1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROCEDURES REVIEW

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 25, 2014

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard 

Time, Wanda I. Munn, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

WANDA I. MUNN, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

HANS BEHLING, SC&A

KATHY BEHLING, SC&A

RON BUCHANAN, SC&A

HARRY CHMELYNSKI, SC&A

ROSE GOGLIOTTI, SC&A

STU HINNEFELD, DCAS

JENNY LIN, HHS

LORI MARION-MOSS, DCAS

STEPHEN MARSCHKE, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JAMES NETON, DCAS
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

SCOTT SIEBERT, ORAU Team

ELYSE THOMAS, ORAU Team
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PAGE

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

Review off-line BRS changes ................... 6

White paper paragraph clarifying wording for 

Overarching Issue 9, Concern 1 ............... 10

IG 001 Finding 25 ............................ 13

OTIB 0083 - Findings response combination review

- Revised scheduling status .................. 22

RPRT 0053 status of findings response ....... 346

PER 0031 - Report review ..................... 40

Status - PER 0042 response (2 added findings)

PER 0045 response (8 added findings)

PER 0043 case reviews

PER 0018 review

PER 0020, Finding 6

PER 011, Findings 3, 5

PER 009

OTIB 0054 Reactor modeling report,

findings 1-4, 5 - Finding 9 ................ 163

OTIB 0054, Finding 12 ....................... 170

Administrative detail - PER 37, PER 11, PER 18

- Abeyance items ready for closing

- Next meeting ........................ 176

Adjourn
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (11:01 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: So, this is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures 

5 Subcommittee. We have, the agenda for today is on 

6 the NIOSH website, under the DCAS program, Board 

7 Section, today's date. And we can get going.

8 As far as roll call, so we have Ms. Munn, 

9 Dr. Ziemer and Ms. Beach. And I'll just cover, 

10 there are no conflicts related to the material that 

11 we're covering today, I'm pretty certain. But 

12 Board Members need to call it out if I've missed 

13 something. And let's just do roll call for, 

14 starting with the NIOSH ORAU team.

15 (Roll Call)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay then, no members of the 

17 public. That takes care of things. Just to 

18 remind everyone to mute your phones when you're not 

19 speaking. Press *6, the mute button to mute your 

20 phone. And, Wanda, it's your agenda.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Ted. I think 

22 everyone has the agenda before them. I believe 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you've received the messages about proposed 

2 changes to the agenda. There are two that have not 

3 been placed in the public domain yet.

4 One is the addition of PER-9, case 

5 audits. We're adding that at the end of our PER 

6 list this afternoon, right after PER-11. And 

7 we're allowing an additional 15 minutes for that.

8 The other is the excellent update that 

9 Dr. Ziemer has presented for us. I believe I sent 

10 it to you by email, and hope that you all have that. 

11 We would like to get that into the record also.

12 Unless someone has an objection, I can 

13 see no reason why we shouldn't add that under 

14 administrative detail. If you want to have it on 

15 earlier, someone tell me that. Otherwise, we'll 

16 just take care of that when we get there. Is that 

17 alright with you, Paul?

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. As I said to you 

19 offline, that's fine, Wanda.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Alright, good. Thanks 

21 much. That being the case, we've had several 

22 changes that occurred to the BRS. Just updating 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. Nothing, of course, no action. It was just 

2 an updating of actions that we took in the past.

3 And I don't think that they're of any 

4 major significance. But we need to make note that 

5 those have happened. Steve and Lori, do you have 

6 any specifics that you'd like to point out to us 

7 that have occurred in the interim since our last 

8 meeting?

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: This is Lori. In 

10 terms of the BRS you mean, Wanda? Or --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes.

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well --

13 CHAIR MUNN: Changes that were made 

14 while we were not on line.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Oh, oh, okay, yes. 

16 NIOSH updated the BRS with responses to PER-18 and 

17 a couple of responses to PER-9.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu. Lori, we 

20 also put some information in the BRS relative to 

21 IG-1, Finding 25.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct. You're 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right, Stu.

2 CHAIR MUNN: We have those three. Do 

3 we need to -- Lori, would you like to, starting with 

4 the list that you gave us, OTIB-52, would you like 

5 to give us an update on what was, what changes were 

6 made?

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: Well, in terms of 

8 OTIB-52 there were, at least, I do believe, three 

9 findings. One of those findings were associated

10 with the document itself, OTIB-52. And that was 

11 Finding Number 12.

12 What happened with OTIB-52 is that we 

13 revised it. And we actually addressed the 

14 corrections for OTIB-52, Number 12. And we were 

15 attempting to address two findings associated with 

16 PER-11.

17 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to cover those 

18 in some detail later. Is that correct?

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Then we'll --

21 The same is true with PER-11, correct, and PER-20?

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. There was a 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finding, an in abeyance finding associated with 

2 PER-11, I mean, PER-20, I'm sorry. And we made a 

3 revision to a document to address that finding as 

4 well.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Right. And we'll cover 

6 those when we address the PER specifically. We'll 

7 also be looking at that Overarching Issue 1, I 

8 believe, won't we? Yes. And IG-001. Very good.

9 Anything else that we're not aware of 

10 that, any changes that were made, any updates? If 

11 not, we'll just move on to the White Paper when we 

12 were talking about Overarching Issue 9. I 

13 believe, Stu, are you going to do that for us?

14 DR. NETON: This is Jim, Wanda. I 

15 think I've got the lead on --

16 CHAIR MUNN: Hi, Jim. Yes, I know you 

17 do.

18 DR. NETON: Although --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Although somehow I didn't 

20 hear you.

21 DR. NETON: -- if you'd like.

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, no. That's quite 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 alright. Go right ahead.

2 DR. NETON: Unfortunately, this is 

3 still in progress. It sounds like a simple 

4 resolution to the problem. And just to refresh 

5 people's memories, the issue was that NIOSH has 

6 assumed that uranium that was present on skin 

7 contamination would be washed off in subsequent 

8 showering.

9 In other words, it was pretty easily 

10 removable by conventional, you know, soap and water 

11 treatment. SC&A basically asked us to go and find 

12 some documentation that would support that 

13 concept.

14 And, you know, originally it was our 

15 opinion that some of the folks here who had worked 

16 in the uranium, in health physics at uranium 

17 facilities, that was just generally recognized as 

18 the experience.

19 So, I've been on a mission trying to 

20 document this somewhat more scientifically and 

21 quantitatively. I've looked through various Site 

22 Profiles. I've looked at, tried to find incident 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reports with skin contamination, and have not had 

2 much success.

3 I think I reported last time, I did find 

4 a paper that was somewhat relevant that talked 

5 about decontamination of synthetic radioactive 

6 fallout from intact human skin.

7 It was actually an interesting 1958 

8 paper that was published, I believe, in the 

9 Industrial Hygiene Journal, where they took 

10 lanthanum 40 and mixed it with essentially dirt 

11 made from soil composites. And had a very 

12 elaborate instrument made up to deposit known 

13 amounts of contamination, and then on human skin, 

14 and tried various treatments, one of which was soap 

15 and water.

16 And in that paper, at least in this 

17 instance where there was dirt that I think had one 

18 to five micron particle sizes, it was effective at 

19 removing more than 90 percent of the contamination. 

20 So that was somewhat supportive.

21 Since the last time we met though, I 

22 found another paper which seems to be more 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 relevant, although less quantitative. And the 

2 title of the paper is Surface Contamination Control 

3 of Uranium Rolling Operations. It was published 

4 in the American Industrial Hygiene Journal in 1959.

5 It was actually a study done at Los 

6 Alamos, where they had rolling operations using 

7 salt baths. We all remember those salt baths from 

8 the early days of rolling. And they actually would 

9 monitor people before they went into the shower, 

10 and then surveyed them when they came out to see 

11 if they were contaminated. And surveyed them 

12 after they came out of the shower.

13 And the paper, and I can quote from 

14 here, says, washing with soap or detergent usually 

15 removes any contamination from the skin. Again, 

16 not real quantitative, but certainly an indication 

17 that's consistent with the experience that, you 

18 know, folks working at uranium facilities had 

19 observed.

20 So, that's about where I'm at right now. 

21 I need to get this put together in some form, so 

22 that I can enter it into the database to close out 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this final issue. But that's where I'm at with 

2 that particular issue.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Alright. 

4 Interesting to hear about the second paper. We 

5 discussed the first one, I think, quite a bit.

6 DR. NETON: Right. It's relevant 

7 although less quantitative. But certainly more in 

8 line with our, what we're looking for.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's good. We'll 

10 continue to carry that until we can get an 

11 opportunity to have the White Paper issued. Next 

12 is IG-1, Finding 25.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. I 

14 can speak to that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess, Steve, are you 

17 the one displaying the BRS on the screen?

18 CHAIR MUNN: Steve is.

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Steve is?

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. If Steve could 

22 bring this one up, you can see that at the last 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting, I described what our intended path forward 

2 was on this particular finding.

3 This has to do with, there are, the four 

4 target organs where AP geometry is not necessarily 

5 bounding. And the IG-1 says there's a default you 

6 should use.

7 Or was it rotational? One of the other 

8 geometries. And explains how to, you know, do the 

9 adjustment, or how to do the corrections to do those 

10 geometries as a default.

11 But if you believe the first, that if, 

12 that you are free to use AP if there are indications 

13 that AP geometry is more appropriate for this 

14 particular person's work experience.

15 And for some time now we have, in dose 

16 reconstructions, we have specifically been saying, 

17 if we use the AP geometry, why we use the AP 

18 geometry. But it's not clear that that was done 

19 right away when this change was made to IG-1.

20 So, there are some handful of cases that 

21 we probably will need to look at to see if, in fact, 

22 if AP geometry was used, is it appropriate to have 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 used AP geometry.

2 Now, in looking at the wording of IG-1, 

3 we think now that it reads, you know, well enough 

4 that we, you know, it says what we want it to say. 

5 And so, we don't think that there's a change to the 

6 wording is warranted.

7 And that the cases that we feel like we 

8 should look at to see if AP geometry was used, and 

9 was it used correctly, we intend to use those as 

10 part of the update, use those in upcoming PERs, used 

11 in 116, because there are these whole new set of 

12 correction factors coming out. We're going to 

13 have to re-look at everything anyway.

14 And so we intend to include these cases 

15 in that PER. And that's what I said last time. 

16 And I was asked at the meeting to enter that 

17 information into the IG-1, Finding 25 field, which 

18 I did shortly after the last meeting. And so, I 

19 believe that completed our action on this one.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We'll need to 

21 --

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: This is Steve. I asked 

3 Doug to look at what Stu had entered, and Doug did. 

4 Because I think, you know, basically it was a dose, 

5 the finding came out of the Dose Reconstruction 

6 Subcommittee. And so Doug looked at it. And Doug 

7 has basically, he has a response to Stu, which is 

8 basically --

9 I've put it up on the screen there now, 

10 you can see it. SC&A will continue to assess dose 

11 reconstruction using the current wording in 

12 Section 4.4 of IG-1, and issue a finding if the AP 

13 geometry is selected for target organs, bone 

14 surface, red marrow, lung, and esophagus, and a 

15 rationale is not contained in the dose 

16 reconstruction.

17 Currently there are four cases in the 

18 14th to 18th dose review, or dose reconstruction 

19 review sets, that contain findings concerning this 

20 issue. We can recommend changing the status of 

21 this finding to in abeyance.

22 And I think the reason for in abeyance, 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as opposed to closed was because of what Stu says, 

2 or just said, that the, they are going to do a 

3 review. Or NIOSH will evaluate the previous 

4 completed claims to determine if the geometry was 

5 selected properly.

6 So, that's why we basically went with 

7 the recommendation for in abeyance, until that 

8 evaluation has been completed.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That seems appropriate to 

10 me. The only thing at issue is how to word the 

11 entry that puts it into abeyance. What is your --

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Well, yes.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is Josie. 

14 I was just going to ask if they would put SC&A's 

15 wording that Steve just read to us. That seems 

16 pretty complete, doesn't it?

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it does. The only 

18 thing I'm thinking about is when, if we have any 

19 flag at all, that we can use to essentially alert 

20 us when to take it out of abeyance.

21 Fortunately, NIOSH has made the 

22 suggestion earlier that we routinely look at 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 abeyance items, which we have not been doing in the 

2 past, as you know. And we've, that's the item that 

3 we show under administrative detail here on this 

4 agenda.

5 So, I'm only questioning how we should 

6 word this entry to flag ourselves as to when we 

7 should be checking for resolution.

8 MR. KATZ: Can I --

9 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda --

10 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can I interject? 

11 Because I was just a little confused by the 

12 situation. Because, as I understood what Stu 

13 said, the wording about the IG's fine. So this is 

14 a procedural matter. They're going to check the 

15 cases, but there's nothing more to do.

16 And unless the Subcommittee has a 

17 problem with the wording of IG-001 now, there's 

18 nothing to be in abeyance. I mean, it's not really 

19 the Procedures Subcommittee's job to check up on 

20 whether they actually looked at the dose 

21 reconstruction cases, to see whether they 

22 appropriately used AP or not. That really falls 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 under the Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee's 

2 purview, if anywhere.

3 But so, for their follow-up on those 

4 cases. But, my thought is, Procedures is through 

5 with this, if it's fine with how IG-001 is worded. 

6 Because that's Procedures' business, not the 

7 specific cases and how they were handled.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I certainly agree with 

9 that.

10 DR. MAURO: And this is John Mauro. I 

11 was listening. And, Ted, you beat me to the punch. 

12 I was going to say the same thing, you know, why 

13 would we not close this out?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: As long as it's open 

16 somewhere, and the closure is going to take place 

17 in the other Subcommittee in any case.

18 MR. KATZ: Right. The Dose 

19 Reconstruction Subcommittee, you know, they 

20 always, they follow up on their cases.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Yes. They 

22 certainly do. Is Doug with us today?
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: No. Doug couldn't be 

2 here on the phone today. But what I would suggest, 

3 Wanda, is that I will enter Doug's response into

4 the BRS the way he gave it to us.

5 And then, of course, the Subcommittee 

6 can have, has the option. They don't have to take 

7 our recommendation. They can basically, for the 

8 reasons given, they can decide to close. And, you 

9 know, they can decide to close this finding, you 

10 know.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's quite true. But 

12 the rationale needs to be incorporated into the --

13 MR. MARSCHKE: And the rationale will 

14 be --

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: -- you know, checking 

17 the evaluation is more of a Dose Reconstruction 

18 Subcommittee requirement than it is the Procedures 

19 Subcommittee.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Well, as Ted points out it 

21 is going to have to be closed in the other 

22 Subcommittee in any case. I am certainly fine with 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 closing it here. Paul, do you have any --

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. I agree with 

3 that. It's only in abeyance in the sense that the 

4 other group's going to be looking at that. But for 

5 our purposes it should be closed, I believe.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Josie, you agree?

7 MEMBER BEACH: I do, yes.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Steve, can you 

9 do that for us?

10 MR. MARSCHKE: I can do it. Wanda, I'd 

11 like to hold off until lunch time, and do it at lunch 

12 time. Because I want to put Doug's in before I put 

13 yours in. So that, if this comes, when it comes 

14 up on the BRS, it comes up in order.

15 CHAIR MUNN: We certainly don't have 

16 any problem with that. Let's take a look at it 

17 after lunch, when you've had a chance to edit the 

18 words a little bit.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Good. Alright.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is Kathy 

21 Behling. Can I also just ask Stu an additional 

22 question regarding this particular finding? I 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 thought that I saw in some of the external dose 

2 workbooks that they are incorporating the option 

3 for the dose reconstructor to select something 

4 other than the AP geometry for these various 

5 cancers. Is that correct? Can you confirm that, 

6 Stu?

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I really don't know 

8 personally. But maybe Scott Siebert can confirm 

9 that.

10 MR. SIEBERT: Yes, Stu, I was going to 

11 jump in. Yes, I can confirm that's exactly what 

12 we've done. We've updated the tools, so that for 

13 those organs, that option is automatically there 

14 to run the different geometries, and determine 

15 whichever one's more claimant-favorable, if AP is 

16 not the most reasonable choice for the worker.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. Very good. 

18 Thank you.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Any other problems? Any 

20 other questions? If not, we'll close that on our 

21 list. And we'll check after lunch to see how the 

22 wording goes.
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: And, Steve, you may want to 

2 capture that last point from Scott as well, from 

3 Scott and Kathy. Because I think that really puts 

4 a fine point on it, how this has been resolved 

5 procedurally.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

7 MR. KATZ: Thanks.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Next item on our agenda is 

9 OTIB-83, the findings response combination review.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes. We did a, at the 

11 last meeting a number of the comments associated 

12 with OTIB-83 are quite similar in nature.

13 And so, during the last meeting when we 

14 were going over them, it was asked that SC&A go back 

15 and see whether or not some of these similar 

16 comments could be combined into one comment.

17 We did that. Actually we did it back 

18 in October. But I don't know that I ever sent the 

19 thing out. We worked it. And so, I just sent that 

20 out as the meeting got going here today. I don't 

21 know if it's in. And I can put it up.

22 This is what basically our response 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would be to that direction to go look at it. The 

2 short order is, we don't feel that we should 

3 basically combine the findings, even though they 

4 are similar. Most of the findings -- I can read 

5 this into the record, Wanda, if you want. Or you 

6 can read it, what's on the screen.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Well, since we haven't had 

8 an opportunity to see it before, Steve, it seems 

9 logical. It's not that long. Why don't you just 

10 read it, so that we can all hear it, and won't have 

11 to be watching the screen to see what's going on?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. During the 

13 February 13th, 2014 Procedures Subcommittee 

14 discussion of SC&A's OTIB-83 findings, it was 

15 pointed out that some of the 14 findings are similar 

16 in nature.

17 During the August 28th, 2014 Procedures 

18 Subcommittee Meeting, SC&A was tasked to determine 

19 whether several of the OTIB-83 findings could be 

20 combined. SC&A does not disagree that several of 

21 the findings are similar. But nonetheless, 

22 recommends that the 14 findings be kept separate 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the following reasons.

2 Most of the findings that are similar 

3 can be grouped into two categories. One, does 

4 OTIB-83 apply to all DOE sites, or only to Mound? 

5 And, two, does OTIB-83 apply to all facilities, and 

6 all time periods at Mound, or all DOE sites, close 

7 parentheses, or only to specific facilities and/or 

8 time periods?

9 Finding 12 points out that OTIB-83 does 

10 not follow a natural order, but instead keeps 

11 coming back to the same subject. And often the 

12 subject relates to OTIB-83 applicability.

13 Lacking a strong general statement as 

14 to where/when to apply OTIB-83, SC&A feels that it 

15 is prudent to point out each time OTIB-83 comes back 

16 to its applicability. Granted, this could have 

17 been done by either making a general finding, and 

18 then adding each occurrence within the document as 

19 a sub-finding, or by making sub-findings, separate 

20 sub-findings. Or, not sub -- or by making separate 

21 findings.

22 Obviously, SC&A chose to do the latter, 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and sees no advantage in consolidating the findings 

2 at this time as each occurrence would still need 

3 to be addressed.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Any thoughts 

5 from anyone?

6 DR. NETON: Well, this is Jim. I think 

7 I was the one that might have requested that they 

8 group these together. I don't have any problem 

9 either way. I mean, we can address them point by 

10 point.

11 I think, as I mentioned the last time, 

12 we're going to do a complete rewrite of OTIB-83, 

13 which is a dissolution model for insoluble 

14 plutonium-238. We acknowledge that there was not 

15 a strong statement of applicability. So we've 

16 gone back.

17 And we have this on our project plan 

18 now. And one of the first things that was done was 

19 to go back and look at where this plutonium-238 may 

20 have existed. Complex-wide we've identified four 

21 specific sites where we think it was sufficient in 

22 large enough quantities it needs to be considered.
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, of course, now we're going through 

2 and pulling out the additional cases at Mound that 

3 weren't analyzed, and looking at them for potential 

4 inclusion into the type L exposure model. That's 

5 on our, like I mentioned, that's on our project 

6 planning chart, currently the original document is 

7 going to be sent to us. The revised document will 

8 be sent to DCAS for review in the May timeframe. 

9 And then it will take a month or so after that to 

10 get this done.

11 So it's going to be a little while. But 

12 this will, I think it will be worthwhile to do a 

13 complete rewrite. And I'm certain that we will be 

14 able to address the findings that SC&A made on this 

15 document.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. So, 

17 essentially our entry with this needs to indicate 

18 -- well, before we go that far, does anyone else 

19 have any comments one way or the other, with respect 

20 to either identifying these issues singly or 

21 combining them?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. It 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seems to me that for the interim time, we should 

2 just let them ride as individual findings until the 

3 new document comes out. There's no point in 

4 dealing with them in the meantime, is there?

5 CHAIR MUNN: No. It doesn't seem so to 

6 me, unless someone has an overriding reason for 

7 that that isn't obvious to us.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I think SC&A's 

9 suggestion is we just keep them separate for now. 

10 Isn't that correct? Is that what you're saying, 

11 Steve?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. That's what I'm 

13 saying. And I think that's what everyone has 

14 agreed to so for who've spoken.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. This is Josie. 

16 We just need to change the wording, or add the 

17 wording that we're going to hold off until May. 

18 Because SC&A's going to have to review that 

19 document when it comes out.

20 CHAIR MUNN: True. And I'm assuming 

21 that our conversation here is, our discussion is 

22 covering our next item also, the scheduling status. 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 It seems to me we should be able to wrap those two 

2 up into a single comment on the BRS with respect 

3 to both items on our agenda.

4 Steve, can you please -- probably we'd 

5 like to incorporate the questions that were raised 

6 here. So, if anyone has any requests with specific 

7 wording, we're certainly open for that. Otherwise 

8 --

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Let me just insert a 

10 brief summary of what Jim just said into each of 

11 the items that are, they're currently all open, 

12 aren't they?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I believe so. I 

14 don't have them up, any, other than --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Would it be reasonable 

16 just to insert this top, kind of an update comment 

17 into each of those, an identical comment that 

18 basically indicates what NIOSH has on their platter 

19 to do?

20 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can indicate a 

21 one-sentence addition to what we have on our 

22 comments so far. And probably what we need to say 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is, a complete rewrite is being undertaken. And 

2 is anticipated in --

3 MR. KATZ: Jim, when do you think is 

4 when it would come to the Subcommittee at soonest?

5 DR. NETON: Well, I said May for our 

6 first review. But really, more realistically, 

7 it's probably going to be in the August time --

8 well, right now the schedule has it in August. I'm 

9 hoping to beat that date by some time. There's a 

10 little --

11 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay. So, August is 

12 fine. So, let's put that in there. And then, 

13 Wanda, should we just -- there's no reason I think 

14 to carry this on our agenda each time, since nothing 

15 will happen between now and then. Once that 

16 rewrite comes out, we'll task it to SC&A. And then 

17 it will pop back on our agenda.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I think that's 

19 probably true. My only concern is that we don't 

20 have, we being the Board Members here, do not have 

21 any kind of a system that dings us. We have to rely 

22 on --
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I get a notice, Wanda, when 

2 they issue new TIBs.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

4 MR. KATZ: And I get those, when 

5 they're relevant to a Work Group or a Subcommittee, 

6 I send it to the Chair.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. This is the only, 

8 what I'm saying is, we don't have another check. 

9 We have to rely on you --

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- and on NIOSH to bring 

12 that to our attention. So, that's one of the 

13 things that has been a little bit of a concern for 

14 me, the fact that when we do set these things aside, 

15 and don't carry them on our agenda.

16 I personally don't have a way to track 

17 what is out there until someone else brings it to 

18 my attention. And that's a bit of a concern for 

19 me. But that's certainly, I think the appropriate 

20 thing to do in this case.

21 There's no reason for us to continue to 

22 look at this each time, until NIOSH has completed 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 its rewrite. And let's just see what Steve's 

2 putting in here, and agree that that's going to be 

3 adequate for us. And then we'll just rely on you, 

4 Ted, to let us know when the rewrite's done.

5 MR. KATZ: Sure. And I think, with 

6 your leave, the Subcommittee's leave, I'll just, 

7 when that comes out, I'll task SC&A with reviewing 

8 it.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That's certainly 

10 appropriate. Any comment with respect to that 

11 tasking from the other Board Members?

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That sounds good 

13 to me.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Good.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Sounds good to me too.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Logical, I think.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.

18 CHAIR MUNN: No reason for additional 

19 action.

20 Let's just say SC&A will be notified to 

21 begin their review, to initiate their review.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Is that it or do you want 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 more?

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Does anyone want to 

3 add anything to the words that Steve has put on the 

4 screen, and which are, for those who don't --

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Correct your spelling 

6 to initiate.

7 CHAIR MUNN: The statement says NIOSH 

8 is performing a complete rewrite of OTIB-83, which 

9 should address all of the SC&A findings. The 

10 revised OTIB-83 is anticipated in August 2015, at 

11 which time SC&A will be notified to initiate their 

12 review.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Looks good to me, Wanda.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Any problems, 

15 Paul?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's good.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Otherwise, that's good. 

18 We'll look forward to seeing the rewrite.

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically there is, I 

20 should maybe add, there is no change in the status 

21 at this time.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think that's 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redundant probably.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

3 CHAIR MUNN: But yes, I think we're 

4 good. Enough of OTIB-83. That will disappear 

5 from our agenda for a while. And our next item is 

6 RPRT-53, status of the findings response, NIOSH, 

7 a carryover.

8 DR. NETON: Okay, this is Jim again. I 

9 guess it's my turn this morning. RPRT-53, as we 

10 all know, was the analysis of SC&A's review of the 

11 stratified, our report on how to analyze 

12 stratification in coworker datasets.

13 And that was taken up by the Working 

14 Group on SEC issues. And we talked about this at 

15 the most recent Board Meeting. There was an 

16 implementation guide, there is an implementation 

17 guide that NIOSH is drafting, that is well under 

18 way.

19 In my opinion it's about 80 percent 

20 complete. I looked at the findings, the findings 

21 that were made in the original SC&A review, of which 

22 there were eight.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And in my opinion, the imp guide at this 

2 point addresses about half of those findings, which 

3 were related to issues such as applicability of a 

4 coworker model to workers who had different 

5 monitoring programs, be it infinite-based, or 

6 whatever.

7 And there were several findings related 

8 to the concept of the one person, one statistic 

9 concept that was outlined in that document. I 

10 think, based on our most recent discussions, that 

11 is the issue. And how to apply OPOS has been 

12 somewhat resolved, at least tentatively. So, I 

13 think we're about halfway there.

14 The remaining issues, in my opinion, 

15 that are outstanding have to do with the 

16 statistical, the detailed statistical analysis of 

17 how one actually, if you are going to compare 

18 statistically, the distributions between two sets 

19 of monitored workers. What do you use?

20 The RPRT-53 of course has the 

21 Peto-Prentice test and the Monte Carlo permutation 

22 test. SC&A had some basic issues with the 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 statistical levels that were applied, and how they 

2 were applied, that sort of thing. That's the 20 

3 percent completion that I talked about. We're 80 

4 percent done.

5 We're still wrestling with what to do 

6 with the statistical analysis portion. The 

7 implementation guide goes a long way at making sure 

8 that -- one has to ensure that you're comparing 

9 apples to apples. That the monitoring programs 

10 that you're using, you know, were subject to the 

11 same circumstances.

12 So, it's not clear at this point at what 

13 point the statistics would be applied. We're 

14 going to convene an internal group to work on that. 

15 And that will be the final completion of the 

16 implementation guide that we intend to have ready 

17 in advance of the March Board Meeting in Richland. 

18 That's a brief synopsis of where we are.

19 CHAIR MUNN: So essentially everything 

20 that we're looking at is awaiting the new 

21 implementation guide?

22 DR. NETON: Yes.
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: Wanda, did we 

2 officially transfer this to the SEC Work Group, or 

3 is it still in our backyard here?

4 CHAIR MUNN: Well, I think we need to 

5 take a look at the findings that we have 

6 specifically. Steve's pulling them up now. 

7 Because I'm uncertain of the wording.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: The SEC Work Group is 

9 definitely dealing with these.

10 MR. KATZ: Right. Paul, I mean, what 

11 the Board decided was that this would, the SEC Work 

12 Group would finish its work on this. And then we'd 

13 consider whether there's anything left for the 

14 Procedures Subcommittee to wrestle with once 

15 that's all done.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay. So it 

17 wasn't really transferred, or what?

18 MR. KATZ: Well, I mean, we didn't 

19 speak of it in those terms really.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

21 MR. KATZ: We didn't actually transfer 

22 it to them. They, the SEC Work Group appropriated 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it, maybe is a better way to put it, I think. 

2 Something like that.

3 CHAIR MUNN: I would suggest that we 

4 craft Steve's entry for our outstanding items here. 

5 Saying that we'll put our items in abeyance, and 

6 indicate that they're awaiting the completion of 

7 the revised implementation guide, and the 

8 decisions of the SEC Work Group, in order to close 

9 the findings. Is that what I'm hearing, correctly 

10 stated?

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, let's see. If 

12 we put it in abeyance it implies we've agreed to 

13 determinate outcomes, doesn't it?

14 MR. KATZ: Yes. Put it in progress.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Any problems 

18 with that?

19 MEMBER BEACH: None here, Wanda.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Then let's do, let's call 

21 it in progress, all those that are open. And, 

22 Steve, if you would just say in progress awaiting 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the issuance of a revised implementation guide, and 

2 the decisions of the SEC Working Group.

3 MR. KATZ: Right. And just, in a sense 

4 it's really not just the SEC Work Group, but the 

5 whole Board. Because the SEC Work Group has been 

6 putting it on the agenda for discussion with the 

7 whole Board.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, which is --

9 MR. KATZ: At that meeting.

10 CHAIR MUNN: -- I think appropriate.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. How far back do 

12 you want to go? I mean, do you want to say this? 

13 The findings have been, are being reviewed? The 

14 finding is being --

15 CHAIR MUNN: Is awaiting.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding is awaiting.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Issuance of revised 

18 implementation guide.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me. Is this a 

20 revised implementation guide, or a new 

21 implementation guide?

22 MR. KATZ: No, new. It's a new.
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Comma. And the findings 

3 -- no, no. And the decisions of the SEC Working 

4 Group and the Board. Is that adequate, folks, or 

5 do you want more? Steve's going to put more there.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: No. I wanted to change 

7 the status.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: The status will be in 

9 progress, won't it?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We had agreed the status 

13 would be in progress. Okay?

14 MR. MARSCHKE: And then we have to 

15 change the status. Okay. I will do the other 

16 seven over lunch.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Let's move 

18 on. We are scheduled for lunch in another 15 

19 minutes. But let's go ahead and start the PERs. 

20 The first of our PERs is Number 31, a report review. 

21 It's a carryover. And I have NIOSH with the 

22 action.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is Lori. 

2 On that particular item, Stu reported on it at the 

3 last meeting, the Y-12 PER. And basically we 

4 stated that we will inform the committee of the 

5 status. We didn't know whether or not we would be 

6 able to have anything to report by this meeting.

7 And unfortunately, at this time we do 

8 not. So we have this particular issue on our 

9 project plan. And we're working on the resolution 

10 to those findings. And we'll be able to update the 

11 committee at the next meeting.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Another we'll 

13 continue to carry it over.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. I 

15 don't want to make, give anybody the expectation 

16 that we'll necessarily be done at the next meeting.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The project plan has 

19 this out quite a ways. We'll do whatever we can 

20 to do it quicker, but --

21 CHAIR MUNN: We'll just keep it on our 

22 list.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the project plan --

2 CHAIR MUNN: And check it as we go 

3 along. PER-38, case audits. I have that as a 

4 carryover. And I'm showing SC&A.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. This is Kathy 

6 Behling. And we did submit our report on Subtask 

7 4, which is the case reviews, on October 16th, 2014. 

8 And I'm not sure if Steve can pull this up. There 

9 were no findings.

10 But if I may just give you a brief 

11 overview of what was done, and a reminder of what 

12 this PER-38 involved. PER-38 was the Hooker 

13 Electrochemical TBD revisions. And initially 

14 Hooker was, the TBD was under the Battelle 6001, 

15 Appendix AA. And then it became a DCAS document 

16 that was TKBS-0009. And then there were, there was 

17 an initial issuance of that document and a Rev 1. 

18 And due to those revisions, there were some 

19 increases and some decreases in the doses. The 

20 increases in external and internal doses included 

21 uranium intakes during operations, which was from 

22 1944 through 1946.
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 All workers, there was an increase in 

2 those intakes for all workers, except for 

3 operations and what was previously called plant 

4 floor high workers. Also, during the residual 

5 period shallow dose rates increased for all the 

6 workers.

7 However, in most cases the other 

8 external dose rates did decrease. Initially under 

9 this PER -- we did review the PER back in May of 

10 2013, and there were no findings. And then this 

11 case review, NIOSH had actually assessed or 

12 reassessed 20 cases.

13 Now, what was a little bit different in 

14 this particular, we hadn't seen this before. 

15 NIOSH actually did an internal review. They 

16 assessed each of these cases through an internal 

17 process. They documented that in a, usually a 

18 one-page Word file. And so, our review looked at 

19 --

20 There was no need, based on what they 

21 found, to request that the DOL return any cases. 

22 So our review looked at their internal assessment. 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, in fact, I think, let's see if we have that 

2 up.

3 I included that assessment in the 

4 review of these three cases as an exhibit, just so 

5 that you can see what we were comparing against. 

6 And in this particular case, I did, we did look at 

7 the internal, the external, and because the X-ray, 

8 the OTIB-6 document had been updated, I looked at 

9 all of that data, and recalculated those 

10 internal/external doses. And just verified the, 

11 also the X-ray doses. Because we wanted to re-run 

12 the PoC. And so we looked at all of the doses.

13 And in all three of the cases that I 

14 reviewed, I was able to confirm that NIOSH's 

15 assessment was appropriate. I was able to match 

16 their numbers. And I also re-ran IREP, and was 

17 able to come within close agreement of the PoC 

18 values that were cited by NIOSH.

19 As we usually do, I include a table for 

20 each of the three cases that show all of the 

21 original and the re-worked data totals and the 

22 PoCs. But in this case everything was as expected.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Often the external dose is decreased 

2 somewhat, and the internal dose is significantly 

3 increased. But there were no cases that I looked 

4 at where the PoC would have changed to greater than 

5 or equal to 50 percent. So, that's my assessment 

6 of the PER-38 Subtask 4 data. And as I said, there 

7 were no findings.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. It 

9 sounds as though we can close these out. Am I 

10 incorrect?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: I believe so.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Do we, Wanda, do we put 

14 in a PER, a finding of no finding for case?

15 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that's 

16 appropriate. We've done that in the past, and it 

17 clarifies it for historic purposes.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: It should be something 

19 similar that we put in for the first portion of it.

20 MS. K. BEHLING: In fact, Wanda, I 

21 think I had gone back through the BRS system, and 

22 I've seen in some cases that we have submitted our 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Subtask 4 report. And I believe, in fact, I can 

2 go back and look at this for you. But we haven't 

3 always updated the BRS to indicate that Subtask 4 

4 has been completed, and there were no findings.

5 And it just seems to me, to be able to 

6 go back and track this at some later point and to 

7 ensure that we have completed all of our subtasks 

8 associated with the PERs, we may want to go and add 

9 that, add that finding of no findings for those that 

10 we haven't done so.

11 CHAIR MUNN: I think that is 

12 appropriate. It seems that we need to identify if 

13 we have failed to do that in the past, just for total 

14 clarity historically. Yes, let's do that on this 

15 one.

16 And it sounds to me as though I'm 

17 hearing an off-line task that we should also follow 

18 through to double check, to make sure that when 

19 we've had no findings, when we've closed a thing 

20 with no findings, we need to indicate that there 

21 was a finding of no findings.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: And if you'd like, I 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 can go back and identify all of those cases, if 

2 you'd like.

3 CHAIR MUNN: I would certainly like to 

4 have that happen. Paul, Josie, how do you feel 

5 about that?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It should all be 

7 in the record that they've completed that, and 

8 there were no findings. That should be in the 

9 record.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Otherwise, we have a 

11 feeling that --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Otherwise, it looks 

13 like it's still hanging there.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Subtask 4 may still 

15 be hanging somewhere. Josie?

16 MEMBER BEACH: I also agree with that, 

17 Wanda.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Kathy, if you 

19 would do that for us, it would be very helpful. 

20 Since you've already taken a look at it, it sounds 

21 as though it might not be too onerous a task.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: That's right.
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: I'll report back at 

3 the next meeting.

4 CHAIR MUNN: We'll ask for that at the 

5 next meeting.

6 Oops.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: What?

8 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, it was just my 

9 computer went kaput-y.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. I'm going to, 

11 this is the, I'm going to put the finding in in this. 

12 And then I'll put a separate entry in for, under 

13 Wanda, closing this finding to no finding.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. That wording 

15 says, SC&A reviewed four cases for PER-0038, and 

16 provided our results in report DCAS PER-038, 

17 Subtask 4 Review, October 16, 2014. No findings 

18 were identified.

19 During the November 25, 2014 Procedures 

20 Review Subcommittee Meeting the SC&A review and 

21 results were discussed, this entry to the BRS. If 

22 the document review has been performed, and that 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 no findings were identified. That meets my 

2 criterion. Anyone have a problem with those 

3 words?

4 MS. K. BEHLING: One correction. We 

5 actually reviewed three cases.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Three cases, okay. 

7 That's important.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. 

9 Alright. Not hearing any concerns, we will use 

10 those words, and close out PER-38.

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is Lori.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Before we proceed on 

14 to the next PER, if we could step back to PER-31 

15 for a second?

16 CHAIR MUNN: Alright, Y-12?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: I just ran past my 

18 notes. And I don't know if you want to continue 

19 to carry this item on. But like Stu referred, we 

20 are asked to actually have this particular document 

21 preparing our responses on our project plan. It 

22 goes out to July of 2015. So I don't know if you 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to continue to carry it on your agenda or not.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Well --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Didn't we already 

4 decide we wouldn't carry that?

5 CHAIR MUNN: PER-31?

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Is it 31?

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: No.

8 CHAIR MUNN: No, it wasn't 31. It was 

9 RPRT-53 that we said we weren't going to --

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's the one. 

11 That was the new OTIB.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right. No, this is 

13 back, the Y-12 thing. And I was just going to 

14 continue hanging onto it. Because again, you 

15 know, it's my personal concern about not having a 

16 way to identify when we need to put it back on the 

17 agenda.

18 MEMBER ZIEMER: But when the document 

19 comes out, that would be the same thing that 

20 happens, that Ted talked about before, that he 

21 automatically red flags it.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, but not with this. 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Because this is PER that they're doing work on, 

2 right? This isn't the same as -- That was OTIB-83, 

3 the --

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right. Okay. 

5 You don't -- I can't remember the PER exactly. 

6 Okay.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. They're, as I said, 

8 I don't have a --

9 MR. KATZ: It's fine. I mean, I think 

10 we can just ask for, since we always have a list 

11 of these PERs, we can just ask, have it on the agenda 

12 and just say, you know, no update, whatever.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. And I just continue 

14 to intend to asterisk them on the agenda so that 

15 we're aware of the fact that we're carrying that, 

16 and that it's going to continue for a while.

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. 

19 We appreciate it. PER-42 response. I have SC&A 

20 listed for that too.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. This is Kathy 

22 Behling. What we, I have updated the BRS with 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 these two findings from the Linde PER review. That 

2 was Linde, PER-42. And those findings have been 

3 updated in the BRS. And during the last meeting, 

4 Hans and Ron Buchanan made a presentation as to 

5 their review and the findings.

6 CHAIR MUNN: And do we have no action 

7 with response to those today?

8 DR. NETON: This is Jim. Are you 

9 talking a NIOSH response?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: Yes. I could speak 

12 verbally at least to these. There's nothing in 

13 writing in the BRS. But we got, we received this 

14 report in August, some timeframe.

15 There was only two findings, one of 

16 which is pretty easy to dispense with, and that's 

17 the second one that was related to some language 

18 that was in the revised TBD. SC&A, I think found 

19 that the approach adopted in the TBD was consistent 

20 with what was agreed upon in the Working Group, as 

21 far as the, what was it? These were the radon 

22 concentrations that we find in the tunnels.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 This is the second finding. And we had 

2 inadvertently left in some language of an exposure 

3 approach that was in the old TBD, that should have 

4 been removed. And so we fully agree that that 

5 language needed to be modified and we would take

6 that out.

7 The tables themselves that show the 

8 exposures, as SC&A verified, are correct. It's 

9 just the language about occupancy times needed to 

10 be revised to be consistent with what was agreed 

11 upon at the Working Group level.

12 So, that doesn't change any of the 

13 calculations or the values. It's just a change to 

14 the document itself that reflects what we really 

15 did.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So, under Item 2, 

17 do we not need to indicate that NIOSH agrees 

18 correction needs to be made to the document? And 

19 that will happen. Or do we need a specific, a 

20 written response from you?

21 DR. NETON: Well --

22 CHAIR MUNN: It doesn't seem necessary 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to me.

2 DR. NETON: No. I think we can just 

3 enter that into the database as such, and go from 

4 there.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, yes.

6 DR. NETON: It's a simple response. 

7 It's essentially just a typo, not a type, but a --

8 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

9 DR. NETON: -- omission on our part.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Just an update. Any 

11 concerns, Paul or Josie, with respect to our just 

12 simply adding right now?

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: No. That seems to do 

14 it, and maybe do just that. Have the indication 

15 that NIOSH agrees. And then let's put it into 

16 abeyance, I guess, on this finding.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: If we want we could 

18 probably, you know, just mention that this is what 

19 Jim has said during this meeting. And the 

20 Subcommittee agrees with Jim, and has changed the 

21 status to in abeyance. I mean, we could do 

22 everything now, if you --
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think we can. I 

2 think all we need to say is --

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: But I think that's what 

4 I was suggesting.

5 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

6 CHAIR MUNN: What we're saying is, 

7 let's create a response right now in the database 

8 that says, NIOSH agrees, and the correction will 

9 be made, the appropriate corrections will be made 

10 to the document. And we can just say Number 2 is 

11 in abeyance.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I've 

13 just got a quick question for Jim. When you have 

14 very minor changes like this, where all the wording 

15 wasn't exactly right, but everything else is okay, 

16 would you actually issue a new revision?

17 DR. NETON: Not all the time, John. We 

18 have what we call Page Change notices.

19 DR. MAURO: Okay.

20 DR. NETON: I'm not sure whether that 

21 would be handled this way or not, though.

22 DR. MAURO: Okay. Yes.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: It really was just a matter 

2 of taking the old offensive language out and 

3 inserting the new one. We did it for the previous 

4 table, I think 11. And table 12 we stuck with the 

5 old language. It just, it was an inadvertent --

6 DR. MAURO: So, when you have PC-1, 

7 PC-2, is that what that refers to, Page Change?

8 DR. NETON: Right. That's Page 

9 Change.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. You know, you think 

11 I would know that. But, okay, I understand. 

12 Thank you.

13 DR. NETON: Procedure change. But 

14 it's a --

15 DR. MAURO: Sure.

16 DR. NETON: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: Got it. Thank you.

18 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can just say, 

19 Steve, that the language will be changed.

20 DR. NETON: I don't know if we want to 

21 note it, but this does not affect the dose 

22 reconstructions at all.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: It will be changed 

2 appropriately, period.

3 DR. NETON: We spent a lot of time on 

4 this up in Buffalo.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. We remember.

6 DR. NETON: To finally incorporate it, 

7 you know, we interviewed some workers. And the 

8 occupancy factors were finally decided based on 

9 those discussions.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Now let's take 

11 a look at Item 1.

12 DR. NETON: Finding 1 is a little, 

13 going to require a little more discussion. But 

14 SC&A questioned restrictive application for not 

15 applying any uranium or radon doses to workers 

16 during the SEC period that was most recently added, 

17 and that was the time period between 1954 and 1969.

18 To refresh people's memories, the site 

19 operations actually stopped prior to 1954, the AEC 

20 activities. But after 1954 through 1969, even 

21 though this is technically in what is considered 

22 to be a residual contamination period, it was also 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a time period when active building renovation was 

2 going on.

3 They felt before 1954 that they had 

4 decontaminated and decommissioned the facility 

5 fairly well. But between '54 and '69, they did a 

6 lot of renovation work creating office space and 

7 such. And in the process, they ended up moving a 

8 lot of heavy machinery. They did some, you know, 

9 removal of walls and such, that it was really not 

10 what we consider a typical residual contamination 

11 period.

12 And the Board decided, this was agreed 

13 to at a Board Meeting, that this period really 

14 should be part of the SEC, even though NIOSH felt 

15 that the exposures that we were assigning in the 

16 D&D period prior to '54 were bounding.

17 The discussion centered mostly around 

18 the uncertainty associated with those exposures. 

19 And, you know, is a one size fits all model in this 

20 period really appropriate? And eventually the 

21 Class was added, between '54 and '60.

22 The idea was that we couldn't 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruct the uranium here, because it couldn't 

2 be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. So 

3 that's what we've done. The SEC was added. SC&A 

4 is suggesting that we have a residual contamination 

5 model that spans from 1950 out past 1969, and maybe 

6 that residual contamination exposure should be 

7 assigned to non-presumptive cancers during this 

8 SEC period. Our opinion is that that's not

9 appropriate. That's not the way we interpret 

10 these SECs.

11 If a radionuclide, specific 

12 radionuclide can't be reconstructed, it can't be 

13 reconstructed at all except for the special 

14 circumstances where -- and this is cited in the 

15 designation, where there may be personal 

16 monitoring data, either external or internal data 

17 on an individual.

18 And if that was available we would use 

19 it to reconstruct their exposures. But otherwise, 

20 the doses by definition in this time period cannot 

21 be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. And 

22 we've never gotten to the situation where, well, 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we don't know what, we can't put a bound on it, but 

2 it's at least as high as X. We've never done that.

3 I mean, you could argue that would be 

4 a situation that could be applied anywhere where 

5 you have general area air samples. And if it's an 

6 SEC for plutonium, why not at least assign the 

7 general area air samples in non-presumptive cases. 

8 That's just not the way that we interpret the law.

9 Our opinion is that we don't need to 

10 change this to add the residual contamination to 

11 non-presumptive cancers.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Seems to me that we need 

13 a written response to that effect. So that, at our 

14 next meeting.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Wanda, this is Hans.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Hans.

17 DR. H. BEHLING: Because I'm the person 

18 who actually identified these findings.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: And I have to state 

21 that I do have a problem with this, because I 

22 believe the data is there to identify exposures 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during this residual period, that obviously 

2 coincides with the SEC period. Because it does in 

3 fact comply with OTIB-70.

4 And I do have a question, how you can 

5 take a data point that occurred in 1954 and then 

6 transport it in time to 1970. I mean, it's very 

7 generous in a way. But it also obviates the 

8 potential for exposure that involves the residual 

9 period to people who do not qualify for the SEC.

10 And I have to say, you have to really 

11 look at those entire arguments that I posed in 

12 behalf of Finding 2, that starts on Page 17 and 18 

13 of my report.

14 And I understand what Jim has just said. 

15 But I still, if it comes to the point where nothing 

16 changes, I will go on record saying I disagree with 

17 that decision, that you cannot assign exposures to 

18 those people for the residual period.

19 Because throughout this document there 

20 were other exceptions made, where information that 

21 also coincides with an SEC period, if it's 

22 available, can be used to reconstruct partial doses 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for those people who do not qualify for the SEC.

2 So, a precedent has been set in this 

3 document for use of data that involves the SEC 

4 period for those who do not qualify for the SEC.

5 MR. KATZ: Hans, this is a major 

6 difference between the situations that you're 

7 relating here. Because where the program has said 

8 we'll reconstruct what we can reconstruct based on, 

9 for example, personal information, that's in their 

10 personal dosimetry that they have on their 

11 experience.

12 So that's different than applying some 

13 sort of model of any kind generally to the whole 

14 population, when you've already said you can't 

15 estimate their doses. It's just, it's apples and 

16 oranges, and by policy it's not allowed. So, I 

17 mean, by policy and under the regulation, it's not 

18 allowed.

19 It's just simply, you know, out of 

20 bounds. So, it really, you know, I think everybody 

21 understands how you could put a minimum dose in all 

22 sorts of circumstances on people where there are 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SECs. You could readily do that. In probably 

2 every SEC case you could do that. But it's not 

3 permissible.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: I think I do have to 

5 question then the value of OTIB-70. It should at 

6 least state there that this would never apply to 

7 this where an SEC coincides with the time period.

8 MR. KATZ: Well, but I don't, maybe Jim 

9 needs to fill me in on OTIB-70. None of our dose 

10 reconstruction procedures apply to doses that 

11 can't be reconstructed as decided under the SEC 

12 rule.

13 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't, TIB-70 is 

14 applied during residual contamination periods.

15 MR. KATZ: Right. But only when it's 

16 feasible to reconstruct. If it's an SEC period, 

17 it's not applied.

18 DR. NETON: Right. I think, well, 

19 Hans' issue was with this 1950 air sample that was 

20 used. But it's a little different in this 

21 particular case.

22 Because the air sample itself was taken 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 after the surfaces were cleaned and sandblasted. 

2 And there was a pneumatic jackhammering operation 

3 going on. And that's why we ended up using that 

4 value. The site was already cleaned at that point.

5 The reason after 1954 became an SEC 

6 though, was because they started doing other 

7 operations that perturbed the soil even to a larger 

8 or lesser degree. We don't know. And that's why 

9 it was added.

10 But the '50 sample is definitely taken 

11 at the beginning is what is technically the

12 residual contamination period, after the site had 

13 been cleaned. So, I think it applies. It's a 

14 little unusual in that case. I agree with Hans. 

15 But I think it's okay.

16 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I think the 

17 other thing that I do question is how you can 

18 transport a 1954 piece of data 16 years without 

19 amending it.

20 Obviously we all just talk about 

21 depletion of contamination, even under this 

22 residual time period when there may not be much of 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any activity. But we always do that.

2 And so, it just struck me as very odd 

3 that this whole process evolved, that involves the 

4 exclusion of the SEC time period for assigning 

5 dose. But then using a '54 data point, and saying 

6 that same number will apply in 1970, a highly, 

7 highly claimant-favorable assumption, but one that 

8 doesn't technically make sense.

9 DR. NETON: Well, this is what TIB 70 

10 does. I mean, we do this all the time. We'll take 

11 the end of operations of some air samples as 

12 representative of re-suspension, if not overly 

13 representative, use that as our starting point, and 

14 then decay that over time through the next 

15 available data point, which may be something in the 

16 1970s or even '80s. And --

17 DR. H. BEHLING: But it wasn't done. 

18 It was identical value that was in 1954 assigned 

19 to 1970. It was not subject to a reduction based 

20 on environmental depletion. I mean, the whole 

21 thing was a little odd. It's just --

22 DR. NETON: Yes. That's an artifact 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of how this incident -- because this is really a 

2 part of the residual contamination period. '54, 

3 when they were doing building renovations, we 

4 originally proposed that we would not reduce the 

5 value at all, and just use that 1954 value.

6 And then, that's when the Board and 

7 NIOSH agreed, and decided that you couldn't 

8 reconstruct doses in that period at all. In other 

9 words, that 161 picocurie per liter value was not 

10 necessarily representative of exposures during 

11 that time period.

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, I guess we will 

13 have to close this out, since obviously it has been 

14 stated that this cannot happen under the conditions 

15 of SEC status. And so, I have to concede, 

16 reluctantly concede.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone else have a 

18 comment or a position with respect to the 

19 discussion we've just heard? If not, is it the 

20 NIOSH recommendation then that this be closed?

21 DR. NETON: Yes. Although, Wanda, I 

22 do think we need to put something in writing into 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this spot.

2 CHAIR MUNN: I believe we do too. I 

3 was going to ask --

4 DR. NETON: We'll provide you with 

5 that, and recommend that we close it. But until 

6 then, I guess it needs to stay open until we do that.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. I'll indicate 

8 that --

9 DR. NETON: In progress.

10 CHAIR MUNN: -- a closure statement 

11 will be forthcoming from NIOSH. And we'll call it 

12 in progress momentarily.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda?

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, yes. Wanda, 

16 this is Kathy. I also just wanted to add that 

17 during the last meeting, SC&A was assigned two 

18 cases to be reviewed under Subtask 4. And that is 

19 near completion. We're just in the peer review 

20 stages. And so, that report will definitely be in 

21 your hands within a few weeks.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: And for the next 

2 meeting.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. So, SC&A will 

4 do, will present case findings next time.

5 MS. K. BEHLING: Right.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. That's great. 

7 How many did you say?

8 MS. K. BEHLING: There were two cases.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Okay. Very good. 

10 I think that's all we need to say, Steve. NIOSH 

11 indicated they'll provide the justification for 

12 closing the finding to the Subcommittee. I think 

13 that's all we need at this moment, unless someone 

14 feels we need to be more expansive than that.

15 And I will indicate that SC&A will be 

16 presenting two case findings next time. PER-45 

17 response. We had eight added findings. And I 

18 indicate that NIOSH has the action on that.

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, Wanda, this is 

20 Lori. I think that's me.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. PER-45.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks, Lori.

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: With PER-45 we're 

3 going to need some additional time to prepare 

4 responses for this particular, for most of the 

5 findings. We found that both of the findings are 

6 associated with the Aliquippa Forge TBD, and some 

7 other associated documents.

8 So we want to look at those findings 

9 collectively and prepare a response. And 

10 hopefully we'll have something by the next meeting.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We're going to 

12 carryover. That brings us up to PER-43. We have 

13 case reviews, Subtask 4, correct?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. That's correct, 

15 Wanda. It's Kathy again. And that also is well 

16 under way and in progress. And that report will 

17 certainly be in your hands before the next meeting. 

18 And we can, we'll be in a position to make a 

19 presentation on those case reviews.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Boy, we're zipping 

21 right through.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Kathy?
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: When we did the normal 

3 review of the PER, did we have any findings on that? 

4 Because I'm looking at the BRS, and it doesn't seem 

5 to have anything entered under, not even any 

6 finding of no findings for PER-43.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: Well, that's a good 

8 question.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Hold on.

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Let me --

11 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. I did actually 

12 -- this is Hans. I did actually a review of the 

13 PER-43. I'm also the one who's kindly finalizing 

14 my comments regarding Task 4 of the four cases that 

15 would correspond to that. But I have to actually 

16 look and see what, whether or not there are 

17 findings.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: No. There were no 

19 findings under our review of PER-43, which, as a 

20 reminder, PER-43 was internal dosimetry organs, 

21 external dosimetry organs, and the IREP model 

22 selections by ICD-9 code revisions. That's 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 OTIB-5. And we had no findings as a result of the 

2 review of that PER.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay. So, Wanda, do 

4 you want us to add a finding of no finding? Maybe 

5 again offline?

6 CHAIR MUNN: It seems to me that we 

7 should do that, yes, if we're going to be 

8 consistent, and not puzzle ourselves a year and a 

9 half from now. I think that's appropriate. Yes, 

10 if you would, in fact, do that, Steve. Okay.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: I want to basically get 

12 the documentation. So I don't want to do it right 

13 now.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I'll do it offline. I 

16 want to get the document number, and on and so 

17 forth.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. That's 

19 appropriate. That will be on our agenda next time 

20 as a carryover. And Steve will have the no 

21 findings entries updated then. That brings us to 

22 PER-18. Again, I have SC&A.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. This is Kathy 

2 again. And PER-18 was the Los Alamos National Lab 

3 TBD revision. And I submitted, this report was 

4 submitted in May, May 30th of 2014. And this is 

5 the Subtask 4 review.

6 Under this review, we looked at five 

7 cases. And the key changes to the TBD focused on 

8 neutron to photon ratios in Table 6.22, and in the 

9 Appendix of that document. In the original 

10 revision, or original document, this Table 6.22 had 

11 minimum and maximum neutron to photon ratio values.

12 And in the revision it was changed to 

13 median and upper bound ratios. And it created an 

14 increase in median doses to all workers except for 

15 the operations category. And it also added a 

16 category, the revision also added a category or 

17 worker locations.

18 The second revision, which is somewhat 

19 minor in comparison, is for the TA-53 facility they 

20 changed energy distributions for the photon 

21 radiation. And also changed, affected the 

22 assignment of non-penetrating dose to electrons or 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 photons less than 30 keV.

2 So in the review of the five cases there 

3 were -- all of the cases were associated with 

4 non-presumptive cancers. There were four 

5 prostate cancers and one ovarian.

6 And that was due to the fact that this 

7 site has been issued, there have been two SEC 

8 Classes added. And so, that's why those 

9 particular cases were selected by NIOSH.

10 I can, I'll just briefly go through, 

11 I'll focus on the findings, because I did have five 

12 findings. I don't know, I guess Steve doesn't have 

13 this report pulled up.

14 And I know it goes back a ways. But it 

15 was a focused review that looked at just, I looked 

16 at the photon doses and the neutron doses. Because 

17 prior to 1979 they used a neutron to photon ratio. 

18 And so therefore, I looked at both of those.

19 And for my first case the -- and I'll 

20 only go through the first case, which had no 

21 findings, to give you an understanding of why they 

22 chose different neutron to photon ratios and why 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I thought it was appropriate to do so.

2 For the first case, in the original dose 

3 reconstruction, they selected a neutron to photon 

4 ratio of 5.5, which represented the maximum value 

5 for workers in the plutonium facility, from this 

6 Table 6.22 that changed in revision.

7 But during, in the revised dose 

8 reconstruction they actually selected, put this 

9 person in a classification of other operations, 

10 which gave, which assigned a neutron to photon 

11 ratio of 6.4.

12 And the reason that I feel they were 

13 justified in changing the classification for this 

14 individual is they were trying to maximize this 

15 dose. And so, I noted that they did select this 

16 worker from a different category, but I felt that 

17 it was appropriate, because they were just trying 

18 to maximize the dose. And I found that in three 

19 out of the five cases, and I felt that was an 

20 appropriate justification. And I had no findings 

21 for three of the cases.

22 Now, one case where I did have -- and 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this would be, if you get to the report, it's 

2 actually on Page 17 of my report. And it's the 

3 second case that we reviewed.

4 In looking over the DOE files, I took 

5 notice that there was a measured neutron dose of 

6 80 millirem that was not accounted for, either in 

7 the original dose reconstruction or the revised 

8 dose reconstruction. So that became our Finding 

9 Number 6.

10 Because during the review of the LANL 

11 TBD we actually had five findings from the PER 

12 review. And so this becomes, it became Finding 

13 Number 6. And as I said, it had to do with a dose 

14 shown in the DOE records of 80 millirem that was 

15 not accounted for in the neutron dose.

16 If I go on then, the last case that I 

17 looked at, there were four findings. This would 

18 be -- okay, I guess it's not up. Again, this would 

19 be on Page 29 of my report.

20 And Finding 7, it appears that they 

21 failed to apply a TBD specific uncertainty factor 

22 to the measured photon dose, and this obviously 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 impacted the photon to neutron defined ratios.

2 Also in that particular case, they did 

3 not follow the TBD recommendation of applying an 

4 eight percent uncertainty factor to measured 

5 neutron doses after 1978. So that was, that eight 

6 percent uncertainty factor was not applied in the 

7 original or in the revised dose reconstruction.

8 Finding 9, for one prostate cancer SC&A 

9 questions in this particular case why the median 

10 value rather than 95 percentile value of the 

11 neutron to photon ratio was selected. Because 

12 when we went into the records, it appeared that the 

13 neutron -- in fact, for an example, for 1951, the 

14 photon dose was 60 millirem and the neutron dose 

15 recorded at 750 millirem.

16 And also based on this particular EE's 

17 job function, and the fact that he was monitored, 

18 you know, for photon and neutron doses, it just 

19 seemed to me that it may have been more appropriate 

20 to use the 95th percentile value of the neutron to 

21 photon ratio.

22 And then lastly, in this same case, this 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 case that I did, I couldn't manually calculate the 

2 neutron doses based on the information in the dose 

3 reconstruction report. And my numbers, I gave an 

4 example of the calculation that I did, and my 

5 numbers actually came in quite a bit lower than what 

6 NIOSH calculated.

7 And I just need some clarification on 

8 what method was used. And perhaps just to verify 

9 that this is not any kind of a workbook issue, or 

10 something, you know, something more systemic a 

11 concern.

12 So, I can give you more details about 

13 the other cases that I reviewed, but I think that 

14 summarizes my review of the five cases, and the five 

15 findings. I don't know if anyone has any 

16 questions.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Does anyone have any 

18 questions? We will assume then that NIOSH is 

19 looking at these and that we will have a response 

20 from NIOSH next time.

21 MR. SIEBERT: Wanda, this is Scott. 

22 Actually, the NIOSH responses were entered in 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 November. And the only question I had for Kathy 

2 was whether she'd had a chance to review those yet.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: No, I haven't. But I 

4 can certainly do that for the next meeting.

5 CHAIR MUNN: In which case, oh, I guess 

6 I haven't seen -- alright. I didn't do my homework 

7 properly, or appropriately. I haven't read 

8 through that. Thank you, Scott.

9 MR. SIEBERT: Kathy.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Then we will 

11 continue to carry this item as an SC&A activity at 

12 this time, right, for a response to NIOSH comment. 

13 Okay. Very good. The next item on our list is 

14 PER-20, Finding 6. I have NIOSH.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, Wanda, this is 

16 Lori again. This particular PER finding is one 

17 where NIOSH wanted to update the committee on the 

18 in-abeyance status of this finding.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: We indicated that we 

21 would make a change to the TBD to reflect the 

22 Blockson tools. The current version of that 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 document was sent out to the Subcommittee Members, 

2 I believe the other day. I'm not sure if everyone 

3 received it and had a chance to look at it.

4 CHAIR MUNN: We did receive it. At 

5 least I did. Paul, Josie, did you --

6 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I got it and 

7 reviewed it.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, okay. Very good. 

10 Very good.

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: I don't know if SC&A 

12 had a chance to, as well. But the revision was made 

13 to address the concern with aligning the tool 

14 instructions with the TBD.

15 And that change can be found on Page, 

16 I believe Page 20 of the TBD. And I guess 

17 specifically, Kathy, I know you were looking at 

18 this particular issue for PER-20.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Has SC&A had an 

21 opportunity to review the information that Lori 

22 sent out?
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. K. BEHLING: I did not review this 

2 yet.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: I can do that over the 

5 lunch time because this is very specific, and I'm 

6 sure I can give you a yes or a no after lunch.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. That's good. 

8 We'll just hold it after lunch, which takes us up 

9 to PER-11.

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: Here too, Wanda, 

11 PER-11 findings. I guess I'll wait until you get 

12 there, Steve.

13 MR. MARSCHKE: Thank you.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: At any rate, those 

15 findings were associated with the OTIB-52 

16 document. And that also was attached to the email 

17 that I sent to the committee.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Changes in 

19 Chapters 7 and 8, right?

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: And what the 

21 findings, I guess the -- what Rose was looking at, 

22 at this point in time, was whether or not NIOSH was 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 properly identifying its construction trade 

2 workers.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: And this particular 

5 section of the OTIB is where we clarified how we 

6 will go about identifying those workers in the 

7 future.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Would you like to read 

9 that into the record, Lori, what the change is? 

10 It's fairly brief, right?

11 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. Basically, 

12 this document presents information that compares 

13 doses received by monitored CTWs to doses received 

14 by AMWs.

15 For the purposes of this document CTWs 

16 may include but are not limited to laborers, 

17 mechanics, masons, carpenters, electricians, 

18 painters, pipefitters, insulators, boilermakers, 

19 sheet metal workers, operating engineers and iron 

20 workers.

21 MS. THOMAS: But those were already 

22 included in the previous OTIB-52 revision, is that 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 correct?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes. Is this the 

3 latest one? Excuse me. Hold on for a minute. I 

4 may be in error. Matt, are you on the line?

5 MR. SMITH: Yes, I am. And --

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Did I read that 

7 properly?

8 MR. SMITH: Well the BRS screen on the 

9 slide meeting is jumping around. So give me a 

10 moment. Let me open OTIB-52 as it resides out on 

11 the web here.

12 Basically, off the top of my head, in 

13 the purpose section and in several other sections, 

14 going all the way back to Section 8, we go ahead 

15 and call out some clarifying language that deals 

16 with both -- well, let me get to it. That way I'll 

17 read it properly into the record as well.

18 Okay. This is Matt Smith again with 

19 ORAU Team. I guess I'll point folks first to the 

20 publication record, which is on PDF Page 2 of 36, 

21 of OTIB-52, which is currently on the DCAS website. 

22 Revision 2, which was released in July 24th of this 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 year, 2014.

2 We revised that language to the purpose 

3 scope sections, also Section 7 and Section 8 to 

4 clarify applicability of the document to 

5 construction trade workers who could have worked 

6 for prime M&O contractors at DOE sites. And that's 

7 it in a capsule statement.

8 If you were going to go to the purpose 

9 scope section, or Section 7, or Section 8, you'll 

10 see this clarifying language. And let me just jump

11 to the -- I jumped ahead to Section 2.0, which is 

12 the purpose section.

13 That's on Page 8 of 36. And I'll just 

14 read it verbatim. This document provides guidance 

15 for performing dose reconstructions for 

16 unmonitored construction trade workers.

17 For the purpose of this document, 

18 unmonitored construction trade workers are defined 

19 as workers who worked on site at any time in the 

20 site's history, and might have been employed by the 

21 M&O contractor at any DOE site.

22 The next sentence is the one that was 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 already read into the record. These unmonitored 

2 construction trade workers may include but are not 

3 limited to laborers, mechanics, masons, 

4 carpenters, electricians, painters, pipefitters, 

5 insulators, boilermakers, sheet metal workers, 

6 operating engineers and iron workers who were 

7 employed by subcontractors or worked directly for 

8 the M&O contractor at any DOE site.

9 And I believe the rest of the language 

10 in that section is the same as before. Got 

11 anything to add on that?

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: No. I think that's 

13 what we changed, in our efforts to respond to SC&A's 

14 findings for Finding 3 and 5 for that PER.

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, my understanding 

16 is then that PER, or OTIB-52 was being incorrectly 

17 interpreted then to not apply to employees that 

18 worked for the prime contractor, that were 

19 construction trade workers and unmonitored, and it 

20 should have been applied. Is that correct?

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. This is Stu 

22 Hinnefeld. I believe that's correct. That it 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wasn't clear on all, everyone who were doing and 

2 reviewing dose reconstruction, that people who 

3 worked for the M&O who had construction trade 

4 worker job titles should get the CTW adjustment.

5 There were, some people thought that it 

6 was subcontractors. But the analysis was actually 

7 done with all CTWs in one category regardless of 

8 whether they worked for subcontractors or the M&O.

9 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, are there plans 

10 for a PER to be issued as a result of this?

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. We're going to 

12 have to in some fashion verify that from the time 

13 we start applying the CTW until the time we've 

14 clarified to everybody that CTWs can work for the 

15 M&O.

16 We'll have to go back and look for cases 

17 that may have been, you know, M&O CTW people who 

18 worked on it appropriately. So, yes, we will have 

19 to do that.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay. And that will 

21 apply to PER-11 and PER-14 impacted cases as well?

22 MR. HINNEFELD: I'll have to work out 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the administrative part of what we're going to call 

2 that. So, yes. Chances are that will be its own 

3 PER because PERs are really, we write these PERs 

4 for specific identified changes. And so, it will 

5 probably be a new one I would think.

6 CHAIR MUNN: How are we going to track 

7 that?

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it will be a new 

9 PER. And, you know, whenever we prepare a new PER 

10 we let the Subcommittee know that the PER is 

11 prepared and ready for review.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now we do, SC&A, we do 

14 appreciate that. And we agree that was a step that 

15 needed to happen. However, we don't feel that that 

16 entirely addresses our concerns.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Would you like to expand, 

18 Rose?

19 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes. Well, PER-11, 

20 our Findings 3 and 5, I believe they are that are 

21 still open. Both kind of got merged into one now, 

22 where NIOSH didn't use any formal criteria to 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 identify a CTW worker as a CTW.

2 Now, in PER-14, there was a specific set 

3 of criteria if the employee's job title included 

4 one of 46 words, they were included as a CTW. This 

5 one NIOSH left it up to the reviewer to decide if 

6 the employee was a construction trade worker.

7 And we believe that term is very 

8 subjective. And depending on the reviewer, or 

9 even the date the review was done identical claims 

10 could be processed differently.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: So, is your feeling 

12 then that, rather than have the job titles as 

13 they're listed in the OTIB-52 we should have the 

14 46 from the other PER you're talking about?

15 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, or some formal 

16 criteria that says these job titles are 

17 construction trade workers, and these ones don't 

18 qualify. Or at least these need to be categorized 

19 as this.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, as a general 

21 rule, when we draw lists like this we try not to 

22 be exclusive because we recognize that we can 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 encounter information in a particular claim file 

2 that would cause us essentially to put an 

3 additional person in the CTW category, you know, 

4 in job titles we haven't seen or haven't considered 

5 before.

6 But once we see the description, you 

7 know, information in a claim file we might add that. 

8 So, I think regardless of where we end up there's 

9 going to be some wiggle room for adding people to 

10 whatever list we generate.

11 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree, that's a good 

12 idea. But I don't want claimants to be missed 

13 because their particular reviewer didn't feel that 

14 a boilermaker or a sheet metal worker or whatever 

15 their job category was, was a construction trade 

16 worker claim.

17 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So then, what 

18 was the other PER you mentioned where there were 

19 46 job titles?

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: PER-14.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. We'll look into 

22 doing something along those lines.
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Okay, great.

2 CHAIR MUNN: How can we best capture 

3 that in our statement today? It appears to me that 

4 it's a NIOSH action, and we were going to indicate 

5 that NIOSH is pursuing possibility of -- or perhaps 

6 we should just say --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, it sounds like 

8 there's two actions, isn't there? If I'm correct, 

9 there's going to be a new PER issued in addition 

10 to them looking at 014.

11 CHAIR MUNN: A new PER.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, the new PER. 

13 Let's keep the new PER separate because we'll have, 

14 I mean, I guess we could make a comment about here 

15 somewhere.

16 But when we write a new PER that's 

17 going, you know, we're going to say we've a new PER, 

18 it's available for review. And so, that kind of 

19 opens up the review of that.

20 I think the issue for this particular 

21 response, which is 52, and the PER from OTIB-52 is 

22 that we should consider a broader definition of CTW 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in OTIB 52. You know, something like that, that 

2 we will consider a broader definition of CTW in 

3 OTIB-52, similar to what was used for PER-14.

4 And now, I am speaking, you know, from 

5 a relatively uninformed position here. And so, 

6 what we're going to do is look into this. I don't 

7 want to be promising we're going to do something. 

8 But we're going to look into whether we agree that 

9 that's an appropriate thing to do.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I think we can just use the 

11 word investigate.

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Right.

13 CHAIR MUNN: NIOSH will investigate 

14 whether PER-14 has applicability.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: This is Ziemer. Let 

16 me say, I'm a little puzzled as to how we would make 

17 it broader. Whenever you make it broader it really 

18 means you have to have the phrase that allows for 

19 other descriptions.

20 And whenever you have that you're 

21 bringing up the issue that was raised by SC&A. And 

22 that is that there's some subjectivity at that 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 point for a dose reconstructor to make that 

2 determination that it's a new set of terms that's 

3 not on the starting list.

4 I mean, if you have a closed list maybe 

5 you're going to automatically exclude somebody, 

6 and you're not going to be broad enough. If you 

7 put in the loophole phrase that allows it to be 

8 broadened, you're going to introduce subjectivity. 

9 I don't see how you can get around it.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, can I ask you this, I 

11 guess to the NIOSH folks? If you had a limited list 

12 would those, anyone with a title within the limited 

13 list, would they automatically, or would there be 

14 any subjectivity for those cases?

15 Because if those, if it's sort of 

16 automatic for the limited list, then you're still 

17 somewhat better off, because you have at least for 

18 that limited list certainty how they're going to 

19 be treated.

20 And then they'll, you know, as you're 

21 saying, Paul, there'll be cases on the margins 

22 beyond that that would be subjective. But you'd 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 still be in a better position.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's the point I'm 

3 making. And this is a pretty broad list to start 

4 with. And you've tried to think around it sort of 

5 normal range.

6 And then you said, you basically are 

7 saying there may be some other names, and you don't 

8 want to exclude them, which I think that's the 

9 advantage of also saying you don't want to exclude 

10 them.

11 But as soon as you do that, you've 

12 opened the door for the subjectivity because 

13 somebody's going to have to make the determination 

14 whether this new title is in fact a construction 

15 worker.

16 MR. KATZ: Right, right. My only 

17 point, Paul, is that you're still in a better 

18 situation because you still have some subjectivity 

19 but only on the margin there.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's exactly what 

21 I'm saying.

22 MR. KATZ: Okay.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I'm thinking that 

2 SC&A is objecting to that. And I don't know the 

3 solution.

4 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. I don't think 

5 there's a solution to that. I think that's as good 

6 as you get.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's my point.

8 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I just 

9 looked at PER-14. And that list that was generated 

10 was purposely made more inclusive, because that was 

11 the search criteria that we used to identify 

12 construction worker claims that had previously 

13 been processed. It's a little different. I mean 

14 --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: That was for a 

16 different purpose then.

17 DR. NETON: That means that a more --

18 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Well, that is actually 

19 the same purpose in this PER --

20 DR. NETON: What's that?

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: That's actually the 

22 same purpose in this PER.
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: No. But what I'm saying 

2 though is, the PER was written to identify claims 

3 that had already been processed and were in the 

4 database, that needed to be reviewed.

5 So, you're going to make it more 

6 inclusive than the suggested list that's in the 

7 TIB. And clearly the TIB captured more claims. 

8 What am I trying to say here?

9 The PER, when it was written, tried to 

10 capture all cases that needed to be reviewed, and 

11 that's why the list was more expansive than what's 

12 listed in the TBD.

13 MS. GOGLIOTTI: I agree. But in this 

14 particular case this is, PER-11 is trying to do the 

15 exact same thing as 14, but with a different set 

16 of cases.

17 DR. NETON: No, no, no. You 

18 misunderstand what I'm saying. PER is not written 

19 to identify who is a construction worker. PER is 

20 written to identify who has already been processed 

21 that is in the database that is a construction 

22 worker. That's different. These cases have 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 already been done.

2 We're just trying to find out who was 

3 a construction worker. Therefore, it was more --

4 these are already in NOCTS, already been 

5 dose-reconstructed.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

8 DR. NETON: That's a very different 

9 application than what you're suggesting.

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: I think we see no evidence 

12 that the list in TIB-52 is not expansive enough. 

13 And in fact, the fact that all of these other 

14 categories were captured, and dose-reconstructed 

15 as construction workers shows that a more expansive 

16 list is selected.

17 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Now, see, I'm okay with 

18 the list in OTIB-52. But --

19 DR. NETON: I thought I heard you just 

20 say the opposite.

21 MS. GOGLIOTTI: But for PER-11 --

22 DR. NETON: Yes.
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- there needs to be a 

2 list in place with some --

3 DR. NETON: Okay, okay. I 

4 misunderstood what you were suggesting. I thought 

5 you said 52 needed to be modified to include --

6 okay.

7 MS. GOGLIOTTI: If there was --

8 DR. NETON: If that's what you're 

9 saying --

10 MS. GOGLIOTTI: -- modify that, that 

11 would be fine. But I'm more concerned about 

12 PER-11.

13 DR. NETON: Okay. I thought you were 

14 saying that the list in 52 was not expansive enough.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's what I thought 

16 was being said, too. Sorry.

17 DR. NETON: That clarifies things. 

18 Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. I think we all 

20 misunderstood that.

21 DR. NETON: Now the issue is, was the 

22 selection criteria in PER-11 expansive, 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sufficiently expansive to identify previously 

2 constructed, reconstructed construction workers. 

3 I got it.

4 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: That helps.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Now there's a question in 

7 my mind, what we can state here to clarify that, 

8 so we won't all get confused again. We were 

9 looking at it next time, at least. So that I won't 

10 get confused again when I'm looking at it.

11 So, NIOSH is going to take a look at 

12 PER-14 to assess whether that interpretation of 

13 construction trade workers is applicable to 

14 PER-11, should be applicable to 11. Is that 

15 correct?

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I'd like to 

17 suggest, Wanda, I'd like to suggest this. It looks 

18 like Rose has entered responses to our most recent 

19 responses, just very recently.

20 MS. GOGLIOTTI: Yes, yesterday.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. And so --

22 CHAIR MUNN: I haven't seen them.
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: Rather than try to 

2 complete this and fix it today, why don't we take 

3 the time, since we're going to be investigating 

4 anyway, why don't we go do the investigation and 

5 enter an additional response back on this, on this 

6 finding? And then deal with it at the next Board 

7 Meeting.

8 I think there's a lot up in the air for 

9 us to try to determine exactly today what's going 

10 to happen. Why don't you give us the opportunity 

11 to prepare a response back on these, and take it 

12 up at the next meeting?

13 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. New NIOSH 

14 responses.

15 DR. NETON: I don't know that we need 

16 to make an entry from today, do we?

17 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think so 

18 either, given that assertion. At least it's fine 

19 with me. Josie, Paul? Can we just carry this 

20 over?

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Sure.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Awaiting a new NIOSH 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response.

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Josie?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I agree with that 

5 also.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Very good. Then 

7 that's what we'll do. And since we're very near 

8 to the lunch hour this seems to me to be an 

9 appropriate spot to break. We will pick up with 

10 PER-9 when we get back in one hour. And Steve has 

11 a lot of work to do in the interim.

12 If that's satisfactory with everybody, 

13 we will break for exactly one hour. We'll be back 

14 at what I believe is four minutes to the hour next 

15 time, correct? Good. Have a nice lunch. We'll 

16 see you in an hour.

17 MR. KATZ: Thanks, everyone.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Bye, bye.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

20 went off the record at 12:57 p.m. and resumed at 

21 2:01 p.m.)
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

2 (2:01 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well I think we 

4 can just roll on from where we were.

5 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. We were 

6 ready to pick up at PER-9, the case audits, and 

7 I believe it's Kathy, right?

8 MR. KATZ: One thing I didn't check 

9 is the Court Reporter, we do have you on the 

10 line, do we, James?

11 COURT REPORTER: Yes, I'm back.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, great.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, that's very good. 

14 And then after we do PER-9 we'll ask Steve if 

15 he was successful over the lunch hour in getting 

16 us caught up on the BRS. Go ahead, Kathy.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: And, actually, 

18 Hans will be presenting PER-9, but what I did 

19 hope to go back to that I looked at over lunch 

20 hour was Finding 6 of PER-20, which is Blockson.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: It's the Blockson. 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Would it be okay if I discuss that or do you want 

2 to go --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, please do, yes. 

4 We might as well try to keep these in order if 

5 possible, so go ahead.

6 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, yes. Lori 

7 mentioned that they made some changes to the TBD 

8 and I'll just, to quickly refresh people's 

9 memory, that was, during our case reviews of 

10 Blockson this was the Finding 6 and it had to 

11 do with how they were assessing doses to the 

12 stomach and tissues of the GI tract.

13 And initially we thought it was a 

14 workbook concern, but the instructions 

15 associated with the workbook stated that the 

16 dose reconstruction should assess what's 

17 inhaled and ingested and assigned the highest 

18 dose for the GI tract issues, and that 

19 conflicted with a footnote in some statements 

20 in the Technical Basis Document of Blockson.

21 Since then, based on what Lori had 

22 sent us, sent around earlier, I did look at that 

23 over the lunch hour and the TBD has been 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 corrected to state that for these GI tract 

2 issues they should assess both the inhalation 

3 and ingestion pathway and determine highest 

4 dose and use that to assign the dose for these 

5 GI tract issues.

6 So in my assessment I think that can 

7 be closed because they've properly changed the 

8 TBD.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Any 

10 comments, questions? If not, Steve, can we 

11 please identify that SC&A has reviewed the 

12 changes and recommends that this finding be 

13 closed, the Subcommittee agrees?

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well did we see 

15 that, was that the one with the NIOSH response?

16 CHAIR MUNN: I think.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, NIOSH was just 

19 saying that they've made the changes, so Kathy 

20 had reviewed the changes over lunch.

21 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Lori had 

22 sent out two files --

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, yes, okay. 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Yes, I got those.

2 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: And just one last 

5 issue, which I believe is resolved, but maybe 

6 Stu or Scott or someone can confirm this.

7 I believe that you all did go back 

8 and verify that any cases that may have been 

9 done, not assessing both the internal and 

10 external for these types of cancers, the GI 

11 tract cancers, you looked at that and I don't 

12 think there is a need for a PER or am I not 

13 remembering that correctly?

14 I think, Stu, at one of the meetings 

15 you said that you went back and did look to see 

16 if there were any other cases that fell under 

17 this category of concern and that you may have 

18 corrected a few others or do we still want to 

19 look at that and be sure that there's not a PER 

20 that's going to be necessary because of this 

21 change.

22 CHAIR MUNN: That was the Blockson 

23 cases, right?
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. HINNEFELD: To be honest I 

2 don't recall. I thought that this ended it and 

3 this took care of everything, but I don't recall 

4 in our prior discussion to be honest.

5 I don't know if Lori is on or Scott 

6 or anybody can make a comment on that.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: Because it's the 

8 Blockson TBD it would be in-house.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Right.

10 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm trying to 

11 find the transcript, but Stu did make a comment 

12 several meetings ago that we did go back and 

13 look at it.

14 So to answer your question I do 

15 believe we did, but, Kathy, I will probably need 

16 to confirm that.

17 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, very good. 

18 Thank you.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Lori, are you 

20 looking in the February meeting because I think 

21 that's when we actually talked quite a bit about 

22 it.

23 MS. MARION-MOSS: That's where I'm 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 headed.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. So we also 

3 talked about it in April. We've said that 5 was 

4 closed and NIOSH would add response and wording 

5 in the BRS and they would revise the Site 

6 Profile and update the tool. That's what I 

7 have listed.

8 CHAIR MUNN: This is Wanda, I was 

9 just kicked off.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, this is Josie, 

11 can you hear me, Wanda?

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I can hear you.

13 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: What happened in the 

15 few minutes that I was --

16 (Simultaneous speaking)

17 MEMBER BEACH: There's been no 

18 chatter.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, okay. So, Lori is 

20 still checking the minutes, right?

21 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Correction, 

23 the transcript. In the interim, Paul and 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Josie, Steve has entered the comment that I 

2 asked him to enter, SC&A has reviewed the 

3 modified TBD and agrees that the changes 

4 address the Finding.

5 The Subcommittee agrees and has 

6 closed this Finding. Is that okay with you?

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's good.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's fine 

9 with me.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We'll just await, give 

13 Lori a minute or two to see if her search engine 

14 is better than mine.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well are we looking 

16 at the status of 5 then, or is that 6?

17 CHAIR MUNN: That was 6 that we were 

18 looking at.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. On my notes 

20 I have that we closed 5 at the April meeting.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that's what I 

22 have, too, Paul. But I also had under 6 that 

23 NIOSH was going to add the response and --
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Simultaneous speaking)

2 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right, 

3 right. Well I had under 6 for in the February 

4 meeting that SC&A was okay with the use of the 

5 new tools and it was left open until NIOSH 

6 verifies that the directions on the use of the 

7 ingestion and inhalation tools is in place.

8 CHAIR MUNN: That is correct, yes.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So I think 

10 with this we can close both 5 and 6, right?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I believe that's 

12 the case, but there was a question. Is that 

13 what it --

14 MS. K. BEHLING: It's just a 

15 question regarding whether they went back to 

16 other cases that might be affected.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it was. Yes.

18 MS. MARION-MOSS: I can't find in a 

19 timely fashion right now, Kathy, but I do recall 

20 what you're referring to and I don't want to 

21 hold up the meeting.

22 MS. K. BEHLING: Right. And I will 

23 look also and if there's any additional 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 questions that I have, if the Subcommittee is 

2 okay with this, I will bring those either later 

3 or at the next meeting.

4 But I think, well I don't know, 

5 maybe, I think we can close this because I'm 

6 almost positive that you did say you went back 

7 and looked at other cases.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu 

9 Hinnefeld. In the BRS under "Finding 4" 

10 there's and entry from the November 2007 

11 meeting where I seem to be talking about going 

12 back and looking at -- is that the correct, is 

13 that the discussion we're interested in?

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: I do believe so, 

15 Stu. It might have been November.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Steve, if 

17 you could show that, just expand Finding 4.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Do you want me to 

19 close this Finding and go to Finding 4 or do you 

20 want me to not close this one yet?

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, please 

22 close that one, we've agreed.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: And go to Finding 4. 

2 Thanks, Steve.

3 MR. MARSCHKE: I wasn't sure 

4 whether we agreed to close 6 or --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did. We're 

6 just checking the question about whether NIOSH 

7 has gone back to check about other messages.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay, yes, there 

9 it is. I believe that answers the question. 

10 And so you indicate that you did go back and look 

11 at other cases that had to do with the GI tract 

12 cancers.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Great.

14 CHAIR MUNN: It looks like it.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: Great, okay.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Looks like they've 

17 been covered, Kathy.

18 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes. Yes, very 

19 good. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry to take up 

20 additional --

21 CHAIR MUNN: No, that's quite 

22 alright. It's better to do it now. Thank you 

23 and thank you, Lori.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now we're back to PER-9, correct, 

2 and Hans?

3 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, we are. 

4 Okay, just as a way of background information 

5 PER-9 really identified changes to the ICD-9 

6 target organs for a bunch of cancers that are, 

7 generally speaking, lymphomas.

8 And in the process it revised the 

9 internal and external target organs for a 

10 select number of cancers and in the past prior 

11 to the introduction of PER-9 the standard 

12 procedure for NIOSH in devising doses to 

13 lymphomas had been based on the assumption that 

14 an upper bound dose could be identified for 

15 lymph nodes using the colon or the highest 

16 non-metabolic organ as a substitute for lymph 

17 nodes with the issue of OCAS-TIB-12, the 

18 changes were made to the internal organ for most 

19 forms of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas as well as 

20 some of other forms of lymphoma primarily in the 

21 200 to 202 ICD-9 series.

22 And among these highest 

23 non-metabolic organs for the remainder of the 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 organs would change to either thoracic lymph 

2 nodes, LNTH, or extra-thoracic lymph nodes, 

3 LNET.

4 And as a result these doses were 

5 dramatically increased, specifically when the 

6 internal exposure involved in alpha emitting 

7 radionuclides that were somewhat insoluble or 

8 highly insoluble and in some cases the change 

9 that took place as a result of PER-9 plus the 

10 internal dose in some cases, and I have one case 

11 here that I reviewed, changed by more than three 

12 orders of magnitude in terms of dose.

13 So in summary, the OCAS-PER-9 had 

14 the potential to change the internal exposure 

15 from the highest non-metabolic organ to a 

16 thoracic lymph node, extra-thoracic lymph 

17 node, that is very, very dramatic, and to a 

18 lesser extent, any change in the external 

19 organ, but in most instances those were very 

20 secondary to the changes in dose assignment as 

21 a result of PER-9.

22 On December 4, 2013, NIOSH was asked 

23 to identify some cases for review and we 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 forwarded three cases for selection, which were 

2 then subsequently given to us by NIOSH and on 

3 February 2014, this past spring, we completed 

4 the review of those three cases and these are 

5 the three cases that we'll be briefly talking 

6 about today.

7 Could I ask Steve to identify Page 

8 6 of the report? Okay, this is pretty much a 

9 summary of the three cases, just as an overview.

10 The first case over on the far left 

11 hand side we have the actual case number and the 

12 type of cancer that was identified, and in the 

13 second column we actually see what were the 

14 changes.

15 In the first case, [identifying 

16 information redacted], the change was from the 

17 heart wall, which was the highest non-metabolic 

18 organ, to lymph node thoracic.

19 For the external there was no change 

20 because in both instances the external was 

21 based on a DCF value of one, which doesn't 

22 change anything, and in terms of the changes 

23 involving the heart wall to lymph node thorax, 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the revision to the PoC was calculated as coming 

2 from 19.53 to 33.984, still, nevertheless, it 

3 was a value that is below the compensation 

4 level.

5 The other two were lymphomas, the 

6 second one was lymphoma, again the heart wall 

7 was initially considered the internal target 

8 organ. Again, it was changed to lymph node 

9 thoracic, and for external it was from the 

10 remainder of the organs to -- and they, and they 

11 implied that there was no need to conduct an 

12 external dose assessment because the change in 

13 internal exposure was sufficiently high, as you 

14 see on the far left hand side, from 37.51 

15 percent to almost 95 percent.

16 Again, this was a partial dose 

17 reconstruction and was strictly based on the 

18 change to the internal exposure.

19 And the third one, again, is a 

20 Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Again, another heart wall 

21 that had been changed to lymph node 

22 extra-thoracic and the external dose was 

23 initially thyroid, but, again, here to the 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposure from internal was sufficiently high to 

2 kick it over the 50 percent mark and there was 

3 only a partial dose reconstruction.

4 As a way of just giving you an 

5 overview, when we do these reviews we usually 

6 try to also go back to the original dose 

7 reconstruction and draw a comparison, not just 

8 for the issue that may be affected by the PER, 

9 but just as a convenience to the reader we also 

10 look at other doses that defined the initial 

11 dose reconstruction and then compare that to 

12 the final dose reconstruction.

13 So you will see changes, not just in 

14 the area with the PER having effect, but also 

15 in other areas and if we do have a finding here 

16 we identified, but if the original dose 

17 reconstruction has an area that was not 

18 transferred to the revised DR it is obviously 

19 a finding that doesn't really have any value of 

20 being discussed because it's no longer 

21 relevant.

22 So having said that, I will probably 

23 make some amends here in a couple of instances 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 where the original DR had a finding that was 

2 acknowledged but really wasn't transferred 

3 over into the revised dose reconstruction and, 

4 therefore, really does not belong in the BRS and 

5 I will acknowledge that after some of the 

6 information.

7 So let me go to the very first case 

8 here and I just want to briefly, and that's on 

9 Page 7, Steve, what I really wanted to point out 

10 to you, and it may come up as a discussion if 

11 I may, and I'm again here jumping ahead of 

12 myself here, but I bring to issue a couple of 

13 things that may or may not be something that's 

14 real, real proof to be an issue here because of 

15 the fact that this really questions something 

16 involving the DOL.

17 But I want to point out on that page 

18 that initially in the dose reconstruction the 

19 EE was diagnosed with two primary cancers. The 

20 first one was B Cell Lymphoma mediate large cell 

21 [identifying information redacted], and the 

22 second one was the same cancer but in the 

23 [identifying information redacted] and they 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were both assigned an ICD-9 code of 

2 [identifying information redacted].

3 An important thing here is to 

4 identify the fact that both of these cancers 

5 were identified on the very same day, 

6 [identifying information redacted], 2001.

7 Less than seven months after this 

8 first DR report had been issued the EE was 

9 diagnosed with another cancer, malignant 

10 neoplasm of the [identifying information 

11 redacted], and that was on [identifying 

12 information redacted], 2008.

13 In the revised DR report for the EE 

14 they address changes in the DR identified in 

15 OCAS-PR was issued in 2007. And in the final 

16 DR the dose reconstruction was limited to a 

17 malignant neoplasm of the [identifying 

18 information redacted] and a lymphoma lymph node 

19 of the [identifying information redacted] and 

20 [identifying information redacted] combined 

21 into a single cancer.

22 And so in summary for the revised 

23 DR, which reflects PER-9, these changes were 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 addressed and what, you know, is important here 

2 was that the thing that I want to point to was 

3 that the B Cell Lymphoma intermediate grade 

4 large cells in the [identifying information 

5 redacted] and the B Cell Lymphoma intermediate 

6 grade large cells on the [identifying 

7 information redacted] that had formerly been 

8 considered two separate primary cancers were 

9 combined into a single primary lymphoma.

10 And the fact that I was not able to 

11 really see any information that would allow me 

12 to say well what was the basis for it, I went 

13 back and I looked through all of the information 

14 that was available on behalf of this individual 

15 and this is, we're now on Page 8, where I make 

16 reference to attachment A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and 

17 A-5, and what that does is give you a tracking 

18 of what changes took place with regard to these 

19 originally two identified primary cancers, 

20 lymphomas.

21 And also not only will it be 

22 identified as two primary cancers, but there 

23 was a series of ICD-9 changes, as you see in 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Attachment 1, and if you want to verify that the 

2 Attachment A-1 is identified on Page 8.

3 It's identified also in this 

4 document on Page 22. So you may go back there 

5 and look at it, but I will summarize it. As you 

6 see in Attachment 1 we do have these two 

7 individual cancers, one with an ICD-9 Code 

8 [identifying information redacted] and the 

9 other one with ICD-9 Code [identifying 

10 information redacted], diagnosed on the very 

11 same day and identified as primary cancers.

12 In Attachment A-2, this was a DOL 

13 email correspondence with NIOSH dated December 

14 15th and December 16th, respectively, and the 

15 email was actually originated by NIOSH where 

16 the health physics dose reconstructor 

17 reviewing this claim asked if DOL would review 

18 the ICD-9 code for the [identifying information 

19 redacted] lymphoma and NIOSH currently has that 

20 as ICD-9 Code [identifying information 

21 redacted].

22 In that same email, which you will 

23 see as Attachment A-2 and summarized below, the 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response was that this was corrected and, 

2 therefore, an ICD-9 code should be [identifying 

3 information redacted] since it's a lymphoma of 

4 the [identifying information redacted] rather 

5 than the cancer.

6 In Attachment 3, that was dated 

7 December 20, 2004, again, this is the amended 

8 NIOSH referral summary information that again 

9 identified each of these two cancers as primary 

10 cancers, but now having both an ICD-9 code of 

11 [identifying information redacted].

12 In the next Attachment, 4, this is 

13 now April 11th, included the statement that 

14 these primary cancers, [identifying 

15 information redacted], were again considered 

16 independent and in the original dose 

17 reconstruction they were each offered a dose 

18 that was essentially identical because they 

19 happen to be in the same anatomical location.

20 And it wasn't until OCAS-PER-9 came 

21 out and the revised DR was issued that the 

22 question arose, are these two cancers linked to 

23 each other or are they truly primary cancers?
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And, apparently, as we go further, 

2 I'm on Page 9 of the report towards the bottom, 

3 on 05/15/2007 the District Office received a 

4 report of the District Medical Consultant who 

5 opined that lesions to the [identifying 

6 information redacted] and to the [identifying 

7 information redacted] mass represent one 

8 singular primary cancer of a B Cell Lymphoma.

9 And in the final attachment, A-6, 

10 it's really the cover page of OCAS-PER-9, 

11 revised DR, and, again, we have, if you track 

12 the ICD-9 codes, they have changed a total of 

13 three times for one of the cancers.

14 And so I come to Finding Number 1 and 

15 the question is what is the technical basis for 

16 the protocol? If I look at the data, and let 

17 me say this, if there is a decision that the two 

18 of them are connected, meaning that one is the 

19 primary cancer, the other one is a metastatic 

20 cancer, generally speaking if you do have such 

21 a case you will find at least a time 

22 differential that says a primary cancer is 

23 followed by metastatic cancer because it 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 usually involves a release of some cells that 

2 relocate to a distal location and set up a 

3 metastatic cancer, which is basically 

4 identical to the primary cancer.

5 But as I pointed out to you these two 

6 primary cancers were diagnosed on the very same 

7 date and normally when you do establish a 

8 relationship between a primary and a metastatic 

9 cancer you usually support that with clinical 

10 data, such as a biopsy of the two cancers, and 

11 as a minimum show that there is a morphological 

12 similarity under a light microscope that shows 

13 these cells are being identical, or nearly 

14 identical to each other, and for a more 

15 definitive assessment of whether or not there's 

16 a linkage between a primary and a metastatic 

17 cancer you usually look at other factors that 

18 are much more definitive in making that 

19 conclusion and usually that involves such 

20 things as looking at surface antigenic 

21 profiles, HRA, antigens that define each of 

22 those two cancers and other various tools by 

23 which you can show that without question that 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the two are located.

2 And so when I go back to the 

3 Attachment 5 and the statement that is, as I 

4 read to you before, is that a district medical 

5 consultant who opined that these lesions 

6 essentially represent a single cancer raises 

7 the question are they dealing with data that 

8 really is clinical or it's just an opinion?

9 And so this is not this first time 

10 I've identified this and I know I've been told 

11 that NIOSH usually does not question DOL, but 

12 in this case, as a matter of fact, the initial 

13 Attachment A-2 was in fact in NIOSH's response 

14 that says the health physicist who dose 

15 reconstructed the first original DR questioned 

16 the very ICD-9 code of [identifying information 

17 redacted], which then was subsequently 

18 converted by NIOSH to another ICD-9 code and 

19 was, not only that, but was subsequently also 

20 converted again without explanation.

21 So, in essence, what I really raised 

22 here is this question of whether or not people 

23 who assign ICD-9 codes are clinically qualified 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do so and who are they and why did they do 

2 that and why isn't there some explanation that 

3 with a company that changed that says we have 

4 reasons to make this change because of 

5 compelling clinical data that would allow us 

6 not only to change the ICD-9, but in a more 

7 important case, consolidate two cancers that 

8 were for a number of years considered primary 

9 cancers into a single cancer.

10 And, of course, what that means is 

11 that you only count the dose to one cancer not 

12 both. So that's my finding and as I said I know 

13 that we've been questioned before in making 

14 these kinds of comments when in fact DOL makes 

15 a decision if it's really an issue that we can 

16 raise.

17 And all I can say is on my behalf, 

18 and I will probably be faulted for it, but as 

19 a scientist and auditor I do feel I need to raise 

20 questions, and while some people may consider 

21 DOL as having the last word or may be infallible 

22 in making these decisions I have to at least 

23 raise the question, and whatever NIOSH decides 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to do is up to you.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you.

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, this is Stu. 

4 I don't know if we've considered DOL infallible 

5 on this, but we do consider them having the 

6 final word.

7 And so we reconstruct the doses 

8 that, or the diagnoses that they send to us and 

9 we don't -- I don't know what prompted our 

10 question from [identifying information 

11 redacted].

12 That ICD-9 code is malignant 

13 neoplasm of the [identifying information 

14 redacted] and if it's [identifying information 

15 redacted]then it's malignant neoplasm of the 

16 [identifying information redacted], so I'd 

17 have to do a fair amount of research to figure 

18 out, you know, why did we ask the question in 

19 the first place, you know.

20 If it was identified as a lymphoma 

21 of the [identifying information redacted]

22 originally with a [identifying information 

23 redacted] ICD-9 code then we would clearly 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 question that because the description doesn't 

2 match the ICD-9 code.

3 If it would just said, enter the 

4 [identifying information redacted], I don't 

5 know why we'd question that and I would have to 

6 do some research on that.

7 MR. SIEBERT: Stu, this is Scott. 

8 Yes, your second explanation is exactly right 

9 because the cancer description and the ICD-9 

10 code did not match up. It didn't make sense to 

11 have a lymphoma be a [identifying information 

12 redacted].

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. So their 

14 referral to us was that there was a lymphoma of 

15 the [identifying information redacted] but 

16 they gave us a [identifying information 

17 redacted] ICD-9 code which does not match 

18 lymphoma of the [identifying information 

19 redacted], so that's what prompted us to ask.

20 Nothing more than, you know, if it's 

21 a situation like that where they send us an 

22 ICD-9 code and a cancer description and those 

23 two don't line up we routinely ask on those, but 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we don't question other diagnosis decisions 

2 from the Department of Labor.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Is that reasonable to 

5 you, Hans?

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Well, as I've 

7 said, I, you know, I feel I need to at least 

8 raise it and I will obviously go along with 

9 whatever decision and then if this is something 

10 that you feel the auditor may have the right to 

11 raise but not insist on anything else that's 

12 fine.

13 I just felt I wanted to look at this. 

14 I do have some background in this area and when 

15 I saw this it just sort of struck as a, or raised 

16 a red flag with me and so I just brought it up.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well it seems 

18 appropriate to question and that's 

19 appreciated. I think if the response that you 

20 have makes sense to you, which it certainly does 

21 to me, then in this case my personal feeling is 

22 your comments are well taken, but I think 

23 appropriately responded to.
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Does NIOSH feel that you need any 

2 additional time for any additional response?

3 MR. KATZ: Well can I just, on this 

4 same point though can I ask, Wanda, I mean, Stu, 

5 I mean what we've often done in the past where 

6 we've had comments that are reasonable but out 

7 of our purview is just send them along in an 

8 email to DOL so at least they can consider the 

9 issue that's raised.

10 If we haven't raised this already, 

11 you know, is there any objection to going ahead 

12 and doing that from NIOSH?

13 MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I don't 

14 particularly object to that. As a general rule 

15 we've not really gotten into DOL's business 

16 about diagnoses, but, I mean we could provide 

17 this summary to them.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. I just recall, you 

19 know, I mean I recall a couple of occasions 

20 where we've done this. They may not have 

21 related to diagnoses, but they've definitely 

22 related to business entirely in DOL's purview 

23 and I don't think it was only done for the issues 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of where a facility coverage is accurate or not, 

2 so I don't, know.

3 It just seems to me it's wasted 

4 information if it's, it seems like a reasonable 

5 concern and, you know, there's no harm done by 

6 forwarding it on and there's nothing gained by 

7 not forwarding it on.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I think that's

9 true. I mean there's no harm in forwarding it 

10 on and I would think that since this is a, if 

11 I understand things, and I don't, I'm really out 

12 of my field here, but a lymphoma I believe is 

13 a circulating, you know, cancer, and so it's not 

14 as if it exists in one location.

15 And so a same-day diagnosis of a 

16 lymphoma in two different locations is because 

17 they have to, you know, they take the biopsy 

18 somewhere --

19 MR. KATZ: Yes.

20 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and that to me 

21 would not be necessarily a, you know, that 

22 doesn't seem that surprising that you could 

23 identify a lymphoma in two different locations 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on the same day and it's not the decision that 

2 one is metastatic of the other, it's that it was 

3 the simultaneous, two location identification 

4 of the circulating lymphoma.

5 MR. KATZ: I see, alright.

6 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean I don't, 

7 there's no downside from our standpoint --

8 (Simultaneous speaking)

9 MR. KATZ: You know we could also 

10 just take the transcript that includes what you 

11 just discussed as well as what Hans had put 

12 forward, you know.

13 I can package that up and give it to 

14 you and we can just send that on for their 

15 consideration.

16 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that's fine, 

17 whatever. If you would do that then that will 

18 --

19 MR. KATZ: I'll be happy to do that, 

20 yes.

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure. Okay, 

22 great.

23 DR. H. BEHLING: Just as a side 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 comment it may very well be that the two primary 

2 cancers are two secondary cancers. They're 

3 both metastatic cancers and we never identified 

4 the original primary cancer for both of these.

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, I don't have 

6 any expertise in the area and I'm glad to send 

7 it, I'll be happy to send it off to DOL and have 

8 them look at it.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. And maybe I can, 

10 you know, I can send it, I can, you don't have 

11 to do anything, Stu, I can send it, I'll copy 

12 you, but I'll send it over to Rachel when we have 

13 the transcript from this.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, so you'll send 

15 it, okay --

16 MR. KATZ: If that's okay with you 

17 then I'll just, I'll take care of that.

18 MR. HINNEFELD: That's fine by me.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay, thanks.

20 CHAIR MUNN: I mean that's a good 

21 suggestion, Ted, and it seems appropriate. 

22 The other Board Members respond, what's your 

23 opinion?
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, I agree with 

2 that. I think it's appropriate and no harm 

3 done in passing on the information.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I concur with 

5 that as well. I don't think we can insist on 

6 anything other than some of it came up and we're 

7 just passing it along in case it's something 

8 they need to address.

9 MR. KATZ: Yes.

10 CHAIR MUNN: I think it's 

11 reasonable. The auditor has raised what we 

12 consider a reasonable question and, yes, that's 

13 fine. If you're willing to do that, Ted --

14 MR. KATZ: Well I'm happy to. I'd 

15 hate to have this sort of thing go to waste, so, 

16 thank you, Hans and Stu.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, if you would do 

18 that and then notify us on the Board so that we 

19 know that has occurred it would be helpful.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes. I will let the 

21 Subcommittee know when I do this.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Good, thank you.

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, but other than 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that we don't need to follow up with what, 

2 whatever Labor does with it we don't --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's out of our 

5 hands at that point.

6 MR. KATZ: Absolutely, I agree.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: I agree.

9 CHAIR MUNN: That --

10 MS. K. BEHLING: Excuse me, Wanda, 

11 I'm sorry, this is Kathy.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, go ahead, Kathy.

13 MS. K. BEHLING: Just one 

14 administrative detail here, the report says 

15 it's Finding 1; it's actually Finding 3 because 

16 the PER-9 review had two findings and now this 

17 is the first finding under Subtask 1, but it 

18 actually should've been Number 3.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Number 3 on our BRS, 

20 correct?

21 MS. K. BEHLING: That's correct.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

23 MR. KATZ: Thanks for that, too, 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'll send over the document as well.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Thank you 

3 much. That's Finding Number 3.

4 DR. H. BEHLING: Actually, no, let 

5 me -- Yes, that was Finding Number 3, but if we 

6 are ready to go on I just want to quickly, I 

7 don't want to take more time than really is 

8 warranted here, but if you're okay if I can 

9 continue, Wanda, should I?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Absolutely.

11 (Simultaneous speaking)

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Wait a minute. 

13 Wanda, do you want to make a status change to 

14 this because right now we're still showing it 

15 as open and is it -- I mean I don't think we're 

16 going to do anything with this.

17 If anybody does anything with this, 

18 except for maybe, you know, Ted's going to send 

19 it over to DOL --

20 CHAIR MUNN: If it comes back to us 

21 it won't be coming back to this Subcommittee. 

22 It will be coming back as a case that needs to 

23 be reworked and we have no way of knowing that. 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Yes, that's --

2 MR. MARSCHKE: So what do we, I mean 

3 do we want to, what do we want to do with this, 

4 I mean --

5 CHAIR MUNN: We need to close it 

6 with the comment that I made earlier, our 

7 contractor, the auditor raised a concern with 

8 respect to this particular case.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Put, Steve, that we 

10 raised a concern rather than made a concern.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, auditor raised a 

14 concern with this case which refers to DOL --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm wondering if 

16 generically we should just refer to this as SC&A 

17 as opposed to the auditor because they, I'm just 

18 asking, that's --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but I --

20 MR. MARSCHKE: That's what we've 

21 done everywhere else, Paul, okay.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, it would make 

23 it more generic, right?
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Well and more clear. 

2 Original determination of duplicate primary 

3 lymphomas on the same day period. Since this 

4 matter is outside this Subcommittee purview --

5 MR. MARSCHKE: I don't know how to 

6 spell purview.

7 CHAIR MUNN: -- V-I-E-W.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: P-R-E --

9 CHAIR MUNN: No, I think --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: No, E-R.

11 CHAIR MUNN: -- E-R-V-I-E-W.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Again?

13 CHAIR MUNN: V-I-E-W, I believe.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: E-R- --

15 CHAIR MUNN: P-E-R-V-I-E-W.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: V-I-E-W.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: No, it doesn't like 

19 it.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Comma -- I believe 

21 that's a "U" not an "E," P-U-R-V -- I think you 

22 were correct to begin with comma, it had been 

23 closed here and called to the attention of the 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 authorized agency.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Alright.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Back there where we 

4 said "it," go back up to "it" in the preceding 

5 line and change "it" to "finding," the finding 

6 has been closed instead of it has been closed.

7 So that it reads "SC&A raised a 

8 concern with respect to this case, which refers 

9 to DOL original determination of duplicate

10 primary lymphomas on the same day."

11 "Since this matter is outside the 

12 Subcommittee purview the finding has been 

13 closed here and called to the attention of the 

14 authorized agency."

15 Does anyone wish to say more or less 

16 than that? If not we'll --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well it will be 

18 called, it hasn't been yet. It will be called, 

19 has been closed and will be called to the 

20 attention.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Authorized agency, 

23 what, I'm not sure what that means, authorized?
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: You could just put 

2 DOL in there.

3 CHAIR MUNN: The agency that has 

4 the responsibility.

5 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay, got you.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Namely DOL, which we 

7 show clearly I believe in the transcript here. 

8 Alright, very good, and thank you for taking 

9 that responsibility, Ted, it's appreciated. 

10 The next finding?

11 DR. H. BEHLING: No, I'm off the 

12 phone here for a few minutes, so sorry. I just 

13 want to make a comment here, a sidebar comment.

14 You know, I have, there are five 

15 physicians in my immediate family and I did talk 

16 to them about this project to some extent and 

17 I asked them once who assigns ICD-9 codes and 

18 I didn't get a definitive answer.

19 It's usually not the diagnostic 

20 physicians, it's oftentimes the people who send 

21 out the bill to Medicare, Medicaid, or 

22 insurance policies.

23 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's my 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understanding.

2 DR. H. BEHLING: And oftentimes 

3 it's who are these people who actually make this 

4 decision and I think this is what raised my 

5 concern after talking to members of my family 

6 and asking that question.

7 And I get this dumb look and said we 

8 don't do this. We send our reports out there 

9 and it's the billing department who assigns 

10 these ICD-9 codes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Well, and it's my 

12 understanding that that varies widely from one 

13 medical office to another.

14 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: That in some medical 

16 offices the ICD-9 code is determined by the 

17 physician at the time of the, is recorded by the 

18 physician at the time of the exam.

19 But in others it's left to a person 

20 who's had training basically in doing that and 

21 not a great deal of medical background for doing 

22 it.

23 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. Anyway, I 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't want to belabor this anymore, but I 

2 appreciate at least the time that allowed me to 

3 make this as an issue.

4 Let me go to the second finding and 

5 the second finding really refers to 

6 occupational medical bills and then I again 

7 compared the dose report, the original dose 

8 reports to the subsequent revision to the dose 

9 report and I realized that the medical 

10 exposures varied and shouldn't really.

11 But what it comes down to in Finding 

12 Number 2 that is stated on Page 12, so, Steve, 

13 if you'd put that on the screen you can just 

14 quickly get an understanding of what I was 

15 talking about.

16 And what it comes down to is that a 

17 review of ORAU-PROC-0006 shows that there is no 

18 Attachment E that was referenced as the basis 

19 for the original dose reconstructor 

20 identifying the assigned dose for medical.

21 And so I find that odd and so I think 

22 after looking at it, in fact it was Kathy who 

23 is more familiar with the document, she 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 informed me that they should've cited 

2 ORAU-OTIB-0006 as the reference.

3 And so it was just an error, and, 

4 again, this involves the original DR and so, 

5 therefore, I would sort of recommend we just 

6 dismiss this Finding.

7 It's only brought up here because we 

8 usually do compare the original DR against the 

9 revised DR and this was an issue that I just 

10 identified, but I think at this point our 

11 recommendation is to simply remove it.

12 The third finding involves, again, 

13 the comparison between the original DR and the 

14 revised DR and, again, for missed dose in the 

15 original there were only four zeroes that had 

16 to be accounted for as missed dose and for each 

17 of those there was a ten millirem, if you 

18 referred to LOD over two, which means that for 

19 each of the two initially the primary cancers 

20 40 millirem was assigned for a total for the two 

21 independent cancers, as they regarded them at 

22 the time, there was 80 millirem.

23 In the revised DR for the single or 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the combined two cancers the missed dose was 

2 identified as 1680 instead of 40 for each of the 

3 original ones, and I looked at that and I sort 

4 of said how do you go about?

5 I realized in some cases they try to 

6 maximize it, but there is no basis for 

7 maximizing something that is more time 

8 consuming or it takes no time, and so I 

9 identified as my Finding Number 3, which is 

10 identified on Page 13 where I simply stated that 

11 it's an inappropriate use of the maximizing 

12 assumption, and we found this before.

13 Whenever there is a 

14 claimant-favorable maximizing assumption it's 

15 appropriate when there's a question of 

16 uncertainty and also an efficiency measure, but 

17 there was neither case here.

18 There was no uncertainty, there 

19 were four zeroes on the record that says these 

20 are the missed doses, four instances, and, of 

21 course, there's no efficiency improvement when 

22 you assign 1680 millirem instead of 40 

23 millirem.
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So it's just a nominal finding, I've 

2 discussed things like that before and so I just 

3 happened to bring it up here.

4 MR. SIEBERT: Hans, this is Scott 

5 Siebert. I can address that one real quick. I 

6 know we don't have a response in the BRS at the 

7 moment, but I can handle that really quickly if 

8 you'd like me to.

9 DR. H. BEHLING: Go ahead.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

11 MR. SIEBERT: Actually it is an 

12 efficiency process at that point. It is not 

13 something we would do these days, I want to make 

14 sure that everybody is clear on that.

15 Ever since the 10-year report we go 

16 with actual zeroes as opposed to maximized 

17 zeroes, we've all agreed upon that. However, 

18 this was done in 2007 and you have to remember 

19 that every time a dose reconstructor does a 

20 claim, even as a rework, they being with a brand 

21 new tool for doing the assessment.

22 So when they have to go in and work 

23 with the external badges and the numbering and 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 so on and so forth, it actually does take time 

2 to do the comparisons and determine the actual 

3 numbers of zeroes versus the maximized number 

4 of zeroes.

5 Now our tools these days do that 

6 counting for us. Back in 2007 the tools did not 

7 do that counting for us and so what the dose 

8 reconstructor did for efficiency is just took 

9 the maximum number of quarters and assigned 

10 that as a missed dose rather than going back to 

11 the records and counting out the four.

12 I agree that it's probably not the 

13 best way to do it, it's not what we would do now, 

14 however, it is clearly an efficiency method.

15 CHAIR MUNN: That was followed at 

16 the time.

17 MR. SIEBERT: Correct.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

19 CHAIR MUNN: And we can only make 

20 our judgments based on what was appropriate at 

21 the time.

22 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay.

23 CHAIR MUNN: Is that an acceptable 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 response to you, Hans?

2 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, yes.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Can we identify that 

4 in our record so that we can clear this item? 

5 There was, of course, the business of, first was 

6 addressed the business of the missing 

7 attachment.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that was the 

9 first one, whether or not, it sounded like we 

10 were, basically SC&A was ready to withdraw what 

11 is in the BRS as Finding 4.

12 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, that was my 

13 interpretation as well, so that's why I wanted 

14 to go back to it before we lost that thread. 

15 Are we interpreting that correctly, Hans?

16 DR. H. BEHLING: As I said there is 

17 no Attachment E in the reference that was 

18 PROC-6.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: This is Kathy, I'm 

20 sorry to interrupt, but it does look as if there 

21 was some response to that particular Finding 

22 that indicates, and I may be wrong in assuming 

23 that may have meant to say OTIB-6, that's what 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm familiar with the occupational medical 

2 doses, but they're indicating that it was 

3 referring to a Page 94 or something and perhaps 

4 there was supposed to be an Attachment E, I'm 

5 not sure I'm interpreting their response 

6 correctly.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, if you look 

8 in the -- This is Lori. If you look in the Table 

9 of Contents for PROC-6 during the timeframe, 

10 which I believe is 2003, you'll see a reference 

11 to Attachment E which starts on Page 94.

12 So essentially what has happened is 

13 that on Page 94 the title Attachment E was 

14 omitted from the document, but nevertheless the 

15 information is still there.

16 So if you proceed down from Page 94 

17 you'll get to the section for medical x-ray and 

18 the dose reconstructor at the time followed 

19 that portion of Attachment E in Rev 0 for 

20 PROC-6.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so the correct 

22 entry should say that Attachment E does exist 

23 on Page 94 of the document, but the title was 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 omitted?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Correct.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Does that 

4 make sense? I'm assuming that Hans has had an 

5 opportunity --

6 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I looked for 

7 it and I didn't find an Attachment E, maybe I 

8 was not the most observant person, but, you 

9 know, I looked for it and I didn't see it.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. Do you have 

11 access to Page 94 so that you can take a look 

12 at it to see if that --

13 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, I can do it 

14 and I will accept the explanation. I just, you 

15 know --

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. It sounds 

17 like you were looking for the title or simply 

18 labeled Attachment E and in that case it wasn't 

19 there.

20 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, yes.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: And that's 

23 possible, Hans, because if you were to search 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the document you would just get Attachment E in 

2 the Table of Contents and it was inadvertently 

3 omitted.

4 DR. NETON: Well I think it's a 

5 revision number issue though. The current 

6 revision is posted, which is I think Rev 1, does 

7 not have an Attachment E, but if you go back to 

8 Revision 0, which I believe was in effect at the 

9 time the dose reconstruction was done --

10 CHAIR MUNN: Well that's the one 

11 that's called out here is Rev 0.

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right.

13 DR. NETON: I believe so, yes. 

14 There's an attachment, go to Rev 0, if you go 

15 in the historical archives, which is on that 

16 same directory, Rev 0 has an Attachment E which 

17 is on Page 94.

18 DR. H. BEHLING: I may have been 

19 then looking at Rev 1.

20 DR. NETON: Yes, if you were 

21 looking at Rev 1 that only has 25 pages, but if 

22 you go back and look at the one that was in 

23 effect at the time you'll find on Page 94 Rev 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 0 has an Attachment E. I think that's the 

2 issue.

3 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, I guess that 

4 resolves it.

5 CHAIR MUNN: So to close the item 

6 here, as I said earlier, the correct entry as 

7 I understand it is the Rev 0, which was 

8 operative at the time, omitted -- Oh, yes, well, 

9 yes, the title, quote, are, that's fine, yes, 

10 go ahead, Steve, period, that exist on Page 9, 

11 NIOSH, but exists on Page 9, or you can just say 

12 NIOSH points out it exists on Page 94.

13 DR. NETON: This is Jim. The 

14 medical bills that we're looking for actually 

15 appear on Page 97, but it doesn't really matter 

16 I guess. Ninety-four is the start of 

17 Attachment E.

18 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, that's where it 

19 starts. Yes, that should do it. Period. 

20 That wording adequate for other Board Members, 

21 any problem? Hearing nothing --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, that's fine. 

23 That's fine.
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

2 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine here, 

3 too.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Then 

5 that's closed. Now let's go back to the 

6 current, the next Finding.

7 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay, that's it 

8 for the first case that I reviewed. The second 

9 case involves an individual --

10 MR. MARSCHKE: No, wait a minute.

11 (Simultaneous speaking)

12 DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, what are we --

13 CHAIR MUNN: We're going to Finding 

14 5.

15 DR. H. BEHLING: Oh, okay, Finding 

16 5, okay. Okay, okay.

17 MR. MARSCHKE: The one here on the 

18 inappropriate maximizing --

19 DR. H. BEHLING: And this is the 

20 efficiency issue that, okay, Scott Siebert has 

21 just talked about, okay.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that was the 

23 one that Scott --
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Right. Scott, can 

2 you summarize in 25 words or less your response 

3 to which Hans found appropriate?

4 MR. SIEBERT: Sure. Let's see, 

5 during the time the assessment was conducted 

6 the use of maximizing zeroes was a standard 

7 overestimating efficiency approach.

8 You really want to -- what else do 

9 you need to add on to that?

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, you do need to get

11 efficiency approach in there though, Steve.

12 MR. SIEBERT: Yes.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I think that's 

14 primarily what we need to say. With this 

15 explanation the Subcommittee --

16 MR. BARTON: I don't know, I'm 

17 going to give it another maybe 20 minutes and 

18 then I'm quitting.

19 CHAIR MUNN: With this --

20 Somebody's quitting.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: Not me.

22 CHAIR MUNN: With this NIOSH 

23 explanation --
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: Bob Barton, your phone 

2 is, if you mute your phone we won't hear you or 

3 the typing.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Just click on that 

5 and it will give you the right stuff.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Hopefully. 

7 Sometimes, there you go.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: It's a different 

9 one.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's okay. 

11 Yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: With this 

13 explanation -- I just come to that conclusion.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's fine. 

15 Does anyone have any problem with those words?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: That's fine.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. That 

18 alright with you, Hans?

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes, it is.

20 CHAIR MUNN: That's very good, then 

21 that item is closed. Now we can go on to the 

22 next one.

23 DR. H. BEHLING: Okay. That 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 finishes the first case. The second case 

2 involves a person who worked at Bridgeport 

3 Brass [identifying information redacted] and 

4 he was initially diagnosed with lymphosarcoma 

5 and as I pointed out in the first summary table, 

6 that person was reconstructed based on the fact 

7 that the heart wall was changed to lymph node 

8 thorax and it was only a partial dose 

9 reconstruction and he was obviously 

10 compensated at 94.87 percent as a result of the 

11 revised dose reconstruction.

12 As a quick overview, the original 

13 dose reconstruction identified it -- oh, I 

14 should mention there were no radiation 

15 monitoring records for either external or 

16 internal exposure and was strictly based on

17 modeled information based on source term and 

18 claimant-favorable assumptions.

19 So in the original dose 

20 reconstruction he was assigned a dose of 50.4 

21 rem for external and a total internal dose of 

22 14.6 rem based on the heart wall as the target 

23 organ.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 As a result of the dose 

2 reconstruction that was mandated by PER-9, the 

3 change was only introduced in the internal 

4 exposure and ignored everything else and as a 

5 result of that partial dose reconstruction, the 

6 internal exposure changed from 14.6 rem to 2218 

7 rem.

8 It just gives you the sense of what 

9 happens when you go from a highest 

10 non-metabolic organ to a lymph node thorax, 

11 obviously we're talking about orders of 

12 magnitude.

13 As a result of that change, 

14 obviously, as I mentioned, the person was 

15 compensated and there are no findings because 

16 everything else was basically ignored.

17 There were no other additional 

18 exposures estimated other than the revision in 

19 the internal exposures as a uranium. But I did 

20 want to make a comment here, and, again, this 

21 is not going to be part of BRS, but it was an 

22 observation.

23 In the original dose reconstruction 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 report, this is more embarrassing, obviously, 

2 than an issue here, but on Page 5 of the original 

3 DR report the EE is referred to by a wrong name 

4 and it just gives, I mean the impression that 

5 what oftentimes happens we do have a blueprint 

6 by which we follow and sometimes we introduce 

7 data that does not belong for a given EE in a 

8 dose reconstruction and when an EE identifies 

9 himself by another name that obviously is not 

10 something that is easily ignored.

11 So I've made it an observation, it 

12 requires no additional issue here, but other 

13 than it is something that I just want to bring 

14 attention to as the original dose 

15 reconstruction report referred to the EE by 

16 another name.

17 CHAIR MUNN: That's truly 

18 unfortunate.

19 DR. H. BEHLING: Yes. And I have 

20 no other findings or any comments regarding 

21 this particular case, so we're on our third 

22 case.

23 This individual had a lymphosarcoma 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and, again, going back to the original table I 

2 just want to bring up the fact that the person 

3 also had a, was initially reconstructed by a 

4 heart wall that was now a lymph node 

5 extra-thorax, and, again, this was a partial 

6 dose reconstruction because the internal 

7 exposure when dose reconstructed now under the 

8 revised target organ of lymph node extra-thorax 

9 resulted in a dose of 68.3 percent and there was 

10 no need to do anything else and he was 

11 compensated.

12 But let me just look at again 

13 something here that involves the original one. 

14 After this observation, which doesn't need to 

15 be looked at, but Finding Number 6 in the BRS 

16 is an error that may involve a workbook and even 

17 though it was used in the original dose 

18 reconstruction, because it included both 

19 internal and external, it may involve a 

20 systemic error that involves the Fernald 

21 calculation, Workbook Version 1.19 and as a 

22 result of that I think it may be something that 

23 needs to be looked at.
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Steve, if you were to go to Page 18 

2 I put the, identify this as a potential error 

3 that may not just have impacted the original 

4 dose reconstruction for this particular case, 

5 but may also involve other cases.

6 And if you're on that Page 18 I'll 

7 read it, "The decided value for external 

8 photon-neutron doses contain an error which 

9 appear which appear to reflect a deficiency in 

10 the Fernald Calculation Workbook Version 

11 1.19."

12 "This error seems to have been 

13 corrected in the most current version 1.5 of the 

14 same workbook. However, SC&A does not know 

15 when this correction was made and whether other 

16 DRs may have been completed using this 

17 incorrect workbook that has yet to be 

18 reworked."

19 And, in essence, they involve just 

20 the correction factors of 1.43 for the 30 to 

21 drawn 50 keV photon and a correction factor of 

22 1.3 for the greater than 260 keV photon.

23 And outside of that there are no 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 other comments here so there are really no 

2 findings associated to the third case other 

3 than the issue of a potential workbook.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Thank you, Hans. Has

5 NIOSH --

6 DR. H. BEHLING: That pretty much 

7 concludes the issue of these three cases, so I 

8 know I've taken a lot more time than I 

9 anticipated and I apologize for that.

10 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's just quite 

11 alright. These are all items we need to be 

12 aware of and need to clear one way or another. 

13 Has NIOSH had an opportunity to look at that? 

14 Do they have any response with respect to the 

15 workbook question?

16 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, this is 

17 Lori. At this point in time I don't believe we 

18 have a response to this particular finding 

19 unless Scott has something to add.

20 MR. SIEBERT: No, we haven't been 

21 able to look into this issue yet.

22 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay. So we 

23 would like to carry this on for the next meeting 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and hopefully we have a response.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Alright, that'll be 

3 very good. We'll have Finding Number 6 carried 

4 over next time expecting a response from NIOSH.

5 Alright, any other comments or 

6 questions with respect to PER-9 and Hans's 

7 presentation?

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: I have no 

9 questions.

10 MEMBER BEACH: No. I thought it 

11 was a very thorough report and I have no 

12 questions either.

13 CHAIR MUNN: Thanks much. And 

14 thank you, Hans. If that's the case then let's 

15 go on to OTIB-54 and the modeling report, we 

16 hope. NIOSH?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: Wanda, for 

18 Findings 1 through 4 I believe we were waiting 

19 --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Last time we were 

21 working on changing the modeling. I don't 

22 know, just it was being used.

23 MS. MARION-MOSS: Finding 1 I do 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 believe SC&A responded indicating that they 

2 were awaiting a modeling report.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right.

4 DR. OSTROW: Hang on. This is 

5 Steve Ostrow from SC&A.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Go ahead, Steve.

7 DR. OSTROW: Yes, I think for 

8 Findings 1 through 4 we are waiting to see the 

9 modeling report and at the last teleconference 

10 we had, which I think was back in August, NIOSH 

11 had indicated that the modeling report was more 

12 or less done and was going through internal 

13 review.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes.

15 DR. OSTROW: So are you saying now 

16 it's not finished yet?

17 MS. MARION-MOSS: No, I'm saying it 

18 is done, that will be Report 67.

19 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: That document 

21 has been issued, so it's completed and it's 

22 waiting your review.

23 DR. OSTROW: Okay. When was it 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 issued, do you know?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: August 26th of 

3 this year.

4 DR. OSTROW: We haven't seen it or 

5 weren't aware that it was issued, so we haven't 

6 reviewed it yet.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Can we see that that 

8 report gets into the hands of SC&A?

9 MS. MARION-MOSS: Sure can.

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Or, yes, well 

11 at least tell us where we can find it.

12 MR. KATZ: Lori, if you sent that to 

13 me I sent that to SC&A but I would've sent it 

14 to John Stiver.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, I did send 

16 that to you, Ted.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, then John already 

18 has it, the notice on it.

19 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: But, Steve, you could 

21 just go into the, you just go into the, what do 

22 you call it, the documents drive thing --

23 DR. OSTROW: Oh, yes.
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: -- and that has all of 

2 the ORAU documents and you'll find it.

3 DR. OSTROW: Okay, no problem. I 

4 just wasn't aware that it --

5 MR. KATZ: Well actually you didn't 

6 have the notice. Yes, so anyway, John Stiver 

7 has it, but I think John's out this week or 

8 whatever.

9 DR. OSTROW: Okay. That's no 

10 problem, I can get it off the O: drive of, you 

11 know, now that I know that it exists.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay.

13 DR. OSTROW: That's no problem, 

14 thanks.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Good. Yes, we 

16 hadn't, in our previous meetings we didn't have 

17 any record of it being out, so that's good. 

18 Finding 5 was --

19 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Finding 5 has 

20 to do with relief fractions and we're waiting 

21 for NIOSH's response on that. We had discussed 

22 that also at the August 28th meeting and that 

23 was a NIOSH action item.
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, and I thought it 

2 was an action item for NIOSH, because that's the 

3 way I carried it, but --

4 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

5 MS. MARION-MOSS: Again, Finding 5 

6 is an action item for us.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

8 MS. MARION-MOSS: We are 

9 progressing through that Finding. We've 

10 looked at and analyzed data and we're in the 

11 process of issuing a possible White Paper here 

12 in the future, I'd say within, or at least by 

13 the next meeting.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: But we're not 

16 quite done.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

18 DR. OSTROW: Okay. And the other 

19 in progress item is Number 9.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Number 9, and that's 

21 yours I think.

22 DR. OSTROW: Yes. This is also, 

23 this had to do with the workbook that's 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 associated with the OTIB and we had a technical 

2 call with ORAU and NIOSH on October 2nd to 

3 resolve it and I think the action item was also 

4 NIOSH that they acknowledged that our finding 

5 the workbook doesn't work for some situation 

6 that we had called out and who is going to be 

7 notified when ORAU modifies the workbook so we 

8 can take a look at it again.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, so essentially 

10 we are now in abeyance awaiting a workbook?

11 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: We have agreed on 

13 what's going into the workbook?

14 DR. OSTROW: Yes.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. So we can say 

16 as much here and put this item into abeyance.

17 DR. OSTROW: Yes. Yes, I'm just 

18 reading the, right after the technical call we 

19 have a summary of what the items were and I'm 

20 reading NIOSH will post the BRS entry 

21 summarizing discussion action items, which 

22 they did, and the BRS entry basically said that 

23 they're going to revise the workbook and let us, 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 SC&A, know when it's revised so we can take a 

2 look at it.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

4 DR. OSTROW: And that's it for 

5 that, thank you.

6 CHAIR MUNN: That's great. So 

7 Number 5, and let's make sure, I'm not sure that 

8 I have read the entry in that Finding that NIOSH 

9 has put in there.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Finding 9?

11 CHAIR MUNN: Finding 9, yes.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: It's on the screen 

13 right now, it's from Lori.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, right, yes. 

15 Alright, I assume Ron’s been notified and 

16 therefore we can say I believe SC&A accepts 

17 NIOSH's explanation.

18 DR. OSTROW: Well we're on hold 

19 until we actually see the modification, so --

20 CHAIR MUNN: In a case like that 

21 we'll just place it in abeyance waiting the 

22 issuance of the workbook.

23 DR. OSTROW: Right.
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. Based on 

2 the October 2 teleconference SC&A and NIOSH are 

3 in agreement with the workbook, will be 

4 modified and made available to SC&A.

5 The Subcommittee agrees and has 

6 placed this Finding in abeyance. Unless I hear 

7 some concern with those words we'll make that 

8 happen and go on to the next item.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: That sounds good.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. OTIB-52, 

11 Finding 12 I have that shown as a NIOSH report.

12 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, Wanda, this 

13 is another one of the Findings that NIOSH is 

14 attempting to get resolved by the committee.

15 We go to OTIB-52, Finding Number 12, 

16 the revision of that particular document where 

17 we attempted to close out the two findings in 

18 PER-11 --

19 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- that revision 

21 also addresses this particular Finding. And, 

22 Steve, if you can scroll down to 2011 posting 

23 and to the BRS, yes, the Matt Smith posting --
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Did I pass it?

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: Okay, that's it 

3 there. You see in his response, and I do 

4 believe it's the sentence before the attachment 

5 where he discussed in the next revision where 

6 he would add this particular wording to the 

7 OTIB.

8 And if you could pull up the 

9 revision, I believe you had it the last time, 

10 to this TIB --

11 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we saw it earlier 

12 I think.

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- and go to Page 

14 27 you'll see that that's been incorporated 

15 into the revision of the document.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. So has SC&A 

18 had an opportunity to --

19 MR. MARSCHKE: Well we just looked, 

20 I mean, Wanda, we looked at the, the thing that 

21 we had agreed to was if, I mean we were in 

22 agreement before that all they had to do was 

23 make the change to the document and they have 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 made the change to the document that's for sure.

2 CHAIR MUNN: And it's done. It's 

3 done.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: So it's the document 

5 change. I mean we're in agreement that the 

6 document has been changed the way they said it 

7 was going to be changed.

8 CHAIR MUNN: Alright.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: So I guess --

10 CHAIR MUNN: The change has 

11 occurred, it closed, correct?

12 MR. MARSCHKE: That would be my 

13 take on it.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Alright. Paul, 

15 Josie, closure acceptable to you?

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, can you put 

17 the change back up there on the --

18 MR. MARSCHKE: The document 

19 itself?

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, just the --

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that Page 27 

22 change we looked at right there, yes.

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's just that one 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 paragraph, right?

2 CHAIR MUNN: One paragraph, right, 

3 yes.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. And you're 

5 good on that SC&A, right, is that what you said?

6 MR. MARSCHKE: That's the exact 

7 words that we, that Matt had in his response 

8 there.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, right.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

11 MR. MARSCHKE: Starting right 

12 here.

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, so we should 

14 be able to close that then.

15 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, correct. I can 

16 so no reason why not.

17 MEMBER BEACH: I'm fine with that.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Now did Paul close 

19 this one because it's Hanford related?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, yes.

21 MR. MARSCHKE: See, remember, you 

22 see down here below Matt, the last time we 

23 talked about this back in January we had Wanda 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 recuse herself from this particular one because 

2 --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right.

4 MR. MARSCHKE: -- from this 

5 particular finding because it had to do with 

6 REX, which is a Hanford database.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, I can't get into 

8 that.

9 MR. MARSCHKE: So we had Paul take 

10 over as --

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, I see, I got 

12 you. So we need to do that again, to close it?

13 MR. KATZ: Well we just did it.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. MARSCHKE: I just wanted to, 

16 when I put in I'll put it in as you closing it 

17 as opposed to --

18 MR. KATZ: Right, exactly. Thank 

19 you that's --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: With Josie's 

21 concurrence, right?

22 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: With Josie's 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concurrence, if she concurs.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, wait.

4 MEMBER BEACH: No, I can't concur 

5 --

6 (Simultaneous speaking)

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Josie can't 

8 either, huh?

9 MR. KATZ: Paul, is --

10 (Simultaneous speaking)

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Do I constitute a 

12 quorum?

13 MR. KATZ: Yes, you're unilateral. 

14 It doesn't really mean --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Got you.

16 MR. KATZ: So you don't have an 

17 option here.

18 CHAIR MUNN: It's closed. It will 

19 not appear again on, certainly not on the 

20 agenda. And now we're into administrative 

21 detail and before, well I don't know -- yes, 

22 let's just ask NIOSH about the status on PER-37, 

23 11, and 18, no, we covered 18 earlier, that 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 should come off there, and we covered 11 

2 earlier.

3 MS. K. BEHLING: Wanda, this is 

4 Kathy. We also covered PER-11, which was 25 --

5 CHAIR MUNN: Eleven, very good. 

6 And 37, yes.

7 MS. K. BEHLING: And PER-37 is Ames 

8 and there was going to be an Ames Work Group 

9 established I believe before we continue with 

10 any additional work on Ames.

11 CHAIR MUNN: I believe that that 

12 has in fact been established. So they're going 

13 to be expected to take a look at that, right?

14 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, I believe so. 

15 Ted, is that correct there has been an Ames Work 

16 Group established?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, there is an Ames 

18 Work Group and they're going to have a meeting 

19 in January, we haven't scheduled one yet.

20 CHAIR MUNN: Okay. I'm assuming 

21 the PER will be on their agenda also.

22 MR. KATZ: Well, no, no it won't 

23 because the PER is not being, isn't even tasked 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 until, right, for Ames we were going to, they 

2 have to review the Site Profile Review first.

3 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

4 MS. K. BEHLING: That's correct.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes.

6 CHAIR MUNN: Okay.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Wanda, this is 

8 Josie. We also got a report from Hans in 

9 October, OTIB-082, I'm just curious if that was 

10 going to make our next meeting agenda?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: Yes, this is 

12 Kathy. Yes, Josie, in fact I had several other 

13 items I was going to talk about.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

15 MS. K. BEHLING: And that's one of 

16 them. I was just going to just remind or let 

17 Wanda know that we did submit on October 9th 

18 OTIB-82, which is the CLL, chronic lymphocytic 

19 leukemia, and also on October 6th we reviewed 

20 PER-52, which was Westinghouse, so those could 

21 be put on the agenda for the next meeting.

22 The only other thing I was going to 

23 ask if you feel we have time, and I will try to 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be brief if you're in agreement with this, there 

2 have been two new PERs issued since our last 

3 meeting and I can briefly describe them if you'd 

4 like and we can make a decision as to whether 

5 you want SC&A to review them unless you want to 

6 postpone that until the next meeting.

7 CHAIR MUNN: Let's hear what the 

8 new PERs are like.

9 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay. The first 

10 one is DCAS PER-055, which is a revision to the 

11 Battelle TBD-6000 and this PER only affects 

12 claims that were from facilities that were not 

13 specified under the Appendices and it is -- in 

14 some cases doses increased and some cases doses 

15 decreased.

16 For the uranium surface 

17 contamination conversion factor the beta and 

18 gamma dose rates for the uranium surface 

19 contamination, the photon values recalculated 

20 and revision caused a slight decrease, but what 

21 has been added is the beta dose rate values and 

22 so that would be an increase for the shallow 

23 dose.
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Also, external dose from surface 

2 contamination was initially based on 365 days 

3 of settling and that was reduced to 30 days and 

4 so it decreased doses for the environmental 

5 doses for photons, but, again, beta doses were 

6 not accounted for in Rev 1 and they were added 

7 to, Rev 0, I'm sorry, but they were added to 

8 Revision 1.

9 And then lastly, photon doses from 

10 contamination of metal working processes 

11 increased because initially they were based on 

12 a 7-day settling period and now it is based on 

13 a 30-day.

14 There were a total of 809 

15 potentially impacted claims or cases and it 

16 actually, due to various selection criteria, 

17 was reduced to 30 cases that were reevaluated 

18 by NIOSH.

19 If you are looking for a 

20 recommendation in my mind there are several 

21 things that I think would be interesting to look 

22 at here.

23 First of all, cases that were 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 selected for this, I'm sure it wasn't easy to 

2 determine which cases actually fell into these 

3 categories, and just because they are some 

4 additions, or some increase in dose, some 

5 decrease, I would recommend that SC&A look at 

6 this one.

7 And I'll just -- The second one is 

8 the PER-56, which is BWXT Virginia. This 

9 facility does not have a TBD and it relies 

10 primarily, or that dose reconstruction relies 

11 a lot on the OTIB-70 and because of the OTIB-70 

12 depletion factor change, which increased doses 

13 during the residual period, that's why this 

14 particular facility is being looked at, or 

15 those cases associated with this facility.

16 There was initially 82 cases that 

17 were impacted and ultimately NIOSH actually 

18 reevaluated 78 cases. Now, again, we've 

19 looked for it a lot at the OTIB-70, so I'm not 

20 sure that this is one that I would necessarily 

21 recommend that we have to review.

22 CHAIR MUNN: Well from your look at 

23 that and your familiarity with them I feel we 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 will be well advised to rely on your take on that 

2 one particularly. I'm not familiar with the 

3 site.

4 MR. KATZ: Wanda, can I make a 

5 suggestion? I mean since these are just coming 

6 up now and no other Subcommittee Members have 

7 looked at these I would suggest that, I mean you 

8 take these recommendations but take a look at 

9 these two PERs before you guys make a decision.

10 You can decide on this at the next 

11 Procedures meeting, but --

12 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, it was going to be 

13 my suggestion that Kathy send us a little bit 

14 of written information about these, which we 

15 have in the past when we have new PERs we've 

16 taken the opportunity to look at them a little 

17 bit and think about them before we make a 

18 decision.

19 MS. K. BEHLING: That's true, and I 

20 apologize for not getting something into your 

21 hands --

22 CHAIR MUNN: No, it's quite 

23 alright. It's good to know that those two are 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 out there and if you would be good enough to do 

2 that for us my first knee jerk would be to accept 

3 your recommendation because I think probably 

4 that 55 does merit some look.

5 I just simply don't know about BWXT 

6 Virginia. So if you'll get that to us we'll 

7 take a look at those for next time.

8 MS. K. BEHLING: Very good.

9 CHAIR MUNN: And you will be 

10 getting us OTIB-82 and PER-52?

11 MS. K. BEHLING: They have actually 

12 been submitted in October, October 6th and 

13 October 9th, so you will, you should have those 

14 two reports and we have also promised PER-42, 

15 Subtask 4 and also, yes, I think it was the 

16 second one we promised that we'll have 

17 finished.

18 I think PER-43, Subtask 4 we'll 

19 have. I have to go back and --

20 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, right, we had 

21 that marked as a carryover, so we'll have that 

22 on the agenda in any case.

23 MS. K. BEHLING: Okay.
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Okay, good. Thank 

2 you, appreciate the information, and the next 

3 item I have is our first time review of abeyance 

4 items that NIOSH is going to look at to see if 

5 what we were ready to close, correct?

6 MS. MARION-MOSS: Yes, Wanda, 

7 we've already done that with OTIB-52 and PER-11 

8 and PER-20, so we kind of integrated it into the 

9 agenda this go round.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's great. 

11 Lori sent us that information earlier and we've 

12 covered each of those individually, I believe.

13 Did we close them as you 

14 anticipated, Lori?

15 MS. MARION-MOSS: Unfortunately 

16 not all.

17 CHAIR MUNN: All but one as I 

18 recall.

19 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right. But I'll 

20 take what I can get.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, very good. 

22 That's great. Any other concern about 

23 abeyance or in progress findings that NIOSH may 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not have covered in our discussions?

2 If not, then we had asked Paul if he 

3 would review for us for this record of the 

4 information that he provided for us by email 

5 earlier in the week.

6 Paul, if you would be good enough to 

7 give us the report from TBD-6000 finding and the 

8 BB findings.

9 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. This was 

10 kind of initiated by a reminder from SC&A that 

11 typically TBD-6000 issues have been, have gone 

12 from the Procedures Subcommittee to the 

13 TBD-6000 Work Group and frankly I'm not sure 

14 which, what actually transferred so what I did 

15 was I summarized everything that we've covered 

16 here.

17 First of all, I'm getting an echo by 

18 the way, right? Am I just getting that echo or 

19 is that the --

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm going to, maybe 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was because I had my phone on speaker. I 

2 just changed it and I lost the echo, so that may 

3 be better.

4 CHAIR MUNN: Oh, much better, yes, 

5 thank you.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So first of 

7 all TBD-6000 I summarized in the email the seven 

8 findings and their status. I would like to 

9 point out that there already is a Rev 1 for 

10 TBD-6000.

11 Rev 1 came out in 20 -- May of 2013, 

12 no, let's see.

13 MEMBER BEACH: 2011.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: 2011, but the 

15 comments, there were comments then by SC&A in 

16 May of 2013, and so the items that are shown in 

17 abeyance we can consider closed because they 

18 weren't raised, SC&A was satisfied with those.

19 The only thing that showed up in the 

20 review of Rev 1 had to do with settling time and 

21 that is part of Issue 6, the resuspension factor 

22 and I show that in my notes as having been 

23 transferred from TBD-6000 back to the 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Procedures Subcommittee because it's not 

2 simply a TBD-6000 issue, it's a, I don't know 

3 what the term we're using --

4 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, it's an 

5 overarching.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Overarching issue. 

7 So I'm not sure where that is, but nonetheless 

8 from our point of view that issue was discussed 

9 in our meeting last fall in October of 2013 and 

10 SC&A agreed with NIOSH's proposal that settling 

11 velocity of, I think it was .0075 be accepted 

12 and 30 days to equilibrium.

13 I believe, and Jim Neton can help me 

14 on this, I believe we were in agreement on that.

15 CHAIR MUNN: I think so.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: That should show it 

17 closed I believe.

18 CHAIR MUNN: We had discussed that.

19 DR. NETON: We are definitely in 

20 agreement on that in my opinion.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes. Yes, we had --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then Item 7 

23 here that had been transferred out of our Work 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group anyway, so as far as I can tell you 

2 everything in TBD-6000, Rev 1 is closed.

3 CHAIR MUNN: That's good.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: And I should ask 

5 SC&A if they'll agree with that.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, this is John 

7 Mauro, I just rejoined the meeting, I was tied 

8 up on some other matters and I agree with that 

9 statement.

10 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

11 CHAIR MUNN: Very good. So as far 

12 --

13 MEMBER ZIEMER: And then the other 

14 thing I put in here for information again was 

15 this is Appendix BB, which is General Steel 

16 Industries.

17 I don't know if any of these really 

18 were originally in the Procedures Work Group 

19 data work or not. Where they Wanda?

20 CHAIR MUNN: I'm trying to 

21 remember, too.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Wanda, this is 

23 Steve.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, Steve.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Basically these BB 

3 ones were the ones that were the, the 13 BB 

4 findings were the ones that are, or are the ones 

5 that are in the BRS.

6 CHAIR MUNN: They're the ones that 

7 we did incorporate from the TBD-6000.

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: But you have them 

9 listed as -- Yes --

10 (Simultaneous speaking)

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay, well here's 

12 the status, and it's in the chart, and basically 

13 all of them have been handled. Three of them 

14 are showing as closed, but for practical 

15 purposes those changes had to show up in the 

16 revision as well, but since they should all be 

17 listed as in abeyance.

18 Now the revision has been issued, 

19 the revision was issued this past summer and 

20 SC&A just recently concluded the review of that 

21 and Bob Anigstein had done that review and that 

22 review is currently in the hands of the Work 

23 Group, we have not met on it yet.
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 There are a number of items, there 

2 are issues that Bob has raised in terms of 

3 comparing what we thought were agreed to items 

4 with what has actually shown up in the 

5 documents, and this has to do really with 

6 details on the calculational methods at GSI.

7 So I think all we can say at the 

8 moment is these remain in abeyance, the Work 

9 Group has not approved the revisions and the 

10 findings on Rev 1.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's good to have.

12 DR. MAURO: This is John, I'm 

13 sorry, just a point of clarification. My 

14 understanding is that TBD-6000 as a document 

15 all the issues have been resolved.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, this is 

17 Appendix BB.

18 DR. MAURO: Now, you know, in 

19 Appendix BB, General Steel Industry, which has 

20 a very long history, did have certain items in 

21 it, the original one that drew upon TBD-6000 and 

22 in theory those issues were not, you know, they 

23 were more appropriately covered by TBD-6000.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Since those issues, which go back 

2 quite a ways, were resolved by TBD-6000 that 

3 means that the degree to which they arrive here 

4 before the Procedures Subcommittee, I guess, 

5 you know, those should all be resolved --

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, these are 

7 specific to GSI as an example of the work hours 

8 and the doses to the layout man and, you know, 

9 the other workers.

10 DR. MAURO: Right. Right, but all 

11 of those --

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: But these are all 

13 very specific.

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, and all of those 

15 have nothing to do with the procedures.

16 CHAIR MUNN: Yes.

17 DR. MAURO: That has only to do with 

18 GSI TBD-6000, the GSI.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right, right.

20 DR. MAURO: So I guess they don't 

21 have any role here, but that's --

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, only that we're 

23 telling, we're reporting back what their status 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is because they show up in the Procedures 

2 Subcommittee array of findings.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh --

4 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, if you remember 

5 back in 2008 there was no TBD Work Group and so 

6 when Bob did the first review of Appendix BB --

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: -- he did it for the 

9 Procedures and probably was the Procedures Work

10 Group at that point in time.

11 DR. MAURO: Oh.

12 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well, no, I think 

13 --

14 MR. KATZ: No, there was a, we had 

15 TBD-6000 back then.

16 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, 

17 TBD-6000 goes way back.

18 MR. MARSCHKE: You may have 

19 TBD-6000, but did we have the Work Group?

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, we did.

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, we did.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Well anyway Bob did 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the review under the, for this Procedures Work 

2 Group.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, maybe we were 

4 seeing if we could as a trial put this one in 

5 as, you know, as sort of an example to the other 

6 Work Groups of how you could do it.

7 I don't recall how it ended up 

8 there.

9 CHAIR MUNN: Probably with a 

10 tracking device. It was a tracking device.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

12 CHAIR MUNN: And we needed it 

13 because it had such an extensive number of 

14 findings --

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes. So in any 

16 event this is the current status and that, you 

17 know, I don't know what more we need at the 

18 moment.

19 CHAIR MUNN: No, I don't think --

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: I mean if you need 

21 to enter, the details are very extensive. You 

22 know, Bob Anigstein has all the comments back 

23 and forth between SC&A and NIOSH and the Work 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Group's actions on these and whether those 

2 should be entered into the database that's 

3 another question.

4 MS. MARION-MOSS: Paul, this is 

5 Lori.

6 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes?

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: If you'd like we 

8 can transfer all the findings under this 

9 particular document right to your TBD-6000 Work 

10 Group.

11 You guys are in there as a Work Group 

12 and we can transfer those findings to you and 

13 you can update it and close it out, you know, 

14 anyway you want or I can do it for you or 

15 however.

16 MR. KATZ: Well I think anybody --

17 Yes, I think it's okay to, there's no one, I mean 

18 someone, the same person's going to have to 

19 close these out in any event, that we don't have 

20 a, I'm trying to think, we don't have a staff 

21 person for that Work Group who deals with the 

22 BRS, so I guess just go ahead and close them all 

23 out but this does, you're right, Lori, in effect 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this belongs under that Work Group.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: Close them out or 

3 put them in abeyance?

4 MR. KATZ: Well as the findings 

5 are, in abeyance or closed.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay.

7 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well I think on 

8 6000 itself you can close those except the one 

9 that's transferred to another Work Group.

10 MR. KATZ: Right.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: And if you want the 

12 details on those I think SC&A has those, they 

13 have the matrix of these.

14 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm not -- right, 

15 I'm not suggesting that someone spend the time 

16 to input all the --

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: That would just be a 

19 pain.

20 MEMBER ZIEMER: They are very 

21 extensive.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, they are. That 

23 would be too painful, but just to have a record 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to start the record for, because that Work Group 

2 will continue to deal with other sites and so 

3 on anyway.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right. So on the 

5 6000 ones you can show them all as closed except 

6 for Number 7, which goes to, is still in the, 

7 is part of TIB-0009.

8 MR. MARSCHKE: Well we're not 

9 tracking it. At this point we're not tracking 

10 the 6000 ones.

11 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: We're just tracking 

13 the BB ones.

14 MEMBER ZIEMER: Oh, okay, I got 

15 you. Well that one though should be, I'm not 

16 sure where it is then if you don't have it.

17 CHAIR MUNN: Well let's take a look 

18 at it and see what happened to our TIB-9 issues 

19 before and we'll report back on the status of 

20 TIB-9 next time if that's okay.

21 MR. KATZ: TIB-9 or TBD-6000?

22 MEMBER ZIEMER: Well the seventh 

23 finding for TBD-6000 shows that it was 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 transferred to the Procedures Review 

2 Subcommittee, but the TIB --

3 MR. KATZ: Right.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: It's a TIB-9 issue.

5 CHAIR MUNN: And that's why I'm 

6 going to check to see what's going on to with 

7 it instead of --

8 DR. MAURO: Yes, I can help out. 

9 TIB-9 is the ingestion procedure.

10 CHAIR MUNN: Right, it is.

11 DR. MAURO: And the issues have 

12 been all resolved on that.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 DR. MAURO: Now the issue remains 

15 active on GSI because of the way in which it was 

16 implemented at GSI specifically. So that 

17 issue, which you would call a TIB-9 issue here, 

18 really is not an issue with TIB-9, it's an issue 

19 with General Steel Industry and how they 

20 implement the TIB-9.

21 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, but this is not 

22 a General Steel finding, this is a TBD-6000 

23 general finding and so --
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. MAURO: It is still an open --

2 Okay.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: No, it's not open 

4 on TBD-6000. It might be on Appendix BB, but 

5 it's not on TBD-6000.

6 DR. MAURO: Right and I agree with 

7 that and that's my understanding, so I guess 

8 what I'm about to say is that why are we talking 

9 about this?

10 I mean there's no reason why any of 

11 the GSI issues that are unique to GSI and have 

12 nothing, you know, really are not of interest 

13 to this Procedures Subcommittee, all of the 

14 issues that might have been had to do with 

15 TBD-6000, all of which have been resolved.

16 And to me it's just another Site 

17 Profile that's out there that we have to deal 

18 with.

19 MEMBER ZIEMER: Right.

20 DR. MAURO: And that really has 

21 nothing to do with the Procedures Subcommittee.

22 MR. KATZ: Right. Right, John. I 

23 thought I understood that these findings though 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from Appendix BB are in the BRS.

2 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, that's right.

3 MR. KATZ: Right, okay, so we just 

4 want to have them put in their proper status in 

5 the BRS. They belong to the TBD-6000 Work 

6 Group, not to Procedures, but we just want that 

7 record to be reflected.

8 DR. MAURO: Oh, okay.

9 MR. KATZ: That's all.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay. It's just mop 

11 up, okay.

12 MR. KATZ: That's all.

13 DR. MAURO: Okay.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, and following 

15 that thought, Ted, my suggestion would be, if 

16 the Subcommittee agrees, to take the email that 

17 Paul sent and just basically to change the 

18 status from transferred to the status that Paul 

19 provided for these 13 BB findings and just 

20 reference Paul's email.

21 MR. KATZ: Exactly. Exactly, and 

22 just it comes under that Work Group not under 

23 Procedures.
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: And then if they 

2 want to go into any more details the people can 

3 go to Paul's Work Group and --

4 MR. KATZ: No, so, right. So when 

5 the Work Group meets again and we close some 

6 this in abeyance we'll close them in that 

7 record, but --

8 MEMBER ZIEMER: We'll close them, 

9 right.

10 MR. KATZ: Right, exactly. That's

11 fine.

12 MR. MARSCHKE: Now regarding TBD, 

13 no, regarding TIB-9, TIB-9 is also in the BRS.

14 (Simultaneous speaking)

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: TIB-9's apparently 

16 closed so we don't have to worry about it.

17 MR. KATZ: It's a TIB-9 related 

18 issue only for Appendix BB.

19 DR. NETON: Right. I can talk 

20 about this. Inadvertent ingestion was 

21 transferred to Procedures Work Group and it's 

22 been closed as an overarching issue.

23 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes, so we don't 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to do anything with it.

2 DR. NETON: Yes.

3 MEMBER ZIEMER: Yes.

4 DR. NETON: I mean if it's in the 

5 overarching issues, it was transferred to the 

6 Subcommittee and it's listed as closed.

7 MR. MARSCHKE: It's listed as 

8 closed, but there's no description of what it 

9 is, there's no description of who closed it or 

10 anything.

11 DR. NETON: There are, I just 

12 looked at it. No, it is there, Mark, I mean 

13 Steve.

14 MS. MARION-MOSS: Steve, it's 

15 transferred to the overarching issues.

16 DR. NETON: If you look under 

17 overarching issues --

18 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, okay. Okay.

19 DR. NETON: -- there's a whole 

20 history there and I prepared a White Paper, 

21 presented it to the Subcommittee, and they 

22 agreed with my write up and closed the issue.

23 MR. MARSCHKE: Okay, I see. I'm 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking at -- okay, never mind.

2 DR. NETON: Overarching --

3 CHAIR MUNN: Yes, but, Steve's 

4 correct. We need to make more of a statement 

5 in our BRS than what we have here. It's just 

6 that --

7 MR. MARSCHKE: No, I --

8 DR. NETON: No, no, no, no, it's in 

9 the BRS under overarching issues.

10 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, it's just 

11 confusing the way they relate one to other. If 

12 you go to TIB-9, Jim --

13 DR. NETON: Yes.

14 MR. MARSCHKE: -- basically it says 

15 finding has been transferred here and really it 

16 hasn't been transferred here, the finding has 

17 been transferred to overarching issues.

18 CHAIR MUNN: To overarching 

19 issues, correct.

20 MS. MARION-MOSS: Let me clarify 

21 that. Up until we made some changes, that 

22 wording "finding has been transferred here" was 

23 a link --
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. MARSCHKE: Right.

2 MS. MARION-MOSS: -- where the user 

3 could click on it and they take you straight to 

4 the overarching issues, but we did that back in 

5 2012.

6 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh.

7 MS. MARION-MOSS: I'm trying to 

8 restore that, it just is not available today, 

9 but hopefully we'll try to restore it.

10 (Simultaneous speaking)

11 MR. MARSCHKE: So when it means 

12 "here" it means wherever that link takes you?

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: Right. So if 

14 you'd have clicked on it you'd have went 

15 straight to overarching issues.

16 MR. MARSCHKE: Oh, okay.

17 MEMBER ZIEMER: It might be better 

18 to name the link, transferred to overarching 

19 issues and have that term be the link or 

20 something because the word "here" can be 

21 confusing.

22 MR. MARSCHKE: Yes, that's why I 

23 was confused.
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Okay.

2 MR. MARSCHKE: But I'm usually 

3 confused.

4 MEMBER ZIEMER: Okay. So that I 

5 think completes my report, Wanda.

6 CHAIR MUNN: I am certainly glad. 

7 Thank you very much, Paul, it's much 

8 appreciated.

9 Let's see, I'm still going to sort 

10 of talk to Lori offline about how we can resolve 

11 the status of this TIB-9 presentation so that 

12 we all understand where we are and what we're 

13 doing.

14 And those of us with a different 

15 kind of thinking system can understand what 

16 we've read when we've read it. If that's 

17 alright with everybody else I'll just check 

18 that offline.

19 Are there any other items that 

20 anyone has in mind that need to come before us? 

21 If not let's take a look at when our next meeting 

22 needs to be and since we have some idea from SC&A 

23 what they have anticipated coming down the 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 line, let's have some suggestions from NIOSH as 

2 to when they think we might meet again. What 

3 time lapse do you have in mind?

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Well what do you 

5 expect to have done? I mean what, if we have 

6 a typical meeting frequency what is it three 

7 months or something?

8 CHAIR MUNN: About three months, 

9 yes.

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

11 CHAIR MUNN: That's what we've been 

12 doing. So that would put us into --

13 MS. MARION-MOSS: February.

14 CHAIR MUNN: At least February, and 

15 toward the end of February or the early part of 

16 March I think. What about the week of February 

17 23rd?

18 MR. HINNEFELD: Let's see, it's 

19 clear on my calendar. I don't know if Jim's on 

20 --

21 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm okay for the 

22 23rd, week of the 23rd.

23 CHAIR MUNN: Can we select that 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Tuesday or Wednesday, the 24th or 25th, does 

2 anyone have major conflicts?

3 MR. HINNEFELD: I have a slight 

4 preference for Wednesday, but it's only slight 

5 if everybody else really, if other people have 

6 a problem with Wednesday, Tuesday works as 

7 well.

8 CHAIR MUNN: I have a recurring 

9 7:00 a.m. meeting every last Wednesday of the 

10 month.

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, well then 

12 Tuesday's fine.

13 CHAIR MUNN: I'd prefer Tuesday.

14 MR. HINNEFELD: Tuesday's fine.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: I'm okay either 

16 day.

17 MEMBER BEACH: So am I.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, I'm trying to 

19 remember, Dick told me his, he has two days of 

20 the week and I thought it was Tuesday and 

21 Thursday that are bad ones, so I'd have to 

22 confirm with him.

23 I'm thinking that Wednesday and 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Friday are good ones for him, Tuesday and 

2 Thursday are bad, but I'm --

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Well if Wanda's 

4 meeting is the last Wednesday of the month we 

5 could go a week earlier and go the 18th.

6 CHAIR MUNN: We could. We could do 

7 it the 18th.

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Or a week later and 

9 go the 4th.

10 CHAIR MUNN: If I'm not hearing any 

11 disagreement let's settle on the 18th of 

12 February.

13 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay.

14 CHAIR MUNN: Same time.

15 MEMBER ZIEMER: The 18th is good.

16 CHAIR MUNN: You're late. Are 

17 there any other items for the good of the order? 

18 If not then I believe we can call ourselves 

19 adjourned.

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you everybody.

21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

22 matter went off the record at 4:00 p.m.)