NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Subcommittee for Procedure Review

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

The subcommittee convened via teleconference, at 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Josie Beach, 

Chair, presiding.
2 

Members Present: 

Josie Beach, Chair

Loretta Valerio, Member

Paul Ziemer, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Dave Allen, ORAU

Bob Anigstein, SC&A

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Liz Brackett, ORAU

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Stu Hinnefeld, ORAU

Jenny Lin, HHS OGC

Lori Marion-Moss, ORAU

John Mauro, SC&A

Jim Neton, ORAU

Tim Taulbee, ORAU
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee for 

Procedure Review Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1

Welcome/Roll Call 5

PER-59: Norton Company 8

TIB-13: External Dose at Uranium Facilities 13

TIB-4: Maximum Dose at AWEs 26

TIB-12: Monte Carlo Method 28

TIB-27: Supplementary External Dose 

Information for Rocky Flats 29

TIB-29: Coworker Data for Y-12 34

TIB-33: Application of Internal Dose 

Assumptions for Best Estimates 40

PER-59: Norton Company (continued) 51

TIB-60: Internal Dose Reconstruction 52

PR 3: Performing and Reporting Dose 

Reconstruction 54

RPT 78: Technical Basis for Sampling Plans 56

PER-55: Cases A and B 60

TBD-6000: Addressing Putzier Effect 66

PER-49: Paducah Case Reviews 77

PER-60: Blockson Case Reviews 79

PER-66: Huntington Pilot Case Reviews 83

TIB-44: Y-12 Badge Dosimetry 89

 TIB-46: Beta doses at Y-14 112 
4 

PER-64: Dupont Deepwater Works Case 

Reviews 96

TIB-64: Y-12 Coworker External Dose for 

National Security Complex 102

Next Work Group Meeting/Plans 106

Adjourn 110
5 

Proceedings

(10:33 a.m.) 

Welcome/Roll Call

Mr. Katz: Welcome, everyone, to the Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health. It's the Procedures 

Review Subcommittee. We haven't met in quite a 

while, and we have a change in membership since, 

because Wanda Munn, who chaired this 

Subcommittee faithfully since the beginning has 

retired this past year, and Josie was gracious enough 

to take on the chairmanship, and then Loretta has 

joined us, and John Poston, who is also -- wait, John 

wasn't with this one.

Chair Beach: No.

Mr. Katz: John Poston retired but he's -- but anyway, 

that's the change. The agenda for this meeting is 

posted on the NIOSH website, and the schedule for 

the meeting for today's date. We don't know if we will 

get through that whole agenda, and that agenda 

could have been even longer because there are some 

items that aren't there, but we'll just see how this 

goes.

There's only an agenda. The documents that we're 

discussing are documents that have been reviewed 

over quite a long span of time, so they are not reposted. But most of them should be available on the 

NIOSH website. Also on the NIOSH website for this 

program -- there may be some exceptions -- for 

people who are interested after they hear the 

discussions. 

For roll call I'll make one of the agenda items 

represent pose conflict of interest matters with any 

of the Board members, so we don't need to address 

conflict of interest. We have our Chair, Josie Beach, 

and our team members, Paul Ziemer and Loretta 

Valerio on the line, so we have a quorum. So let's 

just go through the rest of the roll call, and we've 

heard Stu Hinnefeld, but the rest of the NIOSH ORAU 
6

Team.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: Okay, then. And, Josie, it's your meeting.

Let's just remind everybody that we have quite a few 

people on the line. Mute your phones except for when 

you are speaking; that will clear up the audio for 

everybody. Star 6 if you don't have a mute button.

Press star 6 to mute it; press star 6 to get off of mute.

Josie, it's your meeting.

Chair Beach: Thank you, Ted. Again, welcome 

everybody, to the first meeting after Wanda's 

retirement. I'm delighted to be able to carry on 

Wanda's work and the Subcommittee's work, of 

course. Loretta, thank you for joining us. If you need 

any help with anything or finding documents in the 

future, please don't hesitate to let me know. It can 

be a little overwhelming, I think, of some of the 

places we can find stuff.

First of all I want to ask, should we go over Lori's list 

and dispense with those items we were talking about 

just before the meeting started, or would you prefer 

to wait until the end of the meeting? I think, like Sue 

said earlier, these can be handled fairly quickly.

The first one on Lori's list was RPT-005; what are 

your thoughts, SC&A or NIOSH?

Mr. Hinnefeld: Well in my view, I mentioned earlier is 

that we could disposition all four of these by saying 

that these documents were changed to address items 

-- the findings -- that the Subcommittee had already 

placed in abeyance, meaning we had agreed to revise 

the documents. Revised documents are not posted 

on BRS, and the next step in the process, I believe, 

is for SC&A to review these revisions to see if we, in 

fact, faithfully resolved the findings from the original.

So if the committee agrees to it, we could just agree 

that that will be the path forward, and then for an 

upcoming meeting, then, SC&A would have that task 

to look through those revised documents.
7

I think we can treat them all four as a block. I don't 

think we need to do each one individually.

Chair Beach: Okay. I am in agreement with that, and 

the last one on the list was Norton. I wasn't sure if 

there was some more we needed to discuss on that, 

but --

Mr. Hinnefeld: Yes, it's on the agenda. Since it's on 

the agenda, maybe we'll just talk about that one. But 

we've done a revision.

Chair Beach: Okay. So maybe just identify the four; 

then there are two that are on the agenda that we 

will probably spend a little more time on. The other 

two are not on our agenda. Kathy, I guess -- is that 

okay with you?

Ms. Behling: That's fine, and yes, I chimed in, and 

tell you that the first item on the agenda is PER-59, 

and we are ready to discuss that. We have looked at 

the updates of that document, and the same with the 

OTIB-60.

The other two, the RPT-5 and PROC-006; those will 

have to carry over for the next meeting, because I 

haven't had a chance to review those yet.

Chair Beach: Okay. That sounds perfect then.

Ms. Behling: Yes. So the first item on our agenda was 

the PER-59, and I'm prepared to talk about that when 

you're ready.

Chair Beach: I'm ready right now. Is everybody in 

agreement with what we just discussed? Loretta and 

Paul?

Member Valerio: I'm in agreement, Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay, great. And Paul, are you okay 

with that?

Member Ziemer: Sorry, I was on mute. Yes, I'm in 

agreement.
8

Chair Beach: Okay, sounds great. So, Kathy, I'll go 

ahead and turn it over to you, and we can get started 

on Norton.

Mr. Katz: Okay. This is Ted. So just to be clear, 

whatever task things we do in this meeting -- in this 

case, PROC-5 and RPT 6, or the other way around --

the SC&A contract runs through February, so these 

need to be concluded well ahead of that, the end of 

the contract year; just to be clear. And that would 

hold for any other task we make as well.

Chair Beach: Okay; good to know that; thanks, Ted.

PER-59: Norton Company

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is Kathy Behling, and first I 

just want to congratulate Josie on her new position 

and also welcome Loretta.

I just wanted to make mention that in order to orient 

Loretta, and since some of the agenda items do go 

back several years, when we discuss some of the 

items on the agenda today we may give some history 

about those findings. But if you feel we're giving too 

much detail, just don't hesitate to stop us and 

redirect us.

So I will start with PER-59, which is Norton Company.

Actually, I see on Lori's list they're mentioning 

Finding 3. There were three findings for PER-59, and 

let me start by saying, Norton Company is one of 

those facilities that does not have a stand-alone 

technical basis document.

It has what we've termed a DR template, meaning 

that the dose reconstruction methodology is 

incorporated into the Dose Reconstruction Report. So 

this is a separate process, now, that we go through.

When we see one of these templates that hasn't been 

reviewed before, when it comes to our attention 

through something like a PER process, we do go 

ahead and review that methodology, which we have 

done here in PER-59.
9

Now, our first finding -- and again, we did discuss this 

during the last meeting, but I'll repeat these -- in the 

first finding the changes that were made to Norton 

included both internal and external exposures. But 

the first finding, when we reviewed this PER, we were 

not sure that there was enough information in the DR 

template to allow us to confirm the external deep and 

shallow doses for the residual period. During that 

discussion, David Allen from NIOSH said, I believe 

that that process of reviewing that methodology was 

actually done through the SEC process. So I was 

tasked to go back and verify if that was the case.

I was able to confirm that back in 2010, 2011 -- I 

think it was the 2011 time frame -- SC&A was tasked 

to do a focused review on the Norton SEC, and during 

that review we did look at this methodology. So we 

had confirmed that the methodology was appropriate 

and correct, and so at this point, this finding, from 

our perspective, can be closed.

Chair Beach: Okay. Any questions or comments from 

the work group? I'm okay with closing it. I rereviewed the transcript from the last meeting and 

understand that it has been -- the methodology was 

resolved, so I'm fine with closing it. Paul, are you in 

agreement?

Member Ziemer: Yes, right.

Chair Beach: Okay. And Loretta?

Member Valerio: And I'm in agreement also, Josie.

That was Finding No. 3, correct?

Ms. Behling: No. 1.

Member Valerio: No. 1, okay. Thank you.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Then we'll go on. The other thing 

I'll just mention -- because this may help to guide 

you through this process -- okay, it's being shown. If 

you all are on Skype, Rose is displaying the summary 

table that I provided that hopefully will help us look 

through this fairly long agenda, and I had emailed all 
10

of you a copy of these findings also.

Then Finding 2; what the finding was, in the template 

NIOSH stated that there were nine references that 

were associated with the operational period at the 

facility. However, when we looked at the data closer, 

five of the nine were associated with the residual time 

period as opposed to the operational period.

NIOSH agreed with that finding, but it was discussed 

that perhaps they should be changed from a finding 

to an observation, which we have done. I guess the 

only thing we are waiting for -- I don't know if NIOSH 

is going to go ahead and make a change to the 

template at some point in time and whether you want 

this item to be put into an abeyance, but NIOSH is 

aware of it, and they do agree that this was just a 

minor inconsistency in the data.

Chair Beach: Kathy, I thought that Lori had updated, 

or the new methodology was updated. It's attached 

to Finding 3, though. Is that also for Finding 2? Did 

you guys look at that?

Mr. Allen: Josie, this is Dave Allen. Yes, both Finding 

2 and 3 were mixed into that. I think we've only 

recently updated the BRS with that.

Chair Beach: Yes, the October 24th, so that's 

something, probably, that needs to go on the list for 

review, Kathy.

Ms. Behling: You are correct, yes. I see now that you 

did update it, and I did not have a chance to review 

that. But that can certainly be done quickly, and the 

same with Finding 3.

In the case of Finding 3, when we looked at the data 

that was generated for the air concentration data for 

the 62-63 time period, our numbers came in lower 

because we realized that NIOSH had inadvertently 

pulled a number from the short-lived column rather 

than the long-lived column. So they were 

overestimating their dose. So I assumed that 

correction was also made in this revision, Dave.
11

Mr. Allen: Yes, it was.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Okay, and I did not have the 

opportunity to look at that, but I will do that. That 

will be something that should be very easy and quick.

Chair Beach: Yes, and it's part of that list that Lori 

sent out, so I knew we'd be discussing it.

Ms. Behling: Okay. So we'll carry Findings 2 and 3 

forward to the next meeting?

Mr. Katz: This is Ted. I mean, one is an observation 

and one is very simple, and as Dave said, it's 

corrected. I think you could just close it. It doesn't 

seem like it's the sort of complexity that's worth 

checking, even.

Ms. Behling: I agree. If you'd like, I can do a quick 

check after the meeting, or during a break --

Chair Beach: During lunch.

Ms. Behling: Yeah. Let's do it that way.

Chair Beach: Because Finding 3 is still a finding, 

correct? Just two --

Mr. Katz: Yes, 3 is a finding for sure, but it's a simple

matter, and Dave said it was corrected, and I trust 

that. Kathy, you can look at it, but we don't need to 

carry over to the next meeting, I don't think.

Ms. Behling: Correct. Okay, very good.

Member Ziemer: You'll get back to us after the break, 

is that what you're saying?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Member Ziemer: Because there's no reason to carry 

it up to the floor for the next meeting, really.

Ms. Behling: Right. We will try to resolve it during this 

meeting.

Member Ziemer: Thank you.
12

Ms. Behling: Okay. The next item on the agenda is 

DCAS TIB-13. Now, this is a finding; again, it goes 

back, and there's some history to it, but I believe I 

had asked Bob Anigstein to look at this, and I didn't 

hear whether he had signed in yet or not.

Dr. Anigstein: I am here.

Ms. Behling: Okay, there you are. Go ahead, I'll let 

you take over for this finding.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. This is Bob Anigstein from 

SC&A.

Mr. Katz: Welcome, Bob. I'm glad to hear you're well 

again.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. I've made a brief presentation 

on Skype, which I'm trying to get into right now.

There we go. Everybody who has Skype, do you see 

the good-looking title page from my briefing?

Chair Beach: Not yet. Did you send that around, 

other than just the briefing, here?

Dr. Anigstein: No, I didn't, Josie. Frankly, I just got 

this put together rather -- I didn't know we were 

going to be using Skype, so I didn't want to be the 

only one. So I just put this together rather late 

yesterday, so I can certainly email it out later.

Chair Beach: Okay, that would be great. Thanks, 

Bob. And yeah, I see it. Does everybody else?

Mr. Katz: And please do, Bob. Send it to me after the 

meeting, thanks.

Dr. Anigstein: Say again?

Mr. Katz: Please do send it to me after the meeting, 

Bob.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes, I will certainly do that.

Mr. Katz: Thank you.
13

TIB-13: External Dose at Uranium Facilities

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. So Kathy Behling has stressed 

that this is a long, longstanding issue so I want to go 

over, particularly since there is one new member of 

the work group. We thought it would be wise to go 

over the history of this rather quickly. I'll just read, 

for those who don't have Skype, I'll just read from 

the right slide.

OCAS-TIB-13, Rev 0 was issued October 26th, 2005.

The purpose -- I'm reading from the bulletin -- the 

purpose of this technical information bulletin was to 

provide guidance on the application of geometrybased correction factors to external dosimetry data 

for Mallinckrodt workers; in particular, job 

classifications.

The exposures for these were to various forms of 

uranium. There were three -- well, I'll say DCAS, to 

use the present name -- put together three exposure 

scenarios. One of them was to a large cylindrical 

metal ingot, 20 inches long, 13 inches in diameter, in 

close proximity to the lower torso.

Let me just editorialize a little bit. The whole purpose 

of this was -- the idea was that workers working with 

uranium might have it up close in their body, and as 

their film badge was worn at a location such as the 

lapel, which was probably the most distant location, 

very common for a male worker with a shirt with a 

collar, to clip the film badge onto his lapel -- so the 

film badge would get a lower reading than the body 

would, and the whole purpose is to what would be an 

appropriate correction factor in such situations?

So one scenario is a large metal ingot held close to 

the lower part of the body. Another one was the 

pitchblende, the uranium ore that would be spilled on 

the floor. The third one was a worker working with a 

denitration pot. Denitration essentially is a process 

where the uranyl nitrate -- the hexachloride, I think 

-- is boiled down to use uranium trioxide.

So then there were analyses of those doses in the 
14

organs in the lower torso versus those at dosimeter 

locations. Initially, NIOSH used the Attila Code. This 

is a proprietary discrete ordinance called 

deterministic, unlike MCNP, which is Monte Carlobased.

Used properly, they should produce very similar 

results. However, the way NIOSH had used it at that 

time was, instead of picking out a single organ, it 

would average over a range of organs in the lower 

torso. Then also averaged over a range of film badge 

locations that a worker could wear anywhere on his 

upper body. And so the geometry factor, and then 

they did a Crystal Ball Monte Carlo simulation of 

these ranges and derived an average.

So the geometry correction factor for the lower torso 

-- I won't read over them, they're on the slide here -

- was 2.13. The ingot machining was a limiting 

scenario. So that's what we concentrated on.

So then SC&A was tasked to review this about two 

years later. Our review came out October 29th, 2007, 

and we had six initial findings. Four of these were 

discussing the text itself. We felt that there were 

comments that it could use editorial improvement.

Two of the findings, including technical in the sense 

of explaining what the parameters were, explaining 

how they were arrived at, and two of them 

questioned the results.

We called them Findings 4 and 6. We were going 

through a checklist which was in use at the time, and 

the same issue fell into two different categories. So 

we called them 4 and 6, but later on the work group 

correctly merged them into a single one. So Finding 

6 was gone, it becomes part of Finding 4.

SC&A used MCNP to verify the NIOSH Attila Code.

Attila is a proprietary code. It had to be rented; very 

expensive, so we did not use it. So we focused on the 

bounding scenario, which was the ratio of film badge 

dosimeter readings to doses at the lower torso organ 

locations from the uranium ingot.
15

Initially we came up with a correction factor just 

based on geometry of 7.6 with the dosimeter on the 

lapel, 10 centimeters through the left or right or the 

center of the body. Then we also went further, and it 

occurred to us that the radiation striking the badge 

coming from further down near the lower region of 

the body, the photons will be hitting the badge at an 

angle, a sharp angle, and there are correction factors 

for doses for the personal dose equivalent, it should 

be 10, for different angles. So we took that into 

account and by combining the two, we came up with 

a correction factor of 10.2.

But the main difference between our results and the 

DCAS results were differences in geometry. We made 

claimant-favorable assumptions. We assumed a tall 

worker. The greater the height of the worker, the 

greater the separation of his lapel or film badge to 

the organs in the lower body. Then we used a single 

film badge location rather than a range of them, and 

a single organ location; the lowermost organ would 

give you, again, the greater distance.

The first time this was considered by the Procedure 

Subcommittee was at their meeting on July 26th, 

2010. Three of the findings were deemed to be 

correctly classified as editorial. NIOSH agreed to 

address them in the next revision of the TIB.

The revised TIB, OCAS-TIB-0013, Rev 1, came out 

November 23rd, 2010, and the wording was changed 

so it was no longer for Mallinckrodt; it applied to all 

uranium facilities. There were extensive editorials, 

revisions which were responsive. It was much longer, 

several pages longer, and it was responsive to SC&A 

comments.

However, there were no changes to the Attila with 

analysis or results. The exact same table was 

reproduced as I showed on a previous slide; I just 

used the table from the revision simply because it 

was a little clearer and easier to copy.

The Procedure Subcommittee met on January 5th, 

2011. Findings 1 and 2 were editorially closed.
16

Finding 3 dealt with the -- we disagreed, because we 

had strange data with one of the DCAS staff members 

who had performed the analysis, and we were critical 

of the uranium photon spectrum.

However, by repeating our analyses, we found that 

since we were doing ratios, the actual photon 

spectrum used made very little difference in the 

ratios. So we considered that issue to be resolved.

Then as I earlier said, Findings 4 and 6 were merged 

into a single one, and NIOSH was to respond to 

Finding 5, which resulted in geometry.

The Subcommittee met again on September 19th, 

2011. There was some discussion of TIB-0013, but 

there were no actions. On January 31, 2013, there 

was a technical call between SC&A and NIOSH, which 

dealt primarily -- I don't have the complete transcript 

of it; we didn't have a transcript -- it dealt with the 

issue of the correction for the angular incidence, and 

even though it affects the dose -- the HP10 dose is 

actually a dose to a slab against the body -- we 

agreed with NIOSH that there is probably not a 

sufficient basis to use this as a correction factor for 

the film badges. So we withdrew that and reverted 

back to the correction factor based just on geometry 

alone.

Then the Procedure Subcommittee met again on 

February 5th, 2013, just after the technical call.

SC&A reported the results of the technical call, and 

Jim Neton reported that NIOSH was going to 

discontinue the Attila code and was going to repeat 

the analysis using MCNP.

He suggested or directed that NIOSH and SC&A 

should trade their MCNP files so we could inspect 

each other's files, which happened -- I think it 

actually had already happened.

So now I'll go on to the technical history; I will go on 

to Finding 4, which is, RE: the procedure, 

underestimate the maximum correction factor to be 

applied to the badge reading. Therefore, the 
17

procedure did not provide adequate guidance for the 

finding's mainly favorable assumptions.

So we received the NIOSH MCNP analysis on 

February 4th, 2013. There were actually, from 

looking at the internal file, they had been performed 

the previous year. Again, we looked at the bounding 

scenario for the ingot machining.

So NIOSH now had a higher correction factor, more 

than twice what the original one was, 5.35. However, 

our analyses did not use a phantom, because we 

simply used points in space, and then we applied --

the ICRP 74 has factors for calculating dose based on 

photon fluence, and the phantom is already built into 

those tables. They use a phantom to determine what 

would be the dose from a parallel beam of 

monoenergetic photons, and then you code that into 

MCNP, and you span all the photon ranges that are 

used in the analysis, so there's no need to use a 

phantom.

Nevertheless -- that's just a technical comment or 

opinion -- nevertheless, NIOSH used a water-filled 

phantom. They're just simple cylindrical, elliptical 

shapes, and you form more or less an 

anthropomorphic form.

The problem with that is, their phantom, which 

happened to be the phantom that they had, was 5 

foot 7 inches tall. Now, that is short; but for the ingot 

analysis they had used a 6-foot tall figure, 72 inches.

The height of 67 inches is -- let me show you where 

I got the data. This is a publication -- it's called the 

Vital and Health Statistics Anthropomorphic 

Reference Base for Children and Adults, United 

States, 1988-1994 from the Third National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey. The acronym is 

NHANES III. It was put out by CDC.

This shows -- make it bigger --- the height in inches 

for males aged 20 and older, and the 67 inches -- the 

25th percentile -- is 67.2 inches, so the 67-inch 

phantom is just below the 25th percentile, which 

means that 75 percent of the adult male population 
18

is taller than that.

So we considered that is not a claimant-favorable 

assumption, because the taller the worker, the 

greater the separation of the badge from the tested 

organ, the greater the correction factor.

So instead we used the 95th percentiles, and that's 

common practice. You either use the distribution of 

the 95th percentile of the parameter, and that comes 

out to 74 inches or 6-foot-2, which is tall, but not an 

abnormally tall individual.

So let me go back to my slide. So we feel that the 

short figure reduces the -- I'm repeating myself ---

and furthermore, they did not account for the fact 

that the film badge might be worn on the lapel, which 

is a little off-center to the body, and therefore slightly 

further away from the affected organ.

In our analysis, the SC&A analysis, we repeated --

subsequent in the process, we became aware of 

much new data, including the NHANES table, which 

we did not have access to or were not aware of when 

we first did the work in 2007. Also, since 2007; 2009 

specifically, ICRP developed and published in the 

Publication 110, the Reference Male Computational 

Phantom. This was based on an MRI scan of a 

volunteer, and it segmented it into something like 

140 different tissues and organs.

There is a table that lists the center of mass 

coordinates of this referenced individual standing on 

the floor, and the X, Y, and Z coordinates for every 

major organ and tissue. We specifically used the Z 

coordinate, the vertical height or the center of mass 

of the urinary bladder. That's the lowest organ that 

we commonly encounter in dose reconstruction, 

lowest in terms of geometry from the floor up.

Then for the film badge, we assumed that a film 

badge was centered on the clavicle or collar bone, 

and we got the Z coordinate or center of mass of the 

clavicle. When I said center, I meant verticallycentered. Horizontally it was displaced 10 
19

centimeters to one side.

However, these data are based on the reference adult 

male that has a height of 5 foot, 9 inches. So we 

scaled it to get to the 59 inches, so we scaled it to 

the 74 inch to represent the 95th percentile male that 

is 74 inches tall.

So in the final analysis we came up with a correction 

factor of 7.27, versus NIOSH's 5.35. So this is based 

on the personal dose equivalent which is what is 

commonly used by the film badge companies such as 

Landauer in reporting the film badge results.

However, we had in an earlier time also done an 

analysis. These were repeated numerous times over 

the years using photon flux because NIOSH had used 

photon flux, and we found that the numbers are 

different -- the absolute numbers -- but the ratios do 

not -- within statistical error they were the same. So 

anyway, we believe that the higher correction factor 

is needed rather than the one proposed by NIOSH.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thank you, Bob. Is NIOSH 

prepared to comment?

Dr. Neton: Yes, this is Jim Neton. I appreciate Bob's 

very detailed summary of the history of the -- it's 

good to hear it, because it's been such a long time.

We have continued to work on this problem. ICRP 74 

more recently has been subsumed by ICRP 116, 

which is now a voxel phantom model that allows us 

to model its individual organs, so we don't have to 

rely on averaging like we did in the original TIB. Nor 

do we have to rely on the highest organ that is 

exposed in the abdomen.

We are working on an implementation for ICRP 116.

It's been in the works for quite a while; it's a fairly 

complicated model. But it's our opinion that ICRP 116 

-- we would use ICRP 116 data to redo TIB-13, so we 

can then calculate the ratio of the dose for any organ 

in any particular geometry we want to.
20

We're working on that; I'm not sure exactly how far 

off that is into the future. I think I talked to Tim 

Taulbee yesterday, and the conversion factors for 

TIB-10 are close, even a matter of a month or so, 

and I think 13 is probably not much further behind.

So we recommend that this be delayed until we 

reissue TIB-13 using ICRP-116 methodology.

Mr. Taulbee: This is Tim Taulbee. If I could just add 

a little bit more to that, Jim; the actual information 

will be rolled into a single TIB that will be all the 

geometry. It will be the glove box as well as, in this 

particular case, the ingots, the pitchblende pots and 

that kind of thing. It's one geometry, kind of 

correction TIB when we roll out ICRP 116.

But we are taking this into account, as Jim indicated, 

where it will be organ-specific, so there won't be kind 

of a limiting factor. It will be done on an organ-byorgan basis, and we are currently in the process of 

developing that as well as the tools which will 

perform all of the calculations all at one time.

We are currently looking at the current models that 

have been done for the glove box, as Jim indicated, 

for TIB-10. We have some additional drafts of that, 

but it's probably used in the three- to six-month type 

of time frame before we have that completed to 

where we could, I guess, in a sense, talk more to the 

full work group as well as the Board about ICRP 116.

Dr. Mauro: Jim and Tim, this is John Mauro; I have 

just a quick question. Does this mean that when the 

dose reconstruction is actually done, you're going to 

use the real height of the real person? Because I 

noticed that there was a difference of opinion on what 

the generic height should be for these correction 

factors in 5762. With this new tool, does that mean 

it could be done on a case-by-case basis with a real 

person?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Taulbee: No. I don't think so. We would not need 

to account for the individual's height. We are using 
21

the standard man and standard female, so male and 

female would be broken out, whereas they are not 

now for these. But we will be using the ICRP 110, as 

Bob pointed out there, that has come out in the last 

several years. Mainly the voxel phantom that we've 

been modeling everything off of, as well as the ICRP 

116 when you did the dose conversion factors and 

added more organs to the listing that we currently 

have from ICRP 74. All of that is based upon those 

standard man and standard female phantoms.

Dr. Mauro: And just for my own edification, what 

heights are being used these days for the reference 

person in these standards?

Dr. Anigstein: Six feet, nine inches.

Mr. Taulbee: Five feet, nine inches.

Dr. Anigstein: I'm sorry, five feet, nine inches is the 

ICRP 89 model.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: However, if you are going back, that is 

not the average for the -- first of all, this came out in 

2002, and it was based on your generic Caucasians, 

Europeans and North Americans.

This is, however, not the U.S. average, which is --

I'm sorry. I just proved myself a liar. Just cancel what 

I just said. It happened to be the same as the 50th 

percentile.

Chair Beach: Okay. It sounds reasonable to wait until 

that new TIB comes out along with the ICRP 116. Paul 

or Loretta, any questions or comments?

Member Ziemer: Yes. I think it makes sense to delay 

that until we get the newer analysis. But I do want to 

ask Jim, is the issue of the location of the badge 

somehow taken into consideration in that case?

Dr. Neton: Yes, I talked with Tim about this 

yesterday, and I think the new approach we're using 

will allow us to vary the location of the badge, and 
22

we pick the highest, and the badge will give them a 

claimant-favorable value, whether it be centerline, 

lapel, or pocket or somewhere else.

Member Ziemer: You could do multiple calculations 

and pick out out the claimant-favorable ones.

Dr. Neton: Correct.

Mr. Taulbee: That is correct. We are currently 

modeling center mass, the pocket, as well as the 

collar. It will vary a little bit, depending upon the 

organ that is chosen, for example.

Member Ziemer: Exactly. What are we using now?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Taulbee: --- is in TIB-13

Member Ziemer: So we just stay with that until the 

new ones come. So that will take you think about 

three months?

Dr. Neton: I think three to six, yes.

Mr. Taulbee: Yes, that will be actually to where we 

can present them to the Board for the ICRP 116. Now, 

the rollout is going to be taking quite a bit longer than 

that. We're probably looking at a year to get it 

completely rolled out.

Dr. Neton: By the way, I might just add that this does 

not just affect the geometry correction factor. It will 

affect all of the dose conversion factors that we have 

currently been using that are in ICRP 74.

Member Ziemer: Oh, yes.

Dr. Neton: We will effectively end up with affecting 

almost all dose reconstructions.

Member Ziemer: Oh, wow.

Chair Beach: It's pretty big, yes.

Member Ziemer: Well, in any event, it doesn't make 
23

sense to change it now, just forget the value and then 

have to change it again in a few months.

Chair Beach: No, I agree. Loretta, do you have 

anything?

Member Valerio: No. The one question I had was 

more about what Paul had asked about the location 

of the badge.

Chair Beach: Okay. And then, Jim, can we expect --

can NIOSH write something up on this, just a brief 

what we've just discussed and what's happening just 

so we can update the BRS?

Dr. Neton: Yes, we can do that.

Chair Beach: Something simple? Okay.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Josie, do you want us to just write that 

into the BRS?

Chair Beach: Yes, if that would be okay.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Okay.

Chair Beach: Ted, are you in agreement with that?

Mr. Katz: Yes. I mean, that's what we should do for 

everything.

Chair Beach: Right.

Mr. Katz: After this meeting -- and, Tim, does the 

new TIB already have a number so we can look for 

that when it comes out?

Mr. Taulbee: Yes. Give me a few minutes to look that 

up, and I'll get back to you.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Yes, just better to be on our radar. 

And so a question to the Work Group, is this 

conceptually right and hence in abeyance for SC&A 

review, or otherwise?

Chair Beach: I don't know if we --
24

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Ziemer: Aren't we in progress rather than 

abeyance at this point?

Chair Beach: I think we still are, Ted, because we 

don't have any idea what it's going to look like right?

Mr. Katz: Okay. Well, normally in abeyance just 

means we conceptually agree with the path forward, 

and we want to see the actual product before we 

close it.

Chair Beach: We haven't really agreed -- or NIOSH 

hasn't agreed. They're just changing the 

methodology, so --

Mr. Katz: Okay. That's fine.

Mr. Taulbee: The new TIB would be OTIB-89.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Tim.

Ms. Behling: Excuse me, this is Kathy. Just for 

clarification, are we keeping this finding in progress 

or are we changing to in abeyance? I wasn't clear.

Mr. Katz: Keeping it in progress is what Josie just --

Ms. Behling: Okay. That's what I thought. Thank you.

Member Ziemer: This is the part -- I think in principle, 

once we have that new document, SC&A may have 

to take look at that too, before the Work Group gets 

it, right?

Mr. Katz: Yes, absolutely. It depends on the timing.

If the document isn't coming out for three or more 

months, I probably can't task it until after we have a 

new contract.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. Anything else on OTIB-13? And, 

Ted, I want to backtrack just a little bit. Earlier we 

were discussing the four items PROC-006. That 

actually has a new OTIB-88 attached. Is that 
25

something that we need to task SC&A to review also, 

when they're looking at these four, or is it a separate 

item? It's associated with 006.

Mr. Katz: Well, if we have a finding that they need to 

review --- we have to talk about it, we have to know 

the details --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Beach: And the document has been canceled 

and then the new document is OTIB-88. I just didn't 

want to leave that hanging if we have to task it.

Ms. Behling: Yes. This is Kathy again. In fact, Ted had 

asked me to look at that and to see if I would 

recommend to the Subcommittee whether it was 

necessary for us to review it. That is one that I 

definitely would suggest to Ted that we review, 

because as he said, it's superseding other documents 

and other findings associated with that. So I think at 

least SC&A would suggest that that be something 

that would be tasked in the future.

Chair Beach: Okay. But it's associated with 006, but 

we asked you to look at -- so that's my question to 

the Work Group. Do we need to task that in 

association with those four that they're going to close 

out?

Mr. Katz: Well, again, if we're going to task it, it 

needs to be finished in February -- before February -

- in February at least.

Chair Beach: Okay. I guess we can hear from Kathy 

after she looks at those four, if that's something that 

can be tasked and done before February. It was just 

part of that document.

Ms. Behling: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Josie, this is Lori. I wanted to make 

one correction. You refer to this document as OTIB13 and it's actually DCAS TIB-13. It's different.

Chair Beach: You're correct, thank you.
26

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is Kathy Behling again. Are 

we ready to move on, Josie?

Chair Beach: Yes. We're onto DCAS TIB-4, or ORAUTIB-4.

TIB-4: Maximum Dose at AWEs

Ms. Behling: Yes, ORAU-TIB-4. This is quite an old 

document; it's estimating the maximum plausible 

dose to workers at AWE facilities.

This document we had reviewed back in 2005, and 

there were two findings. Rose, can you take over the 

screen again? Okay. There are actually two findings.

I think initially when I put my table together I only 

had identified one. There was initially a Finding 2 

which said that the procedure was incomplete 

regarding required data, and Finding 6 that was still 

in abeyance regarding that the guidance wasn't 

claimant-favorable and instances of unknown 

parameters and also the breathing rate that was used 

for evaluating the intake.

This procedure has been canceled, and it's no longer 

used in the dose reconstruction process, and it's been 

superseded by other documents that have been 

approved for looking at internal doses -- looking at 

maximum doses at the AWE facilities. So in my 

opinion these two findings can be closed.

Chair Beach: Okay. Any discussion or questions on 

that, Loretta or Paul?

Member Valerio: No, I don't have any questions on 

this. So OTIB-004 will be closed because it's rolled 

over to other TIBs; is that correct?

Ms. Behling: That's correct.

Member Ziemer: Well, it's been superseded by other 

TIBs, so basically it didn't go anywhere, right?

Ms. Behling: That's correct.

Chair Beach: And so the BRS notification; will it 
27

indicate which document superseded it, or is that a 

necessary detail?

Ms. Behling: It will take a lot of extra work to go 

through that, but I can do that. Often there are now 

site-specific AWE facility methodologies, but there 

are other generic AWE methodologies. I could 

perhaps work with Lori and come up with a list.

Chair Beach: Is that necessary? I'm asking the 

Subcommittee.

Ms. Behling: Oh.

Chair Beach: It's nice to -- I mean, I think it's nice to 

have that in there in case you were looking for it, but 

I don't know if -- I'm asking people with more 

experience if that's necessary.

Dr. Mauro: This is John Mauro. I seem to recall OTIB33 may have been at least one of the documents; 

when you get away from this generic, very high 

airborne dust-loading that was used originally in 

OTIB-4 as a way of placing an upper bound for cases 

that were clearly non-compensable.

That's been removed, and I believe they have more 

realistic protocols. I believe one of them is OTIB-33 

which, at least in that case, it's based on maximum 

permissible concentration assumptions that would 

spin off that, which would tend to place an upper 

bound under certain circumstances.

So I guess I gave you half of an answer, because I 

seem to recall that particular strategy; replacing 

OTIB-4. I think there was one other one also, but I 

don't seem to remember.

Ms. Behling: OTIB-18.

Dr. Mauro: Thank you.

Mr. Allen: Josie, this is Dave Allen. In reality, OTIB-4 

was a complex wide overestimate for uranium 

metalworking facilities, and it's not used anymore. It 

was essentially in place until we could get some site 
28

research done on a lot of facilities. In reality it's been 

replaced by a number of TBDs, some TBD-6000 and 

any number of documents that we have site-specific 

information for now. It would be difficult to point to 

just a single document and say that's replaced it.

Chair Beach: Yes.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Member Ziemer: Yes, there is not a single document 

--

Chair Beach: -- have to do that extra work, then, 

Kathy. Thank you, though, for offering it up.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Member Ziemer: Yes, there's not a single document 

like this was before. There are multiple documents 

for various situations.

Ms. Behling: Yes, that is what I was alluding to.

Thank you, David.

Chair Beach: Okay. So we'll call both 2 and 4 closed 

due to other documents superseding ORAU-TIB-004.

Okay, we're ready to move on.

TIB-12: Monte Carlo Method

Ms. Behling: Okay, and I will update the BRS with 

that. The next item on the agenda is the ORAU-OTIB12, and this is a very similar situation. With the Monte 

Carlo methods for dose uncertainty calculations; 

something I would call an efficiency method that was 

used back -- we looked at this in 2007, and it's also 

one of these procedures that has been canceled. This 

efficiency method is no longer used. We can use other 

methods.

So again, the finding that had to do with -- the 

statistics were correct; however, the wording didn't 

necessarily reflect that. So again, I would 

recommend that we close this finding.
29

Chair Beach: Okay. Any discussion by Work Group 

members?

Member Ziemer: Well, is there any particular 

document that addresses this in a different way. In 

other words, is this covered by multiple documents 

like the previous situation, or is there a different 

document that deals with Monte Carlo methods for 

dose uncertainty?

Mr. Allen: Paul, this is Dave Allen. I might -- actually 

I can answer -- if Stu wants to. But if he doesn't want 

to, I will.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Go ahead, David.

Mr. Allen: Okay. OTIB-12 is essentially a shortcut of 

what is documented in other procedures, especially 

like IG-1, where we say we have a distribution for 

dose conversion factors, and it would be Monte 

Carlo'd together with a distribution for the dose. And 

the purpose of OTIB-12 was to essentially pre-run 

those Monte Carlo runs and create tables for, say, 

photon energy level and dosimetry and organ, and 

the dosimeter uncertainty, whether it was 5 percent, 

10 percent, etc.

So all that was done ahead of time, and then you 

could just pull numbers out of a table and put it into 

your calculations. Since that time, the tools that we 

use have used at risk that can do the Monte Carlo for 

an individual case, and it's no longer necessary.

Member Ziemer: Okay, yes, thanks.

Chair Beach: Okay. That makes sense, so ORAUOTIB-0012, finding 1 is closed. And SC&A will update 

BRS.

TIB-27: Supplementary External Dose Information 

for Rocky Flats

Ms. Behling: Correct. And we'll move on then to 

ORAU-OTIB-0027, and Ron Buchanan will take that 

finding.
30

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. This is Ron Buchanan, SC&A.

And, again, to give a little background, OTIB-27 was 

a supplement to the Rocky Flats TBD early on in 

2005. So we're going back a few years here.

And it had to do with, according to our finding in that 

particular evaluation, was the energy of the photon 

doses, what you should use for different 

radionuclides, and it gave a Table 6.10, which broke 

it down to depleted uranium, enriched uranium, and

plutonium. And our question at that time, well, what 

do you use if those don't fit the category?

Now, that has -- the Rocky Flats TBD external 

document has been revised several times. Revision 1 

was in 2007, February, and the Revision 2 came out 

in August of 2007, and then Revision 2 PC-1 came 

out in 2010, which I believe is the current revision, 

and in that it includes that table.

And so I guess the point now is, does the -- this 

Subcommittee want to continue this or transfer it to 

the Rocky Flats Work Group?

Chair Beach: Good question.

Mr. Katz: So, Josie, this normally would be -- this 

normally would be, since it's just a site profile issue, 

Rocky Flats is normally -- I mean, we have a Work 

Group for that. This would be what they would 

address.

Chair Beach: Correct. You're right.

Mr. Katz: Yeah.

Chair Beach: So I --

Member Ziemer: We had sort of a protocol when we 

made the transfer. This looks like one of those. And 

if you do that, I don't know if we still do this, but we 

artfully tried to formalize it by having the 

Subcommittee kind of formally request that the work 

take something of that sort, a formal handoff of the 

baton as it were.
31

Mr. Katz: Yeah. You normally send an email to the --

to the Chair just referencing it.

Chair Beach: Okay. And I'll make a note that I need 

to do that. 

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Beach: And if I need any help with the wording, 

I'll get with Ron on that.

Mr. Katz: Sure. And

that's Dave Kotelchuck.

Chair Beach: Right. Okay. And I was thinking Ron 

Buchanan, if I needed any -- okay. So I will take that 

on.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Josie.

Mr. Hinnefeld: If I might offer an additional item 

about this. This finding is open on this TIB. This is 

Stu, I'm sorry, by the way. The finding that is open 

on this TIB has to do with a perceived essentially 

insufficient guidance in the site profile that the dose 

reconstructor may not have readily available, so they 

don't have the right guidance to choose I think it was 

spectral information. I forget if it's neutron or photon 

but spectral --

Dr. Buchanan: Photon.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Okay. So which of these spectra and 

distributions should you use? And, I mean, I have the 

correct guidance, and so it's largely, I'd say, a 

wording of the -- of the site profile or the TIB finding.

Well, by now in this program, we know that a dose 

reconstructor doesn't look at a TIB as he does the 

dose reconstruction. He has a tool, dose 

reconstruction tool for that site. And so I think a part 

of the evaluation, or the definitive part of the 

evaluation should be, does the Rocky Flats tool 

provide sufficient guidance -- in its guidance?
32

Is that sufficient, so dose reconstructors make the 

same choice all the time, rather than to try to fiddle 

with the words in this -- in this TIB.

Does that make sense to other people?

Dr. Buchanan: Well, the question was, on Table 6.10, 

if the worker was exposed to something besides the 

three radionuclides listed there, what does -- what 

photon energy assignment does the dose 

reconstructor use? That was the bottom line.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Right. And my point is that the dose 

reconstructor isn't going to be looking at this TIB as 

they do the dose reconstruction. They are going to 

be looking at their options in the tool. And so the 

evaluation of the tool to me is the important part of 

resolving this question.

Mr. Katz: Right. That makes perfect sense.

Chair Beach: And, Ron, are you following that? Are 

you --

Dr. Buchanan: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Hinnefeld: None of this gets in the way of 

transferring it to Rocky Flats. I just think that should 

be the issue that --

Mr. Katz: Right. Right. So that will get captured when 

Ron helps Josie with writing this up for -- for Dave.

Yeah. Thanks Stu.

Chair Beach: All right. Ron, we'll talk after.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Marion-Moss: This is Lori. I have a question about 

protocol when we're transferring items to -- or issues 

to other Work Groups. How are we -- what's the 

protocol for closing out those items once they resolve 
33

it in the other Work Groups?

Mr. Katz: Right. So -- this is Ted. So the protocol is 

the Work Group that receives it is supposed to close 

it, and they can -- this will go -- it will be closed. It 

will be in effect closed under the Procedure 

Subcommittee and the BRS. It will be opened as a --

as a finding in the Rocky Flats portion of the BRS, and 

then they would close it there.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Okay. So do we physically want to 

transfer this finding --

Chair Beach: Yes.

Ms. Marion-Moss: -- from OTIB-27 to the Rocky Flats 

Work Group?

Mr. Katz: We do. Production -- and that -- that will 

just be an element of Josie -- to go along with Josie's 

notes, yeah. That's a good point, Lori, if you would 

just -- if you could leave that over, that works.

Ms. Marion-Moss: I'll work with SC&A to get that done 

once we're ready.

Chair Beach: And I think I've seen other ones where 

it says, instead of saying "in progress," it says 

"transferred." And then it's got a nice arrow, so --

and then a comment that it was transferred to -- and 

where it was transferred.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. I've seen that, too.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy again. I'm sorry. When 

we're talking about that, when I compiled that table 

of open and closed and in abeyance type items, when 

I came to transfer to another Work Group, I 

considered that closed in the Subcommittee. Is that 

correct?

Chair Beach: Right.

Ms. Behling: Okay.
34

Mr. Katz: Yes. That sounds good.

TIB-29: Coworker Data for Y-12

Ms. Behling: Very good. Okay. If we're ready to move 

on. The next item on the agenda is the ORAU-OTIB0029, and that's internal dosimetry co-worker data 

for Y-12. 

Now, the finding that is identified here is this finding 

associated with people submitting urine samples on 

Monday morning, and whether that 48-hour delay 

time was considered in assessing these values.

And I -- we reached out to Joyce Lipzstein. She was 

the one that initially had this finding, and she is on 

vacation right now. So she did send a note back to us 

indicating that, even though I was under the 

impression that this topic was discussed maybe not 

under OTIB-29 but in other arenas and had somehow 

been resolved.

Joyce is saying that with regard to the internal 

dosimetry co-worker data at Y-12, it -- she feels that 

Attachment B still does not take into account this 

Monday morning sampling schedule, and that that 

would result in an underestimation of doses for 

Solubility Type S, up to an order of four times lower, 

and Type N and Type S would be about two times 

lower.

So what I would suggest is that perhaps we carry this 

over to the next meeting when Joyce is available to 

explain this in more detail.

Dr. Mauro: Yeah. This is John Mauro. Just a little bit 

more information that might be helpful in focusing in 

on the issue. The last discussion we had had to do 

with the position was, well, the Monday morning grab 

sample is not entirely a correct representation of 

what has transpired at the weapons complex.

It was more like the samples were collected 

throughout the week and not necessarily always on a 

Monday morning. And as a result, it sort of buffered 
35

or blunted the nature of the issue.

And so we're -- as I understand it, where we left it is 

there was a bit of disagreement regarding whether or 

not the standard practice, sort of almost universally, 

was -- you know, the person is continually exposed 

during the week, and then the weekend comes, he is 

not exposed, and then a grab sample -- a urine 

sample and a grab sample is taken on a Monday 

morning.

And that's one perspective. That's the one that was 

our understanding, and that would have that effect 

that you just described, Kathy. The alternative is 

that, no, it really wasn't like that. It was more of a -

- a lot more samples collected throughout the 

process, not just on Monday morning.

And that may help focus the resolution of this and the 

degree to which one practice versus the other 

practice was standard practice. I just wanted to add 

that in because that was a little bit more information 

to help us understand the nature of the issue.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks, John. And to go back 

through the BRS, this finding goes back several years 

and we have had discussions on it. I just wonder if 

NIOSH has got any comments before we carry it 

over, or any perspective on the finding -- on finding 

4.

Ms. Brackett: This is Liz Brackett with the ORAU 

team. I was looking at the BRS also, and what it says, 

the last thing, is we have -- we did look at the 

samples from the days of the weeks that they were 

collected, and we said that 40 percent or more of the 

samples were not collected on Mondays.

And we had presented that information, according to 

the BRS, but the response back from the Work Group

was that we needed to demonstrate that the intake 

rates resulting from 40 percent not collected on 

Mondays were not substantially different from the 

intake rates that are currently in the OTIBs.
36

So that seems to be where it was left, according to 

the BRS and --

Chair Beach: Yeah. And that was my concern, that -

- just waiting for Joyce just kind of puts this off a little 

bit more. Was there any answer from SC&A to 

NIOSH's -- what Liz just commented on?

Dr. Mauro: This is John. I guess my recollection is 

that, no, that -- we haven't taken a position on that 

-- that matter I just described on this.

Dr. Neton: Yeah. This is Jim. I think there -- it's a 

little more complicated than that. I don't think that 

we actually ever provided a formal White Paper that 

demonstrated this 40 percent sampling rate. I think 

if we brought it up in a discussion saying that that 

was our -- our impression in looking at the data. But 

I don't know that we ever formally transmitted an 

analysis.

Ms. Brackett: Right. That's the -- the BRS says that 

that -- it left it as we were to demonstrate that that 

--

Dr. Neton: Right. And so I think -- I think the ball is 

really in our court on this one.

Chair Beach: Okay. And that's kind of what I was 

wondering, too. So --

Dr. Neton: Yeah. But there's a lot of other issues that 

have evolved since that time. You know, we now 

have a more -- we have this approach for a co-worker 

model that we may need to go back and relook at the 

data anyway. And this is also -- the site is also likely 

to be an SEC all the way through 1976 after the next 

board meeting. We'll recommending an 83.14 to add.

That doesn't necessarily obviate the need for a coworker model, but --

Chair Beach: Right.

Dr. Neton: -- clearly, the metabolic cancers would 

end up getting paid anyway. But I do think that we 
37

need to go back and do this analysis more formally 

and present it, so that we can get it back on the table, 

because I -- I looked really hard. I couldn't find any 

documentation that we actually submitted anything 

in writing on this -- on this issue.

Member Ziemer: Well, the OTIB has been canceled, 

though, has it, or --

Dr. Neton: The OTIB has been canceled, but the coworker model has been entirely put into the Y-12 TIB, 

the internal dose TIB.

Member Ziemer: Well, the --

Dr. Neton: So there is no difference there.

Member Ziemer: Does the finding sort of get 

transferred into that, then? I mean, you still have to 

take a look and answer the question of how you --

Dr. Neton: You know, that's a good point. In a sense, 

it becomes a TIB issue. I mean, a site profile issue.

And I don't know whether -- there is no Y-12 Work 

Group, if you will, to evaluate it. So I don't know what 

the Subcommittee would want to do with that.

Chair Beach: Then the Subcommittee keeps it; is that 

correct, Ted?

Mr. Katz: That's right. That's exactly right. The 

Subcommittee was going to keep Y-12, since we 

don't have a Work Group anymore to deal with that.

Dr. Neton: And that's fine.

Dr. Mauro: Jim, this is John. Quick question. Does 

this issue -- it sounds like one of those issues that 

could have application through more than Y-12.

Dr. Neton: Yeah. I think this came up in more than 

one site. Hanford comes to mind maybe. There was 

a few other instances where Monday morning 

sampling was --

Ms. Brackett: We actually had a paper on Harshaw, 
38

because this came up there. And what happened 

there is when you start looking -- when you adjust 

for the five days of intake, two days off, then you 

have to look at all of the days. And so like Fridays 

you're over -- you're overestimating, some days 

you're underestimating, so it all kind of came out in 

the wash. And I know we're going to have to do 

something similar for Y-12, but we have addressed 

this at other sites.

Chair Beach: So maybe you need to put that paper 

together for the Work Group, then.

Dr. Neton: Yeah. The interesting thing, we have a lot 

of data on Y-12. I think my -- I looked this week and 

we have about a half a million bioassay samples.

Chair Beach: Wow.

Dr. Neton: It might be more than that. I saw, like, 

497,000. Anyway, there is a lot of data.

Chair Beach: Okay. So we just punted this back to 

NIOSH to create a White Paper for this finding 4; is 

that correct? And is that --

Member Ziemer: How is this going to be carried along 

in the -- in the --

Chair Beach: It sounds like it will stay in progress.

Member Ziemer: Well, I mean, it -- if the OTIB has 

been canceled, do we still carry it on the books?

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Let's not. How about let's put that --

let's put this on the TBD for Y-12, or whatever it is.

If it's part of the TBD, be it co-worker or however, 

put it on there as a finding. And also, if we could just 

note, you know, put some annotation in there, so 

that it's clear what we decided in this discussion, that 

there would be the White Paper.

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is Kathy. I can do that.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Katy.
39

Chair Beach: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

So then it will closed here or will it be transferred?

Mr. Katz: Yeah. It's closed here. But, I mean, it stays 

with the Procedure Subcommittee. It's just that it --

then we'd be tracking it on the right documents.

Chair Beach: Okay. So if we transfer it, then we can 

-- we can point it to a new document. If we just close 

it, I guess we could write it up and say where it's at, 

so either way.

Mr. Katz: You don't even need to, because you'll have 

-- you'll be tracking that other document, so it's not 

even really a worry. You can just close it here, move 

it however.

Chair Beach: Okay. So closing comment.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. And we'll have the finding for this --

for another document. That's all. But it will be a 

procedures document anyway.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Okay. I'm confused. This is Lori.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So -- Lori, so we're going to -- if you 

don't have it under the procedures right now, the 

appropriate TBD for Y-12 will be under procedures for 

this finding to be reviewed -- resolved.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Okay. I got you now.

Mr. Katz: Does that make sense?

Ms. Marion-Moss: Yes. 

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Okay.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Are we ready to move on?

Chair Beach: Yes.
40

TIB-33: Application of Internal Dose Assumptions 

for Best Estimates

Ms. Behling: Okay. Now, let me see if I can make 

some sense out of this next -- ORAU-OTIB-0033. This 

OTIB is application of internal doses based on 

claimant favorable assumptions for processing best 

estimates. That's the title of this OTIB.

There is a -- what I will call a companion OTIB, which 

is OTIB-18, that usually the two of them work 

together. OTIB-18 is -- let me get you the title --

internal dose overestimates for facilities with air 

sampling programs.

Now, OTIB-18 is a very conservative approach to 

internal dose assessment. And what had happened or 

happened in the past -- and, again, I would probably 

have to call on Liz to help me with this -- but OTIB33 allows the dose reconstructor to have a grade --

it introduces a grading approach or reducing the 

doses that would initially be assigned by OTIB-18.

The finding that we had back in 2007 is that there is 

a considerable amount of judgment that is required 

by the reviewer in assigning workers to a given 

exposure category and determining how best to use 

co-worker data in perform -- performing missed dose 

calculations. 

And there was -- I went back to several transcripts, 

and there was an initial discussion -- and this is when 

Mark Griffon was on the board -- and there was some 

questions initially about -- about a particular site, 

how do you determine that a particular site had a 

robust air sampling program under OTIB-18.

I believe Stu had mentioned that they would try to 

find additional information from the site authors, and 

then there was additional information at -- under 

another Work Group -- Subcommittee meeting, 

which talked about that, really, OTIB-33, even 

though the title indicates it's a best estimate type of 

procedure, it does -- it's not used to compensate. It's 

used only for denial.
41

I know at one point in time we had discussed 

changing the title of this OTIB, so that it was more 

clear, not that that is -- is, you know, a pressing issue 

at this point.

So I -- at this point, the finding, it still exists.

Apparently, Mark Griffon was going to make some 

comments about the OTIB and some questions that 

he had thereafter, and that didn't happen.

So I think the best resolution for this particular 

finding is maybe to hear from NIOSH, and perhaps 

Liz can enlighten us on -- regarding how often is this 

procedure really used today, and to confirm that this 

procedure does not -- you do not use this to 

compensate. Is that reasonable?

Ms. Brackett: Yeah. I don't know. If you're looking 

for me to answer, I am -- I'm sorry, I didn't look at 

this finding before the call. So I'm not up to speed on 

the finding, but this is not used for compensation.

There was a brief period of time when it was used for 

that when it was written, but it's only used for 

overestimates and has been for a number of years 

now. And I think it's used pretty frequently, although 

I -- I couldn't give you any idea of how often that is.

Chair Beach: This is used frequently, you said?

Ms. Brackett: Yes, I believe it is.

Chair Beach: And SC&A recommended closing it back 

in 2008. We left it open for comments to allow Mark 

Griffon, like you said, Kathy. So, gosh, yeah, where 

does that leave us now? Because we don't have --

Mr. Hinnefeld: This is Stu, if I could speak just a little 

bit here. I spent some time looking at transcripts of 

this, and Mark wasn't actually the person who asked 

for more time to consider whether it should be closed 

or not. It appears that Mark left that meeting before 

this discussion came up, because Mike Gibson was 

the member who said he thought Mark would want to 

look at this more. Mark never really opined on that.
42

At the next meeting, Wanda pointed out to Mark that 

this particular finding had been held for him to opine 

on, and he said, "Oh, gee, I hadn't realized. I didn't 

realize that." And so he hadn't done anything at that 

meeting. That was like an October meeting.

And then the following meeting, which was in 

December that same year, it wasn't discussed. So it 

kind of vanished. To me, I don't see any particular 

reason to keep this open. You know, SC&A 

recommended we close. No one currently on the 

board, and even Mark, didn't really have any 

particular findings, you know, any reason to -- to wait 

to close that. So I don't see any reason why this 

shouldn't be closed.

Chair Beach: Okay. I have to agree with you. Is there 

anything more background that we should review?

Paul, were you on the board at -- were you on the 

Subcommittee at that time, and do you have any 

comments on this?

Member Ziemer: Well, yes, I was on the board at that 

time. I don't -- I don't honestly recall the details on 

that. The only question I would have now is, the 

nature of the wording in the -- it doesn't make clear 

what the problem is, other than it says a lot of 

judgment is required by the reviewer, but is that 

inherently bad? Or are they saying you could allow 

that much freedom of judgment to be present?

Ms. Behling: Okay. And this is Kathy Behling again.

The wording in OTIB-33 is that it allows for applying 

a graded approach. And the judgment comes in 

regarding the category for the individual workers, 

and they have exposure potential, such as seldomly 

exposed, intermediately exposed.

And so I believe that's the genesis of the questioning 

about how much judgment is required for applying 

this OTIB-33. And it was a more essential or a more 

important question back at the time when we were 

under the assumption that this was a procedure that 

was used to both deny and to compensate. So --
43

Dr. Mauro: Yeah. Kathy, this is John. I'd like to 

reiterate that I was surprised to hear that this was 

only used to deny. I thought it was put in place as a 

way -- because if you had good information on the 

operations -- and I recall the way in which it worked, 

graded, was keyed back to what at that time was 

called maximum permissible concentrations.

And so I guess -- you know, I certainly accept if it's 

being used for denial only. That's fine. But I was 

surprised to hear that.

Ms. Behling: In fact, I believe when it was initially --

and correct me if I'm wrong, NIOSH -- when it was 

initially published, it was published in order to do best 

estimate cases, and it was used to compensate.

However, since then, it is no longer -- that is no 

longer the case. Perhaps there should be a change to 

this procedure to indicate that this -- first of all, 

change the title, and then also indicate in here that 

this is -- this approach is only an efficiency approach 

that is used to deny. Does that make --

Dr. Mauro: I have to say, in my -- in my opinion, just 

to give you my -- just as a health physicist, the 

approach that was taken in 33 seemed to be a 

reasonable approach for dealing with reality for a 

best estimate. And it may be certainly claimantfavorable, but not so over the top that one would only 

limit it to denials. I'm just offering that as a think 

piece.

Chair Beach: Okay. So I don't know if that helped me, 

though.

Member Ziemer: Is it still used?

Chair Beach: Paul?

Member Ziemer: Is it still used? Is it still used?

Chair Beach: I thought Liz -- Liz just said it was used.

Ms. Brackett: Yes. It is still used.
44

Chair Beach: And it has not been updated since this 

-- this original finding was put in place?

Ms. Brackett: No. It is still Rev 00, 2005.

Chair Beach: NIOSH, Kathy made some comments 

on changing the name, things like that. Is that 

something that you would consider, or what -- what 

is your thoughts on that?

Ms. Marion-Moss: This is Lori. I would say that we 

can evaluate it and get back with the Committee to 

determine whether or not any changes are warranted 

at this point in time in terms of the title or an update.

Chair Beach: Okay. Do you need anything specific 

from the Work Group or the Subcommittee on that, 

Lori?

Ms. Marion-Moss: I would say if Kathy can update the 

BRS reflecting what she said today, and NIOSH will 

respond.

Ms. Behling: Yes, I can do that.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: This is Ted. But I guess I'm not clear. It 

seems like SC&A previously recommended this to be 

closed, this is just now a question of how we title our 

documents, not its use or its correctness. So it seems 

like we can close it and get this off of the 

Subcommittee's table, because it doesn't seem 

worthwhile.

Ms. Behling: I guess the only other thing that seems 

to make sense to me is, even if the title is changed, 

typically there is some wording put into these OTIBs 

that it should only be used to deny.

So if it's still being used, wouldn't you think that's 

something that should be included into the OTIB?

Mr. Katz: Yeah. And just to be clear, I wasn't making 

any comment about whether -- whatever wording is 

appropriate to chastise you. That all seems fine. But 
45

the practice isn't a problem, it sounds like, and so 

that's what I was saying. We still can get this off the 

Subcommittee's table. We don't need this to carry 

this thing on.

Ms. Behling: I agree.

Ms. Marion-Moss: I agree as well.

Ms. Behling: The only question I have is, then, how 

do we follow through to ensure that this --

Mr. Katz: Well, I mean, we're not -- we can make 

that correction, and we can disclose this to the 

Subcommittee.

Chair Beach: Yeah. If we're comfortable closing the 

nature of the finding, I think the rest of it just falls on 

NIOSH.

Paul, how do you feel? Are you comfortable with 

closing this?

Member Ziemer: Well, I guess I'm willing to close it.

It still puzzles me as to what really is -- the real intent 

of the finding is, I mean, other than stating -- yeah, 

there is a lot of judgment here. What they have in 

mind is somebody demonstrating that -- that 

reconstructors are correctly using their judgment on 

dose reconstructions.

But if that's the case, we were looking at that sort of 

overhaul anyway, right? After Mark's original paper, 

looking at --

Chair Beach: Yeah. I agree with you. But what I'm 

seeing in the findings and the reason for closure isn't 

really clear. I know SC&A, John Mauro, agrees with 

NIOSH's response, but if you look through the table, 

there is -- there is nothing attached, so it's very 

difficult to go back and see what they're actually 

agreeing to.

Dr. Neton: Yeah. This is Jim. I think this issue has 

come up in many, many different forms related to 

using professional judgment and how much exposure 
46

to assign to a person. And we've gone through this -

- in the use of the co-worker model, for example, 

whether you use the 50th percentile or whether you 

use the 95th percentile of distribution, this is exactly 

that sort of issue.

And it always comes up, well, is professional 

judgment involved? And we always say yes, there is, 

but there's a lot of tools available to the person doing 

dose reconstruction to use their professional -- in 

forming that professional judgment decision.

So I think this issue has come up many times, and 

we've put it to bed numerous times.

Chair Beach: Yeah. And, Jim, I don't disagree with 

that. I just think the BRS needs to be clearer, so we 

can follow it, and what was agreed upon and how it 

was agreed upon, because if you're just going back 

and looking at the BRS, it's not clear, what SC&A 

agreed to or the reasons for closure and then leaving 

it open because we had more questions, but then the 

questions were never asked. So --

Member Ziemer: Well, you know, if they were saying 

that dose reconstructors were not properly using the 

-- or making the right judgments or something like 

that. A finding that they have to use judgments, to 

me that's not a finding. It's just -- you know, yeah, 

they do have to use a lot of judgment. What's the 

finding there? Are they doing it wrong, or what?

That's what I'm wondering.

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is --

Member Ziemer: I think there will be trouble even 

agreeing that it really is a finding.

Ms. Behling: Okay. This is Kathy Behling, and 

perhaps I can explain this, because early on I 

remember when looking at OTIB-33 in different dose 

reconstructions, in some cases the dose 

reconstructor would use this graded approach by 

saying, "Okay. We're going to assume that he only 

worked half of the employment period that the 
47

individual actually worked."

In other cases, they would -- they would reduce the 

MPC hours or -- and do different -- they used 

different approaches. It wasn't consistent the way 

that it is going without regarding --

Member Ziemer: Yeah. That's what I was looking for.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Member Ziemer: You know, the timing is really lack 

of consistency, but that's --

Ms. Behling: Yeah.

Member Ziemer: -- you have to use judgment, but 

that's -- there's a lack of consistency in how it's used.

Ms. Behling: Yes. I -- early on, I personally saw that 

in different dose reconstructions, is the approach that 

was used to grade -- you know, to grade -- apply a 

grading factor here.

Member Ziemer: Yeah. And, in practice, if you 

wanted to solve that issue, to close it, you'd have to 

develop some method for assuring that there is 

consistency. And I think we've done a lot, not just on 

this particular document, but overall in finding clear 

consistency on judgment, you were sort of 

addressing that anyway, but that's wider than this 

particular document.

The judgments occur all the time. We've had a lot of 

discussion on it.

Ms. Behling: And we're addressing that in another --

in another Work Group as well right now.

Member Ziemer: Exactly. Exactly.

Dr. Mauro: Paul, this is John Mauro one more time.

Using it only for denial, I understand that the issue 

can be closed, but I just have a higher level. You see, 

it seems to me that if you're in a situation where 

you're making a judgment, and you decide that --
48

what you want to use, and, remember, you're making 

this judgment to ensure yourself that you're placing 

-- you can deny.

It almost opens up a door, well, what do you do when 

you can't? That puts you into SEC territory. In other 

words, what is your alternative then? If it turns out 

you cannot use this, which I always felt was a 

reasonable way to place a plausible upper bound, 

given the construct of the overall set of protocols, I 

guess it's 18 and 33.

Doesn't this open you up to taking one tool out of 

your box to be able to address issues related to 

SECs? You no longer can use this as a way to 

reconstruct doses, only to deny.

So I guess I'm raising just a little higher level 

question of whether or not you really want to do that 

to this procedure, which seems to be a perfectly good 

procedure for reconstructing doses under the right 

circumstances, and using appropriate judgment.

But to limit it only to denials seems to be doing a 

disservice to this procedure. I don't know if anyone 

wants to react to that.

Dr. Neton: John, I think you're confusing what we're 

doing here. I think you -- this is part of the efficiency 

process. And I would say it's sort of a better --

best/better/good type estimate situation where you 

use the efficiency process, and if it's -- you know, you 

can do a very high estimate, and if a person is not 

contestable, you're done.

This procedure -- in my opinion, this allows you to do 

a slightly more refined estimate but not go all the 

way to a full-blown individual dose analysis estimate 

and still deny the person. It's a time-saving device.

Dr. Mauro: Okay. And if that's how you plan to use 

it, that's fine. I'm just saying that it seems to me that 

it -- you only could use it, though, to deny. And I was 

surprised to hear that, given that --
49

Dr. Neton: Yeah. And you've got to look at the 

timeframe when this was developed. I forget what 

year it was issued, way back in 2005 maybe, where 

we didn't have a lot of co-worker models, you know, 

a lot of the sites weren't fully developed, so I -- I 

don't know that -- Liz says this is used a lot. I'm 

surprised to hear her say that because, given that we 

have full co-worker models of all of these tools 

developed now, I don't know how often this would 

actually be used. We can research that a little bit, 

but, again, this was developed in a timeframe when 

co-worker models weren't much in existence, and it 

was still an overestimate but a better estimate.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Dr. Neton: And you could deny the process claims, 

you know, through the system.

Chair Beach: Is this one on the radar to be reviewed 

or to be -- I guess not canceled, but is it up for 

reviews coming up?

Dr. Neton: I'm not sure what you mean by "review."

It's -- we're discussing that, because it's a SC&A 

review of the procedure, but --

Chair Beach: No, no. I meant the OTIB to be updated.

Dr. Neton: Well, I don't believe it's on any schedule 

at the current time.

Chair Beach: I was just curious if it was.

Member Ziemer: Well, I think at this point there is no 

reason we shouldn't just close this. I don't see what 

we would do by keeping it open. I mean, what would 

be the -- what would be the -- what would you be 

asking for if you didn't close it?

Ms. Brackett: I am being told by folks who know 

better than I that this is not used a lot anymore. My 

interest came from people asking me questions. But 

the people who deal with the dose reconstructors say 

this is not used extensively anymore.
50

Member Ziemer: We don't -- we don't lose anything 

by just closing this item anyway; do we? I mean --

Chair Beach: No. The only thing we could do is ask 

NIOSH to give us some examples, and I don't know 

if that's --

Member Ziemer: I don't know if that's worth doing 

even at this point.

Chair Beach: -- if that's worthwhile either. So I think 

I am in agreement to close it. Paul and Loretta?

Member Valerio: Yeah. I'm in agreement to just close 

it. And we're just closing the finding, so, I mean --

Chair Beach: That's what I'm finding in this -- in this 

TIB.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. And we are still discussing 

judgment and -- so that -- that subject is ongoing.

Okay. So we are in agreement to close finding 1 in 

OTIB-0033.

Member Ziemer: Right.

Chair Beach: Okay. All right. So what is your 

pleasure? It's lunch time. Do you want to try to go 

through a couple more or break for lunch? I'm just 

talking about you East Coasters.

Ms. Behling: This is your call.

Chair Beach: It is not my call. It is 10:00 here. Would 

you --

Mr. Katz: I'm good with breaking now. I mean, 

because it's sort of arbitrary, it doesn't really matter 

the time to --

Chair Beach: No, it doesn't. Okay. So break for an 

hour until 1:15. Well, 12:15? Yeah. 12:15 east time.
51

Ms. Behling: If I can just ask David Allen a question.

Where can I find a Norton template? If it's -- if it's 

within a dose reconstruction, can you just email me?

Mr. Allen: I will double-check, but I think Lori 

attached it to the finding 3.

Chair Beach: She did. She attached it to 3.

Ms. Behling: Okay. You'll find it on finding 3.

Chair Beach: Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay. So we'll break -- so 1:15, is that --

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Sounds good.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, everyone.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 12:47 p.m. and resumed at 1:15 p.m.)

PER-59: Norton Company (continued)

Chair Beach: Okay. So, Kathy, let's go back. Did you 

get a chance to look at the Norton PER-059?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I did. And I did confirm that Finding 

2, which had to do with the fact that some of the air 

samples were in the residual period, not all of them 

were from the operational period, was text added to 

a paragraph saying "operational and post-operational 

period just samples were used". And so, that corrects 

that finding.

And the second finding had to do with a 

miscalculation of the long-lived alpha emitters, and 

that was corrected by making changes to all of the 

inhalation and ingestion values in the annual uranium 

intake rates during the residual period table. So, I did 

confirm that, our findings, which that was addressed.

Chair Beach: Okay. So it's clear, then, we've already 

closed 1. If there is any discussion, of course, we can 
52

have that. Finding 2 and Finding 3, I estimate that 

those can be closed also, based on the addition to the 

template for Norton, is that correct?

Ms. Behling: That's correct from my perspective.

Chair Beach: Okay. Any discussion, Paul or Loretta?

Member Ziemer: None from me. It looks fine.

Chair Beach: Okay. And then, we will address OTIB88 at a later timeframe. I think, Kathy, you already 

have that as a recommendation to review?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I do have that recommendation, 

and I think we'll discuss that a little bit later also.

Chair Beach: Okay. Sounds great. So, we are closing 

all three findings with PER-059.

TIB-60: Internal Dose Reconstruction

And then, the next one we're looking at is OTIB-60.

We discussed that this morning. It's part of that 

group that NIOSH sent over with the transfers.

Ms. Behling: Correct.

Chair Beach: This version was posted on October 

24th. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at 

that, Kathy, or if you need to read that.

Ms. Behling: I have looked at that. When I was 

preparing, I realized that there was a new version 

available.

And OTIB-60 is an internal dose reconstruction OTIB.

And the finding, what it boils down to, the finding 

really had to do with some confusion with terms that 

were being used and an inconsistency in terms, such 

as "better fit," "reasonable fit," "satisfactory fit," and 

some of the descriptions that were used to describe 

measurement errors. And it was recommended that 

maybe we be a little bit more consistent and use 

terms such as "underestimation," "overestimation," 

"best estimate". And I read through the new OTIB, 
53

and all of those changes have been made and 

everything seems to be much more clear.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, is that a recommendation, 

then, to close Finding 2?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. Any discussion?

Member Ziemer: Agree to close.

Member Valerio: I agree to close, Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay. And this is Josie. I also agree to 

close.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I think it's an observation rather than 

a finding to close, but yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. And I will change that to 

observation also.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Josie, this is Lori. I can't hear you.

You sound faint.

Chair Beach: Okay. I'll put the phone closer. Is that 

better?

Ms. Marion-Moss: Yes, that sounds better.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks for letting me know.

Ms. Marion-Moss: I also have a question. Kathy, will 

you be closing these in the BRS?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I was planning on it, unless you 

prefer to do that.

Ms. Marion-Moss: No, I do not. Thank you.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: And before we move on, Kathy, if you 

go down to 0060-06, it doesn't say "closed". It 

actually says, "addressed in finding," and that's an 

unusual term. So, is that something we need to 
54

change or address?

Ms. Behling: What happens sometimes is that we 

identify a finding that is discussed in more detail 

maybe in another finding. And it actually may come 

across as being two separate findings, where it 

should have been maybe one.

In this particular case, if that is saying "addressed in 

another finding," I'll change that, but I will make this 

closed.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes, there are a few of those, Kathy.

Ms. Behling: There are a few of those in this OTIB?

Mr. Katz: Well, not necessarily this OTIB. I just 

noticed in some outgoing materials that there were a 

few of those.

Ms. Behling: Yes, early on, that happened more 

frequently than it does now.

Mr. Katz: Yes, yes. Okay.

Chair Beach: Okay, and we can address those as we 

go. Or if you just get bored someday and you want 

to just go through this -- anyway, I'm just kidding.

(Laughter.)

Okay.

PR 3: Performing and Reporting Dose 

Reconstruction

Ms. Behling: Good. And then, if we want to move on, 

next on the list is OCAS-PR-003. And again, this was 

an older document. We looked at it back in 2005. And 

the procedure is actually performing and reporting 

dose reconstruction.

Now the finding was that the procedure is ambiguous 

regarding individuals who are responsible for the 

various steps in the dose reconstruction process.
55

Again, this procedure has been cancelled, and the 

information in this procedure was superseded by 

PROC-6, which is the external dose reconstruction 

procedure. And we had looked at that, and we felt 

that our concerns about the ambiguity were 

addressed in PROC-6.

Now, I will make mention that OTIB-88 that we've 

just been discussing about, that is going to make this 

PROC-6, the external dose reconstruction turn from 

a procedure into an OTIB. And so, I'm not sure what 

other changes were made in that, but it includes 

updated dose reconstruction approaches and also 

mentions that the change from the PROC to the OTIB 

includes comments submitted by the Subcommittee 

on Procedures Review.

So, again, I'm thinking that perhaps OTIB-88 would 

be recommended for us to look at or for someone to 

look at.

Chair Beach: Okay. Is that something that can be 

done prior to February?

Ms. Behling: I would think so, yes. I think this is 

going to be -- we're familiar with the PROC-6 and, 

also, PROC-60. And so, I don't think that should be a 

difficulty to review.

Chair Beach: Okay. I'm going with tasking that, Ted.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't?

Mr. Katz: No, no, that's fine. It's not really a whole 

new review at all.

Ms. Behling: Correct.

Chair Beach: Okay, so be it.

And then, any discussion on closing the finding out 

on PR-003, Finding 1?

Member Ziemer: Well, I agree that we should close 

it. The document has been cancelled anyway, but in 

the record we should show that closed, I guess.
56

Chair Beach: Okay. And, Loretta, if you have no 

concerns, we'll consider this closed.

Ms. Behling: Okay, it's closed.

Okay. Then, moving on on the agenda is ORAU 

Report 0078, Technical Basis for Sampling Plans. And 

this is Ron Buchanan.

RPT 78: Technical Basis for Sampling Plans

Dr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron Buchanan, SC&A.

And Report 78 was Technical Basis for Sampling 

Plans. This was the method that NIOSH proposed to 

use to sample different databases. And they had 

some details in it. And then, we reviewed it. We did 

not add any findings. We discussed this here in a 

previous Procedures Work Group.

We did find that the method did have fixed 

parameters and variable parameters. The fixed 

parameters was the total populations that you're 

going to sample from and the total number of picos 

in the population.

So, what this is looking at is seeing, when you 

transfer it from, say, hard copy or some known good 

copy into an electronic database, then you go back 

and you sample to see what the error rate was on 

transferring your data in, typing it into the electronic 

database, because most of your original data is not 

in computer-readable form. And so, it's prone -- you 

know, there could be some errors. And what is the 

acceptable rate? And then, it tells you how to 

determine what your rate is in the sample and, also, 

what sample size you should take to confirm a certain 

risk.

And what we wanted to point out in that was that 

there are fixed parameters, which is total population, 

and the number of picos in that transformation. Now 

there are some variables, which is the producer risk, 

consumer risk. The producer risk is how many is 

likely of identifying problems that weren't there, and 
57

consumer risk is lacking data that should be there, 

and what your acceptable error rate and what your 

unacceptable error rate is. And then, this gives you 

some derived or observed value.

And so, that's essentially what the report does, and I 

won't go through that because we've covered it 

before. And there was an agreement, except at the 

end of the discussion the Work Group had requested 

that NIOSH provide some followup on supporting the 

data of why these values were chosen, such as the 

producer risk and the consumer risk was chosen at 

2.5 percent. The acceptable error risk was at half a 

percent. And the unacceptable error risk was 1 

percent, I believe, for the critical fields and 5 percent 

for all fields.

And so, SC&A really wasn't tasked for anything. I 

used it to give some background because it's been a 

while since we visited it.

So, I guess at this point, did NIOSH come up with any 

further information to support the values they chose 

for the variable parameters?

Mr. Hinnefeld: Jim, are you prepared to talk about 

that one?

Dr. Neton: Yes. We looked around. We could not -- I 

thought the idea was, was there any guidance out 

there that we could hang our hat on that would help 

us with validating the parameters we used? And we 

didn't find any.

But I also sense that Ted polled David Richardson on 

this issue, and he was not aware of anything, either.

So, we came up dry in response to this task. There 

doesn't appear to be any previous relevant guidance 

out there, standards or otherwise, that we can rely 

on to support the values that we use, although they 

are pretty conventional, 1 percent, 5 percent-type 

values. And I actually picked the 1 percent value for 

the critical level, the critical values, and the 5 percent 

for all the other data, which made intuitive sense to 

me.
58

Ted, am I right on that that you polled David 

Richardson on this?

Mr. Katz: Jim, you're exactly right. And I think I 

distributed around to the whole Subcommittee, 

although Loretta wasn't on there at the time, David 

Richardson's response that he wasn't aware of 

anything.

I mean, there's no benchmark out there except, as 

Jim says, these are pretty customary levels for other 

things, but not for the same kind of cooker.

Chair Beach: Yes, I do remember the email that went 

out.

Mr. Katz: Sorry, Josie, what?

Chair Beach: I said I do remember the email and the 

answer that came back. So, where does that leave us 

then?

Mr. Katz: Well, I think this is a matter where there's 

nothing more to do. There's no sort of example out 

there to use as a benchmark. NIOSH is creating a

benchmark --

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: -- I think. I mean, it's up to you guys, but 

there's not much more you could do.

Chair Beach: Okay. Paul, Loretta, any comments, 

questions?

Member Ziemer: Not really. I think I'd have to follow 

Jim Neton's approach. It's somewhat intuitive, and in 

the absence of sort of a standard way or some 

standard values, you're making a judgment on what 

seems to make sense. And you could select some 

other slightly different numbers, but I guess these 

are as good as any you could think of for the 

situation.

Chair Beach: All right. This may fall under 

professional judgment.
59

Member Ziemer: I think, yes, in a real sense, that is, 

is it reasonable? Is it a reasonable value to use? If 

not, why not?

Chair Beach: Right. Okay. Any other discussion?

(No response.)

I think we can formally close this. There's not actually 

any findings, but are you in agreement with that?

Member Ziemer: How does it appear in the matrix?

Does it appear as a finding?

Chair Beach: No, uh-uh.

Ms. Behling: No, uh-uh.

Member Ziemer: Well, because this is an observation, 

right.

Chair Beach: It just is insinuated in the RPT-0078 and 

did not have any specific findings in the sampling plan 

and estimates a value -- an evaluation report was 

attached. So, this is a little unusual. I mean, I haven't 

dealt with one that's not a finding.

Mr. Katz: Well, it's not a finding because the 

Subcommittee raised its questions.

Chair Beach: Right.

Mr. Katz: But it wasn't a finding because there's no, 

really, discrepancy or obvious problem per se, except 

the question of -- it was a followup request basically.

Chair Beach: Right.

Member Ziemer: Yes, I was just asking, how do we 

enter it into the system?

Mr. Katz: So, I think you want to just record in the 

BRS that, like we consulted outside, like David 

Richardson on the matter, and neither the program 

nor David are aware of any existing standard for 

these levels for this sort of program. And that will be 

it, right?
60

Member Ziemer: And that the Subcommittee agrees 

that we should proceed with the values that NIOSH 

has recommended.

Mr. Katz: Yes, something like that, that you consider 

it reasonable, whatever.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Ms. Behling: Okay, I can update the BRS with that 

information.

Chair Beach: Okay, it sounds great.

Ms. Behling: Okay. And I guess we can move on, 

then, to DCAS-PER-55, which is TIB-6000. And again, 

that's Ron.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay, yes, this is Ron again.

Dr. Mauro: TBD-6000, Putzier effect.

Dr. Buchanan: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: Oh, Ron, do you want to take it? Okay, 

because I wrote a report on that. I thought it was 

mine, but if you want to take it, it's all yours.

PER-55: Cases A and B

Dr. Buchanan: No, John, I want you to do the Putzier 

effect.

Okay. There's two parts to this. No. 1 was that we 

reviewed two cases, and we had a question on the 

cases. And then, during the discussion, the Putzier 

effect came into question. And then, I'll let John take 

care of it.

So, Part A is the cases. Now, PER-55 was issued in 

September of 2014, and it was changes to TBD-6000.

And so, we were assigned two cases and re-reviewed 

those cases. One worked at Hunter Douglas 

Aluminum Corporation, and another one worked at 

B&T Metals. And so, these were in the early years.

And we went through, and the one in B&T Metals, we 
61

found out there was no changes to the internal dose, 

only the external dose. So, it didn't really apply. But 

those are the only cases NIOSH could find to supply 

us with. And so, we really just evaluated the first 

case.

And we didn't find any problems with it. We just had 

the question that it was less than 50 percent when 

they started, and they used a constant distribution 

for the internal dose. And then, when they reworked 

it, they used a -- let's see, I want to make sure I get 

this right. They used a log-normal distribution for the 

internal dose, and then, reworked it; they used a 

constant. And it went over 50 percent.

And so, we reworked it both ways. We got the same 

values they did and everything, but we had the 

question. It was, why was this done differently? And 

we presented this report previously, and NIOSH was 

supposed to get back with the Subcommittee here to 

explain the differences in those two internal dose 

distribution assignments.

Mr. Allen: This is Dave Allen. I'm ready to discuss that 

a little bit here.

As I recall from the last meeting, I mean, we stated 

that the original dose reconstruction doses were put 

in as a constant, and that was in error. As I recall 

from the last meeting, it was the Subcommittee 

wanted us to go back and make sure this was not a 

systemic error, that it was simply isolated to this one 

case.

And I could tell you what I've done to try to do that.

I started by looking at other cases for that particular 

site, since often we will take the last claim done for 

that site and use that as a starting point for the next 

claim. As it turns out, there's only one other claim 

from that particular site, and that dose reconstruction 

was done after the case in question. But I looked at 

this one, and it was done correctly. It used a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 5.

So, then, I looked at the case in question and the 
62

actual IREP input sheet. You can see in parameter 2 

that they actually, that the dose reconstructor

actually put in a GSD of 5 in there, but failed to 

change the distribution type from a constant to a lognormal. So, it was not used, that 5 was not used by 

IREP.

So, you can kind of see just from back that it wasn't 

a misunderstanding. They understood what was 

supposed to be done, and it was a simple error that 

they didn't change the distribution type.

I, then, went one step further and I looked at all the 

cases from this PER, and there were several hundred.

And every time I opened one up, many of them were 

some prescriptive dose reconstruction technique 

from an appendix or a TBD that this situation doesn't 

really apply to. It had its own distribution.

So, the best I could do was I ended up just randomly 

checking about 10, until I found 10 that were 

supposed to be a GSD of 5 with a log-normal 

distribution, and the first 10 that I randomly came 

across that were supposed to have something like 

that did, indeed, have a GSD of 5. So, I don't think I 

can say definitively that no error has ever occurred 

before, but I can say pretty certainly it's not a 

systemic issue. It's not something that's carried 

forward over and over for this site or for this 

particular type of dose.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. That's reasonable. I'll turn it 

back over to the Subcommittee to make a final 

decision on it.

Member Ziemer: Was there anything in the guidance 

that's a problem? Because the finding is to address 

the guidance.

Mr. Allen: Well, to answer your question --

Member Ziemer: Whether or not the guidance is 

correct is a different thing than whether or not people 

used it correctly.
63

Mr. Allen: Right, and the guidance, I don't think there 

was any problem with the guidance. And like I said, 

looking at this particular case, the dose reconstructor 

realized it was supposed to be a log-normal with a 

GSD of 2 because he changed the GSD to a 5 -- I'm 

sorry. It was supposed to a log-normal with a GSD of 

5, and you can see where he changed it to a 5 in 

IREP. He just forgot to change the distribution type.

Member Ziemer: Right.

Mr. Allen: So, he apparently understood what it was 

supposed to be. So, I don't think there's a problem 

with the guidance.

Dr. Neton: Yes, Paul, this is Jim.

The Finding 1 listed, talks about guidance on how to 

use the Putzier effect, and I think that's a different 

issue that's going to be talked about next.

Member Ziemer: Say that again, Jim? I missed what 

you --

Dr. Neton: Well, if you're looking at Finding 1 under 

--

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Dr. Neton: -- the findings under PER-55, Finding 1 is 

a different issue, when it talks about guidance, on the 

Putzier effect.

Member Ziemer: Guidance on when and how to use 

it, right?

Dr. Neton: Yes, that's different than what Dave just 

talked about with the --

Member Ziemer: Yes, that's why I was asking the 

question.

Mr. Allen: Oh, I'm sorry, that's actually Finding 2.

Chair Beach: Okay, and it sounds like, Dave, you 

went back and looked at, randomly looked at 10 
64

other cases and didn't find that same issue? That's 

correct? That's what I heard, right?

Mr. Allen: Right, that's correct. I couldn't find any 

indication it's a systemic issue.

Chair Beach: Yes, it sounds like a simple error.

Mr. Allen: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay, I'm okay with that.

Loretta?

Member Valerio: I'm fine with that.

Chair Beach: Any other questions, Paul, on that, or 

are you okay with that?

Member Ziemer: No, no, I just wanted to clarify that 

we understood, if we're closing the finding, we're 

closing the finding that relates to the guidance, 

which, in a sense, turns out the same, because you 

looked at, Dave looked at how it was used. It was 

consistently used. So, that implies that people knew 

how to use it correctly. I guess it does.

Chair Beach: Correct, yes.

Member Ziemer: I'm just wanting to make sure that, 

when we close it, we're closing what we think we're 

closing.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Member Ziemer: I'm good on it, though.

Chair Beach: Yes, and then, Ron, did you go over 

Case B yet?

Dr. Buchanan: Well, Case B, yes, we covered that 

previously. It was one that didn't have any changes 

in internal. It had a change in external. But PER-55 

was only concerned with internal. So, we had no 

findings, but didn't verify much.

Chair Beach: Yes, that's where my question came up.
65

So, we originally asked for three. We did two. Is there 

an opportunity to do another case or will that do?

Dr. Buchanan: Well, I think that in this particular 

situation they found only one that even halfway 

qualified. They found one we reviewed and a second 

one didn't have any internal. So, I don't think there's 

any other -- NIOSH has to speak to that. If I recall 

right, that's the way it was.

Chair Beach: Yes.

Dr. Buchanan: And then, during the discussion last 

time, the Putzier effect came up. And then, I'll let 

John Mauro address that.

Chair Beach: Yes. Okay. Before we move on, because 

that's the next item, are we in agreement to close the 

Subtask 4, this first item? Because there's two listed 

here, but the first one has to do with Subtask 4 that's 

the case review. The second one has to do with the 

Putzier effect. So, I'm asking if we are ready to close 

the first.

Mr. Katz: So, you just need to hear from Loretta. Paul 

already answered.

Chair Beach: Yes.

Member Ziemer: Which? Are we talking about 60 

now?

Chair Beach: No, this is 65. So, we had the first --

the first one is the Case A and Case B in subpart 4.

And then, the second item, which we haven't 

discussed yet, is the Putzier. So, I was questioning 

whether we were okay to close the first item, which 

the two cases that were reviewed.

Member Valerio: Right, and I believe that they're 

ready to close.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Member Valerio: The explanation was pretty good to 

me.
66

Chair Beach: Okay. So, that one is now closed.

COURT REPORTER: Speaker, please identify yourself.

Chair Beach: Are you talking about me, Josie, or 

Loretta?

COURT REPORTER: Loretta. Thank you.

Chair Beach: I think he wants you to identify yourself, 

Loretta.

Member Valerio: Oh, sorry. It's Loretta.

(Laughter.)

And I agreed to close Finding 1, the first finding with 

the case reviews.

Chair Beach: Okay. And Paul said, yes, he's okay 

close, and I'm okay to close. So, the first one is 

closed.

And then, we can now move on to the second, which 

is the Putzier effect. And I believe John's going to 

take that on.

Dr. Mauro: I'd be glad to, if we're ready to go with 

that. 

Chair Beach: I think we are. Thanks.

TBD-6000: Addressing Putzier Effect

Dr. Mauro: Okay. Yes, one of the issues associated 

with the cases, it's often referred to as the Putzier 

effect. It's sort of an enigma, but let me give a brief 

background.

These individuals working at these old AWE facilities 

often handled uranium at uranium conversion 

facilities and uranium metal handling facilities. And 

the last time we talked about this case was, I guess, 

January 2017, and Ms. Marion-Moss explained that 

we had a concern with the way in which the external 

dose to the skin from the metal, the uranium, was 

calculated. And the concern had to do with this very 
67

unique circumstance called the Putzier effect, which 

could substantially, if that effect is in place when 

they're handling the metal, the uranium metal, could 

substantially increase the dose to the skin.

As you know, we're seeing a lot of cases these days 

where the skin is the issue, cancer of the skin, for a 

variety of reasons, but mainly because skin cancer is 

excluded from SECs. So, we're actually doing a lot of 

cases that deal with skin cancer.

It turns out there is this unusual phenomenon called 

the Putzier effect. When metal, uranium metal, is 

melted and put into billets, slabs, rods, for various 

machining into fuel and handling, it turns out that, 

for reasons that I won't get into now, unless you 

would like to talk about it, what happens is the 

melted uranium put into a mold, it very often will 

have its short-lived daughters present at the time of 

the melting. That's primarily thorium-234, and it's a 

strong beta emitter.

And that's all fine because the thorium would be sort 

of like uniformly mixed in the melted uranium and we 

understand that. But it turns out, for a short period 

of time, on the order months after that uranium is 

melted and molded into a particular form for further 

handling, the thorium-234 migrates and finds itself 

near the external surface of the metal, whether it's a 

metal slab, an ingot, a rod.

And it substantially increases the beta radiation field, 

and perhaps even the gamma, but I'm not going to 

get into that now. Right now, the literature is very 

strong saying that, yes, you can have a 10- to 20-

fold increase in the external beta radiation field in the 

vicinity of these recently melted uranium ingots and 

rods. It has to do with the cooling process and the 

thorium sort of migrates during the cooling process.

As the uranium cools after it's melted, it migrates to 

the near-surface. And it stays there for a while. It 

decays with a 24-day half-life.

So, what happens is, after a few months, that sort of 

like unusual circumstance goes away, and the 
68

uranium is just like any other uranium, where its 

short-lived daughters, thorium-234 and the 

protactinium, are there in equilibrium with the 

uranium-238 and other uranium. And you're dealing 

with this conventional uranium.

Now, given that as background, so the Putzier effect 

is this unusual circumstance that lasts for a few 

months after melting uranium where the radiation 

field is elevated substantially, 10 to 15 times higher.

And if a person is handling the uranium at that time 

and is close to the uranium at that time, the radiation 

exposure that that individual would receive would be 

10 to 15 times, for the skin, higher than, let's say, 

after the Putzier effect sort of goes away because the 

thorium decays away near the surface, and we go 

back to a normal situation.

Now, during the last meeting on January 6th, 2017, 

there was a considerable discussion of this issue and 

what do we do about it. Because it's an issue that 

could have a substantial effect on how we reconstruct 

the doses to workers. And bear in mind, this would 

be workers where they're not wearing film badges.

Okay? You know, the open window/closed window 

film badge. Because if they were, you would know if 

they were experiencing some elevated exposure to 

beta emitters because you would read it.

But, very often at these old AWE facilities especially, 

they weren't issued badges. And when you have that 

circumstance, then you have to try to reconstruct the 

workers' doses based on models, understanding what 

he is handling, what the material is, his proximity to 

it, and how long he may be in close contact or close 

to the metal. Because the beta emitter itself, you 

know, doesn't have a great range. It will go out a 

meter in air.

So, a person, if it's like a meter or closer, or actually 

in contact with the metal, in that relatively short time 

period for a few months after the metal is freshly 

melted, is going to experience substantially higher 

doses than when the Putzier effect is not present.
69

Okay. I wrote a white paper on this dated October 

19th. I'm not sure if it's been distributed. It basically 

goes into this issue. The bottom line is I think we still 

have a problem, and let me explain why.

An argument is made during the January 6th, 2017 

meeting that -- well, what happens is, when you have 

a circumstance where a worker is working with 

uranium, and you don't have film badge data upon 

which to estimate his external exposure, you resort 

to a generic protocol called TBD-6000. It's in 

widespread use. It's been thoroughly reviewed, and 

it's an excellent document.

And it basically gives you what exposure rates, rad 

per year, from beta and gamma exposure individuals 

might experience based on mathematical models that 

understand, that demonstrate what the -- this is a 

physics problem. This is the exposure a person would 

experience in rad per hour, and assuming how many 

hours per year he works, you could figure out rad per 

year to the skin and to the whole body or any organ.

Now the argument was made -- now this particular 

case, this one case that we're talking about as part 

of PER-55 -- the argument was made that, well, yes, 

they drew upon TBD-6000 to reconstruct the skin 

dose. And the issue that was raised was, well, did you 

take into consideration the possibility of the Putzier 

effect? That is, maybe -- because when you go to the 

lookup tables in TBD-6000, when you draw upon 

that, it doesn't explicitly take the Putzier effect into 

account. It just assumes you've got melted uranium 

with its short-lived daughters in equilibrium 

throughout the metal.

But the argument was made at the January 6th, 2017 

meeting, and in the transcript it's described. This is 

considerable discussion on pages 14 through 40 

regarding this matter. And the argument is made 

that, well, the lookup tables that you use in TBD6000 when you don't have film badge data and you 

have to resort to this generic analysis that has 

widespread applicability to many, many facilities, you 
70

could draw upon that and reconstruct the doses. And 

the default values that are tabulated in Table 6.4, and 

the way in which they are used, is conservative, and 

conservative enough, bounding enough, to take into 

consideration the Putzier effect. And, well, that's the 

argument that is made. And so, as a result, we don't 

have to worry about this.

I have to say I don't agree with that conclusion. Let 

me explain why. When you look at TBD-6000, it 

basically is based on these models, MCNP models, 

that say, well, the beta radiation dose rate by contact 

is about 230 millirad per hour. And that's from 

uranium and its progeny, mainly thorium-234, in 

equilibrium, uniform throughout the slab or the rod.

And it's that assumption that's built into the lookup 

tables in TBD-6000, along with the assumption that 

a person would spend about 50 percent of his time in 

close proximity or in contact with the uranium, and 

therein lies how you get the values that are in the 

lookup table in Table 6.4 of TBD-6000.

And now, in my mind, that would actually, if you had 

a uranium slab without the Putzier effect, and you, in 

fact, spent half your time in direct contact or up close 

to the uranium, yes, the values in table in TBD-6000 

would be great and claimant-favorable. But, if you 

click in the Putzier effect -- let's say it turns out the 

person that's actually handling it is receiving and 

working with metal that is experiencing the Putzier 

effect. And as I said, this occurs over about a threemonth period after the metal is melted and formed.

The exposure rate would be 10 to 15 times higher 

from beta emitters than the values as reported in 

TBD-6000.

Now the argument that, well, there's enough 

conservatism -- and I'm presuming, and please 

correct me if I'm wrong -- that that conservatism is 

embedded in the amount of time the person is in 

proximity. For example, they are assuming 50 

percent time the person may be in direct contact or 

close up and personal, close within a foot or a meter, 
71

of the uranium. And it doesn't take any credit for the 

fact that maybe the worker might be wearing gloves 

that could actually shield the beta.

But what I'm saying is that that exposure rate would 

be, under those circumstances, 10 to 15 times 

higher. And it's clear that there's really nothing about 

the way in which they develop the exposure rates 

there in the lookup tables in TBD-6000 that account 

for that, unless you want to argue that the 50 percent 

of the time in close proximity or in contact with the 

slab, or whatever, is so conservative that it accounts 

for the Putzier effect. But I don't think it does.

In other words, that would mean the person would 

be in close contact with it for about an hour a day, as 

opposed to four hours a day. So, the argument that 

built into TBD-6000 is enough conservatism to 

account for the Putzier effect is not convincing to me.

In this report that we prepared on 10/19/2018, it 

describes all that. In fact, there's a very nice 

attachment that was provided to that SC&A report 

that Bob Anigstein and Dick Olsher prepared a 

number of years ago, where they ran the Monte 

Carlos to see, well, what do we believe to be the 

external exposures from beta and both gamma and 

Bremsstrahlung, as a function of contact, as a 

function of distance, from different geometry 

materials where there is no Putzier effect. And our 

numbers show that they are in very good agreement 

with -- reasonable agreement -- with the lookup 

tables in TBD 6000. But it's clear that they do not 

account for this 10- to 15-fold higher beta exposure 

rate that you would experience during those time 

periods when the Putzier effect might be in place.

So, we sort of have a little bit of a dilemma. It's hard 

to say if you're at a given uranium conversion or 

uranium-handling facility whether or not the 

circumstances exist where the worker is actually 

handling, just this window of time of several months 

where the Putzier effect could very well be in effect, 

whether it was there or not.
72

And so, unfortunately, we had a circumstance where 

this is a big difference in the dose, the dose rate, to 

the worker, but it would only occur under certain 

circumstances. And I believe, looking at a lot of AWE 

sites, that it's not easy to determine whether or not 

the worker himself was in that, happened to be 

handling uranium metal that was experiencing the 

Putzier effect.

So, in a way, we have ourselves a bit of a dilemma.

It's not an insignificant effect, but it only occurs 

under certain circumstances. And so, I don't think 

we've really adequately aired out -- and I do believe 

that the current numbers in TBD-6000 are not 

conservative enough to account for the Putzier effect.

And that's the position I take, I'm taking, SC&A is 

taking. And it's all written up in this White Paper 

dated 10/19/2018. So, as far as I'm concerned, 

we've got a little bit more to talk about.

Mr. Allen: John, this is Dave Allen. Can I reply to that?

Dr. Mauro: Please do.

Mr. Allen: I haven't seen that White Paper. I didn't 

see anything about it. So, I wasn't really ready for 

this conversation. But I seem to recall we did discuss 

this in the TBD-6000 group. As I remember, the 

winning argument here was not so much the median 

dose that you're discussing, and like to discuss a lot, 

but it was the fact that it's entered as a log-normal 

distribution with a GSD of 5, which makes the 95th 

percentile almost 15 times the geometric mean, 

which puts it right in where you're talking.

Dr. Mauro: No. The GSD of 5 puts all these runs for 

the external doses in TBD-6000?

Mr. Allen: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: So, the lookup table --

Mr. Allen: Is a geometric mean.

Dr. Mauro: Okay. And there is the application of a 
73

GSD of 5?

Mr. Allen: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: I have to say, if that's the case, then I 

have to agree with that. See, I didn't see that in any 

of the transcripts. I went back through the transcripts 

and did not see any explanation of that, that that was 

the basis for it. I thought the basis for it was the 

contact time, which was not acceptable to me. But, if 

you have a GSD of 5 as being applied across the 

board to all of these TBD-6000, then, as far as I'm 

concerned, the issue is resolved.

Mr. Allen: Yes, it's easy to verify --

Chair Beach: Oh, go ahead, Dave.

Mr. Allen: I'm sorry. I was going to say it's easy to 

verify. Just looking at TBD-6000, you can see that it 

describes or it calls for a GSD of 5.

Dr. Mauro: Okay, let me look at it. I opened it and I 

read it, and I may have a little egg on my face 

because I did read it and I didn't see the GSD of 5.

Could you point out to me where that is?

Mr. Allen: I'll have to open it up and give you the 

page number in a few minutes. I can email you.

Dr. Mauro: Oh, that would be great. Because if that's 

the case, then, you know, what I did is I read it. I 

read TBD-6000 and I read the transcript, and I have 

to admit that I did not see -- I see the lookup table, 

Table 6.4, but I didn't see language of GSD of 5 in 

the text. I very well could have been missed it. But, 

if you point that out to me, this is problem is solved.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, when Dave is looking that up, 

is there some way we can have that White Paper 

added onto the BRS, the 10/19, I think you said, '18 

White Paper? Or what was the year?

Dr. Mauro: Oh, yes, I wrote it dated October 19, 

2018. It's relatively recent.
74

Chair Beach: So, can we get that added to the BRS?

And then, with John looking up, after Dave finds the 

page number, and then, have that written up, that 

we can make that official if John agrees that that can 

be closed? And then, we can come back to this.

Ms. Behling: I can certainly add that to the BRS.

Chair Beach: Okay. It's just nice to have it in one 

spot.

Ms. Behling: Absolutely.

Chair Beach: Okay. And then, can we go ahead and 

move on while you're doing that, John, unless there's 

some discussion? I don't want to -- if Paul or Loretta 

have any questions on this?

Member Ziemer: Well, let me just make two 

comments. Number one, I'm pretty sure we went 

through all of this before. I don't know if it was with 

this group or one of the other Work Groups, because 

we had a lot of discussions in the General Steel 

Industries when we were talking about this effect.

And I think the same discussions took place. Josie, 

you're on that. You recall that, too?

Chair Beach: I do recall.

Member Ziemer: I think we had all come to a 

resolution on that.

The other thing, just some housekeeping things here, 

I just want to make sure I'm in the right spot. So, on 

the issues resolution chart that we're using on TBD6000, where are we? Where are the two --

Chair Beach: We are on PER-055, and then, it's the 

TBD 6000.

Member Ziemer: Yes. Yes, but, then, you're talking 

about these two cases?

Chair Beach: Yes, that was on the BRS. So, that was 

subpart 4.
75

Member Ziemer: Okay. I'm not seeing it on the chart 

here.

Chair Beach: It's not.

Member Ziemer: Okay.

Ms. Behling: Yes, I apologize.

Member Ziemer: I was just trying to see if you had 

dumped it somewhere that I had lost track of. Okay.

Chair Beach: The chart is helpful, but the BRS is --

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Chair Beach: -- you need to kind of follow that.

Member Ziemer: Yes, yes. I don't have the BRS open 

right now.

Chair Beach: Yes.

Member Ziemer: Okay. I'm good.

Chair Beach: Okay. Loretta?

Dr. Mauro: Dave, this is John. I think I found the 

place where I saw -- I see a bit of the reason why I 

was thrown for a loop on this. On page 37, there's a 

couple of statements made. One does refer to a GSD 

of 5. It, in another part, discusses specifically using 

something in Table 6-4. And this is where I was not 

-- I went to Table 6-4 and you're supposed to use 

those values. But there is another statement above 

it that talks about GSD of 5, and therein lies the 

reason for my perhaps misinterpretation of its use.

So, what I'm hearing from David is that, when you 

make your runs and you put in the annual exposure 

rate in the column of the GSD, you guys always insert 

a value of 5 for a log-normal distribution.

Mr. Allen: Yes. Just I was going to say, it was page 

37 where I was going to point to.

Dr. Mauro: Yes, yes.
76

Mr. Allen: And it says, for each annual dose -- and 

it's describing the table, what you do with it.

Dr. Mauro: Yes. It's the paragraph that follows that 

threw me.

Mr. Allen: I don't see anything in there about

distributions.

Dr. Mauro: Yes. Right. No, you said "data and table 

that should be used," and I just went to that.

Mr. Allen: Yes, the sentence before that, it says each 

of those --

Dr. Mauro: Yes. Yes, it does.

Mr. Allen: -- should be in a log-normal --

Dr. Mauro: Yes, it does. And that's why I just asked 

the question. So, if we were to look at the runs, there 

would be a GSD of 5 under column parameter 2.

Mr. Allen: Right. That's what you're going to see. And 

this will be for extremity dose at the particular issue, 

but you're going to see that with the other external 

doses, too.

Dr. Mauro: Right. I'm with you. Okay. That being the 

case, I stand corrected.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, that takes care of this issue 

then, this finding?

Dr. Mauro: Yes.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, if we go ahead and add that 

where John wrote up on 10/19/18, and then, final 

comments, I would say we can close this, unless 

Loretta has any other comments.

Member Valerio: No, I don't have any comments. I 

was actually looking at the same table --

Chair Beach: Okay.

Member Valerio: -- to verify that. But I think, yes, I 
77

believe that we basically close it at this point.

Chair Beach: Okay. I would say that is closed.

Okay. Thank you. Are we ready to move on to PER49, the Paducah cases?

Ms. Behling: If so, that would be, again, Ron 

Buchanan. And can I also ask Rose to pull up the PER49 report on the screen? Because these are case 

reviews and we have to be cautious about how much 

information we divulge.

Chair Beach: Right.

Ms. Behling: Ron, whenever you're ready?

PER-49: Paducah Case Reviews

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is Ron Buchanan again.

PER-49 was changes in the Paducah Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant TBDs. And this was issued, PER-49 

was issued in August of 2016. And so, we were 

tasked with doing the Subtask 4 review of cases. We 

recommended that, since these were external doses 

-- now what these were were revisions in the 

medical, TBD-3; environmental, TBD-4, and 

external, TBD-6.

And so, we had four recommendations there on page 

6 and 7. Criterion 1 was to have a default X-ray 

frequency assigned sometime between 51 and 73.

External dose -- environmental dose assigned for 

some years. Criterion 3 was increase in neutron dose, 

and Criterion 4 was technetium-99, external dose 

assigned.

Well, NIOSH went through the cases that were 

involved that were impacted by this PER and could 

only find one case that would satisfy part of Criteria 

1. That was a default X-ray frequency assigned 

during a certain period, and they didn't have any with 

non-smokers. So, part of Criterion 1 and Criterion 3, 

which was increased neutron dose. Did not have any 

with assigned environmental dose because they were 
78

assigned other doses, assigned an environmental 

dose in this case, and did not have any technetium99 assigned because of the organ being deeper in the 

body, and so it wouldn't impact it.

So, we had one case that partially fulfilled what we 

would have liked to have seen. And so, we reviewed 

that case. That case was for a worker that at the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, worked in the early 

years of operation. And we looked at the case and we 

looked at the previous original total doses assigned 

and the new doses assigned, found out there was an 

increase in assigned dose in the internal. And some 

of the external doses were reworked using the newer 

criteria. And so, some of the doses decreased. Now 

the overall POC increased, but it did not change the 

outcome in the case.

And so, we went through the changes that the PER 

recommended and TBD-3, and find that there was 

some external X-ray doses assigned in the rework.

And we recalculated those values and agreed with the 

IREP dose assignment. So, I had no findings there.

TBD-4 was not used since the worker was covered by 

other dose assignments. So, that was not involved.

And then, TBD-6, there was an increase in neutron 

dose. SC&A went through and recalculated dose and 

found that they were correct and agreed with the 

reworked dose reconstruction. And we gave 

examples in the report there on pages 9 and 10.

We also looked at the technetium-99 dose, external 

dose, and found out that it shouldn't have been 

assigned because of the location of the cancer in this 

case. And so, we agreed that was approached 

correctly.

So see on page 11 of our report, part of the criteria 

was met using what we would have liked to have 

seen. We reviewed the case and found that it was 

reconstructed in accordance with PER-49 and had no 

findings in this case.
79

So, that's a presentation of our report and open for 

discussion.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thank you, Ron.

Is there any discussion on this?

Member Ziemer: Well, I have no questions on this 

one.

Member Valerio: I have no questions on this one.

Chair Beach: Okay. It seems pretty straightforward, 

and I agree.

I don't have any questions for you, either, Ron.

Thank you.

Do we agree that we can conclude that this was done 

correctly and we can close it, although there's no 

findings, but --

Mr. Katz: Right. You could just write in the BRS that 

the Subcommittee accepted the report.

Chair Beach: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Beach: All right. And we can move on to 60, 

PER-60.

PER-60: Blockson Case Reviews

Ms. Behling: Okay, that's mine.

PER-60, again, this is Subtask 4. It's case reviews, 

and it's Blockson Chemical Company.

I'll start by going to page five and just give you a 

little history as to the PER that had been generated 

prior to this and how it impacted what we did in this 

case.

PER-20 was issued back in 2007. And we reviewed 

that PER and we were also assigned two cases to 

rework. During the review of those two cases, we had 
80

three findings. Those three findings had to do with 

the calculation of ingestion, or inhalation and 

ingestion for certain doses to tissues of the GI tract.

And what was actually prescribed in the TBD, and 

what was being done in dose reconstructions, was 

not consistent for one of our findings. One of the 

other findings had to do with the workbook that was 

being used. The inhalation tool workbook for 

Blockson also had an error in it associated with not 

having some DCF values incorporated.

So, that prompted, ultimately, Revision 4. There was 

a Revision 3 in between there that included some 

minor changes in just small doses under PER-36, but 

the Subcommittee decided that we didn't need to 

look at that because of the small doses and the few 

cases that were affected.

But now, PER-60 was issued, and PER-60 actually 

was addressing the findings from Subtask 4 review 

under PER-20. Therefore, there was no need to do a 

full PER review and we only looked at two cases under 

this review.

And the criteria associated with those cases is shown 

on page 6. We wanted to look at one case that 

resulted in higher internal doses after the inhalation 

and ingestion intakes were compared, and then, one 

case that where the internal doses did not increase.

What had actually happened in the correction of this 

TBD is, for some, like I say, of the tissues of the GI 

tract, rather than using inhalation, it recommended, 

the TBD recommended to use ingestion. What was 

changed is they actually went one step further and 

said let's make a tool now that compares inhalation 

and ingestion and selects the highest. And so, that 

was the correction to the TBD.

So, in our case reviews, starting on page eight, he 

worked, as you can see, for over 30 years and was 

not monitored. And Table 2-1 shows the original 

doses and the reworked doses. And since the PER is 

really dealing with internal dose, our protocol is to 
81

focus on just the internal dose.

So, we go into Section 2.2.1. For the original dose, 

the ingestion dose was assessed and the individual 

was considered a production worker, and the 

appropriate target organ was selected in the 

ingestion tool. That resulted in a dose of 1.125 rem.

For the reworked case, the new Blockson Building 55 

tool was used, and that actually compared the 

inhalation and the ingestion dose and resulted in the 

inhalation dose being slightly higher. And so, we 

reviewed everything, ensured that all the data was 

put in correctly, and we had no findings with the 

review of this case where the doses increase.

For the second case, on page 40, again, the individual 

was not monitored. Again, the individual was 

considered a production worker. In the original dose 

reconstruction, it was determined that the inhalation 

dose would be used for the residual period, and a 

dose of 65 millirem was calculated.

When the rework was done, again, a comparison was 

made between the inhalation and the ingestion, and 

it was determined that the inhalation was higher and 

that was used. The doses were a little bit lower in the 

reworked, and that was due to the fact that -- the 

reworked doses were slightly lower than the original 

because the start of the residual period in the 

Blockson TBD was changed from 1962 to 1960. So, 

for this individual who worked strictly in the residual 

period, there was a longer period for depletion. And 

so, the doses were slightly less.

And we reviewed everything and agreed with 

everything that NIOSH did. We also looked at the new 

tool and could confirm that the updates and the new 

tool, they had the appropriate DCF values 

incorporated.

So, I don't know if there are any questions, but we 

didn't have any findings.

Chair Beach: Okay, good review, Kathy. Thank you.
82

And I have no questions with this. Loretta or Paul, do 

you, either one, have a question?

Member Valerio: I have no questions.

Member Ziemer: Sorry, I was on mute again.

Just one question on the residual period. You said it 

decreased from -- what was it again?

Ms. Behling: The residual period for this second case, 

the dose actually decreased. The original was 65 

millirem, and in the reworked case -- oh, let's see 

here -- I think the dose went down by like 10 

millirem. I don't even know if I have that listed in 

here.

Member Ziemer: The dose goes down, but the 

residual period time went up?

Ms. Behling: Yes. Even though the same parameters 

were used, the inhalation dose, the dose went down 

because the residual period started in 1960 rather 

than in 1962.

Member Ziemer: Oh, it started later? I got you.

Ms. Behling: Yes, yes.

Member Ziemer: Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay, I've 

noted it.

Chair Beach: Okay. Well, if there are no others 

questions, it looks like we can close this review.

Member Ziemer: Right, right.

Mr. Katz: So, you're just accepting the report.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Chair Beach: Accept the reports and close it.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Beach: And then, we can go on to 64, Dupont 

Deepwater.
83

Ms. Behling: And that's John Mauro.

John, are you on the phone?

(No response.)

Okay. Maybe John left us. I will try to contact John.

And maybe we can move on to PER-66, which is Ron 

Buchanan.

PER-66: Huntington Pilot Case Reviews

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is Ron again.

So, if we look at PER-66, it was a Huntington Pilot 

Plant. And there were changes in the TBD for this 

plant issued in 2013. And so, SC&A was assigned to 

review a couple of cases from this, a couple of the 

rework cases. Because of changes in ingestion and 

inhalation changed values in the TBD, we were to 

concentrate on internal doses. So, that's what we did.

And you see, starting on page nine of our report, in 

October of 2016, we were provided with the first case 

and see that this was a Huntington Plant employee in 

the early years, worked there a number of years and 

had a cancer, of course. And so, NIOSH had originally 

done a DR in 2003 and reworked in 2015 under the 

PER-66 guidance.

We see there on page nine, on Table 1, that the 

internal dose did actually increase for this cancer, 

and the POC increased. However, it did not change 

the outcome of the case.

So, SC&A reviewed the internal dose assignments in 

the reworked case. And on page 10 there, we go into 

our evaluation, and we see that what this did was 

include some additional radionuclides. Besides the 

plutonium and the neptunium, the revision included 

americium, thorium, and technetium. And so, 

depending on the solubility types, we reworked this.

My computer here wants me to sign in again. Okay, 

get that out of the way.
84

And so, we reworked it and compared our IREP input 

tables with those assigned in the reworked case. And 

we found that they were correct. And so, our task 

was the internal doses. We found no problems with 

that case.

And so, we moved on to the second case, which starts 

on page 11 of our report. This was, again, Huntington 

Pilot Plant, a worker who worked there in the early 

years and had several cancers. And we see that the 

original dose reconstruction was in 2004, and it was 

reworked in 2015, according to PER-66.

Look at Table 2 there on page 11, concentrating on 

the internal doses. We do see, indeed, that the 

internal doses do increase for the cancers. And again, 

the total PoC did increase substantially, but they did 

not change the outcome of the case.

So, again, we reviewed the case and the dose 

assignments. We see on page 12 there, we ran the 

chronic annual dose workbooks for the total doses 

from all the radionuclides, including the new ones 

added by the revisions, and we came out with the 

same solubility type as providing the highest dose.

And we matched the IREP input tables, and we had 

no findings in this case.

So, that brings us to page 13, which is the summary 

page. And again, we had no findings with the 

reworked two cases, reworked under PER-66.

However, we did find -- well, it didn't impact this case 

-- we did find Table 5 of the revised TBD of 2013 had, 

apparently, some mathematical errors in the last 

three entries. And we outline that in our report on 

page seven, going back to that.

We had a finding there, and we find that the thorium230 ingestion -- what happened was, when they 

revised the TBD, they changed from picocuries per 

year to picocuries per day. And so, each value had to 

be divided by 365 days per year. And this is done 

correctly in Table 5, except we found that, for some 

of the latter entries, and that was thorium-230 

ingestion. It needed to be divided by 365.
85

Technetium-99 inhalation needed to be divided by 

365, and technetium-99 ingestion in Table 5 needed 

to be divided by 365.

So, it wasn't an error on the part of the dose 

reconstructor, and this was not used in the two cases, 

but it was an error in the TBD. It appears to be a 

mathematical error.

That is our report on that case. Open for questions.

Chair Beach: Okay. I don't have any questions on the 

two cases.

Paul or Loretta, on the cases, any questions?

Member Ziemer: No questions on the case. I do have 

another sort of question or comment. Having been on 

this Board for this many years, I probably shouldn't 

have to make this comment.

But I want to ask again, or remind me, is the program 

legally required to go out to decimal places on the 

calculations? We have one here that comes out 

49.87. We all know that that's not 50. I don't know, 

Jim, if you could answer. Legally, are we -- the 

program has always gone to those multiple decimal 

points, but is that a requirement by law?

Dr. Neton: No. This is Jim. It's not a requirement at 

all. And I remember having this conversation a year 

or two ago.

Member Ziemer: I've brought it up before, I know.

Dr. Neton: Yes.

Member Ziemer: It always bothered me. It sort of 

bothers me in general when they go out to as many 

significant figures as they do, given the uncertainties.

But when I see a number like 49.87, I start to feel 

concerned for the claimant.

Dr. Neton: Yes, I hear what you're saying. And 

there's no legal reason we couldn't round.
86

Chair Beach: But, with that now, would you round up 

or down?

Member Ziemer: Well, if you followed the usual 

rounding laws, 49.8, you would round up.

Chair Beach: Exactly.

Ms. Lin: Just to note that the Department of Labor is 

the only one that actually does the POC calculation.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Ms. Lin: So, any rounding would be done on the part 

of DOL.

Member Ziemer: Yes, yes, I understand that. I just 

wondered what's driving it to do that.

Dr. Neton: You know what? Those are calculated --

the IREP does put it out to two decimal points. It has 

been that way historically since the program started.

Member Ziemer: Yes, yes. Well, it's not an issue we 

can solve here. I just wanted to be on record that I'm 

concerned that we always do that.

Chair Beach: Yes, I looked at it and had the same 

concerns, Paul.

Ms. Gogliotti: Paul, this is Rose Gogliotti.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: I just wanted to note that, when the 

POC is this high, they're required to use Enterprise 

Edition, which brings a lot more statistical certainty 

to that value. It involves a lot more iterations than 

the average iteration.

Member Ziemer: Well, yes, I understand that. With a 

computer and all the information, you can carry these 

out to a hundred decimal places. But the question, 

philosophically, is really, is there any real meaning to 

that? I mean, you could have a rule or Labor could 

have a rule -- we can't do anything about it -- that 
87

you round to a full number, whatever it might be.

Dr. Neton: When you think about it, Paul, what 

happens if you round up and you get to 49.51 or --

Member Ziemer: Well, you'd have to have a rounding 

rule. If you had a rounding rule in advance -- but 

when you get up to within a hundredths of, you know, 

49.87 -- well, I've explained my point. That's all we 

can do. I understand there's problems no doing it 

also, but, anyway, just a concern.

Chair Beach: Yes, and a well-noted concern, too, I'm 

sure.

Loretta, anything? Questions?

Member Valerio: No questions on the two, no.

Chair Beach: Okay. And then, the Finding 1, NIOSH, 

have any comments on that?

Mr. Allen: Yes, this is Dave Allen.

We acknowledge there was an error. There was an 

error in the TBD on those three entries. It's a small 

part of the dose of the contaminants in uranium. So, 

it, essentially, ended up being an overestimate of a 

small dose. But actually have a revision in process 

right now just to change those three numbers. It's, 

unfortunately, not completed today. So, we intend to 

have it done before the next meeting anyway.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, then, Rose -- or I'm sorry --

Lori, can you take that on, to update that finding in 

the BRS? And hopefully, if it's finished by the next 

meeting, it can --

Mr. Katz: Well, you can close it now. I mean, they've 

acknowledged it and there's no reason to keep this 

one over.

Chair Beach: Okay. And I was just talking -- closing 

it is fine, but, also, making sure we follow it through 

on the BRS.
88

Mr. Katz: Yes, yes.

Chair Beach: Updated version. Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Yes, I'll do that, Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it.

And then, did we get John back?

Dr. Mauro: Yes, this is John. I'm back. I'm logging on 

right now to get the -- I guess you're interested in 

Dupont Deepwater?

Chair Beach: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: Yes, I have to admit, I didn't look at that 

in preparation for this conference call. So, quite 

frankly, I'd have to go back and take a look at the 

issues and figure out where we were.

Ms. Behling: Okay. John?

Dr. Mauro: Yes?

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy.

Dr. Mauro: Sure.

Ms. Behling: Ron has several in a row here that he 

has to address, and the next one is going to be a 

rather lengthy discussion. If Ron would take OTIB44, would that be okay with the Board? And perhaps 

give John a little bit of time to look things over?

Mr. Katz: That sounds like a good idea.

Ms. Behling: Is that okay with you, John?

Dr. Mauro: Yes, that's fine. Sure.

Ms. Behling: And, Ron, are you prepared for OTIB44?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes, I am.
89

Ms. Behling: Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Mauro: Say, Kathy, one thing. The BRS section 

dealing with these particular issues, I have your table 

summarizing the briefing that you distributed earlier.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: But the actual BRS portions, because I 

haven't looked at that, any way that you could 

somehow forward that Dupont material to me?

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Dr. Mauro: That would be very helpful.

Ms. Behling: Okay. There were no findings, but I'll 

send you the report.

Dr. Mauro: Oh, there were no findings? So, there's 

nothing in there --

Ms. Behling: No. All you have to do is present the 

report to the Subcommittee. We have not presented 

this report to the Subcommittee yet.

Dr. Mauro: Okay. And this is Dupont Deepwater?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Dr. Mauro: Okay. Let me see what I can do. And if 

there's anything that you could forward to me, that 

would be helpful.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Okay, Ron, go ahead. I'm sorry.

TIB-44: Y-12 Badge Dosimetry

Dr. Buchanan: Okay, that's fine.

Now OTIB-44 is not going to be quite as simple as 

what we've been going through so far. Because OTIB44, Revision 1, was issued in April of 2013, and the 

purpose of the document was to provide parameters 

for log-normal prediction density of gamma doses for 

Y-12 workers during the period 1947 and 1979, and 

I'm on page six of that report.
90

And the main outcome is Table 7-1 on page 33. Now 

this is to be used to derive the coworker 50th and 

95th percentile gamma doses in OTIB-64. And so, 

what we're going to do is, we have three in a row 

here. We've got OTIB-44, which is gamma at Y-12, 

external gamma doses. We have OTIB-46, which is 

external beta doses at Y-12. And then, what they do 

is they combine these into OTIB-64, in which they 

actually derive the external gamma and beta doses 

from those two documents into the 50th and 95th 

percentile for the years '47 through '79.

Now, saying that, you know that's going to involve a 

lot of statistics. And I'm not a statistician. Harry did 

the statistical evaluation. I put the report together 

and other parts of it, but he did the statistical 

analysis. And so, I will present a summary of our 

report, but if there's any in-depth questions on the 

findings, the statistical methods, we will have to wait 

to get Harry to address those.

So, saying that, going from page six, page six and 

several pages after that just outline kind of what the 

OTIB-44 was about. And then, we start our 

evaluation on page eight in Section 3.

And what we did, we evaluated the approach that 

NIOSH used. In other words, did they address the 

problem correctly? And secondly, we looked at the 

statistical methods to what, in detail, methods did 

they use to address the problem. And thirdly, what 

about the documentation? Was there any problems 

with understanding the text or mislabeling, or 

anything like that? So, that's three sections we 

looked at, and we do that for all three, OTIB-44, 

OTIB-46, and OTIB-64.

And so, right now, we're concentrating on the gamma 

at Y-12 in OTIB-44. And we see that they used the 

approach by developing coworker gamma dose 

parameters consist mainly of mu, sigma, the 

geometric mean, and geometric standard deviation, 

and the expected values. And these are summarized 

in Table 7-1 of OTIB-44. And then, they also 
91

developed, derive and apply a scalar factor in Section 

7.4 of OTIB-44. Of course, this is all for the period of 

1947 to 1979.

The approach they used, we had no problem with 

their approach. So, we had no findings in the 

approach section.

Now, before I get into statistics, for all three of these 

OTIBs, we find that Y-12 had some of the most 

detailed records. However, just a little bit of 

background. Y-12 started way back in the beginning 

of the Manhattan Project, in that period, and it's still 

operating today. It's had a long history. And they 

were one of the first ones to use film badging and 

have a large number of people.

And so, in the early years, in the forties and fifties, 

the film badge results did not necessarily follow a lognormal distribution or anything we normally used.

And so, there's some issues with that.

In the mid-fifties, they did monitor mainly the highlyexposed workers, which back then that was the chain 

of thought: monitor those people actually handling it, 

the radioactive material. They didn't monitor 

everyone.

And then, in '61, they started monitoring everyone.

And so, essentially, what these OTIBs do, they go 

back and they look at 147 most exposed individuals 

and their records. They compare them before 1961 

and after 1961. And then, they also have some data 

for other people prior to 1961 in the early fifties and 

forties.

And so, they try to look at these and create models 

that will explain what could have happened in the 

past, because we didn't have a lot of data in the early 

fifties and the forties. And so, all of that is to explain 

kind of the approach that we're faced with here, and 

this has been going on since I got in the program in 

'04.

And so, this particular OTIB looked at the gamut of 
92

dose distribution. To prepare it, they used OTIB-64.

And so, we looked at the statistical methods in 

Section 3.2 there on page eight. And we find that 

they did use the Maximum Likelihood Estimation, 

MLE. We compared that to some other regression 

analyses, several methods there used, and we found 

that the simulations gave similar results. And so, we 

had no issues with them using the MLE method.

Now the remaining sections there give some detail on 

looking at, I think, '61 versus 1960 doses, and some 

other doses, in more detail. And so now, what we had 

found there was they looked at the quarter, quarter 

1, quarter 2, quarter 3, and quarter 4, and expected 

and said that there was some difference in it.

Now SC&A analyzed the 140 -- or analyzed this same 

data. We did not really see, or Harry did not really 

see, a difference in some of these quarters. And so, 

we address this later in detail, but that was one of 

the issues.

Now Section 3.2.3 on page nine, they set some 

limitations in the TBD, on pages 27 through 31. And 

we agreed with those limitations on the dose 

reconstruction application, had no problems with 

that.

So, I'm kind of going down through as the TBD 

progresses because it is fairly complex. Our Section 

3.2.4, pages 31 through 34, addressed the use 

through the third quarter of 1956. So, kind of the 

point was to go from the forties to the third quarter 

of 1956, which did not follow good log-normal 

distribution or any other predictable model well.

And in the fourth quarter of 1956 -- see, the last 

quarter of 1960 was when they used the highlyexposed workers' data; 1961 forward was everyone 

-- was no badge. And so, we had a finding there in 

data up through 1956, the third quarter. And that is, 

we should not use the model to predict backwards in 

time because you don't know if the situations were 

the same. And if you do predict backward in time --

two parts of this finding you see there on the page -
93

- it is that the shape or the uncertainty should 

increase, be like a funnel effect. You might not very 

well -- where you have data, if you go back in time, 

you are less certain of it, even if you can show that it 

is applicable to a prior time. And so, that was Finding 

2.

And then, Section 3.2.5, on pages 33 and 35 of OTIB44, we use a procedure after the third quarter of 

1956, when we do have some better data that does 

follow a more predictable model. And again, this 

iterates Finding 3 on page ten, that it is unlikely that 

the precision predicted by the MLE model would be 

as tight as perhaps is depicted in the OTIB-44. And 

in regards to the number of samples you have, you 

still don't know for sure what's going on back there.

And so, that is analyzing the data through 1961.

Now, in Section 3.2.6, on pages 35 through 37, it is 

the application of scaling factor. To digress a little bit 

here, it is that, if you've gotten some data before 

1961 that you feel is good data for the highlyexposed personnel, and you look at their average 

doses, and then, you look after 1961 for the same 

group of workers, did it remain the same or less?

And, of course, as time went on, health physics got 

better; generally, the doses went down. And so, you 

don't want to assign a lower dose pre-1961 than you 

should.

So, you look at the dose and compare the two for 

these special individuals that were monitored during 

both periods, and you say, okay, what kind of scaling 

factor is there between pre-1961 and after 1961?

And then, you can apply that to the people that were 

monitored part of the time pre-1961 and say that 

most of the workers pre-1961 that had good records 

show a 1.5, a 50 percent increase. So, you can look 

at a worker that has spotty data in pre-1961 and 

apply 1.5 times their dose to estimate their dose or 

the coworker dose during that time.

And so now, the problem with that is you have to 

have the same work environment. You have to say 
94

that pre-1961 the persons that you're trying to 

estimate their dose for had the same work 

environment after 1961 as pre-1961. And so, this is 

Finding 4 on page 10. It's difficult to say the worker 

had the same exposure unless you have detailed 

information that he worked on, all these years, doing 

the same job and with the same type of material.

So, that is the four findings. We agree with their 

approach. They had four findings and the statistical 

analysis, which, again, I say Harry has to address 

these details on that.

And then we looked at the documentation, the text, 

and did we find any errors in that? And so, our 

observations cover those. That's on page ten.

And we see it has our Section 3.3, Evaluation of 

Occupation, and we have several observations there.

I'll just briefly go over these because NIOSH would 

have to address these in detail and see if they agree 

with these problems. It's mainly typos of references 

or units.

Observation 1, on page 33, it looks like it needs units 

of dose of millirem added to Table 7-1.

Observation 2, on page 33, was that the caption on 

the label of the table should include '47 to 1979, not 

to '65, because it presents through '79, which it's 

supposed to.

Observation 3, on page 36, again, it uses a term 

"GM". I think it should be replaced with the "mu" on 

that because there's no GM listed in Tables 7-2 and 

7-3.

Observation 4, on page 36 -- and this has been an 

issue going back to 2005, when we first began these, 

the Y-12 -- the scaling factor, if you have E to some 

value plus the scaling factor, then if you don't want 

to make a change, if it should be zero because it's in 

the exponent, and not 1 -- if you have 1, well, then 

it adds a bigger value. So, I believe it should be a 

zero, instead of 1.
95

And so, that was four findings, four observations.

This is summarized on page 11 there. And we have 

arrived at this point. So, we have provided this report 

of our evaluation in July of 2017. And I don't think 

NIOSH has responded formally to it, but I'll turn it 

over to them, if they have any comments at this time.

Chair Beach: Okay. While NIOSH is gathering their 

thoughts, Ron, excellent report. I like the way you 

documented, laid out where the findings were, the 

page numbers. The appendix in the back was very 

helpful also. So, good reporting.

Dr. Buchanan: Thank you.

Dr. Neton: Yes, this is Jim.

We're still looking at these findings. This is, as Ron 

pointed out, some pretty detailed statistical 

comments in there. And we're not prepared at this 

point to address the findings.

Chair Beach: Okay. Then, those remain in progress, 

correct, Ted, unless there's questions, of course, 

from the Work Group?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Valerio: I don't have any questions, Josie.

Chair Beach: Okay. Paul?

Member Ziemer: I have to remember to get off of 

mute again.

No, I have no questions. Very good report, Ron.

Chair Beach: Yes, I suspect we can probably go 

through 46 and 64 the same. So, if you're ready, Ron, 

you can go ahead and move on to 64.

Mr. Katz: And if -- not now, because it's probably not 

ready now -- but if you guys at NIOSH can figure out 

sort of a timeline for when you'll be ready to address 

each of these new reports, again, just send a note to 

me and the Work Group about that. Then, that will 
96

help us plan for when to figure it into the agenda for 

a meeting.

Dr. Neton: Yes, we can do that.

Mr. Katz: Thanks.

Dr. Mauro: Josie, this is John Mauro.

You guys are cutting into my trick-or-treating time, 

you know that.

Chair Beach: If Ron wants to take a break and you're 

ready to do --

Dr. Mauro: Yes, mine is going to be real easy. It didn't 

take me very long to figure out what was going on on 

Dupont Deepwater. So, if you wouldn't mind, give me 

five minutes, and I will go through this.

Member Ziemer: You can still trick and treat, John.

Dr. Mauro: Well, my grandchildren are all making the 

rounds and we're going with them. So, you know how 

it is.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

PER-64: Dupont Deepwater Works Case Reviews

Dr. Mauro: Anyway, let me take care of this. I 

apologize, I wasn't prepared for this. I wasn't aware 

that I would need to cover it.

But Dupont Deepwater, there's, in fact, a report, a 

PER review, where the most important thing is that 

there were changes made to the TBD or exposure 

matrix for Dupont Deepwater, whereby, you guys 

recall, it used to be TBD-6001, and it had an 

attachment that dealt with Dupont Deepwater.

But, in the process of describing that original 

guidance, it drew heavily on TBD 6001. Now, when 

TBD-6001 was withdrawn, the appendix dealing with 

Dupont Deepwater was revised a couple of times.

And SC&A was authorized to review those revisions.
97

So, we are current with respect to the review of the 

exposure matrix and guidance for Dupont 

Deepwater.

And we went through their process, and all issues 

have been resolved. The current version of the 

Dupont Deepwater exposure matrix, all issues 

resolved. There's nothing on the table.

So, what that means is, in going into a PER where we 

are looking at cases, what happens is, the only real 

thing we need to do, which is what we did in this 

report that you have before you, is look at cases.

Now, as part of that process, we said that, well, we 

would recommend that we review cases that meet 

three criteria.

One is that the PoC is between 45 and 50 percent, 

and one is where there was a worker that was 

monitored for internal and external exposure during 

the operations period, and another case where the 

worker was monitored for internal/external during 

the residual period.

NIOSH and the Board identified two cases that met 

those three criteria. One of the cases met two of 

those criteria. So, we only needed two cases.

What we did, then, in our report, what we do is we 

describe the new evaluation. And basically, what our 

job now is simply to say, okay, we know that the Site 

Profile is fine. Now all we have to do is take a look at 

a few cases and confirm that, in fact, the Site Profile 

and protocol that is approved were, in fact, 

implemented in the real world with real cases.

And those are the three criteria, and we had these 

two separate cases to review. And so, we walked 

through a process where, first, we summarized what 

was the original analysis that was done using the old 

TBD-6000-type protocol. And then, we summarize 

and describe the new NIOSH evaluation using the 

new, improved Site Profile, the complete standalone 

document. And then, we have an evaluation. You 

know, we actually summarize what was done by way 
98

of external/internal doses during the residual and the 

operational period.

Well, the bottom line is that we reproduced all the 

numbers for both cases. We matched all their 

numbers for all the pathways, for external/internal, 

residual and operational period, and we have no 

findings. So, as far as we're concerned, you know, 

we are prepared to recommend closing out this part 

of the process and these cases where they met the 

criteria. So, that would be the outcome of this report.

By the way, the report I'm referring to is DCAS-PER064. It's called Subtask 4. As you know, Subtask 4 is 

part of the PER review process where we review 

cases, and it's dated December 2016.

And that concludes my overview of this particular 

issue.

Chair Beach: Okay, thank you, John. And it is in the 

BRS and the report is attached.

Paul, Loretta, any concerns with closing or any 

questions?

Member Valerio: I don't have any questions.

Member Ziemer: I have no concerns. We can close it, 

as far as I'm concerned.

Chair Beach: Okay. Then we are closed, and we can 

move back to TIB-46, if, Ron, you're ready for that.

Dr. Mauro: I am going to break. It's John. Nice talking 

to everyone, and I'm out going trick-or-treating.

Enjoy your evening.

Chair Beach: Right.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Have fun, John.

Dr. Mauro: Okay.
99

TIB-46: Beta doses at Y-12 

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is Ron back again.

Okay. I think we got the trick, instead of treat, here.

So, we're going to look at OTIB-46, which is the 

evaluation of the beta doses at Y-12, in cohort three.

And it's Y-12 again. The purpose of the document was 

to look at the beta doses for Y-12 workers during the 

period '47 to 1979. The results are derived, 

summarized in Table 9-2 on page 41 of that OTIB.

And again, this will be fused into OTIB-64 to derive 

the 50th and 95th percentile beta doses.

And we see that, again, on page 5 of our report there, 

in Section 2, we go through a breakdown, a summary 

of what the OTIB-46 intended to do. And then, I go 

on page six, Section 3. It actually starts on page 

seven. These are our evaluations.

And again, OTIB-46 looked at developing coworker 

beta doses using mu, sigma, geometric means, 

geometric standard deviation, and expected dose 

values, similar to 44.

We found that this was appropriate, considering 

other models. And so, we had no issues with the 

approach used.

And so, we move on to the evaluation of statistical 

methods, where the details take place. And this is 

Section 3.2 on page seven. It starts there.

Our first section, 3.2.1, we've got Table 4-1. We see 

that this table provides some summary of the 

operation at Y-12. And so, we had Finding 1 there 

because we find that the Wilcox reference of 2001 

used to create this table provides some information 

that shows changes over the years, in the late forties 

and early fifties, not necessarily indicating that the 

same work was done in all the years and in later 

years.

So, Harry's concern here was that the worker 
100

regression models should not be used to extrapolate 

either the beta or the gamma doses. This came out 

in OTIB-46, but it applies both in our previous OTIB44 and for this OTIB-46, Finding 1, concerning the 

changes in operations, major events, certain 

regression models being used.

And then, we have Section 3.2.2, which is at pages 

28 through 29 of the OTIB-46. This outlines the 

regression analysis, the density, and other analysis.

And again, Harry went through this, and we looked 

at the patterns and we find Finding 2 there on page 

eight. You expect Figure 1 and Figure 2 of Appendix 

A of our report here show no difference in pattern of 

reduction in gamma and beta doses, '56 through '61.

Therefore, the use of two different models for beta 

and gamma is not supported. So, in other words, 

OTIB-46 used a different model than OTIB-44.

However, Harry feels that this was warranted in using 

our comparisons in Figure 1 and 2 of Appendix A.

Now we looked at Section 3.2.3 of our report, which 

is pages 30 through 33 of OTIB-46. And this is film 

badge data in Figure 8.1. We looked at this 

information, and we have no findings or issues with 

that.

And so, pages 34 and 39 of OTIB-46, and it's limits 

on dose reconstruction, and it's the same as with 

gamma. We had no statistical issues with their 

statements on those pages.

And then, in just our Section 3.2.5, in pages 38 

through 44 of OTIB-46, that's the procedures 

parameters and scaling and MLE. We find that the 

linear model in 46 for beta dose is a very different 

model than used in 44 for assigning missed gamma 

dose. And that's outlined in Figure 4 of Appendix A.

And that brings us to Finding number 3. This is 

concerned with the estimated geometric means 

increasing linearly as we go back from '61 to '47. So, 

in other words, we're looking, trying to predict 

backwards. We see that this is not necessarily 
101

applicable to this, and especially predicting forward.

And so, the model, according to Harry's evaluation, 

should not be used to predict forward the final two 

years of the sampling period. And he explains some 

of the abnormalities shown in Figure 3 in our 

Appendix A. And so, this is an issue that he has 

identified with using predictions from this data.

So, those are the three findings they had from a 

statistical basis. We looked at the approach. We had 

no problem with that. We looked at the statistical 

basis, and there were three concerns there, three 

findings. And then, we looked at the text and the 

usability of a document. And we have five 

observations there, and they're fairly minor, just like 

before, but we'll briefly go through them here.

Observation 1 on page 29 of the OTIB, this is on page 

nine of our report. This is the text refers, in Section 

7.3, refers to box plots. However, we could not find 

any figure numbers provided. And so, it would be nice 

to establish the figures referred to there.

Observation 2, page 42 -- and this is Table 9-2 --

only provides prediction density parameters for beta 

dose to be used later for the period 1947-1965.

However, the purpose of page eight states it's 

supposed to go through '79. So, we wondered where 

the data from '66 to '79 is.

Observation 3, on page 43, again, we have the 

scaling factor pertains to -- they used the term "one".

And we believe that should be zero.

Observation 4, on page 45, the units of millirem 

should be added to the dose of 2,361 there in the last 

sentence, we believe.

And Observation 5, on page 45, let's see. Again, it's 

the scaling factor of one, and we believe that should 

be zero.

And so, those are the three findings and the five 

observations. And so, turn it over to -- NIOSH said 

they haven't had time, I believe, to respond. So, I'll 
102

turn it back over to the Work Group.

Chair Beach: Okay. And so, the same conclusion 

here. NIOSH will review, and then, get back to the 

Subcommittee of when these can be answered or 

addressed, is that correct?

Dr. Neton: That's correct.

Chair Beach: Okay. Another good report, Ron. And if 

you can take a breath and go on -- oh, I'm sorry. Any 

questions, Paul or Loretta?

Member Valerio: No questions, Josie.

Member Ziemer: I have no questions.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, Ron, if you're ready --

TIB-64: Y-12 Coworker External Dose for National 

Security Complex

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. This is OTIB-64, released in 

April of 2013. And this is coworker external dosimetry 

data for the Y-12 National Security Complex.

And so, we're going to take the OTIB-44 and OTIB46 data, and this is external gamma and beta, 

respectively, and we're going to create a coworker 

model determining the 50th and 95th percentile 

coworker gamma and beta doses during the period 

1947 to 1979.

Now we have to realize that when we evaluated 

OTIB-64, we make the assumption that the data is 

okay. And so, we still have the issues in OTIB-44 and 

OTIB-46 that we did it independently. We said, okay, 

if this data is correct, or we did it correct, or 

whatever, then does OTIB-64 address it to create a 

coworker model properly? And so, that's what we did 

on this report.

And we see that -- we're working on page five of our 

report here -- that the coworker data is the whole of 

the crux of all of this work that would be in 44 or 46 

and 64. It leads down to Table 7-1B on page 15, 
103

which lists the 50th and 95th percentile gamma and 

beta doses for 1952 through '79. And Table 7-1C, 

page 16, listed at 47 and 51, and we're not sure why 

it's split that way. And that's one of our observations.

But that's the way it is. And so, these two tables 

contain the primary results of all this work for the 

purposes of DR.

Now for construction/trade workers, as you know, 

there's usually an increase in their dose. And so, 

these values are adjusted according to OTIB-52 to 

provide for adjustment to process claims for 

construction/trade workers.

So, that's the end result of all this work. And we see, 

again, have evaluated the approach, and that, 

starting on page six, is our evaluation of OTIB-64. We 

evaluated the approach to this method, and we did 

not identify any issues with the general approach to 

64 to derive the coworker doses.

So, this brings us to the evaluation of statistical 

methods, page seven of our report, Section 3.2. And 

so, we evaluated statistical methods used to combine 

OTIB-44 gamma and OTIB-46 beta into a usable 

coworker model.

And during this, we addressed specific periods data 

that was used in this model. And so, again, I won't 

go through the details, all of them. Section 3.2.1 is a 

comparison of the 1962 Health Physics Report and 

the CER doses.

And we see in Figure 1 we agreed with that 

comparison. Then, it can be used. And we had no 

findings in that section.

And we go on and we compare some more of '52 to 

'56, health physics and CER. We compare, on page 

eight, compare some '48 and '49 data using 

regression analysis. And on page nine, it is a 

comparison of '48 and '49 beta doses. We provide 

some figures for those.

On page 12, a comparison of '48 and '49 gamma 
104

doses. Again, this is all statistical work. And we 

provide some figures on page 13 and 14 of that data, 

showing how we reached our conclusion. And then, 

we did some comparisons of incorporating nondetects.

The bottom line is we had no findings on the 

statistical methods or results in OTIB-64, provided 

the input data is correct from '44 to '46. As I say, 

that's quite a bit of statistics that we both agree on.

And so, we see, on page 15 now, we see that we did 

have some observations, just like before, in Section 

3.3. So, a third leg of the stool was we evaluated the 

documentation and the usability.

And Observation 1 and 2 there, on page nine and ten, 

I think the wrong reference is used. It uses UCNC 

1957, and I think it should be amended in 1957. It's 

a minor point, but it might want to be corrected.

Observation 3, on page 13, it's not obvious why Table 

7-1A only covers the period '47 to '51, instead of a 

complete review of '47 to '79. It may be that, 

because of missed dose, methods were changed 

between those two pivot points, '51 and '52, but it 

was stated in the text. So, that was an observation.

It didn't really affect the outcome, but we weren't 

really sure why.

The same way with Observation 4, on pages 15 and 

16, of OTIB 64. It's not obvious why Table 7-1B and 

7-1C are separated between years '51 and '52. It 

may be, again, because of the way the missed dose 

is calculated or something. It's just, as far as 

usability, it would be nice if the tables would just 

cover the period 1947 to 1979 in one table without 

breaking it up. But it really had no bearing on the 

results. It would just be easier to use.

Observation 5, on page 16 now, we're talking about 

page 15 of OTIB-64. It says that, step 2, it says, "The 

missed dose was not added to the resultant gamma 

doses from OTIB-44," et cetera, et cetera. And our 

question was, did this also apply to OTIB-46 beta 
105

doses for that period? It's not stated. We just 

observed that it wasn't stated.

Observation 6, on page 16, it says that beta dose, 

95th percentile values for 1947 and 1951 might need 

adjustment for dose reconstruction, because, 

essentially, they went over the allowable limit set at 

that time. And so, we assumed they would be 

adjusted back down to 25 rem a year, or whatever it 

was. However, this was not spelled out in the text.

So, it might, for consistency between dose 

reconstruction, it would be useful to spell that out.

And Observation number 7, on pages 34 and 35, it 

looks like the units in millirem may be added to Table 

8-6 and 8-7 and 8-8, as appropriate.

And so, in summary, on page 16, Section 4, we see 

that we had agreed with the statistical approach. We 

agree with the statistical methods we used and the 

derivations, and we had seven observations. It would 

help to clarify some of the application of this OTIB.

So, again, I assume that NIOSH is not ready to 

respond, but I'll turn it over to the Work Group.

Chair Beach: Okay. Is that correct, NIOSH, the 

same?

Dr. Neton: Yes, the same thing.

Chair Beach: Okay. So, any questions or comments, 

Loretta, Paul?

Member Ziemer: Yes, I would pose a question, I think 

a question to Jim Neton actually. Once NIOSH has 

completed the responses on these three documents, 

can you give us kind of a feel, based on what you're 

seeing in terms of the findings? Are they going to be 

substantial in dose reconstructions? Are they going 

to have to be done at Y-12, numberwise? Is there 

anything here that gives you a red flag that it will be 

likely to have to do a lot of new work?

Dr. Neton: I think it's too early to tell. I don't think 
106

there's going to be major changes, but I can't say 

that there won't be some minor tweaks in some of 

the doses --

Member Ziemer: Okay.

Dr. Neton: -- based on uncertainties. It incorporates 

some uncertainties, but the short answer is I don't 

know.

Member Ziemer: So, there's nothing jumping out at 

you that looks like it would be a substantial issue 

then?

Dr. Neton: No.

Member Ziemer: But too early --

Dr. Neton: Yes. Most of the issues center around that 

backwards interpolation, you know, where the data 

was sparse in the early years.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Dr. Neton: And we're going to look at that and try to 

make some sense out of SC&A's comments on that.

But I don't think there's going to be major whole 

sections.

Member Ziemer: Thank you.

Chair Beach: Okay. Thanks, Paul.

Do you have any sense of timing? I know Ted 

broached that earlier.

Dr. Neton: Yes. I think this, as with the other one, 

we'll prepare a schedule and put it out as soon as we 

can. We have to meet with ORAU and figure this out.

I really can't say right now how long it will be.

Next Work Group Meeting/Plans

Chair Beach: Okay. With 10 minutes left -- I know we 

were going to adjourn at 3:30 -- I propose that we 

move on to the next Work Group meetings. Does

everybody agree?
107

Ted, are you okay with that?

Mr. Katz: Yes, I'm okay with that. You want to find a 

date to start with?

Chair Beach: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Does everybody have their 

calendars? It sure is easier if we can pin it down while 

everyone's actually on the phone.

Chair Beach: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So, let me give you a ballpark for as 

soon as we could meet, if we want to, this 

Subcommittee, so that we can meet the Federal 

Register notice and all that, and departmental 

clearance of those.

Okay. So, we are at October 31st. Okay. The soonest 

we could meet, I would say, is about the week of 

January 13th. That would be the soonest.

Chair Beach: Okay. And another Wednesday 

meeting, do you think?

Mr. Katz: Any day of the week is okay. Friday is not 

great some weeks, but most of that is open.

Now, to meet that soon -- I didn't go back and look 

at the agenda. How far did we get through the 

agenda, Josie?

Chair Beach: We've got three on the second page.

So, 86, 76, and 81.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So, not a whole lot?

Chair Beach: And I doubt Y-12 will be ready by then.

Mr. Katz: Right. I mean, there is an item or two that 

wasn't on the agenda that we could add. But a 

question is, do we want to wait until we have a fuller 

agenda as opposed to meeting as soon as we can?

Chair Beach: No, I'd say we should wait.
108

Mr. Katz: Yes. I think that makes sense.

Ms. Behling: This is Kathy.

There are about five additional documents that have 

been submitted that we haven't presented yet. Well, 

I could go through -- I have a second table. But this 

table, I think a lot of the findings are waiting on 

NIOSH. But there are a few things.

Mr. Katz: So, wait. Kathy, I just want to make sure I 

understood you. You have about five other 

documents that have been reviewed and we're 

waiting on NIOSH findings or --

Ms. Behling: No, I'm sorry. There are five additional 

documents that have been submitted to the 

Subcommittee that we haven't presented.

Mr. Katz: I've got you.

Ms. Behling: So, that would be a total of eight 

documents that have to be presented to the 

Subcommittee.

And then, I had put together a second table that I 

could perhaps send out to NIOSH, because all of the 

findings here -- there are older findings also -- seem 

to be waiting on NIOSH, although Lori did give me 

some updates on the Grand Junction template. And 

so, there are a few other items I think that could be 

addressed perhaps.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So, we could, I mean, as an option, 

we could have a meeting where, one, Kathy could get 

-- Lori, those that we're waiting on NIOSH responses, 

not including the Y-12. Clearly, that will take a little 

more time perhaps, but ones that have been 

outstanding longer.

We could have a brief meeting -- we don't have to 

meet for five hours, or whatever -- and get the rest 

of the reports presented plus deal with whatever 

more responses can be completed in February. We 

can't plan further out than that anyway.
109

Chair Beach: Sure. I think that seems reasonable.

Mr. Katz: I'm trying to reach a reasonable 

compromise, given that NIOSH would have to get 

more work done as part of this.

What about, for example, the week of February 11th?

Chair Beach: I'm available that week.

Mr. Katz: How is that for others? Say, February 13th?

Member Ziemer: I'm available.

Member Valerio: I'm available.

Mr. Katz: And is that okay with Stu and --

Member Ziemer: Maybe the idea would be to block 

that off, and then, see where we are in terms of 

having actual documents available to read.

Mr. Katz: Well, we would have, we definitely would 

have at least eight SC&A presentations we could get 

completed, which would be good.

Member Ziemer: Yes.

Mr. Katz: So, I think, in any event, it would be good 

because that's the end of the contract period, too.

So, it would be good to get those presentations from 

SC&A, I think.

Member Ziemer: Yes. Yes.

Mr. Katz: SC&A has a little bit of followup work from 

today, and they could also get that presented.

Chair Beach: Right, and if there's any older stuff --

Mr. Katz: Absolutely, absolutely.

Mr. Hinnefeld: Ted --

Mr. Katz: Stu?

Mr. Hinnefeld: -- in response to your question about 

my availability, I am available on February 13th, but 
110

that is my first day back from vacation.

(Laughter.)

I don't do any of this work, anyway.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Mr. Hinnefeld: I mean, this is all done by other 

people. So, that's okay with me.

Mr. Katz: And, Lori, is that okay?

Ms. Marion-Moss: I will say yes.

And I would also like to add, is it possible for, Kathy, 

you and I to get together offline and take a look at 

where we're at, and possibly come up with an 

agenda?

Ms. Behling: Absolutely. Absolutely. I already have a 

table prepared.

Ms. Marion-Moss: Okay. So, let's talk offline shortly 

following this meeting, you know, sometime soon.

Ms. Behling: Okay. I'll send you what I have.

Mr. Katz: Okay. The sooner, the better, actually, 

because of what I have to do in terms of getting an 

agenda approved through the Department. So, yes, 

that would be good for you guys to do that.

Okay. So, let's set it for February 13th, 10:30 a.m. 

again?

Chair Beach: Yes.

Mr. Katz: That's great.

Adjourn

Chair Beach: Okay. Anything else for the good of the 

Subcommittee we need to discuss?

(No response.)

Mr. Katz: No. I think we can adjourn then.
111

Chair Beach: Okay, we are officially adjourned.

Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:26 p.m.)