

2 another Working Group. Our work is done. 

3 SC&A's work on this particular item is done 

4 for us.

5 If they are going to be charged 

6 with any further action, it will be from the 

7 other Working Group, from the Working Group 

8 rather than --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I just think 

10 this one interesting conclusion that says that 

11 the current models may be excessively or it 

12 may be attributing much more Probability of 

13 Causation to people of ages above 30, I think 

14 is what it is saying. Then, you can justify, 

15 based on the science.

16 Suppose the Scientific Issues 

17 group in looking at this finds out that or 

18 determines that this is true. I mean, would 

19 NIOSH go back -- or I guess the IREP model 

20 might be modified. If that occurred, what 

21 would be the process?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if the 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 outcome --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Because, 

3 obviously, you don't come back to old cases 

4 that maybe were compensated and wouldn't be 

5 under the new one.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, that is a moot 

8 point there.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: If IREP is 

10 modified -- and are you postulating that the 

11 modification might result in uniformly 

12 downward PoC?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Not uniformly, but 

14 you will notice a similar conclusion.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. It could go 

16 up or down, yes.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The model 

18 generates excessively high PoC values --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: If, in fact, IREP 

20 were modified so that PoCs, well, if they 

21 changed, we would not open the compensated 

22 cases. If there is a chance that a PoC could 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have changed upward, we would open --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the ones that 

4 could change upwards, if we can distinguish. 

5 It is not easy on an electronic -- the reason 

6 that the lung model was chosen to be run both 

7 ways was that it is not easy to distinguish 

8 from reading the facts of the case whether it 

9 is going to go up or down. So, it is just 

10 easier to run them all with both models and 

11 use the higher number.

12 Depending upon what the fact is 

13 about what changes with IREP, it may or may 

14 not be possible to choose the cases that you 

15 know will go up. So, we may end up running 

16 all the non-compensable cases again, all 

17 18,000 of them.

18 MR. KATZ: Well, yes. I mean I 

19 think it might even be more complex than this, 

20 Stu, because NIH owns a version of IREP, and 

21 ours is built largely out of what they have 

22 built. If there is a problem with IREP, 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 depending on where that problem resides in 

2 these models, you may have a problem that you 

3 would have to work with NIH on.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: In fact, NIH, 

5 might -- you know, we may not be free to act. 

6 You're exactly right. We may not be free to 

7 act entirely on this because NIH participates 

8 in this. It would be, I think, statutorily 

9 difficult to be in conflict with NIH. We, in 

10 fact, have made some revisions that are not 

11 incorporating in today's NIH IREP, but none of 

12 them really, you know, they are not 

13 conflicting in any particular way. It is like 

14 an enhancement or something. Generally, it 

15 drives what PoC numbers up. So, we are 

16 comfortable with doing that.

17 But I don't know. We may not be 

18 completely free to act. Because, 

19 realistically, this sounds, you know, when you 

20 are talking about attained age, it seems like 

21 the difference between excess relative risk 

22 and excess absolute risk. That, to me, sounds 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 like that is the question.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and you might 

3 find out that actually the differences are not 

4 what they appear to be here.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. The 

6 declining lifetime risk, you know, the one 

7 table that shows the declining lifetime risk 

8 with age, I think you have to approach 

9 cautiously. It is for the reason that Hans 

10 mentioned. If your lifetime risk of this 

11 exposure as you age goes down, a contributor 

12 to that declining risk is that you die of 

13 something else first. As you get older when 

14 you are exposed, you die of something else 

15 first.

16 That has little to do with our 

17 program because people only get into our 

18 program when they get cancer. So, they didn't 

19 die of something else first.

20 So, the adjustment of that 

21 declining risk factor in terms of age of 

22 exposure won't necessarily -- you know, the 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 part that is attributable to the aging and 

2 dying of something else first isn't really 

3 translatable to our program.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was just 

5 happy to see that in the SEER table, after age 

6 85, the geezer factor kicks in.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. HINNEFELD: If you made it 

9 that long --

10 CHAIR MUNN: If you made it that 

11 long, then there is a precipitous drop in the 

12 numerical total of persons.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it is a fact 

14 that the older you are, the longer your life 

15 expectancy.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's true.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, Jenny is 

18 sorry.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Of all the people 

21 in the room.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. So, this item
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is closed for us.

2 And we are on our way to lunch. 

3 We will reconvene at 1:15.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Wanda?

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

6 MEMBER LEMEN: I will probably be 

7 late getting back because there is something I 

8 have to do.

9 CHAIR MUNN: All right.

10 MEMBER LEMEN: But I will try to 

11 rejoin you, but it probably will not be until 

12 around 2:30.

13 MR. KATZ: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That will be fine. 

15 We will look forward to hearing from you at 

16 2:30.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I have been 

18 so brilliant this morning, and I just can't 

19 imagine --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes, we are basking in 

21 the sunshine. Thank you.

22 (Laughter.)
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Bye-Bye.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: Bye.

3 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

4 went off the record for lunch at 12:15 p.m. 

5 and went back on the record at 1:14 p.m.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 1:14 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Dose 

4 Reconstruction Subcommittee of the Advisory 

5 Board. We are reconvening after lunch break.

6 MEMBER GIBSON: It's Procedures.

7 MR. KATZ: Procedures. Sorry. 

8 Not Dose Reconstruction. Let me correct that.

9 (Laughter.)

10 Let me check on the line to see 

11 who we have. We are not expecting Dr. Lemen. 

12 He will be back with us in about an hour.

13 But how about Mark Griffon?

14 (No response.)

15 Okay. How about the NIOSH ORAU 

16 and SC&A folks? Are you back on the line?

17 DR. BEHLING: I am back on the 

18 line.

19 MR. KATZ: Hans, welcome.

20 How about you, John Mauro?

21 (No response.)

22 Okay. Do you want to just get 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 started?

2 CHAIR MUNN: I think before John 

3 comes back, we --

4 DR. MAURO: I am back on the line.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, good.

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, there you are.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you, 

8 John.

9 MR. KATZ: Hi, John.

10 CHAIR MUNN: We just wanted to, I 

11 think we should discuss a little bit, before 

12 we start PER-18, we need to talk a little bit 

13 about how we are going to handle these PERs on 

14 the database. We have touched on it a couple 

15 of times, but we never have actually made any 

16 real decision about how we are going to do it.

17 As you know, in the past, 

18 especially when we were reporting on our 

19 activities, we reported in chronological 

20 fashion. We had groups of procedures that we 

21 had attacked at approximately the same time. 

22 That is pretty much how we reported on our 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 progress in terms of chronological issues.

2 PERs are likely to be an entirely 

3 different thing and are likely to come at us 

4 from time to time without the same kind of 

5 grouping that we are fortunate enough to have 

6 on this one.

7 It is my suggestion that we begin 

8 another grouping, not as a chronological 

9 grouping, although there is no reason why we 

10 couldn't think of it in those terms, that will 

11 keep a record for us of where we are with the 

12 PERs and which ones we have addressed, and 

13 what findings we have outstanding.

14 Does anyone have any other concept 

15 of how we should handle PERs in our personal 

16 tracking system? Does that meet your 

17 requirements for what we are going to need to 

18 do?

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Couldn't you just 

20 sort for PERs based on the document number?

21 CHAIR MUNN: We can.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: We can -- I don't 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know. I mean we are designing the database. 

2 We can design it to do -- I don't know what 

3 the capability would be.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, one of the 

5 capabilities that we specifically asked for 

6 from our last discussion was that we not lose 

7 that chronological identifier because we had 

8 our previous three groups in a chronological 

9 group.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, we have asked, 

11 during our February 17th meeting, we have 

12 asked that the summary table that we used to 

13 get with the old Access database, we be able 

14 to reconstruct that summary table.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: So that we should 

17 be able to get. The current database has this 

18 search capability up in the upper righthand 

19 corner. And if you put "PER" in that search 

20 box, it should pull up all the PERs that have 

21 been reviewed, not necessarily in 

22 chronological order or anything like that, but 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it should pull them all up anyway, so that you 

2 would be able to see. I am working my way 

3 there, and I will see if that really -- that 

4 works.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Well I am thinking in 

6 terms of progress reports, and progress 

7 reports seem, for my mind, much easier to deal 

8 with if we continue to deal with them in 

9 groups of some sort. We have dealt with them 

10 in groups of chronology before. I am 

11 suggesting that we simply establish a group 

12 for PERs, beginning with current dates.

13 At least we will get them on the 

14 database. We will put them on the database. 

15 How we will do that we can think about and not 

16 rush to judgment on what might be best.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Some of the PERs 

18 that were reviewed originally, on the original 

19 contract, we did some PER reviews under the 

20 original three main groupings of reviews.

21 CHAIR MUNN: There are a few on 

22 them.
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: But they don't seem 

2 to be showing up in the database. We have to 

3 make sure we get those over. Now basically 

4 with the new contract, we have the specific 

5 task, which is to really go out and do PER 

6 reviews. That is what Hans has really been 

7 taking a lead on and doing those.

8 If you want to handle those 

9 differently or if you want to put all the PERs 

10 in one spot, we can do whatever design you 

11 want.

12 DR. MAURO: What are we doing 

13 about -- I mean we have OTIBs, we have got 

14 TIBs, we have got PROCs. We have got all of 

15 these different labels for things that we have 

16 been reviewing in an ongoing way for six years 

17 now.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

19 DR. MAURO: Why are PERs 

20 different? I mean I know that they are 

21 different, but I mean, can't we just track 

22 them --
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 DR. MAURO: -- like we drop 

3 another PROC or an OTIB or a TIB --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: -- into the database? 

6 Somehow we were able to do all of those 

7 others. Why would this somehow create a 

8 challenge that we are going to have difficulty 

9 with?

10 CHAIR MUNN: We did not record the 

11 others the way I am suggesting that we make 

12 sure we get all of them recorded. That is one 

13 of my concerns. We want to make sure that we 

14 don't lose anything along the way here.

15 DR. MAURO: Well, we have got to 

16 load them. I guess I misunderstood the 

17 question. I mean all the PERs that were done, 

18 you know, there may be 10 of them all 

19 together, I don't know, since the beginning of 

20 this contract --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 DR. MAURO: -- where we did a 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 review. They all need to be loaded into the 

2 database and tracked --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 DR. MAURO: -- just like we load 

5 every PROC and OTIB and TIB we track.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Correct. Correct. 

7 They do need to be and have not been.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes. Oh, that is a 

9 problem. Now how we do that, I don't think we 

10 do it any differently than we have done 

11 anything else, unless there is a reason.

12 First, I was thinking we should be 

13 able to, if we could sort on them, you know, a 

14 PER, like Steve just said. I could see why 

15 you would want to look at PERs separately. 

16 They are sort of like a different animal.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, but, John, I am 

18 hung up not necessarily on the PERs, but on 

19 the fact that the PERs are the first group 

20 of -- this little batch of PERs here is the 

21 first time we have had a new grouping of 

22 anything that we have looked at in quite some 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 time.

2 We have been following activities 

3 that came to us in three groups, three 

4 chronological groups, much earlier in the 

5 program. We haven't been adding new material 

6 to the database.

7 Now I am proposing that we make 

8 sure that not only what we are looking at 

9 currently, but the PERs that we have looked at 

10 in the past are appropriately loaded into the 

11 database. I am hung up on the fact that, even 

12 though we can sort on them, I would like to 

13 have them in an easy reporting group which we 

14 have not done with any other type of report in 

15 the past.

16 DR. MAURO: That's true.

17 CHAIR MUNN: In the past, 

18 everything has been chronological.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now I see where 

20 how you are thinking, and I have to agree. We 

21 would like to be able to say something about 

22 PERs as a group of six, ten, twelve, and where 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we are on those separate --

2 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly.

3 DR. MAURO: -- from everything 

4 else.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Exactly. Exactly.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: You may want a 

8 separate summary table --

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: -- which, 

11 basically, prints them out by document 

12 category, prints out how many PERs have been 

13 reviewed, how many issues that were raised, 

14 and what the status of those issues is, how 

15 many PROCs have been reviewed, how many OTIBs 

16 have been reviewed.

17 Otherwise, if we go -- if we go 

18 with kind of like a combined table where we 

19 have some of them are being grouped 

20 chronologically, but others are being grouped 

21 by their type of document, that might be, you 

22 know, that would be more difficult to do or 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more confusing to the reader.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That is why I am 

3 raising the topic. But you understand that in 

4 my view PERs are a different kind of animal 

5 anyhow. They are not a procedure.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes.

7 CHAIR MUNN: And the other things 

8 that we have been looking at have been 

9 procedures, and they have come to us in 

10 groups. These are not procedures, and they 

11 will not come to us in groups. They will 

12 dribble along from time to time.

13 These are overviews. They are 

14 reviews. They come close to being audits on 

15 how procedures have been handled in the past. 

16 So, in my mind, that is an entirely different 

17 thing than what we have been reviewing in the 

18 past.

19 DR. MAURO: I agree. I agree.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And there's, 

21 therefore, no real reason why they shouldn't 

22 be broken up as separate. But if you have no 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 objection, if no one has any real objection, I 

2 am just proposing that we begin with the PERs 

3 that we have here today, make sure that they 

4 are factored into the database, and then add 

5 the ones that have been done in the past that 

6 we have already done and have not recorded.

7 DR. ULSH: It is our intention to 

8 load every document NIOSH generates. Okay. 

9 Wait. Let me back up.

10 Not every dose reconstruction, for 

11 instance, but every TIB, PROC, report, PERs, 

12 all into the database, whether the Procedures 

13 Subcommittee has reviewed those or not. That 

14 way, the universe of NIOSH documents is in 

15 there. And when the Procedures Subcommittee 

16 picks up a new document to review, well, then, 

17 that document was just assigned to the 

18 Procedures Subcommittee.

19 I am not sure I followed 

20 everything that you are asking, but I am 

21 wondering if that addresses your concern.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: It is more of a 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 summary. How do you get -- that will get the 

2 document in.

3 DR. ULSH: Yes.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: And we will be able 

5 to track it and see when all the issues have 

6 been resolved. But I think Wanda is looking 

7 more towards how do you get a summary out.

8 Because when you want to show 

9 progress being made to someone, you want to 

10 get a summary table out. And previously, we 

11 have been doing a summary table 

12 chronologically.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, plus, you 

14 have had a summary table for all procedures. 

15 You want to have a parallel thing for the 

16 PROCs. And if you can do that with the 

17 existing database by simply saying, okay, I 

18 will sort on PROCs, get the universe of them, 

19 can you generate from that a summary table, 

20 numbers, progress, on the subset? Then you 

21 are okay. Otherwise, everything else is mixed

22 in with it.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well, with the new 

2 one, we can sort on almost anything we want 

3 to.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would think so.

5 CHAIR MUNN: But my concern is 

6 that we --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: And group them, 

8 too.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. But my concern 

10 is that the age of these items and how long we 

11 have been dealing with them is also of concern 

12 and has been one of the factors in our 

13 reporting up to this point.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. But I 

15 would think, if you could sort on them -- you 

16 have the list of PROCs -- you could also have 

17 the dates as another item that shows up, 

18 right?

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We have asked 

20 that it not be dropped, yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Because the first 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 iteration of new approach to the database 

2 dropped it. And we have asked that that not 

3 happen.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. All right, I 

6 think --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Could I also ask, 

8 in that relationship, though -- it is easy to 

9 identify these. They are all, I think, DCAS 

10 or OCAS. Which are they?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Whatever you want 

12 to call us.

13 (Laughter.)

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think the 

15 ones we have now are OCAS, but --

16 MR. HINNEFELD: We prepared all 

17 the PERs.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, but they 

19 will all say "PER" in the identifying thing?

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now the associated 

22 SC&A documents, such as this one we are 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talking about here, the PER-18 review, does 

2 that show up as a document in the database?

3 CHAIR MUNN: It has not in the 

4 past. That is one of our concerns. And 

5 therefore, that is where our findings would 

6 come from.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

8 CHAIR MUNN: So that's why this 

9 will want to appear in the database.

10 DR. MAURO: The fact that we are 

11 moving to an Access database, the times I have 

12 used Access, you have all these fields that 

13 you could sort on and do just about anything 

14 you want. So I guess what I am getting at is 

15 that there really are no constraints. 

16 Certainly, anyone there that has more 

17 familiarity with Access than I do -- I don't 

18 think there are any -- once you have loaded 

19 the data associated with a review of a PER 

20 such as what we have just done into the 

21 database, as it currently is, I believe you 

22 have the wherewithal -- and you have all these 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 different fields that you think are important 

2 separated out -- you could generate any report 

3 you want. You could say, "Give me a review of 

4 the PER or, first of all, break out all the 

5 PER reviews, the data." And you get a report. 

6 Here they are.

7 And you may actually pose 

8 questions. How many issues are there 

9 associated with the group called PER? I mean 

10 I used Access like that for something 

11 completely different, and it has almost 

12 unlimited capability.

13 Am I overgeneralizing here? I 

14 think this is an easy problem.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I don't think you are 

16 overgeneralizing from what I know, John. This 

17 is actually an administrative nit. I don't 

18 want us to waste our face time here on it. I 

19 just wanted to bring it up.

20 And we can -- if no one has any 

21 real objection, I will suggest that we just go 

22 ahead and begin to populate a PER section in 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the database. And if we choose to address it 

2 in some other way later, that is fine. I just 

3 want to get general agreement that we need to 

4 go ahead and do that and get started.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have one other 

6 question.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: On the SC&A review 

9 documents for these, such as the Los Alamos 

10 one, John or Steve, does the SC&A code number 

11 tell us that it is a PER review, or do you 

12 have to look at the title? In other words, I 

13 am looking at SCA-TR-PR210-0018. And the 0018 

14 there -- if I just had the number, would I 

15 know that it was a PER review?

16 MR. MARSCHKE: What does the PR 

17 stand for in that title, John? Do you know?

18 DR. MAURO: Well, this, the PER 

19 that we are using there -- I wish Nancy was on 

20 the line, whether she uses that for others, or 

21 is that PER unique to PERs. I believe it is 

22 unique to PERS.
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: This says PR.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, it is PR? No. So 

3 then, no. PR would be -- no, that is probably 

4 just a generic number she has been assigning 

5 to all these.

6 So we do have a problem because 

7 what we are saying is we don't have a field 

8 right now. As we're -- the methods by which 

9 we are loading this information into the 

10 database does not allow us to separate out a 

11 field called PERs.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: No, no, no, no.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, we do for 

14 the OCAS part.

15 DR. MAURO: But SC&A -- now, 

16 Steve, I think you --

17 MR. MARSCHKE: We don't have a 

18 unique document numbering scheme, is what our 

19 problem is.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: And that basically 

22 if we were to -- this basically says that we 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reviewed a document and it has got a number on 

2 it. It is an SC&A document. It's a TR, it is 

3 a PR, and it was issued in 2010, and it is for 

4 document number 18.

5 Now if we reviewed two documents 

6 18, if we reviewed PER-18 and we reviewed 

7 OTIB-18, we would have a problem in trying to 

8 assign a document number.

9 DR. MAURO: So we do have a 

10 problem. So even if we loaded it up today 

11 using our standard methods for loading up, 

12 populating the database --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, that is not 

14 populating the database. The database is all 

15 populated based upon NIOSH's numbers.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right now.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: The database is all 

18 NIOSH documents. So it is not a problem in 

19 populating the database. It is a problem in 

20 SC&A assigning document numbers.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: So they can link 

22 it more directly.
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: So that we can link 

2 it more directly to -- you know -- what we 

3 want to be able to do is look at this document 

4 number and say, "Oh, this document number has 

5 something to do with PER-18."

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: Right now we can 

8 say, "Well, this document number has something 

9 to do with one of the NIOSH documents which is 

10 numbered 18," but we don't know if it is a PER 

11 or an OTIB or a PROC or what. So we have got 

12 to get a little bit more unique in the way we 

13 number our documents.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: So that when they 

16 pick it up, they know what it is talking 

17 about.

18 DR. MAURO: Yes.

19 CHAIR MUNN: But we can talk about 

20 this offline.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. I just 

22 wanted to raise it.
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: The other thing, I 

3 mean we did mention -- actually, I think John 

4 Mauro had the idea, when we came back from the 

5 February 17th meeting, is that we should, just 

6 like all the NIOSH documents are going to be 

7 available in a directory somewhere and be 

8 available to the database, what might be a 

9 good idea, to have all the SC&A documents in a 

10 directory somewhere where they also would be 

11 available to link into the database. So that 

12 we could pull up the document, the SC&A 

13 documents, from the database.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I thought that was 

15 what that website that refers to contractor16 generated documents was for.

17 DR. ULSH: Well, yes, but it would 

18 be nice to, if you are inside the tracking 

19 database and you are reviewing PER-18, there 

20 is a link there that you can pull up NIOSH's 

21 PER-18. It would be nice if there was also a 

22 link there where you could pull up SC&A's 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 review --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

3 DR. ULSH: -- of PER-18.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 DR. ULSH: I am trying to remember 

6 our meeting. I think --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't think that 

8 came up at the meeting. Actually, John, I 

9 think, actually thought of it and told me 

10 about this idea after the meeting. And I 

11 might have sent it to you in an email that I 

12 sent after the meeting, the day after or a 

13 couple of days after the meeting.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Let's talk about it 

15 after the meeting or by telephone or 

16 something, rather than right here, right now. 

17 Because Hans is on deck and is ready to talk 

18 to us about PER-18, right? Right?

19 (No response.)

20 DR. MAURO: Hans, are you on the 

21 line?

22 (No response.)
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Did we lose him?

2 DR. MAURO: I could try to reach 

3 him on my cell, make sure he is calling in.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Maybe he doesn't know 

5 he is on mute.

6 MR. KATZ: He was on when we first 

7 got started.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay. We might 

9 have lost him somewhere along the way.

10 DR. BEHLING: Can you hear me?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, now we do.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Now we can.

14 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I don't know 

15 what happened to my phone. I think my 

16 earpiece got disconnected from the phone 

17 service. So, anyway, I'm here.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Too much technology.

19 DR. BEHLING: Yes, at least for 

20 me. You know, I am kind of a dumbbell when it 

21 comes to high-tech gadgets.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Somehow I find that 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hard to believe, Hans.

2 DR. BEHLING: Oh, believe it. 

3 Believe it, Wanda. That's why I'm still 

4 married to Kathy. She is my safety --

5 (Laughter.)

6 Let me start out by giving you a 

7 quick overview. The PER-18 was issued on --

8 let's see here -- July 31st, 2007. That 

9 happened to come a month after there was a 

10 revision to the TBD-6 for the Los Alamos 

11 National Laboratory. As I said, that was

12 issued a month earlier, May 30th, 2007.

13 And those revisions in the TBD 

14 were strictly the result of an internal review 

15 by NIOSH itself. In other words, SC&A had 

16 very little to do or nothing to do with those 

17 revisions. It was an internal review that 

18 prompted that particular revision, that, then, 

19 prompted the PER-18.

20 And the principal impact of the 

21 revision involved modifications to the 

22 neutron-photon ratios that we will discuss 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here shortly. And in addition to the neutron2 photon ratio changes that occurred in Revision 

3 1, another modification was a change in the 

4 energy distribution for photon radiation at 

5 the Technical Area 53.

6 And just for summary purposes, if 

7 everyone has a copy of my review that was 

8 issued in September 2010, I will try to point 

9 out certain things that I will be talking 

10 about in order for you to get a better 

11 understanding of what the issues are.

12 I would like to at this point 

13 refer you to page 8 of my report, which 

14 contains Exhibit 1. As you will see in 

15 Exhibit 1, the changes, on top of Exhibit 1 

16 you see the Revision 0, which is the original 

17 recommendation for neutron-photon ratios in 

18 Los Alamos. And below that is Revision 1. So 

19 you can do a one-to-one comparison between the 

20 two.

21 One of the first things you will 

22 realize is that the neutron-to-photon ratio in 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 behalf of Revision 0 was defined in terms of a 

2 minimum as well as a maximum value for 

3 neutron-photon ratio -- dose ratios. In 

4 Revision 1, those changed to median and 95th 

5 percentile value.

6 In addition, you will see in 

7 Revision 0 there were only three neutron 

8 source types: a plutonium facility, 

9 criticality experiments, and other operations. 

10 In Revision 1, we had a new category, and 

11 that was really nothing more than separating 

12 plutonium facilities into those that were 

13 exposed to -- that worked with plutonium-239 

14 as opposed to those areas where plutonium-238 

15 was the dominant form. And so you have a 

16 fourth category.

17 By segregating the plutonium 

18 facilities into those that predominantly 

19 involved exposure to 239 versus 238 involved, 

20 obviously, a condition for assigning neutron21 photon ratios, which we will discuss under 

22 Finding No. 1.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Exhibit 2, which is on page 9 of 

2 my report, shows you, again, the original 

3 photon distribution on top and the subsequent 

4 photon assignment that appeared in Revision 1. 

5 And what you see there really is the 

6 separation of what you had initially of 30 to 

7 250 keV at 5 percent of the mix and greater 

8 than 250 keV, 95. All of a sudden, it was 

9 converted to a 1 percent of photon that was 

10 below 30 keV, 9 percent between 30 and 50 keV, 

11 and 90 percent greater than 250 keV. So those 

12 were the major changes that defined Revision 0 

13 to Revision 1.

14 Let me quickly go over to page 11, 

15 where we talk about neutron-photon ratios for 

16 plutonium-238 versus plutonium-239. As I have 

17 mentioned to you, in Exhibit 1 it shows you, 

18 obviously, the two were combined. In 

19 subsequent revision, they were separated.

20 What I found was that this 

21 separation of assigned neutron-to-photon 

22 ratios between Revision 1 versus 0 was 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 prompted by a document that I enclosed in my 

2 review. It is Exhibit 3, which is identified 

3 on page 12.

4 And I should have possibly 

5 underlined it, but in Exhibit No. 3 you have a 

6 memorandum that is dated November 9th, 1972. 

7 It defines for plutonium-239 workers a dose 

8 that had a range from 0.3 to 1.7 neutron-to9 gamma ratios.

10 Those you will see in Exhibit 1. 

11 These are the revised numbers. For the 239 

12 fluoride ones, you had a high neutron-photon 

13 ratio of 2.8. And again, you will see that in 

14 Exhibit 1. For the plutonium-238 workers, 

15 they observed an average neutron-photon ratio 

16 of 3.9 and all the way up to 5.5.

17 And you can look at these numbers 

18 and identify them in Exhibit 1 because these 

19 are the numbers that they elected to use as 

20 median and 95th percentile value, as shown on 

21 page 8 on Exhibit 1.

22 Now the question that I sort of 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 had with respect to this issue is that this 

2 single memorandum defines the neutron-photon 

3 ratios for all times. And yet, this 

4 memorandum is really a moment in time that was 

5 dated 1972.

6 And so the question I have, or at 

7 least it is a conditional finding, is that --

8 is what is the credibility that this 

9 particular document should represent neutron10 photon ratios for all time periods? 

11 Obviously, we are dealing with a moment in 

12 time that defines that particular neutron13 photon ratio, as defined in Exhibit 3 and the 

14 memorandum that I have identified as such.

15 So that is Finding No. 1. It can 

16 be really expected that these neutron-photon 

17 ratios apply for all time periods. Until some 

18 verification exists, one has to at least look 

19 at these numbers in somewhat skeptical terms.

20 The next one, the next issue, 

21 centers around neutron-photon ratios that are 

22 defined for the criticality experiments that 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were conducted. And as I have stated in 3.1.2 

2 on page 13 of the report, between 1946 and 

3 forward there were a total of 20 different 

4 criticality assemblies at the TA-18 laboratory 

5 that were performed. We know that. It is a 

6 matter of record.

7 And in 1968, a study was 

8 conducted, I think, to assess several methods 

9 for determining the dose that may be received 

10 by workers for no more than five different 

11 criticality assemblies. And it was these five 

12 criticality assemblies that were evaluated for 

13 assessing the neutron-photon ratios for people 

14 exposed to neutrons in criticality 

15 experiments.

16 And those, you will see, while 

17 there is a table 1 on page 14 that identifies 

18 those five different criticality assemblies, 

19 and you will see that hydro, which is the 

20 fourth, is the one that was really selected, 

21 and that has an energy distribution as defined 

22 in column two.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 What happened with the hydro 

2 experiment is that they allowed measurements 

3 using dosimeters, both film badges and TLDs. 

4 And you will see in Exhibit No. 4, which is 

5 also taken from the report, you will see

6 numbers that were selected for defining the 

7 neutron-photon ratio.

8 And I will point out to you on 

9 page 15 or Exhibit 4 the No. 3 assembly, which 

10 is hydro. You will see in column one, two, 

11 three, four, in column five, numbers that 

12 involve on plastic man front. Those are the 

13 numbers.

14 And I have to inform you that the 

15 numbers you see there, the first one -- a 

16 difference of 6 meters, and it gives you a 

17 gamma-to-neutron ratio of one. These numbers 

18 are gamma-to-neutron.

19 Then as I will point out in a few 

20 minutes, for us to really make use of those 

21 data, we have to convert them to neutron-gamma 

22 ratios. So you have to look at these numbers 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and invert them -- so it is difficult.

2 You see that the measurements were 

3 all the way out to 19.8 meters. And beyond

4 that, NIOSH used extrapolation means to 

5 establish neutron-photon ratios.

6 So of the 20 assemblies, critical 

7 assemblies, that were used at Los Alamos 

8 National Laboratory, five were assessed in 

9 this particular study. Of the five that were 

10 assessed, NIOSH selected the hydro critical 

11 assembly as a way to come up with neutron12 photon ratios.

13 And the numbers you see in column 

14 No. 4, that is, on plastic man front, are the 

15 numbers that were actually used. In addition 

16 to those numbers, NIOSH extrapolated those 

17 numbers to 100 meters.

18 Those conversions you will see are 

19 reported or identified in table No. 2 on page 

20 16. So what you just saw in Exhibit No. 4 has 

21 been introduced as table 2 on page 16 of my 

22 report.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You will see, obviously, the 

2 original gamma-to-neutron ratios in column No. 

3 2, and then in column No. 4 I converted those 

4 to neutron-gamma ratios, which is really what 

5 we would like to make use of in establishing 

6 what the TIB Revision 1 incorporated.

7 And you will see the two numbers 

8 that were used in the revised TBD are the two 

9 numbers at 50 meters and 100 meters. Those 

10 two numbers correspond to a neutron-to-gamma 

11 ratio of 1.7 at 50 meters and at 100 meters 

12 2.8 neutron-photon ratios. Okay?

13 So those were the numbers that 

14 were, in fact, selected for the revised 

15 neutron-photon ratios involving critical 

16 assemblies.

17 So the question that I have in 

18 looking at the data that was at least 

19 available among the five assemblies is that, 

20 yes, the hydro critical assembly was, in fact, 

21 the one that had the largest distance that 

22 approached the 1500 meters that NIOSH used. 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, at the same time, the neutron-photon 

2 ratios that you might generate from other 

3 assemblies might have been higher, even among 

4 the five assemblies that were assessed for 

5 this particular purpose. I don't know what 

6 the other 15 critical assemblies might have 

7 contained, but even for confining our 

8 attention to the five assemblies that we do 

9 have, if we do look at some of the other 

10 assemblies, you realize that there were other 

11 critical assemblies for shorter distances that 

12 are potentially higher than the hydro.

13 For instance, in the critical 

14 assembly called Jezebel, and that is the first 

15 one, you will have a gamma-to-neutron ratio of 

16 0.199 meters. Of course, that converts to a 

17 neutron-to-photon ratio of 5.26. So there, 

18 for instance, is an example of a neutron19 photon ratio involving the critical assembly 

20 Jezebel that would have generated possibly a 

21 significantly higher dose.

22 Assuming, again, the extrapolation 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 method that NIOSH uses, I don't know what the 

2 neutron-photon dose ratio would have been at 

3 50 and 100 meters, but intuition tells me it 

4 would have been considerably higher than the 

5 ones that were selected on behalf of hydro. 

6 So that is Finding No. 2.

7 I am now in Section 3.1.3, Neutron 

8 Ratios for Other Operations. As it turns out, 

9 between 1943 and `49, LANL workers were not 

10 routinely monitored for neutrons at all. 

11 Thereafter, neutron exposures were measured by 

12 five different neutron dosimeters for various 

13 time periods.

14 And so prior to 1979, recorded 

15 neutron dose was likely underestimated because 

16 they used NTA film or were not considered 

17 reliable.

18 So starting in 1979, the albedo 

19 neutron TLD was introduced and was calibrated 

20 by means of boron trifluoride proportional 

21 counter. We have some faith in that 

22 particular set of measurements. So post-1979, 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we seem to have some understanding of what the 

2 exposures might have been.

3 However, what was done -- and I 

4 looked at the data -- in fact, if you go to 

5 table 3 starting at page 18, you see the data 

6 that was used up to 1979. We considered them 

7 not usable.

8 And then starting with 1979, which 

9 starts toward the bottom of the page 18, you 

10 have, obviously, neutron-gamma ratios that are 

11 considered reliable. And you can see in the 

12 very far column, starting in 1979, the ratios 

13 start out at 0.402 and they oscillate back and 

14 forth. You see various numbers, some of which 

15 approach 2 and peak out in 1995 with a ratio 

16 of 2.968.

17 So what really strikes you is that 

18 over the period between 1979 and 2004, the 

19 neutron-photon ratio varied significantly from 

20 as low as 0.4 all the way up to approximately 

21 3, which suggests a seven-fold difference from 

22 year to year.
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the question now is should it 

2 be okay to take a person who may have had an 

3 exposure time for occupational exposure 

4 defined by his working years at the facility 

5 that is defined by a 26-year average value as 

6 opposed to year-by-year change, as may be 

7 possible when you do have that data.

8 And so Finding No. 3 raises the 

9 question is a single median and 95th 

10 percentile N/P ratio that represents 26 years 

11 of data appropriate for all people who may 

12 have been exposed during very select years 

13 where the neutron-photon ratio may have been 

14 considerably higher than the value, the 

15 average value, median value and 95th 

16 percentile value, for the 26-year period?

17 And it certainly would require a 

18 little more work, but certainly would change 

19 the dose values for select people who may have 

20 been exposed differentially during various 

21 periods of time where the neutron-photon ratio 

22 was significantly different from the value as 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used currently in the TBD Revision 1.

2 Finding No. 4, what I did, I 

3 looked at actual numbers for 1995. And again, 

4 if you go to page 19, for 1995, I selected 

5 that year because it had a very, very high 

6 neutron-photon ratio, as I mentioned. As you 

7 go across the column for 1995, there were a 

8 total of 12,448 employees.

9 And you see, obviously, the person 

10 rem for photons and neutron doses, and you 

11 realize those are very, very high neutron 

12 doses that year and that the ratio between 

13 175,000 person millirem of neutrons versus 

14 59,000 yields a ratio of approximately 3 -- in 

15 terms of neutron-photon ratio.

16 And one of the things that NIOSH 

17 has done for selecting other operations was to 

18 use paired annual dosimetry data for all LANL 

19 workers that were monitored post-1979 for 

20 penetrating dose to neutrons and photons.

21 And one of the things that I 

22 looked at were the selection criteria. First 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of all, there were two things that I felt were 

2 perhaps not necessarily correct.

3 The whole issue of "other," they 

4 essentially used all neutron exposures 

5 regardless of whether it was defined for 

6 plutonium-238, 239, or criticality. And so 

7 all others really does not incorporate those. 

8 So all others should have had a more 

9 restrictive population of workers in order to 

10 be more accurate in assessing what that 

11 neutron-photon ratio is.

12 Secondly, the issue that I 

13 identified was the criteria for selecting 

14 paired neutron-photon ratios. What NIOSH did, 

15 in order to select the neutron-photon ratios, 

16 was to say one must have at least 50 millirem 

17 of photon exposures as well as 50 millirem of 

18 neutron exposures.

19 And as it turns out, when those 

20 particular criteria are used, for the year 

21 1995, the median -- I calculated the median 

22 arithmetic and the 95th percentile neutron-
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gamma ratios that correspond to 2.26. I am 

2 reading at the bottom of page 19.

3 You have neutron-gamma ratios of -

4 - 2.26 for the -- arithmetic mean is 2.4, and 

5 then the 95th percentile was 8.01 neutron6 photon ratio, respectively.

7 And these values seem to make 

8 sense when you look at the figure of 6.3 in 

9 the TBD. But I still believe that this may be 

10 a misrepresentation of things because what you 

11 really wanted to do is to measure the neutron 

12 exposures for people -- or find the neutron 

13 exposure of people who were never measured 

14 really for neutrons.

15 And one of the things that I did 

16 was to say, okay, let's use the two criteria, 

17 50 millirem for photons, minimum of 50 

18 millirem for photons, 50 millirem of neutrons, 

19 and used those paired numbers and come up with 

20 the values.

21 What I found was -- let me go 

22 check here. There were a total of 500 -- I'm 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on page 20 -- there were a total of 597 paired 

2 worker doses which met that criteria.

3 I haven't read this for a while. 

4 I have to quickly here collect my thoughts 

5 here.

6 No, but they were -- when you use 

7 50 millirem as -- of photon and 50 millirem 

8 neutron, and lock in on those two requirements 

9 for selecting paired values, you only end up 

10 with 188 individuals who met this criteria. 

11 So of the 12,488 monitored from 1995, only 188 

12 individuals had exposures that were at least 

13 50 millirem photon plus 50 millirem neutron.

14 When you, for instance, say, well, 

15 let's think about whether or not this is a 

16 fair criteria, and say what if you had people 

17 who were exposed to neutrons, as I already 

18 showed for 1995, the neutron-photon ratio was 

19 truly a value approaching three. In other 

20 words, your neutron-to-photon ratio would 

21 suggest that neutron exposure was considerably 

22 higher, three times as high as the gamma dose. 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Is it fair to use paired neutron-photon 

2 values that each have the same common value of 

3 50 millirem when, in fact, you already know 

4 that exposures to neutrons was higher?

5 When you exclude the criteria of 

6 50 millirem for photons and say let's take 

7 only those people who had a monitored dose or 

8 a documented dose of 50-millirem neutrons for 

9 that year, but not restrict the photon dose to 

10 anything -- everything, including zero, would 

11 be counted. And when you do that, you end up 

12 going from 188 pairs to 597 paired workers. 

13 Those are -- let me see here --

14 those are in attachment 1, I believe. 

15 Attachment 1 gives the paired reading for 

16 neutron-gamma ratios. You will see that 

17 starting on page 25, and that extends from 

18 page 25 to 29.

19 Going back to page 20 of my 

20 report, when you pair neutron doses that were 

21 at least 50 millirem or greater with photon 

22 doses below 50, they were 166 paired with 
226

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 neutrons that were greater than 50, but at 

2 photon doses of only 10 to 49; they would have 

3 been excluded entirely.

4 If you say let's go look at all 

5 photon doses, including zero, you include a 

6 total of 240 workers in addition. Those 

7 workers are defined in attachment 2.

8 And one of the things that you 

9 will see in attachment 2, and I will ask you 

10 to look at page 37 to 42, you will see 

11 neutron-gamma ratios that start very high. 

12 You will see doses of photons that this first 

13 entry you have a ratio of 9.14 neutron-gamma 

14 ratio, where the deep photon dose was only 14 

15 millirem and the neutron dose was the 128. 

16 This, obviously, would have never been 

17 introduced as a means of establishing neutron18 photon ratio because these individuals would 

19 have had a photon dose that was less than 50, 

20 which was the selection criteria.

21 But even more surprising, I will 

22 ask you to turn to page -- where are we here? 
227

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 page 37. If you go to page 37 of my 

2 report, all of a sudden, you see the 

3 decreasing number of people with a photon 

4 dose. They end up being reported as having no 

5 photon dose at all, as you will see in the 

6 first column. You will see nothing but 

7 zeroes, nothing but zeroes for the photon 

8 dose. And, yet, you will see increasing doses 

9 of neutron doses in column No. 4, starting 

10 with 50 millirem, and it continues and 

11 continues.

12 If you go from page 37 to 48, to 

13 49, to page 40, 41, all the way up to page 42, 

14 so you have all these people whose photon dose 

15 was recorded as zero. They had no photon 

16 dose. And, yet, when you get to the very 

17 bottom of that list on page 42, you will see 

18 people who may have had neutron doses as high 

19 as 644 millirem, as the third from the bottom 

20 on that page. Neutron dose of 644 millirem, 

21 but no photon dose.

22 What the point here is, it is 
228

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 probably not correct because you have a large 

2 number of people who should have been perhaps 

3 identified as -- with neutron exposures, but 

4 on a basis of having no photon doses, you have 

5 nothing to multiply with. So that any neutron 

6 dose that you would have experienced ends up 

7 being assigned as nothing because they have no 

8 photon dose.

9 And so my finding in this case was 

10 that we employed the wrong criteria by 

11 selecting paired neutron-photon values that 

12 each required to have as a minimum a 50-

13 millirem dose. If we would have extended the 

14 photon dose to less than 50, inclusive of 

15 zero, you would end up with a very, very 

16 different neutron-photon ratio. Let's see if 

17 I can identify what that number is.

18 Yes, the mean value, if you go to 

19 page 42, the mean neutron-photon ratio, if you 

20 include all of these individuals, inclusive of 

21 those with zero, the neutron-photon ratio 

22 would have been 3.72.
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I believe that there are 

2 deficiencies here that involve the selection 

3 criteria for paired neutron-photon ratios that 

4 perhaps should include photon doses that were 

5 below 50 millirem, including zero. Because, 

6 clearly, as you see in attachment No. 2, there 

7 were loads and loads of people whose neutron 

8 dose was substantially greater than 50 

9 millirem in 1995 and, yet, their photon doses 

10 were recorded as below 50. And on behalf of 

11 those numbers, they actually have no photon 

12 recorded dose.

13 My last finding involves the fact 

14 that the photon doses as cited in -- the 

15 changes in photon doses, as cited in Exhibit 1 

16 -- 2, on page 9, where we briefly discuss the 

17 changes from the 30 to 250 that was broken 

18 into less than 30, and the numbers, the 

19 percentage values change -- I am referring to 

20 Exhibit 2 on page 9 -- they were never 

21 explained.

22 So my final Finding No. 5 is that 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is no explanation for the changes in 

2 photon energy that is defined in the Revision 

3 1 of the TBD. It would be nice to have an 

4 explanation as to what prompted those photon 

5 changes. So that summarizes my five findings.

6 CHAIR MUNN: So you have five 

7 findings in all. We'll need to pick them out. 

8 Do we have anything that we want to discuss 

9 regarding Hans's report and what we have seen 

10 here?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it seems to 

12 me that the findings that Hans has are really 

13 against the Site Profile, you know, because 

14 the Site Profile changed. The reason this PER 

15 was written was the Site Profile was revised. 

16 And since the Site Profile was revised, we 

17 have looked at cases that have been 

18 reconstructed with the old version and did 

19 something, you know, we recalculated a number 

20 of them in order to see what would change 

21 based on this new Site Profile.

22 Now Hans's comments relate to the 
231

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 support -- they actually pertain to the things 

2 that are in the new Site Profile. So you can 

3 deal with this how you want. I mean we can 

4 respond to them here, but we really ought to 

5 be responding in comments against the Site 

6 Profile.

7 And then for the subsequent 

8 question of doing cases, are you going to 

9 check some -- ask the DR Subcommittee to check 

10 and see were the reworked cases done 

11 appropriately almost isn't relevant, if we are 

12 going to pursue findings against the Rev. 1 

13 Site Profile.

14 Okay? Does that sound logical to 

15 anybody but Ted? He's nodding his head.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. BEHLING: Let me just make a 

18 comment. The only one that I think would be 

19 exempt from your comment, Stu, was the issue 

20 that is defined in Exhibit 3. That is, can 

21 you take a single memo dated November 9, 1972 

22 and that memo defines neutron-photon ratios 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for plutonium-239 versus 238, and assume that 

2 it applies to all time periods? Because that 

3 was one of the major changes, I guess, in the 

4 revision of TBD Revision 1.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. But, even 

6 then, I mean that was done in Rev. 1 of the 

7 Site Profile, right?

8 DR. BEHLING: No, I did not -- I 

9 was not a party to the review of the TBD 0 or 

10 1. So I can't -- I am pretty sure that this 

11 memo may have been included, even in Rev. 0. 

12 I don't know.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, but, still, 

14 it pertains to the Site Profile. The Site 

15 Profile says, based on this memo, we are going 

16 to use this M/P ratio or these M/P ratios?

17 DR. BEHLING: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: And so that, 

19 again, perhaps that would be a finding, then, 

20 against the Site Profile which says to use 

21 that.

22 I think it doesn't change the 
233

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 validity of the finding. It doesn't change 

2 any of that or the need to address these 

3 findings. It is just that, for my way of 

4 thinking about it, these are findings against 

5 the Site Profile, and to pursue additional, 

6 you know, the normal routine on the PER thing 

7 would be, with the cases, would be kind of 

8 irrelevant at this time.

9 MR. KATZ: We sort of talked about 

10 this before in a way, this sort of -- as sort 

11 of a process question. I mean, is this a case 

12 where SC&A did not review the original TBD and 

13 the changes in the TBD were not resultant of 

14 the Board's findings on the original TBD?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember 

16 what gave rise to this, to be honest.

17 DR. BEHLING: You know, can I ask 

18 everyone to go back to page number 6 of the 

19 report? And I did make mention of that very 

20 briefly in the bottom of the page in the last 

21 paragraph, where I talk about that the changes 

22 to TBD-6 were prompted solely, and I quote, 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 "were prompted solely by formal internal and 

2 NIOSH review comments," unquote.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

4 DR. BEHLING: And then I also 

5 stated, "This further implies that any 

6 comments/findings that SC&A had submitted in 

7 its review of TBD-6, Rev. 0, involving 2008, 

8 were not instrumental with regard to the need 

9 for a PER.

10 So I did acknowledge that up 

11 front, that our review of TBD-6 was not 

12 instrumental in the writing of this PER.

13 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Hans. That 

14 is actually really helpful. It is just 

15 because we have two different situations. We 

16 have situations where we have a PER that 

17 arises out of the Board's review, and this is 

18 a different animal really. It is a PER that 

19 is arising out of DCAS's internal evaluation. 

20 So then it all makes a lot of sense, 

21 actually, that you are getting these comments 

22 on the TBD in effect that are comments on the 
235

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 PER, but that all makes sense.

2 DR. BEHLING: And I agreed with 

3 Stu that these issues were technical issues 

4 that should have been addressed in Revision 1 

5 of the TBD.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Now Los 

7 Alamos is under consideration, and there is a 

8 Los Alamos Work Group.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: The thought occurs 

11 these findings could all be handled by the Los 

12 Alamos Work Group or we can thrash through 

13 them here.

14 MR. KATZ: In a way, it makes more 

15 sense for these to go there because, really, 

16 this is sort of like a TBD review in a sense. 

17 I mean it sort of, as you are saying, since 

18 there's not agreement on the method that was 

19 applied for the PER in the first place, 

20 there's no point in going further with this as 

21 a PER review. It is really a TBD review 

22 issue.
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

2 MR. KATZ: It is just like a mini3 TBD review. It is a portion of the TBD that 

4 is taken on.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: The neutron-photon 

6 ratio portion --

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: -- of the Site 

9 Profile is what was reviewed here.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And so, to me, 

12 that is the logical place where this group is 

13 dealing with Los Alamos in its entirety. Of 

14 course, it only really deals with Los Alamos 

15 after 1975. To the extent that this N/P ratio 

16 applies before 1975, I would suggest we leave 

17 it alone because if it is not feasible to do 

18 an N/P ratio, then the non-presumptives are 

19 going to lose that neutron dose, so we got to 

20 get a neutron dose for unmonitored people. We 

21 have non-presumptive cancers pre-`75.

22 But, to me, this Subcommittee 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 could kind of be shed of the findings by 

2 handing them to Los Alamos.

3 CHAIR MUNN: It seems to be almost 

4 an unquestionable assumption that the Los 

5 Alamos Work Group really should be handling 

6 this. Regardless of what we did, we would 

7 have to be doing it in such close cooperation 

8 with what they are doing that it would appear 

9 to simply complicate things if we did not have 

10 them addressing these issues as well.

11 Shall I take it as an action item 

12 to refer these, refer this document to the Los 

13 Alamos Work Group with our indication that we 

14 have reviewed it ourselves, have discussed it 

15 with SC&A, and request that they take the 

16 responsibility for these five findings?

17 MR. KATZ: Mike and Paul?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: That makes sense. 

19 There is no SC&A review of the Los Alamos 

20 Site Profile?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, right now, 

22 we are in reviews of Evaluation Reports. I 
238

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 don't know where the Site Profile --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: There was a Site 

4 Profile review --

5 MR. KATZ: At one point.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: -- at one point.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, there was a 

8 Site Profile review, and I don't know where we 

9 are with the ER.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: But were these 

11 issues raised there?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, that is the 

13 question, John. Is this sort of a duplicate 

14 of -- were these issues already raised when 

15 the TBD was reviewed by SC&A?

16 DR. BEHLING: No, no. No, I am 

17 pretty sure that the level of detail that I 

18 went into here was not -- and I'm not that 

19 familiar with our own review, but I am pretty 

20 certain that it would be very unexpected for 

21 me to realize that somebody else identified 

22 the same issues.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: So this really is sort 

2 of like a second SC&A review of the TBD?

3 DR. BEHLING: Yes, it would be a 

4 supplementary review of the TBD.

5 DR. ULSH: It depends on which 

6 revision of the TBD was reviewed. If it was 

7 Rev. 0, the issues that Hans comments on would 

8 not have been attached.

9 MR. KATZ: Oh, exactly. Right.

10 John, do you know whether SC&A 

11 reviewed Rev. 1 or Rev. 0 of the Los Alamos?

12 DR. MAURO: I don't have an answer 

13 for you. I'm sorry. I can look into it and 

14 check with Joe --

15 MR. KATZ: Okay.

16 DR. MAURO: -- on where we are.

17 Hans, when you started, you had 

18 indicated that your review came out shortly 

19 before the revised version of this came out. 

20 I guess I was a little confused on, again, 

21 exactly -- so the review that you performed 

22 was this revision? This goes right back to 
240

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 your beginning.

2 DR. BEHLING: No. No, John, what 

3 I stated is that the PER-18 was prompted by 

4 internal -- NIOSH internal formal review that 

5 made these changes, as shown in Exhibit 1 and 

6 2, to the neutron-photon ratios, et cetera, et 

7 cetera.

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay.[

9 DR. BEHLING: And they did not 

10 include or address any of the issues that 

11 might have been identified by SC&A of the TBD 

12 review. I don't know, to answer somebody's 

13 question who raised it, did SC&A review 

14 Revision 0 or Rev. 1. I don't know. But it 

15 would be very unlikely that our review of 

16 either one would have probably addressed the 

17 issues that I raised here.

18 DR. MAURO: I hear you. I wish I 

19 could give you a definitive answer. I can't.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it just 

21 seems to me that whichever the answer is that 

22 we need to couple this with what SC&A has done 
241

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 before. If there was a review -- and, Hans, 

2 why do you think no one would have addressed 

3 this before?

4 DR. BEHLING: Because no one is as 

5 thorough as I am.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. KATZ: I was ready for that.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: We just wanted to 

10 get that on the record.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIR MUNN: The website shows two 

13 SC&A reports. One was a review of the ER 

14 preliminary issues, availability of bioassay 

15 records. And the other is the Los Alamos 

16 National Laboratory Site Profile review --

17 MR. KATZ: August 2006.

18 CHAIR MUNN: -- August 2006.

19 DR. MAURO: Yes, it goes all the 

20 way back. And the last one you made reference 

21 to, these were issues -- was that relatively 

22 recent?
242

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 CHAIR MUNN: April of 2010.

2 DR. MAURO: Yes, okay. Good. 

3 That's what I thought. I think it is active 

4 now with Joe, the ER.

5 CHAIR MUNN: That was with respect 

6 to an SEC.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, with respect to 

8 an SEC, exactly.

9 DR. BEHLING: You know, I am 

10 reading again on page 6, and I didn't 

11 highlight it and that's why I didn't read it. 

12 But what I stated in that is that, "This 

13 further implies that any comments/findings 

14 that SC&A submitted in the review of TBD-6, 

15 Rev. 0" -- so, apparently, Rev. 0 was 

16 initially evaluated by SC&A or reviewed by 

17 SC&A. So it was Rev. 0.

18 MR. KATZ: So it wouldn't have 

19 captured this, anyway.

20 DR. BEHLING: No.

21 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, it makes 

22 sense to me. Certainly, it seems like all 
243

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 your Subcommittee Members agree that this 

2 belongs in the Work Group's court.

3 CHAIR MUNN: All right. If we 

4 don't have any objection, then, I will draft 

5 an email for the Los Alamos Work Group and 

6 transmit this document to them with a brief 

7 comment about our discussion here.

8 DR. MAURO: Hans, I've got a 

9 question to you. These findings and 

10 observations that you have reported here in 

11 the PER, have you been in touch with Joe at 

12 all recently regarding these matters? Has 

13 there been some interaction there?

14 DR. BEHLING: No, I have not 

15 talked to Joe.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. We have got to 

17 take care of that. These are going on, and I 

18 know Joe is actively involved here. I just 

19 want to make sure that -- it will certainly be 

20 picked up by the Work Group, but it would be 

21 good for Joe to make sure that he is sensitive 

22 to the issues that you have raised.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. BEHLING: Yes. No, as I said, 

2 I have been pretty much working in isolation. 

3 I have not conferred with Joe on this issue.

4 DR. MAURO: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Shall I copy Joe?

6 MR. KATZ: Oh, he is part of -- it 

7 will go to the whole Work Group.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

9 MR. KATZ: So then for the sake of 

10 completeness, there doesn't need to be a 

11 followup with cases in this situation.

12 CHAIR MUNN: No.

13 DR. MAURO: No.

14 CHAIR MUNN: When we do include 

15 this on our database, though, we will show it 

16 as transferred to the Work Group.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. I mean, should 

18 the Work Group, at the end of the day, should 

19 that Work Group conclude that these methods 

20 are good, then you could follow up with the 

21 cases on this PER, but it would be premature 

22 at this point.
245

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 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 DR. ULSH: Is it the case that 

3 whatever the LANL Working Group decides, they 

4 are going to get back to this Subcommittee, so 

5 that we can --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Supposedly.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, we will need to 

8 coordinate that, exactly.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's what's 

10 supposed to happen whenever we transfer.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, that's good. 

12 Probably something to address in your transfer 

13 memo.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I will do it.

15 MR. KATZ: I think you have done 

16 that before with other transfers.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I have.

18 All right. Can we move on, then, 

19 to PER-20?

20 MR. KATZ: PER-20?

21 CHAIR MUNN: PER-20.

22 MR. KATZ: Who's carrying the ball 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on that?

2 DR. BEHLING: Well, that's mine 

3 again. Yes, our review of PER-20 was 

4 submitted in March of 2009. I think this is 

5 going to be a short one because John tells me 

6 that an SEC has been issued for Blockson. The 

7 three issues that I identified in my review 

8 may all become a no-issue issue as a result of 

9 the SEC petition. So I am not sure if it is 

10 worth actually discussing it.

11 DR. MAURO: Why don't you just 

12 quickly identify the issues? I believe when 

13 we last spoke, Hans, each one of those really 

14 become moot.

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes, because of the 

16 particular impact it has on the type of 

17 cancer. The three issues, quite frankly, are, 

18 very briefly, the following.

19 For Building 55 workers' exposure 

20 to uranium may have involved, at least this is 

21 the finding, may have involved low solubility 

22 or Type S uranium compounds, which would 
247

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 obviously impact principally the lung tissue.

2 Number two, equally, the lower 

3 solubility uranium material, if ingested, 

4 would imply the assumption of a lower F sub 1 

5 value, which was the second issue, meaning the 

6 uptake from the gut into the bloodstream.

7 And thirdly, estimate of indoor 

8 radon concentration -- surrogate data that are 

9 considered inappropriate result in low 

10 exposure values, and I think that was 

11 thoroughly discussed, the use of the Florida

12 phosphogypsum plants.

13 So as far as I am concerned, based 

14 on the SEC status that has been awarded to 

15 Blockson, all three issues really are of 

16 little or no consequence.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes, the radon is what 

18 triggered the SEC. The Type N/Type S issue 

19 which you bring up only has -- they are using 

20 M. And the Type S issue that basically you 

21 are raising only has applicability to 

22 respiratory cancer and perhaps thoracic, some 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of the lymphomas, all of which are covered.

2 So in a funny sort of way, what we 

3 have here is some technical issue that has not 

4 been resolved, that particular one, the M/S 

5 issue, but it becomes moot since any 

6 individual that has such a cancer will be 

7 compensated under the SEC.

8 The question really becomes are 

9 there any non-presumptive cancers that could 

10 be affected by any of these issues? And then, 

11 of course, it warrants some discussion because 

12 it will affect how you are going to deal with 

13 workers who have one of those non-presumptive 

14 cancers.

15 But I guess what I just heard is 

16 that -- now the second issue had to do with 

17 ingestion?

18 DR. BEHLING: Yes. And, in fact, 

19 if you want to just briefly go over it for 

20 those who have that report available, I can 

21 sort of, in a very, very brief way, summarize 

22 the issues by pointing out the Exhibit No. 2
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on page 17 of my report. If everyone takes a 

2 few seconds here to bring up the report, go to 

3 page number 17 and look at Exhibit No. 2.

4 DR. MAURO: And as you go over 

5 these, you know, perhaps, Stu, the folks there 

6 could -- whether you believe any of these 

7 issues have play for non-presumptive cancers.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, I am not sure, 

9 John, that it is only an issue of non10 presumptive because it is also an issue of 

11 anyone without 250 days.

12 DR. MAURO: That's true. That is 

13 absolutely true. Okay. There you go. All of 

14 a sudden this is right back --

15 MR. KATZ: Because they are not in 

16 the SEC Class, either, if they don't have 250 

17 days of employment.

18 CHAIR MUNN: But they also are not 

19 covered by the statute, are they?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. You can have a 

21 day of exposure and you're covered --

22 DR. MAURO: You're absolutely 
250

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 right. The only one that goes away really is 

2 the radon one because radon, it can't be 

3 reconstructed.

4 MR. KATZ: Right. That is clear. 

5 Right.

6 DR. MAURO: That is clear. The 

7 M/S issue, though, you are absolutely right, 

8 if it is less than 250 days, you are still 

9 going to have to reconstruct this person's 

10 exposure, and if it's -- and the M/S issue 

11 might have applicability to a lung cancer that 

12 a person may have gotten who was there for 

13 less than 250 days and, therefore, is not 

14 compensated under the SEC.

15 You have got it right. Okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: However, you know, 

17 some of us are fairly familiar with Blockson 

18 and what has transpired there. And the 

19 question that comes to my mind immediately is 

20 do we, in fact, have claimants with low 

21 periods of employment at the Blockson plant?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know, and 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I don't think I can run that query here today.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you may have 

3 in the future.

4 MR. KATZ: You may. You may have 

5 a claimant, I think.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: When was this 

7 report distributed?

8 DR. BEHLING: The date on this is 

9 March 2009.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Nancy Johnson sent 

11 out a version of it on January 14th of this 

12 year.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, January 14th?

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, that was 

15 distributed to us.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: That was 

17 distributed.

18 CHAIR MUNN: That is when we got 

19 it.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, I think --

21 with the PA-cleared version of it.

22 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.
252

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 CHAIR MUNN: The effective date of 

2 the report was March 2009. We received it in 

3 January.

4 DR. BEHLING: Are we still 

5 interested in going over at least the first 

6 two issues?

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it probably 

8 would be wise to get it on the record, Hans.

9 DR. BEHLING: Okay. I will keep 

10 it short. Maybe I will skip all the 

11 preliminary stuff and ask you to go to page 15 

12 of the report. Under Section 4.2 is issue 

13 one, and it identified NIOSH's -- solubility -

14 - Type M for uranium and its use for 

15 converting urine excretion data to inhalation 

16 quantities for Building 55 may be 

17 inappropriate.

18 And in that section, for those who 

19 are already on the screen looking at Section 

20 4.2, there is a direct quotation that comes 

21 out of the TBD. It states the following at 

22 the bottom of that quotation.
253

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 "Based on these processes and the 

2 results of various studies that have been 

3 summarized by Rucker, et al, Type M material 

4 is used to derive intakes from bioassay 

5 results."

6 I looked at the Rucker report and 

7 also looked at ICRP data. What I ended up 

8 coming up with is that perhaps the Rucker 

9 report does not necessarily endorse this.

10 If you go to page number 16 after 

11 those series of itemized numbers 1 through 6, 

12 starting with the paragraph with the wording, 

13 "Regarding NIOSH's basis for assigning 

14 solubility class type M for uranium, SC&A 

15 reviewed the cited reference and came to a 

16 different conclusion." The reference is 

17 Rucker 2001.

18 What happened was that the DOE 

19 standard guide of good practice for 

20 occupational radon detection range had 

21 identified uranium oxide as Class W. However, 

22 in 2000, the DOE standard was replaced by a 
254

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 2004 DOE standard with the same title. In 

2 table 2-11, DOE 2004 classified this uranium 

3 oxide compound as Class Y. So, it underwent a 

4 change from a Class W to a Class Y.

5 And if you go to the next page, 

6 which I identified as Exhibit 2 on page 17, 

7 you see the ICRP default F sub 1 value and 

8 also the inhalation -- if you look at the 

9 uranium compound, you will see inhalation Type 

10 S and a default F sub 1 value of 0.002, which 

11 is obviously a factor of 10 lower than the one 

12 that is assumed for ingestion. That applies 

13 to highly insoluble compounds UO2 and U3O8.

14 So these are the default values as 

15 cited in ICRP-68, both for the solubility 

16 default value as well as the ingestion F sub 1 

17 value. So that was really the basis for those 

18 two items, those two issues that I identified 

19 in behalf of this PER.

20 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

21 This goes back quite some time. When we first 

22 discussed Blockson, there were so many issues, 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if you remember. Of course, it all ended up 

2 with the radon model.

3 But one of the first issues that 

4 we brought up had to do with the Type S/Type 

5 N, but at that time we all agreed that this 

6 was a Site Profile issue.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did.

8 DR. MAURO: And as a result, we 

9 put it in the parking lot.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 DR. MAURO: It really never came 

12 out of the parking lot. But at the time that 

13 we talked about it -- this goes back a number 

14 of years -- Jim Neton was there. And Jim 

15 said, well, listen, I agree because, as a 

16 matter of practice, whenever you are dealing 

17 with U3O8, the yellowcake, he agrees that the 

18 practice that is used is the one that is more 

19 limiting for the cancer of concern, M or S.

20 But he said in this particular 

21 case at Blockson, where we are dealing with 

22 phosphate and the separation of that material, 
256

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 his experience, and basically, the position he 

2 took at the time is that he felt that -- felt 

3 strongly that really this is an M situation, 

4 not an S.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 DR. MAURO: And we agreed to --

7 you know, at that point, that was the position 

8 that Jim had mentioned. And we could probably 

9 go back to the minutes, all the way back, and 

10 actually find that conversation.

11 But then it really didn't go much 

12 further than that because you put it in the 

13 parking lot for the SEC. So I guess we're, 

14 in effect, resurrecting it at this time.

15 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and, also, I 

16 would like to point to not only the ICRP 

17 default values, but if you go to page 18 of my 

18 report, I provide the summary of a report that 

19 NIOSH makes reference to, but then dismisses. 

20 And that is the 1984 Eidson and Damon study.

21 And if you look at table 8 at the 

22 bottom of page 18, you will see various 
257

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 empirical data in terms of picocuries per 

2 cubic meter that they observed for a total of 

3 five different activities. And for the lowest 

4 level of activity, identified here as no 

5 activity, you have a median value of 27 

6 picocuries per cubic meter and a maximum of 34 

7 picocuries per meter. Okay?

8 And if you go on to the next page, 

9 on page 19, I have provided -- gave an 

10 explanation as to what that implies. If you 

11 use the lowest median air concentration of 27 

12 picocuries per cubic meter, as defined for the 

13 no activity measurement, the daily inhalation 

14 intake of 259 picocuries per day of uranium is 

15 basically more than three times the 95th 

16 percentile value of 82 picocuries per day 

17 provided by NIOSH from the urine data, which 

18 suggests that we are using the wrong 

19 solubility.

20 And somewhere in the middle of 

21 that page 19, I gave you an estimate of what 

22 the difference is between Type S and Type M. 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 As you see, in the first year you would have 

2 664 picocuries per day if you assumed Type S 

3 and only 109 for Type M. So you have more 

4 than a sixfold difference, depending on which 

5 solubility class you select.

6 And the Damon study would suggest, 

7 based on what I showed you here, that we are 

8 somewhat underestimating the -- likely to 

9 underestimate the solubility class. It should 

10 be Type S.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think we had 

12 some question -- I could be wrong about this, 

13 but I thought we had some question as to the 

14 applicability of the Eidson and Damon study 

15 because of the type of uranium mills in which 

16 their data were gathered.

17 DR. ULSH: That is on Hans's page 

18 19 of 25.

19 DR. BEHLING: Yes, I quote a 

20 statement here that NIOSH dismisses 

21 discrepancy and quote the following statement.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think the Work 
259

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 Group also was of that similar mind because 

2 these phosphate plants were so different in 

3 their exposure rates than many of the 

4 packaging plants were. But that is just 

5 reinforcing what you are saying here, I guess. 

6 But at the time, I guess, personally, I still 

7 would have some reservation about that.

8 DR. BEHLING: But, Wanda, we need 

9 to go back and let me point out on page 18 the 

10 no activity -- you know, it was described in 

11 the Eidson and Damon document as a no 

12 activity, it includes timely, "no other 

13 activity is occurring or has occurred for at 

14 least two hours prior." That would suggest 

15 you have a very nominal air concentration.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. BEHLING: And if that already 

18 exceeds the 95th percentile -- if the median 

19 value of 257 picocuries per cubic meter 

20 exceeds the 82 95th percentile value. I was 

21 looking at this and saying I am being very, 

22 very unconservative in making this comparison, 
260

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 using the lowest concentration that would 

2 suggest 257 picocuries per cubic meter as 

3 opposed to 82 generated at the 95th percentile 

4 value that NIOSH used. I have a tough time 

5 justifying the dismissal of the study.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I won't argue 

7 it at this point.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I have a 

9 question on this review. Maybe I need to go 

10 through it more carefully, but on a PER 

11 review, we are reviewing what NIOSH has 

12 already agreed to based on -- are we not? The 

13 parameters for the Program Evaluation had 

14 previously been agreed to, had they not, the 

15 reasons for changing?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: We do a PER -- we 

17 only do a PER when there is a change that we 

18 have adopted.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Now that can be an 

21 agreed-to change --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or it may be --
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or it may be 

2 one that we did on our own.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I got you. Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Like we just talked 

5 about with the last one.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. Okay. So 

7 was this one that you adopted?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: This was one that 

9 we adopted. As I recall --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I'm sort of 

11 saying are there new issues being raised that 

12 should have been raised before. Or was this 

13 not -- wasn't there some agreed-to Blockson 

14 parameters on which the PER was based 

15 originally?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: If I am not 

17 mistaken, this PER was written at the time 

18 that it became necessary to add the non19 uranium exposure because --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that is when 

21 there was a big fuss about --

22 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the original 
262

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 designation of the site was Building 55, and 

2 Building 55, by the time the material got to 

3 Building 55, it was essentially the phosphoric 

4 acid product that had already been stripped 

5 from the phosphate rock.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: And so all the 

8 other non-uranium --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: So the issues that 

10 are raised here weren't issues that were 

11 available to be reviewed prior to this?

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: I was just looking 

14 at a process thing.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, I 

16 believe that is why this PER was done. I know 

17 we did a Blockson PER for that reason. I 

18 don't know if this --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, and it is sort 

20 of the question why weren't the issue raised 

21 previously because there had been a Blockson 

22 review, but it is at that change in the site 
263

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 description or the covered area, right?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly, we did 

3 a PER for that reason. I am trying to 

4 remember if this is the one or not.

5 DR. MAURO: But, notwithstanding 

6 the motivation for the PER, the issue 

7 regarding S and M that we just talked about 

8 was one of the very, very first issues that 

9 were raised early on. And, basically, NIOSH 

10 doesn't agree. And, you know, basically, we 

11 agreed to disagree.

12 And I think you went forward with 

13 your PER -- I'm sorry -- with your revisions 

14 to Blockson's Site Profile and the entire 

15 process. Under the position, no, it is 

16 appropriately M and not S. And so 

17 notwithstanding the fact that this issue was 

18 on the table, I think it was NIOSH's judgment, 

19 and to this day, that, no, you still feel 

20 strongly that it is M and there is no 

21 possibility that it could be S.

22 So I think it is a judgment made 
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where we agreed to disagree on this issue. 

2 And it hasn't gotten that much attention 

3 because we were so much focused on thorium 

4 issues and radon issues and the other matters 

5 that the PER did tend to.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the reason I 

7 raised the question, though, is, I mean, in 

8 principle, we can agree to disagree. In 

9 essence, if the issue was closed, I don't 

10 think it is fair to raise it again. That's 

11 all I am saying. If it wasn't closed, it is 

12 fair game.

13 DR. MAURO: Yes, it was not. I 

14 can tell you that issue was never closed. 

15 And, Wanda, you may recall a number of 

16 occasions when we were sort of in the home 

17 stretch of resolving all our SEC issues. I 

18 did make mention that, notwithstanding the 

19 fact that we resolved, in my mind, what the 

20 SEC issues were, which we did, I did want to 

21 point out that we still did have this S and M 

22 issue that is still on the table for a Site 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Profile.

2 That came up on occasion from time 

3 to time as a reminder. But we were so engaged 

4 in the SEC that that really was sort of put on 

5 the back burner and stayed there until today.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: So that actually 

7 was an issue that the Blockson Work Group 

8 didn't close out, is what you are saying?

9 DR. MAURO: That is correct.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now that being the 

11 case, then I would raise the next question is 

12 who closes it out, if it still is in play, in 

13 order to handle the non-presumptive cancers or 

14 the less-than-250-day people? Is it the job 

15 of this group to do that? Because it is not 

16 so much a procedure anymore; it is a Site 

17 Profile issue.

18 DR. MAURO: Right. Right, but our 

19 position has always been, one, if there is an 

20 active Work Group for a Site Profile, then, it 

21 is transferred. I believe the Blockson Work 

22 Group ended when the SEC was granted. I am 
266

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 not sure.

2 CHAIR MUNN: It is dead on 

3 arrival.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. So it does come 

5 back into our lap.

6 MR. KATZ: No, we can resurrect 

7 the Blockson --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes. Wanda 

9 wants to keep it. She is grasping for the 

10 power here.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIR MUNN: No, thanks. No. No, 

13 you don't want to --

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Were you on that 

15 one, too, Wanda? Okay.

16 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. I am 

17 back for a while. I am just back for a while.

18 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, Dick.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Welcome back, Dick.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it is just a 

21 process issue.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That PER was -- no 
267

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 is the old one.

2 MR. KATZ: But it is the Work 

3 Group that has the context about the site 

4 discussions --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. KATZ: -- to finish an issue 

7 that they have raised. Who was on that Work 

8 Group?

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I was. Gen 

10 was. Mike was. And Dr. Melius was. And Mark 

11 came along to carry the water.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. What 

13 do we know about this Eidson and Damon data 

14 from 1984 on the packaging stations, the 

15 yellowcakes, don't those numbers for no 

16 activity seem inordinately high?

17 CHAIR MUNN: It seems like it.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: If I am doing this 

19 conversion right, that is almost 60 dpm per 

20 cubic meter, right?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Which table are 

22 you looking at?
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: I am looking at 

2 table 8, and that is on page --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: I see it, yes.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: That is 

5 essentially 60 dpm per cubic meter. I am 

6 pretty sure the DAC derived air concentration 

7 for Class Y uranium --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: Picocuries per 

10 cubic meter.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes, right.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: I am pretty sure 

13 if we were going back to Class Y, 44 dpms per 

14 cubic meter is the derived air concentration, 

15 I mean the limits, the statutory limit. I 

16 don't know. They just seem surprisingly high 

17 to me, that they'd have much activity with 

18 nothing going on.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I thought we 

20 talked about it back then.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: I wasn't really in 

22 those meetings. Jim was in there, but I 
269

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 wasn't really in the Blockson meetings.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, Wanda, Mike, Dr. 

3 Melius, Jim --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Jim and Jim, yes.

5 MR. KATZ: And Brad was an 

6 alternate.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And we are 

8 routinely split 50/50 on our findings. So 

9 what is the suggestion here? You are 

10 suggesting that the Blockson Group be 

11 reconstituted for the purpose of addressing 

12 the S and M issue?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, it sounds to 

14 me like the findings here are not that the PER 

15 was inappropriately administered, but that 

16 there is some underlying issues with the Site 

17 Profile on which the PER was --

18 MR. HINNEFELD: You will have a 

19 Site Profile. You add a Class; you still have 

20 got a Site Profile -- non-presumptives unless 

21 the 250 day was --

22 MR. KATZ: I think this goes to 
270

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 Work Group. I mean, otherwise, you lose 

2 the --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm glad you 

4 suggested it.

5 MR. KATZ: -- context of the Work 

6 Group.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Brant suggested it 

8 to me, and I wouldn't bring it up because I 

9 didn't want to give it to Wanda.

10 (Laughter.)

11 Not because I wouldn't have wanted 

12 to --

13 MR. KATZ: Wanda gets it either 

14 way; it is just who she gets as company.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and it only 

16 hurts.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Have you 

18 got a cheerful note on that --

19 CHAIR MUNN: No.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we are going to 

21 hand that one back to Tom, I guess.

22 CHAIR MUNN: The question, then, 
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, is it 

3 something we can handle easily here, I mean --

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there is a 

5 lot of stuff that goes in this. Y and S are 

6 really not the same. The old Class Y and the 

7 new Class S are really not the same in terms 

8 of what the mathematical excretion curve, what 

9 the excretion curve looks like because, well, 

10 the new one, S, the model is far more 

11 complicated. And so when you draw it out, it 

12 and Y don't really look that similar.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is this an 

14 overriding issue?

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It is just the 

16 three categories, you know, there are three 

17 categories. So everybody assumes they sort of 

18 align, and they would align more than across 

19 an alignment. Although I have heard people 

20 say that the old Class Y looks more like the 

21 new Class M than it does the new Class S.

22 So, I mean, there is more to this 
272

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 than just saying, well, it used to be the 

2 third category, and I think there will be 

3 debate about that. I think you will also find 

4 a lot of literature and some people who have 

5 experience who say that U3O8, depending upon 

6 how it originated, doesn't behave like UO2 

7 that has been high-fired and treated for fuel.

8 I know of at least a couple of 

9 classes of uranium -- papers, at least one 

10 that shows it pretty clearly between the old M 

11 and the old S, not really fitting S at all, 

12 but a little more retained than the old M.

13 So, to me, it is not cut and dried 

14 that because a single thing says it can be Y 

15 or it can be S, that you automatically put it 

16 there in all circumstances.

17 MR. KATZ: Well, here's what I 

18 suggest. If this is --

19 MR. HINNEFELD: And it is not an 

20 easy issue, I don't think.

21 MR. KATZ: If this is an issue 

22 that sort of gets to fundamental health 
273

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 physics matters versus site-specific expertise 

2 about Blockson, if it is there, then it can 

3 stay here. If it is about sort of fundamental 

4 health physics determinations versus having to 

5 know a lot about site-specific circumstances, 

6 then it seems like it is perfectly good to 

7 stay here and not resurrect Blockson. But if 

8 it really relies on understanding a lot about 

9 Blockson, then it would be more appropriate to 

10 send it there.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: It requires a 

12 piece of both. I think it's -- but the 

13 specific conditions that existed at Blockson 

14 and the specific conditions under which the 

15 U3O8 was produced I think are probably more 

16 important than the basic --

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, then --

18 DR. ULSH: There are -- if I 

19 understand correctly, there were originally 

20 three findings, this Type S versus Type M. 

21 There was an ingestion one that I don't have 

22 all the details.
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the 

2 ingestion just has -- it is the same one, I 

3 believe, that if you have a different -- was 

4 it F2 -- goes along a different absorption 

5 fraction from the gut, applies to a different 

6 solubility.

7 DR. ULSH: So two related issues, 

8 but --

9 MR. HINNEFELD: But it is 

10 essentially the same issue in two exposure 

11 pathways.

12 DR. BEHLING: And, again, I want 

13 to point out the ICRP default values that I 

14 enclosed as Exhibit No. 2, which, according to 

15 ICRP Publication 68, does define a Class S for 

16 inhalation and an F sub 2 value of 0.002 for 

17 ingestion. So it is really a classification 

18 that is a default value defined by ICRP-68.

19 DR. ULSH: Okay. So if you want 

20 to call that one issue or two --

21 DR. BEHLING: Well, they are 

22 interrelated, obviously.
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ULSH: Two issues. Those both 

2 can be referred to Blockson or not.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think so.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I wouldn't do one 

5 without the other.

6 MR. KATZ: Right, right.

7 DR. ULSH: And then the third was 

8 radon, which we have agreed is not an issue 

9 anymore.

10 MR. KATZ: No longer. It's gone.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: We will get the 

12 right people involved in it.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Tom and --

14 MR. HINNEFELD: It might be Dave 

15 Allen. It might be -- well, Jim -- Jim was 

16 involved in Blockson.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, he was.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: When you get into 

19 internal dosimetry, we rely a lot on Dave 

20 Allen, although Tom is almost as good.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. We can resurrect 

22 the Work Group on the website, too.
276

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 CHAIR MUNN: So we have two -- you 

2 had three findings, right? Or do we just have 

3 two?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: We only got two 

5 left. We had three. We have two left.

6 MR. KATZ: Radon is moot.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: One of them was 

8 radon.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Radon is moot.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

12 MR. KATZ: Maybe it is business 

13 they can get done within one meeting.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIR MUNN: Right, the same way 

16 we did radon, yes. Exactly. And in precisely 

17 the same manner. It is a foregone conclusion. 

18 Okay?

19 Very good. Then we -- to 

20 summarize, we had no -- with respect to the 

21 PERs, we had no action with respect to PER-8. 

22 That is closed. The issue is going to 
277

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 scientific issues that was raised there. And 

2 so it is not our problem.

3 PER-18 --

4 MR. KATZ: That transferred to 

5 LANL.

6 CHAIR MUNN: -- is transferred to 

7 the LANL Work Group with an explanation.

8 PER-20, we will reconstitute the 

9 Blockson Work Group, and we will deal with the 

10 two findings that were identified in that 

11 document. Correct? Well, the three 

12 outstanding ones that were in that document.

13 DR. BEHLING: Yes. Wanda, it is 

14 Finding No. 1 and 2.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 DR. BEHLING: Three was the radon, 

17 and it's been resolved.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right. I will 

19 remember that.

20 MR. KATZ: Findings 1 and 2. 

21 Thanks.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Now that 
278

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 having upset my digestive system no end, can 

2 we please take a 15-minute break here. We are 

3 almost due for it anyhow. Let's be back at 10 

4 minutes after 3:00, at which time we will 

5 undertake the review of the 14 two-pagers.

6 If you have not looked at them 

7 before, please look at them very quickly now 

8 because we are, despite all our best efforts, 

9 going to have to talk about some of the 

10 changes that were on those draft tracking 

11 sheets that you got. Okay?

12 MEMBER LEMEN: This is Dick. I 

13 will call back in at a quarter after, correct?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Ten after.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: Ten after?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I will call back in 

18 then.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Dick.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. I will put the 

21 phone on mute.

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
279

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 matter went off the record at 2:54 p.m. and 

2 went back on the record at 3:12 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. We are 

4 reconvening the Procedures Subcommittee.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Have we picked up 

6 Mark yet?

7 MR. KATZ: The two-pagers.

8 Mark, do we have you with us?

9 (No response.)

10 How about, Dick, are you back on?

11 MEMBER LEMEN: I am back on.

12 MR. KATZ: Great.

13 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

14 I am going to suggest that what we 

15 do is address these in the same order as the 

16 communication that forwarded them to us, Nancy 

17 Johnson's --

18 MEMBER LEMEN: A general 

19 suggestion before we start on that?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, sir.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Since these are 

22 going to be two-pagers, and I looked at these 
280

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 see if we could get them down to one page, 

2 a lot of them we probably can. But when we 

3 print these up and submit these, is it 

4 possible -- this may be a technical question 

5 nobody can answer -- is it possible we could 

6 print these on two sides, so that we only have 

7 one piece of paper?

8 MR. KATZ: Well, Dick, these are 

9 going to live on the web. They are not really 

10 for hard copy --

11 MEMBER LEMEN: If they are going 

12 to live on the web, I guess that would be 

13 fine.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 MEMBER LEMEN: But if they are not 

16 going to live on the web, and we ever decide 

17 to print them up, I would like to see them on 

18 one page.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. But these 

20 really are not handouts.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: They will never go 

22 into handouts?
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: No, I don't think so. 

2 I mean not unless someone were to request a 

3 copy of one of them, but no.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I can see 

5 people requesting them, and if they do, that 

6 is my suggestion.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes. But, I mean, for 

8 most people, they would just download them. 

9 If someone asks us to send them a hard copy, 

10 we would.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, if you do 

12 send them a hard copy, I would just suggest 

13 you put it on one page with double-sided 

14 printing.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think we can 

16 do that. For the most part, they are just 

17 going to be on the web.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: That's fine.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I knew that, but I 

21 also know that we will get requests for them 

22 and we will be sending out hard copy of them.
282

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 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

2 MEMBER LEMEN: And I also know 

3 people will print them out as hard copies.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes. Yes, they 

5 do. No question about it.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: That's all.

7 CHAIR MUNN: All of our efforts 

8 notwithstanding, we still are going to have to 

9 discuss some of these.

10 I want to thank SC&A for doing 

11 such a good job of getting us close to where 

12 we need to be, especially with these first 12. 

13 I am hoping that we can definitely get 

14 through the first 12 and, with any luck at 

15 all, we may be able to take a look at the 

16 additional two, PER-3 and OTIB-3.

17 But, just for the record, let's 

18 start with TIB-2, tritium calculations with 

19 IMBA. Let's try our best not to do what we 

20 have done before, which is beat these to 

21 death. But there are one or two matters of 

22 just process that we want to take a look at. 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I hope we can as we are going through these.

2 I will give you as we are looking 

3 at them a couple of suggested changes that I 

4 had as I was going through them one last time. 

5 Most of them are nits and not of any real 

6 consequence. There wasn't anything that I saw 

7 in any of these that did have specific 

8 technical consequences. It was just our 

9 continuing concern with trying to make sure 

10 that they flow and that they are as easily 

11 readable as possible.

12 Did anyone encounter any technical 

13 issues that you had grief with when you were 

14 going through them?

15 We are still just doing clerical 

16 work here, but for the most part I think we 

17 are just about done.

18 On TIB-2 --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hang on a minute.

20 CHAIR MUNN: -- tritium 

21 calculations with IMBA.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: Is that TIB-2 or 
284

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 are you on ORAUT-Procedure?

2 CHAIR MUNN: No, this is tritium 

3 calculations with IMBA, OCAS-TIB-002, Rev. 0.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: There is another 

5 IMBA one, too, that is 002, right?

6 CHAIR MUNN: No.

7 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, I don't know 

8 what I am looking at then.

9 MS. THOMAS: I think Procedure 2 

10 in IMBA also.

11 MEMBER LEMEN: That's what I 

12 thought.

13 MS. THOMAS: So, I think you are 

14 right.

15 CHAIR MUNN: PROC-2, that is 

16 PROC-2. That is talking about --

17 MEMBER LEMEN: No, it's Procedure 

18 2.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Use of 

20 integrated modules for bioanalysis?

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, on the 
285

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 list of things that we have in front of us, 

2 that is No. 10. We are starting with 

3 OCAS-TIB-002.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, what is the 

5 date of the transmittal? Maybe I have got the 

6 wrong --

7 CHAIR MUNN: The date of the --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Mine is March 2nd, 

9 2011.

10 CHAIR MUNN: And mine printed out 

11 without a date on it.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: January 1st -- oh, 

13 January 21, 2011, the transmittal letter from 

14 Nancy --

15 CHAIR MUNN: From Nancy.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Those are marked 

17 up.

18 DR. OSTROW: This is Steve Ostrow.

19 I think Wanda distributed to the 

20 Board all these on March 10th.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: Okay. I have got 
286

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 March 2nd. Let me see if I can find March 10. 

2 I thought she did, too.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I sent 

4 everything out.

5 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, you are very 

6 good person.

7 MR. KATZ: Well, there was a later 

8 batch from SC&A. Maybe that is what --

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that may be 

10 confusing the issue.

11 MR. KATZ: -- Dick is --

12 DR. OSTROW: We sent out a batch 

13 last week also.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, right.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Ignore that 

16 batch from last week. That is --

17 MEMBER LEMEN: I found one from 

18 Wanda dated the 9th, March the 9th. Would 

19 that be it?

20 DR. OSTROW: That could be it.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: I think that is 

22 right because it has got 1 through 14, the 
287

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 first one being TIB-2.

2 CHAIR MUNN: That's it. You got 

3 it.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: But there is a 

5 problem with that.

6 CHAIR MUNN: What's that?

7 MEMBER LEMEN: There is no 

8 attachment to it. It just lists them.

9 MR. KATZ: But Wanda sent a series 

10 of emails, and one of them included --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, Wanda didn't 

12 send it. She referred to it and said that 

13 SC&A was sending it.

14 MEMBER LEMEN: It says, "Attached 

15 are two-page summaries." However, there is no 

16 attachment on mine.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: The note I got 

18 from Wanda said that they were being 

19 distributed by SC&A, not by her.

20 CHAIR MUNN: They had already been 

21 distributed and should have been in 

22 everybody's box.
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Are these the 14 

2 that were sent to the entire Board?

3 CHAIR MUNN: These are the 14 that 

4 were sent to the entire Board.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: And they were sent 

7 specifically to --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Well, go ahead. I 

9 don't have any technical comments on them, 

10 but --

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Ted attached them 

12 to an email on March 2nd.

13 MEMBER LEMEN: I have Ted's March 

14 2nd email in front of me, but there, again, is 

15 no attachment to that one, either.

16 MR. KATZ: Well, it was attached 

17 to my email.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: That one showed up 

19 on my email, my March 2nd.

20 MEMBER LEMEN: I know, Ted. Go 

21 ahead and say. I am listening. I use an 

22 Apple.
289

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 CHAIR MUNN: I do know for a fact 

2 that the attachments are on the copy that Ted 

3 sent on your CDC email.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: I'll find it. 

5 Don't worry.

6 CHAIR MUNN: They are listed 

7 there.

8 I had absolutely no comment at all 

9 on this one with one minor statement. We, in 

10 all of these, frequently used TBD over and 

11 over again. Even though we all know what we 

12 are talking about with TIB, it is very 

13 repetitive when you read it. I have a 

14 tendency to go back and check to see where did 

15 it first say TIB. Where did it first say TIB?

16 In this particular case, on the 

17 last sentence of the third paragraph, we 

18 talked about several things here, but then it 

19 says "the TIB". Does anyone object to my 

20 changing that to "this TIB"?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is the third 

22 paragraph?
290

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 CHAIR MUNN: The third paragraph, 

2 the very last sentence.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: "The TIB"?

4 CHAIR MUNN: "The TIB". What was 

5 I saying? Was I saying "TBD"?

6 MR. KATZ: "TBD", but it doesn't 

7 matter.

8 CHAIR MUNN: If no one has any 

9 objection, I am going to say "this" because we 

10 many times say "the", "the", "the".

11 MR. KATZ: That's fine. This is 

12 just decent English, and that's fine.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Just decent.

14 MR. KATZ: Just let me, again, 

15 just make the point, though, that I think you 

16 can make those editorial copy edit changes 

17 without getting approval or blessing from 

18 anyone.

19 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can, 

20 too --

21 MR. KATZ: You don't need to do 

22 that here.
291

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 CHAIR MUNN: -- certainly, in the 

2 future intend to do that.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes.

4 CHAIR MUNN: But, as I said, this 

5 is our transition, meaning I hope we are not 

6 going to do this in the future.

7 Now the next one that we have --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Hold, hold, hold. 

9 I've got some comments on this.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, sir.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Two things. 

12 Actually, there's three. I think we are 

13 putting back in acronyms. We were trying to 

14 eliminate them all.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we were.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Now we are putting 

17 them back in. I just want to make that 

18 comment because I see them appearing more, 

19 instead of less.

20 CHAIR MUNN: And I would prefer to 

21 just go ahead and spell it out.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would, too. Or 
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just say "the Bulletin" or whatever it is.

2 CHAIR MUNN: "The procedure."

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. But here's 

4 the comment: the first sentence of the third 

5 paragraph --

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- actually, for 

8 everyone's benefit, I want you to know it 

9 contains a dangling participle.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, no.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm showing you 

12 what that is.

13 It says literally that the organs 

14 are using the models, at the end of the 

15 sentence. That is how a dangling participle 

16 works. "Internal doses to the body or 

17 particular organs using the models." You see, 

18 the subject of a participle phrase has to be 

19 right in front of it. I know that is not what 

20 they mean.

21 So, the way you fix it is to say, 

22 "facilitate the calculation of internal doses 
293

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 by using the models." The doses aren't using 

2 the models.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Now is that the --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: The first sentence 

5 in the second or the third paragraph.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Now the first 

7 sentence in the second paragraph --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, the first 

9 sentence in the third paragraph.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that is a 

11 continuation of the sentence above it. "A 

12 computer code, i.e., computer program, called 

13 IMBA (Integrated Model for Bioassay) is used 

14 to facilitate the calculation of internal 

15 doses using the models and assumptions 

16 recommended by the ICRP."

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: It says the 

18 internal doses are using the models. They are 

19 not.

20 MR. MARSCHKE: Calculation of 

21 internal doses using the models.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Can we say "by using 
294

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 models"?

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that is what 

3 I am suggesting.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Okay?

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: And these are 

6 editorial. Then, at the very end, the second 

7 resolution, "agreed with Finding 2, 

8 inspection," and so on. The contractor 

9 verified the procedure, and so on. And, then, 

10 they say the procedure will be modified. 

11 Well, if they verified it and everything, it 

12 sort of says, why does it have to be modified? 

13 Is it because it was cumbersome?

14 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, the 

16 modification is to make it less cumbersome? 

17 Because, I mean, otherwise, why does it --

18 they have confirmed that it works. I mean the 

19 finding was that it was cumbersome.

20 So, they confirm that it works, 

21 gives the correct results, and, then, it says 

22 the procedure will be modified in the future, 
295

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 future revision. We can say, well, why are 

2 you modifying it if it works okay?

3 CHAIR MUNN: To make it simpler.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Can we say, "the 

6 procedure will be simplified in a future 

7 revision."? Would that --

8 MEMBER LEMEN: Why don't we just 

9 say, "the procedure may be simplified in 

10 future revisions?" Or leave the sentence off 

11 completely?

12 MR. KATZ: Yes, I would go with 

13 you on that, Dick. Leave it out completely. 

14 It has no really substantial importance.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, if it is 

16 resolving the finding, the finding is that it 

17 is cumbersome, not that it is wrong.

18 MEMBER LEMEN: Why bring that up? 

19 That just confuses the reader.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, that is what 

21 Finding 2 up above says. That is the finding.

22 MEMBER LEMEN: I know.
296

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 is cumbersome.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, we say, okay, 

4 we are going to make it less cumbersome.

5 CHAIR MUNN: It has been removed.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Okay? The next one 

8 is TIB-006, interpretation of external 

9 dosimetry records at the Savannah River Site.

10 This is one of those which we had 

11 comments from -- no, we didn't. This one was 

12 quite straightforward. I saw nothing 

13 problematical on it.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think Dr. 

15 Richardson made some comments on this or 

16 somebody did.

17 CHAIR MUNN: He made comments on 

18 7.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Somebody changed 

20 "calculation" to "estimation".

21 CHAIR MUNN: On?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: The third line. 
297

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 Oh, wait a minute. Do I have the wrong one? 

2 Which one are we on?

3 CHAIR MUNN: TIB-6.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, I grabbed the 

5 wrong one. TIB-6? Okay, sorry. No, I am 

6 good on it.

7 CHAIR MUNN: I was good on that 

8 one, too.

9 Any problem with 06 as is?

10 (No response.)

11 If not, it is going out the way it 

12 is.

13 The next one is TIB-007, and this 

14 is the first one of which Dr. Richardson did 

15 have comment, starting with "the use of 

16 improved radiation dosimeter in 1971, workers 

17 with significant potential for neutron 

18 exposure were adequately monitored."

19 "I disagree with this statement in 

20 the current context. Adequately monitored 

21 means very different things in different 

22 contexts. The dosimetry program may have been 
298

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 adequate for radiation protection purposes. 

2 Whether it is adequate to derive adequate and 

3 precise time, varying individual doses for all 

4 workers employed from 1971 onward for the 

5 purposes of deriving risk assessments, is a 

6 different matter."

7 And the sentence with which he 

8 took issue was, "Starting in 1971, an improved 

9 radiation dosimeter was used at SRS," he says.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think I agree 

11 with that. The fact that it was an improved 

12 dosimeter doesn't confirm that they were 

13 adequately monitored. It could be a 

14 procedural issue. The old 7 says that they 

15 were adequately monitored. I don't know if 

16 that would logically follow.

17 It may be sufficient just to say 

18 that an improved dosimeter was used starting 

19 at that date. I see his point. I think, to 

20 me, it makes sense.

21 CHAIR MUNN: All right. I guess 

22 my question more had to do with the second 
299

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 sentence than with that one.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: In that paragraph?

3 CHAIR MUNN: I did not understand 

4 why intermittently might have been taken out, 

5 as it seems to be a reasonable statement, 

6 exposed to neutron radiation and not 

7 monitored. Since exposures were not thought 

8 to exceed the DOE criterion, I didn't see any 

9 reason to remove the word intermittently. 

10 Certainly, SRS workers were carefully 

11 monitored.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think he saying, 

13 if you are suggesting that they might not have 

14 been monitored, then it doesn't matter whether 

15 it was intermittent or not if they weren't 

16 monitored, right?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I don't know 

18 whether that was his correction or whether it 

19 was --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Before, it said, 

21 "might have been intermittently exposed and 

22 not monitored".
300

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 CHAIR MUNN: "Might have been 

2 intermittently exposed to neutron radiation 

3 and not monitored", yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I think he is 

5 saying, well, if they weren't monitored, then 

6 whether it was intermittent or not doesn't 

7 make any difference, I guess is the point. I 

8 don't know.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Well, "I also 

10 questioned the low level neutron radiation. I 

11 have not gone back to look at the original 

12 document."

13 MEMBER LEMEN: Don't you think he 

14 might mean "and/or not monitored?"

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, whether he does 

16 or not, I am willing to let it stand as is.

17 MEMBER LEMEN: You're taking a 

18 stand, huh?

19 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that's fine 

20 with me. The one question that I had had to 

21 do with the preceding paragraph and the 

22 argument with respect to underreporting or 
301

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 underestimating a worker's actual neutron dose 

2 because it seemed to me that underreporting 

3 was correct.

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Underreporting is 

5 correct.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I think so, too.

7 "Radiation monitoring technologies 

8 and practices changed over time at the SRS. 

9 Prior to 1971, the personal neutron dosimeter 

10 may have underreported", not "underestimated", 

11 I think.

12 MEMBER LEMEN: I agree with you.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, and it has to 

14 do with the lower limit of detection, I think. 

15 So, it is an underreporting issue.

16 CHAIR MUNN: It is an 

17 underreporting of a worker's actual neutron 

18 dose.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me ask a 

20 revision question to that, because in almost 

21 every case I think Dr. Richardson has changed 

22 the words "determine dose" to "estimate dose", 
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I am not that comfortable with using the 

2 word "estimate", although I guess we use it 

3 when we talk about best estimate, don't we?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I would prefer 

5 not to use "estimate", either, because we 

6 are --

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Estimate" has a 

8 different connotation. We are calculating --

9 CHAIR MUNN: We are calculating 

10 doses.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And even where we 

12 use indirect methods, it is a determination. 

13 Anyway, I have a bit of a problem, and there's 

14 a number of these that have all been changed 

15 to "estimate."

16 CHAIR MUNN: And I would prefer 

17 not to do that.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: He didn't like the 

19 word "determine."

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, he did not like 

21 the word "assigned," either.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about 
303

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 "calculated?" "Provides guidance to 

2 calculated doses?" Or maybe it is not always 

3 calculated. See, we are not always 

4 calculating them, either. We are sometimes --

5 MR. KATZ: But, I mean, you do use 

6 best estimate. You use estimates for all of 

7 the doses presently. Whatever method you use, 

8 it is a best estimate or it is an overestimate 

9 or it is an underestimate.

10 CHAIR MUNN: But, again, that is 

11 one of those words that can make a great deal 

12 of difference to the layperson, where we might 

13 understand that fully. Yet, the ordinary 

14 person reading this, who does not have the 

15 background in what we have done and what is 

16 done --

17 DR. OSTROW: Hi. This is Steve 

18 Ostrow.

19 Let me tell you my reasoning for 

20 this. I changed all to "estimate". My 

21 reasoning is a person actually received a dose 

22 which has a certain value. Calculations or 
304

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 readings on different radiation monitoring 

2 devices are estimates of what the actual dose 

3 actually was.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That's true.

5 DR. OSTROW: That is the reasoning 

6 I used.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and, as I said, 

8 in this forum, I would not disagree with that. 

9 I am thinking in terms of the forum that this 

10 document is going to see, which is an entirely 

11 different audience.

12 I would find "calculate" to be 

13 reasonable. Do you find any grief with that, 

14 Steve?

15 DR. OSTROW: No, Wanda, I 

16 understand your reasoning. "Calculate", 

17 "determine" are fine, something that sounds a 

18 little more definite than "estimate."

19 CHAIR MUNN: Do you have any 

20 problem with "calculate?"

21 MEMBER GIBSON: I don't know that 

22 I do, but I just don't know if that is -- I 
305

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 mean we are just trying to figure out what 

2 David was referring to here.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I thought 

4 David -- no, Steve says he is the one that

5 changed it.

6 CHAIR MUNN: This wasn't Dave. 

7 This was Steve Ostrow who changed it.

8 MEMBER GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry. 

9 No, that's fine.

10 CHAIR MUNN: He is trying to 

11 simplify.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: If we are ever 

13 talking about a document that is providing 

14 guidance to what we do, you can use the 

15 generic term "reconstruct" because we do dose 

16 reconstruction.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Now that is not 

19 useful in every -- depending on how you are 

20 using the word.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Maybe that would 

22 work better here then, "guidance to 
306

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 reconstruct neutron doses."

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, again, that is 

3 a fairly complicated word.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, again, 

5 everything we send is a dose reconstruction.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, see, that 

7 infers a calculation.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about just 

10 using the "original determined dose?" That is 

11 pretty --

12 MR. HINNEFELD: We really don't 

13 have a horse in the race.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: It is to make it 

15 understandable to laypeople.

16 CHAIR MUNN: "Determine neutron 

17 doses," okay. Very good.

18 The next item is OTIB-004, 

19 estimating the maximum plausible dose for 

20 workers at Atomic Weapons Employer facilities.

21 Again, comments from Dr. 

22 Richardson, and his question, the first one, 
307

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 "believed by who?" "NIOSH really needs an 

2 explicit procedure to serve as the basis for 

3 making this determination."

4 The sentence reads, "In cases 

5 where, before performing a dose 

6 reconstruction, it is believed that the 

7 worker's cancer is likely not caused by 

8 radiation in the work environment. The 

9 maximum plausible dose is estimated for the 

10 claimant."

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, I think it 

12 is a good argument. In other words, a priori, 

13 if you haven't made a dose estimate, what 

14 would make you believe that the worker's 

15 cancer wasn't caused by radiation?

16 So, you have to have some basis, I 

17 think is what he is saying here. And just to 

18 say that, well, that is because somebody 

19 believed that is a little bit of maybe hard to 

20 swallow.

21 I think it would be good, and 

22 maybe he is suggesting this, if you could sort 
308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of in very succinct terms say that, based on 

2 -- and it has to be some sort of criteria --

3 based on an initial evaluation of the worker's 

4 job, or whatever it might be, that it is 

5 expected that his cancer may not have been 

6 caused by the work environment, that you do 

7 this process, something that is simply not 

8 somebody believes it. It sounds like it is 

9 based on some kind of an evaluation.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: It is most likely 

11 based on cancer type for your uranium 

12 facility. That is what makes you think this 

13 is a candidate for OTIB-4 is the cancer type.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, you could say 

15 something that, based on a preliminary review 

16 of employment type and cancer type, it appears 

17 likely that the cancer may not have been 

18 caused by radiation, but you do this.

19 MR. KATZ: What about just saying, 

20 "based on an initial review of the case"?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Based on initial 

22 review, in cases where it appears that the 
309

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 worker's cancer is likely not caused by 

2 radiation in the work environment, the maximum

3 plausible dose is estimated for the claimant." 

4 Period. "Overestimating the claimant's dose 

5 should result in a higher calculated 

6 probability that a claimant's cancer was 

7 caused by work-related radiation exposure."

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I like that.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay? Very good. We 

10 will do that.

11 Further down the road, in Finding 

12 6, we use the word "parameters" here again. 

13 And we talked about parameters before as being 

14 one of those technical-sounding words that are 

15 unclear to other people.

16 Does anyone have any problem with 

17 changing that to "factors?"

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's good.

19 CHAIR MUNN: "Guidance is not 

20 claimant" --

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Factors" is good.

22 CHAIR MUNN: -- "is not claimant-
310

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 favorable in instances of unknown factors."

2 And in Finding 9, oh, this is one 

3 of those cases where we keep saying "TIB" over 

4 and over again. Notice, in almost every one 

5 of those findings, "the TIB is incomplete", 

6 "from data in the TIB." "Some data in the TIB 

7 are inconsistent with data in another TIB."

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And in Finding 9, 

9 AWE facility, we don't need to say "AWE" 

10 there.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and it says --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: We are already 

13 talking about AWEs. Just say, "the facility."

14 CHAIR MUNN: "From a particular 

15 AWE facility."

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but just say, 

17 "From a particular facility." The whole thing 

18 has to do with AWEs. So, why do we have to 

19 say "AWE?"

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I am going to 

21 revise that a little bit.

22 And, then, in Finding 10, it says, 
311

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 TIB identifies a breathing rate based on 

2 the assumption of a light worker scenario 

3 which may not be claimant-favorable in some 

4 instances and should be evaluated in detail."

5 Is "and" the correct conjunction 

6 there? Or is "but" the correct conjunction? 

7 "Which may not be claimant8 favorable in some circumstances which should 

9 be evaluated in more detail." 

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think it is sort 

11 of like "and, therefore, should." It seems to 

12 me the "and" is correct.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or "and, 

15 therefore" maybe.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Very good.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do people 

18 understand what a light worker is?

19 CHAIR MUNN: I doubt it, but I 

20 can't think of a simpler way to say it.

21 MEMBER LEMEN: Why don't you say 

22 "the light worker activity" or something like 
312

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? That's what it is, isn't it?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we could use 

3 "activity" instead of "scenario."

4 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes. I mean that 

5 is what you are describing, a person that is 

6 not --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Light work 

9 activity?"

10 CHAIR MUNN: "Light worker 

11 activity."

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Light worker" or 

13 "light" -- well, what is light --

14 MEMBER LEMEN: You could just say 

15 "light activity."

16 MR. MARSCHKE: The "light activity 

17 scenario." I agree with --

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just "light 

19 activity?"

20 MEMBER LEMEN: Yes.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: "Light worker" is a 

22 guy who changes lightbulbs.
313

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 GIBSON: No it's not, 

2 that's an electrician.

3 (Laughter.)

4 CHAIR MUNN: I will say, "based on 

5 an assumption of light activity."

6 MS. THOMAS: "Light worker" is 

7 ICRP terminology. That is where that comes 

8 from.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's why we 

10 don't want to use it.

11 (Laughter.)

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Exactly. We 

13 will say, "on the assumption of light 

14 activity."

15 And under "Resolution of 

16 Findings," No. 2, there is a reference to 

17 another OTIB that means, I think, nothing to 

18 any of us. We would all have to look up that 

19 OTIB-0058.

20 I suggest eliminating that 

21 reference and just saying, "remove a passage 

22 in the new revision to be consistent with 
314

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 other guidance documents."

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm good with 

3 that.

4 MEMBER GIBSON: Yes.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Then, now we 

6 are on to OTIB-008, standard complexwide 

7 conversion factor for overestimating external 

8 doses measured with thermoluminescent 

9 dosimeter.

10 And we have a comment from Dr. 

11 Richardson. "Isn't it either a measurement of 

12 exposure with a filter to simulate attenuation 

13 and provide an estimate of dose or a dose is 

14 actually measured in tissue?"

15 And I don't know whether I am 

16 comfortable with that or not.

17 "Actually, a particular 

18 methodology to estimate the worker's doses is 

19 based upon availability of actual measurements 

20 of external exposure. One popular type of 

21 personal radiation detector was worn by 

22 workers on" -- that's okay.
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 "A particular methodology to 

2 estimate worker's doses is based on 

3 availability of actual measurements of 

4 external exposure." That's okay. Yes, I was 

5 reading it improperly.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, yes, he is 

7 trying to distinguish between the definition 

8 of exposure, which is ionization in air.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is dose, 

11 which is an agent absorbed in tissue.

12 I mean I don't think the 

13 importance is important to a layperson reading 

14 this.

15 CHAIR MUNN: No.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: But, with his 

17 revision, it still reads okay, I think.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. To the 

19 layperson, "exposure" means "what was I 

20 exposed to?"

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

22 CHAIR MUNN: But measles, whooping 
316

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 cough, exposed.

2 In the second paragraph, I have 

3 circled something here that I didn't like.

4 "This Technical Information 

5 Bulletin," and its name, "provides guidance on 

6 how to apply reasonable overestimating, 

7 claimant-favorable, complexwide, encompassing 

8 all" -- that is just much too cumbersome a 

9 statement.

10 "This TIB," and its name, provides 

11 guidance on how to apply reasonable 

12 overestimating assumptions for interpreting 

13 recurring doses for monitored workers 

14 complexwide during the time period when the 

15 DOE laboratory accreditation program applied."

16 That is a cumbersome sentence, and 

17 I don't propose that we unencumber it here. 

18 But if you have --

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, a quick 

20 suggestion: I don't think the layperson 

21 reading this, that it matters that it is 

22 complexwide.
317

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 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think so.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I don't know 

3 that they know what the complex is anyway.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: So, why not 

6 eliminate the "complexwide and covered 

7 facilities" and just say, "overestimating 

8 assumptions for attributing doses to workers?" 

9 Why would we need the "complex?"

10 CHAIR MUNN: We will simplify it.

11 And in the next sentence, where it 

12 says, "The TLD analysis selects a reasonable 

13 overestimate of external radiation dose for 

14 cases that are judged to be," I would like to 

15 say, "probably not compensable" instead of 

16 "likely non-compensable."

17 That is, "The dose reconstructors 

18 believe..." And again, Dr. Richardson says, 

19 "It would be useful if NIOSH would lay out 

20 explicit procedure used to triage claim cases 

21 and make a preliminary determination of 

22 whether a claim is likely to be compensable. 
318

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 procedure should be employed first, and 

2 this procedure only implemented if the first 

3 triage procedure indicates."

4 That is not anything we can do 

5 about in this Subcommittee. It is a 

6 suggestion from him.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Was this 

8 parenthetical thing already in here? It says 

9 this "believe" again.

10 CHAIR MUNN: It says, "The dose 

11 reconstructors believe...," though. He asked 

12 earlier, who believes this? And this one very 

13 clearly says, "The dose reconstructors believe 

14 that any claimant cancers would probably not 

15 have been caused by covered on-the-job 

16 exposure to radiation sources."

17 MR. MARSCHKE: Isn't this the same 

18 as the one that you have already changed 

19 where --

20 CHAIR MUNN: No.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: -- you put the 

22 preliminary -- I mean, why do they believe it?
319

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 CHAIR MUNN: Well, we could 

2 include the kind of thing we said before, 

3 which is --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: That is what I 

5 meant.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Down in the 

7 summary of finding results, there, again, we 

8 get into multiple uses of TIB. I would like 

9 to either call it, change some of them to say, 

10 "The guidance in this TIB" and change some of 

11 them to say, "This" --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Bulletin?

13 CHAIR MUNN: -- "Bulletin", "This 

14 procedure."

15 And in the "Resolution of 

16 Findings", where in the second line on the 

17 next page, it says, "Agreed that the TIB", I 

18 would say, "Agreed that this document" and, as 

19 appropriate, PROC-6 "need to be addressed to 

20 revise the findings."

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do you think we 

22 need to give the whole thing on Finding 3? Or 
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can we just say, "The TIB does not identify a 

2 hierarchical position among these several 

3 competing procedures?" I mean I know the 

4 finding says that, but the rest of this stuff 

5 is, for example, is that of any help to the 

6 layreader?

7 CHAIR MUNN: No, and would make 

8 them wonder where to go to find PROC-6 besides 

9 which.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: And do you want, in 

11 the "Resolution of Findings," below that you 

12 refer to PROC-6 --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want to take 

15 that out as well?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I will say, 

17 "This document and others as appropriate that 

18 need to be revised...."

19 Fewer numbers, fewer procedures --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Fewer acronyms.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 The next item we have is 15, 
321

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 Bayesian methods for estimation of unmonitored 

2 Y-12 external penetrating doses with a time3 dependent log-normal model.

4 My guess is that the name of the 

5 procedure itself will send most people away.

6 I had minor clerical comments. On 

7 the very last line of the first paragraph, it 

8 says, "Site personnel who have no or limited 

9 monitoring data." It seems to me that is 

10 backwards. It should say, "have limited or no 

11 monitoring data."

12 And down under "Summary of 

13 Findings," the second line there, "reviewed 

14 the TIB," I would like to say, "this Technical 

15 Information Bulletin," spell it out.

16 In Finding 2, I want to spell out 

17 "limit of detection" instead of calling it 

18 "LOD."

19 And on the next page, on the 

20 "Resolution of Findings," I would like to say, 

21 "Therefore, the findings with respect to this 

22 document are no longer relevant" rather than 
322

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 this OTIB."

2 MR. KATZ: These things you can do 

3 without permission.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I just wanted 

5 to tell people what I am doing.

6 That is No. 15. It is okay?

7 Then, we are now down to 

8 OTIB-0022, guidance on wound modeling for 

9 internal dose reconstruction.

10 I had no comment --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: It looks good.

12 CHAIR MUNN: I had no comment with 

13 anything except that I intend to spell out 

14 "TIB."

15 And OTIB-0028, validation of 

16 thorium annual dose conversion factors.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is an 

18 "estimation" used in line 3 that maybe we can 

19 put that back to "determination" or something.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Or use "calculation", 

21 as was there originally.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Or "calculation."
323

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 CHAIR MUNN: And down toward the 

2 bottom of that paragraph, there is another one 

3 of those things. "To show" has been taken 

4 out, and I suggest that we not take it out.

5 "This Technical Information 

6 Bulletin," and give its name, "provides 

7 documentation to show that IMBA meets the 

8 recommendations of the ICRP with respect to 

9 values called dose conversion factors for 

10 radioactive thorium isotopes."

11 I propose in Finding 1 to change 

12 "TIB" to "document".

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: On Finding 2, I 

14 think the parenthetical thing could be 

15 confusing, "required when there is a chronic 

16 over time intake." It sounds like the intake 

17 occurred after hours or something than "over 

18 time intake."

19 CHAIR MUNN: Let's say, "chronic 

20 over a period of time."

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: And "acute," then, 
324

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 will be "all at once."

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: "All at once" 

3 would be better, yes. The "at once" --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: -- or "in a short 

6 interval of time" or something like that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, then, in 

9 Finding 4, "particles with a diameter," it is 

10 either "particles with diameters" or it is "a 

11 particle with a diameter." I think it is 

12 "particles with diameters." Usually, it is a 

13 distribution.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I looked at 

15 that and wondered if there was any way that we 

16 could get away from that, and I don't see that 

17 we can and maintain the sense of what is being 

18 said there.

19 And the footnote seems to be 

20 fairly clear to me.

21 "Characterizes the size of tiny, 

22 liquid aerosols", that is probably 
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 appropriate.

2 The only other change that I had 

3 was the very last paragraph. I said, "Note 

4 that since the issuance of Rev. 1, NIOSH 

5 decided that this TIB should not only treat 

6 other radioactive isotopes in addition to 

7 thorium." Period. "NIOSH subsequently" --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wait a minute. 

9 "Not only?"

10 CHAIR MUNN: No, take out the "not 

11 only." "Note that since the issuance of Rev. 

12 1, NIOSH decided that this TIB should treat 

13 other radioactive isotopes in addition to 

14 thorium."

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Period.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: And "NIOSH 

19 subsequently rewrote the TIB as Rev 2. and 

20 renamed it "Validation of DCAL" -- and I have 

21 no idea myself what "DCAL" means; I don't know 

22 whether anyone else would -- "Annual Dose 
326

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 Coefficients."

2 Steve, do we know what DCAL means?

3 DR. OSTROW: I did at the time I 

4 wrote that.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. HINNEFELD: Which number are 

7 we on here?

8 CHAIR MUNN: We are in the final 

9 paragraph.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Of which OTIB now?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Can you find out what 

12 that is and email me?

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Twenty-eight.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Thirty. Isn't it?

15 MR. MARSCHKE: OTIB-28, I think.

16 DR. OSTROW: Yes, OTIB-28.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Sorry. I am 

18 looking at two things at the same time. 

19 Right. You're right.

20 If you will find out what that is 

21 and send it to me, I would appreciate it.

22 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Do any of the 
327

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 OCAS people know what it is? It is their 

2 procedure.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Give me a second. 

4 This is now TIB, is it OTIB-28?

5 CHAIR MUNN: That is OTIB-28, Rev. 

6 2.

7 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. I don't 

9 know if anybody on the phone does.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Anybody? We are wide 

11 open to any information.

12 (No response.)

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, they can get 

14 that to you.

15 CHAIR MUNN: They will find it and 

16 get it to me.

17 Now we will go to OTIB-30, 

18 external coworker dosimetry data for the 

19 Hanford Site.

20 Under Finding 1, I am going to 

21 change some of that "TIB" stuff to "Technical 

22 Information Bulletin" and insert the title of 
328

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 OTIB-52 in front of it.

2 In Finding 2, I don't think 

3 "radiation attenuation" is something that will 

4 make sense to most people.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: I had exactly the 

6 same comment.

7 CHAIR MUNN: So, I suggest that we 

8 say, "The procedure does not provide the data 

9 or references from which needed information 

10 can be obtained to make corrections for the 

11 reduction of electron radiation caused by 

12 clothing."

13 No, that is, again, a dangling 

14 participle. Put the "caused by clothing" --

15 the "reduction of electron radiation caused by 

16 clothing". "Reduction of electron radiation 

17 that is caused", "that is provided by 

18 clothing."

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay?

21 And under Finding 1, the second 

22 sentence, I am going to remove "furthermore".
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: Wanda, I just looked 

2 up "DCAL" on the web, and it is an EPA program 

3 called Dose and Risk Calculation Software.

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It is a dose 

5 calculation software.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes. I am out looking 

7 at the web, and it says, "Dose and Risk 

8 Calculation Software (DCAL)." Or just call it 

9 "dose calculation software."

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thanks.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Appreciate that.

13 Under Finding 1, I am going to 

14 take out "furthermore," and I am going to try 

15 to figure out if we can write out some of the 

16 -- well, maybe not. I hate to deal with those 

17 OTIB numbers in there.

18 And there is still a third OTIB 

19 referenced in Finding 2, the title of which 

20 needs to go in. I will work with those and 

21 make them better.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: On Finding 2, it 
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is inconsistent with Finding 1 on how the word 

2 "staff" is used. It is either a collective 

3 noun which is singular or it is not. In 

4 Finding 1, it is a collective noun, "the staff 

5 is familiar."

6 In Finding 2, it has been changed 

7 to "the staff are aware."

8 CHAIR MUNN: I would prefer to 

9 leave it "is."

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: I would, too. 

11 Either that or say, "staff members are aware" 

12 or "staff is aware."

13 CHAIR MUNN: Well, let's say, 

14 "staff is."

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: And, then, the 

16 second sentence in there, then, would be "The 

17 staff has been instructed..."

18 CHAIR MUNN: And I will get the 

19 title of OTIB-17 in there.

20 Now we go to PROC-0002, on which I 

21 have no marks.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Estimate."
331

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 CHAIR MUNN: "Use of 

2 integrated" --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Determine 

4 radiation dose," third line.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. "Use of 

6 integrated modules for bioassay analysis," and 

7 in the third line, are we going to say 

8 "calculate?"

9 DR. ULSH: "Determine" is what we 

10 have been using.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: "Determine," I 

12 think.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I have no other 

14 comments.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Next is PROC-4, 

17 scheduling telephone interviews.

18 Under "Resolution of Findings," I 

19 may go back to using the whole title, 

20 "Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview" 

21 instead of using "CATI."

22 We have space to do it. It is not 
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a problem.

2 No problems with that?

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: No.

4 CHAIR MUNN: That brings us to No. 

5 12, performing telephone interviews, with 

6 which I find no fault.

7 Item 13 is performing and 

8 reporting dose reconstruction, OCAS-PR-003, 

9 Rev. 0.

10 I have several scratches on mine.

11 On the third line -- no, on the 

12 second line, I have inserted the word 

13 "radiation" in front of "dose." So that it 

14 reads, "This procedure, performing and 

15 reporting dose reconstruction, OCAS-PR-3, 

16 deals with the administrative process for 

17 radiation dose reconstruction for claimants."

18 "In addition, it establishes that 

19 uncertainties concerning dose or data quality" 

20 -- I reverse them -- "be handled in a 

21 claimant-favorable manner and sets thresholds 

22 for when a sufficient level of analysis is 
333

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 reached or additional effort is warranted."

2 Then, I have nothing else to say 

3 until the bottom of the second paragraph. I 

4 questioned whether "in hand" was appropriate, 

5 whether "available" was better.

6 "The procedure also addresses 

7 notification protocol in the event that dose 

8 reconstruction cannot be completed with the 

9 information available, and lists the letters 

10 and record management required for each case."

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that is 

12 probably better.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Under Finding 1, I 

14 suggested using the words not clear rather 

15 than ambiguous. "The procedure is not clear 

16 in identifying individuals" --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: How about "does 

18 not clearly identify?"

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. "Does not 

20 clearly identify individuals who are 

21 responsible" -- very good.

22 And Finding 2, I suggest that we 
334

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 change "could" to "should." "Could" could be 

2 applied to almost anything. That was a 

3 recommendation to organize it better, I think.

4 Finding 4, I took out "a few." It 

5 didn't appear to be necessary. "The procedure 

6 contains inconsistencies and lacks the level 

7 of detailed guidance of other procedures," 

8 "provided in other procedures," rather than 

9 "some other procedures."

10 In Finding 5, "Guidance is limited 

11 regarding conducting dose assessments for," I 

12 said "potentially" rather than "potential" 

13 "low or high probabilities."

14 And under "Resolution of 

15 Findings," item 2 --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, wait. Before 

17 you get there, in Finding 11, there is an 

18 extra semicolon sticking in the middle of the 

19 sentence. "Restrictions on the use of the 

20 data sources."

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, there is a comma 

22 there that isn't needed there. MEMBER 
335

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 ZIEMER: Is it a comma?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well, it has a dash. 

3 It used to be a dash and, then, it kind of 

4 -- whatever, it doesn't belong there. I am 

5 going to say "these data sources."

6 And under "Resolution of 

7 Findings," I took out the black part. So that 

8 it says, "Develop more specific procedural 

9 guidance." because that is all we really and 

10 truly need to say.

11 "In response to the findings 

12 identified above, NIOSH" did three things. 

13 "Developed more specific procedural guidance." 

14 "Cancelled the procedure." Done.

15 And last, we have ORAUT-OTIB-0003, 

16 Savannah River Site tritium dose assessments. 

17 Assignment. Pardon me. Not assessment, 

18 assignment.

19 We have done some work on this in 

20 the past. And I think I have no additional 

21 markings on my copy here.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Actually, 
336

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 originally, we put in this section describing 

2 the fact that tritium has to be taken into the 

3 body in order to cause exposure or to cause 

4 dose, basically.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And we still have it.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Why is that --

7 CHAIR MUNN: We still have it in 

8 there.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, the copy I 

10 have here, it is all marked out.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, that sentence 

12 reads, "The TIB," and its name, "provides 

13 guidance on how to estimate doses to workers 

14 at Savannah River Site from internal exposure 

15 to tritium, which can appear in several 

16 different forms, through inhalation, 

17 ingestion, or skin penetration."

18 Oh, I see what you mean. That one 

19 sentence there, "The radioactive properties of 

20 tritium are such that it poses no problem for 

21 causing exposure when outside the body." 

22 "Radiation doses to workers occur only if 
337

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 material is ingested, inhaled, or otherwise 

2 absorbed into the body."

3 Yes, I don't know why those two 

4 sentences came out. And that first one got so 

5 long.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: There is an 

7 "estimate" in here again, too.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I see that. It 

9 appears we need to do a little bit more work 

10 on that sentence, on that section right up 

11 there. Let me do that. Let me rework that a 

12 little bit and send it -- I will try to go up 

13 to my room as soon as we are done here and 

14 send that to everybody, to see if you think it 

15 is okay.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Even the 

17 part that says that it is a radioactive form 

18 of the element tritium, or hydrogen, has been 

19 deleted.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: And that is a key 

22 thing.
338

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 CHAIR MUNN: That was a key thing, 

2 absolutely. Yes. Let me rework this 

3 paragraph. I will do that and try to get it 

4 to all of --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is one of the 

6 first ones we did, and I think we --

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I thought we had 

8 it really nicely cleaned up.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: It seems to have 

10 morphed.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it seems to have 

12 fallen back into a hole somewhere. Let me 

13 look and see what I have on my computer 

14 already.

15 Redo and send out. I will get it 

16 to you today or tomorrow. And if you want to 

17 change that, then please let me know right 

18 away because I would like to get these in some 

19 kind of shape to ship out to Ted and let him 

20 deal with them.

21 I think I was getting tired by the 

22 time I got here.
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It will help if I get a clean copy 

2 in front of me, too. This is a bit marked.

3 Are we content?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: I think we are so 

5 content we're numb.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MEMBER LEMEN: I'm fine.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. Thank 

9 you, Dick.

10 And thank you again, Steve. We 

11 appreciate it.

12 DR. OSTROW: You're welcome.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. You are all 

14 aware of the fact that you have, as we 

15 mentioned earlier this afternoon, received a 

16 whole new set of these two-pagers.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, 15 fresh 

18 ones.

19 MR. KATZ: We need to send those 

20 out to the rest of the Board.

21 CHAIR MUNN: We will do that.

22 MR. KATZ: I will do that.
340

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 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I, frankly, 

2 have not had an opportunity to go over those 

3 yet.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: I just got them.

5 CHAIR MUNN: I don't know whether 

6 anyone else has.

7 If the rivers don't rise, then I 

8 would anticipate that you will look at those 

9 and send me any gas pains that they give you, 

10 because at our next meeting I would hope that 

11 we would have certainly no more than we have 

12 spent today on two-pagers and, hopefully, even 

13 less.

14 MR. KATZ: Less. And, John, are 

15 you still on, John Mauro, or Steve?

16 DR. MAURO: Yes, I am.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. For the kind of 

18 generic changes that have been made today, 

19 which you will see when we send these over to 

20 Stu to post, but like calling a "TIB" a 

21 "bulletin," et cetera, if you would just in 

22 the future for the rest of the ones that you 
341

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 deliver make those generic changes, that they 

2 don't have to be corrected --

3 DR. MAURO: Good idea. If I could 

4 just make a little list of some of those 

5 things -- we have a handful of folks that work 

6 on those.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 DR. MAURO: It's good to get that 

9 around so everybody that is working on these 

10 is aware of it.

11 Steve, if you are still on the 

12 line, that is something that would be helpful.

13 MR. KATZ: Right. So, I will send 

14 you what I send over to Stu for posting on the 

15 web; I will send that to you as well, so you 

16 guys can look at that to be certain that you 

17 have followed these kind of things.

18 DR. OSTROW: That's great. We 

19 have a few people working on these, but I 

20 actually do the final editing of all of them, 

21 trying to get them completed. So, if I can 

22 see the latest batch that we revised today, so 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we can carry that to the other new 

2 ones --

3 MR. KATZ: That sounds great.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Super. All right.

5 The only other item I have is 

6 administrative detail. To me, that means, 

7 when are we having our next meeting, if you 

8 have your calendars out?

9 MR. KATZ: I think we need, DCAS 

10 needs to figure out what sort of timeframe 

11 they can work on actions first. So, unless we 

12 plan it way out, I would suggest we don't 

13 schedule it right now, until we have some 

14 feedback from them.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I am looking at 

16 mid-June or well into June, anyway. Is that 

17 not far enough out for you?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: It is hard to day.

19 MR. KATZ: We need to have Stu and 

20 Brant -- there are things going on right now 

21 that are --

22 CHAIR MUNN: Can we tentatively 
343

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 pencil in a date?

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I will tell 

3 you what.

4 CHAIR MUNN: It is easier for --

5 MR. HINNEFELD: If, in fact, then 

6 we say we won't be ready, we will be able to 

7 change it then?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Right.

9 MR. KATZ: Because that has been a 

10 problem in the past.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: We have done it in 

12 the past, and then it is, no, we are going to 

13 meet anyway.

14 CHAIR MUNN: That is because you 

15 have such a hard-nosed Chair.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MR. HINNEFELD: That is why I was 

18 saying it while we have the Chair here. So, 

19 if we pencil in a tentative date in mid-June 

20 and we say, "Look, we have not gotten 

21 anything. We don't have enough to do a day's 

22 worth of meeting. We would like to postpone 
344

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it." -- we will give you some notice. It 

2 won't be like a week before.

3 MR. KATZ: Well, it can't be a 

4 week before because I need a whole month 

5 before I have to put in a Federal Register 

6 notice.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. HINNEFELD: So, a month 

10 before, we will be able to say that, look, if 

11 we don't think we are going to have it, if you 

12 want to pencil it in on those criteria, then 

13 we will pencil one in.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Well, you see, I am 

15 trying to be nice here because this is March 

16 and I am talking about June.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: And I am talking 

18 about so many things.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we know you have 

20 got all kinds of stuff, including the St. 

21 Louis meeting.

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Which, by the way, 
345

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we are going to be in St. Louis. It would be 

2 nice to have something on Weldon Spring, we 

3 fully appreciate that. We intend to have a 

4 substantial meeting on May -- what is that, 

5 the 3rd, 9th, whenever we are having it? We 

6 are going to have a substantial meeting 

7 because we are going to have some products 

8 available in April.

9 MR. KATZ: We have the same kind 

10 of pressure with Fernald.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: And we are going 

12 to have the same kind of pressure with Fernald 

13 and with Pantex.

14 MR. KATZ: And with Pantex.

15 MR. HINNEFELD: And maybe Savannah 

16 River, which has a huge amount -- the problem 

17 with that is there is so much stuff available 

18 on Savannah River.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: All under the 

20 Continuing Resolution, huh?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes. That is really a 

22 real factor in all this, too.
346

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: And at least 

2 somebody in Washington, some people in 

3 Washington think that this time there will be 

4 some sort of symbolic shutdown after April 

5 8th, just to make a point.

6 And so, who knows what happens 

7 after that?

8 CHAIR MUNN: How about if we said 

9 July?

10 MR. HINNEFELD: I can't guarantee 

11 anything. I say pick a date. Pick mid-June, 

12 if you want, but we still may not be able to 

13 get there.

14 CHAIR MUNN: I understand that, 

15 and there is a lot between now and June. And 

16 you're right, it is big stuff.

17 If it would be better for us to 

18 look at July from the outset, then I have no 

19 problem with that.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's see, 

21 somewhere in July? Somewhere out there is an 

22 APS meeting. Where is that?
347

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ULSH: It is in June.

2 MR. HINNEFELD: The last week in 

3 June?

4 DR. ULSH: The 26th through 30th.

5 MR. KATZ: That is another reason 

6 to not pencil June in.

7 MR. HINNEFELD: Certainly, we want 

8 to do late June. Of course, on the other 

9 hand --

10 MR. KATZ: What about the week of 

11 July 11th?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we have a 

13 telephone conference on the 11th.

14 MR. KATZ: We have the 

15 teleconference on the Monday.

16 CHAIR MUNN: On the Monday.

17 MR. KATZ: What about Tuesday?

18 CHAIR MUNN: How about Wednesday? 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: How about the 

20 Wednesday?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Wednesday or 

22 Thursday would be --
348

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: That is Wednesday, the 

2 13th.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Let's go July 

5 13th.

6 MEMBER LEMEN: The 13th doesn't 

7 work for me, but the 14th would.

8 MR. KATZ: Oh, the 14th then.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: July 14th, that is 

11 Bastille Day.

12 CHAIR MUNN: That's what?

13 MR. KATZ: Bastille Day.

14 (Laughter.)

15 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, wow. To the 

16 mattresses!

17 MR. KATZ: July 14th, okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone else have 

19 anything that needs to go on our calendar that 

20 needs specific callouts for attention?

21 (No response.)

22 If not, then there are several 
349

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 things that I still have from our January 

2 meeting that we didn't include on today's 

3 procedure list, which will probably fill up. 

4 But it isn't likely that you will be getting 

5 an action item or agenda list for a while. 

6 So, if you have something that you want --

7 MR. KATZ: The sooner the better, 

8 actually.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. The agenda 

11 helps a lot, receiving the agenda to see what 

12 is on it.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I know it does. 

14 Yes. So, we will see what we can get to you 

15 within a reasonable period of time.

16 And unless I hear anything to the 

17 contrary, this meeting is adjourned.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you all.

20 (Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the 

21 proceedings were concluded.)

22